重新认识第二语言习得关键期假说:对伦纳伯格语言表观成因研究的评价

IF 1.7 2区 文学 Q2 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Language Sciences Pub Date : 2024-06-14 DOI:10.1016/j.langsci.2024.101645
Gunnar Norrman
{"title":"重新认识第二语言习得关键期假说:对伦纳伯格语言表观成因研究的评价","authors":"Gunnar Norrman","doi":"10.1016/j.langsci.2024.101645","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The critical period hypothesis (CPH) as an explanation of age effects on language learning has been a perennial source of contention in the field of second language acquisition (SLA). Although this hypothesis – which suggests that adult language learning is constrained by biological or maturational changes in the brain – has been based on the work of Eric Lenneberg (i.e. <em>Biological Foundations of Language</em>, 1967), it does not reflect Lenneberg's original biological theory of language. In this paper, the CPH is examined in light of a comprehensive review of Lenneberg's work and related disciplines. By outlining Lenneberg's notion of epigenesis in language development, it is argued that the CPH interpretation of the critical period notion that has long skewed the debate over age effects in SLA must be re-evaluated, and that any reference to “Lenneberg's CPH” can – and should – be abandoned.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":51592,"journal":{"name":"Language Sciences","volume":"105 ","pages":"Article 101645"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0388000124000342/pdfft?md5=8ad208e49b5a7faa7c8e8a913d8d7e8d&pid=1-s2.0-S0388000124000342-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reconceptualizing the critical period hypothesis for second language acquisition: An appraisal of Lenneberg's work on the epigenesis of language\",\"authors\":\"Gunnar Norrman\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.langsci.2024.101645\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>The critical period hypothesis (CPH) as an explanation of age effects on language learning has been a perennial source of contention in the field of second language acquisition (SLA). Although this hypothesis – which suggests that adult language learning is constrained by biological or maturational changes in the brain – has been based on the work of Eric Lenneberg (i.e. <em>Biological Foundations of Language</em>, 1967), it does not reflect Lenneberg's original biological theory of language. In this paper, the CPH is examined in light of a comprehensive review of Lenneberg's work and related disciplines. By outlining Lenneberg's notion of epigenesis in language development, it is argued that the CPH interpretation of the critical period notion that has long skewed the debate over age effects in SLA must be re-evaluated, and that any reference to “Lenneberg's CPH” can – and should – be abandoned.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51592,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Language Sciences\",\"volume\":\"105 \",\"pages\":\"Article 101645\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0388000124000342/pdfft?md5=8ad208e49b5a7faa7c8e8a913d8d7e8d&pid=1-s2.0-S0388000124000342-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Language Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0388000124000342\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Language Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0388000124000342","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

关键期假说(CPH)作为对语言学习的年龄效应的解释,一直是第二语言习得(SLA)领域争论的焦点。尽管这一假说认为成人语言学习受到大脑生物学或成熟变化的制约,但它是以埃里克-伦纳伯格的研究成果(即《语言的生物学基础》,1967 年)为基础的,并不反映伦纳伯格最初的语言生物学理论。本文在全面回顾伦纳伯格的工作和相关学科的基础上,对 CPH 进行了研究。通过概述伦纳伯格在语言发展中的表观成因概念,本文认为,必须重新评估 "伦纳伯格的表观成因 "对关键期概念的解释,这一解释长期以来歪曲了关于 SLA 中年龄效应的争论,任何关于 "伦纳伯格的表观成因 "的提法都可以--而且应该--放弃。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Reconceptualizing the critical period hypothesis for second language acquisition: An appraisal of Lenneberg's work on the epigenesis of language

The critical period hypothesis (CPH) as an explanation of age effects on language learning has been a perennial source of contention in the field of second language acquisition (SLA). Although this hypothesis – which suggests that adult language learning is constrained by biological or maturational changes in the brain – has been based on the work of Eric Lenneberg (i.e. Biological Foundations of Language, 1967), it does not reflect Lenneberg's original biological theory of language. In this paper, the CPH is examined in light of a comprehensive review of Lenneberg's work and related disciplines. By outlining Lenneberg's notion of epigenesis in language development, it is argued that the CPH interpretation of the critical period notion that has long skewed the debate over age effects in SLA must be re-evaluated, and that any reference to “Lenneberg's CPH” can – and should – be abandoned.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Language Sciences
Language Sciences Multiple-
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
38
期刊介绍: Language Sciences is a forum for debate, conducted so as to be of interest to the widest possible audience, on conceptual and theoretical issues in the various branches of general linguistics. The journal is also concerned with bringing to linguists attention current thinking about language within disciplines other than linguistics itself; relevant contributions from anthropologists, philosophers, psychologists and sociologists, among others, will be warmly received. In addition, the Editor is particularly keen to encourage the submission of essays on topics in the history and philosophy of language studies, and review articles discussing the import of significant recent works on language and linguistics.
期刊最新文献
Dependency distance minimization in discourse structure: universality and individuality compared with that in syntactic structure A study of visual path expressions in Mandarin Chinese from the perspective of motion event typology The etymology of opaque place names based on a cognitive and interdisciplinary method Third-way linguistics: generative and usage-based theories are both right Further semantic change of the derogatory sociomorpheme tái in Chinese gender-related Internet neologisms
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1