Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
NL-KR Digest Volume 03 No. 51
NL-KR Digest (11/17/87 19:34:47) Volume 3 Number 51
Today's Topics:
Wanted: Database of common names
Critical period for human language
First Language Learning vs. Second
Re: Language Learning
Re: Language Learning (anecdotes)
Re: Lip Movement and Mental Lexicons?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 87 11:41 EST
From: Vulture of Light <trainor@CS.UCLA.EDU>
Subject: Wanted: Database of common names
Does anyone have a database of common English first names?
E.g. from a baby book.
[][] trainor@cs.ucla.edu
[][] ...!{ihnp4,randvax,sch-loki,ucbvax}!ucla-cs!trainor
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 87 11:52 EST
From: Mary Holstege <HOLSTEGE@Sushi.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Critical period for human language
Some of the best evidence for a critical period for language in humans comes
from studies with deaf kids. You can compare language ability between kids
deafened at various ages (from birth, NN months, NN years, etc.) and (here
is the interesting part) you can compare the linguistic abilities of deaf
kids who were taught sign from an early age with those whose parents wanted
them to be "oral deaf" and who discouraged any signing activity on the part
of the child (this develops spontaneously in deaf children, whether they are
taught sign or not -- they end up teaching their family a sign system).
These people are essentially living experiments of the "cruel and unhuman"
kind mentioned: they have little or no linguistic input during the
purported critical period. The results all line up to support the existence
of a critical period. (To be sure there are lots of confounding influences,
but it's about as clear a case as you're going to get with people involved.)
Even deaf people taught sign in adulthood or late adolescence never develop
the fluency of those who learned it from an early age, even when they are
in a sign-oriented community and highly motivated to learn. I have seen
interviews with such people and there is a great sadness in them -- they
know perfectly well that they are not nearly as adept as the ones who were
taught sign in childhood. I clearly remember one woman "saying" that even
after thirty years of practice, she couldn't always follow the hands of the
teens -- they had to talk "baby talk" to her. (The woman was taught sign
in her twenties). Many of these people are even worse at English: it is
diabolically difficult to read lips at the best of times, but when this is
your sole language input? [Deaf people have problems with English in
general, but this is of a different kind: English is a second language for
them, and English grammar is quite different from that of ASL.]
Another strand of evidence is the recovery of linguistic function after
damage to the language centers of the brain. Very young children can
successfully relearn language after having the hemisphere that contains
the language areas removed; older children can recover language without
apparent deficit after suffering some damage to the language areas. Adults
do not recover without deficit from such injuries. You can plot age vs
degree of recovery and you get a fairly sharp drop right around adolescence.
A critical period for language should not be too surprising; nor should it
be surprising that the cut-off is in adolescence. Language is certainly a
biologically-supported human activity. There are special areas in the brain
for language. In humans, as in other animals, many cognitive functions
follow a preprogrammed path of development that is partly driven from inside
(as language is -- lots of evidence of that) but that depend on appropriate
experience in the world. It would odd to find language learning being any
different.
-- Mary
Holstege@SUSHI.Stanford.EDU
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 87 16:26 EST
From: Fred Baube <fbaube@note.nsf.gov>
Subject: First Language Learning vs. Second
Forgive me if this has already been hashed out.
I remember hearing the claim that one never forgets the language
of one's childhood. Is this hearsay, scientific fact, or
somewhere in-between ? (i.e. how would the assertion be
conjugated in Hopi or Aymara ?)
A roommate of mine left the USSR ten years ago at the age of
twelve, and he claims to be forgetting Russian. I can believe
that he is losing grammatical trivia, but the ability to carry on
a conversation, too ?
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 87 15:56 EST
From: Rick Wojcik <ssc-vax!bcsaic!rwojcik@beaver.cs.washington.edu>
Subject: Re: Language Learning
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
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 87 22:06 EST
From: WEBER3%HARVARDA@vm.cc.rochester.edu
Subject: NL KR Digest Volume 3 No 49 - Language Learning
I can't remember the citation (New York Sunday Times Magazine or
New York Review of Books??), but I remember reading an article about
some sets of identitcal twins who invent their own langauge. Older siblings,
if any, often learn enough of the language to translate for the parents,
but the parents are unable to learn the twins' language. The twins
learned their parents' langauge slowly and with some difficulty.
Someone, Minsky, I think, speculated that these facts indicated an adaptive
advantage for humans such that children would be forced to learn the adult
language but adults would be unable learn their children's language.
I wouldn't rush to draw any hard conclusions from these facts, if true.
Nonetheless, they are suggestive.
-------
Robert Philip Weber
Office for Information Technology
Harvard University
1730 Cambridge Street
Cambridge, MA 02138
(617) 495-3744
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 87 09:04 EST
From: Tim Smith <ddsw1!gryphon!tsmith@gargoyle.uchicago.edu>
Subject: Re: Language Learning (anecdotes)
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
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 87 18:47 EST
From: Elissa Feit <sunybcs!feit@rutgers.edu>
Subject: Re: Language Learning
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
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 87 11:19 EST
From: M.BRILLIANT <marty1@houdi.UUCP>
Subject: Re: Language Learning
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
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 87 11:34 EST
From: Rick Wojcik <rwojcik@bcsaic.UUCP>
Subject: Re: Language Learning
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
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 87 08:43 EST
From: merrill@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Language Learning (anecdotes)
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
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 87 10:41 EST
From: Murray Watt <murrayw@utai.UUCP>
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.
>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.
>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:
See the above comments.
>a new word can enter the lexicon with a 'spelling pronunciation'. But I
>see the mental lexicon as containing both phoneme-based and letter-based
>annotations on entries. This means that 'normal reading' need not
>be mediated by phonological representations.
>
>-Rick Wojcik: rwojcik@boeing.com
I have never SEEN any arguments that the phonemic representation
resides in the same location as lexical enties and I have never
heard of a letter based lexicon in the mind. Are you sure your not
confusing dictionaries and the human mind? 8-)
Murray Watt
My views don't necessarily reflect either anyone else's views or reality.
------------------------------
End of NL-KR Digest
*******************
