Thanks, Craig, for your thoughtful response. It contrasts sharply with the
message I received from Mr. Hanganu (below). It was off-list, but members
should know what to expect if they reply to him.

Dick

Richard,

I am not often redundant, but allow me the luxury this time: You are a piece
of CRAP.

Eduard


On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 9:05 AM, Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>  Dick,
>    I agree very much that we have to locate abilities within the child that
> account for the acquisition of language. The difference of opinion seems to
> be whether these are peculiar to language or whether the child can acquire
> language using normal (domain general) cognitive processes. Either way, it
> is a remarkable task.
>    Tomasello suggests "intention reading" and "pattern finding" as central.
> Bybee mentions "chunking" quite often. We can't learn language without
> accepting the existence of other minds. And what we might be picking up
> might be something more than a formal system--form/meaning pairings, which
> allow us to interact with each other and construe the world in uniquely
> human ways. How do we account for the ability to construct texts, which some
> of us learn to do well and others seem to do poorly? Is that a language
> acquisition process as well? Why don't more five year olds win Pulitzer
> Prizes? (I don't mean that at all sarcastically. I just want to posit the
> possibility that a lot more than additional vocabulary and Standard English
> correction is ahead of the child entering school.)
>    I just question the assumption--I don't mean that all generativists
> believe that--that literacy is just something that happens more or less
> according to a biological program given a fairly routine language
> environment.
>
> Craig
>

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/