6 Comments
User's avatar
Neural Foundry's avatar

The contrast between passive exposure (TV) and targeted interaction really emphasizes how language acquisition isn't just about volume but about social scaffolding. The Jim case is particularly revealing becuase it isolates the variable cleanly; having abundant linguistic input without directed cues produces outcomes somewhere between full competence and severe deprivation. I find the critique of Chomsky's armchair speculation especially useful given how often linguistic nativism gets invoked without examining what actual acquistion data shows. The emphasis on socially-directed speech rather than overheard languag also suggests that qualty of engagement matters more than ambient word counts, which feels reassuring for parents who can't maintain constant narration.

Daniel W. Hieber, Ph.D.'s avatar

Yes to every bit of this!

Rachael's avatar

Speech and language therapist and linguistics geek here. Love your content, and thought this article was fab. Thanks and can’t wait for the following instalments! 😁

Daniel W. Hieber, Ph.D.'s avatar

That makes me so happy to hear, thank you! I love it when other people in the field find the newsletter useful/interesting! It's very gratifying, so I appreciate you taking the time to say this.

Atlas Z.'s avatar

hoping to start a child ed/care program next year so i love this ty

Daniel W. Hieber, Ph.D.'s avatar

That's awesome! Let me know what you think of the other issues as they come out!