HOMEWORK 10: Language Acquisition.

QUESTION 1: FROM ADULT TO CHILD GRAMMAR: PHONOLOGICAL RULES.

In class, we discussed the ways in which children tend to simplify the pronunciation of certain adult sounds at early stages of the language acquisition process. Children are generally quite consistent in their replacements and substitutions at any given time, and that we can actually state phonological rules to derive their pronunciation from the adult one. For example, for the common child pronunciations [wUk] for look and [tw k] for truck we could say something like "replace all liquids (l,r) with the glide [w]".

Come up with rules to describe the replacements and deletions of sounds in the following examples. That is, a) For each word, state the changes that are made to convert an adult pronunciation into this child's form; b) Summarize the general changes based on all the words. Remember that phonological rules usually don't refer to specific sounds like [p], but to natural classes like "voiceless stops". Thus the general rules you give in this part should also be stated in terms of natural classes rather than specific sounds wherever possible.

a. Smith [mIt]

b. skin [kIn] c. play [pe] d. zoo [du] e. John [dan] f. bath [bæt] g. tent [t t] h. teddy [t di] i. crush [k t] j. bump [b p]

c) Based on this pattern, what is the expected pronunciation of the following words? Give answers in phonetic transcription; identify the changes that you predict.

k. stop l. junk m. thumb n. zebra

1 QUESTION 2: GENIE: THE STORY OF A ‘WILD CHILD’ a) Read this background information (various sources):

Genie was discovered by the authorities at the age of 13, having been kept in virtual isolation for most of her life, and treated cruelly by her father (her nearly blind and totally helpless mother was more of a victim than a participant in this cruelty). She had been tied to a ‘potty chair’ for much of the time, given only baby food to eat, and her development was severely retarded. She walked awkwardly, had practically no language, and made very little sound, having been beaten for making a noise. The case came to light when Genie’s 50-year-old mother ran away from her 70-year- old husband after a violent quarrel and took the child along. The mother was partially blind and applied for public assistance. The social worker in the welfare office took one look at Genie and called her supervisor, who called the police. Genie was sent to the Los Angeles Children’s Hospital for tests (November 7, 1970, at the age of 13 years and 7 months). Genie weighed only 59 pounds; she could not walk upright. Charges of willful abuse were filed against both her parents, according to the Los Angeles Times. On the day he was due to appear in court, however, Genie’s father shot himself to death. He left a note in which he wrote. “The world will never understand.” Charges against the mother were dropped. After spending about a year in hospital, and a few months in the home of a Hospital teacher Jean Butler, Genie went to live with her therapist, David Rigler, and his family. He was also in charge of the scientific research project that had funding to study whether Genie was able to develop language, or whether she had passed the critical period for language development. She lived with them for four years, and experienced an intensive care and rehabilitation program. Genie made good progress during her time with the Riglers, with Butler, and when in the hospital. She learned to say and recognize a lot of words, and despite her difficulties with syntax, she communicated well. According to Curtiss 1977, she made around a year’s progress for every year after she was found. After four years with the Riglers, the research funding was cut. Genie still displayed a lot of difficult behaviour, such as tantrums, and looking after her had been a real strain on the family, so the Riglers gave up looking after her, and Genie returned to her biological mother. Unfortunately, Genie was too difficult for her mother to take care of, and she was placed in a series of care homes and foster homes, where she was sometimes treated very badly, and she regressed dramatically at times. Genie now lives in a sheltered accommodation in an undisclosed location in Southern California. This is a small board and care home that Genie shares with two other women; one might hope she is doing well there. Her mother died ca. 2002-2003. Genie has an older brother who is still living (initially rescued and cared-for by paternal grandmother who died before she could rescue Genie as well, it was mainly the brother who had the task of feeding Genie while she was confined. He was forbidden to speak in her presence). The linguists who studied Genie’s linguistic progress are Victoria Fromkin and then- graduate student (now professor at UCLA) Susie Curtiss. Russ Rymer (see below) implied in the 1990s that they benefited monetarily from research funding for studying Genie. In fact, Fromkin never received any grant money for this research, not even for expenses; Curtiss had grant money at $2.20/hr for 10-12 hours per week while she was a graduate student, but no money in subsequent years. They kept in touch with Genie later, and even Genie’s mother considered Curtiss Genie’s ‘true friend.’ Curtiss published a book about Genie based on her dissertation (Genie: A Psycholinguistic Study of a Modern-Day "Wild Child" 1977); she ensured from the start that all royalties from the book go to a trust fund for Genie.

2 b) Read the New York Times review of Russ Rymer’s book about Genie: http://people.brandeis.edu/~smalamud/ling100/NYTimes_review_Genie.pdf

Warning: the article, like the book it reviews, contains many factual errors. Particularly flagrant errors (besides the ‘scientific’ linguistic ones) concern the “third strand” of the story: the scientists have never sued each other, never “publicly excoriated one another” and remained friends and/or respectful acquaintances throughout. Note also inaccuracies in Genie’s story (compare with story above). If you want, you can read the letter to the editor, written by Fromkin and Curtiss in response to the article: http://people.brandeis.edu/~smalamud/ling100/NYTimes_review_response.pdf

Your task: discuss the following statements from the review, in light of what we learned in this course (1-2 sentences each, at most):

i. She could spit out a couple of self-protective phrases like "Stopit!" and "Nomore!" The two phrases are spelled as single words. Assuming this reflects the way Genie herself thought of them, what does this suggest was the stage of Genie’s language acquisition at that point?

ii. … that central and most magical achievement of language, using familiar words to say things she had never heard anyone say The article refers to one of the basic properties of human language – its creativity in building new utterances from familiar building blocks. Name two other, related, basic properties of language (you can refer to first week’s lectures, or to the first or current chapter of Pinker).

iii. Could Genie, at an age when so many of the brain's circuits are thought to be etched for life, take on the task of a 2-year-old and begin learning a mother tongue? The age when the language-acquisition “circuits” in the brain are totally lost is after the critical period is over. Was Genie entirely outside this period?

iv. Mr. Chomsky argued that we don't learn the rules of language, we are born with them, Mr. Rymer says. This is a serious misrepresentation of Chomsky’s views. Discuss very briefly – include a correct statement of Chomsky’s views on acquiring grammatical rules.

v. [Chomsky] proposed that if prelinguistic children were confined to a desert island, their inborn language facility, or the Chomskian "organ," would ultimately produce a language. Discuss this statement briefly (state whether it’s true or false).

vi. Genie did pick up many words during her training, and she could string them together into complex thoughts ("one black kitty" "little bad boy," "bad orange fish - - no eat -- bad fish")… According to the utterances quoted here, what stage of language acquisition was Genie in, at that point?

vii. (continued from previous quote) … but she never managed the rudiments of grammar, an outcome that at once vindicated and denied conventional Chomskian theory.

3 1. What “rudiments of grammar” does the author mean? 2. Supposing this description is accurate, is it true that this result (many words, putting them together, but no “rudiments of grammar”) vindicates Chomskian theory (say why or why not)? 3. Is it true that this result denies Chomskian theory (say why or why not)?

QUESTION 3. ANALYSING GENIE’S SPEECH: WHAT COUNTS AS “ACQUIRING A RULE”

We saw examples of “telegraphic” utterances by Genie, mostly lacking grammatical morphemes, like auxiliaries (be, can), endings (-ing, -ed), articles (a, the), prepositions (in, at), pronouns (I, my, me) do-support, etc. Here are some more: from the 4th and 5th year after Genie’s rescue. Date Genie’s utterance Possible “normal adult” form Jan 1974 After dinner use mixmaster After dinner, I used mixmaster March 1974 Like kick tire Curtiss car I like to kick the tires of Curtiss’s car May 1974 Ball belong hospital The ball belongs to the hospital August 1974 Want Curtiss play piano I want Curtiss to play the piano May 1975 Father hit Genie cry longtime ago Father hit Genie, who cried, a long time ago June 1975 M not like rub hard M does not like to rub hard (??) November 1975 I want live back M house I want to live back at M’s house

These utterances show that Genie had acquired some syntax – e.g, the words are in the correct adult order (more or less), and some of these sentences show considerable complexity (e.g. Want Curtiss play piano and I want live back M house have a sentence-inside-sentence structure). It is also clear that she does not have the same command as a normal 4- or 5-year old child, who would be consistently using adult morphology and syntax at this age.

However, here are some decidedly more “grammatical” utterances by her, in the same time period (Note: each is the most sophisticated utterance she produced by that time). 1. Curtiss is dancing 19 June 74 2. I want think about Mama riding bus 20 Nov. 74 3. I want you open my mouth 5 March 75 4. Teacher is boss at school 2 April 75 5. Coffee on the table is spill[ed] 29 April 75 6. Teacher said Genie have temper tantrum outside 2 May 75 7. I am thinking bout Miss J. at school in hospital 6 May 75 8. M. said not lift my leg in the dentist chair 14 May 75 9. Mr W. say put face in big swimming pool 10 June 75 10. I do not have a toy green basket 25 June 75 11. I do not have a red pail 25 June 75

Despite the existence of these utterances, Curtiss eventually concludes that Genie did NOT actually acquire these “grammatical” morphemes. Why, in your opinion, does she conclude that?

4