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/