A Critical Examination of the Beliefs about Learning a Foreign Language at Primary School

Some of the arguments in support of an early start appear to be more a
question of methodology rather than one of a biological necessity. The
neurological and biological arguments, however, seemed to have been the most
influential. They will therefore be discussed in greater detail while the cognitive,
the affective argument and the argument of exposure time will be followed up at
the end ofthe chapter.

2.2.1 Neurological Arguments - The Critical Period Hypothesis (CPH)
Few would deny that young children are efficient first language acquirers.
After all, virtually all children, under normal circumstances, achieve comparable
spoken competence in their first language by the time they reach school age
and most children seem to do this with relative ease and effortlessly irrespective
of their background.

Theories on how exactly children acquire their first language differ in how they
view the process of first language acquisition itself, in the relative importance
they assign to the role of nature and innate linguistic capacities and to the role
of nurture and the social environment. Chomsky (1965) postulated an innate
'Language Acquisition Device' (LAD) and Universal Grammar distinct from other
cognitive abilities to account for a largely effortless and uniform process while
Lenneberg (1967) postulated a 'critical period hypothesis' (CPH)Which claimed
a critical time for language learning and a 'biological clock' running out around
puberty.

61

<<   58   59   60   61   62   63   64   >>

More intriguing information