An Analysis of ‘ Wolf Children’ story by Applying ‘Poverty ofStimulus’ Argument

【Abstract】This paper talks about the ‘wolf children’ story and ‘poverty of stimulus argument’

from three aspects. Namely， poverty of stimulus， language innateness hypothesis， and critical period. These three theories have important effect on the ‘wolf children’ story. Then it tries to analyze the function that the two aspects make on the wolf children. Finally， it concludes that how the language produced by people and their relationships.

【Key Words】： Wolf Children; Poverty of Stimulus Argument; Language Innateness Hypothesis; Critical Period

1.The Story of ‘Wolf Children’

In 1940， an India missionary found two ‘wolf children’ among the wolfs， he sent the two ‘wolf children’ to an orphanage. Observing that the‘wolf children’ have the wolf habits such as walk with four limbs， like to stay at dark places， do not wear clothes， and eat fresh meat etc.. They cannot speak but have a smart smell. The missionary tried hard changes on the two ‘wolf children’ to make them human. Unluckily， the younger one was died after 11 moths when she can express her feeling of thirsty and hunger with the pronunciation of ‘bo bo’， and the older one mastered six words after 4 years training， and can walk with two limbs after 5years. After 5 years’ training she can take care of children and cry for something that she can’t do. It was a pity that when she was 17 she died.

1. The Analysis of Poverty of Stimulus Argument and ‘Wolf Children’

Noam Chomsky thinks that people born with language knowledge and the most important demonstration is the poverty of stimulus argument. The poverty of stimulus argument is the core of the generative linguistics and it is the base of the language innateness hypothesis. Language input do not match the children’s final knowledge acquirement ability and it must rely on the innateness language knowledge. Besides， the poverty of stimulus argument needs several factors such as external factors-language acquisition device， imitation， stimulus （continues）， and language environment （social lives）. In terms of the ‘wolf children’， they have the characteristics and mental features of human， but they can’t speak and live as human. First， for they leave from human society and no communications， namely there is no language environment to stimulate their language institutions，.

Second， though they own the neurological system and language acquisition device， they do not live in society and edified by the culture， and have not accept the normal training of the society. Therefore， they don’t form human’s mental phenomenon and spirit world. When they were a baby they live with wolfs and influenced by the wolfs in every aspects including their mental and physiological aspects. On the contrary， for long time living with wolfs， the original neural organ has atrophy and the mental features also have changed. Apparently， only has the human brain and do not have the society activity， people’s mentality cannot develop healthy.

Chomsky believes that children have the language innateness， but there exists a gap between their language input and language acquirement ability. The ‘wolf children’ has the language innateness but no language input. However， after they living with human and for the long time training they know a little bit words. This shows that in their deep mentality the language acquisition device still exists. For the environment making their organs degenerated， but they still possessed the language innateness ability. Actually， they mainly illustrates the factors what affects the language acquisition and the relation between the two theories. When the ‘wolf children’ was a baby they acquire language through imitating the wolfs， expressing their emotion by ‘Howl’ like wolfs. Their language environment had changed， so the language stimulus had changed and the continues stimulation is wolfs’ sound not human language.

1.The Critical Period and ‘Wolf Children’

By analysis of “Wolf Children” summarizing that though the children has the language innateness， they also need the continues stimulus and language environment. The ‘wolf children’ just have the former one and lack of the second one， it’s hard to adjust themselves to the human world. These two theories can not work separately. Meanwhile， neurologists find that the best age for people to acquire a language is before 10 years old because at this time the brain has great plasticity. In 1967 Eric Lenneberg developed this view further， he thinks that the acquirement of the first language must be processed at the age of 2-12 years old， if children cannot accept language input during the key period， they can not master a language through hard study.

The ‘wolf children’ came back to the human society， but they were in the end of the critical period， and the lateralization of the brain has already formed. They cannot acquire native language easily and smoothly like the baby who is in the critical period. Briefly speaking， this hypothesis emphasizes the mental basement of the language " people learn a language not only rely on training or memorizing， but the brain’s ability. Just as the ‘wolf children’ came to human world and trained for a long time， they still can not acquire a language even an easy word. The reason is that if this brain’s ability missed to develop during the baby time， people can not develop a complete mental basement to acquire language.

3.conclusion

Therefore， the ‘wolf children’ also shows the effect of the critical period， and it is a typical model for us to study the first language acquisition and the second language acquisition. On the whole， the acquisition of the language need language input during the right time. If children do not accept the language input in the right time， they will not acquire the language easily and correctly. At the same time the poverty of stimulus also plays an important role in the language acquisition， especially the language input. Meanwhile， the ‘wolf children’ is a good example to explain the theories and also is a good anti-example to certify something in the deep level， which the linguists can not sure at present.

Bibliography

鄧勁雷， 2008，語言天賦說的理論缺陷，《黃岡師范學院學報》第 5 期。

Nagai， K. （1997）. A Concept of Critical Period for Language Acquisition.

SEREIKAITE， M. The Case of ‘Wild Children’ as Evidence for Critical Period Hypothesis.

楊小璐， 2004，關于刺激貧乏的爭論，《外國語雙月刊》第 2 期。