Genie #2

1. What was so significant about Chomsky's argument?
The part of Chomsky’s argument that was so significant was that he made “syntax central, and for the first time it was clear how big the task was, how difficult the child’s task was in acquiring language.” This was part of the explanation to why Genie was not learning to speak.

2. What do you make of Chomsky's bird argument on p. 36?
I think that Chomsky’s bird argument is an interesting piece of evidence to his the theory that language is a skill that comes naturally to humans not something that must be learned. It makes sense that a child raised by birds would not end up flying because it is unconditionally impossible for a human to fly; it is simply not a skill humans posses. In Chomsky’s argument, he believes that language is a skill humans innately posses, it, however, must be cultivated.

3. Do you agree with Chomsky's claim about the island at the end of Chapter 7? Please explain your answer.
I agree with Chomsky’s claim about the island experiment at the end of Chapter 7. I think that even if language is a skill which humans innately posses, that skill must be cultivated. However, there are differences between isolating one child with no language, and several children with no language. I think that it would be impossible for the individual to develop language, simply because s/he has no one to interact with. But, I think that if you were to place “prelinguistic children on an island,” eventually some sort of language would develop, for means of communication.

4. In Chapter 10, why were Genie's observers pleased to see her hitting other children?
Genie’s observer’s were pleased to see her hitting other children, because it showed he r progression towards the normalcy of an un-abused child. Where “previously [Genie’s] rage had been directed inward,” her lashing out at other children, showed that “Genie was developing a sense of self.”

5. Describe how Genie's language was developing.
Genie’s vocabulary, as in words she understood, increased enormously, yet her speech progressed very little. “Her curiosity about her new surroundings sent her on a constant quest for the names of things. She would lead one or another of her caretakers around, using their fingers to touch or point to object, while they said the corresponding words. ‘Hungry to learn the words for all the new items filing her senses…’” She began to understand what they object around her were called, and she could understand what they were when said by name, but she could not speak. “Although Genie’s vocabulary increased, her speech stayed limited to a few short utterances; it soon became clear that she was understanding more than she could produce.”

6. After reading Chapter 11, what are the primary differences between the reading and the film?
The primary difference between the reading and the film were that Dr. Itard “terrorized” Victor more than is conveyed in the movie, in attempts to “normalize” him. He actually used a Leyden jar, instead of the closet, in the movie. Also, Dr. Itard “once dangled the boy from a fifth-story window to frighten him out of his recalcitrance.”

7. How did the film, Wild Child impact the symposium members? What is meant by: "all of us saw in the movie what we were prepared to see to confirm to our own biases."?
The Wild Child impacted the symposium members by making them ask questions about how this case of isolation, similar to Genie’s, was handled, what the outcomes were, and what could now possibly be expected of Genie. What is meant by that statement was that those who saw the movie were able to confirm their biases (which were: “what Genie could best reveal to science, and what, in the course of that revealing, science could ethically ask of Genie.”). The Wild Child showed them the “answers” to their questions and biases, but each member really only took away what s/he wanted.

8. What do you think of Dr. Elkind's quote on p. 59? How do you feel about Dr. Freedman's suggestion on p. 59-61?
I agree with Dr. Elkind’s quote. If Genie’s caretakers put too much emphasis on her learning to speak, and only rewarded with “love” when she did well in the speech area, she might not make progress and/or even regress because she would not be getting the attention she generally needed, whether or not she could speak. I think Dr. Freedman’s suggestion is a good one, because it mimics the life of a “normal” child. Is Genie was exposed to one primary caretaker, like a mother, the time could come when she might speak in order to please that caretaker. With so many people paying attention to her, spending time with her, and expecting so much of her, it might have been too much pressure on her to please everyone. She might have made more progress if she had one person who she truly wanted to please because that person was the primary “lover” in her life.

9. Why was it important for Itard to teach Victor to "imagine the needs of others (p. 73)"? Does CAS do this? Why or why not?
It was important for Dr. Itard to teach Victor to “imagine the needs of others” because a “normal” person does not only think of him/herself all the time. A person considers the emotions and needs of others in the world, and thereby is able to properly interact with others. Considering others makes one a better person because one is able to help others, and make the world a better place to live. CAS does do this. It makes the student aware of how thing in the “real world” (i.e. not school or home), work, and it actually makes the students participate in the world, preparing them for life on their own, where it in order to survive, one must consider others, sometimes even before one considers him/herself.

10. After reading Chapter 14, do you agree that Truffaut's film ending was too optimistic?
I agree that Truffaut’s film ending was too optimistic. I do think it would have been better if he had added “an illustrated narrative of what happened to the characters after we them on the screen.” The note the movie ended on suggested that Victor eventually may have learned to speak, and that Dr. Itard continued on caring for him and teaching him. It was good to leave it on an optimistic note, but it was too optimistic and needed a dose of realism. If the narrative had been added, the movie would have better conveyed the limitations of educating “feral children” or “closet children.”