Language Acquisition in Children

Language Acquisition in Children Language is the most important aspect in the life of all beings and is the basis for all communication. According to Eve Clark, a language professor at Stanford University, language itself is very complex (2003, p. 1). Language has a sound system that allows us to use numerous distinct words, a vocabulary of nearly 100,000 terms, and a series of constructions for relating those words.

Language calls for an intricate web of skills that we rely on as an integral part of everyday life to help us convey our wants, needs, thoughts, emotions, and ideas (p. ). As complex as language is, humans acquire language at an extremely young age. Language acquisition in children has been a topic of heated debate for many decades.

For many years, linguists have theorized how children procure language. Do children have to learn everything about language and its uses? Do they start out at birth with John Locke’s “tabula rasa”? Or do children come with certain things “pre-wired”? The debate is an issue over nature versus nurture; what innate capabilities children are born with versus what children gain from experience (Clark, 2003, p. 2).The Nativist Perspective argues that humans are born biologically programmed to gain knowledge. Noam Chomsky, a world-renowned linguist and the main theorist behind the nativist perspective, suggests there is a genetically determined, innate mechanism that directs the development of language and causes it to emerge due to maturation (Campbell & Mailman, 2011). According to Chomsky, humans have an internal language acquisition device (LAD) that contains knowledge of grammatical rules common to all languages that allow children to understand the rules of any language (Campbell et.

al, 2011).Arguments against the nativist perspective suggest that because children are not born speaking, they have to learn language (Clark, 2003, p. 2). The Learning Theory Approach, proposed by B. F. Skinner, an American behaviorist known for his work on operant conditioning, argues that language acquisition follows the basic laws of reinforcement and conditioning (Campbell et.

al, 2011). Skinner states that adults shape the speech of children by rewarding the sounds that most approximates words (Campbell et. al, 2011). Some arguments posed to proponents of the learning theory ask how children can earn all of the complex rules of language as quickly as they do. One theory, known as the Interactionist Theory, suggests that language acquisition is a process of both biological and social factors. Interactionists believe that language development produced through a combination of genetically determined predispositions and environmental stimuli help teach language (Campbell et.

al, 2011). Lev Vygotsky, a Russian developmental psychologist and major proponent of the interactionist theory, argues that language learning is “mobilized by the desire of children to communicate to others” (Campbell et. al, 2011).Interactionists focus on Vygotsky’s model of collaborative learning as an integral part of the theory. Collaborative learning is the idea that conversations with older generations help stimulate children cognitively and linguistically and that without such stimuli, children fail to acquire language successfully (Campbell et. al, 2011).

The effects of an environment lacking in stimuli conducive to language acquisition are still unclear; however, Eric H. Lenneberg, a German linguist and neurologist, believes that a child living in an environment without linguistic stimuli will fail to acquire language all together (Lenneberg, 1967).Lenneberg’s Critical Period Hypothesis explores the extent to which the ability to acquire language biologically linked to age. The hypothesis states that the first few years of life is the ideal period in which language acquisition is readily accepted and easily learned, any time after, usually thought to be after the age of five and until the onset of puberty, language acquisition is much more difficult and ultimately less successful (Lenneberg, 1967). If language acquisition does not develop until after the critical period, the individual may never have a full command of language (Lenneberg, 1967).Support for Lenneberg’s hypothesis comes from studies of “feral” children.

These children were living outside the scope of human society, products of abuse or abandonment or isolated from human contact. The most famous and recent case of a feral child is the case of “Genie”. Genie’s parents, Irene and Clark Wiley met in a Hollywood drugstore where Irene worked behind the soda fountain and Clark was soon to be working as a machinist for an aircraft company (Rymer, 1993 p. 12). Not long after the two were married, Clark forced Irene to quit her job behind the soda fountain.Clark was jealous of even her slightest attention towards others and wanted her to stay home.

After a childhood raised by two sets of parents, Irene was heading into an extremely restricted marriage. Five years into their marriage, Irene was pregnant with her first child, a girl who Clark did not want. Late into her pregnancy, Clark beat Irene and she was sent to the hospital for care. While in the hospital, she gave birth to a healthy daughter. The infant’s crying infuriated Clark so much, he put the baby in the garage where she died at the age of two and a half months. Irene’s second child died, not long after birth, of Rh blood poisoning.

It was not until Irene’s third pregnancy that a healthy son was born. Although surviving infancy, the son was a product of neglect. He was slow to walk and at age three, had not yet been toilet- trained. Clark’s mother soon took him in for several months to get him “back on track” (Rymer, 1993, p. 13).

In April of 1957, Irene gave birth to her fourth child, a girl. Genie was born with Rh blood poisoning but had a transfusion shortly after birth. It was not until a year later when the extreme neglect of Genie occurred. On one of the visits by Clark’s mother, the mother died from a hit- and- run accident by a drunken driver.

After his mother’s death, Clark became extremely depressed and violent (Rymer, 1993, p. 15). He quit his job with the aircraft company and moved his family into his mother’s house where he stayed “as a recluse, with his family as virtual prisoners” (Rymer, 1993, p. 16). Blinded in one eye, due to a traumatic childhood experience, Irene was completely dependent on her husband. Captive in her home by her husband, Irene and her son lived in silence on the living room floor while her tyrannical husband sat in a chair holding a gun; however, Genie took the blunt of the abuse from her father (Rymer, 1993, p.

6). After an early medical exam, a doctor noted Genie was a little “slow” in her abilities. Her father took this to mean that Genie was severely retarded and needed “protection” from the evil of the outside world (Rymer, 1993, p. 17). Susan Curtiss, an investigator on the “Genie” (the name “Genie” was given to protect the child’s identity) case writes an account of her investigation: In the house, Genie was confined to a small bedroom, harnessed to an infant’s potty seat. Genie’s father sewed the harness, himself; unclad except for the harness, Genie was left to sit on that chair.

Unable to move anything except her fingers and hands, feet and toes, Genie was left to sit, tied- up hour after hour, often into the night, day after day, month after month, year after year. At night, when Genie was not forgotten, she was removed from her harness only to be placed into another restraining garment- a sleeping bag [that] her father had fashioned to hold Genie’s arms stationary… Therein restrained, Genie was put into an infant’s crib with wire mesh sides and a wire mesh cover overhead. Caged by night, harnessed by day, Genie was left to somehow endure the hours and years of her life (as cited in Rymer, 1993, p. 7).

Curtiss goes on to describe the despicable conditions Genie was living in. Genie’s father banned Irene and her son from talking or going into the room with Genie. What little conversation that was in the house, was kept at a whisper. Genie would not be able to hear anything outside her door and therefore received very little auditory stimulation. After being left for hours on end, Genie would attempt to get attention by making noises, after which her father would come in and beat her with a stick that was left in the corner of the room. Genie learned to keep silent and suppress all vocalization (Rymer, 1993, p.

18).Just as there was little auditory stimulation, there was equally little visual stimulation. The room in which Genie lived was completely empty except for her potty seat and a closet door. There were occasional plastic raincoats that Genie was allowed to play with as well as an occasional TV guide, empty containers, and empty thread spools (Rymer, 1993, p.

19). Her diet was equally limited. Genie ate mostly soft foods: baby foods, cereals, and the occasional soft-boiled egg. She was fed hurriedly to avoid long exposure to her father and if she choked on her food or spit it out, her nose would be rubbed in it (Rymer, 1993, p. 9).

Clark doubted seriously that his daughter would survive beyond her twelfth birthday. He was convinced she would die. He promised his wife that if Genie did survive, he would let her seek help for Genie. Her twelfth birthday passed and Clark reneged on his promise (Rymer, 1993, p. 19).

In the fall of 1970, after a violent argument with her husband, Irene and her daughter stumbled their way through the doors of the welfare office in Temple City, California. Looking for the office of welfare for the blind, the two managed to walk into the general welfare office.At this time, Genie was thirteen and a half years old, weighed only fifty- nine pounds, and stood only fifty four inches tall (Rymer, 1993, p. 9).

The social worker mistook Genie for an unreported six year old with autism. The worker reported it to her supervisor, whom reported it to the police. Genie was in much worse physical condition than originally suspected by the worker; she was incontinent, she could not chew solid food, she could not speak, she could hardly swallow, she could not focus her eyes more than twelve feet away, and she could not cry (Rymer, 1993, p. 0). Genie salivated constantly, spat indiscriminately, had a ring of hard callus around her buttocks, she had thin hair, she could not move her limbs to full extension, and she had no perception of heat or cold (Rymer, 1993, p.

10). After examining the child and questioning the mother, police launched an investigation and arrested the parents on charges of child abuse. Genie had been discovered at last.On the morning of November 20, 1970, the morning Clark and Irene were to appear in court on charges of willful abuse or injury to the person or health of a minor, Clark committed suicide while his son was in the front yard playing with neighborhood friends (Rymer, 1993, p. 20). After the court hearing of her mother and the suicide of her father, Genie was taken in by Jean Butler, her teacher at the Children’s Hospital in Los Angeles, California.

After a few short months, Genie was taken in by new foster parents, David Rigler, a therapist, and his wife Marilyn. Marilyn became Genie’s new teacher (Rymer, 1993).During the four years that Genie stayed with the Riglers, she began to learn some aspects of language. Genie now had a stronger command of vocabulary than most children acquiring language did (Rymer, 1993). In 1974, the National Institute of Mental Health cut off its funding for the rehabilitation and research for Genie.

She was then placed in several different foster homes where her abilities regressed severely (Rymer, 1993). Genie is still alive today living in a foster home for adults with disabilities in California. Although there are limitations to the case, Genie is the greatest support for Lenneberg’s critical period hypothesis.After never learning language until puberty, Genie was unable to master language fully. Theorists disagree that the “Genie” case supports Lenneberg’s theory.

They say Genie suffered traumatic abuse and neglect during her childhood that made her fear language and hindered her ability to learn. Genie’s case is one of the most highly publicized cases of linguistic deficits. Her case goes to show that there is no certainty to how children come to acquire language. Her case supports the theory that language is learned as well as the theory that a child must want to speak in order to be able to acquire language fully.Her case also supports the theory of critical periods.

This is the essential reason as to why language acquisition is such an intense argument. References Campbell, Ashley, & Mailman, Lindsay. (2011, Nov. 19). Language Development.

Retrieved from http://languagedevelopment. tripod. com/id15. html.

Clark, Eve V. (2003). First Language Acquisition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Lenneberg, Eric H. (1967). Biological Foundations of Language. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Rymer, Russ.

(1993). Genie: An Abused Child’s Flight From Silence. New York, NY: Harper Collins Publishers, Inc.