Re: sensitive period in language acquisition?-Piotr

Piotr wrote:
In some situations complex instinctive behaviours are activated
notwithstanding our conditioned reflexes or consciously acquired
cultural patterns. Any woman who gives birth to and then feeds and
tends her child is driven as much by her instincts as by other forces
(and, presumably, the more so, the better). Language-specific
conventions are of course transmitted EXCLUSIVELY by cultural means,
but the impulse to communicate with the environment -- to work out and
internalise the code used by the surrounding speech community -- is no
doubt instinctive in infants.
Piotr

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - Hi Piotr
Per mother and child, see my posting to Alexander. I agree, there are
deep located propensities to behavior that are instinctive in the sense
of "compelling". And probably one of the most compelling is the
mother-child relationship. It has great survival value to our species
and must be fiercely strong. I am guessing.... but even here I wouldn't
be surprised if it is not beyond modifications from enculturation. But
as I said, I am guessing.

Per child's "instinct" to work out and internalize the code used by the
surrounding speech community".
Here Instinct is used closer to sense that Psychologists use it – as
hard-wired, behavior that pretty much cannot be modified. The need to
interact with the environment is one of the fundamental functions of
the brain (the other majors is to direct regulate etc bodily functions
and behaviors related to survivlal of the individual and species). In
this sense, the need to work and internalize the code is very basic to
us, its not a set behavior pattern per se(instinct) – but what we are
about-fundamental (and for most of all the other higher animal forms as
well).

But I am not sure how much of that role is specific to speech.
Vocalization abilities go pretty far down the animal chain, as do other
means of communication (behavior, chemical, etc). But speech –
Language – as we are using it here at this Web site is pretty limited.
True language MAY be the exclusive domain of Humans. But the higher
level animals probably have capabilities that are very close. – The
point being, that language abilities are upper level cortical
functions. The need to "work out and internalize" what is happening in
the environment is fundamental. The need for that to occur through
language is probably very much less so. If a person is born deaf, they
still manage to work out some internalization – even without ASL or lip
reading capabilities.

I do not know how finely this line is divided. It not impossible that
human reliance on language has established some important cortical
activity patterning over the millions of years of evolution. If this
was true, it would suggest specific cortical-location associations and
we know that some language skills are roughly related to specific
cortical locations (centers). However in most cases, if these centers
are damaged the brain is capable of being reprogrammed to take over
those functions in a different part of the cortex (implying a learning
function for speech). And we know that children deprived of exposure
to a language in their early years, never over come this dis-ability –
again implying important early stage programming (learning). So the
evidence is not clear, but seems to show a low likelihood of what you
would call an instinctive need to use Language as we mean it at this
Web site. Work out and internalize – absolutely. Communicate, pretty
much so – use language, well maybe. At least that's how I see it now.
But as I said my education in this area is dated. So maybe someone has
new information.

Brent