Re: sensitive period in language acquisition?- Alex

Alexander wrote:
Hi Brent,
I agree in general with all you have said. The only thing I'd like to
comment is
the statement that people have no instincts but "a fear of heights, and
quick
sounds". In my opinion we have inherited almost all the instincts which
mammals
have. How do men behave in the presence of a pretty girl (no matter
what are
their age, marriage status and probability to establish romantic
relations)?
What does a man feel when suddenly know that this child is his (even if
absolutely no additional care is needed)? Is there a big difference
between
hierarchy in a group of baboons and of prisoners (I mean Russian
jails)? The
number of examples can be multiplied


- - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --
- - - - - - -- - - - -- - - - - - - - -
I write:
As I wrote before:

"I have simplified Learning theory a little bit here – left out gobs of
information about how the brain processes change with age etc"

Certainly there are categories of propensity toward behaviors that are
somewhat universal. 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.

Most of the behaviors you and Piotr site are related to hormonal
influences/changes that occur because of the on-set of sexual maturity.
Some also relate to the more primitive parts of our brain (flight or
fight etc)– those located just above the brain stem – and some to a
sort of hormonal switching on that occurs in these areas. The brain is
a very complex – it is not just one thing. Its sort of layered from the
primitive central brainstem – actually even more primitive ganglia in
the spinal cord– to an outer cortical function/layer. Most of the
cognitive activities/abilities occur in the cortex, and include almost
the entire speech activities/recognition etc. (some VERY basic muscle
control functions MAY have deeper roots – and all cortical activity is
integrated vertically within the brain as well). The comments I
directed to Jerry were simplified to give a representation of what
basically occurs in the speech related areas (the cortex). I was a
little hesitant to use the analogy of a computer in my posting (the
analogy of open programming) but where this representation has the
greatest validity it is for the cortical area and functions, such as
speech.

But psychologists don't consider even many of the propensities to the
deep-located behavior as fully hard wired. The upper layers can take
this inclination toward behavior and modify them dramatically, even
reverse them. This is part of our enculturation. (This modification
isn't the same as learning a new fact. It can actually effect how the
brain is wired, how it tends to function.) We don't do that with true
instincts – they pretty much come through in their fully hard-wired,
primative form. And the higher the life form, the less they have in
instinctive, hard wired behavior/abilities.

I don't know if I can agree with the observation about prisoners. I
think a lot of that is also enculturation (the culture of the prison).
Certainly groups of men have associated in confined quarters for long
periods of time without resorting to type of baboon-troop behavior.
Also, when I was a kid I remember reading a book that included true
life experience in a western prison in the late 1800s and remember
being struck on how different prison culture was then, than from what
it was at the time I read the book (a lot more civilized then– and that
was in the wide-open west – cowboy country- where life was cheap).
Since the time of reading it has got even worst, here. (In part
because in the USA, prisons have taken over some of the work of mental
institutions).

Enough of Pysch 101, bring on the linguistics

Brent