Re: a request / Connectionism
Charles Nelson (c.nelson who-is-at mail.utexas.edu)
Mon, 16 Mar 1998 13:09:48 -0600
John St. Julien wrote:
>
>The "past tense debate" that I cite in my previous post on this topic is
>evidence that many connectionists understand the political implications of
>adopting an experientialist as opposed to an innatist position-Fodor/Pinker
>types argue that the rules are innate and cannot be taught only activated;
>by implication some folks just lack quality and that is why they do not
>learn. The connectionist position is that it is the dynamic history of
>experience that accounts for difference; not innate ability. Technical
>details aside that is what was at stake in the past tense debate.
I suppose I'm missing something here, perhaps from previous postings, but
I've never heard of anyone not acquiring native language rules (except for
those that had no exposure to language). And in the innatist camp, there's
disagreement over whether second language learners still have access to a
universal grammar.
John, could you expand on how this implication that "some folks just lack
quality" is derived from an innatist position, that is, with respect to
language acquisition?
Charles Nelson
c.nelson who-is-at mail.utexas.edu