nl-kr-request@CS.ROCHESTER.EDU (NL-KR Moderator Brad Miller) (12/16/87)
NL-KR Digest (12/15/87 20:05:03) Volume 3 Number 60
Today's Topics:
Re: Language Learning
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 87 00:06 EST
From: Michael McClary <michael@crlt.UUCP>
Subject: Re: Language Learning
In article <2775@bcsaic.UUCP> rwojcik@bcsaic.UUCP (Rick Wojcik) writes:
>
>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.
> []
>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.
I am very glad I did not read this discussion four years ago, and I will
give you a little anecdotal evidence to fuel the fire.
In my late teens, I purchased a very bad guitar. I learned a few chords,
and decided I was hopeless. For twenty or so years I would pick it up
every few months, tune it, strum a few chords, and put it down again. I
never even thought of finger-picking. I'd have abandoned it entirely, but
for my interest in "filksinging" (which you can think of as a hootennany
at a science-fiction convention). So when the guitar demolished itself
a few months before my 37th birthday, I decided to replace it. And lucked
into a Gibson, possibly older than I am, with a "voice" that is pure beauty.
In the first week, I played it until my fingers almost bled. In the second
week, I started trying to finger-pick. I lucked out again, and picked up a
book (_Guitar Techniques of Rush_) that had a faithful transcription of the
lead guitar parts of some songs I liked to hear. I learned to play one from
the book, then started watching folk guitar players and picking up their
techniques, working out finger-picking patterns for recorded songs (once with
the help of a jazz guitarist), and writing a couple of my own. I've been
improving noticibly almost every week for nearly four years now. At least
two professional musicians are trying to get me to cut a demo tape, and one of
them suggesting I get a job as a studio musician - so it's not just my opinion.
(I think I'm not ready yet, but expect to be in a few more months.)
I may not be learning in the same way, with the same speed, or to the same
quality, as if I'd taken guitar lessons from infancy. But if I'd read the
debate that's been going on here, with the assertions that learning music
is like learning phonetics, and blocked after puberty, I probably wouldn't
have replaced the broken guitar. Assertions like the ones we see here,
stated as fact, can become self-fulfilling prophecies. As they did for
me in college.
You see, I transferred from Engineering school, which didn't require a
language, to the Computer Science program, back in the days when it was
part of our arts school, and did require a language. And I did this after
a break of a couple years, to boot. So I decided that completing my psych
minor with "Psychology of Language Acquisition" might also give me some
insights that would help me learn German. I couldn't have been more wrong.
Much of the psych class dealt with "critical periods". After age X you
couldn't learn to distinguish the phonemes. After age Y you couldn't
get aspect Q of syntax right. And so on, for every aspect of language
acquisition, while people who learn additional languages in adulthood were
explained away with the statement that learning two languages before a
critical period enabled you to learn more after it. I was beyond all
these cutoff ages, and monolinguistic.
The psych class was the hour before the German class, so I went straight
from the one where I had to >believe< I couldn't learn another language
(in order to answer questions quickly enough) to the one where I had to
believe I could. And I soundly flunked German, while all those around
me were learning it. I took it again the next semester and improved to
a D. So I dropped out, resolved to learn it outside and place out of
it, and never got around to going back.
As I see it, the musical breakthrough occurred because I obtained an
instrument with a sound quality good enough that I could hear when I
was doing something right, and that I >enjoyed< playing enough to
spend the necessary time. And my experience with the instrument seems
to fit nicely with the counterarguments that the difficulty learning
such things in adulthood stems from insufficient practice and patience.
Much of my playing is snatches of songs, rather than complete songs,
analogous to a baby's babble as he learns to use the various phonemes.
If I'd had a Significant Other, I expect the repetition would have
driven her up the wall and forced me to stop. Over the last year or
so I've noticed that I can hear aspects of guitar playing that I couldn't
before. (Especially pitch distinctions and tuning - my sense of pitch
improved drastically about two years ago.) These analogies with the
early stages of language acquisition lead me to believe the theories
of language critical periods may also be in error, and may yet encourage
me to take another crack at German.
While I'm not normally one to turn my back on what may be the truth,
I may make an exception for arguments against my explanation. You see,
some of the evidence for critical periods is very convincing. So if
there are too many replies telling me what I've been doing is impossible,
I plan to unsubscribe, and continue doing it in blissful ignorance.
===========================================================================
"I've got code in my node." | UUCP: michael@node
| AUDIO: (313) 973-8787
Michael McClary | SNAIL: 2091 Chalmers, Ann Arbor MI 48104
Above opinions are the official position of McClary Associates. Customers
may have opinions of their own, which are given all the attention paid for.
===========================================================================
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 87 12:26 EST
From: Rick Wojcik <ssc-vax!bcsaic!rwojcik@beaver.cs.washington.edu>
Subject: Re: Language Learning (anecdotes)
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
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 87 22:10 EST
From: Rob McConeghy <malibo@arizona.edu>
Subject: Re: Language Learning (a Turing test)
In article <2998@bcsaic.UUCP>, rwojcik@bcsaic.UUCP (Rick Wojcik) writes:
> and which was the woman. Turing suggested that the game be played with a
> computer trying to imitate a human. I suggest that it be played with a mature
> learner of a foreign language trying to imitate a native speaker. This means
> that the questioner would have a real speaker and a "ringer" to
> distinguish between. It would be interesting to try this with "ringers"
> who had learned the language in question before and after puberty. I
> suggest that post-puberty learners will almost always be exposed.
Of course, to be a fair Turing Test, the true "native speaker" would be
allowed to attempt to fool the contestant into believing that he (native)
was in fact the "ringer" by slipping in imitation "foreign accents" and
strange syntax and word usage. In this type of a test I think it would be
difficult to distinguish native from non-native.
One element that lots of folks who have been involved in this discussion
seem to be ignoring is that native speaker competancy involves a lot more
that just speaking with a native accent. You have to also make only the
kind of syntax errors that a native speaker would make, and always choose
the word that a native speaker would have chosen in the same semantic or
pragmatic context. In my experience, getting the accent correct is a hell
of a lot easier than always using the word a native speaker would use
and always structuring your sentences the way a native would.
It's little slips like using a strange expression or making a grammatical
error that a native speaker never makes that often clue you in that someone
is a non-native. After all, what's one way folks from the States claim to
be able to recognize Canadians, eh ? :-) (Just kidding, you hosers, I know
everybody doesn't say this.)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 87 22:51 EST
From: Rob McConeghy <malibo@arizona.edu>
Subject: Re: Language Learning (a Turing test)
> < You miss the point. I never said anything about the social and ethnic
> < factors that shape dialects. The Columbus neighborhood that you and she
> < grew up in contains a mixture of Northern and Midland dialects.
> < Elizabeth's dialect (Northern) and yours (Midland?) are recognizably
> < American.
>
> Actually, I think that you missed mine also. I am *quite* aware of
> the dialect boundry that falls through Columbus, but in the example I
> gave, it isn't a problem: My accent is also definitely Northern, much
> closer to the SAE spoken in Cleveland or Ann Arbor, MI. Mr. Lewis (in
It may be interesting to note that as a native american speaker who grew
up in Pittsburgh, New Hampshire, Massachusetts and attended schools in
Massachusetts, New Jersey, Vermont and Arizona, and had relatives in
California, North Carolina, and Maryland and older relatives from England
and Scotland, and as a person who is passively interested in regional
accents and Linguistics but am not a dialect specialist, I am totally
unaware of any distinguishing features of the SAE of Columbus, Cleveland
or Ann Arbor and recognize nothing particularly regional about the speech
of any people from that part of the country.
I recognize the speech of people from all these regions as being that of
"native speakers" (I also recognize the speech of many people from India
as being that of "native Indian English" speakers (highly non-technical here))
But except in the case of the Indian speakers I am usually unable to
absolutely identify any particular one of the above types for sure.
I have seen people in my office with no particular exposure to real foreign
accents identify people with distinct Australian accents as being possibly
German, and mis-guessing that Iranian accents were Chinese. This phenomenon
recalls the Murders in the Rue Morgue where the sounds made by an ourangutan
were identified by Parisians as being various unfamiliar foreign tongues.
It is clear that most people can only identify a particular accent with
surety if they have had special training in doing so. Most native speakers
are unable to distinguish a fake "southern accent" or "New England" accent
from the speech of a real native of some location withing those areas and
are certainly unable to distinguish a native of Georgia from someone from
Virginia or even Texas. Consider the bizzarre "New England" accents that
some of the actors on "Murder She Wrote", "Cheers", and "Spencer for Hire"
attempt. And consider that most viewers in the country either don't even
recognize these as attempts at regional accents, or those that do accept
them as authentic, just as they accept phony French and Italian accents
as realistic even though they have never actually heard a real Italian or
Frenchman speaking English. Usually real foreign accents don't sound anything
like the stereotypes foisted upon us by actors and comedians.
Another interesting phenomenon is they way people who move around the country
a lot learn to accept the speech of the local dialect (if any) as un-marked.
Even though they themselves usually continue to speak in a way that sounds
strange to the locals, they are no longer able to distinguish between their
own speech and that of the "natives". Both sound "normal" to them.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 87 10:09 EST
From: M.BRILLIANT <ihnp4!homxb!houdi!marty1@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
Subject: Re: Language Learning (anecdotes)
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
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 87 19:39 EST
From: Scott E. Preece <preece%fang@gswd-vms.Gould.COM>
Subject: Re: Language Learning (anecdotes)
From: Rick Wojcik <ssc-vax!bcsaic!rwojcik@beaver.cs.washington.edu>
> 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?
----------
Why not? I know people who know a lot about music but can't play any
particular instrument competently, let alone professionally. There's no
reason knowledge should translate directly to performance. I would
think the ability to learn an accent would be more likely in somebody
whose business was speaking.
I certainly know of English actors whose American accent can fool native
speakers of American English. I can't think offhand of any actors
whose native language is other than English whose English would fool me,
but perhaps that merely shows that it already has. Anybody know of
examples? Anybody know of a Frenchman who could be Professor Higgins?
--
scott preece
gould/csd - urbana
uucp: ihnp4!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!preece
arpa: preece@Gould.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 87 09:40 EST
From: Murray Watt <murrayw@utai.UUCP>
Subject: Re: Language Learning (anecdotes)
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?
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 87 09:06 EST
From: mark edwards <edwards@uwmacc.UUCP>
Subject: Re: Language Learning (anecdotes)
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 53706
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 87 09:06 EST
From: mark edwards <edwards@unix.macc.wisc.edu>
Subject: Re: Language Learning (anecdotes)
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 53706
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 87 17:18 EST
From: Rick Wojcik <rwojcik@bcsaic.UUCP>
Subject: Re: Language Learning (a Turing test)
In article <3127@megaron.arizona.edu> malibo@arizona.edu (Rob McConeghy) writes:
>
>Of course, to be a fair Turing Test, the true "native speaker" would be
>allowed to attempt to fool the contestant into believing that he (native)
>was in fact the "ringer" by slipping in imitation "foreign accents" and
>strange syntax and word usage. In this type of a test I think it would be
>difficult to distinguish native from non-native.
>
A further clarification is needed. Turing required that the "natural"
(not the "ringer") be honest about his/her identity. So I still feel
that the Turing test would be interesting as a test for natural
acquisition. Note that I predict a significant difference in scoring on
pre- & post-puberty learners for phonology. Scores should worsen
considerably for learners in other language skills as they progress
further into adulthood.
>One element that lots of folks who have been involved in this discussion
>seem to be ignoring is that native speaker competancy involves a lot more
>that just speaking with a native accent. You have to also make only the
>kind of syntax errors that a native speaker would make, and always choose
>the word that a native speaker would have chosen in the same semantic or
>pragmatic context. In my experience, getting the accent correct is a hell
I agree with most of what you say. The original issue--the
crystallization hypothesis--has sometimes been buried in our discussion
by side issues. If we limit our discussion to cases of learners who are
immersed in the target language, then we do find adults who gain a fair
amount of fluency. But it is not really clear that they come by this
fluency in the same way that children do--by pure exposure. My
understanding is that pre-pubescent children universally acquire native
fluency. Very few adults acquire even good fluency from exposure. Most
retain noticeable accents for decades. Both of my grandparents lived in
the US since the 1920's, but their English never approached that of
their children and grandchildren. Even highly educated language
professionals find it difficult, if not impossible, to shed an accent.
So the issue is not just degree of fluency. Why is there such a
general discrepancy between adult and child language learning? What
is it that so severely damages our ability to acquire a foreign language?
===========
Rick Wojcik rwojcik@boeing.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 87 08:03 EST
From: Douglas Moreland <ddm@cblpe.ATT.COM>
Subject: Re: Language Learning (anecdotes)
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.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 87 08:45 EST
From: John Chambers <jc@minya.UUCP>
Subject: Re: Language Learning (a Turing test)
> ... Very few adults acquire even good fluency from exposure. Most
> retain noticeable accents for decades. Both of my grandparents lived in
> the US since the 1920's, but their English never approached that of
> their children and grandchildren. Even highly educated language
> professionals find it difficult, if not impossible, to shed an accent.
Of course, there might be a simple explanation: Who wants to?
Sure, people will *say* that they would like to speak like a native,
just like they *say* that they'd like to learn to play the piano or
lose 20 pounds or clean up the basement. But really, the problem just
might be that they in fact don't have any real motive to invest the
time that it would take.
There's the "margin" argument that it so familiar to economists. Do
you want to spend 1000 hours making tiny improvements in your accent
in language X, or should you spend it gaining a useful proficiency
in language Y? I know what my answer is. What good would it do me
to, say, reach native fluency in French, when I can spend the time
reaching reading fluency in Russian? (Especially when you consider
the arrogant, insulting attitude of the native speakers of French
to anyone with even the slightest trace of accent? :-)
Even in English, I see no motive (other than its entertainment value)
to reaching native fluency in the local (Bostonian) dialect of English.
Sure, the natives can tell I'm not from New England. So what? In
fact, I find it amusing to ask them where they think I'm from. So
far, nobody has guessed to within 500 miles. And nobody has guessed
that I might not even be a native speaker, though they can all detect
some sort of accent.
--
John Chambers <{adelie,ima,maynard,mit-eddie}!minya!{jc,root}> (617/484-6393)
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 87 03:55 EST
From: goldfain@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: Language Learning (anecdotes)
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.edu
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 87 01:19 EST
From: John Russell <john13@garfield.UUCP>
Subject: Re: Language Learning (anecdotes)
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
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 87 11:42 EST
From: Carl Weidling <cw@vaxwaller.UUCP>
Subject: Re: Language Learning (a Turing test)
In article <3111@bcsaic.UUCP>, rwojcik@bcsaic.UUCP (Rick Wojcik) writes:
> fluency. Very few adults acquire even good fluency from exposure. Most
> retain noticeable accents for decades. Both of my grandparents lived in
> the US since the 1920's, but their English never approached that of
> their children and grandchildren. Even highly educated language
> professionals find it difficult, if not impossible, to shed an accent.
> So the issue is not just degree of fluency. Why is there such a
> general discrepancy between adult and child language learning? What
> is it that so severely damages our ability to acquire a foreign language?
>
> --
>
> ===========
> Rick Wojcik rwojcik@boeing.com
I deleted most of the above posting for brevity. Given that it is
extremely difficult, if not impossible to acquire a native sounding accent
in adulthood, I can't help but wonder if somehow, in the days when mankind
were almost all hunter-gatherers and so on, that there was not some natural
selection process to create the phenomenon. I don't know what that advantage
might have been, but in many species of animals, the individuals can quickly
spot an outsider in some way, by smell for instance.
I can't help but think of the biblical story in which people were
identified by how well they could pronounce the word "shibboleth".
Regards,
Carl Weidling
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 87 12:25 EST
From: Rick Wojcik <rwojcik@bcsaic.UUCP>
Subject: Re: Language Learning
In article <1128@crlt.UUCP> michael@crlt.UUCP (Michael McClary) writes:
>...
>I may not be learning in the same way, with the same speed, or to the same
>quality, as if I'd taken guitar lessons from infancy. But if I'd read the
>debate that's been going on here, with the assertions that learning music
>is like learning phonetics, and blocked after puberty, I probably wouldn't
>have replaced the broken guitar. Assertions like the ones we see here,
>stated as fact, can become self-fulfilling prophecies. As they did for
>me in college.
>...
I appreciate your sentiments. It is very easy to get upset with people
who seem to preach defeatism. The issue under discussion is not whether
learning a new language (or musical instrument) is possible after
puberty. Obviously, such skills can be acquired. The issue is whether
we lose the biological programming to acquire language as we mature.
Children acquire flawless accents without schooling or motivation.
Adults cannot seem to shed accents no matter what the motivation or
effort. This does not mean that they cannot become very good at a new
language. But when an adult learns a new language very well, it is a
"Man bites dog" story. When a child acquires a new language (through
immersion), no one is handing out any prize money. And it is almost
always the case that the virtuoso adult learner has come by new skills
through a combination of training and immersion. Schooling is not
really necessary for child language acquisition. Illiterate children
are all language virtuosos. Illiterate adults are even less likely than
literate ones to become skilled at a new language.
===========
Rick Wojcik rwojcik@boeing.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 87 12:50 EST
From: Rick Wojcik <rwojcik@bcsaic.UUCP>
Subject: Re: Language Learning
In article <430@minya.UUCP> jc@minya.UUCP (John Chambers) writes:
>...
>Sure, people will *say* that they would like to speak like a native,
>just like they *say* that they'd like to learn to play the piano or
>lose 20 pounds or clean up the basement. But really, the problem just
>might be that they in fact don't have any real motive to invest the
>time that it would take.
>...
There are two implications of your argument that you ought to consider.
First of all, it implies that children who lack motivation should not
learn to speak as well as those who are diligent and highly motivated.
We find that attitudes do affect learning in children, but I know of no
evidence that it makes for poorer language production and comprehension.
This is because children acquire language independently of training and
rote learning. The second implication of your argument is that highly
motivated adults can achieve flawless speech in a new language.
Although motivation seems to be necessary for an adult to achieve any
proficiency, there are plenty of examples of adults who can't erase a
bad accent no matter what their motivation, training, and intelligence.
You seem to have my number. I like to *say* I'll do a lot of things.
Are you trying to tell us that children aren't like this too? Maybe
they are all enthusiastic about language acquisition before puberty, but
not about things like cleaning up the room or learning to play the
trumpet :-]. Then, after puberty, they suddenly get lazy about learning
languages, too. So, why the sudden change in attitude towards language?
And why is everyone losing interest at the same time?
===========
Rick Wojcik rwojcik@boeing.com
------------------------------
End of NL-KR Digest
*******************