Re: sensitive period in language acquisition

From: Gene Kalutskiy
Message: 907
Date: 2000-01-14

GK: Sorry for the mess in my previous post - the "wrap words" option
messed it up.

gerry reinhart-waller walu-@... wrote:
original article:http://www.egroups.com/group/cybalist/?start=903
> --snip--
> Brett writes:
> Remember, I was talking to Jerry specifically about
> LEARNING abilities related to speech. I know I used instincts as a
> counter-illustration but that was a simplificiation because she was
> looking for an ingrained (hard-wired) "template". It would be a
mistake
> to take what was said about this narrow aspect of brain function
> (Learning languages /speech) and apply it to brain functions and
> behavior as a whole. It's a lot more complicated than that.
>
> Gerry here: I can't imagine what I might have said to lead you to
think
> I was looking for a "hard-wired" template. Actually I don't even know
> what is meant by "hard-wired". What question I posited was whether
this
> "template" was in the infants head at birth, pre-birth, or post
birth.

GK: How 'bout this?:

gerry reinhart-waller walu-@... wrote:
original article:http://www.egroups.com/group/cybalist/?start=877
> Gerry here:
> > If the template began to appear when the child began speaking, then
a
> > child speaking his native tongue should have the same facility in
> > learning a given language as a non-native speaker. This is not the
case.
> > Thus I think this template had to appear in the child's head before
> > he/she began to speak. Why do you think otherwise?
> > Gerry
>
> Sasha: Do you mean that children have the inborn predisposition to
> learn the language (or language type) of their parents easier and
> quicker than other languages?
> Theoretically we can consider such a hypothesis, it doesn't contradict
> to basic biological laws. But I have never heard about facts which
could
> support it (maybe I'm not well awared about).
>
> Gerry: I guess the only "facts" are those that we get through the use
> of logic or using the negative hypothesis, and we both know that these
> facts are "unscientific".
>
> Sasha: I deeply doubt that it could work. Too weak is the connection
> between the language and the biological peculiarities of the speakers,
> too quickly (in biological scale) languages change, too big is the
> grammatical difference between apparently related languages (take
> English and Russian).
>
> Gerry: Actually I think the connection between language and biology is
> far from weak, the quickness with which languges change is in the eye
of
> the beholder, and the grammatical differences between English and
> Russian are not that great!
>
> Sasha: Or you meant something other? Than explain, please.
>
> Gerry: No, I think you have my meaning.

GK: Or this:

gerry reinhart-waller walu-@... wrote:
original article:http://www.egroups.com/group/cybalist/?start=879
> By template I mean a predesign or a map that assists the infant in
> learning his/her native tongue. I don't know how to scientifically
> prove this notion, but I do know that a native born speaker learns his
> native language with facility while a child age 1 or so would
experience
> some difficulty in learning the same language as a second language.
My
> question is why does this occur.
> Gerry

... Or almost any other Gerry's post prior to #903. I'm not too sure we
need to continue this thread any further.

Gene