Genie

Question 1

What do we know about Genie’s childhood?

Answer 1

No interaction/stimulus
Rescued age 13
Developed vocabulary
Did NOT develop complex grammar.

Question 2

What can the case of Genie tell us about Skinner? (3)

Answer 2

Genie was a blank slate, but because nobody gave her language to mimic, she did not speak. Once she had the chance to be exposed to language, she copied it and developed vocabulary.​

BUT she did not develop grammar, so it could be argued that Skinner’s theory only works when applied to lexis/vocabulary learning.​

This argument works in many context – we know children copy words, but that isn’t ‘language.’​

Question 3

What can the case of Genie tell us about Bruner? (3)

Answer 3

Children need a LASS to learn language.​

Genie had no LASS.​

When she was rescued and her LASS formed, she learnt language. ​

However, the LASS could only support vocabulalry acquisition.​

Question 4

What can the case of Genie tell us about Vygotsky? (3)

Answer 4

Children need an MKO so they can work within their ZPD.​

Genie did not have an MKO, but once she did she learnt language.​

However, no grammar = MKO of limited use.​

Question 5

What can the case of Genie tell us about Chomsky? (4)

Answer 5

Surely if Genie has a LAD, she can learn language without interaction?​

She did not start talking until she was rescued.​

Does this mean Chomksy is wrong?​

Not necessarily – Chomsky argued for the Poverty of the Stimulus, but not that interaction and hearing language were unnecessary to learn it.​

Also – Lenneburg (1967) explains by arguing that there is a critical period.​

Question 6

What can we generally conclude from the Genie case? (4)

Answer 6

Interaction and imitation are needed to learn language – until she got this, Genie didn’t speak.​

Interaction and imitation are not enough to learn language fully – the grammar of language was not accessible to Genie.​

Grammar may, therefore, develop internally – the LAD.​

The LAD has to be activated before puberty.​