Brent writes:
Hi Gerry
I don't have any real objection Gerry. I guess I misunderstood your
early postings, I thought you were asking if there was an
inherent/built-in structure in the brain (what I thought you meant by
template) related to specific languages patterns. My long winded
explanations were only an attempt to provide you with information
showing how higher brain functions (such as language skills) don't have
much to do with inherent structures. Sorry for mis-reading you. Really
communicating is the hardest part of a language.
Gerry here: Hi Brent. We still haven't made it to the same track.
Actually by the term "template" I'm referring to something that exists
in the brain pre-birth. Something that the infant had in place from the
moment of conception; something that is genetically contained within the
egg and holds the traits for certain heritable abilities like music
ability, sports prowess, language facility etc. It would appear that
this or these heritable factors should be as prevalent as the genetic
defects that folks will likely be selecting against. It appears to me
that if we can read the genetic defects on the chromosome, we should
also be capable of discovering these "genius" traits. QUESTION: How
can the geneticists label only "bad" genes. It would appear that "good
genes" must be present. And I really didn't mind your "long winded
explanations" but I do have a question: WHY do you believe that "higher
brain functions" have nothing to do with inherited structures? Are you
saying that those "sperm banks" with genius sperm (famous scientists,
opera singers, writers etc) are merely a Madison Avenue advertising
ploy?
Brent: So I don't make the same mistake: What I get from this posting
is the suggestion that a young child who is emerged in the native
language is going to have a much easier time of it, than a child of the
same age, who has already learned a language and has to pick up a second
one.
Gerry: You almost have it. A child who is born to native Russian
parents will have an easier time communicating in Russian than another
child (French speaking) of the same age who learns Russian as a second
language.
Brent wrote: I take it, that you assume that the child who already has
learned a language will have formed a neural pattern in their mind for
interpreting what they hear.
Gerry: Yes, and also the newly born child on day 1 will also have a
template in his brain that will allow him/her NOT to struggle with
syntax i.e. with voice, tense, word order, sentence agreement etc.
Are we in agreement or disagreement so far?
Brent wrote: As to the exact age when this pattern is established, I
can't really answer your question with facts. You are now wandering
over into Developmental Psychology and I didn't really study that area.
Gerry: I have never studied Developmental Psychology either but I have
taught school for more than a decade and have raised my daughter so one
might say I have hands on learning.
Brent writes: In fact, if I had understood you correctly the first
time, I wouldn't have posted at all, because I don't have anything
helpful to offer. I can suggest that it would have to be post birth,
because the language sounds would need to be associated with things the
child can see and experience.
Gerry: As far as associating sounds (vocabulary) with what can be seen
and experienced, you're absolutely correct. But what about syntax
things like subject-predicate agreement or tense or voice etc. These
aspects of language are never taught to the young child but he/she
learns them. And a family that uses a large vocabulary produces a child
that uses a large vocabulary. Does this mean that the child learns ALL
the vocabulary words from the parents? Or from his/her peers? I agree
that they learn much of their vocabulary this way; however, I don't
think they learn it all.
Gerry
P.S. Ann it's always nice chatting with you :-)
--
Gerald Reinhart
Independent Scholar
(650) 321-7378
waluk@...
http://www.alekseevmanuscript.com