I think the great strength of Lenneberg's work is that we are thinking about language differently, exploring very different approaches to understanding how language happens. That's great!
But I don't see any way anyone could conclude that there's a language gene. I think it's evident that prepubescent neuroplasticity is the reason kids can learn languages so quickly, but I'm not sure how the cognitive leap to a gene being necessary has been made here. I may need to dive into the work you suggest.
That's an interesting point that you made about pre-pubescent neuroplasticity playing a key role in the fast paced language acquisition for kids. I wonder what would happen, if say, an anomaly occurs in that a person is able to go through puberty whilst still retaining the same level of neuroplasticity. Would that person still be able to acquire languages as easily and naturally as a child without any structured or monitored instruction? If Yes, then the language gene theory loses steam. But if the answer is No, then that adds more steam to the language gene theory.
I think the great strength of Lenneberg's work is that we are thinking about language differently, exploring very different approaches to understanding how language happens. That's great!
But I don't see any way anyone could conclude that there's a language gene. I think it's evident that prepubescent neuroplasticity is the reason kids can learn languages so quickly, but I'm not sure how the cognitive leap to a gene being necessary has been made here. I may need to dive into the work you suggest.
That's an interesting point that you made about pre-pubescent neuroplasticity playing a key role in the fast paced language acquisition for kids. I wonder what would happen, if say, an anomaly occurs in that a person is able to go through puberty whilst still retaining the same level of neuroplasticity. Would that person still be able to acquire languages as easily and naturally as a child without any structured or monitored instruction? If Yes, then the language gene theory loses steam. But if the answer is No, then that adds more steam to the language gene theory.
We could use a Phineas Gage of sorts.
Yes, ideally with a less tragic predicament.
This got me thinking about Gage, so I wrote about him just now:
https://goatfury.substack.com/p/phineas-gage