gerry reinhart-waller <
walu-@...> wrote:
original article:
http://www.egroups.com/group/cybalist/?start=891
> Gene commented: Could you tell us exactly what's changed in the past
> few months?
>
> Gerry here: Here's my reply:
>
> A new title from Michael Tomasello available in January/February 2000
>
> The Cultural Origins of Human Cognition
> Michael Tomasello Our Price: 18.50
> Hardcover - 272 pages (28 February, 2000)
> Harvard University Press; ISBN: 0674000706
> Not Yet Available: You may still order this title. We will send it to
GK: Ok, it's still unreleased, so I looked it up on the Amazon:
"Synopsis
This work builds a bridge between evolutionary theory and cultural
psychology. The author is one of very few people to have done
systematic research on the cognitive capacities of both nonhuman
primates and human children. This work identifies what the differences
are, and suggests where they might have come from. 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. These include capacities fort sharing
attention with other persons, for understanding that others have
intentions of their own; and for imitating, not just what someone else
does, but what someone else has intended to do. In this discussions of
language, symbolic representation, and cognitive-development, the
author describes with authority and ingenuity the "ratchet effect" of
the capacities working over evolutionary and historical time to create
the kind of cultural artifacts and settings within which each new
generation of children develops. He also proposes a novel hypothesis,
based on process of social cognition and cultural evolution, about what
makes the cognitive representations of humans different from those of
other primates."
So how does it support your theory that human babies have an advantage
in learning their genetic mother's language?
> Trends in Cognitive Sciences Vol. 3, No. 12, December 1999
> http://www.biomednet.com/library/tics
> ---------------------------------------------
GK: Couldn't access this. What kind of info they have there?
> >From the current issue of Brain
>
> Brain, Vol. 122, No. 11, 2015-2032, November 1999
> Invited review
>
> The genetic basis of cognition
> Jonathan Flint
> Institute of Molecular Medicine, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK
>
> Correspondence to: Institute of Molecular Medicine, John Radcliffe
> Hospital,
> Oxford OX3 9DS, UK E-mail: jf@...
>
> The molecular characterization of single-gene disorders or chromosomal
> abnormalities that result in a cognitive abnormality (predominantly
>-snip-
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).
http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/info-childes.html
>>>investigation. And MIT is an incredible technological institute in
Cambridge and P.K.Kuhl's research is most impressive, but did you notice
that in her bibliography the only texts she lists are those written by
her? IMO that's a good beginning, but definitely not the definitive
word on language acquisition. And in the true meaning of "science", what
Kuhl presents is only a brief slice of the pie. Gerry<<<
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.
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.
GK