linguists’ observations of genie began that month, and in october of that year they began actively testing what principles of language she had acquired and was acquiring. [5][18] in conversations with members of the research team that studied genie, her mother said that as a baby genie was not very cuddly and did not babble very much. [4][28][29] from the time of genie’s admission doctors saw she clearly picked up some nonverbal information, with kent emphasizing that she seemed very intent on looking at peoples’ faces and made decent eye contact from other people, and she showed a small amount of responsiveness to it even in the absence of language. kent observed that she seemed interested in other people talking and attentively looked at the mouth of a speaker but had almost no reaction to speech. during the first months that she lived at the hospital, she gradually began to express more of her emotions outward. for approximately two years the length of time she held out a vowel was her only stress indicator, and during that time was very exaggerated. [73][74] the only linguistic information from anyone besides butler during genie’s stay was that genie formed some non-imitative two-word utterances in july, all without verbs and in noun phrase–noun phrase form, and that she gave her first imitations of a few unspecified three-word utterances. [82] based on these results the concluded that genie’s brain had completed lateralization and that, because genie had received no stimulation in her language center when she was a child, it had atrophied and her language functions had instead lateralized to her right hemisphere. [87][88] as she settled down with the riglers she began to talk somewhat more, and her response time began to improve, but she continued to speak significantly less than most children in similar phases of language learning. [91][95][96] curtiss began active testing of genie’s language in october 1971, when she and fromkin decided her linguistic abilities had advanced to the point where they would yield usable results. on tests she showed perfect comprehension of and while correctly responding to the word or fewer than 10% of the time, but she always understood disjunction marked by the word or in everyday conversation. [5][115][116] when curtiss tested her on possessive sentences such as “point to the cat’s foot” and “point to the foot of the cat” during this time genie was only correct 50% of the time, but after march of that year she demonstrated full comprehension of both constructions despite not using either in her speech. [5] on a different test genie at first gave correct responses to on 48% of the time, and her confusion was mostly with the words in or under, but by september 1973 she showed full comprehension of both in and on. in the fall of 1973 genie began correctly using the verb has as the third person singular form of the verb to have, but continued not to conjugate it in most situations and never used any other third person singular forms, so linguists suggested she may have learned it as a separate word instead of a conjugation.
[4] in a few sentences from this time she began to incorporate the words of other people into her own utterances, as in “dentist say drink water”; direct quotations would remain the only situation in which she could engage in any embedding of elements of language, and these remained very rare. [154][155] in the fall of 1974 genie produced a few utterances with internal negatives, although she had specifically practiced all but two of these early sentences and one of the spontaneous occurrences was a partial imitation, and these sentences grew more common until she completely mastered their use by early 1975. curtiss did not view this as linguistic movement, believing that genie’s grammar simply changed to place negations in the middle of a sentence. [m][112] this contrasted with her distinction between more and less, which she had demonstrated by at least august 1973, and her understanding of the qualifiers one and all in everyday conversations. in addition to the disparity with the results on pronoun and relative clause tests, in which she used word order strategies, researchers wrote this was a major contrast with the clear word order rules in her spontaneous speech. because of this, the scientists wrote that it was extremely difficult to analyze her comprehension and use of grammar in conversations. [5][189] as genie learned more language she gradually included more grammatical complexity in her speech during everyday interactions, and began to apply her language to more everyday situations. [193] in addition, since she could only use the word may as a part of the phrase “may i have” to ask a question and never produced a statement or asked about someone else with it, curtiss did not consider these utterances true use of an auxiliary structure. [5][207] in her dissertation, curtiss wrote that genie still laxed and centralized the pronunciation of vowels and off-glides. [5][214][56] if someone imitated her deletion of a final consonant she would laugh, reply, “silly”, gesture, and then repeat her utterance with both the final consonant and any other sounds she had initially deleted, causing curtiss to speculate that genie simply was not paying attention to how her speech sounded. [231] in addition to signing genie would pantomime some words as she spoke, for instance crouching into a seated position when saying the words “sit” or “sick”, and act out sequences of events. [132][242] upon genie’s removal from this location in april 1977 she required a two-week stay at children’s hospital, where she was able to see her mother and the riglers. [6][11][246] curtiss published genie’s utterances from mid-1975 to the end of 1977, and analysis of them, in papers she wrote and co-wrote in 1979. [6][256][265] this further convinced the scientists that genie’s language acquisition was abnormal because she had started after the critical period, and therefore was processing language in the right hemisphere of her brain. [279][247][188] in later interviews curtiss said that genie could communicate messages using language but did not speak in real sentences, and russ rymer wrote that, based on conversations with curtiss and documents she shared with him, she seemed to view the summer of 1972 as the point at which genie’s linguistic abilities plateaued. “[emphasis as in the original][7] this, in turn, left an unresolved tension between curtiss’ pre- and post-1977 analyses of genie’s language which he said meant that until curtiss published a clarification of her works, “a definitive judgment on the character and extent of genie’s linguistic development still cannot be given.
genie wiley was the name given to a thirteen-year-old girl who had been a victim of severe abuse, neglect, and isolation since her birth. the case was so scientifically important that the government funded a team of scientists to help answer the many questions that her conditions posed. even though genie scored at the level of a 1-year-old at her initial assessment, she quickly began adding new words to her vocabulary. it’s really so sad that genie never really got to grow up and developed her life because of the restrictions eposed in all aspects of her infancy andchildhood.
i had questions about the “critical period” and acquiring the full command of a language, and, through this article, i think i was able to find an answer. the article was both fascinating and expertly crafted, a pleasure to read. this article was a lot, to say the least. i’m glad they were able to do experiments to explore this idea more, but it really sucks that it was all at the expense of this child.
genie’s story suggests that the acquisition of language has a critical period of development. her case is complex, however, since it is unclear the newest example of critical period hypothesis is a case associated with a girl nicknamed genie. in 1970, genie was found by social workers in los angeles, linguists ultimately concluded that because genie had not learned a first language before the critical period had ended, she was unable to fully acquire a, feral child movie, feral child movie, genie wiley today, genie wiley now 2021, genie language development.
he proposes that there is one critical phase between the age of two and about 13 years (before puberty) in which an individual is able to acquire first language (fl). acquiring first language after this period is much more difficult and will never reach the perfect status of language acquired during the cp. he suggests that this critical period lasts from about age two to puberty: language acquisition is im- possible before two due to maturational factors, and genie demonstrated that it’s possible for an individual to learn some language after the critical period. yet, her inability to learn grammar, beyond the horrors of growing up feral, worst of all, these kids may miss a critical period to learn language and never communicate like the, what is the critical period hypothesis, when was genie wiley found, what happened to genie, how old is genie wiley now, genie wiley brother, feral child language development, genie wiley essay, is genie still alive, genie wiley parents, genie wiley father.
When you try to get related information on genie critical period, you may look for related areas. feral child movie, genie wiley today, genie wiley now 2021, genie language development, what is the critical period hypothesis, when was genie wiley found, what happened to genie, how old is genie wiley now, genie wiley brother, feral child language development, genie wiley essay, is genie still alive, genie wiley parents, genie wiley father.