Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!rutgers!clyde!cbosgd!osu-cis!tut!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!dormouse@zwicky
From: zwicky@dormouse.cis.ohio-state.edu (Elizabeth D. Zwicky)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Why can't my cat talk?
Message-ID: <1125@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu>
Date: Thu, 5-Nov-87 12:00:11 EST
Article-I.D.: tut.1125
Posted: Thu Nov  5 12:00:11 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 8-Nov-87 14:23:04 EST
References: <11967@decwrl.DEC.COM> <1697@cognos.UUCP> <849@orstcs.CS.ORST.EDU> <938@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> <8986@shemp.UCLA.EDU>
Sender: news@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu
Organization: The Ohio State University Dept of Computer and Information Science
Lines: 23

In article <8986@shemp.UCLA.EDU> srt@CS.UCLA.EDU (Scott Turner) writes:

  Hypotheses drawn from
>degenerate cases like Genie need to be carefully tested in the normal adult
>population before they can be given any serious consideration.
> 
>    Scott R. Turner

Give me a break here. You CANNOT test hypotheses about whether or not
there is a crystallization period after which language cannot be learned
without dealing with degenerate cases. The case of someone who has been
deprived of all language contact for n years, starting at birth, whether
n is 2, 5, or 12, will always be a degenerate case. Certainly, Genie
is not conclusive evidence, and such cases are (thank God!) rare, and
so the evidence is not conclusive. However, in all known cases, children
deprived of language contact cannstill learn languages normally if they
start before puberty. 

The idea of a crystallization period is supported by the data about
second language learning in normal humans, but the question I was
answering was about learning of *first* languages.	

	Elizabeth Zwicky