Introduction
For psychologists and language experts who are interested in learning more about brain development, especially language development, the Genie case has grown to be crucial. Scientists and psychologists have gained a better understanding of the biological and emotional requirements of people at various stages of development because of cases like this. Several theories, including learning theory, nativist theory, and interaction theory, can be used to examine Genie’s language development.
Main body
One approach that might be successful in understanding the Genie’s development is learning theory. This idea holds that young infants acquire behavioral patterns through mimicking others, particularly their parents, relatives, and friends who act as role models (Gleason & Ratner, 2022). As a result, she lacked a supportive social environment, and her parents largely ignored her emotional and biological needs. Additionally, microsystems that are near the individual, such as parents, siblings, and brothers, have an impact on their social development (Gleason & Ratner, 2022). The situation of Genie fits this paradigm since she was unable to learn about culture, language, trends, or her behavioral development after being cut off from her usual setting.
Genie’s developmental capacity to acquire a language with little or no human connection lends credence to nativism. Nativism claims that given typical care, the kid will make use of her intrinsic capacity for spoken language comprehension, but Genie has not had anything like typical care (Gleason & Ratner, 2022). Thus, it may be deduced that Genie would have learned the language if she had been treated regularly because the ability to grasp language is ingrained in human brains.
The Genie case was a quintessential illustration of what might occur when a person lacks social interactions. It was difficult for her to understand conventional meanings, symbols, and interactions because she had little to no touch with the outside world. The interactionist theory explains how children acquire language by combining social and biological viewpoints (Gleason & Ratner, 2022). Because of this, Genie has always had a difficult time engaging with others, particularly her peers, and discovering her surroundings.
The assumption that humans have a crucial period for language development was partially refuted by the scientifically driven construction of Genie. She was thirteen when she was saved, and her window of opportunity for training was already missed (Pines, 1981). At some point, her difficult childhood hampered her education and prevented her from learning the language and how to interact with her surroundings. However, as it proved later, Genie’s difficult childhood had an impact on her learning and slowed her development in picking up the language and adjusting to her surroundings (Pines, 1981). As a result, while Genie’s instance partially refuted the idea, it also provided support because no more appreciable advancement in language learning was made. Thus, even if the theory that there was a crucial time for language development has been seriously questioned, it still makes sense and merits more in-depth investigation.
Conclusion
The case of Genie demonstrates that while humans are capable of learning new skills on their own, they nevertheless require a nurturing and loving environment to produce positive outcomes. In addition, Genie’s instance gave scholars a chance to learn more about language acquisition control. Although the idea of a crucial phase in language development has been disproved, it still makes sense and needs additional, in-depth investigation.
References
Gleason, J. B., & Ratner, N. B. (2022). The development of language. Plural Publishing.
Pines, M. (1981). The civilizing of Genie. Psychology Today, 15(9), 28–34.