Lenneberg's Critical Period Hypothesis & The Case of Genie

The Critical Period Hypothesis states that the first few years of life constitute the time during which language develops readily and after which (sometime between age 5 and puberty) language acquisition is much more difficult, and ultimately less successful. CPH, developed by Eric Lennenberg, in 1967, seemed valid until the case of Genie. Genie at the age of 14, after isolation from the world, proved that a human, post-puberty, could re-code the world, and learn language.  Genie's case, however, captured the attention of so many renounced physiologist and linguist that worked on her case, including Chomsky. Because of Genies, persistence, and ability to form relationships, and gradual ability express her thoughts and emotions, in any verbal non-verbal manner, researchers such as J. Shirley and Dr. Kent, Genie's surrogate father, believed forming relationships, equals, language learning ability.

It make sense because once Genie could identify her feelings and show reaction to people and situations, linguist were able to teacher her simple words for her to apply to her thoughts. Genie's case, in my opinion, exhibits hows closely related a persons emotional state of being and human relationships impact language learning acquisition, rather than negates the CPH theory. I would like to argue partial validity in Lenenberg's theory, because he suggests a correlation in language learning and the concurrence of critical periods for the auditory, visual, and vestibular systems, which I believe to be true. We have discussed, I know Anthony points this out often, a back and forth, (chicken or the egg) idea of language acquisition. Different variables of learning must be considered when assessing a person's language acquisition, and thought and language is requires constant building and connection of ideas and meaning.

I do not agree, after studying Genie's case, that language learning cannot be achieved post-puberty, but I do think the critical period age is when language acquisition occurs most rapidly. There is no doubt in my mind, that Genie suffered major setbacks in her developmental, in her isolation. I think it is essential for children to acquire their first language grammar structure from birth to set them up for success for future cognitive learning and communication skills.  Teachers create second language curriculums in a way that students can relate vocab and structure to their first language, again back and forth, compare and contrast, of language. That is why I would advocate post-pubesent ages to pursue a second language. I would advise your friend's 13 year old to take Spanish as a second language, because teacher's are trained to educate post-pubesenct ages groups second language. It has been successful in our educational system for years and years, depending on student willingness to learn. I think the the Critical period age would allow for a more rapid second language cognition, but I think once first metalinguistic concepts are established, there is still so much language learning opportunity for students of any age.