Language Acquisition in Frankenstein :]

Yep :] Me again.. the cheeky sod who always seems to need help with one thing or another!

Anyway.
I've been looking at the way in which Frankenstein's Monster acquires Language in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein.

I've found some important points, especially comparisons with the theories that we now know. Contrasts can be drawn with Chomsky's theory, which suggests that language is innate, and that it cannot be learnt through imitation (Skinner 1957), whereas in Frankenstein, the monster begins to learn language by imitating the DeLacey family.

However, I know there's bound to be some ace facts that I've missed.
Thus, absolutely ANY help would be appreciated.
Hope you dont all think I'm too cheeky; I really do do my own work, although it might not seem like it!

For the creature, language is also learned through reading the books that he finds; notice the strange way that he tends to speak during his early encounters with Victor after this time. But I really don't get how he learned to read from watching them through a hole in thae wall... but anyway... it's not supposed to be realistic, I suppose.

Also interesting to explore could be the effects of the creature's acquisition of language (in relation to his general gaining of knowlege) and the way that this is both corruptive and becomes corrupted.

One thing that I find interesting is the way that the creature corrupts the knowlege that he gains from Felix, who was teaching Safie with good intentions - it is this knowlege of human nature that causes him to frame Justine ('Thanks to the lessons of Felix and the sanguinary laws of man, I had learned now to make mischief'). Not directly relevant, I know, but then again I can never stick to essay titles.

Also, with regard to the effects of language acqisition, it is this basic learning of language that gives the creature the power to expand his knowlege so greatly - from there you could deviate (slightly!) into the theme of knowlege, and the corruption of innocence (link to Rousseau's ideas about childhood here, and the Biblican echos reinforcced by the constant references to Paradise Lost of the Garden of Eden stuff.

That's all I can think of at the moment. Sorry if I've been a bit vague and off-the-topic, but I love all of the ideas brought up in Frankenstein. If you want me to explain anything that I've said, jsut ask.

Good luck with your essay!!
Lioness
xx

That's great help!

Thanks so much!! :D

x

im currently reading this book in english and studying language development in psychology as well as having currently read Paradise Lost. I feel that Skinner's theory of Immitation and rewards best applies to Frankenstein's ability to learn language. While Chompsky's theory holds water in language development in humans, we must remember that Frankenstein cannot be considered human, for he is not naturally produced and is by no means excepted into society. Therefore he can best be compared to an animal. And if one looks at other studies that have been done on animals such as "the Chimp who was raised as a child" and "Skinner's box" evidence of language stongly supports Skinner's theory........but that's just my views on the topic.

Hey...I'm new ....and so was Frankenstein!
I think that Jim Cummins (1996) would set you straight but he is really busy making theories and disproving Chomsky.....so I will let you in on F'stein..
His forte was in BICS.......he was pre-programmed with some DNA from Skinner BUT that wasn't his strongest point.
He hung out in the lab and let the Natural Approach (Krashen/Turrell) take hold and went through some pretty severe Total Physical Response......He didn't live long enough to really show us what Whole Language would have done to him....I think it would have screwed him up even more! The poor creature's affective filter was threadbare and there wasn't really enough comprehensible input for him to REAAAALLLLYYYYYY do what he did....
I think Frankenstein was simply a monster with a short-lived L2 moment!
Yours in linguistics....p.s. I like your blog!

Romantic literature is by its very nature UNrealistic, so don't look for an exact scientific explanation of how the creature learns to talk and to read.

"the creature corrupts the knowlege that he gains from Felix" I disagree! He is just using the whole story of deception and treachery that Felix has told about Safie's father. He also uses what he has learned from the books he reads--Paradise Lost is all about Satan and his evildoing, and Plutarch's Lives shows him all about mischief. Before he learned about these things, he knew and loved only beauty and goodness. Once he reads and hears about man's evil, he puts it into practice.