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

Disclaimer: I know very little about autism, have not read JQ's handouts,
and may be about to make a point of dubious relevance to the discussion.

However ... it seems to me that the terms of the debate as it's been framed
here are a little fluid, if not actually contradictory. On the one hand
we're trying to avoid extremes of a dichotomy (expressed as 'cognitive' vs.
'innatist'), but on the other hand we're still using words like
hardware/software, innate/learned, etc. Surely no line can be drawn between
that which is innate and that which is developed in an organism. All that is
innate is contained within the zygote (some of which is DNA, some of which
is not); the rest is development, and is potentially subject to non-innate
influences. Similarly, the metaphor of the brain as hardware running
software, while still useful in some contexts, must be treated with caution,
and as one way of seeing things among many.

I would frame the question as something more along the lines of: Differences
on what levels (behavioural, endocrine biochemical, genetic, etc.) are
causally involved in the difference between group A (here, autism) and group
B (here, non-autism), and in what ways do the causes on each level relate to
each other?

I have no idea what the answer is though. Just thinking aloud. :)
Jonathan.

[reply onlist or to: jonathan underscore knibb at hotmail dot com]

_________________________________________________________________
Are you using the latest version of MSN Messenger? Download MSN Messenger
7.5 today! http://join.msn.com/messenger/overview