Encounters with feral children have been attracting intellectual examination and curiosity since the early seventeenth century. Among others, Anthropologists, Psychologists and Linguists hoped to find answers to central questions of mankind: What makes us human beings? What distinguishes us from animals? Nature or nurture, what has greater impact on us?
In linguistics these case studies are frequently cited. Especially with respect to the assumption of maturational constraints on language acquisition, scholars tried to draw conclusions from the success or failure feral children exhibited after discovery. Respectively, they were interpreted as evidence or counter-evidence for the Critical Period Hypothesis (CPH) which postulates that language can only be acquired normally up to a certain age.
This term paper is organised as follows. In Section 2 a general de-scription of critical periods is given before turning to Lenneberg’s hypothesis. Section 3 focuses on two cases that are often taken as evidence for the CPH, namely Victor and Genie. Both didn’t master language acquisition to a satisfactory level. Section 4, on the other hand, deals with three children who are expounded as counter-evidence for the CPH because they caught up quickly on language learning close to age seven. In both sections, after a short description of the individual experiences prior to dis-covery, a detailed account of linguistic achievements and shortcomings is presented. Section 5 will discuss the outcomes and put them into a broader scientific context by adding results of further research. Section 6 offers a preliminary conclusion, namely that cases of feral children should be included as indirect evidence but that this needs to be done carefully.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. The Critical Period Hypothesis
2.1 About critical periods
2.2 Assuming a critical period for human language
3. Two cases that seem to support the CPH
3.1 Victor
3.2. Genie
4. Two cases that seem to question the CPH
4.1 Isabelle
4.2 P.M. and J.M – The Czech twins
5. Discussion
6. Conclusion
7. Bibliography
Research Objective and Scope
This paper examines the validity of the Critical Period Hypothesis (CPH) by analyzing case studies of feral children to determine whether they provide legitimate scientific evidence for or against maturational constraints on language acquisition.
- The theoretical foundations of the Critical Period Hypothesis.
- Case analyses of children who experienced extreme social isolation.
- Distinctions between language development in supportive versus depriving environments.
- The impact of professional intervention on late language acquisition.
- Methodological challenges in using feral children as evidence for psychological theories.
Excerpt from the Book
3.1 Victor
Victor, also called the wild boy of Aveyron, apparently had been living in the forest for several years. First sighted in 1797, he was assumed to be approximately eleven years old. In the following year woodsmen caught the boy and brought him to the village of Lacaune (cp. Lane 1976: 6ff). He resisted violently and managed to flee back into the woods shortly afterwards. After being captured a second time he still refused to stay in the community and wandered off again (ibid.). In January 1800, probably because of hunger, he walked into the house of a dyer. Later on, the commissioner for the canton of Saint-Senin took charge of the child and sent him to an orphanage (ibid.: 9). The boy’s origin could not be clarified.
At the orphanage in Saint-Affrique his behaviour was observed as follows: he only ate potatoes and nuts and refused any kind of other food, he was constantly seeking for a way to escape, he hated clothing and he never spoke (cp. one of the administrators of the orphanage quoted in Lane 1976: 10). The only sounds he made were indistinct cries and laughter (ibid.). Apart from being subject to numerous newspaper headlines and common curiosity, Victor soon attracted the attention of scholars who were interested in the nature of mankind.
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: Introduces the historical and scientific interest in feral children and their role as potential subjects for testing language acquisition theories.
2. The Critical Period Hypothesis: Explains the origins of the term critical period in biology and its subsequent application to human language acquisition by scholars like Lenneberg.
3. Two cases that seem to support the CPH: Details the cases of Victor and Genie, whose struggles to acquire standard language proficiency are often used to support the CPH.
4. Two cases that seem to question the CPH: Discusses the cases of Isabelle and the Czech twins, who showed remarkable language recovery despite significant periods of isolation.
5. Discussion: Synthesizes the findings by analyzing potential variables such as environmental support, age, and individual cognitive differences in language learning.
6. Conclusion: Evaluates the usefulness of feral child studies as indirect evidence and emphasizes the need for caution in interpreting these findings.
7. Bibliography: Lists the academic sources used to substantiate the arguments regarding language development and deprivation.
Keywords
Critical Period Hypothesis, Feral Children, Language Acquisition, Linguistics, Deprivation, Maturational Constraints, Victor, Genie, Isabelle, Czech Twins, Lateralization, Brain Plasticity, Psycholinguistics, Nature vs Nurture, Child Development.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this research paper?
The paper evaluates the Critical Period Hypothesis (CPH), which suggests that there is an age limit for natural human language acquisition, by analyzing historical cases of children raised in extreme isolation.
What are the central themes discussed in the work?
The core themes include the biological basis of language, the impact of extreme social deprivation on cognitive development, and the role of environmental factors in rehabilitating individuals who missed early language exposure.
What is the research question addressed by the author?
The paper asks to what extent evidence from feral children can legitimately be used to support or refute the theory that language must be learned during a specific, biologically determined window.
Which scientific methodology is primarily employed here?
The author uses a qualitative comparative case study approach, reviewing existing literature and academic reports on specific, well-documented cases of "wild children" to analyze their linguistic outcomes.
What topics are covered in the main body of the text?
The main body covers the theoretical framework of CPH, detailed biographies and linguistic assessments of Victor, Genie, Isabelle, and the Czech twins, and a discussion comparing their recovery trajectories.
Which keywords best characterize this work?
The work is best characterized by terms such as Critical Period Hypothesis, feral children, language acquisition, deprivation, brain plasticity, and nature versus nurture.
How did Genie's outcome differ from the Czech twins?
While Genie struggled to reach full grammatical fluency and experienced continued hardship, the Czech twins showed a more successful linguistic recovery after being placed in a stable, nurturing environment.
What role did professional intervention play in these cases?
Professional therapy, consistent schooling, and a warm, stable social environment were identified as critical factors that allowed children like Isabelle and the Czech twins to overcome developmental delays.
- Quote paper
- Katharina Dellbrügge (Author), 2008, The Critical Period Hypothesis, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/145016
