I suspect you would find it very difficult if you continued to adjust your speech patterns to accomodate every irregular use of the English language you’d heard since the day you were born. Your ability to rapidly learn language stopped for a reason.
I’m tempted to call this a just-not-so story.
Not only do I disagree with the general point (about “rigidity” being advantageous), but my sense is that language is probably one of the worst examples you could have used to support this position.
It strikes me as wrong on at least 4 different levels, which I shall list in increasing order of importance:
(1) I don’t think it would be particularly difficult at all. (I.e. I see no advantage in the loss of linguistic ability.)
(2) People probably do continue to adjust their speech patterns throughout their lives.
(3) Children do not “accommodate every irregular use [they have] heard since the day [they] were born”. Instead, their language use develops according to systematic rules.
(4) There is a strong prior against the loss of an ability being an adaptation—by default, a better explanation is that there was insufficient selection pressure for the ability to be maintained (since abilities are usually costly).
So, unless you’re basing this on large amounts of data that I don’t know about, I feel obliged to wag my finger here.
I’m tempted to agree. When adults spend as much time focussed on learning to speak a language as children do they learn faster.
I read a good, if not new, article about this recently. It’s relevant to a couple posts in this thread, but I figured this was as good a place to insert it as any.
I’m happy to concede the point on childhood learning, but maintain that educational reform is significantly more implementable than brain plasticity pills.
I’m happy to concede the point on childhood learning, but maintain that educational reform is significantly more implementable than brain plasticity pills.
Absolutely. Plain plasticity does very little without a quality learning environment in place. (And a quality learning environment is one of the most powerful ways of fostering brain plasticity!)
I’m tempted to call this a just-not-so story.
Not only do I disagree with the general point (about “rigidity” being advantageous), but my sense is that language is probably one of the worst examples you could have used to support this position.
It strikes me as wrong on at least 4 different levels, which I shall list in increasing order of importance:
(1) I don’t think it would be particularly difficult at all. (I.e. I see no advantage in the loss of linguistic ability.)
(2) People probably do continue to adjust their speech patterns throughout their lives.
(3) Children do not “accommodate every irregular use [they have] heard since the day [they] were born”. Instead, their language use develops according to systematic rules.
(4) There is a strong prior against the loss of an ability being an adaptation—by default, a better explanation is that there was insufficient selection pressure for the ability to be maintained (since abilities are usually costly).
So, unless you’re basing this on large amounts of data that I don’t know about, I feel obliged to wag my finger here.
I’m tempted to agree. When adults spend as much time focussed on learning to speak a language as children do they learn faster.
I don’t quite agree with this, at least as a general rule. (Red King, etc.)
I read a good, if not new, article about this recently. It’s relevant to a couple posts in this thread, but I figured this was as good a place to insert it as any.
I’m happy to concede the point on childhood learning, but maintain that educational reform is significantly more implementable than brain plasticity pills.
Absolutely. Plain plasticity does very little without a quality learning environment in place. (And a quality learning environment is one of the most powerful ways of fostering brain plasticity!)