I'm Ramachandra Reddy, from the southern state of Andhrapradesh; India. I'm a research scholar at Dravidian University. I'm researching on Universal Grammar proposed and propagated by the well known American Linguist Noam Chomsky. I'm very much fascinated by the name "Noam Chomsky" as it is associated with unparalleled intellectual abilities and the courage to question the authority. These qualities inspired me to carryout research on Universal Grammar.
Research in Universal Grammar is really challenging and moreover it is an evolving topic. There is lot of room for more research in the area. Unfortunately I don’t have much guidance on this complex topic. So I’m doing it on my own and I seek a little bit of help from enlightened scholars. One interesting thing I would like to share with you at this point is that there was a Sanskrit scholar in ancient India who wrote the book Asthadhyayi, in which he proposed the recursive theory, which I think, formed the basis of Chomsky’s generative Grammar. So I’m a student from the country of Panini.
As part of UG, Chomsky proposed that there is something called LAD (Language Acquisition Device) to make up for poverty of stimulus. There is another theory called critical period theory which contends that LAD is not available beyond 6 or 7 years and as a result, grown up students and adults find it difficult to learn a second language. Now I would like to know from you whether the critical period theory is right, and if it is not true, obviously the LAD should be available to even the adults and if it is available to them in what way do they derive benefit out of it in learning a second language?
- Login or register to post comments
Printer-friendly version
Log in or register
Follow TeachingEnglish
 |
 |
 |
 |
It seems that a lot of (most?) people accept that there is a basis for UG, LAD, and the Critical Period... but I'm still sceptical about all 3.
As for the Critical Period, I think it's a lot more to do with previous language knowledge.
For example, one of the supporting arguments for the Critical Period is that when studies were done on different parts of the brain while people were engaged in communication, children using their L1 used one specific part of their brain (I'm not 100% sure - bad memory - but I think it's Broca's area). When the same studies were done on adults using an L2 they used both that part of the brain and several other parts of the brain.
This could be said to demonstrate that the Critical Period is a biological thing and is due to a shift in brain patterns.
I personally think that it's more likely that the Broca's area is just one storage facility and that once you've learned a large amount of a first language then that area is too full to keep adding to, so further language learning fills up other storage areas.
Besides, adults continue to learn their first language (some examples include: huge increases in lexis over the period of University study; increases in technical lexis when moving into a new occupational field; learning new formats and styles of writing - especially in business or law; learning how to speak publicly; changes in accent and pronunciation when moving to another country; new 'group' language when becoming part of a new social group/group of friends; etc). That suggests to me that the LAD is available to adults... so it's just a matter of working out why L2 doesn't draw on the LAD as effectively as the L1 does.
Would be great to see some research contrasting this kind of adult L1 learning with adult L2 learning.