3 ms·

It has been shown that the input that small children receive is much much larger than originally thought by the proponents of that theory. How parents stress ce

It has been shown that the input that small children receive is much much larger than originally thought by the proponents of that theory. How parents stress certain words, how they make small pauses, how they look and point at things when talking, how they repeat a sentence correctly with emphasis when the child said it wrongly (Child: "apple green". Parent: "Oh, you want the GREEN APPLE? Here you are."). Wasn't there even a guy who said "How can children learn languages without pre-determined laws? Wouldn't that require being constantly corrected by their parents?". Well, see my example with the apple. Anyway, this discussion is going nowhere. Notify me if there is other evidence apart from "I cannot imagine how the human brain can do that". As other people have written in a similar thread some months ago, this is pseudo-science.

bolzano 5y ago
I'd like to read more about that, could you give a source? From my own readings, I thought that there is very good evidence adults don't bother to correct children in a lot of cases, and that children ignore the corrections completely anyway. They also don't seem to make the kinds of mistakes that you'd expect. A great summary of some of some research I've been reading on this is the paper [1]. Also Steven Pinker's early work [2] is fascinating and easy reading. I would love to bring myself up to date though, if these things have changed lately. Any help appreciated. [1] Gleitman & Newport paper The Invention of Language by Children - https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~gleitman/papers/Gleitman%20&%20Newport%201995_The%20invention%20of%20language%20by%20children.pdf https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~gleitman/papers/Gleitman%20&%20Ne... [2] Steven Pinker - Why the Child Holded the Baby Rabbits - http://socsci.uci.edu/~lpearl/courses/readings/Pinker1995Ch5_RuleLearning.pdf http://socsci.uci.edu/~lpearl/courses/readings/Pinker1995Ch5...
bedobi 5y ago
> this is pseudo-science Couldn't agree more. It's barely even that, it's kind of just armchair philosophizing. (which is fun and often actually useful, but not sufficient to make claims about universal laws)

bolzano 5y ago

I'd like to read more about that, could you give a source? From my own readings, I thought that there is very good evidence adults don't bother to correct children in a lot of cases, and that children ignore the corrections completely anyway. They also don't seem to make the kinds of mistakes that you'd expect. A great summary of some of some research I've been reading on this is the paper [1]. Also Steven Pinker's early work [2] is fascinating and easy reading. I would love to bring myself up to date though, if these things have changed lately. Any help appreciated. [1] Gleitman & Newport paper The Invention of Language by Children - https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~gleitman/papers/Gleitman%20&%20Newport%201995_The%20invention%20of%20language%20by%20children.pdf https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~gleitman/papers/Gleitman%20&%20Ne... [2] Steven Pinker - Why the Child Holded the Baby Rabbits - http://socsci.uci.edu/~lpearl/courses/readings/Pinker1995Ch5_RuleLearning.pdf http://socsci.uci.edu/~lpearl/courses/readings/Pinker1995Ch5...

bedobi 5y ago

> this is pseudo-science Couldn't agree more. It's barely even that, it's kind of just armchair philosophizing. (which is fun and often actually useful, but not sufficient to make claims about universal laws)