![narita boy press repeatedly narita boy press repeatedly](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/DY1-kBFjc7g/maxresdefault.jpg)
Similarly, Jean Piaget signaled the “formal operational stage” as the upper limit of cognitive development proper, and he conceived of language as an aspect of “intellectual development,” a form of knowledge accumulation rooted in cognitive development but different from it (see, for example, Piaget 1962). For Lev Vygotsky, for example, language belonged to cultural development, a layer of human development different from and dependent on ontogeny proper, which brings about the underlying “natural functions” for the former to take place ( Vygostky 1986).
![narita boy press repeatedly narita boy press repeatedly](https://cdn.newspunch.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/joe-Biden-4.jpg)
![narita boy press repeatedly narita boy press repeatedly](https://static0.srcdn.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/the-boys-homelander-soldier-boy-captain-america-.jpg)
The reigning Vygotskyan and Piagetian psychological traditions of the first half of the 20th Century can be taken as paradigmatic specimens of this position. But the position relies on the premise that there are not naturally a priori expectations concerning how languages are or the extent to which they can vary, beyond that general, language-neutral ones. Clearly enough, the way brains are organized and learn are taken as obvious determinants of the structure of languages themselves. According to this view, languages are just external, socially shared codes of sorts, which somehow get accommodated within an a priori uncompromised neural substrate in the early experience of children.
![narita boy press repeatedly narita boy press repeatedly](https://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/B3-AC007_NYSAND_TOP_20180417145419.jpg)
On the one hand, opposing the view that Jackendoff refers to as “the contemporary view of language,” for many the socio-cultural dimension of language must still be privileged. A first rough approximation to this ontological issue may be made based on the recognition of two main axes of disagreement. those who share “the contemporary view of language, which goes beneath the cultural differences among languages” ( Jackendoff 2010: 63), a basic mutual understanding is made difficult by the volatility of each researcher’s theoretical biases (see, for a similar statement, Tallerman & Gibson 2012: 15–26). ( 2014: 1), who claim that there is a general “lack of clarity regarding the language phenotype,” which inevitably leads to a corresponding “lack of clarity regarding its evolutionary origins.” The picture gets even more complicated if one takes into account, for example, Ray Jackendoff’s contention that even among those who share a similar ontological commitment about language-e.g. The emergence and consolidation of the field of Evolutionary Linguistics in the last few decades, has brought to the fore with a new impetus the question that mostly worried Ferdinand de Saussure when he took the first steps into the discipline of Linguistics as we know it today: What kind of object language is that it deserves a scientifically specialized attention? The situation is aptly captured by Bolhuis et al. My own suspicion is that a central part of what we call “learning” is actually better understood as the growth of cognitive structures along an internally directed course under the triggering and partially shaping effect of the environment.