Genie, the feral child, became a prime subject of discussion and research in the world of
psychology. Genie’s childhood was one full of neglect and social isolation. She was born into a
family with horrible parents. She was one of a few siblings to survive their parents’ neglect.
Until about the age of thirteen, Genie spent her life tied to a chair and was deprived of any form
of communication with other people. The reason Genie was an anomaly and became such an
important topic in the world of psychology is because she demonstrated the effects of depriving
children of socialization and exhibited what these effects did to her language development.
Despite these terrible circumstances, Genie’s childhood experience was important …show more content…
The hypothesis
states that there is a period in a child’s life, from early childhood to adolescence, where most of
their linguistic skills are developed. Once this critical period is missed, it is rather difficult, and
sometimes even impossible for a person to keep up and learn some linguistic skills. There are
two major schools of thought in psychology in regards to language development - nativism and
empiricism. Nativists, as stated in the name, believe in nature as opposed to nurture. They
believe that human beings have an innate ability to learn language based on family traits.
Empiricists, on the other hand, believe that nurture is the deciding factor as to whether or not
someone can develop linguistically. So, in Genie’s case, the empiricist viewpoint makes sense.
However, for both schools of thought, this was a great opportunity to see if she could develop in
other psychological areas.
Genie’s experience was unique. While the critical period hypothesis takes into account
isolation, it does not take into account other factors such as abuse, and damage to cognitive
abilities. The two factors stated were also most likely responsible for Genie’s lack …show more content…
During her diagnosis by doctors, it appeared that Genie was also able to comprehend
communication, but could not make communication of her own. Because she was not exposed to
conversation, her speech patterns, were erratic and her voice was strange. She ended technically
being able to “speak” and learn language past the critical period, but not necessarily at the same
rate or the same “progression” that a “normal” child could. This may have been caused by
damage done to the left hemisphere of her brain, specifically to the Broca’s Area. There also may
have been underlying psychological disorders that she had. Many aspects of her home life
remain unknown, so it is uncertain whether or not her father caused damage to that part of her
brain through physical or emotional abuse.
One aspect of Genie’s development that strengthened the viability of the nativist
standpoint was the development of her sentence structure. She was able to form “sentences”, or,
phrases with a noun and verb several months into her training. Researchers found that, compared
to normal children, Genie’s developmental progression was extremely unique. Much of
psychology. Genie’s childhood was one full of neglect and social isolation. She was born into a
family with horrible parents. She was one of a few siblings to survive their parents’ neglect.
Until about the age of thirteen, Genie spent her life tied to a chair and was deprived of any form
of communication with other people. The reason Genie was an anomaly and became such an
important topic in the world of psychology is because she demonstrated the effects of depriving
children of socialization and exhibited what these effects did to her language development.
Despite these terrible circumstances, Genie’s childhood experience was important …show more content…
The hypothesis
states that there is a period in a child’s life, from early childhood to adolescence, where most of
their linguistic skills are developed. Once this critical period is missed, it is rather difficult, and
sometimes even impossible for a person to keep up and learn some linguistic skills. There are
two major schools of thought in psychology in regards to language development - nativism and
empiricism. Nativists, as stated in the name, believe in nature as opposed to nurture. They
believe that human beings have an innate ability to learn language based on family traits.
Empiricists, on the other hand, believe that nurture is the deciding factor as to whether or not
someone can develop linguistically. So, in Genie’s case, the empiricist viewpoint makes sense.
However, for both schools of thought, this was a great opportunity to see if she could develop in
other psychological areas.
Genie’s experience was unique. While the critical period hypothesis takes into account
isolation, it does not take into account other factors such as abuse, and damage to cognitive
abilities. The two factors stated were also most likely responsible for Genie’s lack …show more content…
During her diagnosis by doctors, it appeared that Genie was also able to comprehend
communication, but could not make communication of her own. Because she was not exposed to
conversation, her speech patterns, were erratic and her voice was strange. She ended technically
being able to “speak” and learn language past the critical period, but not necessarily at the same
rate or the same “progression” that a “normal” child could. This may have been caused by
damage done to the left hemisphere of her brain, specifically to the Broca’s Area. There also may
have been underlying psychological disorders that she had. Many aspects of her home life
remain unknown, so it is uncertain whether or not her father caused damage to that part of her
brain through physical or emotional abuse.
One aspect of Genie’s development that strengthened the viability of the nativist
standpoint was the development of her sentence structure. She was able to form “sentences”, or,
phrases with a noun and verb several months into her training. Researchers found that, compared
to normal children, Genie’s developmental progression was extremely unique. Much of