gerry reinhart-waller <
walu-@...> wrote:
original article:
http://www.egroups.com/group/cybalist/?start=909
> 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.
He's talking about unique human cognitive capacities, but not about a
specific link to the mother's native tongue. Nothing there saying that
a _particular_ language is genetically encoded in a child's brain
making it easier to learn. In the '60s Noam Chomsky put forward a
widely accepted theory of generative grammar, which argues that
children are born with an innate knowledge of the basics that determine
the grammatical structure of _all_ languages (not just the parents'
native language), and that's why they learn their parents' language so
fast when they hear it. So my point is and has been, a mechanism in the
brain facilitating language acquisition in general - maybe,
facilitating acquisition of a particular language or language type - no.
> 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.
"definiteve study" ?? So I gave you one example of recent research
developing from what is common psycholinguistic knowledge, because it
was right on the topic, disproving your hypothesis. Well, you have not
given me one VALID reference to support your own theory. Why don't YOU
do some homework and read some basic stuff, like "Psycholinguistics" by
Joseph Kess, or "The Psychology of Language" by Jerry Fodor, and don't
forget "Syntactic Structures" by Noam Chomsky. Perhaps than we can have
some more depth in our discussion.
gerry reinhart-waller <
walu-@...> wrote:
original article:
http://www.egroups.com/group/cybalist/?start=910
> Gene: Or almost any other
> Gerry's post prior to #903. I'm not too sure we need to continue this
> thread any further. Gene
>
> Gerry: And why not.
It's pointless. You contradict yourself, don't follow common logic and
keep asking questions without ever listening to the responses. That's
why.
GK