.png)
WEEK 5
REFLECTING ON LENNEBERG’S CRITICAL PERIOD HYPOTHESIS
.png)
22 April 2025
Reading about Eric Lenneberg’s Critical Period Hypothesis (CPH) made me
think deeply about how we learn language. Lenneberg believed there’s a
"window" in childhood, ending around puberty, when our brains are
most ready to pick up language, or well, basically everything naturally. His
ideas came from studying kids with brain injuries; those hurt before puberty
often recovered language skills better than those hurt after. This makes sense
as it’s like our brains are more flexible when we’re young.
The tragic case of Genie, a girl isolated until age 13, seems to support
this. Even with help, she struggled with grammar, as if her brain had
"missed" the best time to learn. It’s sad, but it also shows us how
crucial early exposure is.
But some researchers disagree. They say adults can learn languages, just
differently. Maybe the "critical period" isn’t a strict deadline but
more of a fading ability. Of course, we cannot just compare an adult in normal
circumstances learning a second language to Genie, who never even acquired a
first language, even though she was able to and was prevented from learning
any kind of sophisticated communication. She passed the window of the critical
period, and after that, she couldn't understand how
communication and languages work.
Her case is the perfect example of so many theories. It supports the
idea that we need exposure to languages to learn. It also supports the
existence of a critical period, and most importantly, it shows that we human
beings are social creatures and need social interaction.
The CPH also has big implications for education. If children learn best
early, some may argue that schools should focus more on language teaching
during childhood. But this isn’t so simple. Learning a language in a school
setting, an artificial environment, won’t have the same result as acquiring a
first language in a natural environment.
Parents may not speak the language their children are learning at school,
so they can’t help reinforce it at home. And time in school alone usually isn’t
enough, unless it's one of those rare cases where the school is fully bilingual,
meaning students don’t just use the second language in language classes like
Spanish, French, or German, but also to learn other subjects like maths,
history, and so on.
I wonder: Is the CPH about first languages only? Lenneberg focused on
that, but later studies, like Birdsong’s, suggest that second languages might follow
different rules. Maybe our brains change how they learn as we age, but don’t
fully "close the door." Learning a new language has a lot of things
to take into consideration. I remember studying this with my friend and
professor Isabella Mozzillo, and she says that there are some things that will
help, or do the opposite, in the process of learning a new language: is the
person motivated? Do they like the language or not?
For instance, it can be an immigrant forced to leave their country and
forced to learn the local language against their will. They didn’t want to move;
they had to, and this sentiment can be a total block in the process. The
language can also represent a bad memory of the past, or the opposite, and this
will help.
We also must think that there are people who learn languages easily,
and others just have other gifts. So, it is a series of things that will lead
to the “final product,” and the CPH does not explain that. It is more limited
when it comes to a second language.
Overall, Lenneberg’s work reminds me that language isn’t just about
practice; it’s also deeply tied to our biology. But the ongoing debates show
that we’re still figuring out exactly how it all works, especially when it
comes to second language learning. This uncertainty is, in many ways, what
makes the field of linguistics so engaging for me; unlike fixed equations,
language is dynamic, complex, and open to interpretation.
The feedback I received for this entry is presented below.
Hi Eriovan,
Thank you for this thoughtful and layered journal entry. You’ve clearly engaged deeply with the Critical Period Hypothesis, and your writing reflects both strong comprehension and genuine curiosity. I really appreciated the way you moved from explaining theory to exploring its implications and challenges.
What you did well:
You gave a clear, well-contextualized explanation of Lenneberg’s theory and the case of Genie.
Your writing has a natural and engaging flow, and your voice as a reflective thinker is very present.
I particularly liked how you questioned the limitations of CPH in relation to second language acquisition and brought in more nuanced factors like motivation, emotion, and real-life context (e.g., immigration, bilingual schooling).
The mention of your professor and friend Isabella Mozzillo added a very human and authentic touch. It was lovely to see your academic relationships woven into your reflection.
Suggestions for improvement:
Paragraph Structure: Some paragraphs could be broken into smaller chunks to improve readability. For example, your final paragraphs are quite long—splitting them can help clarify your key points and make them more digestible.
Grammar and Precision: Just a few minor areas:
“well, basically everything naturally” could be rephrased for clarity. Perhaps “well, most things—especially language—more naturally.”
The phrase “the case of Genie reflects how the hypothesis… leaves consequences” could be more precisely written as “demonstrates the long-term effects of missing the critical period.”
Focus on the Prompt: While your reflections were rich and insightful, you might tighten the connection back to the journal prompt by reinforcing your main argument more directly in the conclusion. Do you believe in a strict “window” for learning, or is your view more flexible?
Overall, this was a rich and intellectually engaging entry. You’re thinking like a linguist already—questioning, comparing, and connecting ideas to real-life situations. Keep that curiosity and openness going!
.png&description=Journal Entry 4){kind=link}