Re: History of French
From: Ruud Harmsen (realemailseesite01_at_rudhar.com)
Date: 09/18/04
- Next message: Mxsmanic: "Re: History of French"
- Previous message: Ruud Harmsen: "Re: History of French"
- In reply to: Mxsmanic: "Re: History of French"
- Next in thread: Mxsmanic: "Re: History of French"
- Reply: Mxsmanic: "Re: History of French"
- Reply: Miguel Carrasquer: "Re: History of French"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 23:12:53 +0200
Sat, 18 Sep 2004 06:43:02 +0200: Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@hotmail.com>: in
sci.lang:
>Ruud Harmsen writes:
>
>> Right. Her story convinced me that a critical period exists, but I
>> don't think it tells us much about why L1 learning and post-puberty L2
>> learning works so much differently.
>
>They _appear_ to work differently. But there's no way to control for
>the huge environmental differences between the two, so there's no way of
>knowing if there is any different in aptitude at all.
They _are_ very different, that's easy to verify, and it has been
done. The question is why there are different: aptitude or
attitude/situation? Genie case does not tell us much, if anything,
about that.
I think that what we agree upon. But the others don't unless I
misunderstood them.
So my question remains: how does Genie's case show us that differences
in L1 and L2 learnings (speed, order, best method) are cause by
aptitude? By changes in the brain?
-- Ruud Harmsen - http://rudhar.com
- Next message: Mxsmanic: "Re: History of French"
- Previous message: Ruud Harmsen: "Re: History of French"
- In reply to: Mxsmanic: "Re: History of French"
- Next in thread: Mxsmanic: "Re: History of French"
- Reply: Mxsmanic: "Re: History of French"
- Reply: Miguel Carrasquer: "Re: History of French"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|