what can someone figure out about children who have never been exposed to language?

Answer 1

Not much. Feral or severely neglected children who don't grow up around language can barely think, much less think in terms of something you'd understand. The human brain is extremely complex, but very delicate in that it needs certain stimulation to develop properly. If a child isn't given stimulation to develop language, it causes severe cognitive deficiencies, and usually some mental health problems, as well. Language is a crucial part of the human experience, and if children aren't exposed to it, they not only don't develop language, they don't develop other functions as well, like emotions and communication and logic, things like that.

It's a horrible tragedy when kids don't get language stimulation. They just can't relate to people in a meaningful way--sometimes they make some progress when they're put in a supportive, healthy environment, but you can't undo the damage of growing up without language as a child.

Answer 2

there is a critical language-learning period in a child's development... after about age 7, a child will probably never learn to speak if he was not exposed to language. my little brother was not exposed to language until he was almost 6, and now he is around language all the time but cannot speak or understand any word except the word "sit"

Answer 3

Yes, youngsters can be trained a language after 4 years of no speakme. Some individuals suppose that there's a "imperative interval" for finding out languages -- that to be a "local speaker," a individual has to be trained a language earlier than the onset of puberty, in any other case he/she can have a less than perfect accessory and different issues. Other individuals, just like the linguist Steven Krashen, suppose that the "imperative interval" is a fable -- youngsters best be trained languages extra simply on the grounds that they are compelled into environments that drive them to be trained languages. People like that say it's not relevant while a individual learns a language -- language finding out is viable during lifestyles. Hypothetically, permit's assume a loved ones of Koreans who transfer to the United States. None of them talk a lot English. The father is going and works in a enterprise in Koreatown in which he speaks Korean all day together with his buddies and rarely speaks English. The mom remains dwelling, and spends her day speakme along with her Korean peers and looking Korean dramas. The youngster is going to an American basic institution 8 hours an afternoon, then has 3 hours an afternoon of homework (in English) and performs with the vicinity children (who're all English audio system). The child finally ends up speakme the excellent English, no shock. So why does the child talk larger English than the father and mother? Is it on the grounds that the child has an "innate language finding out mechanism?" That's what the "imperative interval" advocates declare. Or is it simply on the grounds that the child is the one one being immersed in English close to 24/7? That's what Steven Krashen might say. Linguists disagree approximately this. Personally, I educate children English for a residing (in Japan). That's my task. And I do not consider the children I educate are any "larger" at settling on up languages than adults. In truth, most of the children have to have a phrase repeated to them again and again for plenty of weeks with a purpose to receive it. An grownup would prefer up the identical phrase in a single lesson. Adults are a lot larger at memorization and making use of laws like grammar laws than children are. An grownup may also be educated to talk a language conversationally in a single in depth 12 months of research, while I have no longer visible any person-12 months-ancient youngsters who're equipped to have a tight dialog. For essentially the most side, I accept as true with Steven Krashen. However, I consider that factors of the "imperative interval" concept are proper, too, nonetheless. For illustration, if youngsters don't be trained to pronounce the English /th/ sound through a precise age, they are going to grow to be not able to pronounce it later in lifestyles on the grounds that their tongue has no longer received the correct form (this will also be corrected later with surgical procedure, curiously ample, which entails slicing the dermis underneath the tongue). I additionally mostly ponder whether "imperative interval" concept maybe correct involving listening comprehension. It is a scientifically-documented truth that youngsters can pay attention a much broader variety of sounds than adults; nonetheless, this doesn't give an explanation for why grownup local audio system are equipped to get through simply best although the variety of frequencies they may be able to pay attention is narrower. In any occasion, adults CAN be trained languages. I have discovered Korean and Japanese, each in maturity. I'm simply no longer fluent in them. But wholly conversational, and in terms of Korean, complex.

Answer 4

there was a show on discovery health once about kids who were neglected and never exposed to an outside world, besides a dark chamber. it was very interesting.

Answer 5

I'm not sure what you mean by "figure out."

Here's a site on feral children that may address your question.
http://www.feralchildren.com/en/index.php

Answer 6

Not much, you can tell if they are kind or not, but thats about it, no thoughts can be communicated verbally. There is only room to interpret actions.