Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
NL-KR Digest Volume 03 No. 52
NL-KR Digest (11/20/87 18:51:18) Volume 3 Number 52
Today's Topics:
Measures of "Englishness"?
Re: Language Learning
Language Learning Issues and the Deaf
Re: Lip Movement and Mental Lexicons?
Re: Degenerate Lang Learning Experiment
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 87 14:27 EST
From: cunyvm!byuvax!fordjm%psuvm@vm.cc.rochester.edu
Subject: Measures of "Englishness"?
Recently someone on the net commented on a program or method of rating
the "Englishness" of words according to the frequency of occurance of
various letters in sequence, etc.
I am currently involved in a project in which this approach might prove
useful, but I have lost the original posting. Could the author please
contact me with more information about his or her project?
Thanks in advance,
John M. Ford fordjm@byuvax.bitnet
131 Starcrest Drive
Orem, UT 84058
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 87 12:48 EST
From: Kai-Fu Lee <PT.CS.CMU.EDU!SPEECH2.CS.CMU.EDU!kfl@cs.rochester.edu>
Subject: Re: Measures of "Englishness"?
I don't know anything about the said post. But you might be interested
in the following article:
Cave and Neuwirth, Hidden Markov Models for English, Proceedings
of the Symposium on Appication of Hidden Markov Models to Text
and Speech, Princeton, NJ 1980.
Here's the editor's summary of the paper:
L.P. Neuwirth discusses the application of hidden Markov analysis to
English newspaper text (26 letters plus word space, without
punctuation). This work showed that the technique is capable
of automatically discovering linguistically important categorizations
(e.g., vowels and consonants). Moreover, a calculation of the
entropy of these models shows that some of them are stronger than
the ordinary digraphic model, yet employ only half as many parameters.
But one of the most interesting points, from a philosophical point
of view, is the completely automatic nature of the process of
obtaining the model: only the size of the state space, and a
long example of English text, are give. No a priori structure of the
state transition matrix, or of the output probabilities is assumed.
Since hidden Markov models can be used for generation and recognition,
it is possible to train a model for English, and "score" any previously
unseen word with a probability that it was generated by the model for
English.
Kai-Fu Lee
Computer Science Department
Carnegie-Mellon University
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 87 16:56 EST
From: Alen Shapiro <alen@cogen.UUCP>
Subject: Re: Language Learning
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)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 87 04:10 EST
From: Angelique_N_Wahlstedt@cup.portal.com
Subject: re: Language Learning (anecdotes)
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@CSUGREEN
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 87 22:06 EST
From: rolandi <rolandi@gollum.Columbia.NCR.COM>
Subject: Language Learning Issues and the Deaf
In article <1498@cup.portal.com> you write:
>
>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
>
I would like to thank you for your unique contribution to this discussion.
As a student of linguistics and psychology, I am very interested language
acquisition issues. You made some very good points in your posting, parti-
cularly as to the exposure hearing children have to language during acquisi-
tion. According to B.F.Skinner, hearing and speaking share many of the
same properties for the verbal behaver. This brings to mind a question I
would like to ask you. I will understand if you think it's too personal.
When you say you "speak" English, do you mean you speak it vocally or
are you fluent in writing and reading English? If you do not actually
speak English, I would like to ask you if YOU have ever found yourself
moving your lips while reading? I would predict not. Lip moving is
usually a hangover from learning to read aloud. Also, many mature readers
will read something out loud in order to "hear" the written text. By so
doing, they essentially get bi-modal stimulation: reading something out
loud entails not only the behaviors involved in reading, but also the
behaviors that are involved in hearing. I often read aloud when I am
studying for an exam.
w.rolandi
!ncrcae!gollum!rolandi
i disclaim everything.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 87 11:37 EST
From: Rick Wojcik <rwojcik@bcsaic.UUCP>
Subject: Re: Language Learning
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.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 87 14:37 EST
From: Yogesh Gupta <yg@culdev1.UUCP>
Subject: Re: Language Learning (anecdotes)
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.
Cheers.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 87 01:46 EST
From: Caroline N. Koff <koff@mist.cs.orst.edu>
Subject: Re: Lip Movement and Mental Lexicons?
>In article <2728@bcsaic.UUCP> rwojcik@bcsaic.UUCP (Rick Wojcik) writes:
>>In article <1074@uhccux.UUCP> stampe@uhccux.UUCP (David Stampe) writes:
>>>...
>>Why do people move their lips when reading? Is this just a phenomenon
>>that afflicts alphabet-readers? For example, do Chinese children move
>>their lips when reading silently? I have always thought that lip
>
>Although I have a limited experience with the Chinese language,
>my wife reads Chinese. She says some people move their lips and some don't.
From my personal experience, when I'm reading Japanese (I'm a bilingual) and
if I come across the kanji parts (the Chinese characters), I will
often not even move my lips or say them in my mind. Even if I come
across a word constructed of several kanji's which I didn't know
(which happens frequently with me since I only about a 1000 kanjis)
and hence don't know how it's pronounced, I can often grasp the
meaning of the word by observing the individual kanji's. But I seem
to do thisswithout interrupting my mind, forI dwouldn't notice that
I can't really read these kanji words until I try to speak them out.
By the way, when I'm reading English and espicially if I'm tired, I do
move my lips.
--Caroline Koff
koff!cs.orst.edu@relay.cs.net
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 87 11:52 EST
From: Paul W. Placeway <paul@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu>
Subject: Re: Lip Movement and Mental Lexicons?
In article <4150@utai.UUCP> murrayw@ai.UUCP (Murray Watt) writes:
< In article <2728@bcsaic.UUCP> rwojcik@bcsaic.UUCP (Rick Wojcik) writes:
< >their lips when reading silently? I have always thought that lip
< >movements indicated the reader's attempt to understand the word by
< >phonemic representation. The reader "sounds out" a word, because it is
<
< What does phonemic represention have to do with LEXICAL MEANING?
< (Phonemic meaning is all the rage in current linguistic research,
< but I think this is a different type of meaning.)
< First, there are good arguments that "destroy" and "destruction" have different
< entries in one's mental lexicon. Second one's understanding of "car" says
< less about "cargo" than the semantic context in which "cargo" is uttered.
< Third, people who move their lips don't just move them for the subset of
< words they don't understand.
The difference between "destoroy" and "destruction" is not the same as
the difference between "car" and "cargo". There is, in fact, a
distinct morphological difference: "-tion" is a bound morpheme. As
far as morphology is concerned, "car" and "cargo" have nothing in
common; they are seperate lexemes, each containing seperate, distinct,
and different morphemes.
< >unfamiliar. The phoneme-grapheme correspondences allow the reader to
< >figure out what lexical item the visual sign represents.
< >
< >I suspect that English speakers read just like Chinese speakers--i.e.
< >that printed/written words form visual gestalts. The neat thing about
< >alphabetic writing is that it gives the learner a handy way to learn new
< >signs--by looking up their meanings under a previously-learned
< >phonological representation. It can also work in the opposite fashion:
Actually, there is some evidence that different people read words in
different ways. A word that forms a visual gestalt for one person
does not nececerilly form one for another; the second person might
have to resort to other methods. Also, there is evidence that some
people process read input in chunks of more than one word at a time
(at least in the lower levels of input). It is a fact that different
people read at different speeds. Focus point experiments have
attempted to address just this.
< >-Rick Wojcik: rwojcik@boeing.com
< Murray Watt
--
-- Paul Placeway
...!cbosgd!osu-cis!tut!paul
paul@ohio-state.arpa, paul@cis.ohio-state.edu
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 87 16:20 EST
From: Bill Poser <poser@russell.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: Re: Degenerate Lang Learning Experiment
In the Egyptian experiment reported by Herodotus, the word reportedly
uttered by the children raised without linguistic input was "bekos",
which the Egyptians determined to be the Phrygian word for "bread".
It is in fact true that this was the Phrygian word for "bread".
------------------------------
End of NL-KR Digest
*******************
