Welcome to CogNews Anthropology Psychology
?main
?post story
?search
?about
?
?links
?link to us
?rss feed
?page two
?topics
?
?
?main


Innate Language
Posted by on Thursday September 11, @11:55PM
from the chomsky dept.
Recent research shows that babies are born with the ability to recognize speech from nonsensical sound, facts which would back up the existance of a Language Acquisition Device. In the study, babies were subjected to speech and the hemisphere of their brains were observed to become active. When subjected to similar sounds, of speech played backwards, their brains did not become active.

"Our study shows that prior to any contact with language, the brain of the neonate responds specifically to utterances of language, compared to very similar stimuli [backward speech]," Mehler says.

Yahoo has the whole story.


| ?>

?
Related Links

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.
( Reply )
Re: Innate Language
by on Friday September 12, @11:18AM
I found this exciting until I read that they were talking about "newborn" babies. The study seems to ignore the several months of stimulus the babies were exposed to prior to birth. I recall a study that showed babies recognizing the voice of their mother immediately upon birth, which was taken as proof that they "listen" while in the womb. Normal speech would therefore be a familiar stimulus for a newborn baby. As is "shush-shush"ing to calm them down (which sounds like their mothers heartbeat from the womb). There have also been studies based upon exposure to music in the womb. Sorry, I don't think their study is meaningful unless they used babies whose mother was kept in complete silence during pregnancy. Being a father of 5 I suspect that it is unlikely a pregnant mother could endure the final month without a LOT of speaking... :-p
[ Reply to this ]
  • Re: Innate Language
    by on Friday September 12, @11:27AM
    I think that's an excellent point. It'd be interesting if we could find those old studies and get Mehler's perspective on them. Do you remember any of those studies specifically?
    [ Reply to this ]
    • Re: Innate Language
      by on Friday September 12, @01:19PM
      Oh boy, let's see... There was a more recent study in China by Canadian researchers that touched on this more specifically, but the original work dates back to the late 60's as I recall, with similar work in the 80's. There was also some work by fifer and Moon in the mid 90's. This really is a commonly accepted belief in neonatal and developmental psychology circles.
      [ Reply to this ]
  • Re: Innate Language
    by on Sunday September 14, @02:12AM
    The conjecture that babies are exposed to the mother's speech for several month prior to birth is interesting but fails to explain why what you label as "this kind of familiar stimulus" is processed in peri-sylvian areas of the left hemisphere.

    Infants are exposed to many noises (blood circulation, intestinal transit, etc.) during pregnancy. It would be intresting if you could show that they have also learned a lot about such stimuli. I would be very surprised indeed if this were the case.
    [ Reply to this ]
    • Re: Innate Language
      by on Monday September 15, @02:57PM

      In all fairness to Dr. Mehler I have not read the study, and am merely responding to the article in Health Day.

      Nonetheless, to quote Dr. Mehler: "Our study shows that prior to any contact with language, the brain of the neonate responds specifically to utterances of language, compared to very similar stimuli [backward speech],"

      It is Dr. Mehler whom emphasized the assetion that the neonate had not had any previous contact with language. The significance of this assertion in the conclusions drawn I will leave to Dr. Mehler to explain. If the left-hemisphere typically processes language, then what is the significance between 6 minutes or 6 months of exposure? I do not assert that the bulk of the literature proves the lack of an innate "language endowment". On the other hand I do not think that Dr. Mehler's study is any greater proof that it exists than has been gained by older baby studies.

      The assertion that babies are NOT exposed to mother's speach (and others in close proximity) is contrary to decades of study and clinical evidence. There is very substantial peer-reviewed literature on the subject. I would suggest that the assertion contrary to such volume of evidence is more conjectural. See:

      Barbara Kisilevsky, Queen's University Anthony DeCasper, University of North Carolina William Fifer, Columbia University DeCasper, A J and Fifer, W P (1980). Of human bonding: newborns prefer their mothers'voices. Science 208, 1174?76 DeCasper A J. and Spence, M J (1986). Prenatal maternal speech influence on newborns'perception of sounds. Infant behaviour and development. 9, 133?150 Moon, C, Cooper, R P and Fifer, W P (1993). Two?day olds prefer their native language.Infant behaviour and development. 16, 495?500 Susan Gregory, University of Birmingham

      Lastly, regarding other stimulus in the womb, it is likewise documented. Such as the "shush-shush"ing mentioned previously. The above literature also refers to studies in which the babies responded to recordings of their mother's heartbeats. The rocking response is also widely believed to be effective due to similarity to inner-ear experience of mother's walking. I must say that I have never encountered literature addressing infant response to bowel noises, although it would be logical to assume that exposure to such stimulus also was experienced.
      [ Reply to this ]

?
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.
( Reply )
? "Science is a willingness to accept facts even when they are opposed to wishes." -- B. F. Skinner
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster.
[ home | post article | search | admin ]