Looking to Brain Research for Insights

Abstract

As mentioned in the previous chapter, Eric Lenneberg’s watershed 1967 study on the Biological Foundations of Language seemed, at first, to give a fatal blow to the hopes that the reformist paradigm had raised up till then, for the simple reason that it appeared to negate the possibility of SLA after the age of puberty. Lenneberg called the period before puberty the critical one for language acquisition. He developed this notion after reviewing an extensive corpus of aphasiology data—data on individuals who had suffered language impairments, called aphasias, caused by damage to specific language areas in their brains. From his review, Lenneberg noted a pattern. It was statistically more likely for those who incurred left hemisphere brain damage before puberty to have their native language taken over by the right hemisphere. In effect, most aphasics developed language before puberty, despite their early impairments. However, after puberty Lenneberg noted that aphasias tended to become permanent. By extrapolation, he concluded that in normal individuals the ability to acquire a new language after puberty diminished considerably. This had obvious negative implications for SLT. Simply put, if Lenneberg’s CPH (Critical Period Hypothesis) were in fact true, then it would be a waste of time to continue tackling the SLT Dilemma through pedagogical means.

I consider that a man’s brain originally is like a little empty attic, and you have to stock it with such furniture as you choose.

Sir Arthur Connan Doyle(1859-1930).