maizie wrote:elsiep wrote:We have no idea. Children generally want to communicate. We know that. It would be interesting to find out if it's an innate desire or whether it's one that develops. But I can't see why that distinction is important enough to justify speculating about it.
I'm saying we don't know whether the desire to communicate is innate or learned, not that the distinction is wrong. If we don't know which it is we shouldn't be making assumptions about it.maizie wrote:The distinction is important in this context because you are claiming that the innate/learned distinction is wrong.
I'm not saying the distinction is not important, I'm saying we can't assume it's one thing and not the other.maizie wrote:I don't see that you you can, on the one hand, castigate people for suggesting that there is a distinction, and then, on the other hand, say that the distinction is not important. It clearly is important in your eyes else you would not be making an issue of it.
I know you've suggested that. I'm disagreeing with you.maizie wrote:I also think that you are conflating speech, language and communication. I would suggest that the only one of those three which is likely to be 'innate' is communication.
That's because the evidence is ambiguous. It could be explained by babies having an innate drive to communicate. Or it could be explained by babies learning that they can communicate and enjoying doing that. What we know is that babies reach a point in their development where they actively seek to communicate. We can't assume that means it's an innate drive any more than we can assume it's something they've learned.
We're are both entitled to our opinions, but I'm not advocating the government require a particular approach to pedagogy because I happen to interpret the evidence in one way rather than another.