Re: Do children learn language more easily?

In article <xylrgs0lvypo.39yzhszcg4qz$.dlg@xxxxxxxxxx>,
"Brian M. Scott" <b.scott@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 12:16:03 -0500, Nathan Sanders
<nsanders@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
<news:nsanders-C9D25D.12160203122006@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> in
sci.lang:

[...]

There are cases of so-called `feral children' who have had
no known linguistic input during the first five years or
so of their lives, and they were unable to learn
language in a way resembling human usage.

Do you know of any who weren't also grossly mistreated?

I assume you mean aside from the lack of linguistic input, which is
itself gross enough mistreatment for my taste.

It's certainly the case that their childhoods were abnormal in other
respects besides language, and one could argue that these
abnormalities were sufficient to coincidentally account for their
inability to learn language, but somehow not impacting certain other
non-linguistic cognitive functions (for example, 'Genie' tested above
average in various non-linguistic tasks.)

But we can move the realm of feral children to deaf children to get
some more potential corroboration from more loving childhoods.

Children born deaf who learn sign language late have degraded language
ability in comparison to other children born deaf who learned it
earlier.

Further, even when learning sign language at the same age, children
born deaf have degraded language ability in comparison to children who
were born hearing (and thus received linguistic input during their
early years) but learned sign language after losing their hearing
later in childhood.

With a linguistic critical period, these and numerous other disparate
facts are all accounted for by a single explanation that mirrors other
human critical periods and biologically-timed processes.

Without a linguistic critical period, the data we have from feral
children, deaf children, the universality in the timing and nature of
stages of language acquisition, the differences between L1 and L2
acquisition, etc. are all unconnected, requiring multiple diverse
explanations that coincidentally converge on an apparent, but
ultimately illusory, critical period.

The multiple-explanation theory of critical period effects is not
necessarily incorrect, but it's certainly not very Occam-friendly.

Nathan

--
Nathan Sanders
Linguistics Program
Williams College
http://wso.williams.edu/~nsanders/

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Why cant daddy?
    ... Your assertion is that all those who learned the language of the community ... around them during the critical period learned it perfectly? ... Performance is what matters, what gets noticed, what provokes, ... but that doesn't indicate a lack of mental command of the ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: Do children learn language more easily?
    ... > language in a way resembling human usage. ... were born hearing (and thus received linguistic input during their ... One study shows that children given cochlear implants in their first year of life develop language and speech skills remarkably similar to those of hearing children ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: Why cant daddy?
    ... non-linguistic learning, in a way that hardly any immersion language ... course in later life can achieve. ... around them during the critical period learned it perfectly? ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: Why does English have so few compound words?
    ... language, because it takes most of them from the Latin and the Greek ... French was the language of the aristocracy and those ... who dealt with them at a critical period and Latin the language of the ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: Do children learn language more easily?
    ... so of their lives, and they were unable to learn ... language in a way resembling human usage. ...
    (sci.lang)