Why do you think that it is so difficult for researchers to agree on the CPH (Critical Age Hypothesis). Give explicit examples from the readings. Also give examples from your own experience. Due Monday, 6/11 before class.
Because we are navigating recently discovered territorries (neurobiology) and old ones like acculturation attitude and motivation. In addition there is such wide range of characteristics or elements that compose "language" (phonetics, morphology, syntax, etc.).
For example, in what pertains specifically to phonetics and phonology, according to the Singleton article on p. 271, expresses the debate over "latiralization" and the completion points. From what I understand, Molfese in 1977 claimed some of the lower-level phonetic and phonological characters of these funtions could be completed in the FIRST year of a child's life. Confirmed by Ruben's 1997 review of children temporarily loosing hearing in the first year, demonstrated less verbal memory and phonetic perception. While Seliger in 1978 argues that this could happen as late as the puebesic stage.
I agree that earlier is better. I was exposed to conversational and cultural French experiences in the 5th or 6th grade . I feel that helped me greatly helped when I took formal French in the 12th grade. The background knowledge was already there. All those 12th graders that had been exposed to other languages (German, French, Portuguese) at an early age performed better in that class.
No comments:
Post a Comment