This is an interesting study, and it raises some fascinating questions when viewed through the lenses of Edelman and Halliday. Here are some key takeaways:
-
Memory Encoding vs. Recall (Edelman’s Perspective)
Edelman’s Theory of Neuronal Group Selection (TNGS) emphasises how neural circuits develop through selectional processes. If infants' hippocampi are already encoding memories, then neuronal groups are forming stable patterns. However, if recall is the problem, it suggests that later developmental changes alter the ‘search criteria’ for accessing these early patterns. Essentially, the neural maps that develop later in life may not align with the ones used during infancy. -
Memory and Meaning-Making (Halliday’s Perspective)
From an SFL perspective, early memories are likely encoded with meaning potential that does not fully align with later linguistic and conceptual structures. A newborn’s semiotic system is far more embodied and tied to immediate sensory-motor experiences, whereas an adult’s semiotic system is far more abstract and mediated by language. This mismatch could explain why memories remain inaccessible—they are ‘stored’ in a system that lacks the later-developed organisational frameworks for retrieval. -
Individuation and Memory Access
The individuation framework might also apply here. Infant memories are part of the child’s early individuation process—they are experiences before the system has been fully shaped by the broader social semiotic system. Later, as individuation unfolds and meaning potentials shift, early memories may no longer be ‘translatable’ into the adult’s current meaning system. They still exist as neuronal traces but are effectively ‘outside’ the accessible meaning potential. -
Potential-Instance Collapse in Memory Retrieval
If memory is a semiotic phenomenon (as in Halliday) and also a material one (as in Edelman), then memory retrieval could be seen as an instance of potential being actualised—but only if the system’s meaning potential allows it. Infant memories might be like quantum superpositions: encoded but unobservable because the ‘measurement system’ (i.e., the adult brain’s retrieval strategies) is incompatible with them.
Overall, this study reinforces the idea that memories are not simply ‘stored’ like files in a database but are dynamic, developing alongside cognitive and semiotic systems. Early experiences shape later meaning potentials, even if they cannot be recalled as discrete events.