Re: Cognitive Linguistics, "The Language Instinct", and High-Functioning Autistics

Eldin wrote:
<<
I therefore suggest that there is, indeed, an "instinctual" ability
that is
used in infant acquisition of an L1.  But for the most part, it is
not an
exclusively human instinctual ability that is used.  Rather, to the
degree
that there is any exclusively human "instinct to learn an art"
involved, it
is just an incremental enhancement of the fairly common ability to
correctly decode a stimulus -- or perhaps I should say a prejudice
toward
the correct interpretation of stimuli -- given only the extra knowledge
that that stimulus was produced by a conspecific.
 >>

I think the one thing that may be missing here is the inherent
difference between animal and human communication--that is,
accommodation.  For if it were merely decoding stimuli, children
would be hard-pressed to produce novel utterances--which they
do in abundance.  For example, with bee dances, it's been shown
that bees can dance to tell their hive in what direction a food source
can be found, how far away it is, and how large it is.  The direction
must be flat, though.  By that, I mean, they put a food source
directly over the bees' hive, and the bees were defeated.  They
had no way of telling anywhere else where the food source was.

Of course, this is an unnatural place for a food source to be.  Perhaps
if the world changed such that food sources were regularly placed
directly above bee hives, bees may eventually figure out how to
communicate that.  It'd take them quite awhile, though, I assume,
whereas a human child could figure out how to do that in a matter
of seconds (i.e., a similar kind of task, not necessarily the exact same
thing).

Eldin continues:
<<
A monkey imitates what one actually _does_; a baby imitates what one
_intended_ to do.
 >>

I don't know about this...  When babies imitate, they imitate,
as far as the linguistic data goes.  When they produce novel
utterances, it's probably based on the patterns they've picked up
from the language already.  Learning to decode intent seems
related only insofar as it can give one a context, and help one
figure out what the meaning is.  At that point, it's a matter of
mapping the meaning on to the utterance, and I'm not sure
how intent factors into that.

Eldin:
<<
Namely, given two possible interpretations of
linguistic input, an infant "assumes" that the interpretation which
would
make the language more learnable is the correct one.
 >>

I really don't think this will play out.  The reason that infants
arrive at the "correct" interpretation is because they get tons of
feedback, tons of extralinguistic input, and tons of practice.
 From my experience with my little sister (who's now four), it
doesn't start out that way.  It's a gradual process.  I would
gather that infants know nothing (innately or otherwise) about
what makes a language more learnable.  Rather, they just start
with what they get, and generalize from there.

Eldin:
<<
It is just such hardware/software -- the human version of it -- which is
disabled in high-functioning autistics.  Some such people have a long
delay
in learning their native language, and considerable difficulty
learning it,
although many become quite proficient in it eventually.
 >>

Having just attended a seminar series on the linguistic capabilities
of high-function autistic children (8 talks), I feel like I can tie this
in to what I wrote above.  What I saw with all the autistic children
that I both saw on the video and heard about was that they could
learn the language, as we refer to it (i.e., the syntactic structures,
phonology, etc.), for the most part.  It was their use of it that was
problematic.  Some didn't talk at all, or very rarely.  Those that
did could produce grammatical English, but they were just using
it inappropriately.  This is tied into their problems with interpersonal
communication.  For example, one of the things they have a lot
of trouble with is decoding facial expression (which is related to
the amygdala).  One experiment I saw was a series of kids who
simply looked at pictures of faces that were either happy or upset
or angry.  This was in an fMRI machine.  The normal kids had a
high degree of activity in the amygdala; the autistic kids very
little.  What's more interesting is the second part of the experiment
where they had kids imitate the faces they saw.  The normal kids,
again, had a high amount of activity in the amygdala.  The autistic
kids, again, had very little, but had a lot of activity in the motor
cortex.  In other words, they were focusing on the physical activity
of making their face look like the face they were looking at, and
were registering no emotion from the faces they saw (and exhibiting
none from the faces they were making).

These same types of results kept showing up over and over again.
The areas of the brain used by the control group were the exact
opposite of the autistic group.  The result was that it was extremely
difficult for them to decode emotions, as you say.  Combined with
the linguistic data, though, it looked like the high functioning kids
had *some* trouble learning the forms of the language, but, by
and large, they could learn it, and just never use it appropriately.
I think this can be attributed to their other interpersonal problems--
decoding intentions--but it doesn't explain how they're able to
learn the language in the first place (the grammar, shall we say).

Further, looking at general acquisition data, it may be the case
that the interpersonal problems are what are preventing the
children from learning in a normal way.  For example, if you
take any kid, autistic or no, and don't expose them to language
at all for thirteen years, they'll never learn language.  Reduce
the age at which they gain exposure, and they'll be able to catch
up to varying degrees.  But there are things children do which
help them learn language, it's theorized.  For example, they do
a lot of attentive listening, whether they're being spoken to or
not.  Kids look at what's going on, hear the linguistic input, and
soak it in.  They also elicit their own linguistic data by asking
questions.  Further, kids kind of practice language, and elicit
their data from themselves.  Find any normal two or three year
old, and when they play, they'll talk to themselves, or sign to
themselves.  And, for example, when they play with like a doll
or something, they'll make the doll talk.  By engaging in pretend
play, they're able to use the language they've gotten so far, and
hear it.

Now, think about an autistic child.  They tend to tune out the
world.  One of the first questions every parent of a possibly
autistic child is asked is whether they respond when their name
is called.  Most parents will say that they could stand their and
call or even shout their name for five minutes and not elicit a
response.  And it's not like they hear it and intentionally ignore
their parents--they just don't tune in.  And they certainly don't
watch human interaction as often as a non-autistic child does.
And as for pretend play, that's right out.  I saw a video of an
autistic child once (nine years old) using a Batman doll to hit
the table.  The experimenter tried to take the Batman doll and
make him talk, and the child grew confused, and then upset--
he took the doll away and hid it, so she wouldn't make it talk.
I think he said something like, "You talk; it doesn't talk."  All
this points to significantly less linguistic input for the child.
They're getting some, for sure--and the higher function, the
more they get--but maybe it's just not enough.  And this could
be why some have difficult learning the "grammar" part of
language, and some never seem to learn it at all.

So that's my two cents.  Lot of gaps in my knowledge base,
though, so anyone that can add anything, please chime in.

-David
*******************************************************************
"A male love inevivi i'ala'i oku i ue pokulu'ume o heki a."
"No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn."

-Jim Morrison

http://dedalvs.free.fr/

Reply