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.
Table of Contents
1 Introduction
2 The Critical Period Hypothesis
3 Genie's case
3.1 ...up to her recovery
3.2 ...since her recovery
3.3 Genie's linguistic development
4 Genie, an evidence for the CPH
5 Acquiring first and second language after the CP
Objectives and Topics
This paper examines the Critical Period Hypothesis (CPH) through the lens of the famous case study of "Genie," a child deprived of language and social interaction until adolescence. The primary research goal is to investigate whether Genie's linguistic development supports or refutes Lenneberg's "strong" version of the Critical Period Hypothesis, which posits that language cannot be acquired naturally after puberty.
- The theoretical foundations of Eric Lenneberg’s Critical Period Hypothesis.
- A detailed case history and linguistic profile of the subject known as Genie.
- The correlation between Genie's language acquisition and established biological theories of language.
- The distinction between the "strong" and "weak" versions of the Critical Period Hypothesis.
- The challenges of first and second language acquisition beyond the critical window.
Excerpt from the Book
Genie's linguistic development
In the second and third part of her book Susan Curtiss reviews and describes the methods of data collection and discoveries concerning Genie's linguistic and social development. During Curtiss' work with Genie she collected several types of data to record the developmental stages Genie went through: interviews with Genie's mother, reports from David Rigler and the Division of Psychiatry of the LA Children's Hospital, hundreds of videotapes, tape recordings, observations of Genie's speech, psychological, language and neurolinguistic tests, work with written language and sign language.
During the first meetings Genie seemed to be alert and curious, but except for a few words, "she was a silent child who did not vocalize in any way, who did not even sob when she cried." The primary question for the professionals was what language abilities Genie had, if she could speak and if she understands language at all. Genie's primary therapist at the hospital, Dr. Kent, noted that Genie "understood little more than a few single words and negative command intonation."
Genie's small amount of English - several individual words, a few names and negative commands and warnings. Genie was dependent of intonation and other nonlinguistic cues to make any sense of speech.
Summary of Chapters
1 Introduction: This chapter introduces the research context, outlining Eric Lenneberg’s Critical Period Hypothesis and the significance of the case of Genie as a subject for psycholinguistic study.
2 The Critical Period Hypothesis: This section details the theoretical framework of the CPH, explaining how language acquisition is linked to biological maturation and the concept of cerebral plasticity.
3 Genie's case: This chapter provides a comprehensive biographical overview of Genie, including her years of isolation, her discovery, and the subsequent efforts of researchers to study her development.
4 Genie, an evidence for the CPH: This chapter synthesizes the linguistic findings from Genie’s case to evaluate Lenneberg’s hypothesis, suggesting that her development supports a "weak" version of the CPH.
5 Acquiring first and second language after the CP: This chapter discusses the theoretical possibilities for language acquisition after the critical period, comparing the constraints faced by late first-language learners versus second-language learners.
Keywords
Critical Period Hypothesis, CPH, Genie, Language Acquisition, Linguistics, Psycholinguistics, First Language, Biological Foundations of Language, Lenneberg, Susan Curtiss, Universal Grammar, Cerebral Plasticity, Feral Children.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the central focus of this term paper?
The paper focuses on evaluating the Critical Period Hypothesis (CPH) by analyzing the specific case of Genie, an adolescent discovered in 1970 who had been deprived of language during her childhood.
What are the primary themes discussed?
Key themes include the biological basis of language, the "strong" versus "weak" versions of the CPH, the effects of severe environmental deprivation, and the limits of language acquisition after puberty.
What is the core research question?
The research asks whether Genie’s ability to acquire certain aspects of language serves as a counterexample to Lenneberg's "strong" version of the CPH, which claims language acquisition is impossible after the critical period.
Which methodology is used in the study?
The paper uses a descriptive case study methodology, drawing upon psycholinguistic data, clinical observations, and existing research compiled by Susan Curtiss and other professionals involved in Genie's rehabilitation.
What is covered in the main body of the work?
The main body examines the historical background of Genie, describes her unique linguistic developmental path, and correlates these observations with current theories on language lateralization and Universal Grammar.
Which keywords best characterize this research?
The research is characterized by terms such as Critical Period Hypothesis, psycholinguistics, language acquisition, feral children, and Genie's case.
Why is Genie considered a test case for Lenneberg's hypothesis?
Because Genie was discovered well beyond the proposed critical period for language acquisition, her development provides a rare, albeit ethically complex, opportunity to observe whether language can still develop without early linguistic input.
How does the author interpret Genie's linguistic limitations?
The author notes that while Genie was able to acquire some vocabulary and basic comprehension, she failed to master complex syntactic structures, suggesting that there are indeed biological limitations on language acquisition as one ages.
- Citar trabajo
- Anne Fuchs (Autor), 2002, The Critical Period Hypothesis supported by Genie's case, Múnich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/35713
