21 |
Redefining bilingualism as a spectrum of experiences that differentially affects brain structure and function
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
22 |
Brain adaptations and neurological indices of processing in adult Second Language Acquisition: challenges for the Critical Period Hypothesis
|
|
|
|
Abstract:
Stemming from the seminal work of Penfield and Roberts (1959) and Lenneberg (1967), a major question in adult language learning studies—indeed one that transcends all paradigms—has involved the extent to which adult language acquisition and processing is destined to be fundamentally different in adulthood compared to childhood. The basis of the original claims of the Critical Period Hypothesis (Lenneberg, 1967) regards neurological maturation after puberty; brain plasticity is said to be lost or greatly reduced, rendering the mechanisms that underlie language learning necessarily distinct and thus disadvantaging adults. No one denies that child and adult developmental paths differ; however, the evidence that is used to support critical/sensitive period effects are decisively not clear (see e.g., Abrahamsson and Hyltenstam 2009; Long, 2005, 2013; DeKeyser, 2000 as compared to Rothman, 2008; Bialystok and Hakuta 1994; Birdsong and Molis, 2001; Birdsong and Vanhove, 2016; Birdsong, 2014 for review and opposing views). With few exceptions, the vast majority of “relevant evidence” on the matter comes from behavioral experimentation or spontaneous production, most often from L2 populations not exposed to the target language in a way similar to child L1 acquirers (e.g., adults tend to be classroom learners and children tend to be naturalistic learners). In the past two decades, technologies have progressed that permit us to have a renewed look at the Critical Period debate. That the healthy brain remains plastic throughout the lifespan is no longer controversial within neurocognitive psychology (see Fuchs and Flügge, 2014 for review). And so, the neuro-maturational basis of the Critical Period Hypothesis advocated originally in Lenneberg (1967) and assumed by many ever since is necessarily challenged. In this chapter, we focus on how neurolinguistic evidence—EEG/ERP and (f)MRI data—can help us adjudicate between various views regarding the Critical Period debate and how to best account for the ubiquitously noted differences that align with age of acquisition effects in language acquisition/processing.
|
|
URL: https://centaur.reading.ac.uk/76040/1/Chapter_Brain_adaptations_final.pdf https://centaur.reading.ac.uk/76040/
|
|
BASE
|
|
Hide details
|
|
23 |
Formal linguistics approaches to adult second language acquisition and processing
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
24 |
Differences in use without deficiencies in competence: passives in the Turkish and German of Turkish heritage speakers in Germany
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
27 |
Evidence from neurolinguistic methodologies : Can it actually inform linguistic/ language acquisition theories and translate to evidence-based applications?
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
28 |
Language dominance affects bilingual performance and processing outcomes in adulthood
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
29 |
Language dominance and transfer selection in L3 acquisition: Evidence from sentential negation and negative quantifiers in L3 English
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
30 |
Terminology matters! : Why difference is not incompleteness and how early child bilinguals are heritage speakers
|
|
|
|
In: International Journal of Bilingualism ; 22 (2018), 5. - S. 564-582. - ISSN 1367-0069. - eISSN 1756-6878 (2018)
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
31 |
Language Dominance Affects Bilingual Performance and Processing Outcomes in Adulthood
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
32 |
Language Dominance Affects Bilingual Performance and Processing Outcomes in Adulthood
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
33 |
L1 acquisition across Portuguese dialects: Modular and interdisciplinary interfaces as sources of explanation
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
34 |
The generative approach to SLA and its place in modern second language studies
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
35 |
Language dominance affects early bilingual performance and processing outcomes in adulthood
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
36 |
Evidence from neurolinguistic methodologies: can it actually inform linguistic/ language acquisition theories and translate to evidence-based applications?
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
37 |
Towards eliminating arbitrary stipulations related to parameters: linguistic innateness and the variational model
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
39 |
Why should formal linguistic approaches to heritage language acquisition be linked to heritage language pedagogies?
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
40 |
When bilingualism is the common factor: switch reference at the junction of competence and performance in both second language and heritage language performance
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
|