¡Descarga Acquisition of English as a Foreign Language - Reading 2 y más Ejercicios en PDF de Idioma Inglés solo en Docsity! 1 SAMY BRUGES ACQUISITION OF ENGLISH AS A FOREIGN LANGUAGE : READING 2 READING 2: Lightbown, P.M. & Spada, N. (2006). Language learning in early childhood. In P. Lightbown & N. Spada, How Languages are learned. Oxford: OUP. (Ch.1. pp.1-27). 1. What could the complexity of reflexive pronouns reveal on language acquisition? At first, this complexity can be thought to be hard to learn considering its many different forms. However, researchers who study language acquisition from the innatist perspective have concluded that such complex grammar could never be learned purely on the basis of imitating and practising sentences available in the input. Moreover, they say that all children learn language through the hearing of it, which means they develop a type of mechanism which allows them to discover and to figure it out on their own in spite of limitations of the input. They also hypothesize that the innate mechanism is used exclusively for language acquisition. The innatist perspective emphasizes the fact that all children successfully acquire their native language. Even profoundly-deaf children whose parents are hearing can access and develop this mechanism even though they have no contact with the hearing of the language. Even though children achieve different levels of vocabulary, creativity and social grace, every one of them can achieve mastery of the structure of the language or the languages spoken to them eventually. Language is somehow separate from other aspects of cognitive development and may depend on a specific module of the brain. 2. Why can’t cases such as Genie and Victor support the CPH? CPH or Critical Period Hypothesis is the hypothesis that animals, including humans, are genetically programmed to acquire certain kinds of knowledge and skill at specific times in life. Beyond those critical periods, it is either difficult or impossible to acquire those abilities. Such cases as Genie and Victor are more than unusual. Having not a lot of background when it comes to those children, it is difficult to make sure whether there were factors (brain damage, developmental delays) that could have interfered with their development of the language which is why CPH cannot support those cases. 3. Compare the cases of Jim and Genie. Jim and Genie are different in the sense that Jim did have access to languages even though it came from television which is not the best way to learn a language. As a result, Jim did not begin his linguistic development in a normal environment considering that his deaf parents did not use sign language with him. Television can actually become a rather good tool when a language is already acquired to further the knowledge. Results were different when both started seeing a professional and started having one-to-one conversations. Jim was able to catch up with his delay in linguistic development while Genie, after five years of exposure to the language, did not have the language capacity of a five-year- old. There was a larger than normal gap between comprehension and production in Genie’s case. At the age of four, Jim had gotten rid of the unusual speech patterns and could continue to develop as a “normal” child would. Given that Genie was never exposed to the oral language like Jim was, she had no foundation to work with when she first came in contact with talking people. Moreover, Genie spent eleven years alone while Jim “only” spent three years and nine months before his first language assessment while also having his parents around.
