In 1967 Eric Heinz Lenneberg established his groundbreaking work "Biological Foundations of Language" in which he tries to push the biological view on language forward. One important point that is discussed is "language in the context of growth and maturation". The Critical Period Hypothesis (CPH) is the essence of this considerations. Lenneberg tries to find evidence for his theory in the study of retarded, aphasic or deaf children and in neurological studies. But at this time the most striking proof for the CPH, Genie, was still imprisoned in a small room in her parents home.
Three years after Lenneberg published his work on the CPH, 13½ years-old Genie was recovered by an eligibility worker and her case rapidly aroused the interest of neurologists, psychologists and linguists.
Susan Curtiss, a graduate student of the UCLA Linguistic Department got the possibility to work with Genie for the years to come. Her work Genie - A Psycholinguistic Study of a Modern-Day ′Wild Child′ compiles her experiences on working with Genie added by a detailed case history. What Susan Curtiss found out about Genie′s linguistic development seems to be the evidence for the existence of a critical phase for first language acquisition.
This paper gives a brief definition of Lenneberg′s Critical Period Hypothesis, summarizes the case history and the data of Genie′s linguistic development and, according to Susan Curtiss, relates Genie′s case directly to the CPH. Over and above that, it tries to explain, why Genie developed a certain amount of language and with this proved the ′strong′ version of Lenneberg′s hypothesis as wrong.
Inhaltsverzeichnis (Table of Contents)
- Introduction
- The Critical Period Hypothesis
- Genie's case
- …up to her recovery
- …since her recovery
- Genie's linguistic development
- Genie, an evidence for the CPH
- Acquiring first and second language after the CP
- Bibliography
Zielsetzung und Themenschwerpunkte (Objectives and Key Themes)
This term paper aims to define Lenneberg's Critical Period Hypothesis (CPH), summarize Genie's case, and analyze her linguistic development in relation to the CPH. It seeks to explain the extent of Genie's language acquisition and assess whether her case supports or refutes the 'strong' version of Lenneberg's hypothesis.
- The Critical Period Hypothesis (CPH) and its implications for first language acquisition.
- Genie's case study as a potential example of the CPH.
- Analysis of Genie's linguistic development and its limitations.
- Evaluation of the strength of the CPH based on Genie's case.
- The biological factors influencing language acquisition.
Zusammenfassung der Kapitel (Chapter Summaries)
Introduction: This chapter introduces Eric Lenneberg's 1967 work, "Biological Foundations of Language," and its central concept, the Critical Period Hypothesis (CPH). It highlights the significance of Genie's case, discovered three years later, as a potential key piece of evidence for or against the CPH. The chapter sets the stage for the subsequent exploration of Genie's case and its implications for understanding language acquisition.
The Critical Period Hypothesis: This section delves into Lenneberg's CPH, proposing a critical period between the ages of two and thirteen for first language acquisition. It emphasizes the biological basis of language development, arguing that the brain's plasticity diminishes after puberty, impacting language learning capabilities. The chapter connects language acquisition to the maturation of the brain, highlighting the role of biological factors rather than environmental influences. It also touches upon Lenneberg's belief in the innate biological determination of language and the existence of a universal grammar.
Genie's case: …up to her recovery: This section details Genie's life up to her discovery in 1970 at age 13 1/2. It describes her severely deprived and abusive childhood, marked by isolation, neglect, and physical restraints. Genie's extreme physical and developmental delays, including her inability to walk, chew, or communicate verbally, are documented. The chapter emphasizes the profound impact of early deprivation on her development and sets the stage for examining her subsequent linguistic progress. It also touches upon the early signs of potential developmental issues and her father's role in her isolation.
Schlüsselwörter (Keywords)
Critical Period Hypothesis, first language acquisition, Genie, language development, biological foundations of language, childhood deprivation, linguistic development, cerebral plasticity, puberty.
Frequently Asked Questions: A Comprehensive Language Preview
What is the main topic of this document?
This document is a comprehensive preview of a term paper analyzing Genie's case study in relation to the Critical Period Hypothesis (CPH) of language acquisition. It examines Genie's linguistic development in the context of Lenneberg's theory, assessing whether her experience supports or refutes the hypothesis.
What is the Critical Period Hypothesis (CPH)?
The CPH, as proposed by Eric Lenneberg, suggests that there is a biologically determined period, roughly between the ages of two and puberty, during which first language acquisition is most effective. After this period, the brain's plasticity decreases, making language learning significantly more difficult.
Who is Genie, and why is her case important?
Genie was a severely neglected child discovered at age 13 1/2 who had experienced extreme social isolation and deprivation. Her case is crucial because it offers a potential real-world test of the CPH. Her linguistic development (or lack thereof) after her discovery provides valuable insight into the limitations and possibilities of language acquisition beyond the proposed critical period.
What are the key themes explored in this paper?
The paper explores the CPH, Genie's early life and the impact of severe deprivation, her linguistic development (or lack thereof) following her rescue, and a critical analysis of whether her case supports or contradicts the strong version of the CPH. It also delves into the biological factors influencing language acquisition and the concept of cerebral plasticity.
What does the paper cover in each chapter?
The Introduction sets the stage by introducing the CPH and the significance of Genie's case. The chapter on the CPH details Lenneberg's theory and its implications. The section on Genie's case is divided into her life before and after her discovery. The paper further analyzes Genie's case as evidence for or against the CPH and discusses second language acquisition beyond the critical period.
What are the key takeaways from Genie's case study?
Genie's case provides a complex and nuanced perspective on the CPH. While she showed some progress in language acquisition after the critical period, her limitations highlight the significant challenges in learning a first language after this period. The extent to which her case definitively supports or refutes the CPH remains a subject of ongoing discussion and analysis within the field of linguistics.
What are the keywords associated with this research?
Critical Period Hypothesis, first language acquisition, Genie, language development, biological foundations of language, childhood deprivation, linguistic development, cerebral plasticity, puberty.
What is the objective of this term paper?
The term paper aims to define and explain Lenneberg's CPH, summarize Genie's case, analyze her linguistic development in relation to the CPH, and evaluate the strength of the CPH based on her experience. It seeks to determine the extent of her language acquisition and whether her case supports or refutes the 'strong' version of Lenneberg's hypothesis.
- Quote paper
- Anne Fuchs (Author), 2002, The Critical Period Hypothesis supported by Genie's case, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/35713