Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The nature vs nurture debate
The nature vs nurture debate
The nature vs nurture debate
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The critical period hypothesis for language acquisition was popularized by neurologist Eric Lenneberg. The hypothesis suggests that if an individual is not exposed to language during a specific period in their childhood then they will have great difficulties acquiring language later in life (Redmond, 1993). I believe the two “wild children” cases of Genie and Victor provides evidence to support the critical period hypothesis. Genie’s case supports the hypothesis because although she developed a vocabulary and despite all of her intense therapy sessions, she still was not able to create meaningful and grammatically correct sentences (Garmon, 1994). Genie’s inability to create real sentences may indicate that she endured the extreme deprivation during her critical period and it prevented her from acquiring language. Victor’s case also supports the critical period hypothesis. The professionals in the documentary The Secret of The Wild Child stated: “While Victor knew how to read simple words, he never learned how to talk” (Garmon, 1994). This quote implicates that similar to Genie, Victor developed a vocabulary, …show more content…
If Genie’s impairment was congenital or caused by nature, then it would provide a great amount of evidence to the nature prospective but if her impairment was developed or caused by her environment then it would provide a great amount of evidence for the nurture argument. Watching The Secret of The Wild Child, I felt an enormous amount of sympathy for Genie. The thing I found most disturbing was the fact that she was tethered to a potty, she could have caught a wide range of disease from it. What I found most interesting about the documentary was how her rehabilitation team allowed her experiment to fall through. I believe that Genie could have benefited more if the experiment
Let 's start off with some of the Feral children. For example Oxana. Oxana was abandoned at a very young age and was found by dogs and was raised by dogs! When she was discovered, she acted just like all of the dogs around her. She walked on all four legs, and always scratched her ears and just always seemed to be just like a dog. Another example of Feral children is Jeanie. Jeanie was raised harsh by her father, and she was beaten up by her father a lot. When Genie was discovered she didn 't really know how to talk at all and she didn 't know how to read or write. So this study is a great conclusion of how Nurture over rules Nature.
I watched the documentary “Secret of the Wild Child”, on a girl who was in isolation from birth to thirteen years old. Her name was Genie and is referred to as a feral child. This means she was without human contact from a young age, and has no experience of human care, social behavior, and, of the human language. Feral children are often known as being raised as animals and therefore imitating their behaviors. However, a child who is severely neglected is also considered a feral child. During the time she was discovered, around 1970, there was a major debate in the field of psychology. The famous nature verses nurture argument, meaning does genetics play a greater role in development or does one’s environment. In the case of Genie, the real focus was on her language development and deciphering if there was a critical age to learn a language.
A little girl who had been socially isolated for atleast ten years was discovered in 1970 in the Los Angeles, CA area. She was nicknamed “Genie” by scientists, but her real name is Susan Wiley. When “Genie” was little, her father made the executive decision
After Lenneberg's (1967) advanced analyses and interpretation of critical period in regards to first language acquisition, many researchers began to relate and study age issue in second language acquisition. In this area of study, Johnson and Newport (1989) is among the most prominent and leading studies which tries to seek evidence to test the Critical Period Hypothesis (CPH) in second language (L2) acquisition. This study aims to find identifying answers to the question of age-related effects on the proficiency for languages learned prior the puberty.
A question was brought up during the film; was genie damaged from her years of abuse or retarded from birth? Genie’s father believed from an early age that Genie was retarded and therefore needed to be kept in isolation. However, this was his own bias. For 13 years, Genie grew up detached from people, there was no concern in her upbringing nor did she have any significant life experiences. Genie was not given the freedom of opening herself up to the world around her, this was unjustifiable as a child relies on their surroundings in order to learn, grow and prosper. Socialization is the process in which an individual interacts with others in turn allowing them to become more aware of themselves. George Herbert Mead outlined that “the self” is not there from birth, it develops through social experience. It was apparent that Genie did not have a sense of self, due to the lack of interaction between others and her environment. Mead also developed the idea of significant others, which are people that play an important role in the early stages of a child’s social development. Genie did not have that figure, as her mother and father were both dis-engaged from her life. They did not support Genie, and teach her the fundamental basic skills that are needed in order for a child to fit into the basic norms of society. Genie did not take part in secondary socialization, as she was not given the opportunity to go to school. Therefore, she acted much younger than a normal thirteen-year-old, and did not receive the proper care a young girl was obliged to
1. This statement is from a researcher involved in studying cases of feral children: In the sad and mysterious case of __Genie_ we have an instance of developmental deficiency produced, not by a loss of senses, but by deprivation of the power of exercising them.
On Christmas Day in the year 2001, I gave birth to a healthy baby boy. When I looked into the brand-new face of my son I saw a beautiful mystery. I wondered what kind of man my boy would grow to be and what his life would be like. There are those in the scientific community who would argue that my son's path was already determined at the moment of his birth, that his fate could be deciphered from his genetic make-up. As a nurturing mother I know better. At two years old my son has developed a more diverse vocabulary than many children twice or even three times his age. He recognizes many written words and reads them aloud. He is able to spell his name. He can distinguish a square from a rectangle and an octagon from a hexagon. Was he born with this knowledge? The answer is no. My son, as genetically gifted as he may be, could have been born into an environment in which his inborn potential was never developed. The knowledge he now possesses can be directly traced to the teaching environment in which he has grown. Human beings are a product of both their biology and their environment.
The number one questions the surrounds the case of Genie Wiley is whether she was born mentally retarded or was this a result of her ten years in isolation from birth? This question can receive two different answers based on how you choose to perceive the nature or the nurture of another person. Genie did have the capacity to grow, just as Victor did in a similar study years ago in France. Once their isolation was removed, they began to civilize, which leads myself to believe that nurture took more part in the development in Genies behavior rather than a genetic disorder that her father seemed to believe she had.
This essay is about a child’s development and learning, focusing primarily on language development. It will describe the main stages of developmental "milestones" and the key concepts involved for children to develop their language skills, discussing language acquisition and social learning theory. The essay will also look into the key theorists involved in language development, primarily Vygotsky and Chomsky, and how these theories have had an impact on the way society views language and their implementation within schools. The essay will describe the factors affecting language development, both biological and environmental. While also discussing key arguments among theorists, one being the nature vs nurture debate, and how these play a part in the teaching in schools.
The consensus belief is that the capacity for language is innate, while others believe its environmental variables play a deciding role. In the end, it boils down to the nature versus nurture debate. Does the environment we are exposed to or our genetics’ play a larger role?
... (p. 116). In her article, “Babies Prove Sound Learners,” Sohn (2008), states, “Such studies show that, up to about 6 months of age, babies can recognize all the sounds that make up all the languages in the world” (para.24). B.K. Skinner suggest that the materialization of language is the result of imitation and reinforcement. According to Craig and Dunn (2010), “Language development is linked to cognitive development that, in turn, depends on the development of the brain, on physical and perceptual abilities, and on experiences. Biological and social factors also jointly influence the early development of emotion and personality” (p. 117). In her article, A natural history of early language experience. Hart (2000), states, “Talking is important for children, because complexity of what children say influences the complexity of other people’s response” (para. 1).
Wilder Penfield and Lamar Roberts first introduced the idea that there is a “critical period” for learning language in 1959. This critical period is a biologically determined period referring to a period of time when learning/acquiring a language is relatively easy and typically meets with a high degree of success. German linguist Eric Lenneberg further highlights Roberts and Penfield’s findings and postulated the Critical Period Hypothesis in 1967. According to the Critical Period Hypothesis (CPH), certain biological events related to language development can only happen in the critical period. During this time, the brain possesses a degree of flexibility (ability and ease of learning a language) and becomes lateralized (assignment of language functions becomes concrete – either in the left or right hemisphere) (Marinova-Todd, S; Marshall, D & Snow, C. 2000 9-10). This critical period lasts from childhood through the onset of puberty (usually at around 12 years of age). Once this period is over, it is more difficult to learn a language because language functions in the brain have become concrete. This hypothesis can be seen with the case of Genie, a woman who was isolated from human interaction and language up to the age of 13. By the time she was rescued, she was well after the critical period for language acquisition, and as such, she did not have a full command of the English language. Had she been rescued before the age of 13, she may have had more linguistic capability. However, this accounts for firs...
Still today, it is the commonly held belief that children acquire their mother tongue through imitation of the parents, caregivers or the people in their environment. Linguists too had the same conviction until 1957, when a then relatively unknown man, A. Noam Chomsky, propounded his theory that the capacity to acquire language is in fact innate. This revolutionized the study of language acquisition, and after a brief period of controversy upon the publication of his book, Aspects of the Theory of Syntax, in 1964, his theories are now generally accepted as largely true. As a consequence, he was responsible for the emergence of a new field during the 1960s, Developmental Psycholinguistics, which deals with children’s first language acquisition. He was not the first to question our hitherto mute acceptance of a debatable concept – long before, Plato wondered how children could possibly acquire so complex a skill as language with so little experience of life. Experiments have clearly identified an ability to discern syntactical nuances in very young infants, although they are still at the pre-linguistic stage. Children of three, however, are able to manipulate very complicated syntactical sentences, although they are unable to tie their own shoelaces, for example. Indeed, language is not a skill such as many others, like learning to drive or perform mathematical operations – it cannot be taught as such in these early stages. Rather, it is the acquisition of language which fascinates linguists today, and how it is possible. Noam Chomsky turned the world’s eyes to this enigmatic question at a time when it was assumed to have a deceptively simple explanation.
Let’s take the feral children for an example. There were two kids that we learned about and their names were Jeanie and Oxana. Oxana was living with dogs for pretty much her whole childhood. When they found Oxana they noticed she did pretty much everything like a dog. Jeanie was beaten by her father, and she was left alone until she was 13 years old. Jeanie’s father hated noise, so she barely ever talked or heard others talk. Once she was found, her behavior was like a 3 year olds. She had trouble walking and talking, in fact, she only knew a few words and could barely even stand. Both of these examples of the feral children are nurture because their personality’s have been based off their surroundings.
A linguist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology named Chomsky, declared that we have the ability to learn language not only because somebody taught us, but also because we are born with the principles of language in our genes. Chomsky also said “We have language because of nature, not just nurture” (Everywhere Psychology, 2012). Chomsky was one of the people that believed Genie still had a chance to learn language since everybody is born with the ability to learn. A neuropsychologist named Eric Lenneberg, agreed with Chomsky about humans being born with the ability to learn a language as nature, but believed there is a deadline for learning language. Lenneberg believed that if a first language isn 't learned by puberty it could be too late. What Lenneberg proposed is called the "critical period hypothesis," (Everywhere Psychology,