edwards@uwmacc.UUCP (mark edwards) (11/09/87)
In article <1125@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> zwicky@dormouse.cis.ohio-state.edu (Elizabeth D. Zwicky) writes:
:> Scott R. Turner
:
:Give me a break here. You CANNOT test hypotheses about whether or not
:there is a crystallization period after which language cannot be learned
:without dealing with degenerate cases. The case of someone who has been
:deprived of all language contact for n years, starting at birth, whether
:n is 2, 5, or 12, will always be a degenerate case. Certainly, Genie
:is not conclusive evidence, and such cases are (thank God!) rare, and
:so the evidence is not conclusive. However, in all known cases, children
:deprived of language contact cannstill learn languages normally if they
:start before puberty.
Why can't you test hypotheses about whether or not there is a crystal-
lization period ..... ? It seems that if we can not test it then, we
can not test it at all. How would you test it. Use your children?
Somebody elses ?
:The idea of a crystallization period is supported by the data about
:second language learning in normal humans, but the question I was
:answering was about learning of *first* languages.
:
: Elizabeth Zwicky
I don't see why second language learning in adults supports the
"crystallization period". For one, when a child starts learning
to speak they do it naturally, they have plenty of time, words
are repeated until they absorb the correct pronunciation. The
key words here are plenty of time, they are corrected many times,
and it takes them many "years" to progress to fluency.
The adult learns a second language in a hurry. There is no time for
assimilation. An adult gets frustated if he/she is corrected too
often, an adult probably is not as absorbed in the activity. The
key words here are lack of time, and fluency is picked up in a very
short time. By fluency here I mean only that the intended message
is capable of being realized.
An adult is busy, he/she has many more important things to worry
about. Like were the next paycheck is coming from. The goals of
the child are to learn the language inorder to get by. By the time
they reach a certain age they have generalized
the sound structure of the language. When a child is learning a
second language the generalization process is still going on. Thus
the child has no problem generalizing the new language. The adult
on the other hand has not used these skills in quite a while. And
like anything else that hasn't been used the skills decay. Since
the learning of the sound system was an unconcious activity it
is lost or buried quite deep.
A child is also quite content saying "See dogie run.", "See dogie
run." Where as the adult may repeat this exercise a couple of times
and want to learn more difficult words and grammar combinations.
The child has more reinforment. For instance:
Child: See dogie run?
Mother: Yes the dog is running. Look how fast he goes.
An adult cannot usually have the same conversation. The other
adult will soon get stone bored.
Is second language learning in adults inhibited because of the
"c" period?
I think more facts must be weighed, more applicable data must
be gathered. Clearly the child and adult are in vastly different
environments when the process is being learned.
mark
--
edwards@vms.macc.wisc.edu
{allegra, ihnp4, seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!edwards
UW-Madison, 1210 West Dayton St., Madison WI 53706zwicky@ptero.cis.ohio-state.edu (Elizabeth D. Zwicky) (11/10/87)
In article <1966@uwmacc.UUCP> edwards@unix.macc.wisc.edu (mark edwards) writes: >In article <1125@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> zwicky@dormouse.cis.ohio-state.edu (Elizabeth D. Zwicky) writes: >:Give me a break here. You CANNOT test hypotheses about whether or not >:there is a crystallization period after which language cannot be learned >:without dealing with degenerate cases. > Why can't you test hypotheses about whether or not there is a crystal- > lization period ..... ? It seems that if we can not test it then, we > can not test it at all. How would you test it. Use your children? > Somebody elses ? My very point is that the question was about first language learning. In order to test for a crystallization period for first languages, it is necessary to deprive a child of language to see whether s/he can still learn it later. This will inevitably produce a "degenerate case" as human society is centralized on language. It is also a cruel and inhuman thing to do to a child, and so known cases are usually even more degenerate, since they involve children with parents who do cruel and inhuman things to them - and rarely stop at depriving them of language. I am not suggesting that we should create any such children, but merely pointing out that we cannot reject the data out of hand because of the complicating factors. You must admit that it seems likely that first language learning is different from second, even in children. >:The idea of a crystallization period is supported by the data about >:second language learning in normal humans. > I don't see why second language learning in adults supports the > "crystallization period". For one, when a child starts learning > to speak they do it naturally, they have plenty of time, words > are repeated until they absorb the correct pronunciation. The > key words here are plenty of time, they are corrected many times, > and it takes them many "years" to progress to fluency. It takes them not many but several years. In any case, you are putting words in my mouth - I never said I was talking about adults, just "normal humans" by which I meant people of any age who had not been abused, were not aphasic, were of normal intelligence ... Children do learn second languages; the interesting question is whether or not there is a specific point at which children stop being good at learning second languages, and the data shows that there is, and it is puberty. In the environments in which these data have been collected, there is no drastic change in environment at puberty, which would tend to suggest that the diffference is not due to factors like lack of time and patience, but has some deeper cause. > mark Elizabeth
marty1@houdi.UUCP (M.BRILLIANT) (11/10/87)
In article <1966@uwmacc.UUCP>, edwards@uwmacc.UUCP (mark edwards) writes: > In article <1125@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> zwicky@dormouse.cis.ohio-state.edu (Elizabeth D. Zwicky) writes: .... > :The idea of a crystallization period is supported by the data about > :second language learning in normal humans, but the question I was > :answering was about learning of *first* languages. > : > : Elizabeth Zwicky > > > I don't see why second language learning in adults supports the > "crystallization period". For one, when a child starts learning > to speak they do it naturally, they have plenty of time... > The adult learns a second language in a hurry.... There are immigrant adults who have been here twenty years or more and don't speak English yet. > A child is also quite content saying "See dogie run.", "See dogie > run." Where as the adult may repeat this exercise a couple of times > and want to learn more difficult words and grammar combinations. > The child has more reinforment. For instance: > > Child: See dogie run? > Mother: Yes the dog is running. Look how fast he goes. > > An adult cannot usually have the same conversation. The other > adult will soon get stone bored. Oh, is that what happens? I thought children were supposed to be the ones with short attention spans. > Is second language learning in adults inhibited because of the > "c" period? Apparently, yes. > I think more facts must be weighed, more applicable data must > be gathered. Clearly the child and adult are in vastly different > environments when the process is being learned. I'm told there is a lot of field experience with ESL (English as a Second Language) that says that children dumped into a foreign language environment learn the new language faster and better than adults. M. B. Brilliant Marty AT&T-BL HO 3D-520 (201)-949-1858 Holmdel, NJ 07733 ihnp4!houdi!marty1
marty1@houdi.UUCP (11/11/87)
In article <1409@houdi.UUCP>, I wrote: > In article <1966@uwmacc.UUCP>, edwards@uwmacc.UUCP (mark edwards) writes: .... > > Is second language learning in adults inhibited because of the > > "c" period? > > Apparently, yes. I have to rebut my own statement, because what was known a few years ago is now known not to be true. > I'm told there is a lot of field experience with ESL (English as a > Second Language) that says that children dumped into a foreign language > environment learn the new language faster and better than adults. I'm told recent studies show that children learn pronunciation faster, but their vocabulary in the second language tends to remain inferior to their vocabulary in the native language. Adults, on the other hand, retain a foreign accent in the second language, so they sound like incompetent speakers (maybe they do that defensively), but learn the vocabulary and grammar. Professionals in language learning speak now of a "sensitive" period, rather than a "critical" period, and specifically with reference to phonology. By the way, single examples (such as the training of Helen Keller) do not prove general principles in the biological sciences. Living things are not machines, and what is true of one is not necessarily true of others of the same species. Statistical studies often disprove what was previously "known" either from anecdote, or from earlier studies that in hindsight prove to have been inadequately controlled. M. B. Brilliant Marty AT&T-BL HO 3D-520 (201)-949-1858 Holmdel, NJ 07733 ihnp4!houdi!marty1
edwards@uwmacc.UUCP (mark edwards) (11/11/87)
In article <1409@houdi.UUCP> marty1@houdi.UUCP (M.BRILLIANT) writes:
:> I don't see why second language learning in adults supports the
:> "crystallization period". For one, when a child starts learning
:> to speak they do it naturally, they have plenty of time...
:> The adult learns a second language in a hurry....
:
:There are immigrant adults who have been here twenty years or more and
:don't speak English yet.
So. That doesn't prove anything but the immigrant adult had no
incentive to learn English. He/she had no goal to learn English.
My theory says nothing about those people.
:Oh, is that what happens? I thought children were supposed to be the
:ones with short attention spans.
But their attention spans are quite different. For children
simple conversation are OK. Adults will get stone bored if a trivial
conversation, that children might enjoy, continues for any length of
time.
:> Is second language learning in adults inhibited because of the
:> "c" period?
:Apparently, yes.
Why apparently yes? Support your claims!
:> I think more facts must be weighed, more applicable data must
:> be gathered. Clearly the child and adult are in vastly different
:> environments when the process is being learned.
:
:I'm told there is a lot of field experience with ESL (English as a
:Second Language) that says that children dumped into a foreign language
:environment learn the new language faster and better than adults.
Great, this supports my claims. And adds nothing to your claims.
Marty you didn't read a word of what I said. There may well be a "c"
period. But I was bringing up contrary evidence and facts that are
not apparently considered when the "c" period was coined.
mark
--
edwards@vms.macc.wisc.edu
{allegra, ihnp4, seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!edwards
UW-Madison, 1210 West Dayton St., Madison WI 53706marty1@houdi.UUCP (M.BRILLIANT) (11/11/87)
In article <1399@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu>, zwicky@ptero.cis.ohio-state.edu (Elizabeth D. Zwicky) writes: > ... Children > do learn second languages; the interesting question is whether or not > there is a specific point at which children stop being good at learning > second languages, and the data shows that there is, and it is puberty. > In the environments in which these data have been collected, there > is no drastic change in environment at puberty, which would tend to > suggest that the diffference is not due to factors like lack of time > and patience, but has some deeper cause. What was once believed to be quick language learning in children is now believed to be only quick pronunciation learning. Children who seem to know a language well, because they speak it fluently without an accent in social situations, are not necessarily ready to use it to learn things they don't already know. Even pronunciation learning may have nothing to do with crystallization. The onset of identity crisis might make an adolescent less eager than a child to adopt a new language. And an adolescent might be more likely to recognize that superficial fluency is not enough, and adopt a halting pronunciation to signal that the language has not been mastered. M. B. Brilliant Marty AT&T-BL HO 3D-520 (201)-949-1858 Holmdel, NJ 07733 ihnp4!houdi!marty1
merrill@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (11/12/87)
M. B. Brilliant writes: > In article <1399@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu>, zwicky@ptero.cis.ohio-state.edu (Elizabeth D. Zwicky) writes: > > > ... Children > > do learn second languages; the interesting question is whether or not > ... > > What was once believed to be quick language learning in children is now > believed to be only quick pronunciation learning. Children who seem to > know a language well, because they speak it fluently without an accent > in social situations, are not necessarily ready to use it to learn > things they don't already know. > > Even pronunciation learning may have nothing to do with crystallization. > The onset of identity crisis might make an adolescent less eager than a > child to adopt a new language. And an adolescent might be more likely > to recognize that superficial fluency is not enough, and adopt a > halting pronunciation to signal that the language has not been mastered. Although the syntactic evidence is evidently less solid than I had realized, the phonetic data about production and recognition of second languages is fairly clear. A child can gain mastery of both the production and perception of difficult phonemes, but an adult can not (it seems) become proficient in recognition even if he is trained to produce a distinction correctly. The best data along these lines come from Japanese adults trying to learn English as a second language. Japanese, like related Asian languages, does not contain the [r]/[l] pair; thus, speakers of Japanese do not learn to discriminate between these two phonemes very well. Even if adults are taught artificially to make the distinction in speech, no matter how patiently---thus getting around the "see doggie run" kind of argument---they *do not* acquire any statistically significant skill in recognizing these two phones. It seems to me that this fact indicates that there is a real crystalization effect. I seem to remember another experiment, which I will relate with the proviso that I may have to retract my claims about it. It seems to me that I remember an experiment in which adult speakers of Japanese were trained to discriminate same/different along the [r]/[l] continuum for short intervals. The experimenters hoped to find that the subjects would then be able to generalize these discriminations to learn [r] from [l]. My memory is that the subjects could learn to make the narrow discrimination of side-by-side tokens, but could not generalize. If so, this would also indicate that there was a real crystallization effect, and might lead one to hypothesize that it lay in the ability to generalize. Incidentally, language is not the only area in which a crystallization effect has been hypothesized. I've heard of claims for such a phenomenon in musical performance (specifically cello,) and other motor behavior. In the cognitive realm, the general similarity of many of the stages of concept acquisition might also reflect stages of a crystallization hierarchy, although I don't know enough developmental cognitive psych. to be able to argue that one either way. Does anybody out there know more of the details of the situations in either of these fields? --- John Merrill
stampe@uhccux.UUCP (David Stampe) (11/13/87)
John Merrill writes: >Incidentally, language is not the only area in which a crystallization >effect has been hypothesized. I've heard of claims for such a >phenomenon in musical performance (specifically cello,) and other >motor behavior. The violin pedagogue Suzuki tells a story about Ben Franklin, who, during one of his trips to Paris, was congratulated on his violin playing. Franklin replied that anyone could play as well, if they began early and applied themselves diligently. He was asked when he began to play. Why, at fifty-five, he replied. Jakob Bronowski, in his PBS series "The Ascent of Man", remarked that he learned English in college in England, and later had forgotten how to speak his mother tongue, Polish. However, he noted, echoing the accepted opinion of this matter, if it had not been for Polish, he could not now have spoken English. This opinion seemed to be born out by the heavy Polish accent with which Bronowski spoke English. Some linguists are envied for their ability to learn new languages apparently as fluently as children. I think of Ken Hale, Paul Garvin, Alexis Manaster-Ramer, Stan Starosta, and a few others. They are also exceptional in that, whereas the fluency of the average adult language learner fades quickly when he/she is no longer in contact with the language, their fluency seems not to fade. Starosta and I as adults almost twenty years ago both learned a difficult language of India called Sora. About four years ago I spent six months speaking the language exclusively. Within a year after that, my fluency had mostly faded. But Starosta, who hasn't used the language for twenty years, is fluent as ever. I don't think that anyone doubts that they are exceptional, except maybe the individuals themselves, who often seem surprised that it isn't so easy for everyone. Obviously they don't learn exactly as children do, i.e. no one speaks "mother talk" to them. Perhaps it would be worth studying how such virtuosos learn languages, and keep them alive, or whether their fluency is actually as comparable to that of native speakers as it seems.
dwt@zippy.eecs.umich.edu (David West) (11/13/87)
In article <12400009@iuvax> merrill@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu writes: >I remember an experiment in which adult speakers of Japanese were >trained to discriminate same/different along the [r]/[l] continuum for >short intervals. ... >...My memory is that the subjects could learn to make the >narrow discrimination of side-by-side tokens, but could not >generalize. If so, this would also indicate that there was a real >crystallization effect, and might lead one to hypothesize that it lay >in the ability to generalize. I remember clearly trying (for a few days only) to learn some Dutch vowels from a native speaker; I did ok when working from short-term memory, but found that the unconscious internal process that transfers short-term to long-term memory tried to assimilate the Dutch vowels to English ones, i.e. to make use of existing categories. First-language learners don't have to contend with this kind of cognitive interference. >Incidentally, language is not the only area in which a crystallization >effect has been hypothesized. Hubel and Wiesel established quite unambiguously for the cat visual system that there is a period at which certain kinds of visual+motor experience are essential for the development of adult visual+motor competence, and that absence of such experience at the appropriate period cannot be compensated by its presence later. >I've heard of claims for such a >phenomenon in musical performance (specifically cello,) and other >motor behavior.... What all of these skills have in common is that they are extremely demanding of time. There *is* a change in the environment at puberty: it consists of a (largely socially-imposed) severe escalation of time demands from other things ("education" ,"work", "social life" etc.). Typically, by the time one gets round to acquiring a second language, one "can't afford" to spend as much time on its subtleties as on spent on those of one's first language. Similarly with music. I learned a single instrument as a child, and have taught myself several more as an adult. I am painfully aware that I can't give these other instruments the time they "need", but I am not conscious of any other difference. -David West umich!dwt
rwojcik@bcsaic.UUCP (Rick Wojcik) (11/13/87)
In article <1411@houdi.UUCP> marty1@houdi.UUCP (M.BRILLIANT) writes: > >What was once believed to be quick language learning in children is now >believed to be only quick pronunciation learning. Children who seem to >... I don't know why you distinguish between language learning and pronunciation learning, since one category is surely included in the other. What is the distinction being made here? >Even pronunciation learning may have nothing to do with crystallization. >The onset of identity crisis might make an adolescent less eager than a >child to adopt a new language. And an adolescent might be more likely >to recognize that superficial fluency is not enough, and adopt a >halting pronunciation to signal that the language has not been mastered. > >M. B. Brilliant Marty First of all, it is important to note that language learners never acquire native pronunciation after puberty. As far as I know there are *no* exceptions to this generalization. It is possible to learn to speak the target language well, but native speakers will always perceive an accent. Secondly, if this is caused by an adolescent's "identity crisis", then the crisis must get worse. Adults get progressively worse at acquiring foreign pronunciation as they age. Do people with really bad foreign accents have correspondingly bad psychological problems? I think I'll go brush up on my French :-). Rick Wojcik - rwojcik@boeing.com
tsmith@gryphon.CTS.COM (Tim Smith) (11/15/87)
In article <1117@uhccux.UUCP> stampe@uhccux.UUCP (David Stampe) writes: +===== | Some linguists are envied for their ability to learn new languages | apparently as fluently as children. I think of Ken Hale, Paul Garvin, | Alexis Manaster-Ramer, Stan Starosta, and a few others. ... +===== Perhaps these are people who are very childish. Nothing derogatory intended. I have experienced Ken Hale talk about Navaho, and it was as evident to me as it was to the native speaker of the language who was sitting near me that this man was "something different". Kind of scary, in a way, given the impenetrability of that language. Most of the good scientists that I have known have a very childish quality about them. They tend to ask "dumb" questions, often over and over until they get an answer that satisfies them. Most of us adults would never be able to behave that way. They tend to wonder about things that most of us have resolved long time gone, or wouldn't dare ask about. That's what you need to learn a language as an adult! -- Tim Smith INTERNET: tsmith@gryphon.CTS.COM UUCP: {hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, ihnp4, ....}!crash!gryphon!tsmith UUCP: {philabs, trwrb}!cadovax!gryphon!tsmith
feit@sunybcs.uucp (Elissa Feit) (11/16/87)
In article <12400009@iuvax> merrill@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu writes: > >The best data along these lines come from Japanese adults trying to >learn English as a second language. Japanese, like related Asian >languages, does not contain the [r]/[l] pair; thus, speakers of >Japanese do not learn to discriminate between these two phonemes very >well. Even if adults are taught artificially to make the distinction in >speech, no matter how patiently---thus getting around the "see doggie >run" kind of argument---they *do not* acquire any statistically >significant skill in recognizing these two phones. It seems to me >that this fact indicates that there is a real crystalization effect. I have read that the "crystalization" here occurs at about 1 or 1 1/2 years of age and has to do primarily with audio perception. Supposedly, we form our audio pathways early and they DON'T develop further. [An interesting sideline : supposedly, there is a phoneme in (eastern) Indian languages not found in English. Then people who were not exposed to Hindu at an early age cannot recognize this sound. (I can't verify this - I've never heard it 8-) Perhaps an Indian on the net would be so kind?) ] The argument to support this claim comes from the fact that adults who were exposed to the *sound* of a language as babies, but who were removed from that environment and did not learn the language, learnt it as adults with "native" pronunciations. In fact, these adults had little or no difficulty with those phonemes in question! - Elissa
marty1@houdi.UUCP (M.BRILLIANT) (11/16/87)
In article <2755@bcsaic.UUCP>, rwojcik@bcsaic.UUCP (Rick Wojcik) writes: > In article <1411@houdi.UUCP> marty1@houdi.UUCP (M.BRILLIANT) writes: > > > >What was once believed to be quick language learning in children is now > >believed to be only quick pronunciation learning... > > I don't know why you distinguish between language learning and > pronunciation learning, since one category is surely included in the > other. What is the distinction being made here? Let's think clearly. There is more to a language than just pronunciation. Pronunciation is a part of language learning, not the whole thing. Maybe children learn pronuciation fast, and the rest not so fast. That's the distinction. Something like the distinction between a set and a proper subset. > >Even pronunciation learning may have nothing to do with crystallization. > >The onset of identity crisis might make an adolescent less eager than a > >child to adopt a new language. And an adolescent might be more likely > >to recognize that superficial fluency is not enough, and adopt a > >halting pronunciation to signal that the language has not been mastered. > > > >M. B. Brilliant Marty > > First of all, it is important to note that language learners never > acquire native pronunciation after puberty.... Obviously, if one can learn language after puberty without learning native pronunciation, there must be a difference. > ..... Secondly, if this is caused by an adolescent's "identity > crisis", then the crisis must get worse. Adults get progressively worse > at acquiring foreign pronunciation as they age.... Well, if we oversimplify to the extent that one tentatively proposed contributing cause is assumed by the reader to have been declared as the sole cause, we're not going to get very far, are we? Do we recall why I mentioned identity crisis, and why another contributor mentioned having less time as you grow older? Because somebody suggested that if language learning becomes harder at puberty, it must be because of a crystallization process. If other plausible reasons exist, we can't immediately conclude that there is a crystallization. If you want to prove crystallization, either you need positive evidence of crystallization, or you have to disprove all possible alternatives. At any rate, it looks as though if there is a crystallization, it probably affects only pronunciation learning, not grammar or vocabulary. M. B. Brilliant Marty AT&T-BL HO 3D-520 (201)-949-1858 Holmdel, NJ 07733 ihnp4!houdi!marty1
rwojcik@bcsaic.UUCP (Rick Wojcik) (11/16/87)
In article <1410@houdi.UUCP> marty1@houdi.UUCP (M.BRILLIANT) writes: > >Professionals in language learning speak now of a "sensitive" >period, rather than a "critical" period, and specifically with >reference to phonology. > Maybe I have just lost touch with what is going on in the literature. What language professionals are you talking about? What is the difference between a "sensitive" period and a "critical" period? There is rather overwhelming evidence that language learning is tied biological maturation. Not only is there the fact that foreign accent (phonological accent, i.e.) doesn't go away after puberty, but there is also evidence from language disorders. People who suffer aphasia from left-side brain damage can often recover articulation before puberty. After puberty, chances of total recovery are slim, if at all possible. It may not be the case that the critical period for syntax is the same as that for phonology. The "Joseph Conrad Phenomenon" is a case in point. It is impossible to tell from Conrad's writing that his native language was Polish. However, he pronounced English with a foreign accent. This was the apparent result of his having learned English during his teen years. I believe that Tom Bever came up with a threshold of around 17 to 19 years for syntax, but I do not recall the study in which he made this claim. In any case, the difference between phonological acquisition and other aspects of acquisition should not be surprising. Phonology is intimately tied to muscular coordination, whereas syntax is not. This is why the acquisition of dance and musical instruments runs parallel to phonological accent. Rick Wojcik RWOJCIK@BOEING.COM
merrill@iuvax.UUCP (11/17/87)
marty@houdi.UUCP (M. B. Brilliant) writes: > Do we recall why I menioned identity crisis, and why another > contributor mentioned having less time as you grow older? Because > somebody suggested that if language learning becomes harder at puberty, > it must be because of a crystallization process. If other plausible > reasons exist, we can't immediately conclude that there is a > crystallization. Until now, I've not said anything about the syntactic issue here, but I think I'll put in my two-cents-worth. The second of these arguments doesn't hold water, since some adults transplanted into a foreign culture...and, therefore, speaking the language constantly...don't acquire normal linguistic facility. Certainly practice is essential in language learning, but it doesn't seem to suffice to explain the data. On the other hand, evidence can be offered in support of the identity crisis theory. One of the best indicators for whether or not a new immigrant will learn the language of his or her new home is whether or not that immigrant believes that s/he is a part of the community. If so, then s/he will learn the language; if not, s/he won't. That's an oversimplification, of course, but it's largely true. In other words, if an adult identifies with a community, then that adult will very probably be willing to adopt that community's language. Of course, the situation is not entirely parallel to the identity crisis of adolescence, but it's similar. > If you want to prove crystallization, either you need positive evidence > of crystallization, or you have to disprove all possible alternatives. > At any rate, it looks as though if there is a crystallization, it > probably affects only pronunciation learning, not grammar or vocabulary. I agree with the first sentence; I'm still not convinced about the second---but I'm coming around. What about the acquistion of colloquial speech? The usual folk-myth is that non-native speakers acquire standard vocabulary without acquiring idioms. Is there any research about that? --- John Merrill
alen@cogen.UUCP (Alen Shapiro) (11/18/87)
In article <6554@sunybcs.UUCP> feit@gort.UUCP (Elissa Feit) writes: >In article <12400009@iuvax> merrill@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu writes: >> >>The best data along these lines come from Japanese adults trying to >>learn English as a second language. Japanese, like related Asian >>languages, does not contain the [r]/[l] pair; thus, speakers of >>Japanese do not learn to discriminate between these two phonemes very >>well. Even if adults are taught artificially to make the distinction in >>speech, no matter how patiently---thus getting around the "see doggie >>run" kind of argument---they *do not* acquire any statistically >>significant skill in recognizing these two phones. It seems to me >>that this fact indicates that there is a real crystalization effect. > > I have read that the "crystalization" here occurs at about > 1 or 1 1/2 years of age and has to do primarily with audio > perception. Supposedly, we form our audio pathways > early and they DON'T develop further. > > [An interesting sideline : supposedly, there is a phoneme in > (eastern) Indian languages not found in English. Then people who > were not exposed to Hindu at an early age cannot recognize > this sound. (I can't verify this - I've never heard it 8-) > Perhaps an Indian on the net would be so kind?) ] > > The argument to support this claim comes from the fact that > adults who were exposed to the *sound* of a language as babies, > but who were removed from that environment and did not learn > the language, learnt it as adults with "native" pronunciations. > In fact, these adults had little or no difficulty with those > phonemes in question! > I remember a few years ago having an interesting conversation with a visiting Russian postgraduate. He was trying to teach me how to annunciate the Russian (or was it Checkoslovakian (sp?)) SHJ character. I recall hearing a difference in the sound he was making but I was unable to quantify this difference sufficiently well to notice if my attempts were getting better or worse (much to my frustration and his ammusement). I DO believe the problem is largely auditory and some facet has to do with crystalization of audio pathways however I have developed a healthy respect for the complexity of human perception and would not presume to think that this is the WHOLE story. --alen the Lisa slayer (it's a long story) fi ll er li ne s wi th mo in fo rm at io n co nt en t
Angelique_N_Wahlstedt@cup.portal.com (11/18/87)
[nibble, nibble, burp!]
Hi...all this discussion about language learning has caught my interest,
and I'd like to make a few points.
First, I may be wrong, but many of you out there in the Net-land seems to
have confused pronouncation learning with learning grammar and vocabulary.
They certainly are not the same -- I've managed to learn to "speak" English
quite fluently without ever speaking it at all. How is that, you ask? The
answer is simple: I'm deaf, and have been that way since birth. (In case
anyone is wondering, I learned English mostly from a LOT of reading and
writing, plus some tutoring.)
Second, some of you've been arguing about the crystalization effect and
why adults have trouble learning new languages, as opposed to kids. I'm
no linguist, but I'd like to propose one new possibility -- can it because
many adults weren't exposed heavily enough to a new language in order to
learn it? Many adults (and teenagers) usually learn a new language in
classrooms, but very rarely, they get to use it outside the classroom
(unless they, of course, are living in a foreign country).
But then again, that certainly doesn't explain why some immigrants in this
country never learn to speak English fluenty. But then again, that could
be a matter of motivation and other factors (for one thing, Asians can't
distinguish between the "l" and "r" sounds, as someone in this newsgroup
mentioned.)
I have some evidence to support the suggestion above: people deaf since
birth. Many deaf people (this doesn't count hard-of-hearing people or
people who became deaf later in their lives) have never learned to use
English quite fluently, despite all the efforts of teaching (or lack
thereof, as in some cases). Why, you ask? Because they weren't exposed
heavily enough to English. All hearing kids learn languages mainly
by OVERHEARING in addition to people talking to them. Because deaf kids
can only learn a language through their eyes (via reading or signs),
they miss out a LOT. (You can forget abut hearing aids -- they may be
great for detecting sounds but not very effective for discriminating
human speech.) However, it is true that a few deaf people, such as myself,
have managed to achieve fluent English. But I have noticed that's usually
because we read a LOT when we were kids. (Teaching also helped -- unlike
many hearing kids, we had to be fed grammar, vocabulary, and such.)
-- Angelique Wahlstedt
Internet: wahlsted@handel.colostate.edu
UUCP : {ihnp4, ??? }!hpfcla!handel!wahlsted
BITNET : PEPPER@CSUGREENrwojcik@bcsaic.UUCP (Rick Wojcik) (11/19/87)
In article <1413@houdi.UUCP> marty1@houdi.UUCP (M.BRILLIANT) writes: >Do we recall why I mentioned identity crisis, and why another >contributor mentioned having less time as you grow older? Because >somebody suggested that if language learning becomes harder at puberty, >it must be because of a crystallization process. If other plausible >reasons exist, we can't immediately conclude that there is a >crystallization. > Sorry to have misunderstood your wording on the difference between phonological acquisition and "language acquisition". Perhaps I should clarify my meaning as well. Both adults and children can "acquire" a target language. The problem is that adults can't "master" foreign languages (i.e. learn to speak with undetectable accents). The threshold for phonology is puberty, and the threshold for syntax is (less clearly) post-adolescence. The issue, as you put it, is plausibility. ADULTS-ARE-TOO-BUSY argument. Most children don't hold down full-time jobs, but those who do still acquire language effortlessly. We are not talking about rote-learning here. Children acquire language by virtue of being exposed to it. No amount of free time or exposure seems to give adults mastery over a foreign language. IDENTITY CRISIS argument. I am not sure how you intend this to work. All stressful situations affect learning. The one that we have loosely termed "identity crisis" strikes different individuals with differing intensity. Do foreign accents vary with the severity of one's "identity crisis"? No such correlation has ever been found, although we do know that foreign accents correlate to biological maturation. >If you want to prove crystallization, either you need positive evidence >of crystallization, or you have to disprove all possible alternatives. > I am not sure what you regard as "positive evidence", but it certainly doesn't make any of the "alternatives" look better. I pour goose-gander sauce all over your identity crisis argument. As for "disproving all possible alternatives", I am less demanding. I would only require that you disprove all "plausible alternatives". So far, there aren't any.
yg@culdev1.UUCP (11/20/87)
In article <1498@cup.portal.com>, Angelique_N_Wahlstedt@cup.portal.com writes: > > [nibble, nibble, burp!] > > be a matter of motivation and other factors (for one thing, Asians can't > distinguish between the "l" and "r" sounds, as someone in this newsgroup > mentioned.) > I am surprised by the above statement. I did not see the original (ol shourd I be saying oliginar?!). I know that some Asians have trouble distinguishing between the "l" and the "r" sounds but I am certain that it is not true for all Asians. Cheers.
paul@tut.UUCP (11/22/87)
In article <1767@culdev1.UUCP> yg@culdev1.UUCP (Yogesh Gupta) writes: < In article <1498@cup.portal.com>, Angelique_N_Wahlstedt@cup.portal.com writes: < > be a matter of motivation and other factors (for one thing, Asians can't < > distinguish between the "l" and "r" sounds, as someone in this newsgroup < > mentioned.) < < I am surprised by the above statement. I did not see the original (ol < shourd I be saying oliginar?!). I know that some Asians have trouble < distinguishing between the "l" and the "r" sounds but I am certain that < it is not true for all Asians. Actually, the 'L'/'R' statement isn't entirely true. Most speakers who have not been exposed to a language that distinguishes between L and R (ie. Asian) don't distinguish them. I recall, however, a catagorical perception study in which a group of adult native American English speakers were tested on a L-R continuum. They gave (not supprisingly) a nice CP curve. A group of adult native Japaneese speakers, who had very little experiance with English were then tested, and they got a quite poor CP curve (almost flat discrimination, poor identification). The Japaneese speakers were then given ~3 weeks of intense training at L vs. R distinction. At the end of this, they were tested again, and did allmost as well (90 to 95% as effective) as the American speakers: a nice peeked discrimination curve, and a nice, almost square-wave identification). I don't, unfortunately, have a pointer to said study. I'll see if I can find it... The main point is that (1) 'L'/'R' is a learned CP skill, and (2) many CP skills do _not_ crystalize: adults can learn them. Some people, of course, do learn better than others, however. -- Paul Placeway ...!cbosgd!osu-cis!tut!paul paul@ohio-state.arpa, paul@cis.ohio-state.edu
paul@tut.UUCP (11/22/87)
In article <2819@bcsaic.UUCP> rwojcik@bcsaic.UUCP (Rick Wojcik) writes:
< .... The problem is that adults can't "master" foreign
< languages (i.e. learn to speak with undetectable accents). The
< threshold for phonology is puberty, and the threshold for syntax is
< (less clearly) post-adolescence.
I'm not sure that I agree with this. I now some people who do seem to
have "crystalized", and can't learn new languages very well at all.
On the other hand, I also know many adults who can learn language
after language, after... to a point of _fluency_ (inc. robust
phonetic, phonological, syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic
understanding). Could you give a citation or two?
-- Paulrwojcik@bcsaic.UUCP (11/24/87)
In article <1767@culdev1.UUCP> yg@culdev1.UUCP (Yogesh Gupta) writes: >> be a matter of motivation and other factors (for one thing, Asians can't >> distinguish between the "l" and "r" sounds, as someone in this newsgroup >> mentioned.) > >I am surprised by the above statement. I did not see the original (ol >shourd I be saying oliginar?!). I know that some Asians have trouble >distinguishing between the "l" and the "r" sounds but I am certain that >it is not true for all Asians. > I think that the discussion on r/l has been slightly misleading. It has been said that adult speakers of Japanese cannot learn to discriminate r/l. The fact is that many adults learn to discriminate these sounds with time. It also seems to be the case that discrimination in some phonetic environments is learned earlier than in others. One easy way to test this is to recite minimal pairs to language learners and have them mark spelled words. With a sufficiently large number of subjects, you get interesting patterns of r/l discrimination. The r/l distinction is difficult for speakers of many languages, since it is a relatively rare phonemic opposition to have. Hindi, and many other (most?) languages on the Indian subcontinent do have the opposition. -- =========== Rick Wojcik rwojcik@boeing.com
roberts@cognos.uucp (Robert Stanley) (11/25/87)
In article <386@cogen.UUCP> alen@cogen.UUCP (Alen Shapiro) writes: >I remember a few years ago having an interesting conversation >with a visiting Russian postgraduate. He was trying to teach me how >to annunciate the Russian (or was it Checkoslovakian (sp?)) SHJ >character. I recall hearing a difference in the sound he was making >but I was unable to quantify this difference sufficiently well to >notice if my attempts were getting better or worse (much to my >frustration and his ammusement). I DO believe the problem is >largely auditory and some facet has to do with crystalization of audio >pathways however I have developed a healthy respect for the complexity >of human perception and would not presume to think that this is >the WHOLE story. I learned Russian as a teenager, primarily as a written language to deal with scientific publications. I took some conversational Russian courses in music appreciation aged 19-21 and was rapidly able to learn to distinguish the various phonemes necessary, although I apparently always spoke them with a marked 'foreign' accent. A decade later as a member of a choral singing group we were making recordings of a number of works with Russian libretti, and one of our number, a teacher and fluent russian speaker, derived an english phonemic transliteration of the russian texts. This proved sufficiently good that, sung by 120 voices, our Muscovite conductor for the recording sessions was a) moved to tears by the poetry and b) dispensed with the language coach he had brought with him. So it is clearly possible to take 120 fairly random members of an urban culture, admittedly with trained ears, and teach them to correctly enunciate a totally foreign language to a very demanding standard of clarity and acceptability to a native speaker of that language. Of course, Russian and English are very similar languages. (digression: my conversational russian teacher always called the SHJ sound 'beetle', because the cyrillic character )|( sort of resembles one. Says little about his knowledge of entomology!) In the mid 70's I spent 15 months working in Iraq at the Atomic Energy Centre, where the languages spoken are Arabic, German, English, and French, in descending order of frequency. At first, I was unable to distinguish between the various Arabic gutturals - GH, KH, QUH, etc. - but a month or two of constant exposure (all my colleagues spoke Arabic among themselves) served to make the distinction obvious. Unfortunately, I had little chance to practice speaking because social contact was discouraged, and business was technical and conducted in the European languages, which meant that I learned to make myself understood, but always amid laughter. Other European colleagues, fluent in several European languages were both more and less successful, with the wooden spoon going to a Scot with a perpetual thick Glaswegian accent. I have wondered whether my early upbringing played a part in language learning: my infant language was Urdu, and my early childhood languages Zulu and Swazi, all learned from servants and their children, while my first formal education was in Afrikaans (bears the same relation to contemporary Dutch as Shakespearean English does to contemporary English). English was spoken only in parental company, and on the occasion of social visits with the children of other anglophones. I have heard a theory propounded that, once one has mastered the technique of learning a new language, any new language can be added with reasonable facility. The numbers quoted (I've long ago lost the reference) were three languages to start the process, and eight to complete. More than eight languages mastered apparently makes mastering another simply a question of effort. It would be interesting to know if this requires the first few languages to be learned early (I wouldn't even recognize Urdu today, but still have some Zulu), and if it works because the brain has developed some new patterning skill, or has simply been exposed to so many phonetic variants that what most people accept as commonplace (and ignore) ceases to be so. I suspect that there is an enormous social and cultural element present in the language- learning process. >--alen the Lisa slayer (it's a long story) I still have a Lisa - it's the workhorse of my preferred computing environment >fi ll er li ne s wi th mo in fo rm at io n co nt en t ^ who's this mo character, and what info does he have that might be relevant? ;-) (It's easier to global edit the '>' to something else) Robert_S -- R.A. Stanley Cognos Incorporated S-mail: P.O. Box 9707 Voice: (613) 738-1440 (Research: there are 2!) 3755 Riverside Drive FAX: (613) 738-0002 Compuserve: 76174,3024 Ottawa, Ontario uucp: decvax!utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!cognos!roberts CANADA K1G 3Z4
rwojcik@bcsaic.UUCP (Rick Wojcik) (11/25/87)
In article <2059@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> paul@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Paul W. Placeway) writes: >The main point is that (1) 'L'/'R' is a learned CP skill, and (2) many >CP skills do _not_ crystalize: adults can learn them. Some people, of >course, do learn better than others, however. > > -- Paul Placeway Excellent points. Linguistic theory traditionally makes no distinction between comprehension and production. Note that problems in phoneme discrimination parallel problems in pronunciation. The Russian linguist Shvachkin (see Ferguson/Slobin, eds. Studies of Child Language Development, 1973) did the original study on phoneme discrimination in children. Jakobson's Child Language, Aphasia... is based on studies of production. Phoneme discrimination can be learned by adults, but it is far from clear that it ever achieves the state of perfection we find in children. The fact that adults can acquire language skills is irrelevant to the issue of crystallization. The question is over how well they can acquire them. *All* healthy children are language virtuosos. Some adults are pretty good at learning new languages, but it has yet to be established that *any* adult can acquire a new language without accent. Your implication is that adults can acquire perfect phonemic discrimination, but the study you cite falls short of showing this. -- =========== Rick Wojcik rwojcik@boeing.com
rwojcik@bcsaic.UUCP (Rick Wojcik) (11/25/87)
In article <2060@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> Paul W. Placeway writes: >On the other hand, I also know many adults who can learn language >after language, after... to a point of _fluency_ (inc. robust >phonetic, phonological, syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic >understanding). Could you give a citation or two? > > -- Paul There is a standing challenge in the L2 community to find a single person who has acquired native fluency in a foreign language in adulthood. The judge of this can only be native speakers of the language in question. Stories about people who learn "language after language...to a point of fluency" are not sufficient. What you consider fluent for another language is not the point. (What I propose is a variation of Turing's test for artificial intelligence.) Here is a case in point. My wife learned French by study+immersion in young adulthood. She has achieved fluency to the point where she can fool other French speakers into thinking she is French--but not a speaker of the listener's dialect. This deception is almost never maintained in extended conversations. An accent is always detected. She learned Spanish in her early 30's and is quite impressive at it. Native Spanish speakers always hear an accent, but English learners of Spanish seldom do. They think she has achieved native fluency. -- =========== Rick Wojcik rwojcik@boeing.com
yg@culdev1.UUCP (11/25/87)
In article <2059@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu>, paul@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Paul W. Placeway) writes: > > Actually, the 'L'/'R' statement isn't entirely true. Most speakers > who have not been exposed to a language that distinguishes between L > and R (ie. Asian) don't distinguish them. ^^^^^ I guess THIS was the reason for my previous objection - why is it that it is assumed that languages in Asia do not differentiate between an L and an R? > > The main point is that (1) 'L'/'R' is a learned CP skill, and (2) many > CP skills do _not_ crystalize: adults can learn them. Some people, of > course, do learn better than others, however. > > -- Paul Placeway Agreed. - Yogesh Gupta. Ti sh is to ma ke in ew sh ap py
paul@tut.UUCP (11/28/87)
In article <1786@culdev1.UUCP> yg@culdev1.UUCP (Yogesh Gupta) writes: < In article <2059@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu>, paul@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Paul W. Placeway) writes: < > and R (ie. Asian) don't distinguish them. < ^^^^^ < I guess THIS was the reason for my previous objection - why is it that < it is assumed that languages in Asia do not differentiate between an L < and an R? Ah. I seem to have been caught with dangling assumptions. Actually, the only far eastern (near western?) language that I know doesn't distinguish L & R is Japaneese. Sorry about that... -- Paul
paul@tut.UUCP (11/28/87)
In article <2911@bcsaic.UUCP> rwojcik@bcsaic.UUCP (Rick Wojcik) writes:
< Phoneme discrimination can be learned by adults, but it is
< far from clear that it ever achieves the state of perfection we find in
< children. The fact that adults can acquire language skills is
< irrelevant to the issue of crystallization. The question is over how
< well they can acquire them. *All* healthy children are language virtuosos.
< Some adults are pretty good at learning new languages, but it has yet to
< be established that *any* adult can acquire a new language without
< accent. Your implication is that adults can acquire perfect phonemic
< discrimination, but the study you cite falls short of showing this.
The main point I wanted to make is that crystallization is far from as
hard and absolute an effect as some people would believe.
While it is true that the majority of adults do not learn to speak a
new language without accent (that is, coloration from their native
language(s)), The statement that _no_ adult can learn to speak without
accent bothers me: I am not convinced that this is the case for _all_
adults; most, probably, but not all.
A seven year old child has just spent 7 years, of 365 days/year, 12-18
hours/day of language practice; most adults do not spend anywhere near
this amount of effort learning a new language unless they have spent
years of time in the new culture. Thus most adult language learners
do not 'count' in such a comparison. Of those adults who have been
in the new culture, certainly some do not ever learn all of the
subtleties that comprise the local accent, and some do learn to
perceive the differences, but do not learn how to produce them well.
I suspect, however, that there are as many who do learn to produce as
who do not. In other words, I suspect that if measured, this effect
should so a bell curve, with the high end well into the native fluency
bell curve range.
If seen as a motor skill, speech is very complex. There are well
attested cases of _some_ adults learning motor skills of similar
complexity just as well as children. Most pianists, for example,
start as kids, but there are a few who didn't start until they were
adults. Such cases are rare, but _not_ nonexistant.
As far as phonemic discrimination, the study I cited does not show
perfect results, but then again, 95% as good as natives in 3-4 weeks
of training isn't all that bad, either. I do not know if a similar
study has been done for people who have had years of experience.
Years of practice probably cover the remaining 5%, however...
-- Paulgoldfain@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu (12/01/87)
I think the "crystallization hypothesis" in language acquisition is an
hypothesis which by its very nature will snag people into a debate. I think a
review of the overall nature of this hypothesis and debate are instructive as
to something which should be avoided whenever possible in science.
1) We have an observable phenomenon at a very high level of complexity:
It concerns fine distinctions in natural language behavior.
2) The observations of the phenomenon are not well pinned down: Researchers
mention something about "mastery" of the language, then sometimes back off
and only simply make claims about phonetic categorial perception, then
shift back to discussing scores on grammar tests among people who have been
in a culture for 10-20 years, immigrating at different times in their
lives, etc.
**************************************************************************
* I am not saying the phenomenon isn't real! There are observable and *
* interesting phenomena here. I am just qualifying that. *
**************************************************************************
3) The phenomena *suggests* that *possibly* there is a physiological basis for
such trends and differences as are observed. To make a really concrete
claim, it *suggests* that perhaps some maturation process in the normal
human brain occurs at about mid teenage years.
4) There are lots of other mechanisms that are consistent with the observed
phenomena: a wide range of psychological "lower-level" factors have been
listed in the current debate in this note file.
5) If one really steps back and looks at this objectively, we can tell that
the "experiments" ("studies" is actually a better word) thus far performed
and currently underway will never help distinguish whether this phenomenon
has a physiological basis or merely a psychological basis, or a combination
of both (don't forget that possibility!)
6) There is a large set of anecdotal rumor floating around that is only going
to keep the issue cloudy. It may keep us from the wrong conclusion, but it
is not going to settle us down on whatever the correct answer is.
I think the only way to settle the matter will have to wait on tighter
experimentation (if it is ever judged that this issue is worth the experiments
it would take to settle it.) It will require a great deal of progress in
neurophysiology, or some volunteers for some outrageous psychology
experiments. (Find me 100 open-minded adults who will set aside all other
interests for at least 5 years of their lives ... )
In other words, I think the moral of this issue is that you cannot expect to
settle an issue that is several layers of abstraction below the level of your
observational apparatus. (In this case it might be more than "several".) In
a sense I'm saying: "Go back to the lab and let's look for other things we can
get a better grip on - this issue will have to wait until another day."
Mark Goldfain arpa: goldfain@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu
US Mail: Mark Goldfain
(A lowly student at)--> Department of Computer Science
University of Illinois at U-C
1304 West Springfield Avenue
Urbana, Illinois 61801wales@CS.UCLA.EDU (12/02/87)
In article <2360@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> paul@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Paul W. Placeway) writes: > Of those adults who have been in the new culture, certainly some do > not ever learn all of the subtleties that comprise the local accent, > and some do learn to perceive the differences, but do not learn how > to produce them well. > As far as phonemic discrimination, the study I cited does not show > perfect results, but then again, 95% as good as natives in 3-4 weeks > of training isn't all that bad, either. I do not know if a similar > study has been done for people who have had years of experience. > Years of practice probably cover the remaining 5%, however... Keep in mind that the standard of perfection is quite high. An adult trying to acquire a local accent well enough to "pass for a native" needs to do a virtually flawless job, or else he will be found out. No matter how "good as native" that 95% of someone's speech may be, the 5% that deviates from the local norm will stick out like a sore thumb in the listener's ears. A friend of mine -- a young man from Manchester, England -- recently spent a couple of years in Kentucky and southern Ohio. Upon his return, he still spoke with the same Manchester dialect as he did before he left -- but now with occasional slight traces of a Midwestern US accent. Yet he told me that, when he went home to England for a brief visit, every- one back in Manchester claimed he sounded like an American! (I assured him, by the way, that he most definitely did not sound at all like an American, and he was much relieved. :-}) What presumably happened was that his friends back home simply didn't notice the "Manchester" components of his speech (since these were no different from the norm as far as they were concerned), but the occa- sional features from the American Midwest stood out very clearly. If my friend had visited another part of England, I suspect they would have had no trouble identifying him as being from Manchester. -- Rich Wales // UCLA Computer Science Department // +1 (213) 825-5683 3531 Boelter Hall // Los Angeles, California 90024-1596 // USA wales@CS.UCLA.EDU ...!(ucbvax,rutgers)!ucla-cs!wales "Sir, there is a multilegged creature crawling on your shoulder."
rwojcik@bcsaic.UUCP (12/02/87)
In article <2360@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> paul@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Paul W. Placeway) writes: > >A seven year old child has just spent 7 years, of 365 days/year, 12-18 >hours/day of language practice; most adults do not spend anywhere near >this amount of effort learning a new language unless they have spent >years of time in the new culture. Thus most adult language learners >do not 'count' in such a comparison. Of those adults who have been Let us limit ourselves to cases of adult immersion in a foreign language. Even trained phoneticians can't seem to rid themselves of an accent. A case in point is Dr. Lehiste, whom you mentioned in a previous note. She has an extremely sharp mind, a good memory, and more knoweldge of phonetic detail than 99.999(etc.)% of the human population. She has lived in the US for several decades. She may be a busy woman, but her business is language. Why does she still speak with an accent? Another case in point is the late Roman Jakobson, one of this century's finest linguists. The standard joke in the linguistic community is that he spoke five languages in fluent Russian. The fact remains that no amount of practice or immersian can make an adult the equal of a child. -- =========== Rick Wojcik rwojcik@boeing.com
smoliar@vaxa.isi.edu (Stephen Smoliar) (12/04/87)
This account of learning the "beetle" sound reminds me of one of the sillier remarks in Jerry Fodor's THE LANGUAGE OF THOUGHT. While he was discussing the role of visual exemplars in understanding, I would think his remarks are as applicable to audible exemplars: The present point is that the process by which one becomes acquainted with the exemplar is not itself a process of hypothesis formation and testing; it is, rather, the process of opening one's eyes [ears] and looking [listening]. The accounts of both Alen Shaprio and Robert Stanley would indicate that phoneme learning is not just a matter of hearing good exemplars. Attempts by the learner to reproduce the phoneme clearly seem to be an indication of hypothesis formation on the learner's part (hypothesizing how to shape the mouth and control the breath) and testing based on both what the learner hears and how others react to it.
edwards@uwmacc.UUCP (mark edwards) (12/04/87)
In article <2999@bcsaic.UUCP> rwojcik@bcsaic.UUCP (Rick Wojcik) writes: :In article <2360@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> paul@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Paul W. Placeway) writes: :> :>A seven year old child has just spent 7 years, of 365 days/year, 12-18 :>hours/day of language practice; most adults do not spend anywhere near :>this amount of effort learning a new language unless they have spent :>years of time in the new culture. Thus most adult language learners :>do not 'count' in such a comparison. Of those adults who have been : :Let us limit ourselves to cases of adult immersion in a foreign :language. Even trained phoneticians can't seem to rid themselves of an :accent. A case in point is Dr. Lehiste, whom you mentioned in a :previous note. She has an extremely sharp mind, a good memory, and more :knoweldge of phonetic detail than 99.999(etc.)% of the human population. :She has lived in the US for several decades. She may be a busy woman, :but her business is language. Why does she still speak with an accent? So. Her main point of study was the phonetic detail (according to you), not how to speak english without an accent, or not even to learn english. : The fact remains that no :amount of practice or immersian can make an adult the equal of a child. What fact? It seems to me what you are saying is that the observed evidence shows that no adult can lose their native accent. Which is like saying "That man listens only to jazz because that is all I hear him listening to". Just because there is no observed evidence does not prove your theory. I say because any child can learn his native language any adult can learn the childs native language also. My proof is that any adult can do what ever any child can do. On the serious side, what if we taught the adult to use the phonetic system of the language (perhaps by using nonsense syllables in that language) before letting him see, hear real words. And then insure that he picks up the correct accent also. You would also have to teach only in the target language, you don't want him to used his native language on anything. Saying anything in his native language would result in forty whips with a wet noddle. This would take considerably longer then the present methods, but the results, I predict, will raise some doubt whether or not an adult can learn the language as a child does. A big problem with this is proverbs or metaphors. When I am speaking japanese, english grammar and semantics kind of creep in and take over when my japanese is not adequate. Often this brings laughter or consternation. How do you prevent this interference between the two languages? I wonder how a child does it? If he does he must have some kind of marker marking the grammar and semantics, japanese or english. I'm tired of the arguments, it can't be done because it hasn't been done in the past. If that were true than there would be a lot less Steven Jobs and Bill Gates in the world. mark -- edwards@vms.macc.wisc.edu {allegra, ihnp4, seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!edwards UW-Madison, 1210 West Dayton St., Madison WI 53706
rwojcik@bcsaic.UUCP (Rick Wojcik) (12/05/87)
In article <8300015@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu> goldfain@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu writes: >...[after long article discussing some issues] >In other words, I think the moral of this issue is that you cannot expect to >settle an issue that is several layers of abstraction below the level of your >observational apparatus. (In this case it might be more than "several".) In >a sense I'm saying: "Go back to the lab and let's look for other things we can >get a better grip on - this issue will have to wait until another day." > I don't think that this would be a very interesting newsgroup if there were no debates. The crystallization issue is interesting, and it merits intelligent discussion. The point is not to "solve" the issue, but to increase our understanding of it. You have a lot to say on a subject that you seem to feel ought not to be discussed :-]. I, myself, feel that we ought to know something about what we are testing before we rush into the laboratory to test it. I can't resist ending with one of Mark Twain's observations about adults in foreign language contexts: "In Paris they simply stared when I spoke to them in French; I never did succeed in making those idiots understand their own language." -- =========== Rick Wojcik rwojcik@boeing.com
ok@quintus.UUCP (12/05/87)
Maybe it's my ignorance showing, but everyone seems to be asking the question "children can learn their native language perfectly (as in: without an accent), can adults learn languages perfectly too, and if not why not?". It seems to me that the first part of this question is false: children do NOT learn to speak the same language as their parents. This is particularly clear in the case of slang and metaphor (I *still* don't know what "twenty-three skidoo" meant), but I quite certainly haven't got the same accent as my parents, and in my own country "age dialects" seemed more obvious to me than "regional" dialects. Speakers of a language where "silly" once meant "happy" shouldn't rush to assume that children have some magical skill lost to adults.
das@CS.UCLA.EDU (12/06/87)
In article <2048@uwmacc.UUCP> edwards@unix.macc.wisc.edu (mark edwards) writes: > I say because any child can learn his native language any adult can > learn the childs native language also. My proof is that any adult can > do what ever any child can do. I wouldn't be so sure about that last sentence. Look at "hemis" (people who have had one hemisphere of their brain removed). If this removal occurs before a certain age (around 3 to 5, I think), it appears that the person seems to be more "normal" than someone who's lost a hemisphere at a later age -- that is, those brain functions that are normally performed predominantly by one hemisphere can be done almost as well by the other, if the need arises before a certain age, and not as well if it arises after that age. This isn't precise, but it does illustrate that what the brain can do changes with age, and not always in the direction of increased power. This says nothing about your contention -- just your proof. -- David Smallberg, das@cs.ucla.edu, {sdcrdcf,ucbvax}!ucla-cs!das
murrayw@utai.UUCP (12/06/87)
In article <435@cresswell.quintus.UUCP> ok@quintus.UUCP (Richard A. O'Keefe) writes: >Maybe it's my ignorance showing, but everyone seems to be asking the ^^^^^^^^^ Possibly, your correct. >is false: children do NOT learn to speak the same language as their ^^^^ Not 100% the same >(I *still* don't know what "twenty-three skidoo" meant), but I quite >certainly haven't got the same accent as my parents, and in my own Why then can different regional accents in North America be traced to different groups of immigrants??? If your parents are new immigrants then you might not have thier accent. Instead you have the accent of your teachers, your freinds' parents, and your favorite television character. >rush to assume that children have some magical skill lost to adults. This was not a "rushed" conclusion and no one thinks it is a "magical" skill. Murray I wouldn't believe in magical skills either.
marty1@houdi.UUCP (M.BRILLIANT) (12/08/87)
In article <2048@uwmacc.UUCP>, edwards@uwmacc.UUCP (mark edwards) writes, in response to article <2999@bcsaic.UUCP> by rwojcik@bcsaic.UUCP (Rick Wojcik): > > ... It seems to me what you are saying is that the observed > evidence shows that no adult can lose their native accent. Which is > like saying "That man listens only to jazz because that is all I hear > him listening to". > > Just because there is no observed evidence does not prove your theory. > I say because any child can learn his native language any adult can > learn the childs native language also. My proof is that any adult can > do what ever any child can do. > I don't think you can learn much about natural processes by restricting the argument to terms of "can do" vs. "can't do." All good studies of natural systems are done statistically, with large subject pools and systematic controls, because all individuals are different. When you study the capabilities of psychological systems, important clues can come from subtle differences in learning time or response time. Since differences may be reversed in some individuals, because of their particular capabilities, large subject groups must be used. It is probably true that anything most children do easily, some adult can do with effort. But if you want to know how natural learning works, to figure out how to make artificial systems learn, that doesn't tell you much. M. B. Brilliant Marty AT&T-BL HO 3D-520 (201)-949-1858 Holmdel, NJ 07733 ihnp4!houdi!marty1
murrayw@utai.UUCP (Murray Watt) (12/09/87)
In article <2048@uwmacc.UUCP> edwards@unix.macc.wisc.edu (mark edwards) writes: >In article <2999@bcsaic.UUCP> rwojcik@bcsaic.UUCP (Rick Wojcik) writes: >:In article <2360@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> paul@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Paul W. Placeway) writes: > >: The fact remains that no >:amount of practice or immersian can make an adult the equal of a child. > > What fact? It seems to me what you are saying is that the observed > evidence shows that no adult can lose their native accent. Which is > like saying "That man listens only to jazz because that is all I hear > him listening to". > My father has taken many French courses and has taken three four month complete emersion courses in my native provice of Quebec. He has worked hard and knows more French than I, but he still sounds more like an Anglo than I. I am not that he cannot lose his accent, just that it is difficult. > Just because there is no observed evidence does not prove your theory. Theories that predict the observed evidence are better than those that are inconsistent with the evidence! > I say because any child can learn his native language any adult can > learn the childs native language also. My proof is that any adult can ^^^^^ Is this a tableau proof or modus ponens? > do what ever any child can do. ^^^^^^^^^ How about climbing through small holes in fences? Murray Watt Are we getting emotional statements on the net from people who cannot come to terms with their loss of youth?
edwards@uwmacc.UUCP (mark edwards) (12/10/87)
In article <4181@utai.UUCP> murrayw@ai.UUCP (Murray Watt) writes:
:> Just because there is no observed evidence does not prove your theory.
:
: Theories that predict the observed evidence are better than those that
: are inconsistent with the evidence!
:
:> I say because any child can learn his native language any adult can
:> learn the childs native language also. My proof is that any adult can
: ^^^^^
: Is this a tableau proof or modus ponens?
No. It was making a similar kind of statement to those who say
it can't be done. Their proof is as shallow as my stated proof is.
:
:> do what ever any child can do.
: ^^^^^^^^^
: How about climbing through small holes in fences?
:
: Murray Watt
:
: Are we getting emotional statements on the net from people
: who cannot come to terms with their loss of youth?
Maybe it is emotional. However I think a lot of the facts are
being glossed over, ignored or simply not explored. You don't
find answers by saying the observed evidence supports the "C
period", or that an adult can not become fluent.
Two hundred years ago the observed evidence would support the
conclusion that "man cannot fly", or "the moon is made out of
cheese". Things like radio, television, would never have been
invented. Only 40 years ago, dreams about having a workstation
on every desk would have seem to be only that. Now we know that
someday we will probably have computers in our watches that are
just has powerful as the workstations today.
I guess I should move into the Cognitive Science discipline because
the other disciplines dealing with natural language are much too
rigid. It looks like it takes a new science to find answers that
the other sciences refuse to consider.
mark
--
edwards@vms.macc.wisc.edu
{allegra, ihnp4, seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!edwards
UW-Madison, 1210 West Dayton St., Madison WI 53706ddm@cblpe.ATT.COM (Douglas Moreland) (12/11/87)
Though news announcers are subject to the firing and hiring whims of their bosses, their bosses are trying to capture an audience by hiring news announcers that are friendly-acting, familiar, and comfortable to the people who watch. You don't do that by hiring people who speak regional dialects (unless it's a regional tv show). The language of news announcers thus becomes a standard dialect, understandable to listeners across the country as "their language." So, this "hiring and firing at the whim of the bosses" will serve to accurately mirror the speech of the people who listen. The announcers who don't get enough viewers (for whatever reasons, among them non-standard dialect) get canned.
goldfain@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu (12/13/87)
rwojcik@bcsaic.UUCP posted a note in comp.ai which I feel warrants response:
< In article <8300015@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu> goldfain@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu writes:
< > [ ... excerpted quote not reproduced ... -MSG ]
< I don't think that this would be a very interesting newsgroup if there were
< no debates. The crystallization issue is interesting, and it merits
< intelligent discussion. The point is not to "solve" the issue, but to
< increase our understanding of it. You have a lot to say on a subject that
< you seem to feel ought not to be discussed :-]. I, myself, feel that we
< ought to know something about what we are testing before we rush into the
< laboratory to test it.
For the most part, our comments are not altogether inconsistent. I am all for
"intelligent discussion", and am making no attempt to discourage debate on the
net in general. I certainly object that it is a misrepresentation of my views
to say that I feel this issue "ought not to be discussed".
What I hoped to contribute to the discussion was some general advice on what
one may expect to come from the current topic and debate. My remarks were
specifically in terms of advancing science, which I will readily admit is not
the only goal of the audience of this forum. In the cited posting, the phrase
"increase our understanding" is precisely what is in doubt, unless we take due
precaution.
Mark Goldfain internet : goldfain@osiris.cso.uiuc.edujohn13@garfield.UUCP (John Russell) (12/14/87)
In article <2053@uwmacc.UUCP> edwards@unix.macc.wisc.edu (mark edwards) writes: >In article <4181@utai.UUCP> murrayw@ai.UUCP (Murray Watt) writes: >:> My proof is that any adult can [ do whatever any child can do. ] >: ^^^^^ >: Is this a tableau proof or modus ponens? > > No. It was making a similar kind of statement to those who say > it can't be done. Their proof is as shallow as my stated proof is. Keep in mind that there are biological differences (eg puberty) so the molecules boinging around the brain-stem of a child aren't the same as for you and me. Babies can regrow part of a digit that's cut off (not sure up to what age) -- I'll let someone else volunteer to test that one out. John -- "Listen fathead, the ONE thing we DON'T need is some trigger-happy lunatic in charge... No I didn't mean you Mr. President... Yes sir, I'm sure you do get a lot of that sort of thing." -- Judge Harold T. Stone
jnp@calmasd.GE.COM (John Pantone) (12/19/87)
(Douglas Moreland) writes: >Though news announcers are subject to the firing and hiring whims of their >bosses, ... The language of news announcers thus becomes a standard dialect >... I agree, in general Doug, but there are some notable exceptions: Bill Moyers has a very distinct(ive) southern accent (sorry - can't place it better than that - I am not familiar with the various southern accents) and in addition uses phrases which are, at least to me, characteristic of southern speakers. I wonder if he writes/wrote most of his own editorials? My guess is that the copywriters on major news programs assiduously avoid regional dialect, and opt for a "bland" non-colloquial form of speach. There is, to my ear, a "typical" news-show dialect, somewhat different than that I've ever heard anyone speak on the street - but very understandable and un-ambiguous. Example? "The President announced, today, that there will be ..." "<reporter>, our reporter on the scene, reports..." (not has reported, or will report) etc. -- These opinions are solely mine and in no way reflect those of my employer. John M. Pantone @ GE/Calma R&D, 9805 Scranton Rd., San Diego, CA 92121 ...{ucbvax|decvax}!sdcsvax!calmasd!jnp jnp@calmasd.GE.COM GEnie: J.PANTONE