In this note I build a comprehensive neurolinguistic model of second language acquisition which will explain some of the phenomena of second language acquisition which Lenneberg’s Critical Age Hypothesis left unaccounted for. The reason I get to use the racy term “neurolinguistic” to draw your attention in the title is because I am using a typical neuropsychological methodology, the case study, to support my argument that it is not puberty but defloration which prevents learning a second language with a good accent.
Puberty as critical age explains most cases, but it is hard to work in the discipline of bilingualism long without noting that there are exceptions to the rule that pre-
In the study to be reported on here, we located a learner of the first sort, and discovered that he had engaged in sex at the precocious age of 10, in fact on board the ship which brought him to America, AT, on this our argument hinges, precisely the same time he was obliged to learn English. To this day he has a disagreeable accent. Moreover, we hasten to point out, external pubertal signs in this boy did not appear for 2 years, thus strengthening our neurological point. The conclusion is obvious then: it is sex and not puberty which causes accents. Were it not that we rush this study to print before someone else gets credit for the idea, we would surely find the doubly confirming case of a post-
Needless to say, the pedagogical implications of these findings are ramificatory. Onset of puberty can be manipulated by pharmacological means which are only justified in procedures crucial to the operation of society; only one has been deemed sufficiently urgent to date