Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
NL-KR Digest Volume 03 No. 54
NL-KR Digest (12/01/87 21:16:27) Volume 3 Number 54
Today's Topics:
Re: Language Learning
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 87 04:10 EST
From: portal!cup.portal.com!Angelique_N_Wahlstedt@uunet.uu.net
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: Thu, 19 Nov 87 11:37 EST
From: Rick Wojcik <ssc-vax!bcsaic!rwojcik@beaver.cs.washington.edu>
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 <necntc!culdev1!yg@husc6.harvard.edu>
Subject: Re: Language Learning (anecdotes)
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.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 87 09:03 EST
From: John Chambers <jc@minya.UUCP>
Subject: Re: Language Learning (anecdotes)
In article <2528@calmasd.GE.COM>, wlp@calmasd.GE.COM (Walter Peterson) writes:
> In article <2311@gryphon.CTS.COM>, tsmith@gryphon.CTS.COM (Tim Smith) writes:
> > Perhaps these are people who are very childish. Nothing derogatory
> > intended....
>
> To avoid the non-derogatory dislaimer and to be more accurate the proper
> term for this quality of scientists and linguists should be "childLIKE"
> rather than "childISH".
>
Actually, both terms are too emotional; the proper term in scientific
discussions is "neotenous". This term is standard among builogists, and
refers to the retention (or extension) of juvenile characteristics into
an adult phase/form/morph/instar/etc. The abstract noun form is "neoteny".
Common textbook examples:
Most salamanders have an aquatic "juvenile" form with gills, and an "adult"
terrestrial form with lungs. The axolotl, a large salamander from Mexico,
commonly remains in the "juvenile" aquatic form (with gills) for its entire
life; it metamorphoses into the usual terrestrial form (with lungs) when
its pond dries up. This is neoteny as an adaptation to an environment where
the pond usually has more food than the (rather dry) land.
In many social species, including humans, the young remain dependent on the
parents for a much longer period of time than in closely-related non-social
species. This is presumably an adaptation for social bonding, etc.
Human infants have a major developmental difference from other apes: the
head is not only larger at birth, but it continues to grow for a longer time
after birth. Such extended growth is an almost trivial example of neoteny,
and occurs in many species.
One of the common textbook examples, with tongue only partly in cheek, is
Science itself. In most mammals, including primates, curiosity and most
exploratory bahavior is a juvenile characteristic. Adults normally know
all there is to know about the world, and aren't curious. You probably
know some adult humans like that. Science is an extreme development of
this juvenile behavior as an adult activity, and as such qualifies as a
case of neoteny. So far it seems to be an adaptive modification of human
behavior, though it may be still too early to tell for sure.
Also, if you use "neotenous" instead of "childlike", you'll impress your
friends and colleagues with your erudition. Now if we could just get an
agreement on where the accent falls....
--
John Chambers <{adelie,ima,maynard,mit-eddie}!minya!{jc,root}> (617/484-6393)
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 87 11:39 EST
From: Paul W. Placeway <paul@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu>
Subject: Re: Language Learning (anecdotes)
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
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 87 11:49 EST
From: Paul W. Placeway <paul@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu>
Subject: Re: Language Learning
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?
-- Paul
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 87 11:28 EST
From: Rick Wojcik <ssc-vax!bcsaic!rwojcik@beaver.cs.washington.edu>
Subject: Re: Language Learning (anecdotes)
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
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 87 10:47 EST
From: Robert Stanley <clyde!watmath!utgpu!utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!cognos!roberts@rutgers.edu>
Subject: Re: Language Learning
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.
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
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 87 12:09 EST
From: Rick Wojcik <ssc-vax!bcsaic!rwojcik@beaver.cs.washington.edu>
Subject: Re: Language Learning (anecdotes)
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
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 87 12:39 EST
From: Rick Wojcik <ssc-vax!bcsaic!rwojcik@beaver.cs.washington.edu>
Subject: Re: Language Learning (a Turing test)
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
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 87 14:08 EST
From: Yogesh Gupta <yg@culdev1.UUCP>
Subject: Re: Language Learning (anecdotes)
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.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 87 14:03 EST
From: Paul W. Placeway <paul@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu>
Subject: Re: Language Learning (anecdotes)
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
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 87 14:54 EST
From: Paul W. Placeway <paul@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu>
Subject: Re: Language Learning (anecdotes)
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...
-- Paul
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 87 15:46 EST
From: Paul W. Placeway <paul@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu>
Subject: Re: Language Learning (a Turing test)
In article <2913@bcsaic.UUCP> rwojcik@bcsaic.UUCP (Rick Wojcik) writes:
< 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.
Actually, the "story" I was thinking of is similar, but with a big
difference: I am told that Dr. Lehiste (who's native language is
Estonian), when traveling in Germany, regularly fools native speakers
into thinking that she is German, but from some other region. From
what I have been told, this effect is true, even for extended
conversations.
The similarity of dialect does not allways hold either. Elizabeth
Zwicky does not speak the same regional dialect of SAE that I do, even
though the two of us spent the majority of our lives growing up within
10 miles of each other, in the same side of the same city. Our
differing experiences have caused a difference in our respective
dialects. Also, my fiance' Diana speaks a (native) central-Ohio
dialect when speaking to central-Ohio speakers. When speaking to her
grandparents however, she changes her manner to a southern-Ohio
dialect that is good enough to reliably fool natives of that area.
Similar cases are not that uncommon.
Your measure of native-dialect fluency has some linguistic reality. I
think that the judgment of "dialect nativeness" of a person's speach
by native speakers is somewhat more fuzzy than you have lead us to
believe, however.
-- Paul
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 87 09:26 EST
From: David Lewis <lewisd@homxc.UUCP>
Subject: Re: Language Learning (a Turing test)
> In article <2060@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> Paul W. Placeway writes:
> >
> > -- 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
Has anyone heard about a test like this?
Take the pool of native speakers and subject them to this
test: to tell whether an arbitrary speaker of their language is a native
speaker or not.
The problem: sure, maybe they
can say that your wife is not a native speaker of Spanish or French. But
perhaps they'll also say that of other native speakers.
Only if they can tell native/nonnative with high accuracy should the group
be considered a valid test of fluency.
--
David B. Lewis {ihnp4,allegra,ulysses}!homxc!lewisd
201-615-5306 EDT
------------------------------
End of NL-KR Digest
*******************
