Critical periods in language acquisition and （语言习得的关键时期,）.pdf

Critical periods in language acquisition and language attrition Christophe Pallier UNITÉ DE NEUROIMAGERIE COGNITI E, INSERM U562, SHFJ IFR 49, ORSAY The issue of the “critical period hypothesis for language acquisition” is the focus of a vast literature (see, among others, Birdsong 1999a; Doupe Kuhl 1999; Harley Wang 1997; Lenneberg 1967; Long 1990; Newport, Bavelier Neville 2001; Singleton Lengyel 1995). It is important to stress at the outset that the expression “Critical Period Hypothesis” (CPH) is used with two different meanings. The first meaning of the CPH corresponds to an empirical hypothesis according to which humans are more efficient at language learning in the first years of life. In other words, the CPH states that age of acquisition is an important predictor of ultimate proficiency: the older one starts to learn a language, the smaller the odds of reaching native­like proficiency. The expression “critical period hypothesis” is also sometimes used to refer to the concept that an age­related decline in neural plasticity is the cause of increasing difficulties in language learning (Penfield Roberts 1959). According to this second meaning, the CPH is a potential explanation of age effects on language acquisition. The two meanings must be distinguished because there may be a critical period according to the first meaning, that is, a detrimental effect of age of acquisition on ultimate proficiency in a language, even if the explanation in terms of loss of neural plasticity is wrong. In other words, an adverse effect of age of acquisition (AoA) may have other causes than irreversible neural changes (Birdsong 1999b lists some alternative explanations). Another point is worth emphasizing. In the framew