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
Dick Veit wrote:

[log in to unmask]" type="cite">Eduard,

Are you saying a Polish child whose parents constantly speak Polish around her but lack the time or inclination to give her "hard and extensive explicit instruction" will grow up unable to speak Polish? And you say this is true of most European languages? But not English? Are there millions of Europeans who cannot converse apart from muttering a few phrases? I'm trying to imagine medieval Europe with a largely impoverished and illiterate population and presumably few with the time or qualifications to give this hard and extensive instruction. It's a wonder that those languages survived.

I also like this list in that the dialogue is generally polite and free of snide remarks and biting sarcasm. On the other hand my research shows that simple exposure to your messages enables one to become fluent in sarcasm without any hard or extensive instruction at all.

Dick

On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 7:25 AM, Eduard Hanganu <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

I like this e-mail list. It reminds me of the open market in Rome where people come fresh early in the morning eager to share dreams, stories, and all kinds of fiction....

Dabrowska makes a clear a case that Polish cannot be "stolen." People canot learn Polish by simply listening to other people speak the language. The high morphological and syntactic complexity of the Polish language prevents the native speaker from reaching even intermediate levels in the language without hard and extensive explicit instruction. The same applies to German, French, Spanish, and other European languages.

You people need to get off your native dream horses, read some language research text with fresh ink on them, and rething the whole matter. Chomsky is a past thing! Long live Chomsky!

Eduard

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/

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/