Tomasello argues
that the roots of the human capacity for symbol-based culture, and the
kind of psychological development that takes p[lace within it, are
based in a cluster of unique human cognitive capacities that emerge
early in human ontogeny.
Gerry: One example I lifted. And these capabilities are located within
the human ontogeny. Thus, if symmbol-based culture exists pre-birth (in
ontogeny) then these babies must have an "inside link" to their mother's
language. But who am I to know.
Gene speaks:
Nothing there to support your theory. I also perused the Info-Childes
List (General Issues in Child Language Development) for the last 6-8
months - nothing there either (no radical new developments that you say
happened in the last couple of months - nothing that contradicts what
Brent, Alexander or myself have been saying here).
Gerry: Acutally what Brent and Alexander have to say is quite current
and also within my frame of reference.
Dr Kuhl works at the University of Washington, what's MIT to do with it?
And the bibliography you refer to was a list of her books describing
her Native Language Magnet Theory, which I used as an example of the
current state of affairs in the studies of the first language
acquisition.
Gerry: And I hope you used other "specialists" for your current state
of affairs in the study of first language acquisition. And sorry that I
thought Kuhl was from MIT. Should have known better.
To sum up, I still have to see anything that contradicts the fact that
all babies are born with no genetic predisposition to mastering their
parents' particular language.
Gerry: You're using the works of ONE person for your so-called
definiteve study on whether babies are genetically predisposed to
mastering their parents language and you disagree with me about the
facts. I gave you three references. There are a lot more out there.
Do some homework.
gerry
--
Gerald Reinhart
Independent Scholar
(650) 321-7378
waluk@...
http://www.alekseevmanuscript.com