nest0r Wrote:Forgot to mention those two books on neuroplasticity, each representing beginning and most recent changes: The Myth of the First Three Years, and How the Brain Changes Itself. Sharon Begley also has a book on the topic, but I'm not sure if it's as neuroscientically sound as the other books I mentioned.

I actually read the Begley book. Well, part of it, I couldn't stomach the whole thing. It was... interesting, I suppose, but I wouldn't call it scientifically sound. If I recall correctly, the author was basically trying to use the existence of neuroplasticity to push some kind of Neo-Cartesian-Dualism, with a hefty dose of quantum consciousness technobabble to fill in the gaps in the argument.

Nice cover, though. Easy to read. Luckily, I doubt anybody's going to be picking up a book with something like "neuroplasticity" in the title without already being capable of spotting the bullshit and moving on to something else.

Good to know. ;p Thanks for taking one for the team.

I see, I think I misunderstood. Granted I didn't read through all the papers linked but skimmed through most of them. But the Critical Period Hypothesis you're referring to is about second language learning right? I thought you meant language acquisition of L1. Is it not still the case that there's still evidence for a critical or optimal period for L1 acquisition or is that also debunked? I mean the evidence with feral children was dicey at best, but I seem to remember some evidence of (deaf) children of deaf parents who did not learn to sign being able to acquire language after the so-called critical period, though I'm not sure that was after puberty. I haven't really researched this area so am curious now.

I'm talking about for language acquisition (and even nonlinguistic), period. We have better paradigms, computational models, and neuroscientific evidence now. ;p But I think even before then the feral/deaf children thing was dealt with, see page 5 of this pdf for the latter: http://jdsde.oxfordjournals.org/content/...1.full.pdf

And to put the 'feral' issue in the context of linguistic evolution theories as discussed here, re: the book you've read: http://books.google.com/books?id=Mitx_Jq...22&f=false

Relatedly, see previous page of this thread, the Phonology and Reading link in particular.

Anyway I better ditch these topics before someone starts arguing with me, I'll never be able to get anything else done. Hopefully people found these links useful. ;p

Interesting, thanks. Well it was five years ago since I read that book but I don't remember the particular section on feral children. :p But yes, I know the feral/deaf children evidence was in dispute. It makes sense, there hasn't been a case of a language-less person past the age of puberty (who grew up in a healthy environment with otherwise full access to culture and the world) and was able to acquire language to prove conclusively that the critical period is bunkum, but it's also impossible to find such a person so it's hardly a worthwhile hypothesis, more of a proposal with a hypothesis waved vaguely over it. Especially when there appears to be enough evidence against it. I have no attachment to the critical period hypothesis.

You mention non-linguistic critical periods - does that mean that the duckling imprinting evidence thingy in biology is bunkum also? As you can see, I've studied this question in great depth. :p I am merely idly curious so excuse my ignorance. If you don't happen to know about ducklings you may disregard the question. I think my brain hurts.

I meant for stuff like this: http://www.cell.com/neuron/abstract/S089...%2900758-1 (There was something better I read but I forget, maybe it's one of those links I posted.) And neuroplasticity in general... I think with animals, it's useful to look at both evidence of plasticity and the inversion, to note how non-language-specific maturational factors play a part in initial language-learning, re: the example of Kanzi in Deacon's book or just the general examples of animal cognition and evolutionary continuity (Tecumseh Fitch on the larynx as well, for example: http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/c.../1477/1669; also: http://neuroanthropology.net/2008/05/25/...ns-unique/ [social/cultural cognition; related ideas to development of home sign; also: role of 'joint attention' and neurological constraints])

Another example keeping things in the context of computational models: http://www.sacklerinstitute.org/cornell/...vin_AP.pdf (attend in particular to home sign [related to prev. Goldin-Meadow link elsewhere] and birdsong)

http://csjarchive.cogsci.rpi.edu/proceed.../p1337.pdf

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/dis...id=2335048

http://scienceblogs.com/neurophilosophy/...ticize.php

http://www.crlmb.ca/08symposium_speakers/

http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:fN9J...clnk&gl=us

http://www.pnas.org/content/99/1/529.abstract

Always go with the most nuanced, parsimonious explanations, rather than postulating unfalsifiable physiological causality and various specifics based on spurious correlations and broad analogies.

So it isn't to say that early (first-language) acquisition isn't important (or temporally-relatively useful in designable ways in the case of SLA [e.g. MacWhinney's model]), just that its importance isn't indicative of hard-coded language-specific faculties or intrinsic age-related fixity of the brain, but more a matter of snowball effects of general cognitive processes, sociocultural factors and language biases, resulting in unlearning/dedifferentiation-related difficulties. Or something. Those papers and links and tangents, etc., I think explain it better than me and my layperson interpretations. Mostly I just want to encourage looking at contemporary, alternative views to what I consider obsolete mainstream views as I think the former have become dominant but are fragmented and easily unnoticed.

See also: http://books.google.com/books?id=U4Kqamb...22&f=false

You know there are deaph people learning japanese, don't you?