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/