>There is debate between memory experts as to the role of language in infantile amnesia. Human researchers suggest memories may be limited by an inability to give language to early experiences. “But there must be something more fundamental that also plays a role because we see this same [infantile amnesia] effect in non-linguistic animals like rats,” says Prof Rick Richardson of the University of New South Wales.
That opposition doesn't quite make sense to me. If you are examining the linguistic view of it, then what we're talking about is that memory requires symbolic understanding. Not just language (a fairly sophisticated symbolic tool), but also just the ability to schematize your various sensory impressions into conceptualized objects. My earliest memory is sitting in a high chair playing with Duplos (large Legos for young children) being frustrated that I couldn't connect two pieces. That requires a few concepts such as a high chair, the tray sitting in front of me, the pieces I was playing with, and emotions like anger. Symbolic understanding isn't necessary for any of that to happen, but it does seem necessary to store it for recall decades later.
The problem with comparing this to rat memory is that I'm not convinced that rats have anywhere near the same kind of symbolic understanding, so how can they be compared to humans in this capacity? Rats can remember things, but babies can also be taught sign language starting at around 6 months, which seems much closer to rat memory (the direct linking of a perception with an emotion, unmediated by a symbolic transformation).
That opposition doesn't quite make sense to me. If you are examining the linguistic view of it, then what we're talking about is that memory requires symbolic understanding. Not just language (a fairly sophisticated symbolic tool), but also just the ability to schematize your various sensory impressions into conceptualized objects. My earliest memory is sitting in a high chair playing with Duplos (large Legos for young children) being frustrated that I couldn't connect two pieces. That requires a few concepts such as a high chair, the tray sitting in front of me, the pieces I was playing with, and emotions like anger. Symbolic understanding isn't necessary for any of that to happen, but it does seem necessary to store it for recall decades later.
The problem with comparing this to rat memory is that I'm not convinced that rats have anywhere near the same kind of symbolic understanding, so how can they be compared to humans in this capacity? Rats can remember things, but babies can also be taught sign language starting at around 6 months, which seems much closer to rat memory (the direct linking of a perception with an emotion, unmediated by a symbolic transformation).