From feist at louisiana.edu Wed Feb 2 20:03:58 2011 From: feist at louisiana.edu (Michele Feist) Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2011 14:03:58 -0600 Subject: CFP: EMCL 5.2 - Chicago Message-ID: The Center for the Study of Languages at the University of Chicago together with The Center for East European and Russian/Eurasian Studies (CEERES) present Empirical Methods in Cognitive Linguistics 5.2 (EMCL-5.2) — Chicago The Integration of Corpus and Experimental Methods 13 – 18 June 2011 http://languages.uchicago.edu/emcl5-2 Call for Participation We invite applications to the next workshop on Empirical Methods in Cognitive Linguistics – EMCL 5.2 – to be held at the University of Chicago (Chicago, IL), 13 – 18 June 2011. The EMCL workshop series aims to encourage dialogue between language researchers who routinely employ different methodologies. This dialogue is initiated within an environment where novices and specialists combine their skills to develop a research project together. For EMCL 5.2, we will focus on the integration of corpus and experimental methods in language research. Intended audience: Early career language researchers (i.e., graduate students, postdocs, junior faculty, etc.) grounded in theoretical issues surrounding cognitive linguistics, cognitive science, embodiment, and/or situated cognition. No prior training with corpus or experimental methods is necessary. Format: Selected students (maximum 8 per group, for a total of 24) will be invited to join one of the 3 hands-on mini-labs at the workshop. Each group will be led by two researchers who will work cooperatively – one specializing in corpus methods, and one in experimental methods. As a group, each mini-lab will walk through the process of deciding on a research question; developing empirically testable hypotheses and designing the means to test those hypotheses; collecting, analyzing, and interpreting the data; and presenting their findings before an audience. The workshop will end with a mini-conference in which each group will have the opportunity to present their study and participate in a general discussion. Workshop faculty: Group 1: Michele Feist University of Louisiana at Lafayette Research interests: lexical semantics; spatial and motion language; acquisition of semantics; linguistic typology; language and thought www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~mif8232 Steven Clancy University of Chicago Research interests: cognitive linguistics; case semantics and verbal semantics; grammaticalization; historical linguistics; quantitative methods and corpus methods home.uchicago.edu/~sclancy Group 2: Dagmar Divjak University of Sheffield Research interests: lexical semantics, usage-based cognitive linguistics, the role of frequency, corpus methods, grammar-lexis interface, near-synonyms, aspect and modality, language acquisition www.sheffield.ac.uk/russian/staff/profiles/divjakd.html Ben Bergen University of California San Diego Research interests: lexical and constructional meaning processing; figurative language comprehension; embodiment in models of language use www.cogsci.ucsd.edu/~bkbergen Group 3: Laura Carlson University of Notre Dame Research interests: spatial language; spatial reference frames; how we remember and use landmarks; why we get lost www.nd.edu/~lcarlson Mark Davies Brigham Young University Research interests: corpus design, creation, and use; historical change (especially syntax); genre-based variation (especially syntax), frequency and collocational data; English, Spanish, and Portuguese http://davies-linguistics.byu.edu/ Accommodations Accommodations are available within easy walking distance of the university; prices range from $60+ per night for a single, or $80+ per night for a double. Further information will be given to accepted participants after notification of acceptance to the workshop. Participation fee: $300.00 Fees will cover the costs of organization and faculty travel and accommodations and will also cover most meals for participants during the workshop. Application To apply, please send the following: 1. A letter of application, maximum of two pages, describing a. Your background and research interests b. Your reasons for wanting to participate in EMCL 5.2 c. The research group you would like to work in and why 2. A copy of your curriculum vitae. Please submit all materials electronically to emcl5.2.chicago (at) gmail.com. The application deadline is 15 March 2011. Accepted applicants will be notified on or before 1 May 2011. **Please note: Participation is strictly limited to accepted applicants so as to preserve the pedagogical integrity of the workshop atmosphere. * * * We thank the following organizations for their generous support of EMCL 5.2 The Center for the Study of Languages The Center for East European and Russian/Eurasian Studies (CEERES) -- EMCL 5.2 Organizing Committee: Michele I. Feist, University of Louisiana at Lafayette Steven Clancy, University of Chicago From hopper at cmu.edu Thu Feb 3 01:24:33 2011 From: hopper at cmu.edu (Paul Hopper) Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2011 20:24:33 -0500 Subject: [Fwd: PRESS RELEASE: FAU Graduate Students Offer Speech Therapy Via Webcam to Republic of Rwanda Citizens] Message-ID: ---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- Subject: PRESS RELEASE: FAU Graduate Students Offer Speech Therapy Via Webcam to Republic of Rwanda Citizens From: "Lisa Metcalf" Date: Wed, February 2, 2011 10:57 To: "Lisa Metcalf" Cc: "Kristine Gobbo" "Lynn Laurenti" "Gregg Sekscienski" "Toni Wolf" -------------------------------------------------------------------------- [new media .gif] MEDIA CONTACT: Toni Wolf 561-297-3029, twolf4 at fau.edu FAU Graduate Students Offer Speech Therapy Via Webcam to Republic of Rwanda Citizens BOCA RATON, FL (February 2, 2011) - Graduate students in the speech pathology and audiology program in Florida Atlantic University's department of communication sciences and disorders have established a program with the Republic of Rwanda to offer speech and language services to its citizens. Using Skype webcam video, the graduate students teach "accent reduction therapy" to Rwandan businesspeople to improve their English pronunciation so that they can conduct business with Americans. "Rwandans learn British English, and the idioms, vocabulary, tone and stress patterns of British English are quite different from American English," said Dale Williams, Ph.D., professor of communication sciences and disorders at FAU. "The therapy is helping the Rwandans to better understand Americans and be understood by them." The speech therapy program with Rwanda was established through the Koinonia Foundation, a nonprofit organization that provides solar power to schools, medical care and other services begun by Williams, a Peace Corp volunteer who taught in Ghana in the early 1980s. FAU graduate student Michela Mir has worked with two groups in Rwanda over the last year, completing tasks that had them listening to different methods of word pronunciation, along with reviewing diagrams that showed how different vowels are produced in the mouth, with tongue placement and jaw movement. "I used research-based techniques, word lists and drills, moving from words to phrases to sentences and eventually to having a whole conversation," said Mir. "There were technical difficulties because the Skype connection takes a lot of bandwidth, which isn't easily available in Rwanda. But despite that, Skype seems to be an effective way to conduct therapy. You're face to face with them in real time." For more information, contact Dr. Dale Williams at 561-297-3238 or dwilliam at fau.edu. -FAU- About Florida Atlantic University: Florida Atlantic University opened its doors in 1964 as the fifth public university in Florida. Today, the University serves more than 28,000 undergraduate and graduate students on seven campuses and sites. Building on its rich tradition as a teaching university, with a world-class faculty, FAU hosts 10 colleges: the Dorothy F. Schmidt College of Arts & Letters, the College of Business, the College for Design and Social Inquiry, the College of Education, the College of Engineering & Computer Science, the Graduate College, the Harriet L. Wilkes Honors College, the Charles E. Schmidt College of Medicine, the Christine E. Lynn College of Nursing and the Charles E. Schmidt College of Science. For more information, visit www.fau.edu. Lisa Metcalf Associate Director, Media Relations Florida Atlantic University 777 Glades Road ADM 286 Boca Raton, FL 33431 561-297-3022 - OFFICE 561-297-3001 - FAX 561-706-2030 - CELL -- Paul J. Hopper Paul Mellon Distinguished Professor of Humanities Department of English Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA 15213 and Senior External Fellow School of Language and Literature Freiburg Institute for Advanced Studies (FRIAS) Albertstr. 19 D-79105 Freiburg i.Br. Germany From amnfn at well.com Thu Feb 3 13:05:55 2011 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 05:05:55 -0800 Subject: [Fwd: PRESS RELEASE: FAU Graduate Students Offer Speech Therapy Via Webcam to Republic of Rwanda Citizens] In-Reply-To: <45b52853386f0a90d9888c8f04fb40cc.squirrel@webmail.andrew.cmu.edu> Message-ID: Interesting! I never thought trying to switch from a British pronunciation target to an American target would be called "therapy". That somehow implies that one dialect is less "healthy" than the other. --Aya On Wed, 2 Feb 2011, Paul Hopper wrote: > > > > > > ---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- > Subject: PRESS RELEASE: FAU Graduate Students Offer Speech Therapy Via > Webcam to Republic of Rwanda Citizens > From: "Lisa Metcalf" > Date: Wed, February 2, 2011 10:57 > To: "Lisa Metcalf" > Cc: "Kristine Gobbo" > "Lynn Laurenti" > "Gregg Sekscienski" > "Toni Wolf" > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > [new media .gif] > > > > MEDIA CONTACT: Toni Wolf > > 561-297-3029, twolf4 at fau.edu > > > > FAU Graduate Students Offer Speech Therapy Via Webcam > to Republic of Rwanda Citizens > > > > BOCA RATON, FL (February 2, 2011) - Graduate students in the > speech pathology and audiology program in Florida Atlantic > University's department of communication sciences and > disorders have established a program with the Republic of > Rwanda to offer speech and language services to its citizens. > > Using Skype webcam video, the graduate students teach "accent > reduction therapy" to Rwandan businesspeople to improve their > English pronunciation so that they can conduct business with > Americans. > > "Rwandans learn British English, and the idioms, vocabulary, tone and > stress patterns of British English are quite different from American > English," said Dale Williams, Ph.D., professor of communication sciences > and disorders at FAU. "The therapy is helping the Rwandans to better > understand Americans and be understood by them." > > The speech therapy program with Rwanda was established through the > Koinonia Foundation, a nonprofit organization that provides solar power to > schools, medical care and other services begun by Williams, a Peace Corp > volunteer who taught in Ghana in the early 1980s. > > FAU graduate student Michela Mir has worked with two groups in Rwanda over > the last year, completing tasks that had them listening to different > methods of word pronunciation, along with reviewing diagrams that showed > how different vowels are produced in the mouth, with tongue placement and > jaw movement. > > "I used research-based techniques, word lists and drills, moving from > words to phrases to sentences and eventually to having a whole > conversation," said Mir. "There were technical difficulties because the > Skype connection takes a lot of bandwidth, which isn't easily available in > Rwanda. But despite that, Skype seems to be an effective way to conduct > therapy. You're face to face with them in real time." > > For more information, contact Dr. Dale Williams at > 561-297-3238 or dwilliam at fau.edu. > > > > -FAU- > > > > About Florida Atlantic University: > > Florida Atlantic University opened its doors in 1964 as the fifth public > university in Florida. Today, the University serves more than 28,000 > undergraduate and graduate students on seven campuses and sites. Building > on its rich tradition as a teaching university, with a world-class > faculty, FAU hosts 10 colleges: the Dorothy F. Schmidt College of Arts & > Letters, the College of Business, the College for Design and Social > Inquiry, the College of Education, the College of Engineering & Computer > Science, the Graduate College, the Harriet L. Wilkes Honors College, the > Charles E. Schmidt College of Medicine, the Christine E. Lynn College of > Nursing and the Charles E. Schmidt College of Science. For more > information, visit www.fau.edu. > > > > > > > > > Lisa Metcalf > Associate Director, Media Relations > Florida Atlantic University > 777 Glades Road > ADM 286 > Boca Raton, FL 33431 > 561-297-3022 - OFFICE > 561-297-3001 - FAX > 561-706-2030 - CELL > > > > -- > Paul J. Hopper > Paul Mellon Distinguished Professor of Humanities > Department of English > Carnegie Mellon University > Pittsburgh, PA 15213 > and > Senior External Fellow > School of Language and Literature > Freiburg Institute for Advanced Studies (FRIAS) > Albertstr. 19 > D-79105 Freiburg i.Br. > Germany > From mark at polymathix.com Thu Feb 3 13:13:56 2011 From: mark at polymathix.com (Mark P. Line) Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 07:13:56 -0600 Subject: [Fwd: PRESS RELEASE: FAU Graduate Students Offer Speech Therapy Via Webcam to Republic of Rwanda Citizens] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: And judging from the number of American TV commercials that are voiced over in British English, it doesn't appear that the business world really sees the British accent as a problem in the first place. Now, if a Rwandan entrepreneur wanted to open a used car dealership in Tuscaloosa, that might be different.... -- Mark Mark P. Line Bartlesville, OK A. Katz wrote: > Interesting! I never thought trying to switch from a British pronunciation > target to an American target would be called "therapy". That somehow > implies that one dialect is less "healthy" than the other. > > --Aya > > > On Wed, 2 Feb 2011, Paul Hopper wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> >> ---------------------------- Original Message >> ---------------------------- >> Subject: PRESS RELEASE: FAU Graduate Students Offer Speech Therapy Via >> Webcam to Republic of Rwanda Citizens >> From: "Lisa Metcalf" >> Date: Wed, February 2, 2011 10:57 >> To: "Lisa Metcalf" >> Cc: "Kristine Gobbo" >> "Lynn Laurenti" >> "Gregg Sekscienski" >> "Toni Wolf" >> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> [new media .gif] >> >> >> >> MEDIA CONTACT: Toni Wolf >> >> 561-297-3029, twolf4 at fau.edu >> >> >> >> FAU Graduate Students Offer Speech Therapy Via Webcam >> to Republic of Rwanda Citizens >> >> >> >> BOCA RATON, FL (February 2, 2011) - Graduate students in the >> speech pathology and audiology program in Florida Atlantic >> University's department of communication sciences and >> disorders have established a program with the Republic of >> Rwanda to offer speech and language services to its citizens. >> >> Using Skype webcam video, the graduate students teach "accent >> reduction therapy" to Rwandan businesspeople to improve their >> English pronunciation so that they can conduct business with >> Americans. >> >> "Rwandans learn British English, and the idioms, vocabulary, tone and >> stress patterns of British English are quite different from American >> English," said Dale Williams, Ph.D., professor of communication sciences >> and disorders at FAU. "The therapy is helping the Rwandans to better >> understand Americans and be understood by them." >> >> The speech therapy program with Rwanda was established through the >> Koinonia Foundation, a nonprofit organization that provides solar power >> to >> schools, medical care and other services begun by Williams, a Peace Corp >> volunteer who taught in Ghana in the early 1980s. >> >> FAU graduate student Michela Mir has worked with two groups in Rwanda >> over >> the last year, completing tasks that had them listening to different >> methods of word pronunciation, along with reviewing diagrams that showed >> how different vowels are produced in the mouth, with tongue placement >> and >> jaw movement. >> >> "I used research-based techniques, word lists and drills, moving from >> words to phrases to sentences and eventually to having a whole >> conversation," said Mir. "There were technical difficulties because the >> Skype connection takes a lot of bandwidth, which isn't easily available >> in >> Rwanda. But despite that, Skype seems to be an effective way to conduct >> therapy. You're face to face with them in real time." >> >> For more information, contact Dr. Dale Williams at >> 561-297-3238 or dwilliam at fau.edu. >> >> >> >> -FAU- >> >> >> >> About Florida Atlantic University: >> >> Florida Atlantic University opened its doors in 1964 as the fifth public >> university in Florida. Today, the University serves more than 28,000 >> undergraduate and graduate students on seven campuses and sites. >> Building >> on its rich tradition as a teaching university, with a world-class >> faculty, FAU hosts 10 colleges: the Dorothy F. Schmidt College of Arts & >> Letters, the College of Business, the College for Design and Social >> Inquiry, the College of Education, the College of Engineering & >> Computer >> Science, the Graduate College, the Harriet L. Wilkes Honors College, the >> Charles E. Schmidt College of Medicine, the Christine E. Lynn College of >> Nursing and the Charles E. Schmidt College of Science. For more >> information, visit www.fau.edu. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Lisa Metcalf >> Associate Director, Media Relations >> Florida Atlantic University >> 777 Glades Road >> ADM 286 >> Boca Raton, FL 33431 >> 561-297-3022 - OFFICE >> 561-297-3001 - FAX >> 561-706-2030 - CELL >> >> >> >> -- >> Paul J. Hopper >> Paul Mellon Distinguished Professor of Humanities >> Department of English >> Carnegie Mellon University >> Pittsburgh, PA 15213 >> and >> Senior External Fellow >> School of Language and Literature >> Freiburg Institute for Advanced Studies (FRIAS) >> Albertstr. 19 >> D-79105 Freiburg i.Br. >> Germany >> > > -- Mark Mark P. Line Bartlesville, OK From carlosmnash at gmail.com Thu Feb 3 14:29:37 2011 From: carlosmnash at gmail.com (Carlos M Nash) Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 08:29:37 -0600 Subject: [Fwd: PRESS RELEASE: FAU Graduate Students Offer Speech Therapy Via Webcam to Republic of Rwanda Citizens] In-Reply-To: <45b52853386f0a90d9888c8f04fb40cc.squirrel@webmail.andrew.cmu.edu> Message-ID: I find it absolutely embarrassing, frustrating, and depressing that, in the 21st century, this sort of philosophy is being passed on to future academics. With the significant amount of British media accessed by Americans on a daily basis, and exposure to different varieties of British English from British actors in Hollywood, you would think there would be some negative indicator (e.g. lack or loss of profit) if there were difficulties for the average American consumer to comprehend non-American varieties. In the meantime, I'll watch another 30 minutes of BBC News before walking to campus in subzero temperature. Best Wishes. ------------------------------ Carlos M Nash Department of Anthropology University of Kansas From taisaoliveira at yahoo.com Thu Feb 3 14:45:50 2011 From: taisaoliveira at yahoo.com (=?utf-8?B?VGHDrXNhIFBlcmVz?=) Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 06:45:50 -0800 Subject: CALL FOR PAPERS Message-ID: 1st INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON FUNCTIONAL LINGUISTICS May 25th-27th, 2011 Local: UFMS/Campus de Três Lagoas – Unidade I Três Lagoas-MS The aim of the I Simpósio Internacional de Linguística Funcional– I SILF (International Symposium of Functional Linguistics), to be held at Universidade Federal de Mato Grosso do Sul – UFMS, Campus of Três Lagoas, is to bring together students and researchers from different functionalist theoretical perspectives to discuss current researches on Language description (including sign languages), Typological studies, Linguistic change and Cognitive Linguistics. INVITED SPEAKERS: - LEHMANN, Christian (Universität Erfurt/GERMANY) - MACKENZIE, John Lachlan (UvA, VrijeUniversiteit, ILTEC/PORTUGAL) - BENTES, Anna Christina (UNICAMP/BRAZIL) - BRAGA, Maria Luiza (UFRJ/BRAZIL) - CAMACHO, Roberto Gomes (UNESP/BRAZIL) - CARDOSO, Valéria Faria (UNEMAT/BRAZIL) - DALL’AGLIO HATTNHER, Marize Mattos (UNESP/BRAZIL) - FURTADO DA CUNHA, Maria Angélica (UFRN/BRAZIL) -MORI, Angel Humberto Corbera (UNICAMP/BRAZIL) - MOURA NEVES, Maria Helena (UNESP/UPM/BRAZIL) - PEZATTI, Erotilde Goreti (UNESP/BRAZIL) - SALOMÃO, Margarida (UFJF/BRAZIL) We invite researchers to submit abstracts that have aFunctional theoretical background or are linked to any of the functionalist perspectives as follows: - Theory of Functional Grammar - Theory of Functional Discourse Grammar - Theory of Role and Reference Grammar - Theory of Systemic Functional Grammar - Theory of Grammaticalization - West Coast Functionalism - Rhetorical Structure Theory - Textual Linguistics - Sociocognitivism - Functionalism andteaching - Typology and functionalism - Functionalism and language change We now invite the submission of abstracts for paper presentations. Papers will be allocated 20 minutes plus 10 minutes for discussion. The deadline for submitting abstracts is February 20, 2011. To submit your abstract, please access the link (http://www.silf2011.com/Normas-e-Submiss%C3%A3o-de-resumos.php). All the abstracts will be evaluated anonymously. In order to check the evaluation status of your abstract, visit the page www.silf2011.com. ABSTRATC FORMATTING: § Minimum of 200 words, maximum 300 words; § Title: Caps, centered; § Author’s name: two lines after the title, right-aligned; § Membership: a line below the author’s name; § The abstract text: two lines below the affiliation, no indentation of paragraphs, Times New Roman 12, single spacing. § Abstracts must be submitted in Portuguese only. IMPORTANT DATES: § Deadline for payment with discount – 03/30/2011; § Deadline for payment without discount – 05/25/2011; Ouvir Ler foneticamente Dicionário - Ver dicionário detalhado 1. pronome 1. you 2. thee PROGRAMME COMMITTEE: Profa. Dra. Taísa Peres de Oliveira Prof. Dr. Edson Rosa Francisco de Souza Prof. Dr. Sebastião Carlos Leite Gonçalves Prof. Dr. Eduardo Penhavel Profa. Alessandra Regina Guerra MORE INFORMATION: www.silf2011.com Email: silf2011 at gmail.comand simposio2011 at silf2011.com Profa. Dra. Taisa Peres de Oliveira Universidade Federal de Mato Grosso do Sul Departamento de Educaçao/Programa de Mestrado em Letras Campus de Tres Lagoas From bgnathaleigh at gmail.com Thu Feb 3 14:56:55 2011 From: bgnathaleigh at gmail.com (Natalie Weber) Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 08:56:55 -0600 Subject: [Fwd: PRESS RELEASE: FAU Graduate Students Offer Speech Therapy Via Webcam to Republic of Rwanda Citizens] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Thinking cynically here: Like Carlos and Mark, I doubt that a British accent impedes business in America. But I do know of Americans who have trouble with African accents. And African accent + British turns of speech would be even more difficult. I wonder if it would be more accurate to say that this "therapy" aids in developing a more American accent, no matter what English dialect you had previously learned, and is called "speech therapy" to make it more palatable to those who pay for the service? Many language courses do not emphasize natural pronunciation, assuming that "it will just come when you are more fluent", so I would imagine such a speech therapy service could be in high demand. No way of knowing for sure, of course, without partaking in the speech therapy course itself or asking the people involved. But this is what it sounded like to me from the description. --Natalie Weber On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 8:29 AM, Carlos M Nash wrote: > I find it absolutely embarrassing, frustrating, and depressing that, in the > 21st century, this sort of philosophy is being passed on to future > academics. With the significant amount of British media accessed by > Americans on a daily basis, and exposure to different varieties of British > English from British actors in Hollywood, you would think there would be > some negative indicator (e.g. lack or loss of profit) if there were > difficulties for the average American consumer to comprehend non-American > varieties. > > In the meantime, I'll watch another 30 minutes of BBC News before walking > to > campus in subzero temperature. > > Best Wishes. > ------------------------------ > Carlos M Nash > Department of Anthropology > University of Kansas > From dcyr at yorku.ca Thu Feb 3 15:01:57 2011 From: dcyr at yorku.ca (Danielle E. Cyr) Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 10:01:57 -0500 Subject: [Fwd: PRESS RELEASE: FAU Graduate Students Offer Speech Therapy Via Webcam to Republic of Rwanda Citizens] In-Reply-To: <45b52853386f0a90d9888c8f04fb40cc.squirrel@webmail.andrew.cmu.edu> Message-ID: Very interesting indeed. Most English-Canadian universities where French is taught hire instructors from France, Belgium, Switzerland and former French colonies rather than native French-Canadians. With the result that students graduate in French from Anglo-Canadian universities barely able to understand their fellow French-Canadian citizens. Perhaps French-Canadian teachers could make money offering speech "therapy" to these graduates ... Interestingly, though, all English speaking Canadian politicians who need to learn French make sure that they learn the French-Canadian variety so that they can be recognized as friendly to French-Canadian voters. In return, French-Canadian voters tend to be reluctant to grant their vote to English-Canadians speaking French with a "Parisian" accent. Warmest regards to all despite our -20°C here. Danielle Quoting Paul Hopper : > > > > > > ---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- > Subject: PRESS RELEASE: FAU Graduate Students Offer Speech Therapy Via > Webcam to Republic of Rwanda Citizens > From: "Lisa Metcalf" > Date: Wed, February 2, 2011 10:57 > To: "Lisa Metcalf" > Cc: "Kristine Gobbo" > "Lynn Laurenti" > "Gregg Sekscienski" > "Toni Wolf" > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > [new media .gif] > > > > MEDIA CONTACT: Toni Wolf > > 561-297-3029, twolf4 at fau.edu > > > > FAU Graduate Students Offer Speech Therapy Via Webcam > to Republic of Rwanda Citizens > > > > BOCA RATON, FL (February 2, 2011) - Graduate students in the > speech pathology and audiology program in Florida Atlantic > University's department of communication sciences and > disorders have established a program with the Republic of > Rwanda to offer speech and language services to its citizens. > > Using Skype webcam video, the graduate students teach "accent > reduction therapy" to Rwandan businesspeople to improve their > English pronunciation so that they can conduct business with > Americans. > > "Rwandans learn British English, and the idioms, vocabulary, tone and > stress patterns of British English are quite different from American > English," said Dale Williams, Ph.D., professor of communication sciences > and disorders at FAU. "The therapy is helping the Rwandans to better > understand Americans and be understood by them." > > The speech therapy program with Rwanda was established through the > Koinonia Foundation, a nonprofit organization that provides solar power to > schools, medical care and other services begun by Williams, a Peace Corp > volunteer who taught in Ghana in the early 1980s. > > FAU graduate student Michela Mir has worked with two groups in Rwanda over > the last year, completing tasks that had them listening to different > methods of word pronunciation, along with reviewing diagrams that showed > how different vowels are produced in the mouth, with tongue placement and > jaw movement. > > "I used research-based techniques, word lists and drills, moving from > words to phrases to sentences and eventually to having a whole > conversation," said Mir. "There were technical difficulties because the > Skype connection takes a lot of bandwidth, which isn't easily available in > Rwanda. But despite that, Skype seems to be an effective way to conduct > therapy. You're face to face with them in real time." > > For more information, contact Dr. Dale Williams at > 561-297-3238 or dwilliam at fau.edu. > > > > -FAU- > > > > About Florida Atlantic University: > > Florida Atlantic University opened its doors in 1964 as the fifth public > university in Florida. Today, the University serves more than 28,000 > undergraduate and graduate students on seven campuses and sites. Building > on its rich tradition as a teaching university, with a world-class > faculty, FAU hosts 10 colleges: the Dorothy F. Schmidt College of Arts & > Letters, the College of Business, the College for Design and Social > Inquiry, the College of Education, the College of Engineering & Computer > Science, the Graduate College, the Harriet L. Wilkes Honors College, the > Charles E. Schmidt College of Medicine, the Christine E. Lynn College of > Nursing and the Charles E. Schmidt College of Science. For more > information, visit www.fau.edu. > > > > > > > > > Lisa Metcalf > Associate Director, Media Relations > Florida Atlantic University > 777 Glades Road > ADM 286 > Boca Raton, FL 33431 > 561-297-3022 - OFFICE > 561-297-3001 - FAX > 561-706-2030 - CELL > > > > -- > Paul J. Hopper > Paul Mellon Distinguished Professor of Humanities > Department of English > Carnegie Mellon University > Pittsburgh, PA 15213 > and > Senior External Fellow > School of Language and Literature > Freiburg Institute for Advanced Studies (FRIAS) > Albertstr. 19 > D-79105 Freiburg i.Br. > Germany > "The only hope we have as human beings is to learn each other's languages. Only then can we truly hope to understand one another." Professor Danielle E. Cyr Department of French Studies York University Toronto, ON, Canada, M3J 1P3 Tel. 1.416.736.2100 #310180 FAX. 1.416.736.5924 dcyr at yorku.ca From grvsmth at panix.com Thu Feb 3 15:23:47 2011 From: grvsmth at panix.com (Angus B. Grieve-Smith) Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 10:23:47 -0500 Subject: [Fwd: PRESS RELEASE: FAU Graduate Students Offer Speech Therapy Via Webcam to Republic of Rwanda Citizens] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 2/3/2011 9:56 AM, Natalie Weber wrote: > I wonder if it would be more accurate to say that this "therapy" aids in > developing a more American accent, no matter what English dialect you had > previously learned, and is called "speech therapy" to make it more palatable > to those who pay for the service? Many language courses do not emphasize > natural pronunciation, assuming that "it will just come when you are more > fluent", so I would imagine such a speech therapy service could be in high > demand. I think that accents are being pathologized because that puts speech trainers in a class of "medical practitioners" rather than teachers, and allows them to demand higher fees and greater prestige. It may even be paid for by some insurance companies, for all I know. It may also be a case of "when you've got a hammer, everything looks like a nail." These two explanations are not mutually exclusive. -- -Angus B. Grieve-Smith grvsmth at panix.com From amnfn at well.com Thu Feb 3 15:33:55 2011 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 07:33:55 -0800 Subject: [Fwd: PRESS RELEASE: FAU Graduate Students Offer Speech Therapy Via Webcam to Republic of Rwanda Citizens] In-Reply-To: <4D4AC883.2000107@panix.com> Message-ID: Angus, I agree. Your explanations make sense. Especially the first one! --Aya On Thu, 3 Feb 2011, Angus B. Grieve-Smith wrote: > On 2/3/2011 9:56 AM, Natalie Weber wrote: >> I wonder if it would be more accurate to say that this "therapy" aids in >> developing a more American accent, no matter what English dialect you had >> previously learned, and is called "speech therapy" to make it more >> palatable >> to those who pay for the service? Many language courses do not emphasize >> natural pronunciation, assuming that "it will just come when you are more >> fluent", so I would imagine such a speech therapy service could be in high >> demand. > I think that accents are being pathologized because that puts speech > trainers in a class of "medical practitioners" rather than teachers, and > allows them to demand higher fees and greater prestige. It may even be paid > for by some insurance companies, for all I know. > > It may also be a case of "when you've got a hammer, everything looks like > a nail." These two explanations are not mutually exclusive. > > -- > -Angus B. Grieve-Smith > grvsmth at panix.com > > From mark at polymathix.com Thu Feb 3 19:43:53 2011 From: mark at polymathix.com (Mark P. Line) Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 13:43:53 -0600 Subject: [Fwd: PRESS RELEASE: FAU Graduate Students Offer Speech Therapy Via Webcam to Republic of Rwanda Citizens] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Maybe it's more palatable to their Rwandan clients to hear "your English is too British for the Americans" than to hear "your English is too African for the Americans". -- Mark Mark P. Line Bartlesville, OK (experiencing a heat wave at 19F) Natalie Weber wrote: > Thinking cynically here: > Like Carlos and Mark, I doubt that a British accent impedes business in > America. But I do know of Americans who have trouble with African accents. > And African accent + British turns of speech would be even more difficult. > I > wonder if it would be more accurate to say that this "therapy" aids in > developing a more American accent, no matter what English dialect you had > previously learned, and is called "speech therapy" to make it more > palatable > to those who pay for the service? Many language courses do not emphasize > natural pronunciation, assuming that "it will just come when you are more > fluent", so I would imagine such a speech therapy service could be in high > demand. > > No way of knowing for sure, of course, without partaking in the speech > therapy course itself or asking the people involved. But this is what it > sounded like to me from the description. > > --Natalie Weber > > On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 8:29 AM, Carlos M Nash > wrote: > >> I find it absolutely embarrassing, frustrating, and depressing that, in >> the >> 21st century, this sort of philosophy is being passed on to future >> academics. With the significant amount of British media accessed by >> Americans on a daily basis, and exposure to different varieties of >> British >> English from British actors in Hollywood, you would think there would be >> some negative indicator (e.g. lack or loss of profit) if there were >> difficulties for the average American consumer to comprehend >> non-American >> varieties. >> >> In the meantime, I'll watch another 30 minutes of BBC News before >> walking >> to >> campus in subzero temperature. >> >> Best Wishes. >> ------------------------------ >> Carlos M Nash >> Department of Anthropology >> University of Kansas >> > > From tgivon at uoregon.edu Thu Feb 3 22:36:46 2011 From: tgivon at uoregon.edu (Tom Givon) Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 15:36:46 -0700 Subject: [Fwd: PRESS RELEASE: FAU Graduate Students Offer Speech Therapy Via Webcam to Republic of Rwanda Citizens] In-Reply-To: <503cf786a9f2736f1022d78cc40aaf23.squirrel@sm.webmail.pair.com> Message-ID: In the old days in SLA, we used to do contrastive analysis of the native (L1) & target (L2) languages in order to understand potential phonological & grammatical difficulties that L1 speakers may have in trying to learn L2. Put another way, you had to know BOTH languages to teach L2 to native speakers of L1. I just wonder what these hustlers really know about the highly complex KinyaRwanda tonal system, which in my experience makes the native KR speakers' English intonation so unlike English? My beloved student Alexandre Kimenyi, RIP, lived and taught in this country for 40-odd years, yet to the very end I could barely undferstand his--fluent!--English. When there's enough $$$ jingling, hustlers will follow (viz our earlier discussion on RS) And alas, our field--or at least its margins--is not immune. TG =============== On 2/3/2011 12:43 PM, Mark P. Line wrote: > Maybe it's more palatable to their Rwandan clients to hear "your English > is too British for the Americans" than to hear "your English is too > African for the Americans". > > -- Mark > > Mark P. Line > Bartlesville, OK (experiencing a heat wave at 19F) > > > Natalie Weber wrote: >> Thinking cynically here: >> Like Carlos and Mark, I doubt that a British accent impedes business in >> America. But I do know of Americans who have trouble with African accents. >> And African accent + British turns of speech would be even more difficult. >> I >> wonder if it would be more accurate to say that this "therapy" aids in >> developing a more American accent, no matter what English dialect you had >> previously learned, and is called "speech therapy" to make it more >> palatable >> to those who pay for the service? Many language courses do not emphasize >> natural pronunciation, assuming that "it will just come when you are more >> fluent", so I would imagine such a speech therapy service could be in high >> demand. >> >> No way of knowing for sure, of course, without partaking in the speech >> therapy course itself or asking the people involved. But this is what it >> sounded like to me from the description. >> >> --Natalie Weber >> >> On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 8:29 AM, Carlos M Nash >> wrote: >> >>> I find it absolutely embarrassing, frustrating, and depressing that, in >>> the >>> 21st century, this sort of philosophy is being passed on to future >>> academics. With the significant amount of British media accessed by >>> Americans on a daily basis, and exposure to different varieties of >>> British >>> English from British actors in Hollywood, you would think there would be >>> some negative indicator (e.g. lack or loss of profit) if there were >>> difficulties for the average American consumer to comprehend >>> non-American >>> varieties. >>> >>> In the meantime, I'll watch another 30 minutes of BBC News before >>> walking >>> to >>> campus in subzero temperature. >>> >>> Best Wishes. >>> ------------------------------ >>> Carlos M Nash >>> Department of Anthropology >>> University of Kansas >>> >> From hopper at cmu.edu Fri Feb 4 04:10:05 2011 From: hopper at cmu.edu (Paul Hopper) Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 23:10:05 -0500 Subject: [Fwd: PRESS RELEASE: FAU Graduate Students Offer Speech Therapy Via Webcam to Republic of Rwanda Citizens] In-Reply-To: <4D4AC883.2000107@panix.com> Message-ID: Yes, Angus gets it right. Terminology is part of the power/money play of medical organizations. Optometrists have explicit rules about it (a brochure put out by the New York State Optometrics Association recommended that clients should be referred to as "patients", the receptionist should be a "nurse", to insist on the title "Doctor", etc.) I too wondered if there isn't a bit of global rivalry surfacing here between the British and American accents. There's quite a story to be told about this, I think. Paul On Thu, February 3, 2011 10:23, Angus B. Grieve-Smith wrote: > On 2/3/2011 9:56 AM, Natalie Weber wrote: > >> I wonder if it would be more accurate to say that this "therapy" aids >> in developing a more American accent, no matter what English dialect you >> had previously learned, and is called "speech therapy" to make it more >> palatable to those who pay for the service? Many language courses do not >> emphasize natural pronunciation, assuming that "it will just come when >> you are more fluent", so I would imagine such a speech therapy service >> could be in high demand. > I think that accents are being pathologized because that puts > speech trainers in a class of "medical practitioners" rather than teachers, > and allows them to demand higher fees and greater prestige. It may even be > paid for by some insurance companies, for all I know. > > It may also be a case of "when you've got a hammer, everything > looks like a nail." These two explanations are not mutually exclusive. > > -- > -Angus B. Grieve-Smith > grvsmth at panix.com > > > -- Paul J. Hopper Paul Mellon Distinguished Professor of Humanities Department of English Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA 15213 and Senior External Fellow School of Language and Literature Freiburg Institute for Advanced Studies (FRIAS) Albertstr. 19 D-79105 Freiburg i.Br. Germany From language at sprynet.com Fri Feb 4 10:08:44 2011 From: language at sprynet.com (alex gross) Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2011 05:08:44 -0500 Subject: [Fwd: PRESS RELEASE: FAU Graduate Students Offer Speech Therapy Via Webcam to Republic of Rwanda Citizens] Message-ID: Thanks for your message, Paul. Yes, Angus has it right. And you certainly have it right about this: > I too wondered if there isn't a bit of global rivalry surfacing > here between the British and American accents. There's > quite a story to be told about this, I think. Yes, there is. I grew up in the US but against the background of a British family on my father's side. Have a half-brother who was a well-known British artist & a half-sister who after my father's passing continued to publish the A-Z Atlas of London. Spent considerable time with my older siblings when they came over here during my youth & visited with them in England during the 50s. I lived in the UK from 1963 to 1971, worked as a dramaturg for the Royal Shakespeare, have published in both nations, and have written extensively on Brit-US relations including accents, for instance the following on-line excerpts from my Sixties book: http://untoldsixties.net/eng2.htm#totop http://untoldsixties.net/eng1.htm#totop http://untoldsixties.net/thea.htm#totop I would simply add the following thoughts: Those many Brit actors & TV reporters who flourish over here have for the most part had their Brit accents & expressions cleaned up for US usage. Though I doubt if they used the U/Fla method... When I was in Britain, posh RP tones became so overbearing that there was a strong reaction against them. And if I'm not mistaken the English sociolinguist Peter Trudgill has campaigned fiercely against them. Which has led to the many more varied accents one hears on English TV today. Not all Americans, even among the educated, are able to understand all (or even many) Brit accents. And not all Brits can handle many American ones. Some episodes of "Shameless" I can follow, others leave me mystified. There are even a few pieces of Monty Python where subtitles would be useful. Most Americans don't want to admit they don't understand some Briticisms, & vice versa for the Brits. There could be a linguistic principle here, that people in general don't care to confess when they don't understand something, after all others might interpret this as a failing. Here's an amusing story I so far have only one source for: at a WWII strategy meeting Monty spent some time upbraiding Ike about how barbaric Americans proved themselves whenever they pronounced "schedule" with an "sk" sound. Ike took it for as long as he could but finally replied, "Well, I guess it's wrong, Monty, it must be just something I learned in shool." All the best to everyone! alex PS--Since this purports to be a scholarly group, you might be interested in Norman W. Schur's book "British English" (Harper Perennial 1987). It functions as an English- American dictionary listing 5,000 differences in nouns, verbs, adjectives, & idioms between the two languages. Other similar volumes exist. ************************************************** The principal purpose of language is not communication but to persuade ourselves that we know what we are talking about, when quite often we do not. ************************************************** ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Hopper" To: "Angus B. Grieve-Smith" Cc: Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 11:10 PM Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] [Fwd: PRESS RELEASE: FAU Graduate Students Offer Speech Therapy Via Webcam to Republic of Rwanda Citizens] > Yes, Angus gets it right. Terminology is part of the power/money play of > medical organizations. Optometrists have explicit rules about it (a > brochure put out by the New York State Optometrics Association recommended > that clients should be referred to as "patients", the receptionist should > be a "nurse", to insist on the title "Doctor", etc.) > > I too wondered if there isn't a bit of global rivalry surfacing here > between the British and American accents. There's quite a story to be told > about this, I think. > > Paul > > On Thu, February 3, 2011 10:23, Angus B. Grieve-Smith wrote: >> On 2/3/2011 9:56 AM, Natalie Weber wrote: >> >>> I wonder if it would be more accurate to say that this "therapy" aids >>> in developing a more American accent, no matter what English dialect you >>> had previously learned, and is called "speech therapy" to make it more >>> palatable to those who pay for the service? Many language courses do not >>> emphasize natural pronunciation, assuming that "it will just come when >>> you are more fluent", so I would imagine such a speech therapy service >>> could be in high demand. >> I think that accents are being pathologized because that puts >> speech trainers in a class of "medical practitioners" rather than >> teachers, >> and allows them to demand higher fees and greater prestige. It may even >> be >> paid for by some insurance companies, for all I know. >> >> It may also be a case of "when you've got a hammer, everything >> looks like a nail." These two explanations are not mutually exclusive. >> >> -- >> -Angus B. Grieve-Smith >> grvsmth at panix.com >> >> >> > > > -- > Paul J. Hopper > Paul Mellon Distinguished Professor of Humanities > Department of English > Carnegie Mellon University > Pittsburgh, PA 15213 > and > Senior External Fellow > School of Language and Literature > Freiburg Institute for Advanced Studies (FRIAS) > Albertstr. 19 > D-79105 Freiburg i.Br. > Germany > > > From anne_mariedevlin at hotmail.com Sat Feb 5 00:00:29 2011 From: anne_mariedevlin at hotmail.com (anne marie devlin) Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2011 00:00:29 +0000 Subject: [Fwd: PRESS RELEASE: FAU Graduate Students Offer Speech Therapy Via Webcam to Republic of Rwanda Citizens] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: From: anne_mariedevlin at hotmail.com To: language at sprynet.com Subject: RE: [FUNKNET] [Fwd: PRESS RELEASE: FAU Graduate Students Offer Speech Therapy Via Webcam to Republic of Rwanda Citizens] Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2011 13:13:11 +0000 British RP is used by less that 5% of the population and is by no means the accent of aspiration. Its position has been usurped by estuary English. However, what puzzles me is the 'fact' that Rwandan speakers of English as a second/foreign language have managed to acquire such a strong British (RP) accent complete with idioms that are incomprehensible to the American public. I have been working with adult NNSs of English for more than 20 years and have met very few whose accent is not obviously that of their first language regardless of the locus of learning. I have also worked with Rwandans and have found their accent to be more similar to that of anglophone Africans albeit tinged with French. I agree with the last post re: rivalry in the TEFL world and the probable commercial basis for this. There were many interesting comments about the many varieties of English which leads to the question 'which variety of American English will the Rwandans be converted to?'. Accent is a huge issue as it carries many social connotations and can act as a barrier or a conduit into various spheres of society. However, it is a notoriously difficult area of acquisition - with some SLA researchers believing that a native accent can't be acquired after the onset of puberty. There is, however, a movement towards a neutral accent as espoused by those (see Jennifer Jenkins) developing English as a Lingua Franca (ELF). This accent is accepting of some intra-lingual differences and the main focus is on international intelligibility However, I think the bigger question relates to 'ownership' of English - or any other language- and the 'right' of NNSs to be accepted as such. Surely we have moved away from the Eliza Doolittle model! On a slightly more facetious note, why Rwandans? Surely, they are minor trade partners! AM > From: language at sprynet.com > To: hopper at cmu.edu; grvsmth at panix.com > Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2011 05:08:44 -0500 > CC: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] [Fwd: PRESS RELEASE: FAU Graduate Students Offer Speech Therapy Via Webcam to Republic of Rwanda Citizens] > > Thanks for your message, Paul. Yes, Angus has it right. > And you certainly have it right about this: > > > I too wondered if there isn't a bit of global rivalry surfacing > > here between the British and American accents. There's > > quite a story to be told about this, I think. > > Yes, there is. I grew up in the US but against the > background of a British family on my father's side. Have > a half-brother who was a well-known British artist & > a half-sister who after my father's passing continued to > publish the A-Z Atlas of London. Spent considerable > time with my older siblings when they came over here > during my youth & visited with them in England during > the 50s. I lived in the UK from 1963 to 1971, worked as a > dramaturg for the Royal Shakespeare, have published > in both nations, and have written extensively on Brit-US > relations including accents, for instance the following on-line > excerpts from my Sixties book: > > http://untoldsixties.net/eng2.htm#totop > > http://untoldsixties.net/eng1.htm#totop > > http://untoldsixties.net/thea.htm#totop > > I would simply add the following thoughts: > > Those many Brit actors & TV reporters who flourish > over here have for the most part had their Brit accents & > expressions cleaned up for US usage. Though I doubt > if they used the U/Fla method... > > When I was in Britain, posh RP tones became so > overbearing that there was a strong reaction against them. > And if I'm not mistaken the English sociolinguist > Peter Trudgill has campaigned fiercely against them. > Which has led to the many more varied accents one > hears on English TV today. > > Not all Americans, even among the educated, > are able to understand all (or even many) Brit accents. > And not all Brits can handle many American ones. > Some episodes of "Shameless" I can follow, others > leave me mystified. There are even a few pieces of > Monty Python where subtitles would be useful. > > Most Americans don't want to admit they don't > understand some Briticisms, & vice versa for the Brits. > There could be a linguistic principle here, that people > in general don't care to confess when they don't > understand something, after all others might interpret > this as a failing. > > Here's an amusing story I so far have only one > source for: at a WWII strategy meeting Monty spent > some time upbraiding Ike about how barbaric > Americans proved themselves whenever they > pronounced "schedule" with an "sk" sound. > Ike took it for as long as he could but finally > replied, "Well, I guess it's wrong, Monty, it > must be just something I learned in shool." > > All the best to everyone! > > alex > > PS--Since this purports to be a scholarly group, you might > be interested in Norman W. Schur's book "British English" > (Harper Perennial 1987). It functions as an English- > American dictionary listing 5,000 differences in nouns, > verbs, adjectives, & idioms between the two languages. > Other similar volumes exist. > > ************************************************** > The principal purpose of language is not communication but to persuade > ourselves > that we know what we are talking about, when quite often we do not. > > ************************************************** > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Paul Hopper" > To: "Angus B. Grieve-Smith" > Cc: > Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 11:10 PM > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] [Fwd: PRESS RELEASE: FAU Graduate Students Offer > Speech Therapy Via Webcam to Republic of Rwanda Citizens] > > > > Yes, Angus gets it right. Terminology is part of the power/money play of > > medical organizations. Optometrists have explicit rules about it (a > > brochure put out by the New York State Optometrics Association recommended > > that clients should be referred to as "patients", the receptionist should > > be a "nurse", to insist on the title "Doctor", etc.) > > > > I too wondered if there isn't a bit of global rivalry surfacing here > > between the British and American accents. There's quite a story to be told > > about this, I think. > > > > Paul > > > > On Thu, February 3, 2011 10:23, Angus B. Grieve-Smith wrote: > >> On 2/3/2011 9:56 AM, Natalie Weber wrote: > >> > >>> I wonder if it would be more accurate to say that this "therapy" aids > >>> in developing a more American accent, no matter what English dialect you > >>> had previously learned, and is called "speech therapy" to make it more > >>> palatable to those who pay for the service? Many language courses do not > >>> emphasize natural pronunciation, assuming that "it will just come when > >>> you are more fluent", so I would imagine such a speech therapy service > >>> could be in high demand. > >> I think that accents are being pathologized because that puts > >> speech trainers in a class of "medical practitioners" rather than > >> teachers, > >> and allows them to demand higher fees and greater prestige. It may even > >> be > >> paid for by some insurance companies, for all I know. > >> > >> It may also be a case of "when you've got a hammer, everything > >> looks like a nail." These two explanations are not mutually exclusive. > >> > >> -- > >> -Angus B. Grieve-Smith > >> grvsmth at panix.com > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > > Paul J. Hopper > > Paul Mellon Distinguished Professor of Humanities > > Department of English > > Carnegie Mellon University > > Pittsburgh, PA 15213 > > and > > Senior External Fellow > > School of Language and Literature > > Freiburg Institute for Advanced Studies (FRIAS) > > Albertstr. 19 > > D-79105 Freiburg i.Br. > > Germany > > > > > > > From language at sprynet.com Sat Feb 5 06:24:03 2011 From: language at sprynet.com (alex gross) Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2011 01:24:03 -0500 Subject: [Fwd: PRESS RELEASE: FAU Graduate Students Offer Speech Therapy Via Webcam to Republic of Rwanda Citizens] Message-ID: Glad you posted this here as well, Anne Marie. I agree with every single word. I have the feeling that even during the 60s I, along with most of the people I worked with--that all of us were instinctively gravitating away from RP & towards estuary. As I said towards the end of my British English piece--concerning an attempt by the University of Surrey translation studies department to insist that all "low-class American translations" must be forthwith replaced by "high-class English translations"--"who will explain these neologisms to the 95% of the British people who do not speak received high quality British English?" Among linguists I've always been very impressed with speech therapists, and especially with David Crystal, since his practical knowledge of this sphere so well anchors all of his other remarkable work. I wonder if he may not be, faute de mieux, the greatest living linguist, a true descriptivist in the tradition of Bloomfield, Sapir, et al. Yes, there is a "standard American accent," which TV announcers & others aspire to, pretty much free of regional traces, whether from New York or Boston, the midwest or the south. All the best! alex British RP is used by less that 5% of the population and is by no means the accent of aspiration. Its position has been usurped by estuary English. However, what puzzles me is the 'fact' that Rwandan speakers of English as a second/foreign language have managed to acquire such a strong British (RP) accent complete with idioms that are incomprehensible to the American public. I have been working with adult NNSs of English for more than 20 years and have met very few whose accent is not obviously that of their first language regardless of the locus of learning. I have also worked with Rwandans and have found their accent to be more similar to that of anglophone Africans albeit tinged with French. I agree with the last post re: rivalry in the TEFL world and the probable commercial basis for this. There were many interesting comments about the many varieties of English which leads to the question 'which variety of American English will the Rwandans be converted to?'. Accent is a huge issue as it carries many social connotations and can act as a barrier or a conduit into various spheres of society. However, it is a notoriously difficult area of acquisition - with some SLA researchers believing that a native accent can't be acquired after the onset of puberty. There is, however, a movement towards a neutral accent as espoused by those (see Jennifer Jenkins) developing English as a Lingua Franca (ELF). This accent is accepting of some intra-lingual differences and the main focus is on international intelligibility However, I think the bigger question relates to 'ownership' of English - or any other language- and the 'right' of NNSs to be accepted as such. Surely we have moved away from the Eliza Doolittle model! On a slightly more facetious note, why Rwandans? Surely, they are minor trade partners! AM > From: language at sprynet.com > To: hopper at cmu.edu; grvsmth at panix.com > Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2011 05:08:44 -0500 > CC: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] [Fwd: PRESS RELEASE: FAU Graduate Students Offer > Speech Therapy Via Webcam to Republic of Rwanda Citizens] > > Thanks for your message, Paul. Yes, Angus has it right. > And you certainly have it right about this: > > > I too wondered if there isn't a bit of global rivalry surfacing > > here between the British and American accents. There's > > quite a story to be told about this, I think. > > Yes, there is. I grew up in the US but against the > background of a British family on my father's side. Have > a half-brother who was a well-known British artist & > a half-sister who after my father's passing continued to > publish the A-Z Atlas of London. Spent considerable > time with my older siblings when they came over here > during my youth & visited with them in England during > the 50s. I lived in the UK from 1963 to 1971, worked as a > dramaturg for the Royal Shakespeare, have published > in both nations, and have written extensively on Brit-US > relations including accents, for instance the following on-line > excerpts from my Sixties book: > > http://untoldsixties.net/eng2.htm#totop > > http://untoldsixties.net/eng1.htm#totop > > http://untoldsixties.net/thea.htm#totop > > I would simply add the following thoughts: > > Those many Brit actors & TV reporters who flourish > over here have for the most part had their Brit accents & > expressions cleaned up for US usage. Though I doubt > if they used the U/Fla method... > > When I was in Britain, posh RP tones became so > overbearing that there was a strong reaction against them. > And if I'm not mistaken the English sociolinguist > Peter Trudgill has campaigned fiercely against them. > Which has led to the many more varied accents one > hears on English TV today. > > Not all Americans, even among the educated, > are able to understand all (or even many) Brit accents. > And not all Brits can handle many American ones. > Some episodes of "Shameless" I can follow, others > leave me mystified. There are even a few pieces of > Monty Python where subtitles would be useful. > > Most Americans don't want to admit they don't > understand some Briticisms, & vice versa for the Brits. > There could be a linguistic principle here, that people > in general don't care to confess when they don't > understand something, after all others might interpret > this as a failing. > > Here's an amusing story I so far have only one > source for: at a WWII strategy meeting Monty spent > some time upbraiding Ike about how barbaric > Americans proved themselves whenever they > pronounced "schedule" with an "sk" sound. > Ike took it for as long as he could but finally > replied, "Well, I guess it's wrong, Monty, it > must be just something I learned in shool." > > All the best to everyone! > > alex > > PS--Since this purports to be a scholarly group, you might > be interested in Norman W. Schur's book "British English" > (Harper Perennial 1987). It functions as an English- > American dictionary listing 5,000 differences in nouns, > verbs, adjectives, & idioms between the two languages. > Other similar volumes exist. > > ************************************************** > The principal purpose of language is not communication but to persuade > ourselves > that we know what we are talking about, when quite often we do not. > > ************************************************** > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Paul Hopper" > To: "Angus B. Grieve-Smith" > Cc: > Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 11:10 PM > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] [Fwd: PRESS RELEASE: FAU Graduate Students Offer > Speech Therapy Via Webcam to Republic of Rwanda Citizens] > > > > Yes, Angus gets it right. Terminology is part of the power/money play of > > medical organizations. Optometrists have explicit rules about it (a > > brochure put out by the New York State Optometrics Association > > recommended > > that clients should be referred to as "patients", the receptionist > > should > > be a "nurse", to insist on the title "Doctor", etc.) > > > > I too wondered if there isn't a bit of global rivalry surfacing here > > between the British and American accents. There's quite a story to be > > told > > about this, I think. > > > > Paul > > > > On Thu, February 3, 2011 10:23, Angus B. Grieve-Smith wrote: > >> On 2/3/2011 9:56 AM, Natalie Weber wrote: > >> > >>> I wonder if it would be more accurate to say that this "therapy" aids > >>> in developing a more American accent, no matter what English dialect > >>> you > >>> had previously learned, and is called "speech therapy" to make it more > >>> palatable to those who pay for the service? Many language courses do > >>> not > >>> emphasize natural pronunciation, assuming that "it will just come when > >>> you are more fluent", so I would imagine such a speech therapy service > >>> could be in high demand. > >> I think that accents are being pathologized because that puts > >> speech trainers in a class of "medical practitioners" rather than > >> teachers, > >> and allows them to demand higher fees and greater prestige. It may even > >> be > >> paid for by some insurance companies, for all I know. > >> > >> It may also be a case of "when you've got a hammer, everything > >> looks like a nail." These two explanations are not mutually exclusive. > >> > >> -- > >> -Angus B. Grieve-Smith > >> grvsmth at panix.com > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > > Paul J. Hopper > > Paul Mellon Distinguished Professor of Humanities > > Department of English > > Carnegie Mellon University > > Pittsburgh, PA 15213 > > and > > Senior External Fellow > > School of Language and Literature > > Freiburg Institute for Advanced Studies (FRIAS) > > Albertstr. 19 > > D-79105 Freiburg i.Br. > > Germany > > > > > > > From grvsmth at panix.com Sat Feb 5 17:08:54 2011 From: grvsmth at panix.com (Angus B. Grieve-Smith) Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2011 12:08:54 -0500 Subject: [Fwd: PRESS RELEASE: FAU Graduate Students Offer Speech Therapy Via Webcam to Republic of Rwanda Citizens] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 2/5/2011 1:24 AM, alex gross wrote: > Yes, there is a "standard American accent," which TV announcers & > others aspire to, pretty much free of regional traces, whether from > New York or Boston, the midwest or the south. Like all other "standard accents," it's a myth, more concerned with the avoidance of stigmatized regional forms than anything positive. It's closer to the accents of the Midwest and the West than it is to anything from the Northeast or the South, but it's definitely different from any specific Midwestern accent. And of course, since we're talking about Africans, it should be pointed out that while many African Americans can approximate this standard as well as anyone else in the country, it's particularly far from most Black English accents. There is also a (white) "Southern" regional standard that many people throughout the South aspire to, and I would guess that includes many FAU students, although maybe not speech pathology majors. It shares some features with a number of Black English accents. In my experience native Africans have slightly higher prestige in the US than African Americans who were born and raised here, and they are often identified as native Africans by British or French features in their accents. This raises the possibility that the "therapy" could wind up training these Rwandans to pronounce English in ways that would lower their social status instead of raising it. -- -Angus B. Grieve-Smith grvsmth at panix.com From language at sprynet.com Sat Feb 5 21:14:37 2011 From: language at sprynet.com (alex gross) Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2011 16:14:37 -0500 Subject: [Fwd: PRESS RELEASE: FAU Graduate Students Offer Speech Therapy Via Webcam to Republic of Rwanda Citizens] Message-ID: > Like all other "standard accents," it's a myth, Yes, of course it's a myth, and as you say, all standard accents are myths. But this does not mean it is not sought after by many people working in film, TV, & the theatre, plus quite a few other Americans eager to modify their accents. At least the actors among them are often able to switch over to many other accents when they need to. But for all those people it's not a myth at all, it's compellingly real. Thanks for your message! All the best! alex > On 2/5/2011 1:24 AM, alex gross wrote: >> Yes, there is a "standard American accent," which TV announcers & others >> aspire to, pretty much free of regional traces, whether from New York or >> Boston, the midwest or the south. > Like all other "standard accents," it's a myth, more concerned with > the avoidance of stigmatized regional forms than anything positive. It's > closer to the accents of the Midwest and the West than it is to anything > from the Northeast or the South, but it's definitely different from any > specific Midwestern accent. And of course, since we're talking about > Africans, it should be pointed out that while many African Americans can > approximate this standard as well as anyone else in the country, it's > particularly far from most Black English accents. > > There is also a (white) "Southern" regional standard that many people > throughout the South aspire to, and I would guess that includes many FAU > students, although maybe not speech pathology majors. It shares some > features with a number of Black English accents. In my experience native > Africans have slightly higher prestige in the US than African Americans > who were born and raised here, and they are often identified as native > Africans by British or French features in their accents. This raises the > possibility that the "therapy" could wind up training these Rwandans to > pronounce English in ways that would lower their social status instead of > raising it. > > -- > -Angus B. Grieve-Smith > grvsmth at panix.com > > From mark at polymathix.com Sat Feb 5 23:32:53 2011 From: mark at polymathix.com (Mark P. Line) Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2011 17:32:53 -0600 Subject: [Fwd: PRESS RELEASE: FAU Graduate Students Offer Speech Therapy Via Webcam to Republic of Rwanda Citizens] In-Reply-To: <10DDC1818B694E228725F2DFAC733835@aa82807a474cf4> Message-ID: Doesn't that sort of beg the question? I think the point is that there is NO OBJECTIVE STANDARD for a "standard accent", no matter who tells you otherwise and how important they are. So the language pursued by people working in film, TV and theatre is the language approved by their directors, producers or, umm, speech therapists. Those folks are no more privy to divine articulatory wisdom than anybody else. So, it's still a myth. But like all myths, it has its believers no matter how far removed it might be from reality. -- Mark Mark P. Line Bartlesville, OK alex gross wrote: > >> Like all other "standard accents," it's a myth, > > Yes, of course it's a myth, and as you say, all standard accents are > myths. > But this does not mean it is not sought after by many people working in > film, TV, & the theatre, plus quite a few other Americans eager to modify > their accents. At least the actors among them are often able to switch > over > to many other accents when they need to. > > But for all those people it's not a myth at all, it's compellingly real. > > Thanks for your message! > > All the best! > > alex > > >> On 2/5/2011 1:24 AM, alex gross wrote: >>> Yes, there is a "standard American accent," which TV announcers & >>> others >>> aspire to, pretty much free of regional traces, whether from New York >>> or >>> Boston, the midwest or the south. >> Like all other "standard accents," it's a myth, more concerned with >> the avoidance of stigmatized regional forms than anything positive. >> It's >> closer to the accents of the Midwest and the West than it is to anything >> from the Northeast or the South, but it's definitely different from any >> specific Midwestern accent. And of course, since we're talking about >> Africans, it should be pointed out that while many African Americans can >> approximate this standard as well as anyone else in the country, it's >> particularly far from most Black English accents. >> >> There is also a (white) "Southern" regional standard that many >> people >> throughout the South aspire to, and I would guess that includes many FAU >> students, although maybe not speech pathology majors. It shares some >> features with a number of Black English accents. In my experience >> native >> Africans have slightly higher prestige in the US than African Americans >> who were born and raised here, and they are often identified as native >> Africans by British or French features in their accents. This raises >> the >> possibility that the "therapy" could wind up training these Rwandans to >> pronounce English in ways that would lower their social status instead >> of >> raising it. >> >> -- >> -Angus B. Grieve-Smith >> grvsmth at panix.com >> >> > > > -- Mark Mark P. Line Bartlesville, OK From language at sprynet.com Sun Feb 6 22:42:07 2011 From: language at sprynet.com (alex gross) Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2011 17:42:07 -0500 Subject: [Fwd: PRESS RELEASE: FAU Graduate Students Offer Speech Therapy Via Webcam to Republic of Rwanda Citizens] Message-ID: > Doesn't that sort of beg the question? Not really, Mark. I don't quite get what you're objecting to, I've already said sure, it's a myth. What more do you want? But some myths can take on reality among their believers. If we go on this way, we'll find ourselves almost in metaphysical unreality. > I think the point is that there is NO OBJECTIVE STANDARD for a "standard > accent", no matter who tells you otherwise and how important they are. Yes, of course. There was also no objective reality to the sort of English we were told we should be speaking up until the 1970s. Yet lots of people either spoke it or tried it or felt they ought to. > So the language pursued by people working in film, TV and theatre is > the language approved by their directors, producers or, umm, speech > therapists. Those folks are no more privy to divine articulatory wisdom > than anybody else. Yes, but you can't put on a play or create a film or TV script without deciding what accent people will use or should use. Actors expect to be told this sort of thing. Here I speak from theatre experience-- should directors tell them there are no rules & they can use any accent they want (though in a few cases they can)? Also, I've never heard anyone in the theatre claim directors are "privy to divine articulatory wisdom." They're artists, Mark, sure, artists have their faults, but I'm a trifle worried you're just a few steps away here from playing Cromwell's game, that all theatre (or perhaps all TV) must be closed down as false and frivolous. What about estuary english? Is that a myth too? I suppose you could make that case, since it too does not create a genuine form of standard English for all of Britain but only for the southeast. Which means that someone speaking deep Yorkshire or Scots or Welsh will still have trouble twisting their uvulas around it. But socially & culturally it still marks quite an advance over RP. So it's not really a myth either. > So, it's still a myth. But like all myths, it has its believers no matter > how far removed it might be from reality. We really don't have an argument here, Mark. I love "reality" as much as you do, I just think it can sometimes be hard to harness. How about the idea that everything we believe may be a myth? Capitalism is supposed to create wealth, but we just saw it do the opposite. Medical research is supposed to ultimately make us live forever, the space program will have us living on uncountable galaxies. Are these myths? I rather think they may be. Eppur si muove....things keep moving regardless. All the best! alex PS--Not your fault at all, Mark, but I wonder if most of today's credentialed linguists may not be so ignorant of practical language applications, including theatre and literary uses, that they can't formulate an informed opinion about specialized or contrived languages. A few examples: 1. Ancient Greek scholars have long disputed why Athens' great tragedians did not write their plays in Athenian Greek but in a semi-Doric Corinthian dialect, offering every possible explanation except the one I'm willing to bet is correct. In portraying the gods and serious themes, they simply did not consider it appropriate to employ the same speech forms they used for buying fish and wine. You'll find more of my reflections on ancient Greek theatre at: http://language.home.sprynet.com/theatdex/satyrs.htm#totop 2. Numerous Elizabethan scholars have pointed out that Shakespeare and his contemporaries wanted a more elevated form of language than that used in the streets to convey events taking place on the stage, and their audience indeed craved such a language. They're probably right. 3. The devotion to British English by so many educated Americans today is probably motivated by similar reasons, the need to believe that a slightly heightened vocabulary conveys a more genuine reality than their everyday manner of speaking. These are all contrived uses of language. In this light, is it really so evil or reprehensible for Americans to seek out a standardized form of language for use in their films and TV? Or don't Americans qualify for such a privilege? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark P. Line" To: Sent: Saturday, February 05, 2011 6:32 PM Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] [Fwd: PRESS RELEASE: FAU Graduate Students Offer Speech Therapy Via Webcam to Republic of Rwanda Citizens] > Doesn't that sort of beg the question? > > I think the point is that there is NO OBJECTIVE STANDARD for a "standard > accent", no matter who tells you otherwise and how important they are. > > So the language pursued by people working in film, TV and theatre is the > language approved by their directors, producers or, umm, speech > therapists. Those folks are no more privy to divine articulatory wisdom > than anybody else. > > So, it's still a myth. But like all myths, it has its believers no matter > how far removed it might be from reality. > > -- Mark > > Mark P. Line > Bartlesville, OK > > > > alex gross wrote: >> >>> Like all other "standard accents," it's a myth, >> >> Yes, of course it's a myth, and as you say, all standard accents are >> myths. >> But this does not mean it is not sought after by many people working in >> film, TV, & the theatre, plus quite a few other Americans eager to modify >> their accents. At least the actors among them are often able to switch >> over >> to many other accents when they need to. >> >> But for all those people it's not a myth at all, it's compellingly real. >> >> Thanks for your message! >> >> All the best! >> >> alex >> >> >>> On 2/5/2011 1:24 AM, alex gross wrote: >>>> Yes, there is a "standard American accent," which TV announcers & >>>> others >>>> aspire to, pretty much free of regional traces, whether from New York >>>> or >>>> Boston, the midwest or the south. >>> Like all other "standard accents," it's a myth, more concerned with >>> the avoidance of stigmatized regional forms than anything positive. >>> It's >>> closer to the accents of the Midwest and the West than it is to anything >>> from the Northeast or the South, but it's definitely different from any >>> specific Midwestern accent. And of course, since we're talking about >>> Africans, it should be pointed out that while many African Americans can >>> approximate this standard as well as anyone else in the country, it's >>> particularly far from most Black English accents. >>> >>> There is also a (white) "Southern" regional standard that many >>> people >>> throughout the South aspire to, and I would guess that includes many FAU >>> students, although maybe not speech pathology majors. It shares some >>> features with a number of Black English accents. In my experience >>> native >>> Africans have slightly higher prestige in the US than African Americans >>> who were born and raised here, and they are often identified as native >>> Africans by British or French features in their accents. This raises >>> the >>> possibility that the "therapy" could wind up training these Rwandans to >>> pronounce English in ways that would lower their social status instead >>> of >>> raising it. >>> >>> -- >>> -Angus B. Grieve-Smith >>> grvsmth at panix.com >>> >>> >> >> >> > > > -- Mark > > Mark P. Line > Bartlesville, OK > > From bischoff.st at gmail.com Mon Feb 7 20:16:19 2011 From: bischoff.st at gmail.com (s.t. bischoff) Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2011 15:16:19 -0500 Subject: Roseta Stone: Redux Message-ID: Hi all, Over the last week I was involved with an event at the American Indian Language Development Institute and the folks that created the Navajo Rosetta Stone gave a short talk about the software. What follows is my understanding of how it came to be. The Navajo Rosetta Stones was created in collaboration with Rosetta Stone and the non-profit Navajo Language Renaissance (NLR). NLR is a non-profit organization that is NOT affiliated with the tribal council or government in any way, for obvious reasons I think (e.g. getting council approval for the project). However, it has been endorsed by the school leadership and NLR is actively trying to get the school district to adopt the software. You can view the NLR website here http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ A non-community member started NLR after using Rosetta Stone to learn Russian. She thought it would be good if Rosetta Stone created a Navajo version. She contacted Rosetta Stone (RS), and they told her they would provide here with the software to develop the lessons, a photographer, and technical assistants (limited on the ground, mostly by phone) to develop the program for $300,000. Another option would be for her to apply for a grant from RS to cover most of the costs. So the NLR was created, a partnership between community members and one non-community member, as a non-profit organization and applied. RS gave two grants the year they applied, one went to NLR. The grant covered all but $27,000 of the $300,000. So NLR had to pay RS $27,000 to have access to the software to create the Navajo Rosetta Stone. This means they had to create the lessons and pay speakers and informants themselves. RS provided the software, a photographer, and technical support for the $27,000. NLR now is the only group that can sell Navajo Rosetta Stone, which they do for $150 per license and $200 for a personal box set. It is not clear if they have to pay RS a percentage of those revenues or not. When I asked a clear answer wasn't given. NLR also has a "training" session for administrators and teachers which costs $1500 a day and $400 per 3 hours. Needless to say, it is not un-controversial in the community for many of the usual reasons. Ironically, the speaker after the Rosetta Stone folks gave a talk that demonstrated how to create nearly identical language lessons as Rosetta Stone's simply using power point. I was encouraged to let folks know that they should contact the NLR if they have any questions at mbittinger at rosettastone.com. You can try a free introductory lesson here http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ The folks at NLR praised RS for their efforts and felt they had really done them a service. In short, they were very happy with the arrangement and how it was working out. They were also upset by the controversies surrounding the Navajo Rosetta Stone and felt they were really the result of a misunderstanding and misguided assumptions. One finally thing, they did seem to think that it was not a pancea, but rather another useful tool in language revitalization efforts. Cheers, Shannon From john at research.haifa.ac.il Tue Feb 8 08:16:04 2011 From: john at research.haifa.ac.il (john at research.haifa.ac.il) Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2011 10:16:04 +0200 Subject: Roseta Stone: Redux In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I would be amazed if a single person actually learns to speak Navajo using Rosetta Stone. This is not a language for amateurs. John Quoting "s.t. bischoff" : > Hi all, > > Over the last week I was involved with an event at the American Indian > Language Development Institute and the folks that created the Navajo Rosetta > Stone gave a short talk about the software. What follows is my understanding > of how it came to be. > > The Navajo Rosetta Stones was created in collaboration with Rosetta Stone > and the non-profit Navajo Language Renaissance (NLR). NLR is a non-profit > organization that is NOT affiliated with the tribal council or government in > any way, for obvious reasons I think (e.g. getting council approval for the > project). However, it has been endorsed by the school leadership and NLR is > actively trying to get the school district to adopt the software. You can > view the NLR website here http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ A > non-community member started NLR after using Rosetta Stone to learn Russian. > She thought it would be good if Rosetta Stone created a Navajo version. She > contacted Rosetta Stone (RS), and they told her they would provide here with > the software to develop the lessons, a photographer, and technical > assistants (limited on the ground, mostly by phone) to develop the program > for $300,000. Another option would be for her to apply for a grant from RS > to cover most of the costs. So the NLR was created, a partnership between > community members and one non-community member, as a non-profit > organization and applied. RS gave two grants the year they applied, one went > to NLR. The grant covered all but $27,000 of the $300,000. So NLR had to pay > RS $27,000 to have access to the software to create the Navajo Rosetta > Stone. This means they had to create the lessons and pay speakers and > informants themselves. RS provided the software, a photographer, and > technical support for the $27,000. NLR now is the only group that can sell > Navajo Rosetta Stone, which they do for $150 per license and $200 for a > personal box set. It is not clear if they have to pay RS a percentage of > those revenues or not. When I asked a clear answer wasn't given. NLR also > has a "training" session for administrators and teachers which costs $1500 a > day and $400 per 3 hours. Needless to say, it is not un-controversial in the > community for many of the usual reasons. Ironically, the speaker after the > Rosetta Stone folks gave a talk that demonstrated how to create nearly > identical language lessons as Rosetta Stone's simply using power point. I > was encouraged to let folks know that they should contact the NLR if they > have any questions at mbittinger at rosettastone.com. You can try a free > introductory lesson here http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ The folks > at NLR praised RS for their efforts and felt they had really done them a > service. In short, they were very happy with the arrangement and how it was > working out. They were also upset by the controversies surrounding the > Navajo Rosetta Stone and felt they were really the result of a > misunderstanding and misguided assumptions. One finally thing, they did seem > to think that it was not a pancea, but rather another useful tool in > language revitalization efforts. > > Cheers, > Shannon > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University From anne_mariedevlin at hotmail.com Tue Feb 8 11:14:00 2011 From: anne_mariedevlin at hotmail.com (anne marie devlin) Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2011 11:14:00 +0000 Subject: voice adjustment room Message-ID: Dear all, following on from the thread re: accent correction for Rwandans doing business in the States, I'd just like to draw your attention to a clip from the Irish comedy/satire programme the Savage Eye. It recently featured a skit on the 'voice correction room' - a place where prospective Eastern European bar staff are taken to be turned into authentic Irish bar staff. I've given the link for the entire programme, but the relevant part starts at about 3mins 16secs and lasts for about 45 secs. There is also a bit further on which deals with accent. As a warning, the programme is not for the sensitive and contains lots of profanities. http://www.rte.ie/player/#v=1091000. If this link doesn't work in your area and you would like to see it, I can send it to you individually. AM From amnfn at well.com Tue Feb 8 13:33:53 2011 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2011 05:33:53 -0800 Subject: Roseta Stone: Redux In-Reply-To: <1297152964.4d50fbc4c80bc@webmail.haifa.ac.il> Message-ID: A language that is not for amateurs is not for people. This has nothing to do with RS or computer language teaching. As others have stated, the technologically based systems are not a panacea. But a language that ordinary people can't pick by talking to their parents in childhood is either dead already or not a human language. --Aya On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > I would be amazed if a single person actually learns to speak Navajo > using Rosetta Stone. This is not a language for amateurs. > John > > > > > Quoting "s.t. bischoff" : > >> Hi all, >> >> Over the last week I was involved with an event at the American Indian >> Language Development Institute and the folks that created the Navajo Rosetta >> Stone gave a short talk about the software. What follows is my understanding >> of how it came to be. >> >> The Navajo Rosetta Stones was created in collaboration with Rosetta Stone >> and the non-profit Navajo Language Renaissance (NLR). NLR is a non-profit >> organization that is NOT affiliated with the tribal council or government in >> any way, for obvious reasons I think (e.g. getting council approval for the >> project). However, it has been endorsed by the school leadership and NLR is >> actively trying to get the school district to adopt the software. You can >> view the NLR website here http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ A >> non-community member started NLR after using Rosetta Stone to learn Russian. >> She thought it would be good if Rosetta Stone created a Navajo version. She >> contacted Rosetta Stone (RS), and they told her they would provide here with >> the software to develop the lessons, a photographer, and technical >> assistants (limited on the ground, mostly by phone) to develop the program >> for $300,000. Another option would be for her to apply for a grant from RS >> to cover most of the costs. So the NLR was created, a partnership between >> community members and one non-community member, as a non-profit >> organization and applied. RS gave two grants the year they applied, one went >> to NLR. The grant covered all but $27,000 of the $300,000. So NLR had to pay >> RS $27,000 to have access to the software to create the Navajo Rosetta >> Stone. This means they had to create the lessons and pay speakers and >> informants themselves. RS provided the software, a photographer, and >> technical support for the $27,000. NLR now is the only group that can sell >> Navajo Rosetta Stone, which they do for $150 per license and $200 for a >> personal box set. It is not clear if they have to pay RS a percentage of >> those revenues or not. When I asked a clear answer wasn't given. NLR also >> has a "training" session for administrators and teachers which costs $1500 a >> day and $400 per 3 hours. Needless to say, it is not un-controversial in the >> community for many of the usual reasons. Ironically, the speaker after the >> Rosetta Stone folks gave a talk that demonstrated how to create nearly >> identical language lessons as Rosetta Stone's simply using power point. I >> was encouraged to let folks know that they should contact the NLR if they >> have any questions at mbittinger at rosettastone.com. You can try a free >> introductory lesson here http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ The folks >> at NLR praised RS for their efforts and felt they had really done them a >> service. In short, they were very happy with the arrangement and how it was >> working out. They were also upset by the controversies surrounding the >> Navajo Rosetta Stone and felt they were really the result of a >> misunderstanding and misguided assumptions. One finally thing, they did seem >> to think that it was not a pancea, but rather another useful tool in >> language revitalization efforts. >> >> Cheers, >> Shannon >> > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University > > From john at research.haifa.ac.il Tue Feb 8 15:23:22 2011 From: john at research.haifa.ac.il (john at research.haifa.ac.il) Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2011 17:23:22 +0200 Subject: Roseta Stone: Redux In-Reply-To: <2128485122.312381297176607588.JavaMail.root@zimbra.humboldt.edu> Message-ID: Since moving to Israel I've dabbled in Circassian (there are two Circassian-speaking villages here) and I think it can give Navajo a run for its money. It's harder in terms of phonetics/phonology and not far behind morphophonemically. John Quoting Victor.Golla at humboldt.edu: > Aya-- > > > A language that is not for amateurs is not for people. > > Let that read: "A language that is not for amateurs is not for > ADULT people." > > Whatever the neurological reality of the Critical Period, it is an > empirical fact that non-native speakers past puberty experience great > difficulty in acquiring anything resembling fluency in an Athabaskan > language. (That Ken Hale did so only proves the rule. The astoundingly > low incidence of true polyglotism deserves its own serious study.) > > Sapir called the Athabaskan languages the "son-of-a-bitchingest" > ever devised by humankind. No doubt, every ordinary Navajo child > who wants to can pick up Navajo as fast as your or my or Sapir's did > English, but God only knows how they do it. With Muriel Saville-Troike > the one, brave exception, acquisition researchers have largely > avoided Navajo, despite its obvious theoretical potential. (One suspects > that part of the problem is that such research requires some degree > of competence in the language of study. See above.) > > I must admit that it's been a while since I took a look at acquisition > studies (or the lack thereof) for Navajo or Athabaskan generally. > I would be delighted to hear that some well-designed studies have gotten > under way in the last decade. If not, they'd better hurry. Fewer than > 10% of Navajo kids *on the reservation* were speaking the language > the last time someone looked. > > --Victor Golla > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "A. Katz" > To: john at research.haifa.ac.il > Cc: "s.t. bischoff" , funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Sent: Tuesday, February 8, 2011 5:33:53 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Roseta Stone: Redux > > A language that is not for amateurs is not for people. > > This has nothing to do with RS or computer language teaching. As others > have stated, the technologically based systems are not a panacea. > > But a language that ordinary people can't pick by talking to their parents > in childhood is either dead already or not a human language. > > --Aya > > > On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > > > I would be amazed if a single person actually learns to speak Navajo > > using Rosetta Stone. This is not a language for amateurs. > > John > > > > > > > > > > Quoting "s.t. bischoff" : > > > >> Hi all, > >> > >> Over the last week I was involved with an event at the American Indian > >> Language Development Institute and the folks that created the Navajo > Rosetta > >> Stone gave a short talk about the software. What follows is my > understanding > >> of how it came to be. > >> > >> The Navajo Rosetta Stones was created in collaboration with Rosetta Stone > >> and the non-profit Navajo Language Renaissance (NLR). NLR is a non-profit > >> organization that is NOT affiliated with the tribal council or government > in > >> any way, for obvious reasons I think (e.g. getting council approval for > the > >> project). However, it has been endorsed by the school leadership and NLR > is > >> actively trying to get the school district to adopt the software. You can > >> view the NLR website here http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ A > >> non-community member started NLR after using Rosetta Stone to learn > Russian. > >> She thought it would be good if Rosetta Stone created a Navajo version. > She > >> contacted Rosetta Stone (RS), and they told her they would provide here > with > >> the software to develop the lessons, a photographer, and technical > >> assistants (limited on the ground, mostly by phone) to develop the program > >> for $300,000. Another option would be for her to apply for a grant from RS > >> to cover most of the costs. So the NLR was created, a partnership between > >> community members and one non-community member, as a non-profit > >> organization and applied. RS gave two grants the year they applied, one > went > >> to NLR. The grant covered all but $27,000 of the $300,000. So NLR had to > pay > >> RS $27,000 to have access to the software to create the Navajo Rosetta > >> Stone. This means they had to create the lessons and pay speakers and > >> informants themselves. RS provided the software, a photographer, and > >> technical support for the $27,000. NLR now is the only group that can sell > >> Navajo Rosetta Stone, which they do for $150 per license and $200 for a > >> personal box set. It is not clear if they have to pay RS a percentage of > >> those revenues or not. When I asked a clear answer wasn't given. NLR also > >> has a "training" session for administrators and teachers which costs $1500 > a > >> day and $400 per 3 hours. Needless to say, it is not un-controversial in > the > >> community for many of the usual reasons. Ironically, the speaker after the > >> Rosetta Stone folks gave a talk that demonstrated how to create nearly > >> identical language lessons as Rosetta Stone's simply using power point. I > >> was encouraged to let folks know that they should contact the NLR if they > >> have any questions at mbittinger at rosettastone.com. You can try a free > >> introductory lesson here http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ The folks > >> at NLR praised RS for their efforts and felt they had really done them a > >> service. In short, they were very happy with the arrangement and how it > was > >> working out. They were also upset by the controversies surrounding the > >> Navajo Rosetta Stone and felt they were really the result of a > >> misunderstanding and misguided assumptions. One finally thing, they did > seem > >> to think that it was not a pancea, but rather another useful tool in > >> language revitalization efforts. > >> > >> Cheers, > >> Shannon > >> > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University From tgivon at uoregon.edu Wed Feb 9 00:04:50 2011 From: tgivon at uoregon.edu (Tom Givon) Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2011 17:04:50 -0700 Subject: Roseta Stone: Redux In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Before you actually tried to learn an Athabaskan language, or at the very least worked on one, maybe you had better refrain from asserting that "a language that is not for amateurs is not for people". TG ========= On 2/8/2011 6:33 AM, A. Katz wrote: > A language that is not for amateurs is not for people. > > This has nothing to do with RS or computer language teaching. As > others have stated, the technologically based systems are not a panacea. > > But a language that ordinary people can't pick by talking to their > parents in childhood is either dead already or not a human language. > > --Aya > > > On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > >> I would be amazed if a single person actually learns to speak Navajo >> using Rosetta Stone. This is not a language for amateurs. >> John >> >> >> >> >> Quoting "s.t. bischoff" : >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> Over the last week I was involved with an event at the American Indian >>> Language Development Institute and the folks that created the Navajo >>> Rosetta >>> Stone gave a short talk about the software. What follows is my >>> understanding >>> of how it came to be. >>> >>> The Navajo Rosetta Stones was created in collaboration with Rosetta >>> Stone >>> and the non-profit Navajo Language Renaissance (NLR). NLR is a >>> non-profit >>> organization that is NOT affiliated with the tribal council or >>> government in >>> any way, for obvious reasons I think (e.g. getting council approval >>> for the >>> project). However, it has been endorsed by the school leadership and >>> NLR is >>> actively trying to get the school district to adopt the software. >>> You can >>> view the NLR website here http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ A >>> non-community member started NLR after using Rosetta Stone to learn >>> Russian. >>> She thought it would be good if Rosetta Stone created a Navajo >>> version. She >>> contacted Rosetta Stone (RS), and they told her they would provide >>> here with >>> the software to develop the lessons, a photographer, and technical >>> assistants (limited on the ground, mostly by phone) to develop the >>> program >>> for $300,000. Another option would be for her to apply for a grant >>> from RS >>> to cover most of the costs. So the NLR was created, a partnership >>> between >>> community members and one non-community member, as a non-profit >>> organization and applied. RS gave two grants the year they applied, >>> one went >>> to NLR. The grant covered all but $27,000 of the $300,000. So NLR >>> had to pay >>> RS $27,000 to have access to the software to create the Navajo Rosetta >>> Stone. This means they had to create the lessons and pay speakers and >>> informants themselves. RS provided the software, a photographer, and >>> technical support for the $27,000. NLR now is the only group that >>> can sell >>> Navajo Rosetta Stone, which they do for $150 per license and $200 for a >>> personal box set. It is not clear if they have to pay RS a >>> percentage of >>> those revenues or not. When I asked a clear answer wasn't given. NLR >>> also >>> has a "training" session for administrators and teachers which costs >>> $1500 a >>> day and $400 per 3 hours. Needless to say, it is not >>> un-controversial in the >>> community for many of the usual reasons. Ironically, the speaker >>> after the >>> Rosetta Stone folks gave a talk that demonstrated how to create nearly >>> identical language lessons as Rosetta Stone's simply using power >>> point. I >>> was encouraged to let folks know that they should contact the NLR if >>> they >>> have any questions at mbittinger at rosettastone.com. You can try a free >>> introductory lesson here http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ The >>> folks >>> at NLR praised RS for their efforts and felt they had really done >>> them a >>> service. In short, they were very happy with the arrangement and how >>> it was >>> working out. They were also upset by the controversies surrounding the >>> Navajo Rosetta Stone and felt they were really the result of a >>> misunderstanding and misguided assumptions. One finally thing, they >>> did seem >>> to think that it was not a pancea, but rather another useful tool in >>> language revitalization efforts. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Shannon >>> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University >> >> From tgivon at uoregon.edu Wed Feb 9 04:13:22 2011 From: tgivon at uoregon.edu (Tom Givon) Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2011 21:13:22 -0700 Subject: note from Vic Golla Message-ID: Vic Golla has asked me to post this note re. Athanaskan. My 5 years of working on Tolowa pale in comparison with his lifetime with the Hupa. TG =============== > A language that is not for amateurs is not for people. Let that read: "A language that is not for amateurs is not for ADULT people." Whatever the neurological reality of the Critical Period, it is an empirical fact that non-native speakers past puberty experience great difficulty in acquiring anything resembling fluency in an Athabaskan language. (That Ken Hale did so only proves the rule. The astoundingly low incidence of true polyglotism deserves its own serious study.) Sapir called the Athabaskan languages the "son-of-a-bitchingest" ever devised by humankind. No doubt, every ordinary Navajo child who wants to can pick up Navajo as fast as your or my or Sapir's did English, but God only knows how they do it. With Muriel Saville-Troike the one, brave exception, acquisition researchers have largely avoided Navajo, despite its obvious theoretical potential. (One suspects that part of the problem is that such research requires some degree of competence in the language of study. See above.) I must admit that it's been a while since I took a look at acquisition studies (or the lack thereof) for Navajo or Athabaskan generally. I would be delighted to hear that some well-designed studies have gotten under way in the last decade. If not, they'd better hurry. Fewer than 10% of Navajo kids *on the reservation* were speaking the language the last time someone looked. --Victor Golla From anne_mariedevlin at hotmail.com Wed Feb 9 09:25:18 2011 From: anne_mariedevlin at hotmail.com (anne marie devlin) Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 09:25:18 +0000 Subject: voice adjustment room Message-ID: Dear all, unfortunately, the clip I mentioned is not available in all areas - copyright reasons! The broadcaster posts clips to youtube after the programme has been aired. I will look out for it and will send on the link as soon as I find it. Many apologies. AM From anne_mariedevlin at hotmail.com Wed Feb 9 09:48:57 2011 From: anne_mariedevlin at hotmail.com (anne marie devlin) Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 09:48:57 +0000 Subject: voice adjustment room Message-ID: Dear all, youtube has come up trumps and the clip is now available at the following link. The relevant part starts at 3 mins 30 secs. http://www.youtube.com/user/ThePaxTube There is another clip with a voice coach mimicking the Irish accent, but it hasn't reached youtube yet. AM From amnfn at well.com Wed Feb 9 13:35:10 2011 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 05:35:10 -0800 Subject: Roseta Stone: Redux In-Reply-To: <4D51DA22.8080308@uoregon.edu> Message-ID: Tom, I don't think that is a valid viewpoint with regard to Athabaskan or any other language family. Victor Golla earlier had a much better phrasing when he wrote: "Let that read: "A language that is not for amateurs is not for ADULT people."" But in fact no language is easy for adults to learn who have not already learned a language with a similar typology. If your native language works similarly to the one you are learning, then you have an enormous advantage as an adult second language learner. The remark about how Navajo is not for amateurs was made in the context of people who have no experience with languages of a similar typology. To make this a universal statement about the difficulty of Navajo without qualification is to suggest that some languages are "easy" and others are "impossible". Not only is this not true from an objective standpoint, it also perpetuates the prejudice that English (or IE) is a "normal" language and that every language should be measured against this norm. Best, --Aya On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: > > > Before you actually tried to learn an Athabaskan language, or at the very > least worked on one, maybe you had better refrain from asserting that "a > language that is not for amateurs is not for people". TG > > ========= > > > > On 2/8/2011 6:33 AM, A. Katz wrote: >> A language that is not for amateurs is not for people. >> >> This has nothing to do with RS or computer language teaching. As others >> have stated, the technologically based systems are not a panacea. >> >> But a language that ordinary people can't pick by talking to their parents >> in childhood is either dead already or not a human language. >> >> --Aya >> >> >> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: >> >>> I would be amazed if a single person actually learns to speak Navajo >>> using Rosetta Stone. This is not a language for amateurs. >>> John >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Quoting "s.t. bischoff" : >>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> Over the last week I was involved with an event at the American Indian >>>> Language Development Institute and the folks that created the Navajo >>>> Rosetta >>>> Stone gave a short talk about the software. What follows is my >>>> understanding >>>> of how it came to be. >>>> >>>> The Navajo Rosetta Stones was created in collaboration with Rosetta Stone >>>> and the non-profit Navajo Language Renaissance (NLR). NLR is a non-profit >>>> organization that is NOT affiliated with the tribal council or government >>>> in >>>> any way, for obvious reasons I think (e.g. getting council approval for >>>> the >>>> project). However, it has been endorsed by the school leadership and NLR >>>> is >>>> actively trying to get the school district to adopt the software. You can >>>> view the NLR website here http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ A >>>> non-community member started NLR after using Rosetta Stone to learn >>>> Russian. >>>> She thought it would be good if Rosetta Stone created a Navajo version. >>>> She >>>> contacted Rosetta Stone (RS), and they told her they would provide here >>>> with >>>> the software to develop the lessons, a photographer, and technical >>>> assistants (limited on the ground, mostly by phone) to develop the >>>> program >>>> for $300,000. Another option would be for her to apply for a grant from >>>> RS >>>> to cover most of the costs. So the NLR was created, a partnership between >>>> community members and one non-community member, as a non-profit >>>> organization and applied. RS gave two grants the year they applied, one >>>> went >>>> to NLR. The grant covered all but $27,000 of the $300,000. So NLR had to >>>> pay >>>> RS $27,000 to have access to the software to create the Navajo Rosetta >>>> Stone. This means they had to create the lessons and pay speakers and >>>> informants themselves. RS provided the software, a photographer, and >>>> technical support for the $27,000. NLR now is the only group that can >>>> sell >>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone, which they do for $150 per license and $200 for a >>>> personal box set. It is not clear if they have to pay RS a percentage of >>>> those revenues or not. When I asked a clear answer wasn't given. NLR also >>>> has a "training" session for administrators and teachers which costs >>>> $1500 a >>>> day and $400 per 3 hours. Needless to say, it is not un-controversial in >>>> the >>>> community for many of the usual reasons. Ironically, the speaker after >>>> the >>>> Rosetta Stone folks gave a talk that demonstrated how to create nearly >>>> identical language lessons as Rosetta Stone's simply using power point. I >>>> was encouraged to let folks know that they should contact the NLR if they >>>> have any questions at mbittinger at rosettastone.com. You can try a free >>>> introductory lesson here http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ The >>>> folks >>>> at NLR praised RS for their efforts and felt they had really done them a >>>> service. In short, they were very happy with the arrangement and how it >>>> was >>>> working out. They were also upset by the controversies surrounding the >>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone and felt they were really the result of a >>>> misunderstanding and misguided assumptions. One finally thing, they did >>>> seem >>>> to think that it was not a pancea, but rather another useful tool in >>>> language revitalization efforts. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Shannon >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University >>> >>> > > From john at research.haifa.ac.il Wed Feb 9 17:13:52 2011 From: john at research.haifa.ac.il (john at research.haifa.ac.il) Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 19:13:52 +0200 Subject: Roseta Stone: Redux In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Aya, I think I was the one who said first that Navajo is not a language for amateurs. I'll second what Tom said--you should learn something about Navajo (or some other Athabaskan language) before making statements like this. Some languages are just plain objectively harder than others, regardless of typological similarly to one's native language. If you don't believe this, do an experiment in which you take speakers of English, Turkish, Georgian, Chinese, whatever you want, try to teach them Navajo, Hopi, and Cree (for example), and see which one gives them the most trouble. I guarantee it will be Navajo. And there is an objective reason for it-- the morphophonemics are just unbelievably complex. John Quoting "A. Katz" : > Tom, > > I don't think that is a valid viewpoint with regard to Athabaskan or any > other language family. > > Victor Golla earlier had a much better phrasing when he wrote: > > "Let that read: "A language that is not for amateurs is not for > ADULT people."" > > But in fact no language is easy for adults to learn who have not already > learned a language with a similar typology. If your native language works > similarly to the one you are learning, then you have an enormous advantage > as an adult second language learner. > > The remark about how Navajo is not for amateurs was made in the context of > people who have no experience with languages of a similar typology. > To make this a universal statement about the difficulty of Navajo without > qualification is to suggest that some languages are "easy" and others are > "impossible". Not only is this not true from an objective standpoint, it > also perpetuates the prejudice that English (or IE) is a "normal" language > and that every language should be measured against this norm. > > Best, > > --Aya > > > > > > > On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: > > > > > > > Before you actually tried to learn an Athabaskan language, or at the very > > least worked on one, maybe you had better refrain from asserting that "a > > language that is not for amateurs is not for people". TG > > > > ========= > > > > > > > > On 2/8/2011 6:33 AM, A. Katz wrote: > >> A language that is not for amateurs is not for people. > >> > >> This has nothing to do with RS or computer language teaching. As others > >> have stated, the technologically based systems are not a panacea. > >> > >> But a language that ordinary people can't pick by talking to their parents > >> in childhood is either dead already or not a human language. > >> > >> --Aya > >> > >> > >> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > >> > >>> I would be amazed if a single person actually learns to speak Navajo > >>> using Rosetta Stone. This is not a language for amateurs. > >>> John > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Quoting "s.t. bischoff" : > >>> > >>>> Hi all, > >>>> > >>>> Over the last week I was involved with an event at the American Indian > >>>> Language Development Institute and the folks that created the Navajo > >>>> Rosetta > >>>> Stone gave a short talk about the software. What follows is my > >>>> understanding > >>>> of how it came to be. > >>>> > >>>> The Navajo Rosetta Stones was created in collaboration with Rosetta > Stone > >>>> and the non-profit Navajo Language Renaissance (NLR). NLR is a > non-profit > >>>> organization that is NOT affiliated with the tribal council or > government > >>>> in > >>>> any way, for obvious reasons I think (e.g. getting council approval for > >>>> the > >>>> project). However, it has been endorsed by the school leadership and NLR > >>>> is > >>>> actively trying to get the school district to adopt the software. You > can > >>>> view the NLR website here http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ A > >>>> non-community member started NLR after using Rosetta Stone to learn > >>>> Russian. > >>>> She thought it would be good if Rosetta Stone created a Navajo version. > >>>> She > >>>> contacted Rosetta Stone (RS), and they told her they would provide here > >>>> with > >>>> the software to develop the lessons, a photographer, and technical > >>>> assistants (limited on the ground, mostly by phone) to develop the > >>>> program > >>>> for $300,000. Another option would be for her to apply for a grant from > >>>> RS > >>>> to cover most of the costs. So the NLR was created, a partnership > between > >>>> community members and one non-community member, as a non-profit > >>>> organization and applied. RS gave two grants the year they applied, one > >>>> went > >>>> to NLR. The grant covered all but $27,000 of the $300,000. So NLR had to > >>>> pay > >>>> RS $27,000 to have access to the software to create the Navajo Rosetta > >>>> Stone. This means they had to create the lessons and pay speakers and > >>>> informants themselves. RS provided the software, a photographer, and > >>>> technical support for the $27,000. NLR now is the only group that can > >>>> sell > >>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone, which they do for $150 per license and $200 for a > >>>> personal box set. It is not clear if they have to pay RS a percentage of > >>>> those revenues or not. When I asked a clear answer wasn't given. NLR > also > >>>> has a "training" session for administrators and teachers which costs > >>>> $1500 a > >>>> day and $400 per 3 hours. Needless to say, it is not un-controversial in > >>>> the > >>>> community for many of the usual reasons. Ironically, the speaker after > >>>> the > >>>> Rosetta Stone folks gave a talk that demonstrated how to create nearly > >>>> identical language lessons as Rosetta Stone's simply using power point. > I > >>>> was encouraged to let folks know that they should contact the NLR if > they > >>>> have any questions at mbittinger at rosettastone.com. You can try a free > >>>> introductory lesson here http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ The > >>>> folks > >>>> at NLR praised RS for their efforts and felt they had really done them a > >>>> service. In short, they were very happy with the arrangement and how it > >>>> was > >>>> working out. They were also upset by the controversies surrounding the > >>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone and felt they were really the result of a > >>>> misunderstanding and misguided assumptions. One finally thing, they did > >>>> seem > >>>> to think that it was not a pancea, but rather another useful tool in > >>>> language revitalization efforts. > >>>> > >>>> Cheers, > >>>> Shannon > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University > >>> > >>> > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University From tgivon at uoregon.edu Wed Feb 9 17:39:34 2011 From: tgivon at uoregon.edu (Tom Givon) Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 10:39:34 -0700 Subject: Roseta Stone: Redux In-Reply-To: <1297271632.4d52cb508d748@webmail.haifa.ac.il> Message-ID: Right on, John. And one could make a prediction--hopefully someday to be tested by acquisition studies--that Navajo kids will not master the fully complexcity of the Athabaskan verb by age 10, or 15, or 20. I once reviewed a grammar in Papua New Guniea of a language that had comparable complexity on the verb (three positions, 6-8 categoriers each, massive zeroing & morphonemic). I had to ask Carle Whitehead--is this guy for real? He said, yes, he's been in the island for 20 years, really knows his stuff. So I asked the guy--at what age are kids considered fuill-fledged speakers? He said-- the old people say, don't listen to anybody under forty, they don't know how to speak. In my work with the Utes, one exchange has stuck out, an elder (ka-para'ni-wa-t, he's not walking about any more) who was pointed to me as the best orator in the tribe. I told him that, and he said: "Oh, I am nothing. You should have heard the Old Ones; when they spoke, you could see it all in front of your eyes". Part of it is due to the complex Ute deictic system, which invades NPs, ADVs & the verb. The combinations, and the subtle choices of when to combine the deictic particle with other categories, are a whole wond(e)rous world. Cheers, TG ========== On 2/9/2011 10:13 AM, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > Aya, > I think I was the one who said first that Navajo is not a language for > amateurs. I'll second what Tom said--you should learn something > about Navajo (or some other Athabaskan language) before making > statements like this. Some languages are just plain objectively harder than > others, regardless of typological similarly to one's native language. If you > don't believe this, do an experiment in which you take speakers of English, > Turkish, Georgian, Chinese, whatever you want, try to teach them Navajo, Hopi, > and Cree (for example), and see which one gives them the most trouble. > I guarantee it will be Navajo. And there is an objective reason for it-- > the morphophonemics are just unbelievably complex. > John > > > > > > Quoting "A. Katz": > >> Tom, >> >> I don't think that is a valid viewpoint with regard to Athabaskan or any >> other language family. >> >> Victor Golla earlier had a much better phrasing when he wrote: >> >> "Let that read: "A language that is not for amateurs is not for >> ADULT people."" >> >> But in fact no language is easy for adults to learn who have not already >> learned a language with a similar typology. If your native language works >> similarly to the one you are learning, then you have an enormous advantage >> as an adult second language learner. >> >> The remark about how Navajo is not for amateurs was made in the context of >> people who have no experience with languages of a similar typology. >> To make this a universal statement about the difficulty of Navajo without >> qualification is to suggest that some languages are "easy" and others are >> "impossible". Not only is this not true from an objective standpoint, it >> also perpetuates the prejudice that English (or IE) is a "normal" language >> and that every language should be measured against this norm. >> >> Best, >> >> --Aya >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: >> >>> >>> Before you actually tried to learn an Athabaskan language, or at the very >>> least worked on one, maybe you had better refrain from asserting that "a >>> language that is not for amateurs is not for people". TG >>> >>> ========= >>> >>> >>> >>> On 2/8/2011 6:33 AM, A. Katz wrote: >>>> A language that is not for amateurs is not for people. >>>> >>>> This has nothing to do with RS or computer language teaching. As others >>>> have stated, the technologically based systems are not a panacea. >>>> >>>> But a language that ordinary people can't pick by talking to their parents >>>> in childhood is either dead already or not a human language. >>>> >>>> --Aya >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: >>>> >>>>> I would be amazed if a single person actually learns to speak Navajo >>>>> using Rosetta Stone. This is not a language for amateurs. >>>>> John >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Quoting "s.t. bischoff": >>>>> >>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>> >>>>>> Over the last week I was involved with an event at the American Indian >>>>>> Language Development Institute and the folks that created the Navajo >>>>>> Rosetta >>>>>> Stone gave a short talk about the software. What follows is my >>>>>> understanding >>>>>> of how it came to be. >>>>>> >>>>>> The Navajo Rosetta Stones was created in collaboration with Rosetta >> Stone >>>>>> and the non-profit Navajo Language Renaissance (NLR). NLR is a >> non-profit >>>>>> organization that is NOT affiliated with the tribal council or >> government >>>>>> in >>>>>> any way, for obvious reasons I think (e.g. getting council approval for >>>>>> the >>>>>> project). However, it has been endorsed by the school leadership and NLR >>>>>> is >>>>>> actively trying to get the school district to adopt the software. You >> can >>>>>> view the NLR website here http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ A >>>>>> non-community member started NLR after using Rosetta Stone to learn >>>>>> Russian. >>>>>> She thought it would be good if Rosetta Stone created a Navajo version. >>>>>> She >>>>>> contacted Rosetta Stone (RS), and they told her they would provide here >>>>>> with >>>>>> the software to develop the lessons, a photographer, and technical >>>>>> assistants (limited on the ground, mostly by phone) to develop the >>>>>> program >>>>>> for $300,000. Another option would be for her to apply for a grant from >>>>>> RS >>>>>> to cover most of the costs. So the NLR was created, a partnership >> between >>>>>> community members and one non-community member, as a non-profit >>>>>> organization and applied. RS gave two grants the year they applied, one >>>>>> went >>>>>> to NLR. The grant covered all but $27,000 of the $300,000. So NLR had to >>>>>> pay >>>>>> RS $27,000 to have access to the software to create the Navajo Rosetta >>>>>> Stone. This means they had to create the lessons and pay speakers and >>>>>> informants themselves. RS provided the software, a photographer, and >>>>>> technical support for the $27,000. NLR now is the only group that can >>>>>> sell >>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone, which they do for $150 per license and $200 for a >>>>>> personal box set. It is not clear if they have to pay RS a percentage of >>>>>> those revenues or not. When I asked a clear answer wasn't given. NLR >> also >>>>>> has a "training" session for administrators and teachers which costs >>>>>> $1500 a >>>>>> day and $400 per 3 hours. Needless to say, it is not un-controversial in >>>>>> the >>>>>> community for many of the usual reasons. Ironically, the speaker after >>>>>> the >>>>>> Rosetta Stone folks gave a talk that demonstrated how to create nearly >>>>>> identical language lessons as Rosetta Stone's simply using power point. >> I >>>>>> was encouraged to let folks know that they should contact the NLR if >> they >>>>>> have any questions at mbittinger at rosettastone.com. You can try a free >>>>>> introductory lesson here http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ The >>>>>> folks >>>>>> at NLR praised RS for their efforts and felt they had really done them a >>>>>> service. In short, they were very happy with the arrangement and how it >>>>>> was >>>>>> working out. They were also upset by the controversies surrounding the >>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone and felt they were really the result of a >>>>>> misunderstanding and misguided assumptions. One finally thing, they did >>>>>> seem >>>>>> to think that it was not a pancea, but rather another useful tool in >>>>>> language revitalization efforts. >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>> Shannon >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University >>>>> >>>>> >>> > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University From amnfn at well.com Wed Feb 9 18:03:58 2011 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 10:03:58 -0800 Subject: Roseta Stone: Redux In-Reply-To: <1297271632.4d52cb508d748@webmail.haifa.ac.il> Message-ID: John, So do you think that having extremely complex morphophonemics is not a typological trait for a language? If so, what do you think it is instead? --Aya On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > Aya, > I think I was the one who said first that Navajo is not a language for > amateurs. I'll second what Tom said--you should learn something > about Navajo (or some other Athabaskan language) before making > statements like this. Some languages are just plain objectively harder than > others, regardless of typological similarly to one's native language. If you > don't believe this, do an experiment in which you take speakers of English, > Turkish, Georgian, Chinese, whatever you want, try to teach them Navajo, Hopi, > and Cree (for example), and see which one gives them the most trouble. > I guarantee it will be Navajo. And there is an objective reason for it-- > the morphophonemics are just unbelievably complex. > John > > > > > > Quoting "A. Katz" : > >> Tom, >> >> I don't think that is a valid viewpoint with regard to Athabaskan or any >> other language family. >> >> Victor Golla earlier had a much better phrasing when he wrote: >> >> "Let that read: "A language that is not for amateurs is not for >> ADULT people."" >> >> But in fact no language is easy for adults to learn who have not already >> learned a language with a similar typology. If your native language works >> similarly to the one you are learning, then you have an enormous advantage >> as an adult second language learner. >> >> The remark about how Navajo is not for amateurs was made in the context of >> people who have no experience with languages of a similar typology. >> To make this a universal statement about the difficulty of Navajo without >> qualification is to suggest that some languages are "easy" and others are >> "impossible". Not only is this not true from an objective standpoint, it >> also perpetuates the prejudice that English (or IE) is a "normal" language >> and that every language should be measured against this norm. >> >> Best, >> >> --Aya >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> Before you actually tried to learn an Athabaskan language, or at the very >>> least worked on one, maybe you had better refrain from asserting that "a >>> language that is not for amateurs is not for people". TG >>> >>> ========= >>> >>> >>> >>> On 2/8/2011 6:33 AM, A. Katz wrote: >>>> A language that is not for amateurs is not for people. >>>> >>>> This has nothing to do with RS or computer language teaching. As others >>>> have stated, the technologically based systems are not a panacea. >>>> >>>> But a language that ordinary people can't pick by talking to their parents >>>> in childhood is either dead already or not a human language. >>>> >>>> --Aya >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: >>>> >>>>> I would be amazed if a single person actually learns to speak Navajo >>>>> using Rosetta Stone. This is not a language for amateurs. >>>>> John >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Quoting "s.t. bischoff" : >>>>> >>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>> >>>>>> Over the last week I was involved with an event at the American Indian >>>>>> Language Development Institute and the folks that created the Navajo >>>>>> Rosetta >>>>>> Stone gave a short talk about the software. What follows is my >>>>>> understanding >>>>>> of how it came to be. >>>>>> >>>>>> The Navajo Rosetta Stones was created in collaboration with Rosetta >> Stone >>>>>> and the non-profit Navajo Language Renaissance (NLR). NLR is a >> non-profit >>>>>> organization that is NOT affiliated with the tribal council or >> government >>>>>> in >>>>>> any way, for obvious reasons I think (e.g. getting council approval for >>>>>> the >>>>>> project). However, it has been endorsed by the school leadership and NLR >>>>>> is >>>>>> actively trying to get the school district to adopt the software. You >> can >>>>>> view the NLR website here http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ A >>>>>> non-community member started NLR after using Rosetta Stone to learn >>>>>> Russian. >>>>>> She thought it would be good if Rosetta Stone created a Navajo version. >>>>>> She >>>>>> contacted Rosetta Stone (RS), and they told her they would provide here >>>>>> with >>>>>> the software to develop the lessons, a photographer, and technical >>>>>> assistants (limited on the ground, mostly by phone) to develop the >>>>>> program >>>>>> for $300,000. Another option would be for her to apply for a grant from >>>>>> RS >>>>>> to cover most of the costs. So the NLR was created, a partnership >> between >>>>>> community members and one non-community member, as a non-profit >>>>>> organization and applied. RS gave two grants the year they applied, one >>>>>> went >>>>>> to NLR. The grant covered all but $27,000 of the $300,000. So NLR had to >>>>>> pay >>>>>> RS $27,000 to have access to the software to create the Navajo Rosetta >>>>>> Stone. This means they had to create the lessons and pay speakers and >>>>>> informants themselves. RS provided the software, a photographer, and >>>>>> technical support for the $27,000. NLR now is the only group that can >>>>>> sell >>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone, which they do for $150 per license and $200 for a >>>>>> personal box set. It is not clear if they have to pay RS a percentage of >>>>>> those revenues or not. When I asked a clear answer wasn't given. NLR >> also >>>>>> has a "training" session for administrators and teachers which costs >>>>>> $1500 a >>>>>> day and $400 per 3 hours. Needless to say, it is not un-controversial in >>>>>> the >>>>>> community for many of the usual reasons. Ironically, the speaker after >>>>>> the >>>>>> Rosetta Stone folks gave a talk that demonstrated how to create nearly >>>>>> identical language lessons as Rosetta Stone's simply using power point. >> I >>>>>> was encouraged to let folks know that they should contact the NLR if >> they >>>>>> have any questions at mbittinger at rosettastone.com. You can try a free >>>>>> introductory lesson here http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ The >>>>>> folks >>>>>> at NLR praised RS for their efforts and felt they had really done them a >>>>>> service. In short, they were very happy with the arrangement and how it >>>>>> was >>>>>> working out. They were also upset by the controversies surrounding the >>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone and felt they were really the result of a >>>>>> misunderstanding and misguided assumptions. One finally thing, they did >>>>>> seem >>>>>> to think that it was not a pancea, but rather another useful tool in >>>>>> language revitalization efforts. >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>> Shannon >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >> > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University > > From amnfn at well.com Wed Feb 9 18:10:14 2011 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 10:10:14 -0800 Subject: Roseta Stone: Redux In-Reply-To: <4D52D156.4030509@uoregon.edu> Message-ID: Tom, If the language is dying, then the advice not to listen to somebody under forty because they don't know how to speak may be sound, but not for the reason that you suggest. It could be there are no fluent speakers under forty. It seems very unlikely that one would have to arrive at age forty before acquiring fluency, especially in a hunter gatherer culture where death before forty might be quite common. But if you have evidence to the contrary that fully immersed, monolingual young speakers of a language cannot speak it with communicative effect until age forty, then this is a big discovery that ought to be published and shared with the scientific community. --Aya On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: > > > > Right on, John. And one could make a prediction--hopefully someday to be > tested by acquisition studies--that Navajo kids will not master the fully > complexcity of the Athabaskan verb by age 10, or 15, or 20. I once reviewed a > grammar in Papua New Guniea of a language that had comparable complexity on > the verb (three positions, 6-8 categoriers each, massive zeroing & > morphonemic). I had to ask Carle Whitehead--is this guy for real? He said, > yes, he's been in the island for 20 years, really knows his stuff. So I asked > the guy--at what age are kids considered fuill-fledged speakers? He said-- > the old people say, don't listen to anybody under forty, they don't know how > to speak. In my work with the Utes, one exchange has stuck out, an elder > (ka-para'ni-wa-t, he's not walking about any more) who was pointed to me as > the best orator in the tribe. I told him that, and he said: "Oh, I am > nothing. You should have heard the Old Ones; when they spoke, you could see > it all in front of your eyes". Part of it is due to the complex Ute deictic > system, which invades NPs, ADVs & the verb. The combinations, and the subtle > choices of when to combine the deictic particle with other categories, are a > whole wond(e)rous world. Cheers, TG > > ========== > > > > On 2/9/2011 10:13 AM, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: >> Aya, >> I think I was the one who said first that Navajo is not a language for >> amateurs. I'll second what Tom said--you should learn something >> about Navajo (or some other Athabaskan language) before making >> statements like this. Some languages are just plain objectively harder than >> others, regardless of typological similarly to one's native language. If >> you >> don't believe this, do an experiment in which you take speakers of English, >> Turkish, Georgian, Chinese, whatever you want, try to teach them Navajo, >> Hopi, >> and Cree (for example), and see which one gives them the most trouble. >> I guarantee it will be Navajo. And there is an objective reason for it-- >> the morphophonemics are just unbelievably complex. >> John >> >> >> >> >> >> Quoting "A. Katz": >> >>> Tom, >>> >>> I don't think that is a valid viewpoint with regard to Athabaskan or any >>> other language family. >>> >>> Victor Golla earlier had a much better phrasing when he wrote: >>> >>> "Let that read: "A language that is not for amateurs is not for >>> ADULT people."" >>> >>> But in fact no language is easy for adults to learn who have not already >>> learned a language with a similar typology. If your native language works >>> similarly to the one you are learning, then you have an enormous advantage >>> as an adult second language learner. >>> >>> The remark about how Navajo is not for amateurs was made in the context of >>> people who have no experience with languages of a similar typology. >>> To make this a universal statement about the difficulty of Navajo without >>> qualification is to suggest that some languages are "easy" and others are >>> "impossible". Not only is this not true from an objective standpoint, it >>> also perpetuates the prejudice that English (or IE) is a "normal" language >>> and that every language should be measured against this norm. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> --Aya >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Before you actually tried to learn an Athabaskan language, or at the very >>>> least worked on one, maybe you had better refrain from asserting that "a >>>> language that is not for amateurs is not for people". TG >>>> >>>> ========= >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 2/8/2011 6:33 AM, A. Katz wrote: >>>>> A language that is not for amateurs is not for people. >>>>> >>>>> This has nothing to do with RS or computer language teaching. As others >>>>> have stated, the technologically based systems are not a panacea. >>>>> >>>>> But a language that ordinary people can't pick by talking to their >>>>> parents >>>>> in childhood is either dead already or not a human language. >>>>> >>>>> --Aya >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I would be amazed if a single person actually learns to speak Navajo >>>>>> using Rosetta Stone. This is not a language for amateurs. >>>>>> John >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Quoting "s.t. bischoff": >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Over the last week I was involved with an event at the American Indian >>>>>>> Language Development Institute and the folks that created the Navajo >>>>>>> Rosetta >>>>>>> Stone gave a short talk about the software. What follows is my >>>>>>> understanding >>>>>>> of how it came to be. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The Navajo Rosetta Stones was created in collaboration with Rosetta >>> Stone >>>>>>> and the non-profit Navajo Language Renaissance (NLR). NLR is a >>> non-profit >>>>>>> organization that is NOT affiliated with the tribal council or >>> government >>>>>>> in >>>>>>> any way, for obvious reasons I think (e.g. getting council approval >>>>>>> for >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> project). However, it has been endorsed by the school leadership and >>>>>>> NLR >>>>>>> is >>>>>>> actively trying to get the school district to adopt the software. You >>> can >>>>>>> view the NLR website here http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ A >>>>>>> non-community member started NLR after using Rosetta Stone to learn >>>>>>> Russian. >>>>>>> She thought it would be good if Rosetta Stone created a Navajo >>>>>>> version. >>>>>>> She >>>>>>> contacted Rosetta Stone (RS), and they told her they would provide >>>>>>> here >>>>>>> with >>>>>>> the software to develop the lessons, a photographer, and technical >>>>>>> assistants (limited on the ground, mostly by phone) to develop the >>>>>>> program >>>>>>> for $300,000. Another option would be for her to apply for a grant >>>>>>> from >>>>>>> RS >>>>>>> to cover most of the costs. So the NLR was created, a partnership >>> between >>>>>>> community members and one non-community member, as a non-profit >>>>>>> organization and applied. RS gave two grants the year they applied, >>>>>>> one >>>>>>> went >>>>>>> to NLR. The grant covered all but $27,000 of the $300,000. So NLR had >>>>>>> to >>>>>>> pay >>>>>>> RS $27,000 to have access to the software to create the Navajo Rosetta >>>>>>> Stone. This means they had to create the lessons and pay speakers and >>>>>>> informants themselves. RS provided the software, a photographer, and >>>>>>> technical support for the $27,000. NLR now is the only group that can >>>>>>> sell >>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone, which they do for $150 per license and $200 for >>>>>>> a >>>>>>> personal box set. It is not clear if they have to pay RS a percentage >>>>>>> of >>>>>>> those revenues or not. When I asked a clear answer wasn't given. NLR >>> also >>>>>>> has a "training" session for administrators and teachers which costs >>>>>>> $1500 a >>>>>>> day and $400 per 3 hours. Needless to say, it is not un-controversial >>>>>>> in >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> community for many of the usual reasons. Ironically, the speaker after >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> Rosetta Stone folks gave a talk that demonstrated how to create nearly >>>>>>> identical language lessons as Rosetta Stone's simply using power >>>>>>> point. >>> I >>>>>>> was encouraged to let folks know that they should contact the NLR if >>> they >>>>>>> have any questions at mbittinger at rosettastone.com. You can try a free >>>>>>> introductory lesson here http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ The >>>>>>> folks >>>>>>> at NLR praised RS for their efforts and felt they had really done them >>>>>>> a >>>>>>> service. In short, they were very happy with the arrangement and how >>>>>>> it >>>>>>> was >>>>>>> working out. They were also upset by the controversies surrounding the >>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone and felt they were really the result of a >>>>>>> misunderstanding and misguided assumptions. One finally thing, they >>>>>>> did >>>>>>> seem >>>>>>> to think that it was not a pancea, but rather another useful tool in >>>>>>> language revitalization efforts. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>> Shannon >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa >>>>>> University >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University > > From dan at daneverett.org Wed Feb 9 18:26:34 2011 From: dan at daneverett.org (Daniel Everett) Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 13:26:34 -0500 Subject: Survival International Interview Message-ID: http://www.survivalinternational.org/articles/3110 Survival International beginning a series of interviews with people who are known to have contributed to this area and I am very proud to be the first interview now featured on their site. I send it along in case you're interested. Dan From tgivon at uoregon.edu Wed Feb 9 00:25:57 2011 From: tgivon at uoregon.edu (Tom Givon) Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2011 17:25:57 -0700 Subject: forward from Vic Golla Message-ID: Vic Golla has asked by to post this communication. My 5 years of working on Tolowa pale in comparison with his lifetime with the Hupa. TG =============== > A language that is not for amateurs is not for people. Let that read: "A language that is not for amateurs is not for ADULT people." Whatever the neurological reality of the Critical Period, it is an empirical fact that non-native speakers past puberty experience great difficulty in acquiring anything resembling fluency in an Athabaskan language. (That Ken Hale did so only proves the rule. The astoundingly low incidence of true polyglotism deserves its own serious study.) Sapir called the Athabaskan languages the "son-of-a-bitchingest" ever devised by humankind. No doubt, every ordinary Navajo child who wants to can pick up Navajo as fast as your or my or Sapir's did English, but God only knows how they do it. With Muriel Saville-Troike the one, brave exception, acquisition researchers have largely avoided Navajo, despite its obvious theoretical potential. (One suspects that part of the problem is that such research requires some degree of competence in the language of study. See above.) I must admit that it's been a while since I took a look at acquisition studies (or the lack thereof) for Navajo or Athabaskan generally. I would be delighted to hear that some well-designed studies have gotten under way in the last decade. If not, they'd better hurry. Fewer than 10% of Navajo kids *on the reservation* were speaking the language the last time someone looked. --Victor Golla From fjn at u.washington.edu Wed Feb 9 18:27:25 2011 From: fjn at u.washington.edu (Frederick J Newmeyer) Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 10:27:25 -0800 Subject: Roseta Stone: Redux In-Reply-To: Message-ID: A propos, are there any published studies out there that point to measurable difference in rate of completion of first-language acquisition by speakers of one language compared to another? Or even of mastery of one aspect of L1 acquisition (phonology, morphology, etc.) by speakers of one language compared to another? --fritz Frederick J. Newmeyer Professor Emeritus, University of Washington Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, A. Katz wrote: > Tom, > > If the language is dying, then the advice not to listen to somebody under > forty because they don't know how to speak may be sound, but not for the > reason that you suggest. It could be there are no fluent speakers under > forty. It seems very unlikely that one would have to arrive at age forty > before acquiring fluency, especially in a hunter gatherer culture where death > before forty might be quite common. > > But if you have evidence to the contrary that fully immersed, monolingual > young speakers of a language cannot speak it with communicative effect until > age forty, then this is a big discovery that ought to be published and shared > with the scientific community. > > --Aya > > > On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: > >> >> >> >> Right on, John. And one could make a prediction--hopefully someday to be >> tested by acquisition studies--that Navajo kids will not master the fully >> complexcity of the Athabaskan verb by age 10, or 15, or 20. I once reviewed >> a grammar in Papua New Guniea of a language that had comparable complexity >> on the verb (three positions, 6-8 categoriers each, massive zeroing & >> morphonemic). I had to ask Carle Whitehead--is this guy for real? He said, >> yes, he's been in the island for 20 years, really knows his stuff. So I >> asked the guy--at what age are kids considered fuill-fledged speakers? He >> said-- the old people say, don't listen to anybody under forty, they don't >> know how to speak. In my work with the Utes, one exchange has stuck out, >> an elder (ka-para'ni-wa-t, he's not walking about any more) who was pointed >> to me as the best orator in the tribe. I told him that, and he said: "Oh, I >> am nothing. You should have heard the Old Ones; when they spoke, you could >> see it all in front of your eyes". Part of it is due to the complex Ute >> deictic system, which invades NPs, ADVs & the verb. The combinations, and >> the subtle choices of when to combine the deictic particle with other >> categories, are a whole wond(e)rous world. Cheers, TG >> >> ========== >> >> >> >> On 2/9/2011 10:13 AM, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: >>> Aya, >>> I think I was the one who said first that Navajo is not a language for >>> amateurs. I'll second what Tom said--you should learn something >>> about Navajo (or some other Athabaskan language) before making >>> statements like this. Some languages are just plain objectively harder >>> than >>> others, regardless of typological similarly to one's native language. If >>> you >>> don't believe this, do an experiment in which you take speakers of >>> English, >>> Turkish, Georgian, Chinese, whatever you want, try to teach them Navajo, >>> Hopi, >>> and Cree (for example), and see which one gives them the most trouble. >>> I guarantee it will be Navajo. And there is an objective reason for it-- >>> the morphophonemics are just unbelievably complex. >>> John >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Quoting "A. Katz": >>> >>>> Tom, >>>> >>>> I don't think that is a valid viewpoint with regard to Athabaskan or any >>>> other language family. >>>> >>>> Victor Golla earlier had a much better phrasing when he wrote: >>>> >>>> "Let that read: "A language that is not for amateurs is not for >>>> ADULT people."" >>>> >>>> But in fact no language is easy for adults to learn who have not already >>>> learned a language with a similar typology. If your native language works >>>> similarly to the one you are learning, then you have an enormous >>>> advantage >>>> as an adult second language learner. >>>> >>>> The remark about how Navajo is not for amateurs was made in the context >>>> of >>>> people who have no experience with languages of a similar typology. >>>> To make this a universal statement about the difficulty of Navajo without >>>> qualification is to suggest that some languages are "easy" and others are >>>> "impossible". Not only is this not true from an objective standpoint, it >>>> also perpetuates the prejudice that English (or IE) is a "normal" >>>> language >>>> and that every language should be measured against this norm. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> --Aya >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Before you actually tried to learn an Athabaskan language, or at the >>>>> very >>>>> least worked on one, maybe you had better refrain from asserting that "a >>>>> language that is not for amateurs is not for people". TG >>>>> >>>>> ========= >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 2/8/2011 6:33 AM, A. Katz wrote: >>>>>> A language that is not for amateurs is not for people. >>>>>> >>>>>> This has nothing to do with RS or computer language teaching. As others >>>>>> have stated, the technologically based systems are not a panacea. >>>>>> >>>>>> But a language that ordinary people can't pick by talking to their >>>>>> parents >>>>>> in childhood is either dead already or not a human language. >>>>>> >>>>>> --Aya >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I would be amazed if a single person actually learns to speak Navajo >>>>>>> using Rosetta Stone. This is not a language for amateurs. >>>>>>> John >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Quoting "s.t. bischoff": >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Over the last week I was involved with an event at the American >>>>>>>> Indian >>>>>>>> Language Development Institute and the folks that created the Navajo >>>>>>>> Rosetta >>>>>>>> Stone gave a short talk about the software. What follows is my >>>>>>>> understanding >>>>>>>> of how it came to be. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The Navajo Rosetta Stones was created in collaboration with Rosetta >>>> Stone >>>>>>>> and the non-profit Navajo Language Renaissance (NLR). NLR is a >>>> non-profit >>>>>>>> organization that is NOT affiliated with the tribal council or >>>> government >>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>> any way, for obvious reasons I think (e.g. getting council approval >>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> project). However, it has been endorsed by the school leadership and >>>>>>>> NLR >>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>> actively trying to get the school district to adopt the software. You >>>> can >>>>>>>> view the NLR website here http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ A >>>>>>>> non-community member started NLR after using Rosetta Stone to learn >>>>>>>> Russian. >>>>>>>> She thought it would be good if Rosetta Stone created a Navajo >>>>>>>> version. >>>>>>>> She >>>>>>>> contacted Rosetta Stone (RS), and they told her they would provide >>>>>>>> here >>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>> the software to develop the lessons, a photographer, and technical >>>>>>>> assistants (limited on the ground, mostly by phone) to develop the >>>>>>>> program >>>>>>>> for $300,000. Another option would be for her to apply for a grant >>>>>>>> from >>>>>>>> RS >>>>>>>> to cover most of the costs. So the NLR was created, a partnership >>>> between >>>>>>>> community members and one non-community member, as a non-profit >>>>>>>> organization and applied. RS gave two grants the year they applied, >>>>>>>> one >>>>>>>> went >>>>>>>> to NLR. The grant covered all but $27,000 of the $300,000. So NLR had >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> pay >>>>>>>> RS $27,000 to have access to the software to create the Navajo >>>>>>>> Rosetta >>>>>>>> Stone. This means they had to create the lessons and pay speakers and >>>>>>>> informants themselves. RS provided the software, a photographer, and >>>>>>>> technical support for the $27,000. NLR now is the only group that can >>>>>>>> sell >>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone, which they do for $150 per license and $200 for >>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>> personal box set. It is not clear if they have to pay RS a percentage >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> those revenues or not. When I asked a clear answer wasn't given. NLR >>>> also >>>>>>>> has a "training" session for administrators and teachers which costs >>>>>>>> $1500 a >>>>>>>> day and $400 per 3 hours. Needless to say, it is not un-controversial >>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> community for many of the usual reasons. Ironically, the speaker >>>>>>>> after >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> Rosetta Stone folks gave a talk that demonstrated how to create >>>>>>>> nearly >>>>>>>> identical language lessons as Rosetta Stone's simply using power >>>>>>>> point. >>>> I >>>>>>>> was encouraged to let folks know that they should contact the NLR if >>>> they >>>>>>>> have any questions at mbittinger at rosettastone.com. You can try a free >>>>>>>> introductory lesson here http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ The >>>>>>>> folks >>>>>>>> at NLR praised RS for their efforts and felt they had really done >>>>>>>> them a >>>>>>>> service. In short, they were very happy with the arrangement and how >>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>> working out. They were also upset by the controversies surrounding >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone and felt they were really the result of a >>>>>>>> misunderstanding and misguided assumptions. One finally thing, they >>>>>>>> did >>>>>>>> seem >>>>>>>> to think that it was not a pancea, but rather another useful tool in >>>>>>>> language revitalization efforts. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>> Shannon >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa >>>>>>> University >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University >> >> > From tgivon at uoregon.edu Wed Feb 9 18:34:01 2011 From: tgivon at uoregon.edu (Tom Givon) Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 11:34:01 -0700 Subject: Roseta Stone: Redux In-Reply-To: Message-ID: That language in PNG was not dying. It was on a n isolate island, no bilingualism, no contact. Some day it might just occured to you that linguistics is not only about arguments, but occasionally about simple facts. TG ============= On 2/9/2011 11:10 AM, A. Katz wrote: > Tom, > > If the language is dying, then the advice not to listen to somebody > under forty because they don't know how to speak may be sound, but not > for the reason that you suggest. It could be there are no fluent > speakers under forty. It seems very unlikely that one would have to > arrive at age forty before acquiring fluency, especially in a hunter > gatherer culture where death before forty might be quite common. > > But if you have evidence to the contrary that fully immersed, > monolingual young speakers of a language cannot speak it with > communicative effect until age forty, then this is a big discovery > that ought to be published and shared with the scientific community. > > --Aya > > > On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: > >> >> >> >> Right on, John. And one could make a prediction--hopefully someday to >> be tested by acquisition studies--that Navajo kids will not master >> the fully complexcity of the Athabaskan verb by age 10, or 15, or 20. >> I once reviewed a grammar in Papua New Guniea of a language that had >> comparable complexity on the verb (three positions, 6-8 categoriers >> each, massive zeroing & morphonemic). I had to ask Carle >> Whitehead--is this guy for real? He said, yes, he's been in the >> island for 20 years, really knows his stuff. So I asked the guy--at >> what age are kids considered fuill-fledged speakers? He said-- the >> old people say, don't listen to anybody under forty, they don't know >> how to speak. In my work with the Utes, one exchange has stuck out, >> an elder (ka-para'ni-wa-t, he's not walking about any more) who was >> pointed to me as the best orator in the tribe. I told him that, and >> he said: "Oh, I am nothing. You should have heard the Old Ones; when >> they spoke, you could see it all in front of your eyes". Part of it >> is due to the complex Ute deictic system, which invades NPs, ADVs & >> the verb. The combinations, and the subtle choices of when to combine >> the deictic particle with other categories, are a whole wond(e)rous >> world. Cheers, TG >> >> ========== >> >> >> >> On 2/9/2011 10:13 AM, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: >>> Aya, >>> I think I was the one who said first that Navajo is not a language for >>> amateurs. I'll second what Tom said--you should learn something >>> about Navajo (or some other Athabaskan language) before making >>> statements like this. Some languages are just plain objectively >>> harder than >>> others, regardless of typological similarly to one's native >>> language. If you >>> don't believe this, do an experiment in which you take speakers of >>> English, >>> Turkish, Georgian, Chinese, whatever you want, try to teach them >>> Navajo, Hopi, >>> and Cree (for example), and see which one gives them the most trouble. >>> I guarantee it will be Navajo. And there is an objective reason for >>> it-- >>> the morphophonemics are just unbelievably complex. >>> John >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Quoting "A. Katz": >>> >>>> Tom, >>>> >>>> I don't think that is a valid viewpoint with regard to Athabaskan >>>> or any >>>> other language family. >>>> >>>> Victor Golla earlier had a much better phrasing when he wrote: >>>> >>>> "Let that read: "A language that is not for amateurs is not for >>>> ADULT people."" >>>> >>>> But in fact no language is easy for adults to learn who have not >>>> already >>>> learned a language with a similar typology. If your native language >>>> works >>>> similarly to the one you are learning, then you have an enormous >>>> advantage >>>> as an adult second language learner. >>>> >>>> The remark about how Navajo is not for amateurs was made in the >>>> context of >>>> people who have no experience with languages of a similar typology. >>>> To make this a universal statement about the difficulty of Navajo >>>> without >>>> qualification is to suggest that some languages are "easy" and >>>> others are >>>> "impossible". Not only is this not true from an objective >>>> standpoint, it >>>> also perpetuates the prejudice that English (or IE) is a "normal" >>>> language >>>> and that every language should be measured against this norm. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> --Aya >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Before you actually tried to learn an Athabaskan language, or at >>>>> the very >>>>> least worked on one, maybe you had better refrain from asserting >>>>> that "a >>>>> language that is not for amateurs is not for people". TG >>>>> >>>>> ========= >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 2/8/2011 6:33 AM, A. Katz wrote: >>>>>> A language that is not for amateurs is not for people. >>>>>> >>>>>> This has nothing to do with RS or computer language teaching. As >>>>>> others >>>>>> have stated, the technologically based systems are not a panacea. >>>>>> >>>>>> But a language that ordinary people can't pick by talking to >>>>>> their parents >>>>>> in childhood is either dead already or not a human language. >>>>>> >>>>>> --Aya >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I would be amazed if a single person actually learns to speak >>>>>>> Navajo >>>>>>> using Rosetta Stone. This is not a language for amateurs. >>>>>>> John >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Quoting "s.t. bischoff": >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Over the last week I was involved with an event at the American >>>>>>>> Indian >>>>>>>> Language Development Institute and the folks that created the >>>>>>>> Navajo >>>>>>>> Rosetta >>>>>>>> Stone gave a short talk about the software. What follows is my >>>>>>>> understanding >>>>>>>> of how it came to be. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The Navajo Rosetta Stones was created in collaboration with >>>>>>>> Rosetta >>>> Stone >>>>>>>> and the non-profit Navajo Language Renaissance (NLR). NLR is a >>>> non-profit >>>>>>>> organization that is NOT affiliated with the tribal council or >>>> government >>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>> any way, for obvious reasons I think (e.g. getting council >>>>>>>> approval for >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> project). However, it has been endorsed by the school >>>>>>>> leadership and NLR >>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>> actively trying to get the school district to adopt the >>>>>>>> software. You >>>> can >>>>>>>> view the NLR website here >>>>>>>> http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ A >>>>>>>> non-community member started NLR after using Rosetta Stone to >>>>>>>> learn >>>>>>>> Russian. >>>>>>>> She thought it would be good if Rosetta Stone created a Navajo >>>>>>>> version. >>>>>>>> She >>>>>>>> contacted Rosetta Stone (RS), and they told her they would >>>>>>>> provide here >>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>> the software to develop the lessons, a photographer, and >>>>>>>> technical >>>>>>>> assistants (limited on the ground, mostly by phone) to develop the >>>>>>>> program >>>>>>>> for $300,000. Another option would be for her to apply for a >>>>>>>> grant from >>>>>>>> RS >>>>>>>> to cover most of the costs. So the NLR was created, a partnership >>>> between >>>>>>>> community members and one non-community member, as a non-profit >>>>>>>> organization and applied. RS gave two grants the year they >>>>>>>> applied, one >>>>>>>> went >>>>>>>> to NLR. The grant covered all but $27,000 of the $300,000. So >>>>>>>> NLR had to >>>>>>>> pay >>>>>>>> RS $27,000 to have access to the software to create the Navajo >>>>>>>> Rosetta >>>>>>>> Stone. This means they had to create the lessons and pay >>>>>>>> speakers and >>>>>>>> informants themselves. RS provided the software, a >>>>>>>> photographer, and >>>>>>>> technical support for the $27,000. NLR now is the only group >>>>>>>> that can >>>>>>>> sell >>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone, which they do for $150 per license and >>>>>>>> $200 for a >>>>>>>> personal box set. It is not clear if they have to pay RS a >>>>>>>> percentage of >>>>>>>> those revenues or not. When I asked a clear answer wasn't >>>>>>>> given. NLR >>>> also >>>>>>>> has a "training" session for administrators and teachers which >>>>>>>> costs >>>>>>>> $1500 a >>>>>>>> day and $400 per 3 hours. Needless to say, it is not >>>>>>>> un-controversial in >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> community for many of the usual reasons. Ironically, the >>>>>>>> speaker after >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> Rosetta Stone folks gave a talk that demonstrated how to create >>>>>>>> nearly >>>>>>>> identical language lessons as Rosetta Stone's simply using >>>>>>>> power point. >>>> I >>>>>>>> was encouraged to let folks know that they should contact the >>>>>>>> NLR if >>>> they >>>>>>>> have any questions at mbittinger at rosettastone.com. You can try >>>>>>>> a free >>>>>>>> introductory lesson here >>>>>>>> http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ The >>>>>>>> folks >>>>>>>> at NLR praised RS for their efforts and felt they had really >>>>>>>> done them a >>>>>>>> service. In short, they were very happy with the arrangement >>>>>>>> and how it >>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>> working out. They were also upset by the controversies >>>>>>>> surrounding the >>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone and felt they were really the result of a >>>>>>>> misunderstanding and misguided assumptions. One finally thing, >>>>>>>> they did >>>>>>>> seem >>>>>>>> to think that it was not a pancea, but rather another useful >>>>>>>> tool in >>>>>>>> language revitalization efforts. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>> Shannon >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa >>>>>>> University >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa >>> University >> >> From marc at northwestern.edu Wed Feb 9 18:34:07 2011 From: marc at northwestern.edu (Marc Ettlinger) Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 12:34:07 -0600 Subject: Non-fluent native speakers of Navajo Message-ID: I find the anecdote below fascinating - that L1 speakers of Navajo may not be considered fluent well into adulthood. Is there any actual evidence that this isn't simply a "kids these days mangle the language" type of comment (which you'd probably get from old English speakers commenting on whether American teens speak English correctly, as well) or something having to do with the influence of language contact on younger learners? More generally, I'd be curious to hear about any evidence of people still learning their first language past their teens that isn't simply an instance of language change. People generally write about language decline in older speakers - if there are cases where adults are still learning, I imagine it's been written up somewhere? Thanks, Marc Message: 7 Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2011 10:39:34 -0700 From: Tom Givon Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Roseta Stone: Redux To: john at research.haifa.ac.il Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu, "A. Katz" Message-ID: <4D52D156.4030509 at uoregon.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Right on, John. And one could make a prediction--hopefully someday to be tested by acquisition studies--that Navajo kids will not master the fully complexcity of the Athabaskan verb by age 10, or 15, or 20. I once reviewed a grammar in Papua New Guniea of a language that had comparable complexity on the verb (three positions, 6-8 categoriers each, massive zeroing & morphonemic). I had to ask Carle Whitehead--is this guy for real? He said, yes, he's been in the island for 20 years, really knows his stuff. So I asked the guy--at what age are kids considered fuill-fledged speakers? He said-- the old people say, don't listen to anybody under forty, they don't know how to speak. In my work with the Utes, one exchange has stuck out, an elder (ka-para'ni-wa-t, he's not walking about any more) who was pointed to me as the best orator in the tribe. I told him that, and he said: "Oh, I am nothing. You should have heard the Old Ones; when they spoke, you could see it all in front of your eyes". Part of it is due to the complex Ute deictic system, which invades NPs, ADVs & the verb. The combinations, and the subtle choices of when to combine the deictic particle with other categories, are a whole wond(e)rous world. Cheers, TG ========== -- Marc Ettlinger Postdoctoral Researcher Northwestern University Institute of Neuroscience 2240 Campus Drive Evanston, IL, 60208 847-491-2430 marc at northwestern.edu http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/~met179/ From amnfn at well.com Wed Feb 9 18:36:44 2011 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 10:36:44 -0800 Subject: Roseta Stone: Redux In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Fritz, That's a really good question. I look forward to hearing if other Funknetters know of such studies. --Aya On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > A propos, are there any published studies out there that point to measurable > difference in rate of completion of first-language acquisition by speakers of > one language compared to another? Or even of mastery of one aspect of L1 > acquisition (phonology, morphology, etc.) by speakers of one language > compared to another? > > --fritz > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, A. Katz wrote: > >> Tom, >> >> If the language is dying, then the advice not to listen to somebody under >> forty because they don't know how to speak may be sound, but not for the >> reason that you suggest. It could be there are no fluent speakers under >> forty. It seems very unlikely that one would have to arrive at age forty >> before acquiring fluency, especially in a hunter gatherer culture where >> death before forty might be quite common. >> >> But if you have evidence to the contrary that fully immersed, monolingual >> young speakers of a language cannot speak it with communicative effect >> until age forty, then this is a big discovery that ought to be published >> and shared with the scientific community. >> >> --Aya >> >> >> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> >>> Right on, John. And one could make a prediction--hopefully someday to be >>> tested by acquisition studies--that Navajo kids will not master the fully >>> complexcity of the Athabaskan verb by age 10, or 15, or 20. I once >>> reviewed a grammar in Papua New Guniea of a language that had comparable >>> complexity on the verb (three positions, 6-8 categoriers each, massive >>> zeroing & morphonemic). I had to ask Carle Whitehead--is this guy for >>> real? He said, yes, he's been in the island for 20 years, really knows his >>> stuff. So I asked the guy--at what age are kids considered fuill-fledged >>> speakers? He said-- the old people say, don't listen to anybody under >>> forty, they don't know how to speak. In my work with the Utes, one >>> exchange has stuck out, an elder (ka-para'ni-wa-t, he's not walking about >>> any more) who was pointed to me as the best orator in the tribe. I told >>> him that, and he said: "Oh, I am nothing. You should have heard the Old >>> Ones; when they spoke, you could see it all in front of your eyes". Part >>> of it is due to the complex Ute deictic system, which invades NPs, ADVs & >>> the verb. The combinations, and the subtle choices of when to combine the >>> deictic particle with other categories, are a whole wond(e)rous world. >>> Cheers, TG >>> >>> ========== >>> >>> >>> >>> On 2/9/2011 10:13 AM, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: >>>> Aya, >>>> I think I was the one who said first that Navajo is not a language for >>>> amateurs. I'll second what Tom said--you should learn something >>>> about Navajo (or some other Athabaskan language) before making >>>> statements like this. Some languages are just plain objectively harder >>>> than >>>> others, regardless of typological similarly to one's native language. If >>>> you >>>> don't believe this, do an experiment in which you take speakers of >>>> English, >>>> Turkish, Georgian, Chinese, whatever you want, try to teach them Navajo, >>>> Hopi, >>>> and Cree (for example), and see which one gives them the most trouble. >>>> I guarantee it will be Navajo. And there is an objective reason for it-- >>>> the morphophonemics are just unbelievably complex. >>>> John >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Quoting "A. Katz": >>>> >>>>> Tom, >>>>> >>>>> I don't think that is a valid viewpoint with regard to Athabaskan or any >>>>> other language family. >>>>> >>>>> Victor Golla earlier had a much better phrasing when he wrote: >>>>> >>>>> "Let that read: "A language that is not for amateurs is not for >>>>> ADULT people."" >>>>> >>>>> But in fact no language is easy for adults to learn who have not already >>>>> learned a language with a similar typology. If your native language >>>>> works >>>>> similarly to the one you are learning, then you have an enormous >>>>> advantage >>>>> as an adult second language learner. >>>>> >>>>> The remark about how Navajo is not for amateurs was made in the context >>>>> of >>>>> people who have no experience with languages of a similar typology. >>>>> To make this a universal statement about the difficulty of Navajo >>>>> without >>>>> qualification is to suggest that some languages are "easy" and others >>>>> are >>>>> "impossible". Not only is this not true from an objective standpoint, it >>>>> also perpetuates the prejudice that English (or IE) is a "normal" >>>>> language >>>>> and that every language should be measured against this norm. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> --Aya >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Before you actually tried to learn an Athabaskan language, or at the >>>>>> very >>>>>> least worked on one, maybe you had better refrain from asserting that >>>>>> "a >>>>>> language that is not for amateurs is not for people". TG >>>>>> >>>>>> ========= >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 2/8/2011 6:33 AM, A. Katz wrote: >>>>>>> A language that is not for amateurs is not for people. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This has nothing to do with RS or computer language teaching. As >>>>>>> others >>>>>>> have stated, the technologically based systems are not a panacea. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But a language that ordinary people can't pick by talking to their >>>>>>> parents >>>>>>> in childhood is either dead already or not a human language. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> --Aya >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I would be amazed if a single person actually learns to speak Navajo >>>>>>>> using Rosetta Stone. This is not a language for amateurs. >>>>>>>> John >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Quoting "s.t. bischoff": >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Over the last week I was involved with an event at the American >>>>>>>>> Indian >>>>>>>>> Language Development Institute and the folks that created the Navajo >>>>>>>>> Rosetta >>>>>>>>> Stone gave a short talk about the software. What follows is my >>>>>>>>> understanding >>>>>>>>> of how it came to be. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The Navajo Rosetta Stones was created in collaboration with Rosetta >>>>> Stone >>>>>>>>> and the non-profit Navajo Language Renaissance (NLR). NLR is a >>>>> non-profit >>>>>>>>> organization that is NOT affiliated with the tribal council or >>>>> government >>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>> any way, for obvious reasons I think (e.g. getting council approval >>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> project). However, it has been endorsed by the school leadership and >>>>>>>>> NLR >>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>> actively trying to get the school district to adopt the software. >>>>>>>>> You >>>>> can >>>>>>>>> view the NLR website here http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ A >>>>>>>>> non-community member started NLR after using Rosetta Stone to learn >>>>>>>>> Russian. >>>>>>>>> She thought it would be good if Rosetta Stone created a Navajo >>>>>>>>> version. >>>>>>>>> She >>>>>>>>> contacted Rosetta Stone (RS), and they told her they would provide >>>>>>>>> here >>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>> the software to develop the lessons, a photographer, and technical >>>>>>>>> assistants (limited on the ground, mostly by phone) to develop the >>>>>>>>> program >>>>>>>>> for $300,000. Another option would be for her to apply for a grant >>>>>>>>> from >>>>>>>>> RS >>>>>>>>> to cover most of the costs. So the NLR was created, a partnership >>>>> between >>>>>>>>> community members and one non-community member, as a non-profit >>>>>>>>> organization and applied. RS gave two grants the year they applied, >>>>>>>>> one >>>>>>>>> went >>>>>>>>> to NLR. The grant covered all but $27,000 of the $300,000. So NLR >>>>>>>>> had to >>>>>>>>> pay >>>>>>>>> RS $27,000 to have access to the software to create the Navajo >>>>>>>>> Rosetta >>>>>>>>> Stone. This means they had to create the lessons and pay speakers >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> informants themselves. RS provided the software, a photographer, and >>>>>>>>> technical support for the $27,000. NLR now is the only group that >>>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>>> sell >>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone, which they do for $150 per license and $200 >>>>>>>>> for a >>>>>>>>> personal box set. It is not clear if they have to pay RS a >>>>>>>>> percentage of >>>>>>>>> those revenues or not. When I asked a clear answer wasn't given. NLR >>>>> also >>>>>>>>> has a "training" session for administrators and teachers which costs >>>>>>>>> $1500 a >>>>>>>>> day and $400 per 3 hours. Needless to say, it is not >>>>>>>>> un-controversial in >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> community for many of the usual reasons. Ironically, the speaker >>>>>>>>> after >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> Rosetta Stone folks gave a talk that demonstrated how to create >>>>>>>>> nearly >>>>>>>>> identical language lessons as Rosetta Stone's simply using power >>>>>>>>> point. >>>>> I >>>>>>>>> was encouraged to let folks know that they should contact the NLR if >>>>> they >>>>>>>>> have any questions at mbittinger at rosettastone.com. You can try a >>>>>>>>> free >>>>>>>>> introductory lesson here http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ The >>>>>>>>> folks >>>>>>>>> at NLR praised RS for their efforts and felt they had really done >>>>>>>>> them a >>>>>>>>> service. In short, they were very happy with the arrangement and how >>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>>> working out. They were also upset by the controversies surrounding >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone and felt they were really the result of a >>>>>>>>> misunderstanding and misguided assumptions. One finally thing, they >>>>>>>>> did >>>>>>>>> seem >>>>>>>>> to think that it was not a pancea, but rather another useful tool in >>>>>>>>> language revitalization efforts. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>>> Shannon >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa >>>>>>>> University >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University >>> >>> >> > > From amnfn at well.com Wed Feb 9 18:41:32 2011 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 10:41:32 -0800 Subject: Roseta Stone: Redux In-Reply-To: <4D52DE19.8010409@uoregon.edu> Message-ID: I look forward to hearing more about this occurrence. Are you going to publish about it, or has something already been published? I'm perfectly open to the possibility that this is so, but have never heard of such a thing before. It is not common knowledge, even among linguists. I look forward to learning more about it. This information should be shared with the scientific community. Best, --Aya On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: > > > That language in PNG was not dying. It was on a n isolate island, no > bilingualism, no contact. Some day it might just occured to you that > linguistics is not only about arguments, but occasionally about simple facts. > TG > > ============= > > On 2/9/2011 11:10 AM, A. Katz wrote: >> Tom, >> >> If the language is dying, then the advice not to listen to somebody under >> forty because they don't know how to speak may be sound, but not for the >> reason that you suggest. It could be there are no fluent speakers under >> forty. It seems very unlikely that one would have to arrive at age forty >> before acquiring fluency, especially in a hunter gatherer culture where >> death before forty might be quite common. >> >> But if you have evidence to the contrary that fully immersed, monolingual >> young speakers of a language cannot speak it with communicative effect >> until age forty, then this is a big discovery that ought to be published >> and shared with the scientific community. >> >> --Aya >> >> >> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> >>> Right on, John. And one could make a prediction--hopefully someday to be >>> tested by acquisition studies--that Navajo kids will not master the fully >>> complexcity of the Athabaskan verb by age 10, or 15, or 20. I once >>> reviewed a grammar in Papua New Guniea of a language that had comparable >>> complexity on the verb (three positions, 6-8 categoriers each, massive >>> zeroing & morphonemic). I had to ask Carle Whitehead--is this guy for >>> real? He said, yes, he's been in the island for 20 years, really knows his >>> stuff. So I asked the guy--at what age are kids considered fuill-fledged >>> speakers? He said-- the old people say, don't listen to anybody under >>> forty, they don't know how to speak. In my work with the Utes, one >>> exchange has stuck out, an elder (ka-para'ni-wa-t, he's not walking about >>> any more) who was pointed to me as the best orator in the tribe. I told >>> him that, and he said: "Oh, I am nothing. You should have heard the Old >>> Ones; when they spoke, you could see it all in front of your eyes". Part >>> of it is due to the complex Ute deictic system, which invades NPs, ADVs & >>> the verb. The combinations, and the subtle choices of when to combine the >>> deictic particle with other categories, are a whole wond(e)rous world. >>> Cheers, TG >>> >>> ========== >>> >>> >>> >>> On 2/9/2011 10:13 AM, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: >>>> Aya, >>>> I think I was the one who said first that Navajo is not a language for >>>> amateurs. I'll second what Tom said--you should learn something >>>> about Navajo (or some other Athabaskan language) before making >>>> statements like this. Some languages are just plain objectively harder >>>> than >>>> others, regardless of typological similarly to one's native language. If >>>> you >>>> don't believe this, do an experiment in which you take speakers of >>>> English, >>>> Turkish, Georgian, Chinese, whatever you want, try to teach them Navajo, >>>> Hopi, >>>> and Cree (for example), and see which one gives them the most trouble. >>>> I guarantee it will be Navajo. And there is an objective reason for it-- >>>> the morphophonemics are just unbelievably complex. >>>> John >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Quoting "A. Katz": >>>> >>>>> Tom, >>>>> >>>>> I don't think that is a valid viewpoint with regard to Athabaskan or any >>>>> other language family. >>>>> >>>>> Victor Golla earlier had a much better phrasing when he wrote: >>>>> >>>>> "Let that read: "A language that is not for amateurs is not for >>>>> ADULT people."" >>>>> >>>>> But in fact no language is easy for adults to learn who have not already >>>>> learned a language with a similar typology. If your native language >>>>> works >>>>> similarly to the one you are learning, then you have an enormous >>>>> advantage >>>>> as an adult second language learner. >>>>> >>>>> The remark about how Navajo is not for amateurs was made in the context >>>>> of >>>>> people who have no experience with languages of a similar typology. >>>>> To make this a universal statement about the difficulty of Navajo >>>>> without >>>>> qualification is to suggest that some languages are "easy" and others >>>>> are >>>>> "impossible". Not only is this not true from an objective standpoint, it >>>>> also perpetuates the prejudice that English (or IE) is a "normal" >>>>> language >>>>> and that every language should be measured against this norm. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> --Aya >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Before you actually tried to learn an Athabaskan language, or at the >>>>>> very >>>>>> least worked on one, maybe you had better refrain from asserting that >>>>>> "a >>>>>> language that is not for amateurs is not for people". TG >>>>>> >>>>>> ========= >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 2/8/2011 6:33 AM, A. Katz wrote: >>>>>>> A language that is not for amateurs is not for people. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This has nothing to do with RS or computer language teaching. As >>>>>>> others >>>>>>> have stated, the technologically based systems are not a panacea. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But a language that ordinary people can't pick by talking to their >>>>>>> parents >>>>>>> in childhood is either dead already or not a human language. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> --Aya >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I would be amazed if a single person actually learns to speak Navajo >>>>>>>> using Rosetta Stone. This is not a language for amateurs. >>>>>>>> John >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Quoting "s.t. bischoff": >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Over the last week I was involved with an event at the American >>>>>>>>> Indian >>>>>>>>> Language Development Institute and the folks that created the Navajo >>>>>>>>> Rosetta >>>>>>>>> Stone gave a short talk about the software. What follows is my >>>>>>>>> understanding >>>>>>>>> of how it came to be. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The Navajo Rosetta Stones was created in collaboration with Rosetta >>>>> Stone >>>>>>>>> and the non-profit Navajo Language Renaissance (NLR). NLR is a >>>>> non-profit >>>>>>>>> organization that is NOT affiliated with the tribal council or >>>>> government >>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>> any way, for obvious reasons I think (e.g. getting council approval >>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> project). However, it has been endorsed by the school leadership and >>>>>>>>> NLR >>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>> actively trying to get the school district to adopt the software. >>>>>>>>> You >>>>> can >>>>>>>>> view the NLR website here http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ A >>>>>>>>> non-community member started NLR after using Rosetta Stone to learn >>>>>>>>> Russian. >>>>>>>>> She thought it would be good if Rosetta Stone created a Navajo >>>>>>>>> version. >>>>>>>>> She >>>>>>>>> contacted Rosetta Stone (RS), and they told her they would provide >>>>>>>>> here >>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>> the software to develop the lessons, a photographer, and technical >>>>>>>>> assistants (limited on the ground, mostly by phone) to develop the >>>>>>>>> program >>>>>>>>> for $300,000. Another option would be for her to apply for a grant >>>>>>>>> from >>>>>>>>> RS >>>>>>>>> to cover most of the costs. So the NLR was created, a partnership >>>>> between >>>>>>>>> community members and one non-community member, as a non-profit >>>>>>>>> organization and applied. RS gave two grants the year they applied, >>>>>>>>> one >>>>>>>>> went >>>>>>>>> to NLR. The grant covered all but $27,000 of the $300,000. So NLR >>>>>>>>> had to >>>>>>>>> pay >>>>>>>>> RS $27,000 to have access to the software to create the Navajo >>>>>>>>> Rosetta >>>>>>>>> Stone. This means they had to create the lessons and pay speakers >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> informants themselves. RS provided the software, a photographer, and >>>>>>>>> technical support for the $27,000. NLR now is the only group that >>>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>>> sell >>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone, which they do for $150 per license and $200 >>>>>>>>> for a >>>>>>>>> personal box set. It is not clear if they have to pay RS a >>>>>>>>> percentage of >>>>>>>>> those revenues or not. When I asked a clear answer wasn't given. NLR >>>>> also >>>>>>>>> has a "training" session for administrators and teachers which costs >>>>>>>>> $1500 a >>>>>>>>> day and $400 per 3 hours. Needless to say, it is not >>>>>>>>> un-controversial in >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> community for many of the usual reasons. Ironically, the speaker >>>>>>>>> after >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> Rosetta Stone folks gave a talk that demonstrated how to create >>>>>>>>> nearly >>>>>>>>> identical language lessons as Rosetta Stone's simply using power >>>>>>>>> point. >>>>> I >>>>>>>>> was encouraged to let folks know that they should contact the NLR if >>>>> they >>>>>>>>> have any questions at mbittinger at rosettastone.com. You can try a >>>>>>>>> free >>>>>>>>> introductory lesson here http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ The >>>>>>>>> folks >>>>>>>>> at NLR praised RS for their efforts and felt they had really done >>>>>>>>> them a >>>>>>>>> service. In short, they were very happy with the arrangement and how >>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>>> working out. They were also upset by the controversies surrounding >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone and felt they were really the result of a >>>>>>>>> misunderstanding and misguided assumptions. One finally thing, they >>>>>>>>> did >>>>>>>>> seem >>>>>>>>> to think that it was not a pancea, but rather another useful tool in >>>>>>>>> language revitalization efforts. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>>> Shannon >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa >>>>>>>> University >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University >>> >>> > > From macw at cmu.edu Wed Feb 9 19:04:17 2011 From: macw at cmu.edu (Brian MacWhinney) Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 14:04:17 -0500 Subject: Roseta Stone: Redux In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Fritz, There are studies in places like the Journal of Child Language by Dorthe Bleses, Hans Basbøl, and colleagues at Southern Denmark University on the delay of the acquisition of Danish phonology in comparison to other European languages, mostly attributed to the complexities of the vowel system and the various assimilatory processes. There is a corresponding delay in the acquisition of reading by Danish children that was observed in the cross-European PISA project. All of this is well documented in the literature, but it is rather marginal and transitory. Eventually, normal Danish children all learn good Danish and become fluent readers. -- Brian MacWhinney On Feb 9, 2011, at 1:27 PM, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > A propos, are there any published studies out there that point to measurable difference in rate of completion of first-language acquisition by speakers of one language compared to another? Or even of mastery of one aspect of L1 acquisition (phonology, morphology, etc.) by speakers of one language compared to another? > > --fritz > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, A. Katz wrote: > >> Tom, >> >> If the language is dying, then the advice not to listen to somebody under forty because they don't know how to speak may be sound, but not for the reason that you suggest. It could be there are no fluent speakers under forty. It seems very unlikely that one would have to arrive at age forty before acquiring fluency, especially in a hunter gatherer culture where death before forty might be quite common. >> >> But if you have evidence to the contrary that fully immersed, monolingual young speakers of a language cannot speak it with communicative effect until age forty, then this is a big discovery that ought to be published and shared with the scientific community. >> >> --Aya >> >> >> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: >> >>> Right on, John. And one could make a prediction--hopefully someday to be tested by acquisition studies--that Navajo kids will not master the fully complexcity of the Athabaskan verb by age 10, or 15, or 20. I once reviewed a grammar in Papua New Guniea of a language that had comparable complexity on the verb (three positions, 6-8 categoriers each, massive zeroing & morphonemic). I had to ask Carle Whitehead--is this guy for real? He said, yes, he's been in the island for 20 years, really knows his stuff. So I asked the guy--at what age are kids considered fuill-fledged speakers? He said-- the old people say, don't listen to anybody under forty, they don't know how to speak. In my work with the Utes, one exchange has stuck out, an elder (ka-para'ni-wa-t, he's not walking about any more) who was pointed to me as the best orator in the tribe. I told him that, and he said: "Oh, I am nothing. You should have heard the Old Ones; when they spoke, you could see it all in front of your eyes". Part of it is due to the complex Ute deictic system, which invades NPs, ADVs & the verb. The combinations, and the subtle choices of when to combine the deictic particle with other categories, are a whole wond(e)rous world. Cheers, TG >>> ========== >>> On 2/9/2011 10:13 AM, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: >>>> Aya, >>>> I think I was the one who said first that Navajo is not a language for >>>> amateurs. I'll second what Tom said--you should learn something >>>> about Navajo (or some other Athabaskan language) before making >>>> statements like this. Some languages are just plain objectively harder than >>>> others, regardless of typological similarly to one's native language. If you >>>> don't believe this, do an experiment in which you take speakers of English, >>>> Turkish, Georgian, Chinese, whatever you want, try to teach them Navajo, Hopi, >>>> and Cree (for example), and see which one gives them the most trouble. >>>> I guarantee it will be Navajo. And there is an objective reason for it-- >>>> the morphophonemics are just unbelievably complex. >>>> John >>>> Quoting "A. Katz": >>>>> Tom, >>>>> I don't think that is a valid viewpoint with regard to Athabaskan or any >>>>> other language family. >>>>> Victor Golla earlier had a much better phrasing when he wrote: >>>>> "Let that read: "A language that is not for amateurs is not for >>>>> ADULT people."" >>>>> But in fact no language is easy for adults to learn who have not already >>>>> learned a language with a similar typology. If your native language works >>>>> similarly to the one you are learning, then you have an enormous advantage >>>>> as an adult second language learner. >>>>> The remark about how Navajo is not for amateurs was made in the context of >>>>> people who have no experience with languages of a similar typology. >>>>> To make this a universal statement about the difficulty of Navajo without >>>>> qualification is to suggest that some languages are "easy" and others are >>>>> "impossible". Not only is this not true from an objective standpoint, it >>>>> also perpetuates the prejudice that English (or IE) is a "normal" language >>>>> and that every language should be measured against this norm. >>>>> Best, >>>>> --Aya >>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: >>>>>> Before you actually tried to learn an Athabaskan language, or at the very >>>>>> least worked on one, maybe you had better refrain from asserting that "a >>>>>> language that is not for amateurs is not for people". TG >>>>>> ========= >>>>>> On 2/8/2011 6:33 AM, A. Katz wrote: >>>>>>> A language that is not for amateurs is not for people. >>>>>>> This has nothing to do with RS or computer language teaching. As others >>>>>>> have stated, the technologically based systems are not a panacea. >>>>>>> But a language that ordinary people can't pick by talking to their parents >>>>>>> in childhood is either dead already or not a human language. >>>>>>> --Aya >>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: >>>>>>>> I would be amazed if a single person actually learns to speak Navajo >>>>>>>> using Rosetta Stone. This is not a language for amateurs. >>>>>>>> John >>>>>>>> Quoting "s.t. bischoff": >>>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>>> Over the last week I was involved with an event at the American Indian >>>>>>>>> Language Development Institute and the folks that created the Navajo >>>>>>>>> Rosetta >>>>>>>>> Stone gave a short talk about the software. What follows is my >>>>>>>>> understanding >>>>>>>>> of how it came to be. >>>>>>>>> The Navajo Rosetta Stones was created in collaboration with Rosetta >>>>> Stone >>>>>>>>> and the non-profit Navajo Language Renaissance (NLR). NLR is a >>>>> non-profit >>>>>>>>> organization that is NOT affiliated with the tribal council or >>>>> government >>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>> any way, for obvious reasons I think (e.g. getting council approval for >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> project). However, it has been endorsed by the school leadership and NLR >>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>> actively trying to get the school district to adopt the software. You >>>>> can >>>>>>>>> view the NLR website here http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ A >>>>>>>>> non-community member started NLR after using Rosetta Stone to learn >>>>>>>>> Russian. >>>>>>>>> She thought it would be good if Rosetta Stone created a Navajo version. >>>>>>>>> She >>>>>>>>> contacted Rosetta Stone (RS), and they told her they would provide here >>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>> the software to develop the lessons, a photographer, and technical >>>>>>>>> assistants (limited on the ground, mostly by phone) to develop the >>>>>>>>> program >>>>>>>>> for $300,000. Another option would be for her to apply for a grant from >>>>>>>>> RS >>>>>>>>> to cover most of the costs. So the NLR was created, a partnership >>>>> between >>>>>>>>> community members and one non-community member, as a non-profit >>>>>>>>> organization and applied. RS gave two grants the year they applied, one >>>>>>>>> went >>>>>>>>> to NLR. The grant covered all but $27,000 of the $300,000. So NLR had to >>>>>>>>> pay >>>>>>>>> RS $27,000 to have access to the software to create the Navajo Rosetta >>>>>>>>> Stone. This means they had to create the lessons and pay speakers and >>>>>>>>> informants themselves. RS provided the software, a photographer, and >>>>>>>>> technical support for the $27,000. NLR now is the only group that can >>>>>>>>> sell >>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone, which they do for $150 per license and $200 for a >>>>>>>>> personal box set. It is not clear if they have to pay RS a percentage of >>>>>>>>> those revenues or not. When I asked a clear answer wasn't given. NLR >>>>> also >>>>>>>>> has a "training" session for administrators and teachers which costs >>>>>>>>> $1500 a >>>>>>>>> day and $400 per 3 hours. Needless to say, it is not un-controversial in >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> community for many of the usual reasons. Ironically, the speaker after >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> Rosetta Stone folks gave a talk that demonstrated how to create nearly >>>>>>>>> identical language lessons as Rosetta Stone's simply using power point. >>>>> I >>>>>>>>> was encouraged to let folks know that they should contact the NLR if >>>>> they >>>>>>>>> have any questions at mbittinger at rosettastone.com. You can try a free >>>>>>>>> introductory lesson here http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ The >>>>>>>>> folks >>>>>>>>> at NLR praised RS for their efforts and felt they had really done them a >>>>>>>>> service. In short, they were very happy with the arrangement and how it >>>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>>> working out. They were also upset by the controversies surrounding the >>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone and felt they were really the result of a >>>>>>>>> misunderstanding and misguided assumptions. One finally thing, they did >>>>>>>>> seem >>>>>>>>> to think that it was not a pancea, but rather another useful tool in >>>>>>>>> language revitalization efforts. >>>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>>> Shannon >>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University >> > > From tgivon at uoregon.edu Wed Feb 9 19:12:50 2011 From: tgivon at uoregon.edu (Tom Givon) Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 12:12:50 -0700 Subject: Roseta Stone: Redux In-Reply-To: <90E93631-B2F5-4F65-BEFF-4B764AD84339@cmu.edu> Message-ID: I think the question of (dis) fluency & completeness for L1 are rather distinct. A child can be extremely fluent in child pidgin, or even more fluent at various stages of grammaticalization. Unlike L2 learners, whose pidgin is rather halting. Anybody can verify this by comparing the pause distribution in the CHILDES transcripts with L2 pidgin transcipts (say Bickerton's Hawaii Pidgin?). Tho of course Broca's aphasia pidgin is the most disfluent. Something sort-of resembling such a comparison may be found in ch. 10 of my "Genesis of Syntactic Complexity" (Benjamins 2009). TG ========== On 2/9/2011 12:04 PM, Brian MacWhinney wrote: > Fritz, > > There are studies in places like the Journal of Child Language by Dorthe Bleses, Hans Basbøl, and colleagues at Southern Denmark University on the delay of the acquisition of Danish phonology in comparison to other European languages, mostly attributed to the complexities of the vowel system and the various assimilatory processes. There is a corresponding delay in the acquisition of reading by Danish children that was observed in the cross-European PISA project. All of this is well documented in the literature, but it is rather marginal and transitory. Eventually, normal Danish children all learn good Danish and become fluent readers. > > -- Brian MacWhinney > > On Feb 9, 2011, at 1:27 PM, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > >> A propos, are there any published studies out there that point to measurable difference in rate of completion of first-language acquisition by speakers of one language compared to another? Or even of mastery of one aspect of L1 acquisition (phonology, morphology, etc.) by speakers of one language compared to another? >> >> --fritz >> >> Frederick J. Newmeyer >> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington >> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University >> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] >> >> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, A. Katz wrote: >> >>> Tom, >>> >>> If the language is dying, then the advice not to listen to somebody under forty because they don't know how to speak may be sound, but not for the reason that you suggest. It could be there are no fluent speakers under forty. It seems very unlikely that one would have to arrive at age forty before acquiring fluency, especially in a hunter gatherer culture where death before forty might be quite common. >>> >>> But if you have evidence to the contrary that fully immersed, monolingual young speakers of a language cannot speak it with communicative effect until age forty, then this is a big discovery that ought to be published and shared with the scientific community. >>> >>> --Aya >>> >>> >>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: >>> >>>> Right on, John. And one could make a prediction--hopefully someday to be tested by acquisition studies--that Navajo kids will not master the fully complexcity of the Athabaskan verb by age 10, or 15, or 20. I once reviewed a grammar in Papua New Guniea of a language that had comparable complexity on the verb (three positions, 6-8 categoriers each, massive zeroing& morphonemic). I had to ask Carle Whitehead--is this guy for real? He said, yes, he's been in the island for 20 years, really knows his stuff. So I asked the guy--at what age are kids considered fuill-fledged speakers? He said-- the old people say, don't listen to anybody under forty, they don't know how to speak. In my work with the Utes, one exchange has stuck out, an elder (ka-para'ni-wa-t, he's not walking about any more) who was pointed to me as the best orator in the tribe. I told him that, and he said: "Oh, I am nothing. You should have heard the Old Ones; when they spoke, you could see it all in front of your eyes". Part of it is due to the complex Ute deictic system, which invades NPs, ADVs& the verb. The combinations, and the subtle choices of when to combine the deictic particle with other categories, are a whole wond(e)rous world. Cheers, TG >>>> ========== >>>> On 2/9/2011 10:13 AM, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: >>>>> Aya, >>>>> I think I was the one who said first that Navajo is not a language for >>>>> amateurs. I'll second what Tom said--you should learn something >>>>> about Navajo (or some other Athabaskan language) before making >>>>> statements like this. Some languages are just plain objectively harder than >>>>> others, regardless of typological similarly to one's native language. If you >>>>> don't believe this, do an experiment in which you take speakers of English, >>>>> Turkish, Georgian, Chinese, whatever you want, try to teach them Navajo, Hopi, >>>>> and Cree (for example), and see which one gives them the most trouble. >>>>> I guarantee it will be Navajo. And there is an objective reason for it-- >>>>> the morphophonemics are just unbelievably complex. >>>>> John >>>>> Quoting "A. Katz": >>>>>> Tom, >>>>>> I don't think that is a valid viewpoint with regard to Athabaskan or any >>>>>> other language family. >>>>>> Victor Golla earlier had a much better phrasing when he wrote: >>>>>> "Let that read: "A language that is not for amateurs is not for >>>>>> ADULT people."" >>>>>> But in fact no language is easy for adults to learn who have not already >>>>>> learned a language with a similar typology. If your native language works >>>>>> similarly to the one you are learning, then you have an enormous advantage >>>>>> as an adult second language learner. >>>>>> The remark about how Navajo is not for amateurs was made in the context of >>>>>> people who have no experience with languages of a similar typology. >>>>>> To make this a universal statement about the difficulty of Navajo without >>>>>> qualification is to suggest that some languages are "easy" and others are >>>>>> "impossible". Not only is this not true from an objective standpoint, it >>>>>> also perpetuates the prejudice that English (or IE) is a "normal" language >>>>>> and that every language should be measured against this norm. >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> --Aya >>>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: >>>>>>> Before you actually tried to learn an Athabaskan language, or at the very >>>>>>> least worked on one, maybe you had better refrain from asserting that "a >>>>>>> language that is not for amateurs is not for people". TG >>>>>>> ========= >>>>>>> On 2/8/2011 6:33 AM, A. Katz wrote: >>>>>>>> A language that is not for amateurs is not for people. >>>>>>>> This has nothing to do with RS or computer language teaching. As others >>>>>>>> have stated, the technologically based systems are not a panacea. >>>>>>>> But a language that ordinary people can't pick by talking to their parents >>>>>>>> in childhood is either dead already or not a human language. >>>>>>>> --Aya >>>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: >>>>>>>>> I would be amazed if a single person actually learns to speak Navajo >>>>>>>>> using Rosetta Stone. This is not a language for amateurs. >>>>>>>>> John >>>>>>>>> Quoting "s.t. bischoff": >>>>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>>>> Over the last week I was involved with an event at the American Indian >>>>>>>>>> Language Development Institute and the folks that created the Navajo >>>>>>>>>> Rosetta >>>>>>>>>> Stone gave a short talk about the software. What follows is my >>>>>>>>>> understanding >>>>>>>>>> of how it came to be. >>>>>>>>>> The Navajo Rosetta Stones was created in collaboration with Rosetta >>>>>> Stone >>>>>>>>>> and the non-profit Navajo Language Renaissance (NLR). NLR is a >>>>>> non-profit >>>>>>>>>> organization that is NOT affiliated with the tribal council or >>>>>> government >>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>> any way, for obvious reasons I think (e.g. getting council approval for >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> project). However, it has been endorsed by the school leadership and NLR >>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>> actively trying to get the school district to adopt the software. You >>>>>> can >>>>>>>>>> view the NLR website here http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ A >>>>>>>>>> non-community member started NLR after using Rosetta Stone to learn >>>>>>>>>> Russian. >>>>>>>>>> She thought it would be good if Rosetta Stone created a Navajo version. >>>>>>>>>> She >>>>>>>>>> contacted Rosetta Stone (RS), and they told her they would provide here >>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>> the software to develop the lessons, a photographer, and technical >>>>>>>>>> assistants (limited on the ground, mostly by phone) to develop the >>>>>>>>>> program >>>>>>>>>> for $300,000. Another option would be for her to apply for a grant from >>>>>>>>>> RS >>>>>>>>>> to cover most of the costs. So the NLR was created, a partnership >>>>>> between >>>>>>>>>> community members and one non-community member, as a non-profit >>>>>>>>>> organization and applied. RS gave two grants the year they applied, one >>>>>>>>>> went >>>>>>>>>> to NLR. The grant covered all but $27,000 of the $300,000. So NLR had to >>>>>>>>>> pay >>>>>>>>>> RS $27,000 to have access to the software to create the Navajo Rosetta >>>>>>>>>> Stone. This means they had to create the lessons and pay speakers and >>>>>>>>>> informants themselves. RS provided the software, a photographer, and >>>>>>>>>> technical support for the $27,000. NLR now is the only group that can >>>>>>>>>> sell >>>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone, which they do for $150 per license and $200 for a >>>>>>>>>> personal box set. It is not clear if they have to pay RS a percentage of >>>>>>>>>> those revenues or not. When I asked a clear answer wasn't given. NLR >>>>>> also >>>>>>>>>> has a "training" session for administrators and teachers which costs >>>>>>>>>> $1500 a >>>>>>>>>> day and $400 per 3 hours. Needless to say, it is not un-controversial in >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> community for many of the usual reasons. Ironically, the speaker after >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> Rosetta Stone folks gave a talk that demonstrated how to create nearly >>>>>>>>>> identical language lessons as Rosetta Stone's simply using power point. >>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>> was encouraged to let folks know that they should contact the NLR if >>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>> have any questions at mbittinger at rosettastone.com. You can try a free >>>>>>>>>> introductory lesson here http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ The >>>>>>>>>> folks >>>>>>>>>> at NLR praised RS for their efforts and felt they had really done them a >>>>>>>>>> service. In short, they were very happy with the arrangement and how it >>>>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>>>> working out. They were also upset by the controversies surrounding the >>>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone and felt they were really the result of a >>>>>>>>>> misunderstanding and misguided assumptions. One finally thing, they did >>>>>>>>>> seem >>>>>>>>>> to think that it was not a pancea, but rather another useful tool in >>>>>>>>>> language revitalization efforts. >>>>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>>>> Shannon >>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University >> > From hancock at albany.edu Wed Feb 9 19:40:56 2011 From: hancock at albany.edu (Craig Hancock) Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 14:40:56 -0500 Subject: Roseta Stone: Redux In-Reply-To: <90E93631-B2F5-4F65-BEFF-4B764AD84339@cmu.edu> Message-ID: Brian, This strikes as a bit like Lake Woebegone (Where all the children are above average). normal Danish children all learn good Danish and become fluent readers Is acquiring a language totally separate from the uses of that language? Are we just acquiring the forms and then differing in our ability to put them to use or are the uses themselves a major part of what we are acquiring? Are lexicon and syntax wholly separate, or do we go on acquiring the lexico-grammar as we enter more deeply into adult worlds of discourse? Anyone in literacy education knows that too many American children fail to reach high levels of fluency as readers and writers. Doesn't that somehow mean they have failed to acquire the language? Craig On 2/9/2011 2:04 PM, Brian MacWhinney wrote: > Fritz, > > There are studies in places like the Journal of Child Language by Dorthe Bleses, Hans Basbøl, and colleagues at Southern Denmark University on the delay of the acquisition of Danish phonology in comparison to other European languages, mostly attributed to the complexities of the vowel system and the various assimilatory processes. There is a corresponding delay in the acquisition of reading by Danish children that was observed in the cross-European PISA project. All of this is well documented in the literature, but it is rather marginal and transitory. Eventually, normal Danish children all learn good Danish and become fluent readers. > > -- Brian MacWhinney > > On Feb 9, 2011, at 1:27 PM, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > >> A propos, are there any published studies out there that point to measurable difference in rate of completion of first-language acquisition by speakers of one language compared to another? Or even of mastery of one aspect of L1 acquisition (phonology, morphology, etc.) by speakers of one language compared to another? >> >> --fritz >> >> Frederick J. Newmeyer >> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington >> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University >> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] >> >> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, A. Katz wrote: >> >>> Tom, >>> >>> If the language is dying, then the advice not to listen to somebody under forty because they don't know how to speak may be sound, but not for the reason that you suggest. It could be there are no fluent speakers under forty. It seems very unlikely that one would have to arrive at age forty before acquiring fluency, especially in a hunter gatherer culture where death before forty might be quite common. >>> >>> But if you have evidence to the contrary that fully immersed, monolingual young speakers of a language cannot speak it with communicative effect until age forty, then this is a big discovery that ought to be published and shared with the scientific community. >>> >>> --Aya >>> >>> >>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: >>> >>>> Right on, John. And one could make a prediction--hopefully someday to be tested by acquisition studies--that Navajo kids will not master the fully complexcity of the Athabaskan verb by age 10, or 15, or 20. I once reviewed a grammar in Papua New Guniea of a language that had comparable complexity on the verb (three positions, 6-8 categoriers each, massive zeroing& morphonemic). I had to ask Carle Whitehead--is this guy for real? He said, yes, he's been in the island for 20 years, really knows his stuff. So I asked the guy--at what age are kids considered fuill-fledged speakers? He said-- the old people say, don't listen to anybody under forty, they don't know how to speak. In my work with the Utes, one exchange has stuck out, an elder (ka-para'ni-wa-t, he's not walking about any more) who was pointed to me as the best orator in the tribe. I told him that, and he said: "Oh, I am nothing. You should have heard the Old Ones; when they spoke, you could see it all in front of your eyes". Part of it is due to the complex Ute deictic system, which invades NPs, ADVs& the verb. The combinations, and the subtle choices of when to combine the deictic particle with other categories, are a whole wond(e)rous world. Cheers, TG >>>> ========== >>>> On 2/9/2011 10:13 AM, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: >>>>> Aya, >>>>> I think I was the one who said first that Navajo is not a language for >>>>> amateurs. I'll second what Tom said--you should learn something >>>>> about Navajo (or some other Athabaskan language) before making >>>>> statements like this. Some languages are just plain objectively harder than >>>>> others, regardless of typological similarly to one's native language. If you >>>>> don't believe this, do an experiment in which you take speakers of English, >>>>> Turkish, Georgian, Chinese, whatever you want, try to teach them Navajo, Hopi, >>>>> and Cree (for example), and see which one gives them the most trouble. >>>>> I guarantee it will be Navajo. And there is an objective reason for it-- >>>>> the morphophonemics are just unbelievably complex. >>>>> John >>>>> Quoting "A. Katz": >>>>>> Tom, >>>>>> I don't think that is a valid viewpoint with regard to Athabaskan or any >>>>>> other language family. >>>>>> Victor Golla earlier had a much better phrasing when he wrote: >>>>>> "Let that read: "A language that is not for amateurs is not for >>>>>> ADULT people."" >>>>>> But in fact no language is easy for adults to learn who have not already >>>>>> learned a language with a similar typology. If your native language works >>>>>> similarly to the one you are learning, then you have an enormous advantage >>>>>> as an adult second language learner. >>>>>> The remark about how Navajo is not for amateurs was made in the context of >>>>>> people who have no experience with languages of a similar typology. >>>>>> To make this a universal statement about the difficulty of Navajo without >>>>>> qualification is to suggest that some languages are "easy" and others are >>>>>> "impossible". Not only is this not true from an objective standpoint, it >>>>>> also perpetuates the prejudice that English (or IE) is a "normal" language >>>>>> and that every language should be measured against this norm. >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> --Aya >>>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: >>>>>>> Before you actually tried to learn an Athabaskan language, or at the very >>>>>>> least worked on one, maybe you had better refrain from asserting that "a >>>>>>> language that is not for amateurs is not for people". TG >>>>>>> ========= >>>>>>> On 2/8/2011 6:33 AM, A. Katz wrote: >>>>>>>> A language that is not for amateurs is not for people. >>>>>>>> This has nothing to do with RS or computer language teaching. As others >>>>>>>> have stated, the technologically based systems are not a panacea. >>>>>>>> But a language that ordinary people can't pick by talking to their parents >>>>>>>> in childhood is either dead already or not a human language. >>>>>>>> --Aya >>>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: >>>>>>>>> I would be amazed if a single person actually learns to speak Navajo >>>>>>>>> using Rosetta Stone. This is not a language for amateurs. >>>>>>>>> John >>>>>>>>> Quoting "s.t. bischoff": >>>>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>>>> Over the last week I was involved with an event at the American Indian >>>>>>>>>> Language Development Institute and the folks that created the Navajo >>>>>>>>>> Rosetta >>>>>>>>>> Stone gave a short talk about the software. What follows is my >>>>>>>>>> understanding >>>>>>>>>> of how it came to be. >>>>>>>>>> The Navajo Rosetta Stones was created in collaboration with Rosetta >>>>>> Stone >>>>>>>>>> and the non-profit Navajo Language Renaissance (NLR). NLR is a >>>>>> non-profit >>>>>>>>>> organization that is NOT affiliated with the tribal council or >>>>>> government >>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>> any way, for obvious reasons I think (e.g. getting council approval for >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> project). However, it has been endorsed by the school leadership and NLR >>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>> actively trying to get the school district to adopt the software. You >>>>>> can >>>>>>>>>> view the NLR website here http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ A >>>>>>>>>> non-community member started NLR after using Rosetta Stone to learn >>>>>>>>>> Russian. >>>>>>>>>> She thought it would be good if Rosetta Stone created a Navajo version. >>>>>>>>>> She >>>>>>>>>> contacted Rosetta Stone (RS), and they told her they would provide here >>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>> the software to develop the lessons, a photographer, and technical >>>>>>>>>> assistants (limited on the ground, mostly by phone) to develop the >>>>>>>>>> program >>>>>>>>>> for $300,000. Another option would be for her to apply for a grant from >>>>>>>>>> RS >>>>>>>>>> to cover most of the costs. So the NLR was created, a partnership >>>>>> between >>>>>>>>>> community members and one non-community member, as a non-profit >>>>>>>>>> organization and applied. RS gave two grants the year they applied, one >>>>>>>>>> went >>>>>>>>>> to NLR. The grant covered all but $27,000 of the $300,000. So NLR had to >>>>>>>>>> pay >>>>>>>>>> RS $27,000 to have access to the software to create the Navajo Rosetta >>>>>>>>>> Stone. This means they had to create the lessons and pay speakers and >>>>>>>>>> informants themselves. RS provided the software, a photographer, and >>>>>>>>>> technical support for the $27,000. NLR now is the only group that can >>>>>>>>>> sell >>>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone, which they do for $150 per license and $200 for a >>>>>>>>>> personal box set. It is not clear if they have to pay RS a percentage of >>>>>>>>>> those revenues or not. When I asked a clear answer wasn't given. NLR >>>>>> also >>>>>>>>>> has a "training" session for administrators and teachers which costs >>>>>>>>>> $1500 a >>>>>>>>>> day and $400 per 3 hours. Needless to say, it is not un-controversial in >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> community for many of the usual reasons. Ironically, the speaker after >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> Rosetta Stone folks gave a talk that demonstrated how to create nearly >>>>>>>>>> identical language lessons as Rosetta Stone's simply using power point. >>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>> was encouraged to let folks know that they should contact the NLR if >>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>> have any questions at mbittinger at rosettastone.com. You can try a free >>>>>>>>>> introductory lesson here http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ The >>>>>>>>>> folks >>>>>>>>>> at NLR praised RS for their efforts and felt they had really done them a >>>>>>>>>> service. In short, they were very happy with the arrangement and how it >>>>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>>>> working out. They were also upset by the controversies surrounding the >>>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone and felt they were really the result of a >>>>>>>>>> misunderstanding and misguided assumptions. One finally thing, they did >>>>>>>>>> seem >>>>>>>>>> to think that it was not a pancea, but rather another useful tool in >>>>>>>>>> language revitalization efforts. >>>>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>>>> Shannon >>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University >> From geoffnathan at wayne.edu Wed Feb 9 19:57:26 2011 From: geoffnathan at wayne.edu (Geoffrey Steven Nathan) Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 14:57:26 -0500 Subject: Roseta Stone: Redux In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Yes, there's lots of research on relative complexity of grammatical systems as related to first language acquisition, and, of course, more complex, idiosyncratic, irregular morphological systems are harder to learn and acquired later than simpler, more regular ones expressing roughly the same notion. Dan Slobin (are you on this list, Dan?) did much research in the 70's on this topic, comparing, IIRC, Serbo-Croatian (which existed then) and Turkish, and maybe some other languages. Here's an abstract from one of those papers: The ability of children between the ages of 2; 0 and 4; 8 to produce locative pre- or postpositions was investigated in English, Italian, Serbo-Croatian, and Turkish. Across languages, there was a general order of development: (1) ‘in’, ‘on’, ‘under’, and ‘beside’, (2) ‘between’, ‘back’ and ‘front’ with featured objects, (3) ‘back’ and ‘front’ with non-featured objects. This order of development is discussed in terms of nonlinguistic growth in conceptual ability. Language-specific differences in the general pattern of development are discussed in terms of a number of linguistic factors which may facilitate or retard the child's discovery of the linguistic means for encoding concepts. • Journal of Child Language (1979), 6: 529-545 Geoff Geoffrey S. Nathan Faculty Liaison, C&IT and Professor, Linguistics Program http://blogs.wayne.edu/proftech/ +1 (313) 577-1259 (C&IT) +1 (313) 577-8621 (English/Linguistics) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Frederick J Newmeyer" To: "A. Katz" Cc: "Tom Givon" , john at research.haifa.ac.il, "Funknet" Sent: Wednesday, February 9, 2011 1:27:25 PM Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Roseta Stone: Redux A propos, are there any published studies out there that point to measurable difference in rate of completion of first-language acquisition by speakers of one language compared to another? Or even of mastery of one aspect of L1 acquisition (phonology, morphology, etc.) by speakers of one language compared to another? --fritz Frederick J. Newmeyer Professor Emeritus, University of Washington Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, A. Katz wrote: > Tom, > > If the language is dying, then the advice not to listen to somebody under > forty because they don't know how to speak may be sound, but not for the > reason that you suggest. It could be there are no fluent speakers under > forty. It seems very unlikely that one would have to arrive at age forty > before acquiring fluency, especially in a hunter gatherer culture where death > before forty might be quite common. > > But if you have evidence to the contrary that fully immersed, monolingual > young speakers of a language cannot speak it with communicative effect until > age forty, then this is a big discovery that ought to be published and shared > with the scientific community. > > --Aya > > > On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: > >> >> >> >> Right on, John. And one could make a prediction--hopefully someday to be >> tested by acquisition studies--that Navajo kids will not master the fully >> complexcity of the Athabaskan verb by age 10, or 15, or 20. I once reviewed >> a grammar in Papua New Guniea of a language that had comparable complexity >> on the verb (three positions, 6-8 categoriers each, massive zeroing & >> morphonemic). I had to ask Carle Whitehead--is this guy for real? He said, >> yes, he's been in the island for 20 years, really knows his stuff. So I >> asked the guy--at what age are kids considered fuill-fledged speakers? He >> said-- the old people say, don't listen to anybody under forty, they don't >> know how to speak. In my work with the Utes, one exchange has stuck out, >> an elder (ka-para'ni-wa-t, he's not walking about any more) who was pointed >> to me as the best orator in the tribe. I told him that, and he said: "Oh, I >> am nothing. You should have heard the Old Ones; when they spoke, you could >> see it all in front of your eyes". Part of it is due to the complex Ute >> deictic system, which invades NPs, ADVs & the verb. The combinations, and >> the subtle choices of when to combine the deictic particle with other >> categories, are a whole wond(e)rous world. Cheers, TG >> >> ========== >> >> >> >> On 2/9/2011 10:13 AM, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: >>> Aya, >>> I think I was the one who said first that Navajo is not a language for >>> amateurs. I'll second what Tom said--you should learn something >>> about Navajo (or some other Athabaskan language) before making >>> statements like this. Some languages are just plain objectively harder >>> than >>> others, regardless of typological similarly to one's native language. If >>> you >>> don't believe this, do an experiment in which you take speakers of >>> English, >>> Turkish, Georgian, Chinese, whatever you want, try to teach them Navajo, >>> Hopi, >>> and Cree (for example), and see which one gives them the most trouble. >>> I guarantee it will be Navajo. And there is an objective reason for it-- >>> the morphophonemics are just unbelievably complex. >>> John >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Quoting "A. Katz": >>> >>>> Tom, >>>> >>>> I don't think that is a valid viewpoint with regard to Athabaskan or any >>>> other language family. >>>> >>>> Victor Golla earlier had a much better phrasing when he wrote: >>>> >>>> "Let that read: "A language that is not for amateurs is not for >>>> ADULT people."" >>>> >>>> But in fact no language is easy for adults to learn who have not already >>>> learned a language with a similar typology. If your native language works >>>> similarly to the one you are learning, then you have an enormous >>>> advantage >>>> as an adult second language learner. >>>> >>>> The remark about how Navajo is not for amateurs was made in the context >>>> of >>>> people who have no experience with languages of a similar typology. >>>> To make this a universal statement about the difficulty of Navajo without >>>> qualification is to suggest that some languages are "easy" and others are >>>> "impossible". Not only is this not true from an objective standpoint, it >>>> also perpetuates the prejudice that English (or IE) is a "normal" >>>> language >>>> and that every language should be measured against this norm. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> --Aya >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Before you actually tried to learn an Athabaskan language, or at the >>>>> very >>>>> least worked on one, maybe you had better refrain from asserting that "a >>>>> language that is not for amateurs is not for people". TG >>>>> >>>>> ========= >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 2/8/2011 6:33 AM, A. Katz wrote: >>>>>> A language that is not for amateurs is not for people. >>>>>> >>>>>> This has nothing to do with RS or computer language teaching. As others >>>>>> have stated, the technologically based systems are not a panacea. >>>>>> >>>>>> But a language that ordinary people can't pick by talking to their >>>>>> parents >>>>>> in childhood is either dead already or not a human language. >>>>>> >>>>>> --Aya >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I would be amazed if a single person actually learns to speak Navajo >>>>>>> using Rosetta Stone. This is not a language for amateurs. >>>>>>> John >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Quoting "s.t. bischoff": >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Over the last week I was involved with an event at the American >>>>>>>> Indian >>>>>>>> Language Development Institute and the folks that created the Navajo >>>>>>>> Rosetta >>>>>>>> Stone gave a short talk about the software. What follows is my >>>>>>>> understanding >>>>>>>> of how it came to be. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The Navajo Rosetta Stones was created in collaboration with Rosetta >>>> Stone >>>>>>>> and the non-profit Navajo Language Renaissance (NLR). NLR is a >>>> non-profit >>>>>>>> organization that is NOT affiliated with the tribal council or >>>> government >>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>> any way, for obvious reasons I think (e.g. getting council approval >>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> project). However, it has been endorsed by the school leadership and >>>>>>>> NLR >>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>> actively trying to get the school district to adopt the software. You >>>> can >>>>>>>> view the NLR website here http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ A >>>>>>>> non-community member started NLR after using Rosetta Stone to learn >>>>>>>> Russian. >>>>>>>> She thought it would be good if Rosetta Stone created a Navajo >>>>>>>> version. >>>>>>>> She >>>>>>>> contacted Rosetta Stone (RS), and they told her they would provide >>>>>>>> here >>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>> the software to develop the lessons, a photographer, and technical >>>>>>>> assistants (limited on the ground, mostly by phone) to develop the >>>>>>>> program >>>>>>>> for $300,000. Another option would be for her to apply for a grant >>>>>>>> from >>>>>>>> RS >>>>>>>> to cover most of the costs. So the NLR was created, a partnership >>>> between >>>>>>>> community members and one non-community member, as a non-profit >>>>>>>> organization and applied. RS gave two grants the year they applied, >>>>>>>> one >>>>>>>> went >>>>>>>> to NLR. The grant covered all but $27,000 of the $300,000. So NLR had >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> pay >>>>>>>> RS $27,000 to have access to the software to create the Navajo >>>>>>>> Rosetta >>>>>>>> Stone. This means they had to create the lessons and pay speakers and >>>>>>>> informants themselves. RS provided the software, a photographer, and >>>>>>>> technical support for the $27,000. NLR now is the only group that can >>>>>>>> sell >>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone, which they do for $150 per license and $200 for >>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>> personal box set. It is not clear if they have to pay RS a percentage >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> those revenues or not. When I asked a clear answer wasn't given. NLR >>>> also >>>>>>>> has a "training" session for administrators and teachers which costs >>>>>>>> $1500 a >>>>>>>> day and $400 per 3 hours. Needless to say, it is not un-controversial >>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> community for many of the usual reasons. Ironically, the speaker >>>>>>>> after >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> Rosetta Stone folks gave a talk that demonstrated how to create >>>>>>>> nearly >>>>>>>> identical language lessons as Rosetta Stone's simply using power >>>>>>>> point. >>>> I >>>>>>>> was encouraged to let folks know that they should contact the NLR if >>>> they >>>>>>>> have any questions at mbittinger at rosettastone.com. You can try a free >>>>>>>> introductory lesson here http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ The >>>>>>>> folks >>>>>>>> at NLR praised RS for their efforts and felt they had really done >>>>>>>> them a >>>>>>>> service. In short, they were very happy with the arrangement and how >>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>> working out. They were also upset by the controversies surrounding >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone and felt they were really the result of a >>>>>>>> misunderstanding and misguided assumptions. One finally thing, they >>>>>>>> did >>>>>>>> seem >>>>>>>> to think that it was not a pancea, but rather another useful tool in >>>>>>>> language revitalization efforts. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>> Shannon >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa >>>>>>> University >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University >> >> > From amnfn at well.com Wed Feb 9 20:50:16 2011 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 12:50:16 -0800 Subject: Roseta Stone: Redux In-Reply-To: <4D52EDC8.3020102@albany.edu> Message-ID: I seem to recall that in "The Evolution of Language Out of Pre-Language" Dan Slobin had a sort of dissenting article at the end in which he mentioned that Turkish children use grammatical morphology at the one word level, so that they are never actually speaking a pidgin Turkish at any point in their language development. --Aya On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Craig Hancock wrote: > Brian, > This strikes as a bit like Lake Woebegone (Where all the children are > above average). > > normal Danish children all learn good Danish and become fluent readers > > Is acquiring a language totally separate from the uses of that language? > Are we just acquiring the forms and then differing in our ability to put them > to use or are the uses themselves a major part of what we are acquiring? Are > lexicon and syntax wholly separate, or do we go on acquiring the > lexico-grammar as we enter more deeply into adult worlds of discourse? > Anyone in literacy education knows that too many American children fail > to reach high levels of fluency as readers and writers. Doesn't that somehow > mean they have failed to acquire the language? > > Craig > > On 2/9/2011 2:04 PM, Brian MacWhinney wrote: >> Fritz, >> >> There are studies in places like the Journal of Child Language by Dorthe >> Bleses, Hans Basbøl, and colleagues at Southern Denmark University on the >> delay of the acquisition of Danish phonology in comparison to other >> European languages, mostly attributed to the complexities of the vowel >> system and the various assimilatory processes. There is a corresponding >> delay in the acquisition of reading by Danish children that was observed in >> the cross-European PISA project. All of this is well documented in the >> literature, but it is rather marginal and transitory. Eventually, normal >> Danish children all learn good Danish and become fluent readers. >> >> -- Brian MacWhinney >> >> On Feb 9, 2011, at 1:27 PM, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: >> >>> A propos, are there any published studies out there that point to >>> measurable difference in rate of completion of first-language acquisition >>> by speakers of one language compared to another? Or even of mastery of one >>> aspect of L1 acquisition (phonology, morphology, etc.) by speakers of one >>> language compared to another? >>> >>> --fritz >>> >>> Frederick J. Newmeyer >>> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington >>> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser >>> University >>> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] >>> >>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, A. Katz wrote: >>> >>>> Tom, >>>> >>>> If the language is dying, then the advice not to listen to somebody under >>>> forty because they don't know how to speak may be sound, but not for the >>>> reason that you suggest. It could be there are no fluent speakers under >>>> forty. It seems very unlikely that one would have to arrive at age forty >>>> before acquiring fluency, especially in a hunter gatherer culture where >>>> death before forty might be quite common. >>>> >>>> But if you have evidence to the contrary that fully immersed, monolingual >>>> young speakers of a language cannot speak it with communicative effect >>>> until age forty, then this is a big discovery that ought to be published >>>> and shared with the scientific community. >>>> >>>> --Aya >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: >>>> >>>>> Right on, John. And one could make a prediction--hopefully someday to be >>>>> tested by acquisition studies--that Navajo kids will not master the >>>>> fully complexcity of the Athabaskan verb by age 10, or 15, or 20. I once >>>>> reviewed a grammar in Papua New Guniea of a language that had comparable >>>>> complexity on the verb (three positions, 6-8 categoriers each, massive >>>>> zeroing& morphonemic). I had to ask Carle Whitehead--is this guy for >>>>> real? He said, yes, he's been in the island for 20 years, really knows >>>>> his stuff. So I asked the guy--at what age are kids considered >>>>> fuill-fledged speakers? He said-- the old people say, don't listen to >>>>> anybody under forty, they don't know how to speak. In my work with the >>>>> Utes, one exchange has stuck out, an elder (ka-para'ni-wa-t, he's not >>>>> walking about any more) who was pointed to me as the best orator in the >>>>> tribe. I told him that, and he said: "Oh, I am nothing. You should have >>>>> heard the Old Ones; when they spoke, you could see it all in front of >>>>> your eyes". Part of it is due to the complex Ute deictic system, which >>>>> invades NPs, ADVs& the verb. The combinations, and the subtle choices >>>>> of when to combine the deictic particle with other categories, are a >>>>> whole wond(e)rous world. Cheers, TG >>>>> ========== >>>>> On 2/9/2011 10:13 AM, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: >>>>>> Aya, >>>>>> I think I was the one who said first that Navajo is not a language for >>>>>> amateurs. I'll second what Tom said--you should learn something >>>>>> about Navajo (or some other Athabaskan language) before making >>>>>> statements like this. Some languages are just plain objectively harder >>>>>> than >>>>>> others, regardless of typological similarly to one's native language. >>>>>> If you >>>>>> don't believe this, do an experiment in which you take speakers of >>>>>> English, >>>>>> Turkish, Georgian, Chinese, whatever you want, try to teach them >>>>>> Navajo, Hopi, >>>>>> and Cree (for example), and see which one gives them the most trouble. >>>>>> I guarantee it will be Navajo. And there is an objective reason for >>>>>> it-- >>>>>> the morphophonemics are just unbelievably complex. >>>>>> John >>>>>> Quoting "A. Katz": >>>>>>> Tom, >>>>>>> I don't think that is a valid viewpoint with regard to Athabaskan or >>>>>>> any >>>>>>> other language family. >>>>>>> Victor Golla earlier had a much better phrasing when he wrote: >>>>>>> "Let that read: "A language that is not for amateurs is not for >>>>>>> ADULT people."" >>>>>>> But in fact no language is easy for adults to learn who have not >>>>>>> already >>>>>>> learned a language with a similar typology. If your native language >>>>>>> works >>>>>>> similarly to the one you are learning, then you have an enormous >>>>>>> advantage >>>>>>> as an adult second language learner. >>>>>>> The remark about how Navajo is not for amateurs was made in the >>>>>>> context of >>>>>>> people who have no experience with languages of a similar typology. >>>>>>> To make this a universal statement about the difficulty of Navajo >>>>>>> without >>>>>>> qualification is to suggest that some languages are "easy" and others >>>>>>> are >>>>>>> "impossible". Not only is this not true from an objective standpoint, >>>>>>> it >>>>>>> also perpetuates the prejudice that English (or IE) is a "normal" >>>>>>> language >>>>>>> and that every language should be measured against this norm. >>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>> --Aya >>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: >>>>>>>> Before you actually tried to learn an Athabaskan language, or at the >>>>>>>> very >>>>>>>> least worked on one, maybe you had better refrain from asserting that >>>>>>>> "a >>>>>>>> language that is not for amateurs is not for people". TG >>>>>>>> ========= >>>>>>>> On 2/8/2011 6:33 AM, A. Katz wrote: >>>>>>>>> A language that is not for amateurs is not for people. >>>>>>>>> This has nothing to do with RS or computer language teaching. As >>>>>>>>> others >>>>>>>>> have stated, the technologically based systems are not a panacea. >>>>>>>>> But a language that ordinary people can't pick by talking to their >>>>>>>>> parents >>>>>>>>> in childhood is either dead already or not a human language. >>>>>>>>> --Aya >>>>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: >>>>>>>>>> I would be amazed if a single person actually learns to speak >>>>>>>>>> Navajo >>>>>>>>>> using Rosetta Stone. This is not a language for amateurs. >>>>>>>>>> John >>>>>>>>>> Quoting "s.t. bischoff": >>>>>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>>>>> Over the last week I was involved with an event at the American >>>>>>>>>>> Indian >>>>>>>>>>> Language Development Institute and the folks that created the >>>>>>>>>>> Navajo >>>>>>>>>>> Rosetta >>>>>>>>>>> Stone gave a short talk about the software. What follows is my >>>>>>>>>>> understanding >>>>>>>>>>> of how it came to be. >>>>>>>>>>> The Navajo Rosetta Stones was created in collaboration with >>>>>>>>>>> Rosetta >>>>>>> Stone >>>>>>>>>>> and the non-profit Navajo Language Renaissance (NLR). NLR is a >>>>>>> non-profit >>>>>>>>>>> organization that is NOT affiliated with the tribal council or >>>>>>> government >>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>> any way, for obvious reasons I think (e.g. getting council >>>>>>>>>>> approval for >>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>> project). However, it has been endorsed by the school leadership >>>>>>>>>>> and NLR >>>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>>> actively trying to get the school district to adopt the software. >>>>>>>>>>> You >>>>>>> can >>>>>>>>>>> view the NLR website here http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ >>>>>>>>>>> A >>>>>>>>>>> non-community member started NLR after using Rosetta Stone to >>>>>>>>>>> learn >>>>>>>>>>> Russian. >>>>>>>>>>> She thought it would be good if Rosetta Stone created a Navajo >>>>>>>>>>> version. >>>>>>>>>>> She >>>>>>>>>>> contacted Rosetta Stone (RS), and they told her they would provide >>>>>>>>>>> here >>>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>>> the software to develop the lessons, a photographer, and >>>>>>>>>>> technical >>>>>>>>>>> assistants (limited on the ground, mostly by phone) to develop the >>>>>>>>>>> program >>>>>>>>>>> for $300,000. Another option would be for her to apply for a grant >>>>>>>>>>> from >>>>>>>>>>> RS >>>>>>>>>>> to cover most of the costs. So the NLR was created, a partnership >>>>>>> between >>>>>>>>>>> community members and one non-community member, as a non-profit >>>>>>>>>>> organization and applied. RS gave two grants the year they >>>>>>>>>>> applied, one >>>>>>>>>>> went >>>>>>>>>>> to NLR. The grant covered all but $27,000 of the $300,000. So NLR >>>>>>>>>>> had to >>>>>>>>>>> pay >>>>>>>>>>> RS $27,000 to have access to the software to create the Navajo >>>>>>>>>>> Rosetta >>>>>>>>>>> Stone. This means they had to create the lessons and pay speakers >>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>> informants themselves. RS provided the software, a photographer, >>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>> technical support for the $27,000. NLR now is the only group that >>>>>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>>>>> sell >>>>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone, which they do for $150 per license and $200 >>>>>>>>>>> for a >>>>>>>>>>> personal box set. It is not clear if they have to pay RS a >>>>>>>>>>> percentage of >>>>>>>>>>> those revenues or not. When I asked a clear answer wasn't given. >>>>>>>>>>> NLR >>>>>>> also >>>>>>>>>>> has a "training" session for administrators and teachers which >>>>>>>>>>> costs >>>>>>>>>>> $1500 a >>>>>>>>>>> day and $400 per 3 hours. Needless to say, it is not >>>>>>>>>>> un-controversial in >>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>> community for many of the usual reasons. Ironically, the speaker >>>>>>>>>>> after >>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>> Rosetta Stone folks gave a talk that demonstrated how to create >>>>>>>>>>> nearly >>>>>>>>>>> identical language lessons as Rosetta Stone's simply using power >>>>>>>>>>> point. >>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>>> was encouraged to let folks know that they should contact the NLR >>>>>>>>>>> if >>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>>> have any questions at mbittinger at rosettastone.com. You can try a >>>>>>>>>>> free >>>>>>>>>>> introductory lesson here http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ >>>>>>>>>>> The >>>>>>>>>>> folks >>>>>>>>>>> at NLR praised RS for their efforts and felt they had really done >>>>>>>>>>> them a >>>>>>>>>>> service. In short, they were very happy with the arrangement and >>>>>>>>>>> how it >>>>>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>>>>> working out. They were also upset by the controversies surrounding >>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone and felt they were really the result of a >>>>>>>>>>> misunderstanding and misguided assumptions. One finally thing, >>>>>>>>>>> they did >>>>>>>>>>> seem >>>>>>>>>>> to think that it was not a pancea, but rather another useful tool >>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>> language revitalization efforts. >>>>>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>>>>> Shannon >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa >>>>>>>>>> University >>>>>> >>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa >>>>>> University >>> > > > From deseretian at gmail.com Wed Feb 9 22:15:12 2011 From: deseretian at gmail.com (Alex Walker) Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 14:15:12 -0800 Subject: Roseta Stone: Redux In-Reply-To: <705420958.576965.1297281446751.JavaMail.root@starship.merit.edu> Message-ID: Has anyone done acquisition studies of children in monolingual Georgian homes? Georgian is the only national language I've encountered with morphological complexity comparable to that seen in many American Indian languages, and it's also in no danger of dying any time soon. I would very much like to know whether anyone has worked with Georgian data to answer some of the questions raised in this thread. On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 11:57 AM, Geoffrey Steven Nathan < geoffnathan at wayne.edu> wrote: > Yes, there's lots of research on relative complexity of grammatical systems > as related to first language acquisition, and, of course, more complex, > idiosyncratic, irregular morphological systems are harder to learn and > acquired later than simpler, more regular ones expressing roughly the same > notion. > Dan Slobin (are you on this list, Dan?) did much research in the 70's on > this topic, comparing, IIRC, Serbo-Croatian (which existed then) and > Turkish, and maybe some other languages. > Here's an abstract from one of those papers: > > > The ability of children between the ages of 2; 0 and 4; 8 to produce > locative pre- or postpositions was investigated in English, Italian, > Serbo-Croatian, and Turkish. Across languages, there was a general order of > development: (1) ‘in’, ‘on’, ‘under’, and ‘beside’, (2) ‘between’, ‘back’ > and ‘front’ with featured objects, (3) ‘back’ and ‘front’ with non-featured > objects. This order of development is discussed in terms of nonlinguistic > growth in conceptual ability. Language-specific differences in the general > pattern of development are discussed in terms of a number of linguistic > factors which may facilitate or retard the child's discovery of the > linguistic means for encoding concepts. > > > • Journal of Child Language (1979), 6: 529-545 > > > Geoff > > Geoffrey S. Nathan > Faculty Liaison, C&IT > and Professor, Linguistics Program > http://blogs.wayne.edu/proftech/ > +1 (313) 577-1259 (C&IT) > +1 (313) 577-8621 (English/Linguistics) > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Frederick J Newmeyer" > To: "A. Katz" > Cc: "Tom Givon" , john at research.haifa.ac.il, "Funknet" > > Sent: Wednesday, February 9, 2011 1:27:25 PM > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Roseta Stone: Redux > > A propos, are there any published studies out there that point to > measurable difference in rate of completion of first-language acquisition by > speakers of one language compared to another? Or even of mastery of one > aspect of L1 acquisition (phonology, morphology, etc.) by speakers of one > language compared to another? > > --fritz > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > University > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, A. Katz wrote: > > > Tom, > > > > If the language is dying, then the advice not to listen to somebody under > > forty because they don't know how to speak may be sound, but not for the > > reason that you suggest. It could be there are no fluent speakers under > > forty. It seems very unlikely that one would have to arrive at age forty > > before acquiring fluency, especially in a hunter gatherer culture where > death > > before forty might be quite common. > > > > But if you have evidence to the contrary that fully immersed, monolingual > > young speakers of a language cannot speak it with communicative effect > until > > age forty, then this is a big discovery that ought to be published and > shared > > with the scientific community. > > > > --Aya > > > > > > On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: > > > >> > >> > >> > >> Right on, John. And one could make a prediction--hopefully someday to be > >> tested by acquisition studies--that Navajo kids will not master the > fully > >> complexcity of the Athabaskan verb by age 10, or 15, or 20. I once > reviewed > >> a grammar in Papua New Guniea of a language that had comparable > complexity > >> on the verb (three positions, 6-8 categoriers each, massive zeroing & > >> morphonemic). I had to ask Carle Whitehead--is this guy for real? He > said, > >> yes, he's been in the island for 20 years, really knows his stuff. So I > >> asked the guy--at what age are kids considered fuill-fledged speakers? > He > >> said-- the old people say, don't listen to anybody under forty, they > don't > >> know how to speak. In my work with the Utes, one exchange has stuck out, > >> an elder (ka-para'ni-wa-t, he's not walking about any more) who was > pointed > >> to me as the best orator in the tribe. I told him that, and he said: > "Oh, I > >> am nothing. You should have heard the Old Ones; when they spoke, you > could > >> see it all in front of your eyes". Part of it is due to the complex Ute > >> deictic system, which invades NPs, ADVs & the verb. The combinations, > and > >> the subtle choices of when to combine the deictic particle with other > >> categories, are a whole wond(e)rous world. Cheers, TG > >> > >> ========== > >> > >> > >> > >> On 2/9/2011 10:13 AM, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > >>> Aya, > >>> I think I was the one who said first that Navajo is not a language for > >>> amateurs. I'll second what Tom said--you should learn something > >>> about Navajo (or some other Athabaskan language) before making > >>> statements like this. Some languages are just plain objectively harder > >>> than > >>> others, regardless of typological similarly to one's native language. > If > >>> you > >>> don't believe this, do an experiment in which you take speakers of > >>> English, > >>> Turkish, Georgian, Chinese, whatever you want, try to teach them > Navajo, > >>> Hopi, > >>> and Cree (for example), and see which one gives them the most trouble. > >>> I guarantee it will be Navajo. And there is an objective reason for > it-- > >>> the morphophonemics are just unbelievably complex. > >>> John > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Quoting "A. Katz": > >>> > >>>> Tom, > >>>> > >>>> I don't think that is a valid viewpoint with regard to Athabaskan or > any > >>>> other language family. > >>>> > >>>> Victor Golla earlier had a much better phrasing when he wrote: > >>>> > >>>> "Let that read: "A language that is not for amateurs is not for > >>>> ADULT people."" > >>>> > >>>> But in fact no language is easy for adults to learn who have not > already > >>>> learned a language with a similar typology. If your native language > works > >>>> similarly to the one you are learning, then you have an enormous > >>>> advantage > >>>> as an adult second language learner. > >>>> > >>>> The remark about how Navajo is not for amateurs was made in the > context > >>>> of > >>>> people who have no experience with languages of a similar typology. > >>>> To make this a universal statement about the difficulty of Navajo > without > >>>> qualification is to suggest that some languages are "easy" and others > are > >>>> "impossible". Not only is this not true from an objective standpoint, > it > >>>> also perpetuates the prejudice that English (or IE) is a "normal" > >>>> language > >>>> and that every language should be measured against this norm. > >>>> > >>>> Best, > >>>> > >>>> --Aya > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Before you actually tried to learn an Athabaskan language, or at the > >>>>> very > >>>>> least worked on one, maybe you had better refrain from asserting that > "a > >>>>> language that is not for amateurs is not for people". TG > >>>>> > >>>>> ========= > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On 2/8/2011 6:33 AM, A. Katz wrote: > >>>>>> A language that is not for amateurs is not for people. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> This has nothing to do with RS or computer language teaching. As > others > >>>>>> have stated, the technologically based systems are not a panacea. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> But a language that ordinary people can't pick by talking to their > >>>>>> parents > >>>>>> in childhood is either dead already or not a human language. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> --Aya > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> I would be amazed if a single person actually learns to speak > Navajo > >>>>>>> using Rosetta Stone. This is not a language for amateurs. > >>>>>>> John > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Quoting "s.t. bischoff": > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Hi all, > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Over the last week I was involved with an event at the American > >>>>>>>> Indian > >>>>>>>> Language Development Institute and the folks that created the > Navajo > >>>>>>>> Rosetta > >>>>>>>> Stone gave a short talk about the software. What follows is my > >>>>>>>> understanding > >>>>>>>> of how it came to be. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> The Navajo Rosetta Stones was created in collaboration with > Rosetta > >>>> Stone > >>>>>>>> and the non-profit Navajo Language Renaissance (NLR). NLR is a > >>>> non-profit > >>>>>>>> organization that is NOT affiliated with the tribal council or > >>>> government > >>>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>> any way, for obvious reasons I think (e.g. getting council > approval > >>>>>>>> for > >>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>> project). However, it has been endorsed by the school leadership > and > >>>>>>>> NLR > >>>>>>>> is > >>>>>>>> actively trying to get the school district to adopt the software. > You > >>>> can > >>>>>>>> view the NLR website here http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/A > >>>>>>>> non-community member started NLR after using Rosetta Stone to > learn > >>>>>>>> Russian. > >>>>>>>> She thought it would be good if Rosetta Stone created a Navajo > >>>>>>>> version. > >>>>>>>> She > >>>>>>>> contacted Rosetta Stone (RS), and they told her they would provide > >>>>>>>> here > >>>>>>>> with > >>>>>>>> the software to develop the lessons, a photographer, and technical > >>>>>>>> assistants (limited on the ground, mostly by phone) to develop the > >>>>>>>> program > >>>>>>>> for $300,000. Another option would be for her to apply for a grant > >>>>>>>> from > >>>>>>>> RS > >>>>>>>> to cover most of the costs. So the NLR was created, a partnership > >>>> between > >>>>>>>> community members and one non-community member, as a non-profit > >>>>>>>> organization and applied. RS gave two grants the year they > applied, > >>>>>>>> one > >>>>>>>> went > >>>>>>>> to NLR. The grant covered all but $27,000 of the $300,000. So NLR > had > >>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>> pay > >>>>>>>> RS $27,000 to have access to the software to create the Navajo > >>>>>>>> Rosetta > >>>>>>>> Stone. This means they had to create the lessons and pay speakers > and > >>>>>>>> informants themselves. RS provided the software, a photographer, > and > >>>>>>>> technical support for the $27,000. NLR now is the only group that > can > >>>>>>>> sell > >>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone, which they do for $150 per license and $200 > for > >>>>>>>> a > >>>>>>>> personal box set. It is not clear if they have to pay RS a > percentage > >>>>>>>> of > >>>>>>>> those revenues or not. When I asked a clear answer wasn't given. > NLR > >>>> also > >>>>>>>> has a "training" session for administrators and teachers which > costs > >>>>>>>> $1500 a > >>>>>>>> day and $400 per 3 hours. Needless to say, it is not > un-controversial > >>>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>> community for many of the usual reasons. Ironically, the speaker > >>>>>>>> after > >>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>> Rosetta Stone folks gave a talk that demonstrated how to create > >>>>>>>> nearly > >>>>>>>> identical language lessons as Rosetta Stone's simply using power > >>>>>>>> point. > >>>> I > >>>>>>>> was encouraged to let folks know that they should contact the NLR > if > >>>> they > >>>>>>>> have any questions at mbittinger at rosettastone.com. You can try a > free > >>>>>>>> introductory lesson here http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/The > >>>>>>>> folks > >>>>>>>> at NLR praised RS for their efforts and felt they had really done > >>>>>>>> them a > >>>>>>>> service. In short, they were very happy with the arrangement and > how > >>>>>>>> it > >>>>>>>> was > >>>>>>>> working out. They were also upset by the controversies surrounding > >>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone and felt they were really the result of a > >>>>>>>> misunderstanding and misguided assumptions. One finally thing, > they > >>>>>>>> did > >>>>>>>> seem > >>>>>>>> to think that it was not a pancea, but rather another useful tool > in > >>>>>>>> language revitalization efforts. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Cheers, > >>>>>>>> Shannon > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > >>>>>>> University > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > University > >> > >> > > > > > From lise.menn at Colorado.EDU Wed Feb 9 23:00:53 2011 From: lise.menn at Colorado.EDU (Lise Menn) Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 16:00:53 -0700 Subject: Roseta Stone: Redux In-Reply-To: Message-ID: that's right. And child language and pidgin aren't the same, in any case, for any language I know about, any more than any of them are telegrams. But there are arcane reaches of languages that most people don't learn, confounding the definition of what 'acquire' means: Japanese honorifics and noun classifiers have elegant refinements, crafts and professions have jargons... On Feb 9, 2011, at 1:50 PM, A. Katz wrote: > I seem to recall that in "The Evolution of Language Out of Pre- > Language" Dan Slobin had a sort of dissenting article at the end in > which he mentioned that Turkish children use grammatical morphology > at the one word level, so that they are never actually speaking a > pidgin Turkish at any point in their language development. > > --Aya > > On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Craig Hancock wrote: > >> Brian, >> This strikes as a bit like Lake Woebegone (Where all the children >> are above average). >> >> normal Danish children all learn good Danish and become fluent >> readers >> >> Is acquiring a language totally separate from the uses of that >> language? Are we just acquiring the forms and then differing in our >> ability to put them to use or are the uses themselves a major part >> of what we are acquiring? Are lexicon and syntax wholly separate, >> or do we go on acquiring the lexico-grammar as we enter more deeply >> into adult worlds of discourse? >> Anyone in literacy education knows that too many American >> children fail to reach high levels of fluency as readers and >> writers. Doesn't that somehow mean they have failed to acquire the >> language? >> >> Craig >> >> On 2/9/2011 2:04 PM, Brian MacWhinney wrote: >>> Fritz, >>> There are studies in places like the Journal of Child Language by >>> Dorthe Bleses, Hans Basbøl, and colleagues at Southern Denmark >>> University on the delay of the acquisition of Danish phonology in >>> comparison to other European languages, mostly attributed to the >>> complexities of the vowel system and the various assimilatory >>> processes. There is a corresponding delay in the acquisition of >>> reading by Danish children that was observed in the cross-European >>> PISA project. All of this is well documented in the literature, >>> but it is rather marginal and transitory. Eventually, normal >>> Danish children all learn good Danish and become fluent readers. >>> -- Brian MacWhinney >>> On Feb 9, 2011, at 1:27 PM, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: >>>> A propos, are there any published studies out there that point to >>>> measurable difference in rate of completion of first-language >>>> acquisition by speakers of one language compared to another? Or >>>> even of mastery of one aspect of L1 acquisition (phonology, >>>> morphology, etc.) by speakers of one language compared to another? >>>> --fritz >>>> Frederick J. Newmeyer >>>> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington >>>> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon >>>> Fraser University >>>> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] >>>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, A. Katz wrote: >>>>> Tom, >>>>> If the language is dying, then the advice not to listen to >>>>> somebody under forty because they don't know how to speak may be >>>>> sound, but not for the reason that you suggest. It could be >>>>> there are no fluent speakers under forty. It seems very unlikely >>>>> that one would have to arrive at age forty before acquiring >>>>> fluency, especially in a hunter gatherer culture where death >>>>> before forty might be quite common. >>>>> But if you have evidence to the contrary that fully immersed, >>>>> monolingual young speakers of a language cannot speak it with >>>>> communicative effect until age forty, then this is a big >>>>> discovery that ought to be published and shared with the >>>>> scientific community. >>>>> >>>>> --Aya >>>>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: >>>>>> Right on, John. And one could make a prediction--hopefully >>>>>> someday to be tested by acquisition studies--that Navajo kids >>>>>> will not master the fully complexcity of the Athabaskan verb by >>>>>> age 10, or 15, or 20. I once reviewed a grammar in Papua New >>>>>> Guniea of a language that had comparable complexity on the verb >>>>>> (three positions, 6-8 categoriers each, massive zeroing& >>>>>> morphonemic). I had to ask Carle Whitehead--is this guy for >>>>>> real? He said, yes, he's been in the island for 20 years, >>>>>> really knows his stuff. So I asked the guy--at what age are >>>>>> kids considered fuill-fledged speakers? He said-- the old >>>>>> people say, don't listen to anybody under forty, they don't >>>>>> know how to speak. In my work with the Utes, one exchange has >>>>>> stuck out, an elder (ka-para'ni-wa-t, he's not walking about >>>>>> any more) who was pointed to me as the best orator in the >>>>>> tribe. I told him that, and he said: "Oh, I am nothing. You >>>>>> should have heard the Old Ones; when they spoke, you could see >>>>>> it all in front of your eyes". Part of it is due to the complex >>>>>> Ute deictic system, which invades NPs, ADVs& the verb. The >>>>>> combinations, and the subtle choices of when to combine the >>>>>> deictic particle with other categories, are a whole wond(e)rous >>>>>> world. Cheers, TG >>>>>> ========== >>>>>> On 2/9/2011 10:13 AM, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: >>>>>>> Aya, >>>>>>> I think I was the one who said first that Navajo is not a >>>>>>> language for >>>>>>> amateurs. I'll second what Tom said--you should learn something >>>>>>> about Navajo (or some other Athabaskan language) before making >>>>>>> statements like this. Some languages are just plain >>>>>>> objectively harder than >>>>>>> others, regardless of typological similarly to one's native >>>>>>> language. If you >>>>>>> don't believe this, do an experiment in which you take >>>>>>> speakers of English, >>>>>>> Turkish, Georgian, Chinese, whatever you want, try to teach >>>>>>> them Navajo, Hopi, >>>>>>> and Cree (for example), and see which one gives them the most >>>>>>> trouble. >>>>>>> I guarantee it will be Navajo. And there is an objective >>>>>>> reason for it-- >>>>>>> the morphophonemics are just unbelievably complex. >>>>>>> John >>>>>>> Quoting "A. Katz": >>>>>>>> Tom, >>>>>>>> I don't think that is a valid viewpoint with regard to >>>>>>>> Athabaskan or any >>>>>>>> other language family. >>>>>>>> Victor Golla earlier had a much better phrasing when he wrote: >>>>>>>> "Let that read: "A language that is not for amateurs is not for >>>>>>>> ADULT people."" >>>>>>>> But in fact no language is easy for adults to learn who have >>>>>>>> not already >>>>>>>> learned a language with a similar typology. If your native >>>>>>>> language works >>>>>>>> similarly to the one you are learning, then you have an >>>>>>>> enormous advantage >>>>>>>> as an adult second language learner. >>>>>>>> The remark about how Navajo is not for amateurs was made in >>>>>>>> the context of >>>>>>>> people who have no experience with languages of a similar >>>>>>>> typology. >>>>>>>> To make this a universal statement about the difficulty of >>>>>>>> Navajo without >>>>>>>> qualification is to suggest that some languages are "easy" >>>>>>>> and others are >>>>>>>> "impossible". Not only is this not true from an objective >>>>>>>> standpoint, it >>>>>>>> also perpetuates the prejudice that English (or IE) is a >>>>>>>> "normal" language >>>>>>>> and that every language should be measured against this norm. >>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>> --Aya >>>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: >>>>>>>>> Before you actually tried to learn an Athabaskan language, >>>>>>>>> or at the very >>>>>>>>> least worked on one, maybe you had better refrain from >>>>>>>>> asserting that "a >>>>>>>>> language that is not for amateurs is not for people". TG >>>>>>>>> ========= >>>>>>>>> On 2/8/2011 6:33 AM, A. Katz wrote: >>>>>>>>>> A language that is not for amateurs is not for people. >>>>>>>>>> This has nothing to do with RS or computer language >>>>>>>>>> teaching. As others >>>>>>>>>> have stated, the technologically based systems are not a >>>>>>>>>> panacea. >>>>>>>>>> But a language that ordinary people can't pick by talking >>>>>>>>>> to their parents >>>>>>>>>> in childhood is either dead already or not a human language. >>>>>>>>>> --Aya >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> I would be amazed if a single person actually learns to >>>>>>>>>>> speak Navajo >>>>>>>>>>> using Rosetta Stone. This is not a language for amateurs. >>>>>>>>>>> John >>>>>>>>>>> Quoting "s.t. bischoff": >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>>>>>> Over the last week I was involved with an event at the >>>>>>>>>>>> American Indian >>>>>>>>>>>> Language Development Institute and the folks that created >>>>>>>>>>>> the Navajo >>>>>>>>>>>> Rosetta >>>>>>>>>>>> Stone gave a short talk about the software. What follows >>>>>>>>>>>> is my >>>>>>>>>>>> understanding >>>>>>>>>>>> of how it came to be. >>>>>>>>>>>> The Navajo Rosetta Stones was created in collaboration >>>>>>>>>>>> with Rosetta >>>>>>>> Stone >>>>>>>>>>>> and the non-profit Navajo Language Renaissance (NLR). NLR >>>>>>>>>>>> is a >>>>>>>> non-profit >>>>>>>>>>>> organization that is NOT affiliated with the tribal >>>>>>>>>>>> council or >>>>>>>> government >>>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>> any way, for obvious reasons I think (e.g. getting >>>>>>>>>>>> council approval for >>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>> project). However, it has been endorsed by the school >>>>>>>>>>>> leadership and NLR >>>>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>>>> actively trying to get the school district to adopt the >>>>>>>>>>>> software. You >>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>>>>>> view the NLR website here http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ >>>>>>>>>>>> A >>>>>>>>>>>> non-community member started NLR after using Rosetta >>>>>>>>>>>> Stone to learn >>>>>>>>>>>> Russian. >>>>>>>>>>>> She thought it would be good if Rosetta Stone created a >>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo version. >>>>>>>>>>>> She >>>>>>>>>>>> contacted Rosetta Stone (RS), and they told her they >>>>>>>>>>>> would provide here >>>>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>>>> the software to develop the lessons, a photographer, and >>>>>>>>>>>> technical >>>>>>>>>>>> assistants (limited on the ground, mostly by phone) to >>>>>>>>>>>> develop the >>>>>>>>>>>> program >>>>>>>>>>>> for $300,000. Another option would be for her to apply >>>>>>>>>>>> for a grant from >>>>>>>>>>>> RS >>>>>>>>>>>> to cover most of the costs. So the NLR was created, a >>>>>>>>>>>> partnership >>>>>>>> between >>>>>>>>>>>> community members and one non-community member, as a non- >>>>>>>>>>>> profit >>>>>>>>>>>> organization and applied. RS gave two grants the year >>>>>>>>>>>> they applied, one >>>>>>>>>>>> went >>>>>>>>>>>> to NLR. The grant covered all but $27,000 of the >>>>>>>>>>>> $300,000. So NLR had to >>>>>>>>>>>> pay >>>>>>>>>>>> RS $27,000 to have access to the software to create the >>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta >>>>>>>>>>>> Stone. This means they had to create the lessons and pay >>>>>>>>>>>> speakers and >>>>>>>>>>>> informants themselves. RS provided the software, a >>>>>>>>>>>> photographer, and >>>>>>>>>>>> technical support for the $27,000. NLR now is the only >>>>>>>>>>>> group that can >>>>>>>>>>>> sell >>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone, which they do for $150 per license >>>>>>>>>>>> and $200 for a >>>>>>>>>>>> personal box set. It is not clear if they have to pay RS >>>>>>>>>>>> a percentage of >>>>>>>>>>>> those revenues or not. When I asked a clear answer wasn't >>>>>>>>>>>> given. NLR >>>>>>>> also >>>>>>>>>>>> has a "training" session for administrators and teachers >>>>>>>>>>>> which costs >>>>>>>>>>>> $1500 a >>>>>>>>>>>> day and $400 per 3 hours. Needless to say, it is not un- >>>>>>>>>>>> controversial in >>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>> community for many of the usual reasons. Ironically, the >>>>>>>>>>>> speaker after >>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>> Rosetta Stone folks gave a talk that demonstrated how to >>>>>>>>>>>> create nearly >>>>>>>>>>>> identical language lessons as Rosetta Stone's simply >>>>>>>>>>>> using power point. >>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>>>> was encouraged to let folks know that they should contact >>>>>>>>>>>> the NLR if >>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>>>> have any questions at mbittinger at rosettastone.com. You >>>>>>>>>>>> can try a free >>>>>>>>>>>> introductory lesson here http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ >>>>>>>>>>>> The >>>>>>>>>>>> folks >>>>>>>>>>>> at NLR praised RS for their efforts and felt they had >>>>>>>>>>>> really done them a >>>>>>>>>>>> service. In short, they were very happy with the >>>>>>>>>>>> arrangement and how it >>>>>>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>>>>>> working out. They were also upset by the controversies >>>>>>>>>>>> surrounding the >>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone and felt they were really the result >>>>>>>>>>>> of a >>>>>>>>>>>> misunderstanding and misguided assumptions. One finally >>>>>>>>>>>> thing, they did >>>>>>>>>>>> seem >>>>>>>>>>>> to think that it was not a pancea, but rather another >>>>>>>>>>>> useful tool in >>>>>>>>>>>> language revitalization efforts. >>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>>>>>> Shannon >>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of >>>>>>>>>>> Haifa University >>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa >>>>>>> University >> >> >> Lise Menn Home Office: 303-444-4274 1625 Mariposa Ave Fax: 303-413-0017 Boulder CO 80302 home page: http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/ Professor Emerita of Linguistics Fellow, Institute of Cognitive Science University of Colorado Secretary, AAAS Section Z [Linguistics] Fellow, Linguistic Society of America Campus Mail Address: UCB 594, Institute for Cognitive Science Campus Physical Address: CINC 234 1777 Exposition Ave, Boulder From reng at rice.edu Wed Feb 9 23:33:56 2011 From: reng at rice.edu (Robert Englebretson) Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 17:33:56 -0600 Subject: 1-year lecturer position in lab phonetics/phonology at Rice U Message-ID: The Department of Linguistics at Rice University is now accepting applications for a lecturer position in laboratory phonetics and phonology. The successful applicant will be asked to teach courses in both of these areas, an introductory linguistics course, and may teach additional courses in his or her subject area. This is a one-year appointment, and the course load is four courses for that year. Deadline for receipt of applications is March 25, 2011. Ph.D. is required by time of appointment; position start date is July 1, 2011. We especially welcome applications from researchers who share the department's interest in approaching language from a usage-based perspective with solid empirical grounding in primary data, especially approaches of a cognitive, social-interactional, and/or functional nature. See also our departmental web site at http://ling.rice.edu. Application materials include: cover letter, CV, teaching statement, sample of written work, and names and contact information for three references. Past teaching evaluations and/or information about course topics the applicant could teach are also welcome but not required at this time. Rice University is committed to affirmative action and equal opportunity in education and employment. Rice does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national or ethnic origin, age, disability or veteran status. Rice University is an Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer. Address for Applications: Search Committee Department of Linguistics, MS-23 Rice University 6100 Main Street Houston, TX 77005 USA ****************************************************************** Dr. Robert Englebretson *Associate Professor and Graduate Advisor* Dept. of Linguistics, MS23 Rice University 6100 Main St. Houston, TX 77005-1892 Phone: 713 348-4776 E-mail: reng at rice.edu http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~reng From slobin at berkeley.edu Thu Feb 10 03:53:18 2011 From: slobin at berkeley.edu (Dan I. Slobin) Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 19:53:18 -0800 Subject: Roseta Stone: Redux In-Reply-To: <074FF6EE-E63C-412A-A422-A224A6F97673@colorado.edu> Message-ID: A few responses to previous postings: Yes, languages with transparent and consistent agglutinative morphology, in the verbal or nominal systems, allow for rapid acquisition, with some productive inflections at the one-word stage. Turkish morphology, having virtually no irregular patterns, is quite securely mastered by age 3 at the latest, and often much earlier. And, in general, complex morphology, of various types, presents no serious problems with regard to acquisition of the basic grammar of the relevant constructions. For details of successful early acquistion of morphology in a number of such "complex"languages see volumes of my crosslinguistic series: Vol. 1 (Hebrew, Polish, Turkish), Vol. 2 (Hungarian), Vol. 3 (Georgian, West Greenlandic, K'iche' Maya, Warlpiri, Sesotho), Vol. 4 (Estonian, Finnish, Korean). Comparable findings are available for the acquisition of Inuktitut, Tzeltal, Tzotzil,Yucatec Maya, Hindi, Tamil, and others. What children find difficult--as do inguists--are multiply-determined and/or unpredictable morphophonological patterns. So it depends on what you want to credit as "total acquisition" or "completion of acquisition." An English-speaking 10-year-old can fluently produce a range of syntactic structures, in various genres and registers, without having mastered all of the irregular verb forms and a number of subordinate syntactic constructions. Furthermore, remember that a bility to produce a pattern in some contexts is far from commanding its full range of semantic and pragmatic functions. And when all of you Funknetters became undergraduate and graduate students, and later professionals, you were still acquiring many aspects of English grammar, vocabulary, and style. Indeed, it goes on throughout the lifespan of an engaged individual. There are no established criteria for full mastery, but there are numerous studies, in all five of the crosslinguistic volumes and elsewhere, of prolonged acquisition of various parts of a linguistic system. As noted, I've written about the error of expecting early child language to mirror pidgins. Best, Dan (with references following, many of mine available for download at http://psychology.berkeley.edu/faculty/profiles/dslobin.html Slobin, D. I. (1985, 1992, 1997). The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition. Vol. 1: The Data (1985); Vol. 2: Theoretical issues (1985); Vol. 3 (1992); Vol. 4 (1997); Vol. 5: Expanding the contexts (1997). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Slobin, D. I. (2004). From ontogenesis to phylogenesis: What can child language tell us about language evolution? In J. Langer, S. T. Parker, & C. Milbrath (Eds.), Biology and Knowledge revisited: From neurogenesis to psychogenesis (pp. 255-285). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. At 03:00 PM 2/9/2011, Lise Menn wrote: >that's right. And child language and pidgin aren't the same, in any >case, for any language I know about, any more than any of them are >telegrams. But there are arcane reaches of languages that most people >don't learn, confounding the definition of what 'acquire' means: >Japanese honorifics and noun classifiers have elegant refinements, >crafts and professions have jargons... > >On Feb 9, 2011, at 1:50 PM, A. Katz wrote: > >>I seem to recall that in "The Evolution of >>Language Out of Pre- Language" Dan Slobin had a >>sort of dissenting article at the end in >>which he mentioned that Turkish children use grammatical morphology >>at the one word level, so that they are never actually speaking a >>pidgin Turkish at any point in their language development. >> >> --Aya >> >>On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Craig Hancock wrote: >> >>>Brian, >>> This strikes as a bit like Lake Woebegone (Where all the children >>>are above average). >>> >>>normal Danish children all learn good Danish and become fluent >>>readers >>> >>> Is acquiring a language totally separate from the uses of that >>>language? Are we just acquiring the forms and then differing in our >>>ability to put them to use or are the uses themselves a major part >>>of what we are acquiring? Are lexicon and syntax wholly separate, >>>or do we go on acquiring the lexico-grammar as we enter more deeply >>>into adult worlds of discourse? >>> Anyone in literacy education knows that too many American >>>children fail to reach high levels of fluency as readers and >>>writers. Doesn't that somehow mean they have failed to acquire the >>>language? >>> >>>Craig >>> >>>On 2/9/2011 2:04 PM, Brian MacWhinney wrote: >>>>Fritz, >>>>There are studies in places like the Journal of Child Language by >>>>Dorthe Bleses, Hans Basbøl, and colleagues at Southern Denmark >>>>University on the delay of the acquisition of Danish phonology in >>>>comparison to other European languages, mostly attributed to the >>>>complexities of the vowel system and the various assimilatory >>>>processes. There is a corresponding delay in the acquisition of >>>>reading by Danish children that was observed in the cross-European >>>>PISA project. All of this is well documented in the literature, >>>>but it is rather marginal and transitory. Eventually, normal >>>>Danish children all learn good Danish and become fluent readers. >>>>-- Brian MacWhinney >>>>On Feb 9, 2011, at 1:27 PM, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: >>>>>A propos, are there any published studies out there that point to >>>>>measurable difference in rate of completion of first-language >>>>>acquisition by speakers of one language compared to another? Or >>>>>even of mastery of one aspect of L1 acquisition (phonology, >>>>>morphology, etc.) by speakers of one language compared to another? >>>>>--fritz >>>>>Frederick J. Newmeyer >>>>>Professor Emeritus, University of Washington >>>>>Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon >>>>>Fraser University >>>>>[for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] >>>>>On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, A. Katz wrote: >>>>>>Tom, >>>>>>If the language is dying, then the advice not to listen to >>>>>>somebody under forty because they don't know how to speak may be >>>>>>sound, but not for the reason that you suggest. It could be >>>>>>there are no fluent speakers under forty. It seems very unlikely >>>>>>that one would have to arrive at age forty before acquiring >>>>>>fluency, especially in a hunter gatherer culture where death >>>>>>before forty might be quite common. >>>>>>But if you have evidence to the contrary that fully immersed, >>>>>>monolingual young speakers of a language cannot speak it with >>>>>>communicative effect until age forty, then this is a big >>>>>>discovery that ought to be published and shared with the >>>>>>scientific community. >>>>>> >>>>>> --Aya >>>>>>On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: >>>>>>>Right on, John. And one could make a prediction--hopefully >>>>>>>someday to be tested by acquisition studies--that Navajo kids >>>>>>>will not master the fully complexcity of the Athabaskan verb by >>>>>>>age 10, or 15, or 20. I once reviewed a grammar in Papua New >>>>>>>Guniea of a language that had comparable complexity on the verb >>>>>>>(three positions, 6-8 categoriers each, massive zeroing& >>>>>>>morphonemic). I had to ask Carle Whitehead--is this guy for >>>>>>>real? He said, yes, he's been in the island for 20 years, >>>>>>>really knows his stuff. So I asked the guy--at what age are >>>>>>>kids considered fuill-fledged speakers? He said-- the old >>>>>>>people say, don't listen to anybody under forty, they don't >>>>>>>know how to speak. In my work with the Utes, one exchange has >>>>>>>stuck out, an elder (ka-para'ni-wa-t, he's not walking about >>>>>>>any more) who was pointed to me as the best orator in the >>>>>>>tribe. I told him that, and he said: "Oh, I am nothing. You >>>>>>>should have heard the Old Ones; when they spoke, you could see >>>>>>>it all in front of your eyes". Part of it is due to the complex >>>>>>>Ute deictic system, which invades NPs, ADVs& the verb. The >>>>>>>combinations, and the subtle choices of when to combine the >>>>>>>deictic particle with other categories, are a whole wond(e)rous >>>>>>>world. Cheers, TG >>>>>>>========== >>>>>>>On 2/9/2011 10:13 AM, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: >>>>>>>>Aya, >>>>>>>>I think I was the one who said first that Navajo is not a >>>>>>>>language for >>>>>>>>amateurs. I'll second what Tom said--you should learn something >>>>>>>>about Navajo (or some other Athabaskan language) before making >>>>>>>>statements like this. Some languages are just plain >>>>>>>>objectively harder than >>>>>>>>others, regardless of typological similarly to one's native >>>>>>>>language. If you >>>>>>>>don't believe this, do an experiment in which you take >>>>>>>>speakers of English, >>>>>>>>Turkish, Georgian, Chinese, whatever you want, try to teach >>>>>>>>them Navajo, Hopi, >>>>>>>>and Cree (for example), and see which one gives them the most >>>>>>>>trouble. >>>>>>>>I guarantee it will be Navajo. And there is an objective >>>>>>>>reason for it-- >>>>>>>>the morphophonemics are just unbelievably complex. >>>>>>>>John >>>>>>>>Quoting "A. Katz": >>>>>>>>>Tom, >>>>>>>>>I don't think that is a valid viewpoint with regard to >>>>>>>>>Athabaskan or any >>>>>>>>>other language family. >>>>>>>>>Victor Golla earlier had a much better phrasing when he wrote: >>>>>>>>>"Let that read: "A language that is not for amateurs is not for >>>>>>>>>ADULT people."" >>>>>>>>>But in fact no language is easy for adults to learn who have >>>>>>>>>not already >>>>>>>>>learned a language with a similar typology. If your native >>>>>>>>>language works >>>>>>>>>similarly to the one you are learning, then you have an >>>>>>>>>enormous advantage >>>>>>>>>as an adult second language learner. >>>>>>>>>The remark about how Navajo is not for amateurs was made in >>>>>>>>>the context of >>>>>>>>>people who have no experience with languages of a similar >>>>>>>>>typology. >>>>>>>>>To make this a universal statement about the difficulty of >>>>>>>>>Navajo without >>>>>>>>>qualification is to suggest that some languages are "easy" >>>>>>>>>and others are >>>>>>>>>"impossible". Not only is this not true from an objective >>>>>>>>>standpoint, it >>>>>>>>>also perpetuates the prejudice that English (or IE) is a >>>>>>>>>"normal" language >>>>>>>>>and that every language should be measured against this norm. >>>>>>>>>Best, >>>>>>>>> --Aya >>>>>>>>>On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>Before you actually tried to learn an Athabaskan language, >>>>>>>>>>or at the very >>>>>>>>>>least worked on one, maybe you had better refrain from >>>>>>>>>>asserting that "a >>>>>>>>>>language that is not for amateurs is not for people". TG >>>>>>>>>>========= >>>>>>>>>>On 2/8/2011 6:33 AM, A. Katz wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>A language that is not for amateurs is not for people. >>>>>>>>>>>This has nothing to do with RS or computer language >>>>>>>>>>>teaching. As others >>>>>>>>>>>have stated, the technologically based systems are not a >>>>>>>>>>>panacea. >>>>>>>>>>>But a language that ordinary people can't pick by talking >>>>>>>>>>>to their parents >>>>>>>>>>>in childhood is either dead already or not a human language. >>>>>>>>>>> --Aya >>>>>>>>>>>On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>I would be amazed if a single person actually learns to >>>>>>>>>>>>speak Navajo >>>>>>>>>>>>using Rosetta Stone. This is not a language for amateurs. >>>>>>>>>>>>John >>>>>>>>>>>>Quoting "s.t. bischoff": >>>>>>>>>>>>>Hi all, >>>>>>>>>>>>>Over the last week I was involved with an event at the >>>>>>>>>>>>>American Indian >>>>>>>>>>>>>Language Development Institute and the folks that created >>>>>>>>>>>>>the Navajo >>>>>>>>>>>>>Rosetta >>>>>>>>>>>>>Stone gave a short talk about the software. What follows >>>>>>>>>>>>>is my >>>>>>>>>>>>>understanding >>>>>>>>>>>>>of how it came to be. >>>>>>>>>>>>>The Navajo Rosetta Stones was created in collaboration >>>>>>>>>>>>>with Rosetta >>>>>>>>>Stone >>>>>>>>>>>>>and the non-profit Navajo Language Renaissance (NLR). NLR >>>>>>>>>>>>>is a >>>>>>>>>non-profit >>>>>>>>>>>>>organization that is NOT affiliated with the tribal >>>>>>>>>>>>>council or >>>>>>>>>government >>>>>>>>>>>>>in >>>>>>>>>>>>>any way, for obvious reasons I think (e.g. getting >>>>>>>>>>>>>council approval for >>>>>>>>>>>>>the >>>>>>>>>>>>>project). However, it has been endorsed by the school >>>>>>>>>>>>>leadership and NLR >>>>>>>>>>>>>is >>>>>>>>>>>>>actively trying to get the school district to adopt the >>>>>>>>>>>>>software. You >>>>>>>>>can >>>>>>>>>>>>>view the NLR website here >>>>>>>>>>>>>http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ A >>>>>>>>>>>>>non-community member started NLR after using Rosetta >>>>>>>>>>>>>Stone to learn >>>>>>>>>>>>>Russian. >>>>>>>>>>>>>She thought it would be good if Rosetta Stone created a >>>>>>>>>>>>>Navajo version. >>>>>>>>>>>>>She >>>>>>>>>>>>>contacted Rosetta Stone (RS), and they told her they >>>>>>>>>>>>>would provide here >>>>>>>>>>>>>with >>>>>>>>>>>>>the software to develop the lessons, a photographer, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>technical >>>>>>>>>>>>>assistants (limited on the ground, mostly by phone) to >>>>>>>>>>>>>develop the >>>>>>>>>>>>>program >>>>>>>>>>>>>for $300,000. Another option would be for her to apply >>>>>>>>>>>>>for a grant from >>>>>>>>>>>>>RS >>>>>>>>>>>>>to cover most of the costs. So the NLR was created, a >>>>>>>>>>>>>partnership >>>>>>>>>between >>>>>>>>>>>>>community members and one non-community member, as a non- profit >>>>>>>>>>>>>organization and applied. RS gave two grants the year >>>>>>>>>>>>>they applied, one >>>>>>>>>>>>>went >>>>>>>>>>>>>to NLR. The grant covered all but $27,000 of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>$300,000. So NLR had to >>>>>>>>>>>>>pay >>>>>>>>>>>>>RS $27,000 to have access to the software to create the >>>>>>>>>>>>>Navajo Rosetta >>>>>>>>>>>>>Stone. This means they had to create the lessons and pay >>>>>>>>>>>>>speakers and >>>>>>>>>>>>>informants themselves. RS provided the software, a >>>>>>>>>>>>>photographer, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>technical support for the $27,000. NLR now is the only >>>>>>>>>>>>>group that can >>>>>>>>>>>>>sell >>>>>>>>>>>>>Navajo Rosetta Stone, which they do for $150 per license >>>>>>>>>>>>>and $200 for a >>>>>>>>>>>>>personal box set. It is not clear if they have to pay RS >>>>>>>>>>>>>a percentage of >>>>>>>>>>>>>those revenues or not. When I asked a clear answer wasn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>given. NLR >>>>>>>>>also >>>>>>>>>>>>>has a "training" session for administrators and teachers >>>>>>>>>>>>>which costs >>>>>>>>>>>>>$1500 a >>>>>>>>>>>>>day and $400 per 3 hours. Needless >>>>>>>>>>>>>to say, it is not un- controversial in >>>>>>>>>>>>>the >>>>>>>>>>>>>community for many of the usual reasons. Ironically, the >>>>>>>>>>>>>speaker after >>>>>>>>>>>>>the >>>>>>>>>>>>>Rosetta Stone folks gave a talk that demonstrated how to >>>>>>>>>>>>>create nearly >>>>>>>>>>>>>identical language lessons as Rosetta Stone's simply >>>>>>>>>>>>>using power point. >>>>>>>>>I >>>>>>>>>>>>>was encouraged to let folks know that they should contact >>>>>>>>>>>>>the NLR if >>>>>>>>>they >>>>>>>>>>>>>have any questions at mbittinger at rosettastone.com. You >>>>>>>>>>>>>can try a free >>>>>>>>>>>>>introductory lesson here >>>>>>>>>>>>>http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ The >>>>>>>>>>>>>folks >>>>>>>>>>>>>at NLR praised RS for their efforts and felt they had >>>>>>>>>>>>>really done them a >>>>>>>>>>>>>service. In short, they were very happy with the >>>>>>>>>>>>>arrangement and how it >>>>>>>>>>>>>was >>>>>>>>>>>>>working out. They were also upset by the controversies >>>>>>>>>>>>>surrounding the >>>>>>>>>>>>>Navajo Rosetta Stone and felt they were really the result >>>>>>>>>>>>>of a >>>>>>>>>>>>>misunderstanding and misguided assumptions. One finally >>>>>>>>>>>>>thing, they did >>>>>>>>>>>>>seem >>>>>>>>>>>>>to think that it was not a pancea, but rather another >>>>>>>>>>>>>useful tool in >>>>>>>>>>>>>language revitalization efforts. >>>>>>>>>>>>>Cheers, >>>>>>>>>>>>>Shannon >>>>>>>>>>>>------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>>>>>This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of >>>>>>>>>>>>Haifa University >>>>>>>>------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa >>>>>>>>University >>> >>> > >Lise Menn Home Office: 303-444-4274 >1625 Mariposa Ave Fax: 303-413-0017 >Boulder CO 80302 >home page: http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/ > >Professor Emerita of Linguistics >Fellow, Institute of Cognitive Science >University of Colorado > >Secretary, AAAS Section Z [Linguistics] >Fellow, Linguistic Society of America > >Campus Mail Address: >UCB 594, Institute for Cognitive Science > >Campus Physical Address: >CINC 234 >1777 Exposition Ave, Boulder > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dan I. Slobin Professor Emeritus of Psychology and Linguistics Department of Psychology email: slobin at berkeley.edu 3210 Tolman #1650 phone (Dept): 1-510-642-5292 University of California phone (home): 1-510-848-1769 Berkeley, CA 94720-1650, USA fax: 1-510-642-5293 http://psychology.berkeley.edu/faculty/profiles/dslobin.html >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From wilcox at unm.edu Thu Feb 10 04:15:09 2011 From: wilcox at unm.edu (Sherman Wilcox) Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 21:15:09 -0700 Subject: Roseta Stone: Redux In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20110209192906.01240e48@berkeley.edu> Message-ID: On Feb 9, 2011, at 8:53 PM, Dan I. Slobin wrote: > And when all of you Funknetters became undergraduate and graduate students, and later professionals, you were still acquiring many aspects of English grammar, vocabulary, and style. Indeed, it goes on throughout the lifespan of an engaged individual. Okay, so writing isn't the same as speaking. Nevertheless, I think this interview with Ernest Hemingway is relevant: Interviewer: How much rewriting do you do? Hemingway: It depends. I rewrote the ending of "Farewell to Arms," the last page of it, 39 times before I was satisfied. Interviewer: Was there some technical problem there? What was it that had stumped you? Hemingway: Getting the words right. -- Sherman Wilcox, Ph.D. Professor Department of Linguistics University of New Mexico Albuquerque, NM 87131 From lieven at eva.mpg.de Thu Feb 10 07:15:36 2011 From: lieven at eva.mpg.de (Elena Lieven) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 07:15:36 +0000 Subject: Roseta Stone: Redux In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20110209192906.01240e48@berkeley.edu> Message-ID: Dan is right. Of course it depends what is meant by 'acquiring a language'. The skills of highly educated people or public speakers and great story tellers in oral cultures will not necessarily be acquired by all members of a community. Ewa Dabrowska has shown this for some aspects of case morphology in Polish and for passives and quantifer scope in English - both studies of adult native speakers elena lieven Dan I. Slobin wrote: > A few responses to previous postings: > > Yes, languages with transparent and consistent agglutinative > morphology, in the verbal or nominal systems, allow for rapid > acquisition, with some productive inflections at the one-word stage. > Turkish morphology, having virtually no irregular patterns, is quite > securely mastered by age 3 at the latest, and often much earlier. > And, in general, complex morphology, of various types, presents no > serious problems with regard to acquisition of the basic grammar of > the relevant constructions. For details of successful early > acquistion of morphology in a number of such "complex"languages see > volumes of my crosslinguistic series: Vol. 1 (Hebrew, Polish, > Turkish), Vol. 2 (Hungarian), Vol. 3 (Georgian, West Greenlandic, > K'iche' Maya, Warlpiri, Sesotho), Vol. 4 (Estonian, Finnish, Korean). > Comparable findings are available for the acquisition of Inuktitut, > Tzeltal, Tzotzil,Yucatec Maya, Hindi, Tamil, and others. What > children find difficult--as do inguists--are multiply-determined > and/or unpredictable morphophonological patterns. > > So it depends on what you want to credit as "total acquisition" or > "completion of acquisition." An English-speaking 10-year-old can > fluently produce a range of syntactic structures, in various genres > and registers, without having mastered all of the irregular verb forms > and a number of subordinate syntactic constructions. Furthermore, > remember that a bility to produce a pattern in some contexts is far > from commanding its full range of semantic and pragmatic functions. > And when all of you Funknetters became undergraduate and graduate > students, and later professionals, you were still acquiring many > aspects of English grammar, vocabulary, and style. Indeed, it goes on > throughout the lifespan of an engaged individual. > > There are no established criteria for full mastery, but there are > numerous studies, in all five of the crosslinguistic volumes and > elsewhere, of prolonged acquisition of various parts of a linguistic > system. > > As noted, I've written about the error of expecting early child > language to mirror pidgins. > > Best, > > Dan (with references following, many of mine available for download at > http://psychology.berkeley.edu/faculty/profiles/dslobin.html > Slobin, D. I. (1985, 1992, 1997). The crosslinguistic study of > language acquisition. Vol. 1: The Data (1985); Vol. 2: Theoretical > issues (1985); Vol. 3 (1992); Vol. 4 (1997); Vol. 5: Expanding the > contexts (1997). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. > Slobin, D. I. (2004). From ontogenesis to phylogenesis: What can > child language tell us about language evolution? In J. Langer, S. T. > Parker, & C. Milbrath (Eds.), Biology and Knowledge revisited: From > neurogenesis to psychogenesis (pp. 255-285). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence > Erlbaum Associates. > > > At 03:00 PM 2/9/2011, Lise Menn wrote: >> that's right. And child language and pidgin aren't the same, in any >> case, for any language I know about, any more than any of them are >> telegrams. But there are arcane reaches of languages that most people >> don't learn, confounding the definition of what 'acquire' means: >> Japanese honorifics and noun classifiers have elegant refinements, >> crafts and professions have jargons... >> >> On Feb 9, 2011, at 1:50 PM, A. Katz wrote: >> >>> I seem to recall that in "The Evolution of Language Out of Pre- >>> Language" Dan Slobin had a sort of dissenting article at the end in >>> which he mentioned that Turkish children use grammatical morphology >>> at the one word level, so that they are never actually speaking a >>> pidgin Turkish at any point in their language development. >>> >>> --Aya >>> >>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Craig Hancock wrote: >>> >>>> Brian, >>>> This strikes as a bit like Lake Woebegone (Where all the children >>>> are above average). >>>> >>>> normal Danish children all learn good Danish and become fluent >>>> readers >>>> >>>> Is acquiring a language totally separate from the uses of that >>>> language? Are we just acquiring the forms and then differing in our >>>> ability to put them to use or are the uses themselves a major part >>>> of what we are acquiring? Are lexicon and syntax wholly separate, >>>> or do we go on acquiring the lexico-grammar as we enter more deeply >>>> into adult worlds of discourse? >>>> Anyone in literacy education knows that too many American >>>> children fail to reach high levels of fluency as readers and >>>> writers. Doesn't that somehow mean they have failed to acquire the >>>> language? >>>> >>>> Craig >>>> >>>> On 2/9/2011 2:04 PM, Brian MacWhinney wrote: >>>>> Fritz, >>>>> There are studies in places like the Journal of Child Language by >>>>> Dorthe Bleses, Hans Basbøl, and colleagues at Southern Denmark >>>>> University on the delay of the acquisition of Danish phonology in >>>>> comparison to other European languages, mostly attributed to the >>>>> complexities of the vowel system and the various assimilatory >>>>> processes. There is a corresponding delay in the acquisition of >>>>> reading by Danish children that was observed in the cross-European >>>>> PISA project. All of this is well documented in the literature, >>>>> but it is rather marginal and transitory. Eventually, normal >>>>> Danish children all learn good Danish and become fluent readers. >>>>> -- Brian MacWhinney >>>>> On Feb 9, 2011, at 1:27 PM, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: >>>>>> A propos, are there any published studies out there that point to >>>>>> measurable difference in rate of completion of first-language >>>>>> acquisition by speakers of one language compared to another? Or >>>>>> even of mastery of one aspect of L1 acquisition (phonology, >>>>>> morphology, etc.) by speakers of one language compared to another? >>>>>> --fritz >>>>>> Frederick J. Newmeyer >>>>>> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington >>>>>> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon >>>>>> Fraser University >>>>>> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] >>>>>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, A. Katz wrote: >>>>>>> Tom, >>>>>>> If the language is dying, then the advice not to listen to >>>>>>> somebody under forty because they don't know how to speak may be >>>>>>> sound, but not for the reason that you suggest. It could be >>>>>>> there are no fluent speakers under forty. It seems very unlikely >>>>>>> that one would have to arrive at age forty before acquiring >>>>>>> fluency, especially in a hunter gatherer culture where death >>>>>>> before forty might be quite common. >>>>>>> But if you have evidence to the contrary that fully immersed, >>>>>>> monolingual young speakers of a language cannot speak it with >>>>>>> communicative effect until age forty, then this is a big >>>>>>> discovery that ought to be published and shared with the >>>>>>> scientific community. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> --Aya >>>>>>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: >>>>>>>> Right on, John. And one could make a prediction--hopefully >>>>>>>> someday to be tested by acquisition studies--that Navajo kids >>>>>>>> will not master the fully complexcity of the Athabaskan verb by >>>>>>>> age 10, or 15, or 20. I once reviewed a grammar in Papua New >>>>>>>> Guniea of a language that had comparable complexity on the verb >>>>>>>> (three positions, 6-8 categoriers each, massive zeroing& >>>>>>>> morphonemic). I had to ask Carle Whitehead--is this guy for >>>>>>>> real? He said, yes, he's been in the island for 20 years, >>>>>>>> really knows his stuff. So I asked the guy--at what age are >>>>>>>> kids considered fuill-fledged speakers? He said-- the old >>>>>>>> people say, don't listen to anybody under forty, they don't >>>>>>>> know how to speak. In my work with the Utes, one exchange has >>>>>>>> stuck out, an elder (ka-para'ni-wa-t, he's not walking about >>>>>>>> any more) who was pointed to me as the best orator in the >>>>>>>> tribe. I told him that, and he said: "Oh, I am nothing. You >>>>>>>> should have heard the Old Ones; when they spoke, you could see >>>>>>>> it all in front of your eyes". Part of it is due to the complex >>>>>>>> Ute deictic system, which invades NPs, ADVs& the verb. The >>>>>>>> combinations, and the subtle choices of when to combine the >>>>>>>> deictic particle with other categories, are a whole wond(e)rous >>>>>>>> world. Cheers, TG >>>>>>>> ========== >>>>>>>> On 2/9/2011 10:13 AM, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: >>>>>>>>> Aya, >>>>>>>>> I think I was the one who said first that Navajo is not a >>>>>>>>> language for >>>>>>>>> amateurs. I'll second what Tom said--you should learn something >>>>>>>>> about Navajo (or some other Athabaskan language) before making >>>>>>>>> statements like this. Some languages are just plain >>>>>>>>> objectively harder than >>>>>>>>> others, regardless of typological similarly to one's native >>>>>>>>> language. If you >>>>>>>>> don't believe this, do an experiment in which you take >>>>>>>>> speakers of English, >>>>>>>>> Turkish, Georgian, Chinese, whatever you want, try to teach >>>>>>>>> them Navajo, Hopi, >>>>>>>>> and Cree (for example), and see which one gives them the most >>>>>>>>> trouble. >>>>>>>>> I guarantee it will be Navajo. And there is an objective >>>>>>>>> reason for it-- >>>>>>>>> the morphophonemics are just unbelievably complex. >>>>>>>>> John >>>>>>>>> Quoting "A. Katz": >>>>>>>>>> Tom, >>>>>>>>>> I don't think that is a valid viewpoint with regard to >>>>>>>>>> Athabaskan or any >>>>>>>>>> other language family. >>>>>>>>>> Victor Golla earlier had a much better phrasing when he wrote: >>>>>>>>>> "Let that read: "A language that is not for amateurs is not for >>>>>>>>>> ADULT people."" >>>>>>>>>> But in fact no language is easy for adults to learn who have >>>>>>>>>> not already >>>>>>>>>> learned a language with a similar typology. If your native >>>>>>>>>> language works >>>>>>>>>> similarly to the one you are learning, then you have an >>>>>>>>>> enormous advantage >>>>>>>>>> as an adult second language learner. >>>>>>>>>> The remark about how Navajo is not for amateurs was made in >>>>>>>>>> the context of >>>>>>>>>> people who have no experience with languages of a similar >>>>>>>>>> typology. >>>>>>>>>> To make this a universal statement about the difficulty of >>>>>>>>>> Navajo without >>>>>>>>>> qualification is to suggest that some languages are "easy" >>>>>>>>>> and others are >>>>>>>>>> "impossible". Not only is this not true from an objective >>>>>>>>>> standpoint, it >>>>>>>>>> also perpetuates the prejudice that English (or IE) is a >>>>>>>>>> "normal" language >>>>>>>>>> and that every language should be measured against this norm. >>>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>>> --Aya >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Before you actually tried to learn an Athabaskan language, >>>>>>>>>>> or at the very >>>>>>>>>>> least worked on one, maybe you had better refrain from >>>>>>>>>>> asserting that "a >>>>>>>>>>> language that is not for amateurs is not for people". TG >>>>>>>>>>> ========= >>>>>>>>>>> On 2/8/2011 6:33 AM, A. Katz wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> A language that is not for amateurs is not for people. >>>>>>>>>>>> This has nothing to do with RS or computer language >>>>>>>>>>>> teaching. As others >>>>>>>>>>>> have stated, the technologically based systems are not a >>>>>>>>>>>> panacea. >>>>>>>>>>>> But a language that ordinary people can't pick by talking >>>>>>>>>>>> to their parents >>>>>>>>>>>> in childhood is either dead already or not a human language. >>>>>>>>>>>> --Aya >>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> I would be amazed if a single person actually learns to >>>>>>>>>>>>> speak Navajo >>>>>>>>>>>>> using Rosetta Stone. This is not a language for amateurs. >>>>>>>>>>>>> John >>>>>>>>>>>>> Quoting "s.t. bischoff": >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Over the last week I was involved with an event at the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> American Indian >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Language Development Institute and the folks that created >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Navajo >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rosetta >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stone gave a short talk about the software. What follows >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is my >>>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of how it came to be. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Navajo Rosetta Stones was created in collaboration >>>>>>>>>>>>>> with Rosetta >>>>>>>>>> Stone >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the non-profit Navajo Language Renaissance (NLR). NLR >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a >>>>>>>>>> non-profit >>>>>>>>>>>>>> organization that is NOT affiliated with the tribal >>>>>>>>>>>>>> council or >>>>>>>>>> government >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>>>> any way, for obvious reasons I think (e.g. getting >>>>>>>>>>>>>> council approval for >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> project). However, it has been endorsed by the school >>>>>>>>>>>>>> leadership and NLR >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> actively trying to get the school district to adopt the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> software. You >>>>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>>>>>>>> view the NLR website here >>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ A >>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-community member started NLR after using Rosetta >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stone to learn >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Russian. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> She thought it would be good if Rosetta Stone created a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo version. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> She >>>>>>>>>>>>>> contacted Rosetta Stone (RS), and they told her they >>>>>>>>>>>>>> would provide here >>>>>>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the software to develop the lessons, a photographer, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> technical >>>>>>>>>>>>>> assistants (limited on the ground, mostly by phone) to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> develop the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> program >>>>>>>>>>>>>> for $300,000. Another option would be for her to apply >>>>>>>>>>>>>> for a grant from >>>>>>>>>>>>>> RS >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to cover most of the costs. So the NLR was created, a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> partnership >>>>>>>>>> between >>>>>>>>>>>>>> community members and one non-community member, as a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> non- profit >>>>>>>>>>>>>> organization and applied. RS gave two grants the year >>>>>>>>>>>>>> they applied, one >>>>>>>>>>>>>> went >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to NLR. The grant covered all but $27,000 of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> $300,000. So NLR had to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> pay >>>>>>>>>>>>>> RS $27,000 to have access to the software to create the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stone. This means they had to create the lessons and pay >>>>>>>>>>>>>> speakers and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> informants themselves. RS provided the software, a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> photographer, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> technical support for the $27,000. NLR now is the only >>>>>>>>>>>>>> group that can >>>>>>>>>>>>>> sell >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone, which they do for $150 per license >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and $200 for a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> personal box set. It is not clear if they have to pay RS >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a percentage of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> those revenues or not. When I asked a clear answer wasn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>> given. NLR >>>>>>>>>> also >>>>>>>>>>>>>> has a "training" session for administrators and teachers >>>>>>>>>>>>>> which costs >>>>>>>>>>>>>> $1500 a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> day and $400 per 3 hours. Needless to say, it is not un- >>>>>>>>>>>>>> controversial in >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> community for many of the usual reasons. Ironically, the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> speaker after >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rosetta Stone folks gave a talk that demonstrated how to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> create nearly >>>>>>>>>>>>>> identical language lessons as Rosetta Stone's simply >>>>>>>>>>>>>> using power point. >>>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>>>>>> was encouraged to let folks know that they should contact >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the NLR if >>>>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>>>>>> have any questions at mbittinger at rosettastone.com. You >>>>>>>>>>>>>> can try a free >>>>>>>>>>>>>> introductory lesson here >>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ The >>>>>>>>>>>>>> folks >>>>>>>>>>>>>> at NLR praised RS for their efforts and felt they had >>>>>>>>>>>>>> really done them a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> service. In short, they were very happy with the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> arrangement and how it >>>>>>>>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>>>>>>>> working out. They were also upset by the controversies >>>>>>>>>>>>>> surrounding the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone and felt they were really the result >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> misunderstanding and misguided assumptions. One finally >>>>>>>>>>>>>> thing, they did >>>>>>>>>>>>>> seem >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to think that it was not a pancea, but rather another >>>>>>>>>>>>>> useful tool in >>>>>>>>>>>>>> language revitalization efforts. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shannon >>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of >>>>>>>>>>>>> Haifa University >>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa >>>>>>>>> University >>>> >>>> >> >> Lise Menn Home Office: 303-444-4274 >> 1625 Mariposa Ave Fax: 303-413-0017 >> Boulder CO 80302 >> home page: http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/ >> >> Professor Emerita of Linguistics >> Fellow, Institute of Cognitive Science >> University of Colorado >> >> Secretary, AAAS Section Z [Linguistics] >> Fellow, Linguistic Society of America >> >> Campus Mail Address: >> UCB 594, Institute for Cognitive Science >> >> Campus Physical Address: >> CINC 234 >> 1777 Exposition Ave, Boulder >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Dan I. Slobin > Professor Emeritus of Psychology and Linguistics > > Department of Psychology email: slobin at berkeley.edu > 3210 Tolman #1650 phone (Dept): 1-510-642-5292 > University of California phone (home): 1-510-848-1769 > Berkeley, CA 94720-1650, USA fax: 1-510-642-5293 > http://psychology.berkeley.edu/faculty/profiles/dslobin.html > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > -- Elena Lieven Department of Developmental and Comparative Psychology Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology Deutscher Platz 6 D-04103 Leipzig Germany Tel.+49-(0)341-3550 404 +49-(0)341-3550 400 (Department Coordinator: Henriette Zeidler) Fax.+49-(0)341-3550 444 and Max Planck Child Study Centre School of Psychological Sciences University of Manchester Manchester M13 9PL UK Tel.+44-(0)161-275 2580 +44-(0)161-275 2444 (Research Secretary: Mickie Glover) Fax.+44-(0)161-275 8587 From john at research.haifa.ac.il Thu Feb 10 08:19:23 2011 From: john at research.haifa.ac.il (john at research.haifa.ac.il) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 10:19:23 +0200 Subject: Roseta Stone: Redux In-Reply-To: <4D539098.6040105@eva.mpg.de> Message-ID: Delays in the acquisition of SPOKEN Danish would presumably be due not to the vowels (which are similar to other Scandinavian languages and much less typologically peculiar than e.g. Dutch and some southern USA dialects) but to the rampant glottalization processe which really are typologically bizarre and which is the main source of complex allophony. It's the same idea as the American pronunciation of 'button' or 'mountain' (with no vowel in the second syllable but rather a syllabic n with a glottal stop before) except that it occurs not just with alveolar+alveolar but with all combinations and the nasal isn't syllabic but combined with the preceding consonant in one or another way. The Danish pronunciation of 'Copenhagen' in natural speech sounds to me like it's just two syllables long. When I was working on Circassian (the dialect here has about 60 phonemes, mostly due to double and triple articulations) I got the same feeling that somewhere along the way native speakers had decided that it was normal to take neighboring consonantal articulations, even in the next syllable, and just say them all at the same time. Delays in the acquisition of WRITTEN Danish, on the other hand, are undoubtedly due to the antiquated spelling system, which has essentially never been updated. This is conceptually a separate problem, although they are related in the sense that many of the counterintuitive spellings are the product of the same historical process which produced the glottalization processes. There is no question that the greater difficulty of learning some languages is a serious problem for some language revival programs. I see much more hope for reviving Algonquian languages than for reviving Athabascan languages (and Polynesian languages would be a comparative cinch). I suppose that members of the groups might recognize this and 'dumb down' the languages in one way or another (making the morphophonemics simpler, eliminating phonemic contrasts when one of the sounds is really hard to pronounce, etc.), but obviously this is their decision. John Quoting Elena Lieven : > Dan is right. Of course it depends what is meant by 'acquiring a > language'. The skills of highly educated people or public speakers and > great story tellers in oral cultures will not necessarily be acquired by > all members of a community. Ewa Dabrowska has shown this for some > aspects of case morphology in Polish and for passives and quantifer > scope in English - both studies of adult native speakers > elena lieven > > Dan I. Slobin wrote: > > A few responses to previous postings: > > > > Yes, languages with transparent and consistent agglutinative > > morphology, in the verbal or nominal systems, allow for rapid > > acquisition, with some productive inflections at the one-word stage. > > Turkish morphology, having virtually no irregular patterns, is quite > > securely mastered by age 3 at the latest, and often much earlier. > > And, in general, complex morphology, of various types, presents no > > serious problems with regard to acquisition of the basic grammar of > > the relevant constructions. For details of successful early > > acquistion of morphology in a number of such "complex"languages see > > volumes of my crosslinguistic series: Vol. 1 (Hebrew, Polish, > > Turkish), Vol. 2 (Hungarian), Vol. 3 (Georgian, West Greenlandic, > > K'iche' Maya, Warlpiri, Sesotho), Vol. 4 (Estonian, Finnish, Korean). > > Comparable findings are available for the acquisition of Inuktitut, > > Tzeltal, Tzotzil,Yucatec Maya, Hindi, Tamil, and others. What > > children find difficult--as do inguists--are multiply-determined > > and/or unpredictable morphophonological patterns. > > > > So it depends on what you want to credit as "total acquisition" or > > "completion of acquisition." An English-speaking 10-year-old can > > fluently produce a range of syntactic structures, in various genres > > and registers, without having mastered all of the irregular verb forms > > and a number of subordinate syntactic constructions. Furthermore, > > remember that a bility to produce a pattern in some contexts is far > > from commanding its full range of semantic and pragmatic functions. > > And when all of you Funknetters became undergraduate and graduate > > students, and later professionals, you were still acquiring many > > aspects of English grammar, vocabulary, and style. Indeed, it goes on > > throughout the lifespan of an engaged individual. > > > > There are no established criteria for full mastery, but there are > > numerous studies, in all five of the crosslinguistic volumes and > > elsewhere, of prolonged acquisition of various parts of a linguistic > > system. > > > > As noted, I've written about the error of expecting early child > > language to mirror pidgins. > > > > Best, > > > > Dan (with references following, many of mine available for download at > > http://psychology.berkeley.edu/faculty/profiles/dslobin.html > > Slobin, D. I. (1985, 1992, 1997). The crosslinguistic study of > > language acquisition. Vol. 1: The Data (1985); Vol. 2: Theoretical > > issues (1985); Vol. 3 (1992); Vol. 4 (1997); Vol. 5: Expanding the > > contexts (1997). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. > > Slobin, D. I. (2004). From ontogenesis to phylogenesis: What can > > child language tell us about language evolution? In J. Langer, S. T. > > Parker, & C. Milbrath (Eds.), Biology and Knowledge revisited: From > > neurogenesis to psychogenesis (pp. 255-285). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence > > Erlbaum Associates. > > > > > > At 03:00 PM 2/9/2011, Lise Menn wrote: > >> that's right. And child language and pidgin aren't the same, in any > >> case, for any language I know about, any more than any of them are > >> telegrams. But there are arcane reaches of languages that most people > >> don't learn, confounding the definition of what 'acquire' means: > >> Japanese honorifics and noun classifiers have elegant refinements, > >> crafts and professions have jargons... > >> > >> On Feb 9, 2011, at 1:50 PM, A. Katz wrote: > >> > >>> I seem to recall that in "The Evolution of Language Out of Pre- > >>> Language" Dan Slobin had a sort of dissenting article at the end in > >>> which he mentioned that Turkish children use grammatical morphology > >>> at the one word level, so that they are never actually speaking a > >>> pidgin Turkish at any point in their language development. > >>> > >>> --Aya > >>> > >>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Craig Hancock wrote: > >>> > >>>> Brian, > >>>> This strikes as a bit like Lake Woebegone (Where all the children > >>>> are above average). > >>>> > >>>> normal Danish children all learn good Danish and become fluent > >>>> readers > >>>> > >>>> Is acquiring a language totally separate from the uses of that > >>>> language? Are we just acquiring the forms and then differing in our > >>>> ability to put them to use or are the uses themselves a major part > >>>> of what we are acquiring? Are lexicon and syntax wholly separate, > >>>> or do we go on acquiring the lexico-grammar as we enter more deeply > >>>> into adult worlds of discourse? > >>>> Anyone in literacy education knows that too many American > >>>> children fail to reach high levels of fluency as readers and > >>>> writers. Doesn't that somehow mean they have failed to acquire the > >>>> language? > >>>> > >>>> Craig > >>>> > >>>> On 2/9/2011 2:04 PM, Brian MacWhinney wrote: > >>>>> Fritz, > >>>>> There are studies in places like the Journal of Child Language by > >>>>> Dorthe Bleses, Hans Basbרl, and colleagues at Southern Denmark > >>>>> University on the delay of the acquisition of Danish phonology in > >>>>> comparison to other European languages, mostly attributed to the > >>>>> complexities of the vowel system and the various assimilatory > >>>>> processes. There is a corresponding delay in the acquisition of > >>>>> reading by Danish children that was observed in the cross-European > >>>>> PISA project. All of this is well documented in the literature, > >>>>> but it is rather marginal and transitory. Eventually, normal > >>>>> Danish children all learn good Danish and become fluent readers. > >>>>> -- Brian MacWhinney > >>>>> On Feb 9, 2011, at 1:27 PM, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > >>>>>> A propos, are there any published studies out there that point to > >>>>>> measurable difference in rate of completion of first-language > >>>>>> acquisition by speakers of one language compared to another? Or > >>>>>> even of mastery of one aspect of L1 acquisition (phonology, > >>>>>> morphology, etc.) by speakers of one language compared to another? > >>>>>> --fritz > >>>>>> Frederick J. Newmeyer > >>>>>> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > >>>>>> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon > >>>>>> Fraser University > >>>>>> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > >>>>>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, A. Katz wrote: > >>>>>>> Tom, > >>>>>>> If the language is dying, then the advice not to listen to > >>>>>>> somebody under forty because they don't know how to speak may be > >>>>>>> sound, but not for the reason that you suggest. It could be > >>>>>>> there are no fluent speakers under forty. It seems very unlikely > >>>>>>> that one would have to arrive at age forty before acquiring > >>>>>>> fluency, especially in a hunter gatherer culture where death > >>>>>>> before forty might be quite common. > >>>>>>> But if you have evidence to the contrary that fully immersed, > >>>>>>> monolingual young speakers of a language cannot speak it with > >>>>>>> communicative effect until age forty, then this is a big > >>>>>>> discovery that ought to be published and shared with the > >>>>>>> scientific community. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> --Aya > >>>>>>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: > >>>>>>>> Right on, John. And one could make a prediction--hopefully > >>>>>>>> someday to be tested by acquisition studies--that Navajo kids > >>>>>>>> will not master the fully complexcity of the Athabaskan verb by > >>>>>>>> age 10, or 15, or 20. I once reviewed a grammar in Papua New > >>>>>>>> Guniea of a language that had comparable complexity on the verb > >>>>>>>> (three positions, 6-8 categoriers each, massive zeroing& > >>>>>>>> morphonemic). I had to ask Carle Whitehead--is this guy for > >>>>>>>> real? He said, yes, he's been in the island for 20 years, > >>>>>>>> really knows his stuff. So I asked the guy--at what age are > >>>>>>>> kids considered fuill-fledged speakers? He said-- the old > >>>>>>>> people say, don't listen to anybody under forty, they don't > >>>>>>>> know how to speak. In my work with the Utes, one exchange has > >>>>>>>> stuck out, an elder (ka-para'ni-wa-t, he's not walking about > >>>>>>>> any more) who was pointed to me as the best orator in the > >>>>>>>> tribe. I told him that, and he said: "Oh, I am nothing. You > >>>>>>>> should have heard the Old Ones; when they spoke, you could see > >>>>>>>> it all in front of your eyes". Part of it is due to the complex > >>>>>>>> Ute deictic system, which invades NPs, ADVs& the verb. The > >>>>>>>> combinations, and the subtle choices of when to combine the > >>>>>>>> deictic particle with other categories, are a whole wond(e)rous > >>>>>>>> world. Cheers, TG > >>>>>>>> ========== > >>>>>>>> On 2/9/2011 10:13 AM, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > >>>>>>>>> Aya, > >>>>>>>>> I think I was the one who said first that Navajo is not a > >>>>>>>>> language for > >>>>>>>>> amateurs. I'll second what Tom said--you should learn something > >>>>>>>>> about Navajo (or some other Athabaskan language) before making > >>>>>>>>> statements like this. Some languages are just plain > >>>>>>>>> objectively harder than > >>>>>>>>> others, regardless of typological similarly to one's native > >>>>>>>>> language. If you > >>>>>>>>> don't believe this, do an experiment in which you take > >>>>>>>>> speakers of English, > >>>>>>>>> Turkish, Georgian, Chinese, whatever you want, try to teach > >>>>>>>>> them Navajo, Hopi, > >>>>>>>>> and Cree (for example), and see which one gives them the most > >>>>>>>>> trouble. > >>>>>>>>> I guarantee it will be Navajo. And there is an objective > >>>>>>>>> reason for it-- > >>>>>>>>> the morphophonemics are just unbelievably complex. > >>>>>>>>> John > >>>>>>>>> Quoting "A. Katz": > >>>>>>>>>> Tom, > >>>>>>>>>> I don't think that is a valid viewpoint with regard to > >>>>>>>>>> Athabaskan or any > >>>>>>>>>> other language family. > >>>>>>>>>> Victor Golla earlier had a much better phrasing when he wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> "Let that read: "A language that is not for amateurs is not for > >>>>>>>>>> ADULT people."" > >>>>>>>>>> But in fact no language is easy for adults to learn who have > >>>>>>>>>> not already > >>>>>>>>>> learned a language with a similar typology. If your native > >>>>>>>>>> language works > >>>>>>>>>> similarly to the one you are learning, then you have an > >>>>>>>>>> enormous advantage > >>>>>>>>>> as an adult second language learner. > >>>>>>>>>> The remark about how Navajo is not for amateurs was made in > >>>>>>>>>> the context of > >>>>>>>>>> people who have no experience with languages of a similar > >>>>>>>>>> typology. > >>>>>>>>>> To make this a universal statement about the difficulty of > >>>>>>>>>> Navajo without > >>>>>>>>>> qualification is to suggest that some languages are "easy" > >>>>>>>>>> and others are > >>>>>>>>>> "impossible". Not only is this not true from an objective > >>>>>>>>>> standpoint, it > >>>>>>>>>> also perpetuates the prejudice that English (or IE) is a > >>>>>>>>>> "normal" language > >>>>>>>>>> and that every language should be measured against this norm. > >>>>>>>>>> Best, > >>>>>>>>>> --Aya > >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> Before you actually tried to learn an Athabaskan language, > >>>>>>>>>>> or at the very > >>>>>>>>>>> least worked on one, maybe you had better refrain from > >>>>>>>>>>> asserting that "a > >>>>>>>>>>> language that is not for amateurs is not for people". TG > >>>>>>>>>>> ========= > >>>>>>>>>>> On 2/8/2011 6:33 AM, A. Katz wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> A language that is not for amateurs is not for people. > >>>>>>>>>>>> This has nothing to do with RS or computer language > >>>>>>>>>>>> teaching. As others > >>>>>>>>>>>> have stated, the technologically based systems are not a > >>>>>>>>>>>> panacea. > >>>>>>>>>>>> But a language that ordinary people can't pick by talking > >>>>>>>>>>>> to their parents > >>>>>>>>>>>> in childhood is either dead already or not a human language. > >>>>>>>>>>>> --Aya > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I would be amazed if a single person actually learns to > >>>>>>>>>>>>> speak Navajo > >>>>>>>>>>>>> using Rosetta Stone. This is not a language for amateurs. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> John > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Quoting "s.t. bischoff": > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Over the last week I was involved with an event at the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> American Indian > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Language Development Institute and the folks that created > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Navajo > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rosetta > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stone gave a short talk about the software. What follows > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is my > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of how it came to be. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Navajo Rosetta Stones was created in collaboration > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> with Rosetta > >>>>>>>>>> Stone > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the non-profit Navajo Language Renaissance (NLR). NLR > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a > >>>>>>>>>> non-profit > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> organization that is NOT affiliated with the tribal > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> council or > >>>>>>>>>> government > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> any way, for obvious reasons I think (e.g. getting > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> council approval for > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> project). However, it has been endorsed by the school > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> leadership and NLR > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> actively trying to get the school district to adopt the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> software. You > >>>>>>>>>> can > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> view the NLR website here > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ A > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-community member started NLR after using Rosetta > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stone to learn > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Russian. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> She thought it would be good if Rosetta Stone created a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo version. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> She > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> contacted Rosetta Stone (RS), and they told her they > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> would provide here > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> with > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the software to develop the lessons, a photographer, and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> technical > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> assistants (limited on the ground, mostly by phone) to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> develop the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> program > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> for $300,000. Another option would be for her to apply > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> for a grant from > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> RS > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to cover most of the costs. So the NLR was created, a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> partnership > >>>>>>>>>> between > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> community members and one non-community member, as a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> non- profit > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> organization and applied. RS gave two grants the year > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> they applied, one > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> went > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to NLR. The grant covered all but $27,000 of the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> $300,000. So NLR had to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> pay > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> RS $27,000 to have access to the software to create the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stone. This means they had to create the lessons and pay > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> speakers and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> informants themselves. RS provided the software, a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> photographer, and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> technical support for the $27,000. NLR now is the only > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> group that can > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> sell > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone, which they do for $150 per license > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and $200 for a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> personal box set. It is not clear if they have to pay RS > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a percentage of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> those revenues or not. When I asked a clear answer wasn't > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> given. NLR > >>>>>>>>>> also > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> has a "training" session for administrators and teachers > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> which costs > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> $1500 a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> day and $400 per 3 hours. Needless to say, it is not un- > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> controversial in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> community for many of the usual reasons. Ironically, the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> speaker after > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rosetta Stone folks gave a talk that demonstrated how to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> create nearly > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> identical language lessons as Rosetta Stone's simply > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> using power point. > >>>>>>>>>> I > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> was encouraged to let folks know that they should contact > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the NLR if > >>>>>>>>>> they > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> have any questions at mbittinger at rosettastone.com. You > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> can try a free > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> introductory lesson here > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ The > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> folks > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> at NLR praised RS for their efforts and felt they had > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> really done them a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> service. In short, they were very happy with the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> arrangement and how it > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> was > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> working out. They were also upset by the controversies > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> surrounding the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone and felt they were really the result > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> misunderstanding and misguided assumptions. One finally > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> thing, they did > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> seem > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to think that it was not a pancea, but rather another > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> useful tool in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> language revitalization efforts. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shannon > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Haifa University > >>>>>>>>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > >>>>>>>>> University > >>>> > >>>> > >> > >> Lise Menn Home Office: 303-444-4274 > >> 1625 Mariposa Ave Fax: 303-413-0017 > >> Boulder CO 80302 > >> home page: http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/ > >> > >> Professor Emerita of Linguistics > >> Fellow, Institute of Cognitive Science > >> University of Colorado > >> > >> Secretary, AAAS Section Z [Linguistics] > >> Fellow, Linguistic Society of America > >> > >> Campus Mail Address: > >> UCB 594, Institute for Cognitive Science > >> > >> Campus Physical Address: > >> CINC 234 > >> 1777 Exposition Ave, Boulder > >> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > Dan I. Slobin > > Professor Emeritus of Psychology and Linguistics > > > > Department of Psychology email: slobin at berkeley.edu > > 3210 Tolman #1650 phone (Dept): 1-510-642-5292 > > University of California phone (home): 1-510-848-1769 > > Berkeley, CA 94720-1650, USA fax: 1-510-642-5293 > > http://psychology.berkeley.edu/faculty/profiles/dslobin.html > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > -- > Elena Lieven > Department of Developmental and Comparative Psychology > Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology > Deutscher Platz 6 > D-04103 Leipzig > Germany > > Tel.+49-(0)341-3550 404 > +49-(0)341-3550 400 (Department Coordinator: Henriette Zeidler) > Fax.+49-(0)341-3550 444 > > and > > Max Planck Child Study Centre > School of Psychological Sciences > University of Manchester > Manchester M13 9PL > UK > > Tel.+44-(0)161-275 2580 > +44-(0)161-275 2444 (Research Secretary: Mickie Glover) > Fax.+44-(0)161-275 8587 > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University From hartmut at ruc.dk Thu Feb 10 10:06:50 2011 From: hartmut at ruc.dk (Hartmut Haberland) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 11:06:50 +0100 Subject: Roseta Stone: Redux In-Reply-To: <1297325963.4d539f8b3ce1a@webmail.haifa.ac.il> Message-ID: The occurrence of /st?d/ (it is not quite clear how to describe it phonetically) in Danish has given rise to much mystification, but it is certainly not the source of any allophony and, besides, its functional load is close to zero. Many Danish speakers don't have it and it never gives rise to serious ambiguities (the standard example is /mor/ 'mother' vs. /mord/ 'murder', the second one with /st?d/, usually disambiguated in context - except in puns, of course). On the other hand, the Danish vowel system is rather complex with 25 phonemes in stressed syllables plus two shwa phonemes. On top of that there are 19 'short' and 19 'long' diphthongs. And some allophonic variation, plus frequent full assimilation of shwa to adjacent sonorants. K?benhavn in relaxed everyday speech has still three syllables, but the second one is a syllabic [m]. As to the Danish spelling system, it may be "antiquated", but still much less so than the English one. While it is very difficult to read an English text aloud (in a comprehensible way) without having undstood the content, this is not nearly as difficult with a Danish text. Of course, Danish spelling is not nearly as systematic visa`-vis the sounds as, e.g. Czech or Finnish (or even German), and there are a few irritating homographs which are not homophones (steg 'roast (of meat)' almost sounds like English 'sty', and steg 'climbed' almost like English 'stay'), but it is much less antiquated as English spelling. (English almosts sides with Arabic and Hebrew, although I admit that there are vowel letters in English. But they contain pretty little information about vowel quality and mark mostly /where/ the vowel phonemes are, not /what/ vowels they represent.) Children with English as their first langauge should have much more problems learning to read and write than Danish ones. Hartmut Haberland (not a native speaker of Danish, but still learning after almost 40 years) Den 10-02-2011 09:19, john at research.haifa.ac.il skrev: > Delays in the acquisition of SPOKEN Danish would presumably be due not to the > vowels (which are similar to other Scandinavian languages and much less > typologically peculiar than e.g. Dutch and some southern USA dialects) but to > the rampant glottalization processe which really are typologically bizarre and > which is the main source of complex allophony. It's the same idea as the > American pronunciation of 'button' or 'mountain' (with no vowel in the second > syllable but rather a syllabic n with a glottal stop before) except that it > occurs not just with alveolar+alveolar but with all combinations and the nasal > isn't syllabic but combined with the preceding consonant in one or another way. > The Danish pronunciation of 'Copenhagen' in natural speech sounds to me like > it's just two syllables long. When I was working on Circassian (the dialect > here has about 60 phonemes, mostly due to double and triple articulations) I > got the same feeling that somewhere along the way native speakers had decided > that it was normal to take neighboring consonantal articulations, even in the > next syllable, and just say them all at the same time. Delays in the > acquisition of WRITTEN Danish, on the other hand, are undoubtedly due to the > antiquated spelling system, which has essentially never been updated. This is > conceptually a separate problem, although they are related in the sense that > many of the counterintuitive spellings are the product of the same historical > process which produced the glottalization processes. > There is no question that the greater difficulty of learning some languages is a > serious problem for some language revival programs. I see much more hope for > reviving Algonquian languages than for reviving Athabascan languages (and > Polynesian languages would be a comparative cinch). I suppose that members of > the groups might recognize this and 'dumb down' the languages in one way or > another (making the morphophonemics simpler, eliminating phonemic contrasts > when one of the sounds is really hard to pronounce, etc.), but obviously this > is their decision. > John > > Quoting Elena Lieven: > >> Dan is right. Of course it depends what is meant by 'acquiring a >> language'. The skills of highly educated people or public speakers and >> great story tellers in oral cultures will not necessarily be acquired by >> all members of a community. Ewa Dabrowska has shown this for some >> aspects of case morphology in Polish and for passives and quantifer >> scope in English - both studies of adult native speakers >> elena lieven >> >> Dan I. Slobin wrote: >>> A few responses to previous postings: >>> >>> Yes, languages with transparent and consistent agglutinative >>> morphology, in the verbal or nominal systems, allow for rapid >>> acquisition, with some productive inflections at the one-word stage. >>> Turkish morphology, having virtually no irregular patterns, is quite >>> securely mastered by age 3 at the latest, and often much earlier. >>> And, in general, complex morphology, of various types, presents no >>> serious problems with regard to acquisition of the basic grammar of >>> the relevant constructions. For details of successful early >>> acquistion of morphology in a number of such "complex"languages see >>> volumes of my crosslinguistic series: Vol. 1 (Hebrew, Polish, >>> Turkish), Vol. 2 (Hungarian), Vol. 3 (Georgian, West Greenlandic, >>> K'iche' Maya, Warlpiri, Sesotho), Vol. 4 (Estonian, Finnish, Korean). >>> Comparable findings are available for the acquisition of Inuktitut, >>> Tzeltal, Tzotzil,Yucatec Maya, Hindi, Tamil, and others. What >>> children find difficult--as do inguists--are multiply-determined >>> and/or unpredictable morphophonological patterns. >>> >>> So it depends on what you want to credit as "total acquisition" or >>> "completion of acquisition." An English-speaking 10-year-old can >>> fluently produce a range of syntactic structures, in various genres >>> and registers, without having mastered all of the irregular verb forms >>> and a number of subordinate syntactic constructions. Furthermore, >>> remember that a bility to produce a pattern in some contexts is far >>> from commanding its full range of semantic and pragmatic functions. >>> And when all of you Funknetters became undergraduate and graduate >>> students, and later professionals, you were still acquiring many >>> aspects of English grammar, vocabulary, and style. Indeed, it goes on >>> throughout the lifespan of an engaged individual. >>> >>> There are no established criteria for full mastery, but there are >>> numerous studies, in all five of the crosslinguistic volumes and >>> elsewhere, of prolonged acquisition of various parts of a linguistic >>> system. >>> >>> As noted, I've written about the error of expecting early child >>> language to mirror pidgins. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Dan (with references following, many of mine available for download at >>> http://psychology.berkeley.edu/faculty/profiles/dslobin.html >>> Slobin, D. I. (1985, 1992, 1997). The crosslinguistic study of >>> language acquisition. Vol. 1: The Data (1985); Vol. 2: Theoretical >>> issues (1985); Vol. 3 (1992); Vol. 4 (1997); Vol. 5: Expanding the >>> contexts (1997). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. >>> Slobin, D. I. (2004). From ontogenesis to phylogenesis: What can >>> child language tell us about language evolution? In J. Langer, S. T. >>> Parker,& C. Milbrath (Eds.), Biology and Knowledge revisited: From >>> neurogenesis to psychogenesis (pp. 255-285). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence >>> Erlbaum Associates. >>> >>> >>> At 03:00 PM 2/9/2011, Lise Menn wrote: >>>> that's right. And child language and pidgin aren't the same, in any >>>> case, for any language I know about, any more than any of them are >>>> telegrams. But there are arcane reaches of languages that most people >>>> don't learn, confounding the definition of what 'acquire' means: >>>> Japanese honorifics and noun classifiers have elegant refinements, >>>> crafts and professions have jargons... >>>> >>>> On Feb 9, 2011, at 1:50 PM, A. Katz wrote: >>>> >>>>> I seem to recall that in "The Evolution of Language Out of Pre- >>>>> Language" Dan Slobin had a sort of dissenting article at the end in >>>>> which he mentioned that Turkish children use grammatical morphology >>>>> at the one word level, so that they are never actually speaking a >>>>> pidgin Turkish at any point in their language development. >>>>> >>>>> --Aya >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Craig Hancock wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Brian, >>>>>> This strikes as a bit like Lake Woebegone (Where all the children >>>>>> are above average). >>>>>> >>>>>> normal Danish children all learn good Danish and become fluent >>>>>> readers >>>>>> >>>>>> Is acquiring a language totally separate from the uses of that >>>>>> language? Are we just acquiring the forms and then differing in our >>>>>> ability to put them to use or are the uses themselves a major part >>>>>> of what we are acquiring? Are lexicon and syntax wholly separate, >>>>>> or do we go on acquiring the lexico-grammar as we enter more deeply >>>>>> into adult worlds of discourse? >>>>>> Anyone in literacy education knows that too many American >>>>>> children fail to reach high levels of fluency as readers and >>>>>> writers. Doesn't that somehow mean they have failed to acquire the >>>>>> language? >>>>>> >>>>>> Craig >>>>>> >>>>>> On 2/9/2011 2:04 PM, Brian MacWhinney wrote: >>>>>>> Fritz, >>>>>>> There are studies in places like the Journal of Child Language by >>>>>>> Dorthe Bleses, Hans Basbרl, and colleagues at Southern Denmark >>>>>>> University on the delay of the acquisition of Danish phonology in >>>>>>> comparison to other European languages, mostly attributed to the >>>>>>> complexities of the vowel system and the various assimilatory >>>>>>> processes. There is a corresponding delay in the acquisition of >>>>>>> reading by Danish children that was observed in the cross-European >>>>>>> PISA project. All of this is well documented in the literature, >>>>>>> but it is rather marginal and transitory. Eventually, normal >>>>>>> Danish children all learn good Danish and become fluent readers. >>>>>>> -- Brian MacWhinney >>>>>>> On Feb 9, 2011, at 1:27 PM, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: >>>>>>>> A propos, are there any published studies out there that point to >>>>>>>> measurable difference in rate of completion of first-language >>>>>>>> acquisition by speakers of one language compared to another? Or >>>>>>>> even of mastery of one aspect of L1 acquisition (phonology, >>>>>>>> morphology, etc.) by speakers of one language compared to another? >>>>>>>> --fritz >>>>>>>> Frederick J. Newmeyer >>>>>>>> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington >>>>>>>> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon >>>>>>>> Fraser University >>>>>>>> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] >>>>>>>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, A. Katz wrote: >>>>>>>>> Tom, >>>>>>>>> If the language is dying, then the advice not to listen to >>>>>>>>> somebody under forty because they don't know how to speak may be >>>>>>>>> sound, but not for the reason that you suggest. It could be >>>>>>>>> there are no fluent speakers under forty. It seems very unlikely >>>>>>>>> that one would have to arrive at age forty before acquiring >>>>>>>>> fluency, especially in a hunter gatherer culture where death >>>>>>>>> before forty might be quite common. >>>>>>>>> But if you have evidence to the contrary that fully immersed, >>>>>>>>> monolingual young speakers of a language cannot speak it with >>>>>>>>> communicative effect until age forty, then this is a big >>>>>>>>> discovery that ought to be published and shared with the >>>>>>>>> scientific community. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> --Aya >>>>>>>>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Right on, John. And one could make a prediction--hopefully >>>>>>>>>> someday to be tested by acquisition studies--that Navajo kids >>>>>>>>>> will not master the fully complexcity of the Athabaskan verb by >>>>>>>>>> age 10, or 15, or 20. I once reviewed a grammar in Papua New >>>>>>>>>> Guniea of a language that had comparable complexity on the verb >>>>>>>>>> (three positions, 6-8 categoriers each, massive zeroing& >>>>>>>>>> morphonemic). I had to ask Carle Whitehead--is this guy for >>>>>>>>>> real? He said, yes, he's been in the island for 20 years, >>>>>>>>>> really knows his stuff. So I asked the guy--at what age are >>>>>>>>>> kids considered fuill-fledged speakers? He said-- the old >>>>>>>>>> people say, don't listen to anybody under forty, they don't >>>>>>>>>> know how to speak. In my work with the Utes, one exchange has >>>>>>>>>> stuck out, an elder (ka-para'ni-wa-t, he's not walking about >>>>>>>>>> any more) who was pointed to me as the best orator in the >>>>>>>>>> tribe. I told him that, and he said: "Oh, I am nothing. You >>>>>>>>>> should have heard the Old Ones; when they spoke, you could see >>>>>>>>>> it all in front of your eyes". Part of it is due to the complex >>>>>>>>>> Ute deictic system, which invades NPs, ADVs& the verb. The >>>>>>>>>> combinations, and the subtle choices of when to combine the >>>>>>>>>> deictic particle with other categories, are a whole wond(e)rous >>>>>>>>>> world. Cheers, TG >>>>>>>>>> ========== >>>>>>>>>> On 2/9/2011 10:13 AM, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Aya, >>>>>>>>>>> I think I was the one who said first that Navajo is not a >>>>>>>>>>> language for >>>>>>>>>>> amateurs. I'll second what Tom said--you should learn something >>>>>>>>>>> about Navajo (or some other Athabaskan language) before making >>>>>>>>>>> statements like this. Some languages are just plain >>>>>>>>>>> objectively harder than >>>>>>>>>>> others, regardless of typological similarly to one's native >>>>>>>>>>> language. If you >>>>>>>>>>> don't believe this, do an experiment in which you take >>>>>>>>>>> speakers of English, >>>>>>>>>>> Turkish, Georgian, Chinese, whatever you want, try to teach >>>>>>>>>>> them Navajo, Hopi, >>>>>>>>>>> and Cree (for example), and see which one gives them the most >>>>>>>>>>> trouble. >>>>>>>>>>> I guarantee it will be Navajo. And there is an objective >>>>>>>>>>> reason for it-- >>>>>>>>>>> the morphophonemics are just unbelievably complex. >>>>>>>>>>> John >>>>>>>>>>> Quoting "A. Katz": >>>>>>>>>>>> Tom, >>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think that is a valid viewpoint with regard to >>>>>>>>>>>> Athabaskan or any >>>>>>>>>>>> other language family. >>>>>>>>>>>> Victor Golla earlier had a much better phrasing when he wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> "Let that read: "A language that is not for amateurs is not for >>>>>>>>>>>> ADULT people."" >>>>>>>>>>>> But in fact no language is easy for adults to learn who have >>>>>>>>>>>> not already >>>>>>>>>>>> learned a language with a similar typology. If your native >>>>>>>>>>>> language works >>>>>>>>>>>> similarly to the one you are learning, then you have an >>>>>>>>>>>> enormous advantage >>>>>>>>>>>> as an adult second language learner. >>>>>>>>>>>> The remark about how Navajo is not for amateurs was made in >>>>>>>>>>>> the context of >>>>>>>>>>>> people who have no experience with languages of a similar >>>>>>>>>>>> typology. >>>>>>>>>>>> To make this a universal statement about the difficulty of >>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo without >>>>>>>>>>>> qualification is to suggest that some languages are "easy" >>>>>>>>>>>> and others are >>>>>>>>>>>> "impossible". Not only is this not true from an objective >>>>>>>>>>>> standpoint, it >>>>>>>>>>>> also perpetuates the prejudice that English (or IE) is a >>>>>>>>>>>> "normal" language >>>>>>>>>>>> and that every language should be measured against this norm. >>>>>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>>>>> --Aya >>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Before you actually tried to learn an Athabaskan language, >>>>>>>>>>>>> or at the very >>>>>>>>>>>>> least worked on one, maybe you had better refrain from >>>>>>>>>>>>> asserting that "a >>>>>>>>>>>>> language that is not for amateurs is not for people". TG >>>>>>>>>>>>> ========= >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/8/2011 6:33 AM, A. Katz wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> A language that is not for amateurs is not for people. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> This has nothing to do with RS or computer language >>>>>>>>>>>>>> teaching. As others >>>>>>>>>>>>>> have stated, the technologically based systems are not a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> panacea. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> But a language that ordinary people can't pick by talking >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to their parents >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in childhood is either dead already or not a human language. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> --Aya >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would be amazed if a single person actually learns to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speak Navajo >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using Rosetta Stone. This is not a language for amateurs. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> John >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Quoting "s.t. bischoff": >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Over the last week I was involved with an event at the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> American Indian >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Language Development Institute and the folks that created >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Navajo >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rosetta >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stone gave a short talk about the software. What follows >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is my >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of how it came to be. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Navajo Rosetta Stones was created in collaboration >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with Rosetta >>>>>>>>>>>> Stone >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the non-profit Navajo Language Renaissance (NLR). NLR >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a >>>>>>>>>>>> non-profit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> organization that is NOT affiliated with the tribal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> council or >>>>>>>>>>>> government >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any way, for obvious reasons I think (e.g. getting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> council approval for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> project). However, it has been endorsed by the school >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> leadership and NLR >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actively trying to get the school district to adopt the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> software. You >>>>>>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> view the NLR website here >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ A >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-community member started NLR after using Rosetta >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stone to learn >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Russian. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> She thought it would be good if Rosetta Stone created a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo version. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> She >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contacted Rosetta Stone (RS), and they told her they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would provide here >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the software to develop the lessons, a photographer, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> technical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assistants (limited on the ground, mostly by phone) to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> develop the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> program >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for $300,000. Another option would be for her to apply >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for a grant from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RS >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to cover most of the costs. So the NLR was created, a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> partnership >>>>>>>>>>>> between >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community members and one non-community member, as a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non- profit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> organization and applied. RS gave two grants the year >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they applied, one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> went >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to NLR. The grant covered all but $27,000 of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> $300,000. So NLR had to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pay >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RS $27,000 to have access to the software to create the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stone. This means they had to create the lessons and pay >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speakers and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> informants themselves. RS provided the software, a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> photographer, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> technical support for the $27,000. NLR now is the only >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> group that can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sell >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone, which they do for $150 per license >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and $200 for a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> personal box set. It is not clear if they have to pay RS >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a percentage of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those revenues or not. When I asked a clear answer wasn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> given. NLR >>>>>>>>>>>> also >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has a "training" session for administrators and teachers >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which costs >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> $1500 a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> day and $400 per 3 hours. Needless to say, it is not un- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> controversial in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community for many of the usual reasons. Ironically, the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speaker after >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rosetta Stone folks gave a talk that demonstrated how to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> create nearly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> identical language lessons as Rosetta Stone's simply >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using power point. >>>>>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was encouraged to let folks know that they should contact >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the NLR if >>>>>>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have any questions at mbittinger at rosettastone.com. You >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can try a free >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introductory lesson here >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ The >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> folks >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at NLR praised RS for their efforts and felt they had >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really done them a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> service. In short, they were very happy with the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arrangement and how it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> working out. They were also upset by the controversies >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> surrounding the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone and felt they were really the result >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> misunderstanding and misguided assumptions. One finally >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thing, they did >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seem >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to think that it was not a pancea, but rather another >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> useful tool in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language revitalization efforts. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shannon >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Haifa University >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa >>>>>>>>>>> University >>>>>> >>>> Lise Menn Home Office: 303-444-4274 >>>> 1625 Mariposa Ave Fax: 303-413-0017 >>>> Boulder CO 80302 >>>> home page: http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/ >>>> >>>> Professor Emerita of Linguistics >>>> Fellow, Institute of Cognitive Science >>>> University of Colorado >>>> >>>> Secretary, AAAS Section Z [Linguistics] >>>> Fellow, Linguistic Society of America >>>> >>>> Campus Mail Address: >>>> UCB 594, Institute for Cognitive Science >>>> >>>> Campus Physical Address: >>>> CINC 234 >>>> 1777 Exposition Ave, Boulder >>>> >>>> >>> Dan I. Slobin >>> Professor Emeritus of Psychology and Linguistics >>> >>> Department of Psychology email: slobin at berkeley.edu >>> 3210 Tolman #1650 phone (Dept): 1-510-642-5292 >>> University of California phone (home): 1-510-848-1769 >>> Berkeley, CA 94720-1650, USA fax: 1-510-642-5293 >>> http://psychology.berkeley.edu/faculty/profiles/dslobin.html >>> >>> >> -- >> Elena Lieven >> Department of Developmental and Comparative Psychology >> Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology >> Deutscher Platz 6 >> D-04103 Leipzig >> Germany >> >> Tel.+49-(0)341-3550 404 >> +49-(0)341-3550 400 (Department Coordinator: Henriette Zeidler) >> Fax.+49-(0)341-3550 444 >> >> and >> >> Max Planck Child Study Centre >> School of Psychological Sciences >> University of Manchester >> Manchester M13 9PL >> UK >> >> Tel.+44-(0)161-275 2580 >> +44-(0)161-275 2444 (Research Secretary: Mickie Glover) >> Fax.+44-(0)161-275 8587 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University From john at research.haifa.ac.il Thu Feb 10 11:35:13 2011 From: john at research.haifa.ac.il (john at research.haifa.ac.il) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 13:35:13 +0200 Subject: Roseta Stone: Redux In-Reply-To: <4D53B8BA.6040309@ruc.dk> Message-ID: The reason that I suspected stod (sorry my computer can't type the slash) as producing particular problems rather than the vowel system is that as far as I know (which isn't much...) the vowel system of Danish isn't so different from that of other Scandinavian languages, at least not in a way so as to cause particular difficulties, whereas there's nothing intimidating like stod in other Scandinavian languages (or, for me at least, in European languages at all). The question isn't whether it causes ambiguities, the question is how hard it is to say accurately. I thought I had read that it is associated with some changes in the preceding vowel (lengthening or shortening?), but maybe I got this confused with something else. I believe that Danes perceive the first nasal in their pronunciation of Copenhagen as a syllabic nasal, but to a second language learner its duration in normal speech can be so brief that it's hard to hear as a separate syllable (I remember attempting to pronounce it like the second syllable of English 'something' when pronounced like 'sumpm' with a syllabic m and a Dane telling me they would only say it like that when speaking carefully). In fact English spelling is indeed antiquated and reading researchers have read that Danish and English are the two most difficult European languages to learn to read at a basic level. John Quoting Hartmut Haberland : > The occurrence of /st?d/ (it is not quite clear how to describe it > phonetically) in Danish has given rise to much mystification, but it is > certainly not the source of any allophony and, besides, its functional > load is close to zero. Many Danish speakers don't have it and it never > gives rise to serious ambiguities (the standard example is /mor/ > 'mother' vs. /mord/ 'murder', the second one with /st?d/, usually > disambiguated in context - except in puns, of course). On the other > hand, the Danish vowel system is rather complex with 25 phonemes in > stressed syllables plus two shwa phonemes. On top of that there are 19 > 'short' and 19 'long' diphthongs. And some allophonic variation, plus > frequent full assimilation of shwa to adjacent sonorants. > > K?benhavn in relaxed everyday speech has still three syllables, but the > second one is a syllabic [m]. > > As to the Danish spelling system, it may be "antiquated", but still > much less so than the English one. While it is very difficult to read an > English text aloud (in a comprehensible way) without having undstood the > content, this is not nearly as difficult with a Danish text. Of course, > Danish spelling is not nearly as systematic visa`-vis the sounds as, > e.g. Czech or Finnish (or even German), and there are a few irritating > homographs which are not homophones (steg 'roast (of meat)' almost > sounds like English 'sty', and steg 'climbed' almost like English > 'stay'), but it is much less antiquated as English spelling. (English > almosts sides with Arabic and Hebrew, although I admit that there are > vowel letters in English. But they contain pretty little information > about vowel quality and mark mostly /where/ the vowel phonemes are, not > /what/ vowels they represent.) Children with English as their first > langauge should have much more problems learning to read and write than > Danish ones. > > Hartmut Haberland > (not a native speaker of Danish, but still learning after almost 40 years) > > Den 10-02-2011 09:19, john at research.haifa.ac.il skrev: > > Delays in the acquisition of SPOKEN Danish would presumably be due not to > the > > vowels (which are similar to other Scandinavian languages and much less > > typologically peculiar than e.g. Dutch and some southern USA dialects) but > to > > the rampant glottalization processe which really are typologically bizarre > and > > which is the main source of complex allophony. It's the same idea as the > > American pronunciation of 'button' or 'mountain' (with no vowel in the > second > > syllable but rather a syllabic n with a glottal stop before) except that it > > occurs not just with alveolar+alveolar but with all combinations and the > nasal > > isn't syllabic but combined with the preceding consonant in one or another > way. > > The Danish pronunciation of 'Copenhagen' in natural speech sounds to me > like > > it's just two syllables long. When I was working on Circassian (the dialect > > here has about 60 phonemes, mostly due to double and triple articulations) > I > > got the same feeling that somewhere along the way native speakers had > decided > > that it was normal to take neighboring consonantal articulations, even in > the > > next syllable, and just say them all at the same time. Delays in the > > acquisition of WRITTEN Danish, on the other hand, are undoubtedly due to > the > > antiquated spelling system, which has essentially never been updated. This > is > > conceptually a separate problem, although they are related in the sense > that > > many of the counterintuitive spellings are the product of the same > historical > > process which produced the glottalization processes. > > There is no question that the greater difficulty of learning some languages > is a > > serious problem for some language revival programs. I see much more hope > for > > reviving Algonquian languages than for reviving Athabascan languages (and > > Polynesian languages would be a comparative cinch). I suppose that members > of > > the groups might recognize this and 'dumb down' the languages in one way or > > another (making the morphophonemics simpler, eliminating phonemic contrasts > > when one of the sounds is really hard to pronounce, etc.), but obviously > this > > is their decision. > > John > > > > Quoting Elena Lieven: > > > >> Dan is right. Of course it depends what is meant by 'acquiring a > >> language'. The skills of highly educated people or public speakers and > >> great story tellers in oral cultures will not necessarily be acquired by > >> all members of a community. Ewa Dabrowska has shown this for some > >> aspects of case morphology in Polish and for passives and quantifer > >> scope in English - both studies of adult native speakers > >> elena lieven > >> > >> Dan I. Slobin wrote: > >>> A few responses to previous postings: > >>> > >>> Yes, languages with transparent and consistent agglutinative > >>> morphology, in the verbal or nominal systems, allow for rapid > >>> acquisition, with some productive inflections at the one-word stage. > >>> Turkish morphology, having virtually no irregular patterns, is quite > >>> securely mastered by age 3 at the latest, and often much earlier. > >>> And, in general, complex morphology, of various types, presents no > >>> serious problems with regard to acquisition of the basic grammar of > >>> the relevant constructions. For details of successful early > >>> acquistion of morphology in a number of such "complex"languages see > >>> volumes of my crosslinguistic series: Vol. 1 (Hebrew, Polish, > >>> Turkish), Vol. 2 (Hungarian), Vol. 3 (Georgian, West Greenlandic, > >>> K'iche' Maya, Warlpiri, Sesotho), Vol. 4 (Estonian, Finnish, Korean). > >>> Comparable findings are available for the acquisition of Inuktitut, > >>> Tzeltal, Tzotzil,Yucatec Maya, Hindi, Tamil, and others. What > >>> children find difficult--as do inguists--are multiply-determined > >>> and/or unpredictable morphophonological patterns. > >>> > >>> So it depends on what you want to credit as "total acquisition" or > >>> "completion of acquisition." An English-speaking 10-year-old can > >>> fluently produce a range of syntactic structures, in various genres > >>> and registers, without having mastered all of the irregular verb forms > >>> and a number of subordinate syntactic constructions. Furthermore, > >>> remember that a bility to produce a pattern in some contexts is far > >>> from commanding its full range of semantic and pragmatic functions. > >>> And when all of you Funknetters became undergraduate and graduate > >>> students, and later professionals, you were still acquiring many > >>> aspects of English grammar, vocabulary, and style. Indeed, it goes on > >>> throughout the lifespan of an engaged individual. > >>> > >>> There are no established criteria for full mastery, but there are > >>> numerous studies, in all five of the crosslinguistic volumes and > >>> elsewhere, of prolonged acquisition of various parts of a linguistic > >>> system. > >>> > >>> As noted, I've written about the error of expecting early child > >>> language to mirror pidgins. > >>> > >>> Best, > >>> > >>> Dan (with references following, many of mine available for download at > >>> http://psychology.berkeley.edu/faculty/profiles/dslobin.html > >>> Slobin, D. I. (1985, 1992, 1997). The crosslinguistic study of > >>> language acquisition. Vol. 1: The Data (1985); Vol. 2: Theoretical > >>> issues (1985); Vol. 3 (1992); Vol. 4 (1997); Vol. 5: Expanding the > >>> contexts (1997). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. > >>> Slobin, D. I. (2004). From ontogenesis to phylogenesis: What can > >>> child language tell us about language evolution? In J. Langer, S. T. > >>> Parker,& C. Milbrath (Eds.), Biology and Knowledge revisited: From > >>> neurogenesis to psychogenesis (pp. 255-285). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence > >>> Erlbaum Associates. > >>> > >>> > >>> At 03:00 PM 2/9/2011, Lise Menn wrote: > >>>> that's right. And child language and pidgin aren't the same, in any > >>>> case, for any language I know about, any more than any of them are > >>>> telegrams. But there are arcane reaches of languages that most people > >>>> don't learn, confounding the definition of what 'acquire' means: > >>>> Japanese honorifics and noun classifiers have elegant refinements, > >>>> crafts and professions have jargons... > >>>> > >>>> On Feb 9, 2011, at 1:50 PM, A. Katz wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> I seem to recall that in "The Evolution of Language Out of Pre- > >>>>> Language" Dan Slobin had a sort of dissenting article at the end in > >>>>> which he mentioned that Turkish children use grammatical morphology > >>>>> at the one word level, so that they are never actually speaking a > >>>>> pidgin Turkish at any point in their language development. > >>>>> > >>>>> --Aya > >>>>> > >>>>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Craig Hancock wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Brian, > >>>>>> This strikes as a bit like Lake Woebegone (Where all the children > >>>>>> are above average). > >>>>>> > >>>>>> normal Danish children all learn good Danish and become fluent > >>>>>> readers > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Is acquiring a language totally separate from the uses of that > >>>>>> language? Are we just acquiring the forms and then differing in our > >>>>>> ability to put them to use or are the uses themselves a major part > >>>>>> of what we are acquiring? Are lexicon and syntax wholly separate, > >>>>>> or do we go on acquiring the lexico-grammar as we enter more deeply > >>>>>> into adult worlds of discourse? > >>>>>> Anyone in literacy education knows that too many American > >>>>>> children fail to reach high levels of fluency as readers and > >>>>>> writers. Doesn't that somehow mean they have failed to acquire the > >>>>>> language? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Craig > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On 2/9/2011 2:04 PM, Brian MacWhinney wrote: > >>>>>>> Fritz, > >>>>>>> There are studies in places like the Journal of Child Language by > >>>>>>> Dorthe Bleses, Hans Basbרl, and colleagues at Southern Denmark > >>>>>>> University on the delay of the acquisition of Danish phonology in > >>>>>>> comparison to other European languages, mostly attributed to the > >>>>>>> complexities of the vowel system and the various assimilatory > >>>>>>> processes. There is a corresponding delay in the acquisition of > >>>>>>> reading by Danish children that was observed in the cross-European > >>>>>>> PISA project. All of this is well documented in the literature, > >>>>>>> but it is rather marginal and transitory. Eventually, normal > >>>>>>> Danish children all learn good Danish and become fluent readers. > >>>>>>> -- Brian MacWhinney > >>>>>>> On Feb 9, 2011, at 1:27 PM, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > >>>>>>>> A propos, are there any published studies out there that point to > >>>>>>>> measurable difference in rate of completion of first-language > >>>>>>>> acquisition by speakers of one language compared to another? Or > >>>>>>>> even of mastery of one aspect of L1 acquisition (phonology, > >>>>>>>> morphology, etc.) by speakers of one language compared to another? > >>>>>>>> --fritz > >>>>>>>> Frederick J. Newmeyer > >>>>>>>> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > >>>>>>>> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon > >>>>>>>> Fraser University > >>>>>>>> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > >>>>>>>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, A. Katz wrote: > >>>>>>>>> Tom, > >>>>>>>>> If the language is dying, then the advice not to listen to > >>>>>>>>> somebody under forty because they don't know how to speak may be > >>>>>>>>> sound, but not for the reason that you suggest. It could be > >>>>>>>>> there are no fluent speakers under forty. It seems very unlikely > >>>>>>>>> that one would have to arrive at age forty before acquiring > >>>>>>>>> fluency, especially in a hunter gatherer culture where death > >>>>>>>>> before forty might be quite common. > >>>>>>>>> But if you have evidence to the contrary that fully immersed, > >>>>>>>>> monolingual young speakers of a language cannot speak it with > >>>>>>>>> communicative effect until age forty, then this is a big > >>>>>>>>> discovery that ought to be published and shared with the > >>>>>>>>> scientific community. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> --Aya > >>>>>>>>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> Right on, John. And one could make a prediction--hopefully > >>>>>>>>>> someday to be tested by acquisition studies--that Navajo kids > >>>>>>>>>> will not master the fully complexcity of the Athabaskan verb by > >>>>>>>>>> age 10, or 15, or 20. I once reviewed a grammar in Papua New > >>>>>>>>>> Guniea of a language that had comparable complexity on the verb > >>>>>>>>>> (three positions, 6-8 categoriers each, massive zeroing& > >>>>>>>>>> morphonemic). I had to ask Carle Whitehead--is this guy for > >>>>>>>>>> real? He said, yes, he's been in the island for 20 years, > >>>>>>>>>> really knows his stuff. So I asked the guy--at what age are > >>>>>>>>>> kids considered fuill-fledged speakers? He said-- the old > >>>>>>>>>> people say, don't listen to anybody under forty, they don't > >>>>>>>>>> know how to speak. In my work with the Utes, one exchange has > >>>>>>>>>> stuck out, an elder (ka-para'ni-wa-t, he's not walking about > >>>>>>>>>> any more) who was pointed to me as the best orator in the > >>>>>>>>>> tribe. I told him that, and he said: "Oh, I am nothing. You > >>>>>>>>>> should have heard the Old Ones; when they spoke, you could see > >>>>>>>>>> it all in front of your eyes". Part of it is due to the complex > >>>>>>>>>> Ute deictic system, which invades NPs, ADVs& the verb. The > >>>>>>>>>> combinations, and the subtle choices of when to combine the > >>>>>>>>>> deictic particle with other categories, are a whole wond(e)rous > >>>>>>>>>> world. Cheers, TG > >>>>>>>>>> ========== > >>>>>>>>>> On 2/9/2011 10:13 AM, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> Aya, > >>>>>>>>>>> I think I was the one who said first that Navajo is not a > >>>>>>>>>>> language for > >>>>>>>>>>> amateurs. I'll second what Tom said--you should learn something > >>>>>>>>>>> about Navajo (or some other Athabaskan language) before making > >>>>>>>>>>> statements like this. Some languages are just plain > >>>>>>>>>>> objectively harder than > >>>>>>>>>>> others, regardless of typological similarly to one's native > >>>>>>>>>>> language. If you > >>>>>>>>>>> don't believe this, do an experiment in which you take > >>>>>>>>>>> speakers of English, > >>>>>>>>>>> Turkish, Georgian, Chinese, whatever you want, try to teach > >>>>>>>>>>> them Navajo, Hopi, > >>>>>>>>>>> and Cree (for example), and see which one gives them the most > >>>>>>>>>>> trouble. > >>>>>>>>>>> I guarantee it will be Navajo. And there is an objective > >>>>>>>>>>> reason for it-- > >>>>>>>>>>> the morphophonemics are just unbelievably complex. > >>>>>>>>>>> John > >>>>>>>>>>> Quoting "A. Katz": > >>>>>>>>>>>> Tom, > >>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think that is a valid viewpoint with regard to > >>>>>>>>>>>> Athabaskan or any > >>>>>>>>>>>> other language family. > >>>>>>>>>>>> Victor Golla earlier had a much better phrasing when he wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> "Let that read: "A language that is not for amateurs is not for > >>>>>>>>>>>> ADULT people."" > >>>>>>>>>>>> But in fact no language is easy for adults to learn who have > >>>>>>>>>>>> not already > >>>>>>>>>>>> learned a language with a similar typology. If your native > >>>>>>>>>>>> language works > >>>>>>>>>>>> similarly to the one you are learning, then you have an > >>>>>>>>>>>> enormous advantage > >>>>>>>>>>>> as an adult second language learner. > >>>>>>>>>>>> The remark about how Navajo is not for amateurs was made in > >>>>>>>>>>>> the context of > >>>>>>>>>>>> people who have no experience with languages of a similar > >>>>>>>>>>>> typology. > >>>>>>>>>>>> To make this a universal statement about the difficulty of > >>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo without > >>>>>>>>>>>> qualification is to suggest that some languages are "easy" > >>>>>>>>>>>> and others are > >>>>>>>>>>>> "impossible". Not only is this not true from an objective > >>>>>>>>>>>> standpoint, it > >>>>>>>>>>>> also perpetuates the prejudice that English (or IE) is a > >>>>>>>>>>>> "normal" language > >>>>>>>>>>>> and that every language should be measured against this norm. > >>>>>>>>>>>> Best, > >>>>>>>>>>>> --Aya > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Before you actually tried to learn an Athabaskan language, > >>>>>>>>>>>>> or at the very > >>>>>>>>>>>>> least worked on one, maybe you had better refrain from > >>>>>>>>>>>>> asserting that "a > >>>>>>>>>>>>> language that is not for amateurs is not for people". TG > >>>>>>>>>>>>> ========= > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/8/2011 6:33 AM, A. Katz wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> A language that is not for amateurs is not for people. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> This has nothing to do with RS or computer language > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> teaching. As others > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> have stated, the technologically based systems are not a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> panacea. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> But a language that ordinary people can't pick by talking > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to their parents > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in childhood is either dead already or not a human language. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> --Aya > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would be amazed if a single person actually learns to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speak Navajo > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using Rosetta Stone. This is not a language for amateurs. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> John > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Quoting "s.t. bischoff": > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Over the last week I was involved with an event at the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> American Indian > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Language Development Institute and the folks that created > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Navajo > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rosetta > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stone gave a short talk about the software. What follows > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is my > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of how it came to be. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Navajo Rosetta Stones was created in collaboration > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with Rosetta > >>>>>>>>>>>> Stone > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the non-profit Navajo Language Renaissance (NLR). NLR > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a > >>>>>>>>>>>> non-profit > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> organization that is NOT affiliated with the tribal > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> council or > >>>>>>>>>>>> government > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any way, for obvious reasons I think (e.g. getting > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> council approval for > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> project). However, it has been endorsed by the school > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> leadership and NLR > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actively trying to get the school district to adopt the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> software. You > >>>>>>>>>>>> can > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> view the NLR website here > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ A > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-community member started NLR after using Rosetta > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stone to learn > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Russian. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> She thought it would be good if Rosetta Stone created a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo version. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> She > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contacted Rosetta Stone (RS), and they told her they > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would provide here > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the software to develop the lessons, a photographer, and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> technical > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assistants (limited on the ground, mostly by phone) to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> develop the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> program > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for $300,000. Another option would be for her to apply > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for a grant from > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RS > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to cover most of the costs. So the NLR was created, a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> partnership > >>>>>>>>>>>> between > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community members and one non-community member, as a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non- profit > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> organization and applied. RS gave two grants the year > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they applied, one > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> went > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to NLR. The grant covered all but $27,000 of the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> $300,000. So NLR had to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pay > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RS $27,000 to have access to the software to create the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stone. This means they had to create the lessons and pay > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speakers and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> informants themselves. RS provided the software, a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> photographer, and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> technical support for the $27,000. NLR now is the only > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> group that can > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sell > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone, which they do for $150 per license > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and $200 for a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> personal box set. It is not clear if they have to pay RS > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a percentage of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those revenues or not. When I asked a clear answer wasn't > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> given. NLR > >>>>>>>>>>>> also > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has a "training" session for administrators and teachers > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which costs > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> $1500 a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> day and $400 per 3 hours. Needless to say, it is not un- > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> controversial in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community for many of the usual reasons. Ironically, the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speaker after > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rosetta Stone folks gave a talk that demonstrated how to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> create nearly > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> identical language lessons as Rosetta Stone's simply > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using power point. > >>>>>>>>>>>> I > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was encouraged to let folks know that they should contact > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the NLR if > >>>>>>>>>>>> they > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have any questions at mbittinger at rosettastone.com. You > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can try a free > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introductory lesson here > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ The > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> folks > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at NLR praised RS for their efforts and felt they had > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really done them a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> service. In short, they were very happy with the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arrangement and how it > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> working out. They were also upset by the controversies > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> surrounding the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone and felt they were really the result > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> misunderstanding and misguided assumptions. One finally > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thing, they did > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seem > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to think that it was not a pancea, but rather another > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> useful tool in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language revitalization efforts. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shannon > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Haifa University > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>>>>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > >>>>>>>>>>> University > >>>>>> > >>>> Lise Menn Home Office: 303-444-4274 > >>>> 1625 Mariposa Ave Fax: 303-413-0017 > >>>> Boulder CO 80302 > >>>> home page: http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/ > >>>> > >>>> Professor Emerita of Linguistics > >>>> Fellow, Institute of Cognitive Science > >>>> University of Colorado > >>>> > >>>> Secretary, AAAS Section Z [Linguistics] > >>>> Fellow, Linguistic Society of America > >>>> > >>>> Campus Mail Address: > >>>> UCB 594, Institute for Cognitive Science > >>>> > >>>> Campus Physical Address: > >>>> CINC 234 > >>>> 1777 Exposition Ave, Boulder > >>>> > >>>> > >>> Dan I. Slobin > >>> Professor Emeritus of Psychology and Linguistics > >>> > >>> Department of Psychology email: slobin at berkeley.edu > >>> 3210 Tolman #1650 phone (Dept): 1-510-642-5292 > >>> University of California phone (home): 1-510-848-1769 > >>> Berkeley, CA 94720-1650, USA fax: 1-510-642-5293 > >>> http://psychology.berkeley.edu/faculty/profiles/dslobin.html > >>> > >>> > >> -- > >> Elena Lieven > >> Department of Developmental and Comparative Psychology > >> Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology > >> Deutscher Platz 6 > >> D-04103 Leipzig > >> Germany > >> > >> Tel.+49-(0)341-3550 404 > >> +49-(0)341-3550 400 (Department Coordinator: Henriette Zeidler) > >> Fax.+49-(0)341-3550 444 > >> > >> and > >> > >> Max Planck Child Study Centre > >> School of Psychological Sciences > >> University of Manchester > >> Manchester M13 9PL > >> UK > >> > >> Tel.+44-(0)161-275 2580 > >> +44-(0)161-275 2444 (Research Secretary: Mickie Glover) > >> Fax.+44-(0)161-275 8587 > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University From hancock at albany.edu Thu Feb 10 14:14:13 2011 From: hancock at albany.edu (Craig Hancock) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 09:14:13 -0500 Subject: Roseta Stone: Redux In-Reply-To: <4D539098.6040105@eva.mpg.de> Message-ID: What is the current status of the competence performance distinction from the functional side? Craig On 2/10/2011 2:15 AM, Elena Lieven wrote: > Dan is right. Of course it depends what is meant by 'acquiring a > language'. The skills of highly educated people or public speakers > and great story tellers in oral cultures will not necessarily be > acquired by all members of a community. Ewa Dabrowska has shown this > for some aspects of case morphology in Polish and for passives and > quantifer scope in English - both studies of adult native speakers > elena lieven > > Dan I. Slobin wrote: >> A few responses to previous postings: >> >> Yes, languages with transparent and consistent agglutinative >> morphology, in the verbal or nominal systems, allow for rapid >> acquisition, with some productive inflections at the one-word stage. >> Turkish morphology, having virtually no irregular patterns, is quite >> securely mastered by age 3 at the latest, and often much earlier. >> And, in general, complex morphology, of various types, presents no >> serious problems with regard to acquisition of the basic grammar of >> the relevant constructions. For details of successful early >> acquistion of morphology in a number of such "complex"languages see >> volumes of my crosslinguistic series: Vol. 1 (Hebrew, Polish, >> Turkish), Vol. 2 (Hungarian), Vol. 3 (Georgian, West Greenlandic, >> K'iche' Maya, Warlpiri, Sesotho), Vol. 4 (Estonian, Finnish, >> Korean). Comparable findings are available for the acquisition of >> Inuktitut, Tzeltal, Tzotzil,Yucatec Maya, Hindi, Tamil, and others. >> What children find difficult--as do inguists--are multiply-determined >> and/or unpredictable morphophonological patterns. >> >> So it depends on what you want to credit as "total acquisition" or >> "completion of acquisition." An English-speaking 10-year-old can >> fluently produce a range of syntactic structures, in various genres >> and registers, without having mastered all of the irregular verb >> forms and a number of subordinate syntactic constructions. >> Furthermore, remember that a bility to produce a pattern in some >> contexts is far from commanding its full range of semantic and >> pragmatic functions. And when all of you Funknetters became >> undergraduate and graduate students, and later professionals, you >> were still acquiring many aspects of English grammar, vocabulary, and >> style. Indeed, it goes on throughout the lifespan of an engaged >> individual. >> >> There are no established criteria for full mastery, but there are >> numerous studies, in all five of the crosslinguistic volumes and >> elsewhere, of prolonged acquisition of various parts of a linguistic >> system. >> >> As noted, I've written about the error of expecting early child >> language to mirror pidgins. >> >> Best, >> >> Dan (with references following, many of mine available for download >> at http://psychology.berkeley.edu/faculty/profiles/dslobin.html >> Slobin, D. I. (1985, 1992, 1997). The crosslinguistic study of >> language acquisition. Vol. 1: The Data (1985); Vol. 2: Theoretical >> issues (1985); Vol. 3 (1992); Vol. 4 (1997); Vol. 5: Expanding the >> contexts (1997). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. >> Slobin, D. I. (2004). From ontogenesis to phylogenesis: What can >> child language tell us about language evolution? In J. Langer, S. T. >> Parker, & C. Milbrath (Eds.), Biology and Knowledge revisited: From >> neurogenesis to psychogenesis (pp. 255-285). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence >> Erlbaum Associates. >> >> >> At 03:00 PM 2/9/2011, Lise Menn wrote: >>> that's right. And child language and pidgin aren't the same, in any >>> case, for any language I know about, any more than any of them are >>> telegrams. But there are arcane reaches of languages that most people >>> don't learn, confounding the definition of what 'acquire' means: >>> Japanese honorifics and noun classifiers have elegant refinements, >>> crafts and professions have jargons... >>> >>> On Feb 9, 2011, at 1:50 PM, A. Katz wrote: >>> >>>> I seem to recall that in "The Evolution of Language Out of Pre- >>>> Language" Dan Slobin had a sort of dissenting article at the end in >>>> which he mentioned that Turkish children use grammatical morphology >>>> at the one word level, so that they are never actually speaking a >>>> pidgin Turkish at any point in their language development. >>>> >>>> --Aya >>>> >>>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Craig Hancock wrote: >>>> >>>>> Brian, >>>>> This strikes as a bit like Lake Woebegone (Where all the children >>>>> are above average). >>>>> >>>>> normal Danish children all learn good Danish and become fluent >>>>> readers >>>>> >>>>> Is acquiring a language totally separate from the uses of that >>>>> language? Are we just acquiring the forms and then differing in our >>>>> ability to put them to use or are the uses themselves a major part >>>>> of what we are acquiring? Are lexicon and syntax wholly separate, >>>>> or do we go on acquiring the lexico-grammar as we enter more deeply >>>>> into adult worlds of discourse? >>>>> Anyone in literacy education knows that too many American >>>>> children fail to reach high levels of fluency as readers and >>>>> writers. Doesn't that somehow mean they have failed to acquire the >>>>> language? >>>>> >>>>> Craig >>>>> >>>>> On 2/9/2011 2:04 PM, Brian MacWhinney wrote: >>>>>> Fritz, >>>>>> There are studies in places like the Journal of Child Language by >>>>>> Dorthe Bleses, Hans Basbøl, and colleagues at Southern Denmark >>>>>> University on the delay of the acquisition of Danish phonology in >>>>>> comparison to other European languages, mostly attributed to the >>>>>> complexities of the vowel system and the various assimilatory >>>>>> processes. There is a corresponding delay in the acquisition of >>>>>> reading by Danish children that was observed in the cross-European >>>>>> PISA project. All of this is well documented in the literature, >>>>>> but it is rather marginal and transitory. Eventually, normal >>>>>> Danish children all learn good Danish and become fluent readers. >>>>>> -- Brian MacWhinney >>>>>> On Feb 9, 2011, at 1:27 PM, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: >>>>>>> A propos, are there any published studies out there that point to >>>>>>> measurable difference in rate of completion of first-language >>>>>>> acquisition by speakers of one language compared to another? Or >>>>>>> even of mastery of one aspect of L1 acquisition (phonology, >>>>>>> morphology, etc.) by speakers of one language compared to another? >>>>>>> --fritz >>>>>>> Frederick J. Newmeyer >>>>>>> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington >>>>>>> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon >>>>>>> Fraser University >>>>>>> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] >>>>>>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, A. Katz wrote: >>>>>>>> Tom, >>>>>>>> If the language is dying, then the advice not to listen to >>>>>>>> somebody under forty because they don't know how to speak may be >>>>>>>> sound, but not for the reason that you suggest. It could be >>>>>>>> there are no fluent speakers under forty. It seems very unlikely >>>>>>>> that one would have to arrive at age forty before acquiring >>>>>>>> fluency, especially in a hunter gatherer culture where death >>>>>>>> before forty might be quite common. >>>>>>>> But if you have evidence to the contrary that fully immersed, >>>>>>>> monolingual young speakers of a language cannot speak it with >>>>>>>> communicative effect until age forty, then this is a big >>>>>>>> discovery that ought to be published and shared with the >>>>>>>> scientific community. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> --Aya >>>>>>>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: >>>>>>>>> Right on, John. And one could make a prediction--hopefully >>>>>>>>> someday to be tested by acquisition studies--that Navajo kids >>>>>>>>> will not master the fully complexcity of the Athabaskan verb by >>>>>>>>> age 10, or 15, or 20. I once reviewed a grammar in Papua New >>>>>>>>> Guniea of a language that had comparable complexity on the verb >>>>>>>>> (three positions, 6-8 categoriers each, massive zeroing& >>>>>>>>> morphonemic). I had to ask Carle Whitehead--is this guy for >>>>>>>>> real? He said, yes, he's been in the island for 20 years, >>>>>>>>> really knows his stuff. So I asked the guy--at what age are >>>>>>>>> kids considered fuill-fledged speakers? He said-- the old >>>>>>>>> people say, don't listen to anybody under forty, they don't >>>>>>>>> know how to speak. In my work with the Utes, one exchange has >>>>>>>>> stuck out, an elder (ka-para'ni-wa-t, he's not walking about >>>>>>>>> any more) who was pointed to me as the best orator in the >>>>>>>>> tribe. I told him that, and he said: "Oh, I am nothing. You >>>>>>>>> should have heard the Old Ones; when they spoke, you could see >>>>>>>>> it all in front of your eyes". Part of it is due to the complex >>>>>>>>> Ute deictic system, which invades NPs, ADVs& the verb. The >>>>>>>>> combinations, and the subtle choices of when to combine the >>>>>>>>> deictic particle with other categories, are a whole wond(e)rous >>>>>>>>> world. Cheers, TG >>>>>>>>> ========== >>>>>>>>> On 2/9/2011 10:13 AM, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Aya, >>>>>>>>>> I think I was the one who said first that Navajo is not a >>>>>>>>>> language for >>>>>>>>>> amateurs. I'll second what Tom said--you should learn something >>>>>>>>>> about Navajo (or some other Athabaskan language) before making >>>>>>>>>> statements like this. Some languages are just plain >>>>>>>>>> objectively harder than >>>>>>>>>> others, regardless of typological similarly to one's native >>>>>>>>>> language. If you >>>>>>>>>> don't believe this, do an experiment in which you take >>>>>>>>>> speakers of English, >>>>>>>>>> Turkish, Georgian, Chinese, whatever you want, try to teach >>>>>>>>>> them Navajo, Hopi, >>>>>>>>>> and Cree (for example), and see which one gives them the most >>>>>>>>>> trouble. >>>>>>>>>> I guarantee it will be Navajo. And there is an objective >>>>>>>>>> reason for it-- >>>>>>>>>> the morphophonemics are just unbelievably complex. >>>>>>>>>> John >>>>>>>>>> Quoting "A. Katz": >>>>>>>>>>> Tom, >>>>>>>>>>> I don't think that is a valid viewpoint with regard to >>>>>>>>>>> Athabaskan or any >>>>>>>>>>> other language family. >>>>>>>>>>> Victor Golla earlier had a much better phrasing when he wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> "Let that read: "A language that is not for amateurs is not for >>>>>>>>>>> ADULT people."" >>>>>>>>>>> But in fact no language is easy for adults to learn who have >>>>>>>>>>> not already >>>>>>>>>>> learned a language with a similar typology. If your native >>>>>>>>>>> language works >>>>>>>>>>> similarly to the one you are learning, then you have an >>>>>>>>>>> enormous advantage >>>>>>>>>>> as an adult second language learner. >>>>>>>>>>> The remark about how Navajo is not for amateurs was made in >>>>>>>>>>> the context of >>>>>>>>>>> people who have no experience with languages of a similar >>>>>>>>>>> typology. >>>>>>>>>>> To make this a universal statement about the difficulty of >>>>>>>>>>> Navajo without >>>>>>>>>>> qualification is to suggest that some languages are "easy" >>>>>>>>>>> and others are >>>>>>>>>>> "impossible". Not only is this not true from an objective >>>>>>>>>>> standpoint, it >>>>>>>>>>> also perpetuates the prejudice that English (or IE) is a >>>>>>>>>>> "normal" language >>>>>>>>>>> and that every language should be measured against this norm. >>>>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>>>> --Aya >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Before you actually tried to learn an Athabaskan language, >>>>>>>>>>>> or at the very >>>>>>>>>>>> least worked on one, maybe you had better refrain from >>>>>>>>>>>> asserting that "a >>>>>>>>>>>> language that is not for amateurs is not for people". TG >>>>>>>>>>>> ========= >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/8/2011 6:33 AM, A. Katz wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> A language that is not for amateurs is not for people. >>>>>>>>>>>>> This has nothing to do with RS or computer language >>>>>>>>>>>>> teaching. As others >>>>>>>>>>>>> have stated, the technologically based systems are not a >>>>>>>>>>>>> panacea. >>>>>>>>>>>>> But a language that ordinary people can't pick by talking >>>>>>>>>>>>> to their parents >>>>>>>>>>>>> in childhood is either dead already or not a human language. >>>>>>>>>>>>> --Aya >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would be amazed if a single person actually learns to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> speak Navajo >>>>>>>>>>>>>> using Rosetta Stone. This is not a language for amateurs. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> John >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Quoting "s.t. bischoff": >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Over the last week I was involved with an event at the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> American Indian >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Language Development Institute and the folks that created >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Navajo >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rosetta >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stone gave a short talk about the software. What follows >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is my >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of how it came to be. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Navajo Rosetta Stones was created in collaboration >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with Rosetta >>>>>>>>>>> Stone >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the non-profit Navajo Language Renaissance (NLR). NLR >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a >>>>>>>>>>> non-profit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> organization that is NOT affiliated with the tribal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> council or >>>>>>>>>>> government >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any way, for obvious reasons I think (e.g. getting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> council approval for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> project). However, it has been endorsed by the school >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> leadership and NLR >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actively trying to get the school district to adopt the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> software. You >>>>>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> view the NLR website here >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ A >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-community member started NLR after using Rosetta >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stone to learn >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Russian. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> She thought it would be good if Rosetta Stone created a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo version. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> She >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contacted Rosetta Stone (RS), and they told her they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would provide here >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the software to develop the lessons, a photographer, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> technical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assistants (limited on the ground, mostly by phone) to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> develop the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> program >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for $300,000. Another option would be for her to apply >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for a grant from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RS >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to cover most of the costs. So the NLR was created, a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> partnership >>>>>>>>>>> between >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community members and one non-community member, as a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non- profit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> organization and applied. RS gave two grants the year >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they applied, one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> went >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to NLR. The grant covered all but $27,000 of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> $300,000. So NLR had to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pay >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RS $27,000 to have access to the software to create the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stone. This means they had to create the lessons and pay >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speakers and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> informants themselves. RS provided the software, a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> photographer, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> technical support for the $27,000. NLR now is the only >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> group that can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sell >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone, which they do for $150 per license >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and $200 for a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> personal box set. It is not clear if they have to pay RS >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a percentage of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those revenues or not. When I asked a clear answer wasn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> given. NLR >>>>>>>>>>> also >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has a "training" session for administrators and teachers >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which costs >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> $1500 a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> day and $400 per 3 hours. Needless to say, it is not un- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> controversial in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community for many of the usual reasons. Ironically, the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speaker after >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rosetta Stone folks gave a talk that demonstrated how to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> create nearly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> identical language lessons as Rosetta Stone's simply >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using power point. >>>>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was encouraged to let folks know that they should contact >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the NLR if >>>>>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have any questions at mbittinger at rosettastone.com. You >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can try a free >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introductory lesson here >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ The >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> folks >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at NLR praised RS for their efforts and felt they had >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really done them a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> service. In short, they were very happy with the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arrangement and how it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> working out. They were also upset by the controversies >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> surrounding the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone and felt they were really the result >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> misunderstanding and misguided assumptions. One finally >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thing, they did >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seem >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to think that it was not a pancea, but rather another >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> useful tool in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language revitalization efforts. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shannon >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Haifa University >>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa >>>>>>>>>> University >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> Lise Menn Home Office: 303-444-4274 >>> 1625 Mariposa Ave Fax: 303-413-0017 >>> Boulder CO 80302 >>> home page: http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/ >>> >>> Professor Emerita of Linguistics >>> Fellow, Institute of Cognitive Science >>> University of Colorado >>> >>> Secretary, AAAS Section Z [Linguistics] >>> Fellow, Linguistic Society of America >>> >>> Campus Mail Address: >>> UCB 594, Institute for Cognitive Science >>> >>> Campus Physical Address: >>> CINC 234 >>> 1777 Exposition Ave, Boulder >>> >>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> Dan I. Slobin >> Professor Emeritus of Psychology and Linguistics >> >> Department of Psychology email: slobin at berkeley.edu >> 3210 Tolman #1650 phone (Dept): 1-510-642-5292 >> University of California phone (home): 1-510-848-1769 >> Berkeley, CA 94720-1650, USA fax: 1-510-642-5293 >> http://psychology.berkeley.edu/faculty/profiles/dslobin.html >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> > From dan at daneverett.org Thu Feb 10 15:14:27 2011 From: dan at daneverett.org (Daniel Everett) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 10:14:27 -0500 Subject: New work by Steve Piantadosi Message-ID: Steve Piantadosi is part of the team now beginning work on Piraha. I think that this work is exciting and it certainly seems relevant to the readers of this list. Dan http://web.mit.edu/ http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2011/words-count-0210.html There is also an article in Nature News on this work: http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110124/full/news.2011.40.html From john at research.haifa.ac.il Thu Feb 10 15:22:35 2011 From: john at research.haifa.ac.il (john at research.haifa.ac.il) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 17:22:35 +0200 Subject: Roseta Stone: Redux In-Reply-To: <4D53B8BA.6040309@ruc.dk> Message-ID: Actually, Hartmut, if you're a linguist who's been studying Danish for almost 40 years and you can't even figure out how to DESCRIBE stod phonetically, don't you think this is pretty good evidence that it would be a significant problem for language learners? Best wishes, John Quoting Hartmut Haberland : > The occurrence of /st?d/ (it is not quite clear how to describe it > phonetically) in Danish has given rise to much mystification, but it is > certainly not the source of any allophony and, besides, its functional > load is close to zero. Many Danish speakers don't have it and it never > gives rise to serious ambiguities (the standard example is /mor/ > 'mother' vs. /mord/ 'murder', the second one with /st?d/, usually > disambiguated in context - except in puns, of course). On the other > hand, the Danish vowel system is rather complex with 25 phonemes in > stressed syllables plus two shwa phonemes. On top of that there are 19 > 'short' and 19 'long' diphthongs. And some allophonic variation, plus > frequent full assimilation of shwa to adjacent sonorants. > > K?benhavn in relaxed everyday speech has still three syllables, but the > second one is a syllabic [m]. > > As to the Danish spelling system, it may be "antiquated", but still > much less so than the English one. While it is very difficult to read an > English text aloud (in a comprehensible way) without having undstood the > content, this is not nearly as difficult with a Danish text. Of course, > Danish spelling is not nearly as systematic visa`-vis the sounds as, > e.g. Czech or Finnish (or even German), and there are a few irritating > homographs which are not homophones (steg 'roast (of meat)' almost > sounds like English 'sty', and steg 'climbed' almost like English > 'stay'), but it is much less antiquated as English spelling. (English > almosts sides with Arabic and Hebrew, although I admit that there are > vowel letters in English. But they contain pretty little information > about vowel quality and mark mostly /where/ the vowel phonemes are, not > /what/ vowels they represent.) Children with English as their first > langauge should have much more problems learning to read and write than > Danish ones. > > Hartmut Haberland > (not a native speaker of Danish, but still learning after almost 40 years) > > Den 10-02-2011 09:19, john at research.haifa.ac.il skrev: > > Delays in the acquisition of SPOKEN Danish would presumably be due not to > the > > vowels (which are similar to other Scandinavian languages and much less > > typologically peculiar than e.g. Dutch and some southern USA dialects) but > to > > the rampant glottalization processe which really are typologically bizarre > and > > which is the main source of complex allophony. It's the same idea as the > > American pronunciation of 'button' or 'mountain' (with no vowel in the > second > > syllable but rather a syllabic n with a glottal stop before) except that it > > occurs not just with alveolar+alveolar but with all combinations and the > nasal > > isn't syllabic but combined with the preceding consonant in one or another > way. > > The Danish pronunciation of 'Copenhagen' in natural speech sounds to me > like > > it's just two syllables long. When I was working on Circassian (the dialect > > here has about 60 phonemes, mostly due to double and triple articulations) > I > > got the same feeling that somewhere along the way native speakers had > decided > > that it was normal to take neighboring consonantal articulations, even in > the > > next syllable, and just say them all at the same time. Delays in the > > acquisition of WRITTEN Danish, on the other hand, are undoubtedly due to > the > > antiquated spelling system, which has essentially never been updated. This > is > > conceptually a separate problem, although they are related in the sense > that > > many of the counterintuitive spellings are the product of the same > historical > > process which produced the glottalization processes. > > There is no question that the greater difficulty of learning some languages > is a > > serious problem for some language revival programs. I see much more hope > for > > reviving Algonquian languages than for reviving Athabascan languages (and > > Polynesian languages would be a comparative cinch). I suppose that members > of > > the groups might recognize this and 'dumb down' the languages in one way or > > another (making the morphophonemics simpler, eliminating phonemic contrasts > > when one of the sounds is really hard to pronounce, etc.), but obviously > this > > is their decision. > > John > > > > Quoting Elena Lieven: > > > >> Dan is right. Of course it depends what is meant by 'acquiring a > >> language'. The skills of highly educated people or public speakers and > >> great story tellers in oral cultures will not necessarily be acquired by > >> all members of a community. Ewa Dabrowska has shown this for some > >> aspects of case morphology in Polish and for passives and quantifer > >> scope in English - both studies of adult native speakers > >> elena lieven > >> > >> Dan I. Slobin wrote: > >>> A few responses to previous postings: > >>> > >>> Yes, languages with transparent and consistent agglutinative > >>> morphology, in the verbal or nominal systems, allow for rapid > >>> acquisition, with some productive inflections at the one-word stage. > >>> Turkish morphology, having virtually no irregular patterns, is quite > >>> securely mastered by age 3 at the latest, and often much earlier. > >>> And, in general, complex morphology, of various types, presents no > >>> serious problems with regard to acquisition of the basic grammar of > >>> the relevant constructions. For details of successful early > >>> acquistion of morphology in a number of such "complex"languages see > >>> volumes of my crosslinguistic series: Vol. 1 (Hebrew, Polish, > >>> Turkish), Vol. 2 (Hungarian), Vol. 3 (Georgian, West Greenlandic, > >>> K'iche' Maya, Warlpiri, Sesotho), Vol. 4 (Estonian, Finnish, Korean). > >>> Comparable findings are available for the acquisition of Inuktitut, > >>> Tzeltal, Tzotzil,Yucatec Maya, Hindi, Tamil, and others. What > >>> children find difficult--as do inguists--are multiply-determined > >>> and/or unpredictable morphophonological patterns. > >>> > >>> So it depends on what you want to credit as "total acquisition" or > >>> "completion of acquisition." An English-speaking 10-year-old can > >>> fluently produce a range of syntactic structures, in various genres > >>> and registers, without having mastered all of the irregular verb forms > >>> and a number of subordinate syntactic constructions. Furthermore, > >>> remember that a bility to produce a pattern in some contexts is far > >>> from commanding its full range of semantic and pragmatic functions. > >>> And when all of you Funknetters became undergraduate and graduate > >>> students, and later professionals, you were still acquiring many > >>> aspects of English grammar, vocabulary, and style. Indeed, it goes on > >>> throughout the lifespan of an engaged individual. > >>> > >>> There are no established criteria for full mastery, but there are > >>> numerous studies, in all five of the crosslinguistic volumes and > >>> elsewhere, of prolonged acquisition of various parts of a linguistic > >>> system. > >>> > >>> As noted, I've written about the error of expecting early child > >>> language to mirror pidgins. > >>> > >>> Best, > >>> > >>> Dan (with references following, many of mine available for download at > >>> http://psychology.berkeley.edu/faculty/profiles/dslobin.html > >>> Slobin, D. I. (1985, 1992, 1997). The crosslinguistic study of > >>> language acquisition. Vol. 1: The Data (1985); Vol. 2: Theoretical > >>> issues (1985); Vol. 3 (1992); Vol. 4 (1997); Vol. 5: Expanding the > >>> contexts (1997). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. > >>> Slobin, D. I. (2004). From ontogenesis to phylogenesis: What can > >>> child language tell us about language evolution? In J. Langer, S. T. > >>> Parker,& C. Milbrath (Eds.), Biology and Knowledge revisited: From > >>> neurogenesis to psychogenesis (pp. 255-285). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence > >>> Erlbaum Associates. > >>> > >>> > >>> At 03:00 PM 2/9/2011, Lise Menn wrote: > >>>> that's right. And child language and pidgin aren't the same, in any > >>>> case, for any language I know about, any more than any of them are > >>>> telegrams. But there are arcane reaches of languages that most people > >>>> don't learn, confounding the definition of what 'acquire' means: > >>>> Japanese honorifics and noun classifiers have elegant refinements, > >>>> crafts and professions have jargons... > >>>> > >>>> On Feb 9, 2011, at 1:50 PM, A. Katz wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> I seem to recall that in "The Evolution of Language Out of Pre- > >>>>> Language" Dan Slobin had a sort of dissenting article at the end in > >>>>> which he mentioned that Turkish children use grammatical morphology > >>>>> at the one word level, so that they are never actually speaking a > >>>>> pidgin Turkish at any point in their language development. > >>>>> > >>>>> --Aya > >>>>> > >>>>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Craig Hancock wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Brian, > >>>>>> This strikes as a bit like Lake Woebegone (Where all the children > >>>>>> are above average). > >>>>>> > >>>>>> normal Danish children all learn good Danish and become fluent > >>>>>> readers > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Is acquiring a language totally separate from the uses of that > >>>>>> language? Are we just acquiring the forms and then differing in our > >>>>>> ability to put them to use or are the uses themselves a major part > >>>>>> of what we are acquiring? Are lexicon and syntax wholly separate, > >>>>>> or do we go on acquiring the lexico-grammar as we enter more deeply > >>>>>> into adult worlds of discourse? > >>>>>> Anyone in literacy education knows that too many American > >>>>>> children fail to reach high levels of fluency as readers and > >>>>>> writers. Doesn't that somehow mean they have failed to acquire the > >>>>>> language? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Craig > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On 2/9/2011 2:04 PM, Brian MacWhinney wrote: > >>>>>>> Fritz, > >>>>>>> There are studies in places like the Journal of Child Language by > >>>>>>> Dorthe Bleses, Hans Basbרl, and colleagues at Southern Denmark > >>>>>>> University on the delay of the acquisition of Danish phonology in > >>>>>>> comparison to other European languages, mostly attributed to the > >>>>>>> complexities of the vowel system and the various assimilatory > >>>>>>> processes. There is a corresponding delay in the acquisition of > >>>>>>> reading by Danish children that was observed in the cross-European > >>>>>>> PISA project. All of this is well documented in the literature, > >>>>>>> but it is rather marginal and transitory. Eventually, normal > >>>>>>> Danish children all learn good Danish and become fluent readers. > >>>>>>> -- Brian MacWhinney > >>>>>>> On Feb 9, 2011, at 1:27 PM, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > >>>>>>>> A propos, are there any published studies out there that point to > >>>>>>>> measurable difference in rate of completion of first-language > >>>>>>>> acquisition by speakers of one language compared to another? Or > >>>>>>>> even of mastery of one aspect of L1 acquisition (phonology, > >>>>>>>> morphology, etc.) by speakers of one language compared to another? > >>>>>>>> --fritz > >>>>>>>> Frederick J. Newmeyer > >>>>>>>> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > >>>>>>>> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon > >>>>>>>> Fraser University > >>>>>>>> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > >>>>>>>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, A. Katz wrote: > >>>>>>>>> Tom, > >>>>>>>>> If the language is dying, then the advice not to listen to > >>>>>>>>> somebody under forty because they don't know how to speak may be > >>>>>>>>> sound, but not for the reason that you suggest. It could be > >>>>>>>>> there are no fluent speakers under forty. It seems very unlikely > >>>>>>>>> that one would have to arrive at age forty before acquiring > >>>>>>>>> fluency, especially in a hunter gatherer culture where death > >>>>>>>>> before forty might be quite common. > >>>>>>>>> But if you have evidence to the contrary that fully immersed, > >>>>>>>>> monolingual young speakers of a language cannot speak it with > >>>>>>>>> communicative effect until age forty, then this is a big > >>>>>>>>> discovery that ought to be published and shared with the > >>>>>>>>> scientific community. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> --Aya > >>>>>>>>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> Right on, John. And one could make a prediction--hopefully > >>>>>>>>>> someday to be tested by acquisition studies--that Navajo kids > >>>>>>>>>> will not master the fully complexcity of the Athabaskan verb by > >>>>>>>>>> age 10, or 15, or 20. I once reviewed a grammar in Papua New > >>>>>>>>>> Guniea of a language that had comparable complexity on the verb > >>>>>>>>>> (three positions, 6-8 categoriers each, massive zeroing& > >>>>>>>>>> morphonemic). I had to ask Carle Whitehead--is this guy for > >>>>>>>>>> real? He said, yes, he's been in the island for 20 years, > >>>>>>>>>> really knows his stuff. So I asked the guy--at what age are > >>>>>>>>>> kids considered fuill-fledged speakers? He said-- the old > >>>>>>>>>> people say, don't listen to anybody under forty, they don't > >>>>>>>>>> know how to speak. In my work with the Utes, one exchange has > >>>>>>>>>> stuck out, an elder (ka-para'ni-wa-t, he's not walking about > >>>>>>>>>> any more) who was pointed to me as the best orator in the > >>>>>>>>>> tribe. I told him that, and he said: "Oh, I am nothing. You > >>>>>>>>>> should have heard the Old Ones; when they spoke, you could see > >>>>>>>>>> it all in front of your eyes". Part of it is due to the complex > >>>>>>>>>> Ute deictic system, which invades NPs, ADVs& the verb. The > >>>>>>>>>> combinations, and the subtle choices of when to combine the > >>>>>>>>>> deictic particle with other categories, are a whole wond(e)rous > >>>>>>>>>> world. Cheers, TG > >>>>>>>>>> ========== > >>>>>>>>>> On 2/9/2011 10:13 AM, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> Aya, > >>>>>>>>>>> I think I was the one who said first that Navajo is not a > >>>>>>>>>>> language for > >>>>>>>>>>> amateurs. I'll second what Tom said--you should learn something > >>>>>>>>>>> about Navajo (or some other Athabaskan language) before making > >>>>>>>>>>> statements like this. Some languages are just plain > >>>>>>>>>>> objectively harder than > >>>>>>>>>>> others, regardless of typological similarly to one's native > >>>>>>>>>>> language. If you > >>>>>>>>>>> don't believe this, do an experiment in which you take > >>>>>>>>>>> speakers of English, > >>>>>>>>>>> Turkish, Georgian, Chinese, whatever you want, try to teach > >>>>>>>>>>> them Navajo, Hopi, > >>>>>>>>>>> and Cree (for example), and see which one gives them the most > >>>>>>>>>>> trouble. > >>>>>>>>>>> I guarantee it will be Navajo. And there is an objective > >>>>>>>>>>> reason for it-- > >>>>>>>>>>> the morphophonemics are just unbelievably complex. > >>>>>>>>>>> John > >>>>>>>>>>> Quoting "A. Katz": > >>>>>>>>>>>> Tom, > >>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think that is a valid viewpoint with regard to > >>>>>>>>>>>> Athabaskan or any > >>>>>>>>>>>> other language family. > >>>>>>>>>>>> Victor Golla earlier had a much better phrasing when he wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> "Let that read: "A language that is not for amateurs is not for > >>>>>>>>>>>> ADULT people."" > >>>>>>>>>>>> But in fact no language is easy for adults to learn who have > >>>>>>>>>>>> not already > >>>>>>>>>>>> learned a language with a similar typology. If your native > >>>>>>>>>>>> language works > >>>>>>>>>>>> similarly to the one you are learning, then you have an > >>>>>>>>>>>> enormous advantage > >>>>>>>>>>>> as an adult second language learner. > >>>>>>>>>>>> The remark about how Navajo is not for amateurs was made in > >>>>>>>>>>>> the context of > >>>>>>>>>>>> people who have no experience with languages of a similar > >>>>>>>>>>>> typology. > >>>>>>>>>>>> To make this a universal statement about the difficulty of > >>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo without > >>>>>>>>>>>> qualification is to suggest that some languages are "easy" > >>>>>>>>>>>> and others are > >>>>>>>>>>>> "impossible". Not only is this not true from an objective > >>>>>>>>>>>> standpoint, it > >>>>>>>>>>>> also perpetuates the prejudice that English (or IE) is a > >>>>>>>>>>>> "normal" language > >>>>>>>>>>>> and that every language should be measured against this norm. > >>>>>>>>>>>> Best, > >>>>>>>>>>>> --Aya > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Before you actually tried to learn an Athabaskan language, > >>>>>>>>>>>>> or at the very > >>>>>>>>>>>>> least worked on one, maybe you had better refrain from > >>>>>>>>>>>>> asserting that "a > >>>>>>>>>>>>> language that is not for amateurs is not for people". TG > >>>>>>>>>>>>> ========= > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/8/2011 6:33 AM, A. Katz wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> A language that is not for amateurs is not for people. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> This has nothing to do with RS or computer language > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> teaching. As others > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> have stated, the technologically based systems are not a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> panacea. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> But a language that ordinary people can't pick by talking > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to their parents > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in childhood is either dead already or not a human language. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> --Aya > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would be amazed if a single person actually learns to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speak Navajo > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using Rosetta Stone. This is not a language for amateurs. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> John > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Quoting "s.t. bischoff": > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Over the last week I was involved with an event at the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> American Indian > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Language Development Institute and the folks that created > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Navajo > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rosetta > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stone gave a short talk about the software. What follows > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is my > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of how it came to be. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Navajo Rosetta Stones was created in collaboration > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with Rosetta > >>>>>>>>>>>> Stone > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the non-profit Navajo Language Renaissance (NLR). NLR > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a > >>>>>>>>>>>> non-profit > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> organization that is NOT affiliated with the tribal > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> council or > >>>>>>>>>>>> government > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any way, for obvious reasons I think (e.g. getting > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> council approval for > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> project). However, it has been endorsed by the school > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> leadership and NLR > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actively trying to get the school district to adopt the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> software. You > >>>>>>>>>>>> can > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> view the NLR website here > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ A > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-community member started NLR after using Rosetta > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stone to learn > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Russian. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> She thought it would be good if Rosetta Stone created a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo version. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> She > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contacted Rosetta Stone (RS), and they told her they > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would provide here > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the software to develop the lessons, a photographer, and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> technical > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assistants (limited on the ground, mostly by phone) to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> develop the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> program > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for $300,000. Another option would be for her to apply > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for a grant from > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RS > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to cover most of the costs. So the NLR was created, a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> partnership > >>>>>>>>>>>> between > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community members and one non-community member, as a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non- profit > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> organization and applied. RS gave two grants the year > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they applied, one > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> went > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to NLR. The grant covered all but $27,000 of the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> $300,000. So NLR had to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pay > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RS $27,000 to have access to the software to create the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stone. This means they had to create the lessons and pay > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speakers and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> informants themselves. RS provided the software, a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> photographer, and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> technical support for the $27,000. NLR now is the only > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> group that can > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sell > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone, which they do for $150 per license > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and $200 for a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> personal box set. It is not clear if they have to pay RS > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a percentage of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those revenues or not. When I asked a clear answer wasn't > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> given. NLR > >>>>>>>>>>>> also > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has a "training" session for administrators and teachers > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which costs > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> $1500 a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> day and $400 per 3 hours. Needless to say, it is not un- > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> controversial in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community for many of the usual reasons. Ironically, the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speaker after > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rosetta Stone folks gave a talk that demonstrated how to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> create nearly > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> identical language lessons as Rosetta Stone's simply > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using power point. > >>>>>>>>>>>> I > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was encouraged to let folks know that they should contact > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the NLR if > >>>>>>>>>>>> they > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have any questions at mbittinger at rosettastone.com. You > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can try a free > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introductory lesson here > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ The > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> folks > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at NLR praised RS for their efforts and felt they had > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really done them a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> service. In short, they were very happy with the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arrangement and how it > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> working out. They were also upset by the controversies > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> surrounding the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone and felt they were really the result > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> misunderstanding and misguided assumptions. One finally > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thing, they did > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seem > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to think that it was not a pancea, but rather another > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> useful tool in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language revitalization efforts. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shannon > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Haifa University > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>>>>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > >>>>>>>>>>> University > >>>>>> > >>>> Lise Menn Home Office: 303-444-4274 > >>>> 1625 Mariposa Ave Fax: 303-413-0017 > >>>> Boulder CO 80302 > >>>> home page: http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/ > >>>> > >>>> Professor Emerita of Linguistics > >>>> Fellow, Institute of Cognitive Science > >>>> University of Colorado > >>>> > >>>> Secretary, AAAS Section Z [Linguistics] > >>>> Fellow, Linguistic Society of America > >>>> > >>>> Campus Mail Address: > >>>> UCB 594, Institute for Cognitive Science > >>>> > >>>> Campus Physical Address: > >>>> CINC 234 > >>>> 1777 Exposition Ave, Boulder > >>>> > >>>> > >>> Dan I. Slobin > >>> Professor Emeritus of Psychology and Linguistics > >>> > >>> Department of Psychology email: slobin at berkeley.edu > >>> 3210 Tolman #1650 phone (Dept): 1-510-642-5292 > >>> University of California phone (home): 1-510-848-1769 > >>> Berkeley, CA 94720-1650, USA fax: 1-510-642-5293 > >>> http://psychology.berkeley.edu/faculty/profiles/dslobin.html > >>> > >>> > >> -- > >> Elena Lieven > >> Department of Developmental and Comparative Psychology > >> Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology > >> Deutscher Platz 6 > >> D-04103 Leipzig > >> Germany > >> > >> Tel.+49-(0)341-3550 404 > >> +49-(0)341-3550 400 (Department Coordinator: Henriette Zeidler) > >> Fax.+49-(0)341-3550 444 > >> > >> and > >> > >> Max Planck Child Study Centre > >> School of Psychological Sciences > >> University of Manchester > >> Manchester M13 9PL > >> UK > >> > >> Tel.+44-(0)161-275 2580 > >> +44-(0)161-275 2444 (Research Secretary: Mickie Glover) > >> Fax.+44-(0)161-275 8587 > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University From hancock at albany.edu Thu Feb 10 15:35:39 2011 From: hancock at albany.edu (Craig Hancock) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 10:35:39 -0500 Subject: Roseta Stone: Redux In-Reply-To: <9B8BABED-AAD9-45D5-A503-0F9BEF0FA04D@unm.edu> Message-ID: On 2/9/2011 11:15 PM, Sherman Wilcox wrote: Sherman, I think Hemingway was being a bit disingenuous with "getting the words right," a bit like a cook saying he wanted to "get the ingredients right" in a recipe. It's a flip answer, for whatever reasons. The words have everything to do with each other and with the functional pressure of the whole novel at that critical, concluding point. He had to pay attention to plot resolution (or resistance to that), point-of-view (a constant attention in fiction), to staying within character (though characters are often dynamic), to getting the conversation right (character speaking the way characters speak), and so on. Fiction may draw on elements of language very common to speech, but it puts them to work in very careful ways. Some of the patterns are obvious: past tense verbs, perfect aspect verbs, present participle clauses, personal pronouns (1st and/or 3rd person, depending on the narration), synthetic negation, public verbs (speech act verbs). Both present tense verbs and "attributive adjectives" correlate negatively (see Biber, Dimensions of Register Variation, 1995). The lack of adjectives is probably driven by less complex nominalization, especially in comparison to news writing and academic writing, which are both heavily nominalized. The work of the story pressures an appropriate language. In this case, fluency means responding appropriately to that pressure, developing one's craft over considerable time. Craig > On Feb 9, 2011, at 8:53 PM, Dan I. Slobin wrote: > >> And when all of you Funknetters became undergraduate and graduate students, and later professionals, you were still acquiring many aspects of English grammar, vocabulary, and style. Indeed, it goes on throughout the lifespan of an engaged individual. > > Okay, so writing isn't the same as speaking. Nevertheless, I think this interview with Ernest Hemingway is relevant: > > Interviewer: How much rewriting do you do? > > Hemingway: It depends. I rewrote the ending of "Farewell to Arms," the last page of it, 39 times before I was satisfied. > > Interviewer: Was there some technical problem there? What was it that had stumped you? > > Hemingway: Getting the words right. > > From wilcox at unm.edu Thu Feb 10 16:55:59 2011 From: wilcox at unm.edu (Sherman Wilcox) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 09:55:59 -0700 Subject: Roseta Stone: Redux In-Reply-To: <4D5405CB.4030603@albany.edu> Message-ID: On Feb 10, 2011, at 8:35 AM, Craig Hancock wrote: > I think Hemingway was being a bit disingenuous with "getting the words right," I don't know if he was being disingenuous. Mostly, I just thought it was a nice quote that reinforced, in a slightly different way, the point Dan was making. Here's another one that I love about the craft of writing: "If it sounds like writing, I rewrite it." (Elmore Leonard, Newsweek, April 22, 1985) -- Sherman From bischoff.st at gmail.com Thu Feb 10 18:01:28 2011 From: bischoff.st at gmail.com (s.t. bischoff) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 13:01:28 -0500 Subject: stochastic learning Message-ID: Can anyone provide me with a concise and clear definition of "stochastic learning"? I find I am having difficulty getting the idea across to my students...which suggests I haven't quite got it right myself. Cheers, Shannon From hancock at albany.edu Thu Feb 10 18:04:13 2011 From: hancock at albany.edu (Craig Hancock) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 13:04:13 -0500 Subject: Roseta Stone: Redux In-Reply-To: <51C30422-F8D9-41F8-B80C-DE42A5DC63BB@unm.edu> Message-ID: Sherman, These are great quotes. I apprenticed under the late, great Don Murray ("A Writer Teaches Writing," among other texts), one of the fathers of the process movement in composition, who was a great compiler of these sorts of statements by writers about writing. One main point Murray always made was not just that writers revise (as they do), but that revising is a kind of REVISION, not merely a stylistic tidying up or overlay. One changes the words, phrases, clauses, sentences primarily because the work/goal of the writing requires it. Writing is hard because meaning is hard and human contact is hard. A sentence is not a "complete thought," but a move in a series of related moves. It carries forward the larger goals of the text, including different kinds of coherence. What you find, over time, is that different purposes pressure the language differently. Elmore Leonard, as detective novelist, cultivated that sort of no bullshit spoken style for his noir world and his no-nonsense protagonists. It's nice to know that there can be value in bringing writing back toward speech. At the same time, academic writing, writing in the technical fields, has other kinds of pressure, most notably toward a technical vocabulary (and a high level of nominalization.) This can certainly be made more accessible at times, but good technical writing differs in very predictable ways from speech. The general point, I guess, as a number of people have said, is that acquiring a language is a lifetime process. It could very well be that the language itself is evolving to allow us to accomplish new kinds of work in the modern world. A good writer doesn't simply acquire it, but stretches it into accomplishing new things. I think functional approaches to language have the potential to enrich our understanding of literacy. The bad news is that English teachers have drifted away from teaching/understanding language, in part because of the belief that language is primarily formal and that acquisition is inevitable. Craig On 2/10/2011 11:55 AM, Sherman Wilcox wrote: > On Feb 10, 2011, at 8:35 AM, Craig Hancock wrote: > >> I think Hemingway was being a bit disingenuous with "getting the words right," > I don't know if he was being disingenuous. Mostly, I just thought it was a nice quote that reinforced, in a slightly different way, the point Dan was making. Here's another one that I love about the craft of writing: > > "If it sounds like writing, I rewrite it." (Elmore Leonard, Newsweek, April 22, 1985) > From bischoff.st at gmail.com Thu Feb 10 18:23:06 2011 From: bischoff.st at gmail.com (s.t. bischoff) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 13:23:06 -0500 Subject: FUNKNET Digest, Vol 89, Issue 8 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: The April 2010 volume of Science had several articles on language...mostly about literacy and scienentific comprehension. One article of note was the following (the abstract follows) Academic Language and the Challenge of Reading for Learning About Science A major challenge to students learning science is the academic language in which science is written. Academic language is designed to be concise, precise, and authoritative. To achieve these goals, it uses sophisticated words and complex grammatical constructions that can disrupt reading comprehension and block learning. Students need help in learning academic vocabulary and how to process academic language if they are to become independent learners of science. At the time this made me wonder if our "notion" of fluency is perhaps a bit skewed...in regards to the languages mentioned earlier, I wonder if it would be fare to say don't listen to an English speaking scientist under 40...despite years of training I still struggle at times to follow the discourse of well meaning academics...though I have noticed a continued improvement in both my ability to understand and use the language over the years... Cheers, Shannon On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 1:00 PM, wrote: > Send FUNKNET mailing list submissions to > funknet at mailman.rice.edu > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/funknet > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > funknet-request at mailman.rice.edu > > You can reach the person managing the list at > funknet-owner at mailman.rice.edu > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of FUNKNET digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Roseta Stone: Redux (A. Katz) > 2. Re: Roseta Stone: Redux (A. Katz) > 3. Survival International Interview (Daniel Everett) > 4. forward from Vic Golla (Tom Givon) > 5. Re: Roseta Stone: Redux (Frederick J Newmeyer) > 6. Re: Roseta Stone: Redux (Tom Givon) > 7. Non-fluent native speakers of Navajo (Marc Ettlinger) > 8. Re: Roseta Stone: Redux (A. Katz) > 9. Re: Roseta Stone: Redux (A. Katz) > 10. Re: Roseta Stone: Redux (Brian MacWhinney) > 11. Re: Roseta Stone: Redux (Tom Givon) > 12. Re: Roseta Stone: Redux (Craig Hancock) > 13. Re: Roseta Stone: Redux (Geoffrey Steven Nathan) > 14. Re: Roseta Stone: Redux (A. Katz) > 15. Re: Roseta Stone: Redux (Alex Walker) > 16. Re: Roseta Stone: Redux (Lise Menn) > 17. 1-year lecturer position in lab phonetics/phonology at Rice U > (Robert Englebretson) > 18. Re: Roseta Stone: Redux (Dan I. Slobin) > 19. Re: Roseta Stone: Redux (Sherman Wilcox) > 20. Re: Roseta Stone: Redux (Elena Lieven) > 21. Re: Roseta Stone: Redux (john at research.haifa.ac.il) > 22. Re: Roseta Stone: Redux (Hartmut Haberland) > 23. Re: Roseta Stone: Redux (john at research.haifa.ac.il) > 24. Re: Roseta Stone: Redux (Craig Hancock) > 25. New work by Steve Piantadosi (Daniel Everett) > 26. Re: Roseta Stone: Redux (john at research.haifa.ac.il) > 27. Re: Roseta Stone: Redux (Craig Hancock) > 28. Re: Roseta Stone: Redux (Sherman Wilcox) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 10:03:58 -0800 (PST) > From: "A. Katz" > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Roseta Stone: Redux > To: john at research.haifa.ac.il > Cc: Tom Givon , funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Message-ID: > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed > > John, > > So do you think that having extremely complex morphophonemics is not a > typological trait for a language? If so, what do you think it is instead? > > --Aya > > > > On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > > > Aya, > > I think I was the one who said first that Navajo is not a language for > > amateurs. I'll second what Tom said--you should learn something > > about Navajo (or some other Athabaskan language) before making > > statements like this. Some languages are just plain objectively harder > than > > others, regardless of typological similarly to one's native language. If > you > > don't believe this, do an experiment in which you take speakers of > English, > > Turkish, Georgian, Chinese, whatever you want, try to teach them Navajo, > Hopi, > > and Cree (for example), and see which one gives them the most trouble. > > I guarantee it will be Navajo. And there is an objective reason for it-- > > the morphophonemics are just unbelievably complex. > > John > > > > > > > > > > > > Quoting "A. Katz" : > > > >> Tom, > >> > >> I don't think that is a valid viewpoint with regard to Athabaskan or any > >> other language family. > >> > >> Victor Golla earlier had a much better phrasing when he wrote: > >> > >> "Let that read: "A language that is not for amateurs is not for > >> ADULT people."" > >> > >> But in fact no language is easy for adults to learn who have not already > >> learned a language with a similar typology. If your native language > works > >> similarly to the one you are learning, then you have an enormous > advantage > >> as an adult second language learner. > >> > >> The remark about how Navajo is not for amateurs was made in the context > of > >> people who have no experience with languages of a similar typology. > >> To make this a universal statement about the difficulty of Navajo > without > >> qualification is to suggest that some languages are "easy" and others > are > >> "impossible". Not only is this not true from an objective standpoint, it > >> also perpetuates the prejudice that English (or IE) is a "normal" > language > >> and that every language should be measured against this norm. > >> > >> Best, > >> > >> --Aya > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> > >>> Before you actually tried to learn an Athabaskan language, or at the > very > >>> least worked on one, maybe you had better refrain from asserting that > "a > >>> language that is not for amateurs is not for people". TG > >>> > >>> ========= > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On 2/8/2011 6:33 AM, A. Katz wrote: > >>>> A language that is not for amateurs is not for people. > >>>> > >>>> This has nothing to do with RS or computer language teaching. As > others > >>>> have stated, the technologically based systems are not a panacea. > >>>> > >>>> But a language that ordinary people can't pick by talking to their > parents > >>>> in childhood is either dead already or not a human language. > >>>> > >>>> --Aya > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> I would be amazed if a single person actually learns to speak Navajo > >>>>> using Rosetta Stone. This is not a language for amateurs. > >>>>> John > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Quoting "s.t. bischoff" : > >>>>> > >>>>>> Hi all, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Over the last week I was involved with an event at the American > Indian > >>>>>> Language Development Institute and the folks that created the Navajo > >>>>>> Rosetta > >>>>>> Stone gave a short talk about the software. What follows is my > >>>>>> understanding > >>>>>> of how it came to be. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The Navajo Rosetta Stones was created in collaboration with Rosetta > >> Stone > >>>>>> and the non-profit Navajo Language Renaissance (NLR). NLR is a > >> non-profit > >>>>>> organization that is NOT affiliated with the tribal council or > >> government > >>>>>> in > >>>>>> any way, for obvious reasons I think (e.g. getting council approval > for > >>>>>> the > >>>>>> project). However, it has been endorsed by the school leadership and > NLR > >>>>>> is > >>>>>> actively trying to get the school district to adopt the software. > You > >> can > >>>>>> view the NLR website here http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ A > >>>>>> non-community member started NLR after using Rosetta Stone to learn > >>>>>> Russian. > >>>>>> She thought it would be good if Rosetta Stone created a Navajo > version. > >>>>>> She > >>>>>> contacted Rosetta Stone (RS), and they told her they would provide > here > >>>>>> with > >>>>>> the software to develop the lessons, a photographer, and technical > >>>>>> assistants (limited on the ground, mostly by phone) to develop the > >>>>>> program > >>>>>> for $300,000. Another option would be for her to apply for a grant > from > >>>>>> RS > >>>>>> to cover most of the costs. So the NLR was created, a partnership > >> between > >>>>>> community members and one non-community member, as a non-profit > >>>>>> organization and applied. RS gave two grants the year they applied, > one > >>>>>> went > >>>>>> to NLR. The grant covered all but $27,000 of the $300,000. So NLR > had to > >>>>>> pay > >>>>>> RS $27,000 to have access to the software to create the Navajo > Rosetta > >>>>>> Stone. This means they had to create the lessons and pay speakers > and > >>>>>> informants themselves. RS provided the software, a photographer, and > >>>>>> technical support for the $27,000. NLR now is the only group that > can > >>>>>> sell > >>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone, which they do for $150 per license and $200 > for a > >>>>>> personal box set. It is not clear if they have to pay RS a > percentage of > >>>>>> those revenues or not. When I asked a clear answer wasn't given. NLR > >> also > >>>>>> has a "training" session for administrators and teachers which costs > >>>>>> $1500 a > >>>>>> day and $400 per 3 hours. Needless to say, it is not > un-controversial in > >>>>>> the > >>>>>> community for many of the usual reasons. Ironically, the speaker > after > >>>>>> the > >>>>>> Rosetta Stone folks gave a talk that demonstrated how to create > nearly > >>>>>> identical language lessons as Rosetta Stone's simply using power > point. > >> I > >>>>>> was encouraged to let folks know that they should contact the NLR if > >> they > >>>>>> have any questions at mbittinger at rosettastone.com. You can try a > free > >>>>>> introductory lesson here http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/The > >>>>>> folks > >>>>>> at NLR praised RS for their efforts and felt they had really done > them a > >>>>>> service. In short, they were very happy with the arrangement and how > it > >>>>>> was > >>>>>> working out. They were also upset by the controversies surrounding > the > >>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone and felt they were really the result of a > >>>>>> misunderstanding and misguided assumptions. One finally thing, they > did > >>>>>> seem > >>>>>> to think that it was not a pancea, but rather another useful tool in > >>>>>> language revitalization efforts. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Cheers, > >>>>>> Shannon > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > University > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 10:10:14 -0800 (PST) > From: "A. Katz" > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Roseta Stone: Redux > To: Tom Givon > Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu, john at research.haifa.ac.il > Message-ID: > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed > > Tom, > > If the language is dying, then the advice not to listen to somebody under > forty because they don't know how to speak may be sound, but not for the > reason that you suggest. It could be there are no fluent speakers under > forty. It seems very unlikely that one would have to arrive at age forty > before acquiring fluency, especially in a hunter gatherer culture where > death before forty might be quite common. > > But if you have evidence to the contrary that fully immersed, monolingual > young speakers of a language cannot speak it with communicative effect > until age forty, then this is a big discovery that ought to be published > and shared with the scientific community. > > --Aya > > > On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: > > > > > > > > > Right on, John. And one could make a prediction--hopefully someday to be > > tested by acquisition studies--that Navajo kids will not master the fully > > complexcity of the Athabaskan verb by age 10, or 15, or 20. I once > reviewed a > > grammar in Papua New Guniea of a language that had comparable complexity > on > > the verb (three positions, 6-8 categoriers each, massive zeroing & > > morphonemic). I had to ask Carle Whitehead--is this guy for real? He > said, > > yes, he's been in the island for 20 years, really knows his stuff. So I > asked > > the guy--at what age are kids considered fuill-fledged speakers? He > said-- > > the old people say, don't listen to anybody under forty, they don't know > how > > to speak. In my work with the Utes, one exchange has stuck out, an elder > > (ka-para'ni-wa-t, he's not walking about any more) who was pointed to me > as > > the best orator in the tribe. I told him that, and he said: "Oh, I am > > nothing. You should have heard the Old Ones; when they spoke, you could > see > > it all in front of your eyes". Part of it is due to the complex Ute > deictic > > system, which invades NPs, ADVs & the verb. The combinations, and the > subtle > > choices of when to combine the deictic particle with other categories, > are a > > whole wond(e)rous world. Cheers, TG > > > > ========== > > > > > > > > On 2/9/2011 10:13 AM, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > >> Aya, > >> I think I was the one who said first that Navajo is not a language for > >> amateurs. I'll second what Tom said--you should learn something > >> about Navajo (or some other Athabaskan language) before making > >> statements like this. Some languages are just plain objectively harder > than > >> others, regardless of typological similarly to one's native language. If > >> you > >> don't believe this, do an experiment in which you take speakers of > English, > >> Turkish, Georgian, Chinese, whatever you want, try to teach them Navajo, > >> Hopi, > >> and Cree (for example), and see which one gives them the most trouble. > >> I guarantee it will be Navajo. And there is an objective reason for it-- > >> the morphophonemics are just unbelievably complex. > >> John > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Quoting "A. Katz": > >> > >>> Tom, > >>> > >>> I don't think that is a valid viewpoint with regard to Athabaskan or > any > >>> other language family. > >>> > >>> Victor Golla earlier had a much better phrasing when he wrote: > >>> > >>> "Let that read: "A language that is not for amateurs is not for > >>> ADULT people."" > >>> > >>> But in fact no language is easy for adults to learn who have not > already > >>> learned a language with a similar typology. If your native language > works > >>> similarly to the one you are learning, then you have an enormous > advantage > >>> as an adult second language learner. > >>> > >>> The remark about how Navajo is not for amateurs was made in the context > of > >>> people who have no experience with languages of a similar typology. > >>> To make this a universal statement about the difficulty of Navajo > without > >>> qualification is to suggest that some languages are "easy" and others > are > >>> "impossible". Not only is this not true from an objective standpoint, > it > >>> also perpetuates the prejudice that English (or IE) is a "normal" > language > >>> and that every language should be measured against this norm. > >>> > >>> Best, > >>> > >>> --Aya > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: > >>> > >>>> > >>>> Before you actually tried to learn an Athabaskan language, or at the > very > >>>> least worked on one, maybe you had better refrain from asserting that > "a > >>>> language that is not for amateurs is not for people". TG > >>>> > >>>> ========= > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On 2/8/2011 6:33 AM, A. Katz wrote: > >>>>> A language that is not for amateurs is not for people. > >>>>> > >>>>> This has nothing to do with RS or computer language teaching. As > others > >>>>> have stated, the technologically based systems are not a panacea. > >>>>> > >>>>> But a language that ordinary people can't pick by talking to their > >>>>> parents > >>>>> in childhood is either dead already or not a human language. > >>>>> > >>>>> --Aya > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> I would be amazed if a single person actually learns to speak Navajo > >>>>>> using Rosetta Stone. This is not a language for amateurs. > >>>>>> John > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Quoting "s.t. bischoff": > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Hi all, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Over the last week I was involved with an event at the American > Indian > >>>>>>> Language Development Institute and the folks that created the > Navajo > >>>>>>> Rosetta > >>>>>>> Stone gave a short talk about the software. What follows is my > >>>>>>> understanding > >>>>>>> of how it came to be. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> The Navajo Rosetta Stones was created in collaboration with Rosetta > >>> Stone > >>>>>>> and the non-profit Navajo Language Renaissance (NLR). NLR is a > >>> non-profit > >>>>>>> organization that is NOT affiliated with the tribal council or > >>> government > >>>>>>> in > >>>>>>> any way, for obvious reasons I think (e.g. getting council approval > >>>>>>> for > >>>>>>> the > >>>>>>> project). However, it has been endorsed by the school leadership > and > >>>>>>> NLR > >>>>>>> is > >>>>>>> actively trying to get the school district to adopt the software. > You > >>> can > >>>>>>> view the NLR website here http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/A > >>>>>>> non-community member started NLR after using Rosetta Stone to learn > >>>>>>> Russian. > >>>>>>> She thought it would be good if Rosetta Stone created a Navajo > >>>>>>> version. > >>>>>>> She > >>>>>>> contacted Rosetta Stone (RS), and they told her they would provide > >>>>>>> here > >>>>>>> with > >>>>>>> the software to develop the lessons, a photographer, and technical > >>>>>>> assistants (limited on the ground, mostly by phone) to develop the > >>>>>>> program > >>>>>>> for $300,000. Another option would be for her to apply for a grant > >>>>>>> from > >>>>>>> RS > >>>>>>> to cover most of the costs. So the NLR was created, a partnership > >>> between > >>>>>>> community members and one non-community member, as a non-profit > >>>>>>> organization and applied. RS gave two grants the year they applied, > >>>>>>> one > >>>>>>> went > >>>>>>> to NLR. The grant covered all but $27,000 of the $300,000. So NLR > had > >>>>>>> to > >>>>>>> pay > >>>>>>> RS $27,000 to have access to the software to create the Navajo > Rosetta > >>>>>>> Stone. This means they had to create the lessons and pay speakers > and > >>>>>>> informants themselves. RS provided the software, a photographer, > and > >>>>>>> technical support for the $27,000. NLR now is the only group that > can > >>>>>>> sell > >>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone, which they do for $150 per license and $200 > for > >>>>>>> a > >>>>>>> personal box set. It is not clear if they have to pay RS a > percentage > >>>>>>> of > >>>>>>> those revenues or not. When I asked a clear answer wasn't given. > NLR > >>> also > >>>>>>> has a "training" session for administrators and teachers which > costs > >>>>>>> $1500 a > >>>>>>> day and $400 per 3 hours. Needless to say, it is not > un-controversial > >>>>>>> in > >>>>>>> the > >>>>>>> community for many of the usual reasons. Ironically, the speaker > after > >>>>>>> the > >>>>>>> Rosetta Stone folks gave a talk that demonstrated how to create > nearly > >>>>>>> identical language lessons as Rosetta Stone's simply using power > >>>>>>> point. > >>> I > >>>>>>> was encouraged to let folks know that they should contact the NLR > if > >>> they > >>>>>>> have any questions at mbittinger at rosettastone.com. You can try a > free > >>>>>>> introductory lesson here http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/The > >>>>>>> folks > >>>>>>> at NLR praised RS for their efforts and felt they had really done > them > >>>>>>> a > >>>>>>> service. In short, they were very happy with the arrangement and > how > >>>>>>> it > >>>>>>> was > >>>>>>> working out. They were also upset by the controversies surrounding > the > >>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone and felt they were really the result of a > >>>>>>> misunderstanding and misguided assumptions. One finally thing, they > >>>>>>> did > >>>>>>> seem > >>>>>>> to think that it was not a pancea, but rather another useful tool > in > >>>>>>> language revitalization efforts. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Cheers, > >>>>>>> Shannon > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > >>>>>> University > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>> > >> > >> > >> > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 13:26:34 -0500 > From: Daniel Everett > Subject: [FUNKNET] Survival International Interview > To: Funknet Funknet > Message-ID: <438C38AE-ABAB-4933-9FBB-74D3DAA3226C at daneverett.org> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > http://www.survivalinternational.org/articles/3110 > > Survival International beginning a series of interviews with people who > are known to have contributed to this area and I am very proud to be the > first interview now featured on their site. > > I send it along in case you're interested. > > Dan > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2011 17:25:57 -0700 > From: Tom Givon > Subject: [FUNKNET] forward from Vic Golla > To: Funknet , golla at humboldt.edu > Message-ID: <4D51DF15.4070304 at uoregon.edu> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > > > Vic Golla has asked by to post this communication. My 5 years of working > on Tolowa pale in comparison with his lifetime with the Hupa. TG > > =============== > > > A language that is not for amateurs is not for people. > Let that read: "A language that is not for amateurs is not for > ADULT people." > > Whatever the neurological reality of the Critical Period, it is an > empirical fact that non-native speakers past puberty experience great > difficulty in acquiring anything resembling fluency in an Athabaskan > language. (That Ken Hale did so only proves the rule. The astoundingly > low incidence of true polyglotism deserves its own serious study.) > > Sapir called the Athabaskan languages the "son-of-a-bitchingest" > ever devised by humankind. No doubt, every ordinary Navajo child > who wants to can pick up Navajo as fast as your or my or Sapir's did > English, but God only knows how they do it. With Muriel Saville-Troike > the one, brave exception, acquisition researchers have largely > avoided Navajo, despite its obvious theoretical potential. (One suspects > that part of the problem is that such research requires some degree > of competence in the language of study. See above.) > > I must admit that it's been a while since I took a look at acquisition > studies (or the lack thereof) for Navajo or Athabaskan generally. > I would be delighted to hear that some well-designed studies have gotten > under way in the last decade. If not, they'd better hurry. Fewer than > 10% of Navajo kids *on the reservation* were speaking the language > the last time someone looked. > > --Victor Golla > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 10:27:25 -0800 (PST) > From: Frederick J Newmeyer > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Roseta Stone: Redux > To: "A. Katz" > Cc: Tom Givon , john at research.haifa.ac.il, Funknet > > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII > > A propos, are there any published studies out there that point to > measurable difference in rate of completion of first-language acquisition by > speakers of one language compared to another? Or even of mastery of one > aspect of L1 acquisition (phonology, morphology, etc.) by speakers of one > language compared to another? > > --fritz > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > University > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, A. Katz wrote: > > > Tom, > > > > If the language is dying, then the advice not to listen to somebody under > > forty because they don't know how to speak may be sound, but not for the > > reason that you suggest. It could be there are no fluent speakers under > > forty. It seems very unlikely that one would have to arrive at age forty > > before acquiring fluency, especially in a hunter gatherer culture where > death > > before forty might be quite common. > > > > But if you have evidence to the contrary that fully immersed, monolingual > > young speakers of a language cannot speak it with communicative effect > until > > age forty, then this is a big discovery that ought to be published and > shared > > with the scientific community. > > > > --Aya > > > > > > On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: > > > >> > >> > >> > >> Right on, John. And one could make a prediction--hopefully someday to be > >> tested by acquisition studies--that Navajo kids will not master the > fully > >> complexcity of the Athabaskan verb by age 10, or 15, or 20. I once > reviewed > >> a grammar in Papua New Guniea of a language that had comparable > complexity > >> on the verb (three positions, 6-8 categoriers each, massive zeroing & > >> morphonemic). I had to ask Carle Whitehead--is this guy for real? He > said, > >> yes, he's been in the island for 20 years, really knows his stuff. So I > >> asked the guy--at what age are kids considered fuill-fledged speakers? > He > >> said-- the old people say, don't listen to anybody under forty, they > don't > >> know how to speak. In my work with the Utes, one exchange has stuck > out, > >> an elder (ka-para'ni-wa-t, he's not walking about any more) who was > pointed > >> to me as the best orator in the tribe. I told him that, and he said: > "Oh, I > >> am nothing. You should have heard the Old Ones; when they spoke, you > could > >> see it all in front of your eyes". Part of it is due to the complex Ute > >> deictic system, which invades NPs, ADVs & the verb. The combinations, > and > >> the subtle choices of when to combine the deictic particle with other > >> categories, are a whole wond(e)rous world. Cheers, TG > >> > >> ========== > >> > >> > >> > >> On 2/9/2011 10:13 AM, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > >>> Aya, > >>> I think I was the one who said first that Navajo is not a language for > >>> amateurs. I'll second what Tom said--you should learn something > >>> about Navajo (or some other Athabaskan language) before making > >>> statements like this. Some languages are just plain objectively harder > >>> than > >>> others, regardless of typological similarly to one's native language. > If > >>> you > >>> don't believe this, do an experiment in which you take speakers of > >>> English, > >>> Turkish, Georgian, Chinese, whatever you want, try to teach them > Navajo, > >>> Hopi, > >>> and Cree (for example), and see which one gives them the most trouble. > >>> I guarantee it will be Navajo. And there is an objective reason for > it-- > >>> the morphophonemics are just unbelievably complex. > >>> John > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Quoting "A. Katz": > >>> > >>>> Tom, > >>>> > >>>> I don't think that is a valid viewpoint with regard to Athabaskan or > any > >>>> other language family. > >>>> > >>>> Victor Golla earlier had a much better phrasing when he wrote: > >>>> > >>>> "Let that read: "A language that is not for amateurs is not for > >>>> ADULT people."" > >>>> > >>>> But in fact no language is easy for adults to learn who have not > already > >>>> learned a language with a similar typology. If your native language > works > >>>> similarly to the one you are learning, then you have an enormous > >>>> advantage > >>>> as an adult second language learner. > >>>> > >>>> The remark about how Navajo is not for amateurs was made in the > context > >>>> of > >>>> people who have no experience with languages of a similar typology. > >>>> To make this a universal statement about the difficulty of Navajo > without > >>>> qualification is to suggest that some languages are "easy" and others > are > >>>> "impossible". Not only is this not true from an objective standpoint, > it > >>>> also perpetuates the prejudice that English (or IE) is a "normal" > >>>> language > >>>> and that every language should be measured against this norm. > >>>> > >>>> Best, > >>>> > >>>> --Aya > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Before you actually tried to learn an Athabaskan language, or at the > >>>>> very > >>>>> least worked on one, maybe you had better refrain from asserting that > "a > >>>>> language that is not for amateurs is not for people". TG > >>>>> > >>>>> ========= > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On 2/8/2011 6:33 AM, A. Katz wrote: > >>>>>> A language that is not for amateurs is not for people. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> This has nothing to do with RS or computer language teaching. As > others > >>>>>> have stated, the technologically based systems are not a panacea. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> But a language that ordinary people can't pick by talking to their > >>>>>> parents > >>>>>> in childhood is either dead already or not a human language. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> --Aya > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> I would be amazed if a single person actually learns to speak > Navajo > >>>>>>> using Rosetta Stone. This is not a language for amateurs. > >>>>>>> John > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Quoting "s.t. bischoff": > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Hi all, > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Over the last week I was involved with an event at the American > >>>>>>>> Indian > >>>>>>>> Language Development Institute and the folks that created the > Navajo > >>>>>>>> Rosetta > >>>>>>>> Stone gave a short talk about the software. What follows is my > >>>>>>>> understanding > >>>>>>>> of how it came to be. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> The Navajo Rosetta Stones was created in collaboration with > Rosetta > >>>> Stone > >>>>>>>> and the non-profit Navajo Language Renaissance (NLR). NLR is a > >>>> non-profit > >>>>>>>> organization that is NOT affiliated with the tribal council or > >>>> government > >>>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>> any way, for obvious reasons I think (e.g. getting council > approval > >>>>>>>> for > >>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>> project). However, it has been endorsed by the school leadership > and > >>>>>>>> NLR > >>>>>>>> is > >>>>>>>> actively trying to get the school district to adopt the software. > You > >>>> can > >>>>>>>> view the NLR website here http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/A > >>>>>>>> non-community member started NLR after using Rosetta Stone to > learn > >>>>>>>> Russian. > >>>>>>>> She thought it would be good if Rosetta Stone created a Navajo > >>>>>>>> version. > >>>>>>>> She > >>>>>>>> contacted Rosetta Stone (RS), and they told her they would provide > >>>>>>>> here > >>>>>>>> with > >>>>>>>> the software to develop the lessons, a photographer, and > technical > >>>>>>>> assistants (limited on the ground, mostly by phone) to develop the > >>>>>>>> program > >>>>>>>> for $300,000. Another option would be for her to apply for a grant > >>>>>>>> from > >>>>>>>> RS > >>>>>>>> to cover most of the costs. So the NLR was created, a partnership > >>>> between > >>>>>>>> community members and one non-community member, as a non-profit > >>>>>>>> organization and applied. RS gave two grants the year they > applied, > >>>>>>>> one > >>>>>>>> went > >>>>>>>> to NLR. The grant covered all but $27,000 of the $300,000. So NLR > had > >>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>> pay > >>>>>>>> RS $27,000 to have access to the software to create the Navajo > >>>>>>>> Rosetta > >>>>>>>> Stone. This means they had to create the lessons and pay speakers > and > >>>>>>>> informants themselves. RS provided the software, a photographer, > and > >>>>>>>> technical support for the $27,000. NLR now is the only group that > can > >>>>>>>> sell > >>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone, which they do for $150 per license and $200 > for > >>>>>>>> a > >>>>>>>> personal box set. It is not clear if they have to pay RS a > percentage > >>>>>>>> of > >>>>>>>> those revenues or not. When I asked a clear answer wasn't given. > NLR > >>>> also > >>>>>>>> has a "training" session for administrators and teachers which > costs > >>>>>>>> $1500 a > >>>>>>>> day and $400 per 3 hours. Needless to say, it is not > un-controversial > >>>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>> community for many of the usual reasons. Ironically, the speaker > >>>>>>>> after > >>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>> Rosetta Stone folks gave a talk that demonstrated how to create > >>>>>>>> nearly > >>>>>>>> identical language lessons as Rosetta Stone's simply using power > >>>>>>>> point. > >>>> I > >>>>>>>> was encouraged to let folks know that they should contact the NLR > if > >>>> they > >>>>>>>> have any questions at mbittinger at rosettastone.com. You can try a > free > >>>>>>>> introductory lesson here http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/The > >>>>>>>> folks > >>>>>>>> at NLR praised RS for their efforts and felt they had really done > >>>>>>>> them a > >>>>>>>> service. In short, they were very happy with the arrangement and > how > >>>>>>>> it > >>>>>>>> was > >>>>>>>> working out. They were also upset by the controversies surrounding > >>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone and felt they were really the result of a > >>>>>>>> misunderstanding and misguided assumptions. One finally thing, > they > >>>>>>>> did > >>>>>>>> seem > >>>>>>>> to think that it was not a pancea, but rather another useful tool > in > >>>>>>>> language revitalization efforts. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Cheers, > >>>>>>>> Shannon > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > >>>>>>> University > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > University > >> > >> > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2011 11:34:01 -0700 > From: Tom Givon > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Roseta Stone: Redux > To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Message-ID: <4D52DE19.8010409 at uoregon.edu> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > > > That language in PNG was not dying. It was on a n isolate island, no > bilingualism, no contact. Some day it might just occured to you that > linguistics is not only about arguments, but occasionally about simple > facts. TG > > ============= > > On 2/9/2011 11:10 AM, A. Katz wrote: > > Tom, > > > > If the language is dying, then the advice not to listen to somebody > > under forty because they don't know how to speak may be sound, but not > > for the reason that you suggest. It could be there are no fluent > > speakers under forty. It seems very unlikely that one would have to > > arrive at age forty before acquiring fluency, especially in a hunter > > gatherer culture where death before forty might be quite common. > > > > But if you have evidence to the contrary that fully immersed, > > monolingual young speakers of a language cannot speak it with > > communicative effect until age forty, then this is a big discovery > > that ought to be published and shared with the scientific community. > > > > --Aya > > > > > > On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: > > > >> > >> > >> > >> Right on, John. And one could make a prediction--hopefully someday to > >> be tested by acquisition studies--that Navajo kids will not master > >> the fully complexcity of the Athabaskan verb by age 10, or 15, or 20. > >> I once reviewed a grammar in Papua New Guniea of a language that had > >> comparable complexity on the verb (three positions, 6-8 categoriers > >> each, massive zeroing & morphonemic). I had to ask Carle > >> Whitehead--is this guy for real? He said, yes, he's been in the > >> island for 20 years, really knows his stuff. So I asked the guy--at > >> what age are kids considered fuill-fledged speakers? He said-- the > >> old people say, don't listen to anybody under forty, they don't know > >> how to speak. In my work with the Utes, one exchange has stuck out, > >> an elder (ka-para'ni-wa-t, he's not walking about any more) who was > >> pointed to me as the best orator in the tribe. I told him that, and > >> he said: "Oh, I am nothing. You should have heard the Old Ones; when > >> they spoke, you could see it all in front of your eyes". Part of it > >> is due to the complex Ute deictic system, which invades NPs, ADVs & > >> the verb. The combinations, and the subtle choices of when to combine > >> the deictic particle with other categories, are a whole wond(e)rous > >> world. Cheers, TG > >> > >> ========== > >> > >> > >> > >> On 2/9/2011 10:13 AM, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > >>> Aya, > >>> I think I was the one who said first that Navajo is not a language for > >>> amateurs. I'll second what Tom said--you should learn something > >>> about Navajo (or some other Athabaskan language) before making > >>> statements like this. Some languages are just plain objectively > >>> harder than > >>> others, regardless of typological similarly to one's native > >>> language. If you > >>> don't believe this, do an experiment in which you take speakers of > >>> English, > >>> Turkish, Georgian, Chinese, whatever you want, try to teach them > >>> Navajo, Hopi, > >>> and Cree (for example), and see which one gives them the most trouble. > >>> I guarantee it will be Navajo. And there is an objective reason for > >>> it-- > >>> the morphophonemics are just unbelievably complex. > >>> John > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Quoting "A. Katz": > >>> > >>>> Tom, > >>>> > >>>> I don't think that is a valid viewpoint with regard to Athabaskan > >>>> or any > >>>> other language family. > >>>> > >>>> Victor Golla earlier had a much better phrasing when he wrote: > >>>> > >>>> "Let that read: "A language that is not for amateurs is not for > >>>> ADULT people."" > >>>> > >>>> But in fact no language is easy for adults to learn who have not > >>>> already > >>>> learned a language with a similar typology. If your native language > >>>> works > >>>> similarly to the one you are learning, then you have an enormous > >>>> advantage > >>>> as an adult second language learner. > >>>> > >>>> The remark about how Navajo is not for amateurs was made in the > >>>> context of > >>>> people who have no experience with languages of a similar typology. > >>>> To make this a universal statement about the difficulty of Navajo > >>>> without > >>>> qualification is to suggest that some languages are "easy" and > >>>> others are > >>>> "impossible". Not only is this not true from an objective > >>>> standpoint, it > >>>> also perpetuates the prejudice that English (or IE) is a "normal" > >>>> language > >>>> and that every language should be measured against this norm. > >>>> > >>>> Best, > >>>> > >>>> --Aya > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Before you actually tried to learn an Athabaskan language, or at > >>>>> the very > >>>>> least worked on one, maybe you had better refrain from asserting > >>>>> that "a > >>>>> language that is not for amateurs is not for people". TG > >>>>> > >>>>> ========= > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On 2/8/2011 6:33 AM, A. Katz wrote: > >>>>>> A language that is not for amateurs is not for people. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> This has nothing to do with RS or computer language teaching. As > >>>>>> others > >>>>>> have stated, the technologically based systems are not a panacea. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> But a language that ordinary people can't pick by talking to > >>>>>> their parents > >>>>>> in childhood is either dead already or not a human language. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> --Aya > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> I would be amazed if a single person actually learns to speak > >>>>>>> Navajo > >>>>>>> using Rosetta Stone. This is not a language for amateurs. > >>>>>>> John > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Quoting "s.t. bischoff": > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Hi all, > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Over the last week I was involved with an event at the American > >>>>>>>> Indian > >>>>>>>> Language Development Institute and the folks that created the > >>>>>>>> Navajo > >>>>>>>> Rosetta > >>>>>>>> Stone gave a short talk about the software. What follows is my > >>>>>>>> understanding > >>>>>>>> of how it came to be. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> The Navajo Rosetta Stones was created in collaboration with > >>>>>>>> Rosetta > >>>> Stone > >>>>>>>> and the non-profit Navajo Language Renaissance (NLR). NLR is a > >>>> non-profit > >>>>>>>> organization that is NOT affiliated with the tribal council or > >>>> government > >>>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>> any way, for obvious reasons I think (e.g. getting council > >>>>>>>> approval for > >>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>> project). However, it has been endorsed by the school > >>>>>>>> leadership and NLR > >>>>>>>> is > >>>>>>>> actively trying to get the school district to adopt the > >>>>>>>> software. You > >>>> can > >>>>>>>> view the NLR website here > >>>>>>>> http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ A > >>>>>>>> non-community member started NLR after using Rosetta Stone to > >>>>>>>> learn > >>>>>>>> Russian. > >>>>>>>> She thought it would be good if Rosetta Stone created a Navajo > >>>>>>>> version. > >>>>>>>> She > >>>>>>>> contacted Rosetta Stone (RS), and they told her they would > >>>>>>>> provide here > >>>>>>>> with > >>>>>>>> the software to develop the lessons, a photographer, and > >>>>>>>> technical > >>>>>>>> assistants (limited on the ground, mostly by phone) to develop the > >>>>>>>> program > >>>>>>>> for $300,000. Another option would be for her to apply for a > >>>>>>>> grant from > >>>>>>>> RS > >>>>>>>> to cover most of the costs. So the NLR was created, a partnership > >>>> between > >>>>>>>> community members and one non-community member, as a non-profit > >>>>>>>> organization and applied. RS gave two grants the year they > >>>>>>>> applied, one > >>>>>>>> went > >>>>>>>> to NLR. The grant covered all but $27,000 of the $300,000. So > >>>>>>>> NLR had to > >>>>>>>> pay > >>>>>>>> RS $27,000 to have access to the software to create the Navajo > >>>>>>>> Rosetta > >>>>>>>> Stone. This means they had to create the lessons and pay > >>>>>>>> speakers and > >>>>>>>> informants themselves. RS provided the software, a > >>>>>>>> photographer, and > >>>>>>>> technical support for the $27,000. NLR now is the only group > >>>>>>>> that can > >>>>>>>> sell > >>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone, which they do for $150 per license and > >>>>>>>> $200 for a > >>>>>>>> personal box set. It is not clear if they have to pay RS a > >>>>>>>> percentage of > >>>>>>>> those revenues or not. When I asked a clear answer wasn't > >>>>>>>> given. NLR > >>>> also > >>>>>>>> has a "training" session for administrators and teachers which > >>>>>>>> costs > >>>>>>>> $1500 a > >>>>>>>> day and $400 per 3 hours. Needless to say, it is not > >>>>>>>> un-controversial in > >>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>> community for many of the usual reasons. Ironically, the > >>>>>>>> speaker after > >>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>> Rosetta Stone folks gave a talk that demonstrated how to create > >>>>>>>> nearly > >>>>>>>> identical language lessons as Rosetta Stone's simply using > >>>>>>>> power point. > >>>> I > >>>>>>>> was encouraged to let folks know that they should contact the > >>>>>>>> NLR if > >>>> they > >>>>>>>> have any questions at mbittinger at rosettastone.com. You can try > >>>>>>>> a free > >>>>>>>> introductory lesson here > >>>>>>>> http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ The > >>>>>>>> folks > >>>>>>>> at NLR praised RS for their efforts and felt they had really > >>>>>>>> done them a > >>>>>>>> service. In short, they were very happy with the arrangement > >>>>>>>> and how it > >>>>>>>> was > >>>>>>>> working out. They were also upset by the controversies > >>>>>>>> surrounding the > >>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone and felt they were really the result of a > >>>>>>>> misunderstanding and misguided assumptions. One finally thing, > >>>>>>>> they did > >>>>>>>> seem > >>>>>>>> to think that it was not a pancea, but rather another useful > >>>>>>>> tool in > >>>>>>>> language revitalization efforts. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Cheers, > >>>>>>>> Shannon > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > >>>>>>> University > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>> > >>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > >>> University > >> > >> > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 7 > Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 12:34:07 -0600 > From: Marc Ettlinger > Subject: [FUNKNET] Non-fluent native speakers of Navajo > To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > I find the anecdote below fascinating - that L1 speakers of Navajo may > not be considered fluent well into adulthood. > Is there any actual evidence that this isn't simply a "kids these days > mangle the language" type of comment (which you'd probably get from > old English speakers commenting on whether American teens speak > English correctly, as well) or something having to do with the > influence of language contact on younger learners? > > More generally, I'd be curious to hear about any evidence of people > still learning their first language past their teens that isn't simply > an instance of language change. > > People generally write about language decline in older speakers - if > there are cases where adults are still learning, I imagine it's been > written up somewhere? > > Thanks, > Marc > > Message: 7 > Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2011 10:39:34 -0700 > From: Tom Givon > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Roseta Stone: Redux > To: john at research.haifa.ac.il > Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu, "A. Katz" > Message-ID: <4D52D156.4030509 at uoregon.edu> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > > Right on, John. And one could make a prediction--hopefully someday to be > tested by acquisition studies--that Navajo kids will not master the > fully complexcity of the Athabaskan verb by age 10, or 15, or 20. I once > reviewed a grammar in Papua New Guniea of a language that had comparable > complexity on the verb (three positions, 6-8 categoriers each, massive > zeroing & morphonemic). I had to ask Carle Whitehead--is this guy for > real? He said, yes, he's been in the island for 20 years, really knows > his stuff. So I asked the guy--at what age are kids considered > fuill-fledged speakers? He said-- the old people say, don't listen to > anybody under forty, they don't know how to speak. In my work with the > Utes, one exchange has stuck out, an elder (ka-para'ni-wa-t, he's not > walking about any more) who was pointed to me as the best orator in the > tribe. I told him that, and he said: "Oh, I am nothing. You should have > heard the Old Ones; when they spoke, you could see it all in front of > your eyes". Part of it is due to the complex Ute deictic system, which > invades NPs, ADVs & the verb. The combinations, and the subtle choices > of when to combine the deictic particle with other categories, are a > whole wond(e)rous world. Cheers, TG > > ========== > > -- > Marc Ettlinger > Postdoctoral Researcher > Northwestern University Institute of Neuroscience > 2240 Campus Drive > Evanston, IL, 60208 > 847-491-2430 > marc at northwestern.edu > http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/~met179/ > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 8 > Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 10:36:44 -0800 (PST) > From: "A. Katz" > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Roseta Stone: Redux > To: Frederick J Newmeyer > Cc: Tom Givon , Funknet > , john at research.haifa.ac.il > Message-ID: > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed > > Fritz, > > That's a really good question. I look forward to hearing if other > Funknetters know of such studies. > > --Aya > > > On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > > > A propos, are there any published studies out there that point to > measurable > > difference in rate of completion of first-language acquisition by > speakers of > > one language compared to another? Or even of mastery of one aspect of L1 > > acquisition (phonology, morphology, etc.) by speakers of one language > > compared to another? > > > > --fritz > > > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > University > > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > > > On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, A. Katz wrote: > > > >> Tom, > >> > >> If the language is dying, then the advice not to listen to somebody > under > >> forty because they don't know how to speak may be sound, but not for the > >> reason that you suggest. It could be there are no fluent speakers under > >> forty. It seems very unlikely that one would have to arrive at age forty > >> before acquiring fluency, especially in a hunter gatherer culture where > >> death before forty might be quite common. > >> > >> But if you have evidence to the contrary that fully immersed, > monolingual > >> young speakers of a language cannot speak it with communicative effect > >> until age forty, then this is a big discovery that ought to be published > >> and shared with the scientific community. > >> > >> --Aya > >> > >> > >> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Right on, John. And one could make a prediction--hopefully someday to > be > >>> tested by acquisition studies--that Navajo kids will not master the > fully > >>> complexcity of the Athabaskan verb by age 10, or 15, or 20. I once > >>> reviewed a grammar in Papua New Guniea of a language that had > comparable > >>> complexity on the verb (three positions, 6-8 categoriers each, massive > >>> zeroing & morphonemic). I had to ask Carle Whitehead--is this guy for > >>> real? He said, yes, he's been in the island for 20 years, really knows > his > >>> stuff. So I asked the guy--at what age are kids considered > fuill-fledged > >>> speakers? He said-- the old people say, don't listen to anybody under > >>> forty, they don't know how to speak. In my work with the Utes, one > >>> exchange has stuck out, an elder (ka-para'ni-wa-t, he's not walking > about > >>> any more) who was pointed to me as the best orator in the tribe. I told > >>> him that, and he said: "Oh, I am nothing. You should have heard the Old > >>> Ones; when they spoke, you could see it all in front of your eyes". > Part > >>> of it is due to the complex Ute deictic system, which invades NPs, ADVs > & > >>> the verb. The combinations, and the subtle choices of when to combine > the > >>> deictic particle with other categories, are a whole wond(e)rous world. > >>> Cheers, TG > >>> > >>> ========== > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On 2/9/2011 10:13 AM, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > >>>> Aya, > >>>> I think I was the one who said first that Navajo is not a language for > >>>> amateurs. I'll second what Tom said--you should learn something > >>>> about Navajo (or some other Athabaskan language) before making > >>>> statements like this. Some languages are just plain objectively harder > >>>> than > >>>> others, regardless of typological similarly to one's native language. > If > >>>> you > >>>> don't believe this, do an experiment in which you take speakers of > >>>> English, > >>>> Turkish, Georgian, Chinese, whatever you want, try to teach them > Navajo, > >>>> Hopi, > >>>> and Cree (for example), and see which one gives them the most trouble. > >>>> I guarantee it will be Navajo. And there is an objective reason for > it-- > >>>> the morphophonemics are just unbelievably complex. > >>>> John > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Quoting "A. Katz": > >>>> > >>>>> Tom, > >>>>> > >>>>> I don't think that is a valid viewpoint with regard to Athabaskan or > any > >>>>> other language family. > >>>>> > >>>>> Victor Golla earlier had a much better phrasing when he wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> "Let that read: "A language that is not for amateurs is not for > >>>>> ADULT people."" > >>>>> > >>>>> But in fact no language is easy for adults to learn who have not > already > >>>>> learned a language with a similar typology. If your native language > >>>>> works > >>>>> similarly to the one you are learning, then you have an enormous > >>>>> advantage > >>>>> as an adult second language learner. > >>>>> > >>>>> The remark about how Navajo is not for amateurs was made in the > context > >>>>> of > >>>>> people who have no experience with languages of a similar typology. > >>>>> To make this a universal statement about the difficulty of Navajo > >>>>> without > >>>>> qualification is to suggest that some languages are "easy" and others > >>>>> are > >>>>> "impossible". Not only is this not true from an objective standpoint, > it > >>>>> also perpetuates the prejudice that English (or IE) is a "normal" > >>>>> language > >>>>> and that every language should be measured against this norm. > >>>>> > >>>>> Best, > >>>>> > >>>>> --Aya > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Before you actually tried to learn an Athabaskan language, or at the > >>>>>> very > >>>>>> least worked on one, maybe you had better refrain from asserting > that > >>>>>> "a > >>>>>> language that is not for amateurs is not for people". TG > >>>>>> > >>>>>> ========= > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On 2/8/2011 6:33 AM, A. Katz wrote: > >>>>>>> A language that is not for amateurs is not for people. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> This has nothing to do with RS or computer language teaching. As > >>>>>>> others > >>>>>>> have stated, the technologically based systems are not a panacea. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> But a language that ordinary people can't pick by talking to their > >>>>>>> parents > >>>>>>> in childhood is either dead already or not a human language. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> --Aya > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I would be amazed if a single person actually learns to speak > Navajo > >>>>>>>> using Rosetta Stone. This is not a language for amateurs. > >>>>>>>> John > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Quoting "s.t. bischoff": > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Hi all, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Over the last week I was involved with an event at the American > >>>>>>>>> Indian > >>>>>>>>> Language Development Institute and the folks that created the > Navajo > >>>>>>>>> Rosetta > >>>>>>>>> Stone gave a short talk about the software. What follows is my > >>>>>>>>> understanding > >>>>>>>>> of how it came to be. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> The Navajo Rosetta Stones was created in collaboration with > Rosetta > >>>>> Stone > >>>>>>>>> and the non-profit Navajo Language Renaissance (NLR). NLR is a > >>>>> non-profit > >>>>>>>>> organization that is NOT affiliated with the tribal council or > >>>>> government > >>>>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>>> any way, for obvious reasons I think (e.g. getting council > approval > >>>>>>>>> for > >>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>> project). However, it has been endorsed by the school leadership > and > >>>>>>>>> NLR > >>>>>>>>> is > >>>>>>>>> actively trying to get the school district to adopt the software. > >>>>>>>>> You > >>>>> can > >>>>>>>>> view the NLR website here > http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ A > >>>>>>>>> non-community member started NLR after using Rosetta Stone to > learn > >>>>>>>>> Russian. > >>>>>>>>> She thought it would be good if Rosetta Stone created a Navajo > >>>>>>>>> version. > >>>>>>>>> She > >>>>>>>>> contacted Rosetta Stone (RS), and they told her they would > provide > >>>>>>>>> here > >>>>>>>>> with > >>>>>>>>> the software to develop the lessons, a photographer, and > technical > >>>>>>>>> assistants (limited on the ground, mostly by phone) to develop > the > >>>>>>>>> program > >>>>>>>>> for $300,000. Another option would be for her to apply for a > grant > >>>>>>>>> from > >>>>>>>>> RS > >>>>>>>>> to cover most of the costs. So the NLR was created, a partnership > >>>>> between > >>>>>>>>> community members and one non-community member, as a non-profit > >>>>>>>>> organization and applied. RS gave two grants the year they > applied, > >>>>>>>>> one > >>>>>>>>> went > >>>>>>>>> to NLR. The grant covered all but $27,000 of the $300,000. So NLR > >>>>>>>>> had to > >>>>>>>>> pay > >>>>>>>>> RS $27,000 to have access to the software to create the Navajo > >>>>>>>>> Rosetta > >>>>>>>>> Stone. This means they had to create the lessons and pay speakers > >>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>> informants themselves. RS provided the software, a photographer, > and > >>>>>>>>> technical support for the $27,000. NLR now is the only group that > >>>>>>>>> can > >>>>>>>>> sell > >>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone, which they do for $150 per license and $200 > >>>>>>>>> for a > >>>>>>>>> personal box set. It is not clear if they have to pay RS a > >>>>>>>>> percentage of > >>>>>>>>> those revenues or not. When I asked a clear answer wasn't given. > NLR > >>>>> also > >>>>>>>>> has a "training" session for administrators and teachers which > costs > >>>>>>>>> $1500 a > >>>>>>>>> day and $400 per 3 hours. Needless to say, it is not > >>>>>>>>> un-controversial in > >>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>> community for many of the usual reasons. Ironically, the speaker > >>>>>>>>> after > >>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>> Rosetta Stone folks gave a talk that demonstrated how to create > >>>>>>>>> nearly > >>>>>>>>> identical language lessons as Rosetta Stone's simply using power > >>>>>>>>> point. > >>>>> I > >>>>>>>>> was encouraged to let folks know that they should contact the NLR > if > >>>>> they > >>>>>>>>> have any questions at mbittinger at rosettastone.com. You can try a > >>>>>>>>> free > >>>>>>>>> introductory lesson here http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/The > >>>>>>>>> folks > >>>>>>>>> at NLR praised RS for their efforts and felt they had really done > >>>>>>>>> them a > >>>>>>>>> service. In short, they were very happy with the arrangement and > how > >>>>>>>>> it > >>>>>>>>> was > >>>>>>>>> working out. They were also upset by the controversies > surrounding > >>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone and felt they were really the result of a > >>>>>>>>> misunderstanding and misguided assumptions. One finally thing, > they > >>>>>>>>> did > >>>>>>>>> seem > >>>>>>>>> to think that it was not a pancea, but rather another useful tool > in > >>>>>>>>> language revitalization efforts. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Cheers, > >>>>>>>>> Shannon > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > >>>>>>>> University > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > University > >>> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 9 > Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 10:41:32 -0800 (PST) > From: "A. Katz" > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Roseta Stone: Redux > To: Tom Givon > Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Message-ID: > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed > > I look forward to hearing more about this occurrence. Are you going to > publish about it, or has something already been published? > > I'm perfectly open to the possibility that this is so, but have never > heard of such a thing before. It is not common knowledge, even among > linguists. I look forward to learning more about it. > > This information should be shared with the scientific community. > > Best, > > --Aya > > > > On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: > > > > > > > That language in PNG was not dying. It was on a n isolate island, no > > bilingualism, no contact. Some day it might just occured to you that > > linguistics is not only about arguments, but occasionally about simple > facts. > > TG > > > > ============= > > > > On 2/9/2011 11:10 AM, A. Katz wrote: > >> Tom, > >> > >> If the language is dying, then the advice not to listen to somebody > under > >> forty because they don't know how to speak may be sound, but not for the > >> reason that you suggest. It could be there are no fluent speakers under > >> forty. It seems very unlikely that one would have to arrive at age forty > >> before acquiring fluency, especially in a hunter gatherer culture where > >> death before forty might be quite common. > >> > >> But if you have evidence to the contrary that fully immersed, > monolingual > >> young speakers of a language cannot speak it with communicative effect > >> until age forty, then this is a big discovery that ought to be published > >> and shared with the scientific community. > >> > >> --Aya > >> > >> > >> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Right on, John. And one could make a prediction--hopefully someday to > be > >>> tested by acquisition studies--that Navajo kids will not master the > fully > >>> complexcity of the Athabaskan verb by age 10, or 15, or 20. I once > >>> reviewed a grammar in Papua New Guniea of a language that had > comparable > >>> complexity on the verb (three positions, 6-8 categoriers each, massive > >>> zeroing & morphonemic). I had to ask Carle Whitehead--is this guy for > >>> real? He said, yes, he's been in the island for 20 years, really knows > his > >>> stuff. So I asked the guy--at what age are kids considered > fuill-fledged > >>> speakers? He said-- the old people say, don't listen to anybody under > >>> forty, they don't know how to speak. In my work with the Utes, one > >>> exchange has stuck out, an elder (ka-para'ni-wa-t, he's not walking > about > >>> any more) who was pointed to me as the best orator in the tribe. I told > >>> him that, and he said: "Oh, I am nothing. You should have heard the Old > >>> Ones; when they spoke, you could see it all in front of your eyes". > Part > >>> of it is due to the complex Ute deictic system, which invades NPs, ADVs > & > >>> the verb. The combinations, and the subtle choices of when to combine > the > >>> deictic particle with other categories, are a whole wond(e)rous world. > >>> Cheers, TG > >>> > >>> ========== > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On 2/9/2011 10:13 AM, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > >>>> Aya, > >>>> I think I was the one who said first that Navajo is not a language for > >>>> amateurs. I'll second what Tom said--you should learn something > >>>> about Navajo (or some other Athabaskan language) before making > >>>> statements like this. Some languages are just plain objectively harder > >>>> than > >>>> others, regardless of typological similarly to one's native language. > If > >>>> you > >>>> don't believe this, do an experiment in which you take speakers of > >>>> English, > >>>> Turkish, Georgian, Chinese, whatever you want, try to teach them > Navajo, > >>>> Hopi, > >>>> and Cree (for example), and see which one gives them the most trouble. > >>>> I guarantee it will be Navajo. And there is an objective reason for > it-- > >>>> the morphophonemics are just unbelievably complex. > >>>> John > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Quoting "A. Katz": > >>>> > >>>>> Tom, > >>>>> > >>>>> I don't think that is a valid viewpoint with regard to Athabaskan or > any > >>>>> other language family. > >>>>> > >>>>> Victor Golla earlier had a much better phrasing when he wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> "Let that read: "A language that is not for amateurs is not for > >>>>> ADULT people."" > >>>>> > >>>>> But in fact no language is easy for adults to learn who have not > already > >>>>> learned a language with a similar typology. If your native language > >>>>> works > >>>>> similarly to the one you are learning, then you have an enormous > >>>>> advantage > >>>>> as an adult second language learner. > >>>>> > >>>>> The remark about how Navajo is not for amateurs was made in the > context > >>>>> of > >>>>> people who have no experience with languages of a similar typology. > >>>>> To make this a universal statement about the difficulty of Navajo > >>>>> without > >>>>> qualification is to suggest that some languages are "easy" and others > >>>>> are > >>>>> "impossible". Not only is this not true from an objective standpoint, > it > >>>>> also perpetuates the prejudice that English (or IE) is a "normal" > >>>>> language > >>>>> and that every language should be measured against this norm. > >>>>> > >>>>> Best, > >>>>> > >>>>> --Aya > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Before you actually tried to learn an Athabaskan language, or at the > >>>>>> very > >>>>>> least worked on one, maybe you had better refrain from asserting > that > >>>>>> "a > >>>>>> language that is not for amateurs is not for people". TG > >>>>>> > >>>>>> ========= > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On 2/8/2011 6:33 AM, A. Katz wrote: > >>>>>>> A language that is not for amateurs is not for people. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> This has nothing to do with RS or computer language teaching. As > >>>>>>> others > >>>>>>> have stated, the technologically based systems are not a panacea. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> But a language that ordinary people can't pick by talking to their > >>>>>>> parents > >>>>>>> in childhood is either dead already or not a human language. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> --Aya > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I would be amazed if a single person actually learns to speak > Navajo > >>>>>>>> using Rosetta Stone. This is not a language for amateurs. > >>>>>>>> John > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Quoting "s.t. bischoff": > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Hi all, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Over the last week I was involved with an event at the American > >>>>>>>>> Indian > >>>>>>>>> Language Development Institute and the folks that created the > Navajo > >>>>>>>>> Rosetta > >>>>>>>>> Stone gave a short talk about the software. What follows is my > >>>>>>>>> understanding > >>>>>>>>> of how it came to be. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> The Navajo Rosetta Stones was created in collaboration with > Rosetta > >>>>> Stone > >>>>>>>>> and the non-profit Navajo Language Renaissance (NLR). NLR is a > >>>>> non-profit > >>>>>>>>> organization that is NOT affiliated with the tribal council or > >>>>> government > >>>>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>>> any way, for obvious reasons I think (e.g. getting council > approval > >>>>>>>>> for > >>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>> project). However, it has been endorsed by the school leadership > and > >>>>>>>>> NLR > >>>>>>>>> is > >>>>>>>>> actively trying to get the school district to adopt the software. > >>>>>>>>> You > >>>>> can > >>>>>>>>> view the NLR website here > http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ A > >>>>>>>>> non-community member started NLR after using Rosetta Stone to > learn > >>>>>>>>> Russian. > >>>>>>>>> She thought it would be good if Rosetta Stone created a Navajo > >>>>>>>>> version. > >>>>>>>>> She > >>>>>>>>> contacted Rosetta Stone (RS), and they told her they would > provide > >>>>>>>>> here > >>>>>>>>> with > >>>>>>>>> the software to develop the lessons, a photographer, and > technical > >>>>>>>>> assistants (limited on the ground, mostly by phone) to develop > the > >>>>>>>>> program > >>>>>>>>> for $300,000. Another option would be for her to apply for a > grant > >>>>>>>>> from > >>>>>>>>> RS > >>>>>>>>> to cover most of the costs. So the NLR was created, a partnership > >>>>> between > >>>>>>>>> community members and one non-community member, as a non-profit > >>>>>>>>> organization and applied. RS gave two grants the year they > applied, > >>>>>>>>> one > >>>>>>>>> went > >>>>>>>>> to NLR. The grant covered all but $27,000 of the $300,000. So NLR > >>>>>>>>> had to > >>>>>>>>> pay > >>>>>>>>> RS $27,000 to have access to the software to create the Navajo > >>>>>>>>> Rosetta > >>>>>>>>> Stone. This means they had to create the lessons and pay speakers > >>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>> informants themselves. RS provided the software, a photographer, > and > >>>>>>>>> technical support for the $27,000. NLR now is the only group that > >>>>>>>>> can > >>>>>>>>> sell > >>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone, which they do for $150 per license and $200 > >>>>>>>>> for a > >>>>>>>>> personal box set. It is not clear if they have to pay RS a > >>>>>>>>> percentage of > >>>>>>>>> those revenues or not. When I asked a clear answer wasn't given. > NLR > >>>>> also > >>>>>>>>> has a "training" session for administrators and teachers which > costs > >>>>>>>>> $1500 a > >>>>>>>>> day and $400 per 3 hours. Needless to say, it is not > >>>>>>>>> un-controversial in > >>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>> community for many of the usual reasons. Ironically, the speaker > >>>>>>>>> after > >>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>> Rosetta Stone folks gave a talk that demonstrated how to create > >>>>>>>>> nearly > >>>>>>>>> identical language lessons as Rosetta Stone's simply using power > >>>>>>>>> point. > >>>>> I > >>>>>>>>> was encouraged to let folks know that they should contact the NLR > if > >>>>> they > >>>>>>>>> have any questions at mbittinger at rosettastone.com. You can try a > >>>>>>>>> free > >>>>>>>>> introductory lesson here http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/The > >>>>>>>>> folks > >>>>>>>>> at NLR praised RS for their efforts and felt they had really done > >>>>>>>>> them a > >>>>>>>>> service. In short, they were very happy with the arrangement and > how > >>>>>>>>> it > >>>>>>>>> was > >>>>>>>>> working out. They were also upset by the controversies > surrounding > >>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone and felt they were really the result of a > >>>>>>>>> misunderstanding and misguided assumptions. One finally thing, > they > >>>>>>>>> did > >>>>>>>>> seem > >>>>>>>>> to think that it was not a pancea, but rather another useful tool > in > >>>>>>>>> language revitalization efforts. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Cheers, > >>>>>>>>> Shannon > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > >>>>>>>> University > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > University > >>> > >>> > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 10 > Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 14:04:17 -0500 > From: Brian MacWhinney > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Roseta Stone: Redux > To: Funknet > Message-ID: <90E93631-B2F5-4F65-BEFF-4B764AD84339 at cmu.edu> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 > > Fritz, > > There are studies in places like the Journal of Child Language by Dorthe > Bleses, Hans Basb?l, and colleagues at Southern Denmark University on the > delay of the acquisition of Danish phonology in comparison to other European > languages, mostly attributed to the complexities of the vowel system and the > various assimilatory processes. There is a corresponding delay in the > acquisition of reading by Danish children that was observed in the > cross-European PISA project. All of this is well documented in the > literature, but it is rather marginal and transitory. Eventually, normal > Danish children all learn good Danish and become fluent readers. > > -- Brian MacWhinney > > On Feb 9, 2011, at 1:27 PM, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > > > A propos, are there any published studies out there that point to > measurable difference in rate of completion of first-language acquisition by > speakers of one language compared to another? Or even of mastery of one > aspect of L1 acquisition (phonology, morphology, etc.) by speakers of one > language compared to another? > > > > --fritz > > > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > University > > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > > > On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, A. Katz wrote: > > > >> Tom, > >> > >> If the language is dying, then the advice not to listen to somebody > under forty because they don't know how to speak may be sound, but not for > the reason that you suggest. It could be there are no fluent speakers under > forty. It seems very unlikely that one would have to arrive at age forty > before acquiring fluency, especially in a hunter gatherer culture where > death before forty might be quite common. > >> > >> But if you have evidence to the contrary that fully immersed, > monolingual young speakers of a language cannot speak it with communicative > effect until age forty, then this is a big discovery that ought to be > published and shared with the scientific community. > >> > >> --Aya > >> > >> > >> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: > >> > >>> Right on, John. And one could make a prediction--hopefully someday to > be tested by acquisition studies--that Navajo kids will not master the fully > complexcity of the Athabaskan verb by age 10, or 15, or 20. I once reviewed > a grammar in Papua New Guniea of a language that had comparable complexity > on the verb (three positions, 6-8 categoriers each, massive zeroing & > morphonemic). I had to ask Carle Whitehead--is this guy for real? He said, > yes, he's been in the island for 20 years, really knows his stuff. So I > asked the guy--at what age are kids considered fuill-fledged speakers? He > said-- the old people say, don't listen to anybody under forty, they don't > know how to speak. In my work with the Utes, one exchange has stuck out, an > elder (ka-para'ni-wa-t, he's not walking about any more) who was pointed to > me as the best orator in the tribe. I told him that, and he said: "Oh, I am > nothing. You should have heard the Old Ones; when they spoke, you could see > it all in front o > f your eyes". Part of it is due to the complex Ute deictic system, which > invades NPs, ADVs & the verb. The combinations, and the subtle choices of > when to combine the deictic particle with other categories, are a whole > wond(e)rous world. Cheers, TG > >>> ========== > >>> On 2/9/2011 10:13 AM, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > >>>> Aya, > >>>> I think I was the one who said first that Navajo is not a language for > >>>> amateurs. I'll second what Tom said--you should learn something > >>>> about Navajo (or some other Athabaskan language) before making > >>>> statements like this. Some languages are just plain objectively harder > than > >>>> others, regardless of typological similarly to one's native language. > If you > >>>> don't believe this, do an experiment in which you take speakers of > English, > >>>> Turkish, Georgian, Chinese, whatever you want, try to teach them > Navajo, Hopi, > >>>> and Cree (for example), and see which one gives them the most trouble. > >>>> I guarantee it will be Navajo. And there is an objective reason for > it-- > >>>> the morphophonemics are just unbelievably complex. > >>>> John > >>>> Quoting "A. Katz": > >>>>> Tom, > >>>>> I don't think that is a valid viewpoint with regard to Athabaskan or > any > >>>>> other language family. > >>>>> Victor Golla earlier had a much better phrasing when he wrote: > >>>>> "Let that read: "A language that is not for amateurs is not for > >>>>> ADULT people."" > >>>>> But in fact no language is easy for adults to learn who have not > already > >>>>> learned a language with a similar typology. If your native language > works > >>>>> similarly to the one you are learning, then you have an enormous > advantage > >>>>> as an adult second language learner. > >>>>> The remark about how Navajo is not for amateurs was made in the > context of > >>>>> people who have no experience with languages of a similar typology. > >>>>> To make this a universal statement about the difficulty of Navajo > without > >>>>> qualification is to suggest that some languages are "easy" and others > are > >>>>> "impossible". Not only is this not true from an objective standpoint, > it > >>>>> also perpetuates the prejudice that English (or IE) is a "normal" > language > >>>>> and that every language should be measured against this norm. > >>>>> Best, > >>>>> --Aya > >>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: > >>>>>> Before you actually tried to learn an Athabaskan language, or at the > very > >>>>>> least worked on one, maybe you had better refrain from asserting > that "a > >>>>>> language that is not for amateurs is not for people". TG > >>>>>> ========= > >>>>>> On 2/8/2011 6:33 AM, A. Katz wrote: > >>>>>>> A language that is not for amateurs is not for people. > >>>>>>> This has nothing to do with RS or computer language teaching. As > others > >>>>>>> have stated, the technologically based systems are not a panacea. > >>>>>>> But a language that ordinary people can't pick by talking to their > parents > >>>>>>> in childhood is either dead already or not a human language. > >>>>>>> --Aya > >>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > >>>>>>>> I would be amazed if a single person actually learns to speak > Navajo > >>>>>>>> using Rosetta Stone. This is not a language for amateurs. > >>>>>>>> John > >>>>>>>> Quoting "s.t. bischoff": > >>>>>>>>> Hi all, > >>>>>>>>> Over the last week I was involved with an event at the American > Indian > >>>>>>>>> Language Development Institute and the folks that created the > Navajo > >>>>>>>>> Rosetta > >>>>>>>>> Stone gave a short talk about the software. What follows is my > >>>>>>>>> understanding > >>>>>>>>> of how it came to be. > >>>>>>>>> The Navajo Rosetta Stones was created in collaboration with > Rosetta > >>>>> Stone > >>>>>>>>> and the non-profit Navajo Language Renaissance (NLR). NLR is a > >>>>> non-profit > >>>>>>>>> organization that is NOT affiliated with the tribal council or > >>>>> government > >>>>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>>> any way, for obvious reasons I think (e.g. getting council > approval for > >>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>> project). However, it has been endorsed by the school leadership > and NLR > >>>>>>>>> is > >>>>>>>>> actively trying to get the school district to adopt the software. > You > >>>>> can > >>>>>>>>> view the NLR website here > http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ A > >>>>>>>>> non-community member started NLR after using Rosetta Stone to > learn > >>>>>>>>> Russian. > >>>>>>>>> She thought it would be good if Rosetta Stone created a Navajo > version. > >>>>>>>>> She > >>>>>>>>> contacted Rosetta Stone (RS), and they told her they would > provide here > >>>>>>>>> with > >>>>>>>>> the software to develop the lessons, a photographer, and > technical > >>>>>>>>> assistants (limited on the ground, mostly by phone) to develop > the > >>>>>>>>> program > >>>>>>>>> for $300,000. Another option would be for her to apply for a > grant from > >>>>>>>>> RS > >>>>>>>>> to cover most of the costs. So the NLR was created, a partnership > >>>>> between > >>>>>>>>> community members and one non-community member, as a non-profit > >>>>>>>>> organization and applied. RS gave two grants the year they > applied, one > >>>>>>>>> went > >>>>>>>>> to NLR. The grant covered all but $27,000 of the $300,000. So NLR > had to > >>>>>>>>> pay > >>>>>>>>> RS $27,000 to have access to the software to create the Navajo > Rosetta > >>>>>>>>> Stone. This means they had to create the lessons and pay speakers > and > >>>>>>>>> informants themselves. RS provided the software, a photographer, > and > >>>>>>>>> technical support for the $27,000. NLR now is the only group that > can > >>>>>>>>> sell > >>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone, which they do for $150 per license and $200 > for a > >>>>>>>>> personal box set. It is not clear if they have to pay RS a > percentage of > >>>>>>>>> those revenues or not. When I asked a clear answer wasn't given. > NLR > >>>>> also > >>>>>>>>> has a "training" session for administrators and teachers which > costs > >>>>>>>>> $1500 a > >>>>>>>>> day and $400 per 3 hours. Needless to say, it is not > un-controversial in > >>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>> community for many of the usual reasons. Ironically, the speaker > after > >>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>> Rosetta Stone folks gave a talk that demonstrated how to create > nearly > >>>>>>>>> identical language lessons as Rosetta Stone's simply using power > point. > >>>>> I > >>>>>>>>> was encouraged to let folks know that they should contact the NLR > if > >>>>> they > >>>>>>>>> have any questions at mbittinger at rosettastone.com. You can try a > free > >>>>>>>>> introductory lesson here http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/The > >>>>>>>>> folks > >>>>>>>>> at NLR praised RS for their efforts and felt they had really done > them a > >>>>>>>>> service. In short, they were very happy with the arrangement and > how it > >>>>>>>>> was > >>>>>>>>> working out. They were also upset by the controversies > surrounding the > >>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone and felt they were really the result of a > >>>>>>>>> misunderstanding and misguided assumptions. One finally thing, > they did > >>>>>>>>> seem > >>>>>>>>> to think that it was not a pancea, but rather another useful tool > in > >>>>>>>>> language revitalization efforts. > >>>>>>>>> Cheers, > >>>>>>>>> Shannon > >>>>>>>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > University > >>>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > University > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 11 > Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2011 12:12:50 -0700 > From: Tom Givon > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Roseta Stone: Redux > To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Message-ID: <4D52E732.80503 at uoregon.edu> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > > > I think the question of (dis) fluency & completeness for L1 are rather > distinct. A child can be extremely fluent in child pidgin, or even more > fluent at various stages of grammaticalization. Unlike L2 learners, > whose pidgin is rather halting. Anybody can verify this by comparing the > pause distribution in the CHILDES transcripts with L2 pidgin transcipts > (say Bickerton's Hawaii Pidgin?). Tho of course Broca's aphasia pidgin > is the most disfluent. Something sort-of resembling such a comparison > may be found in ch. 10 of my "Genesis of Syntactic Complexity" > (Benjamins 2009). TG > > ========== > > > On 2/9/2011 12:04 PM, Brian MacWhinney wrote: > > Fritz, > > > > There are studies in places like the Journal of Child Language by Dorthe > Bleses, Hans Basb?l, and colleagues at Southern Denmark University on the > delay of the acquisition of Danish phonology in comparison to other European > languages, mostly attributed to the complexities of the vowel system and the > various assimilatory processes. There is a corresponding delay in the > acquisition of reading by Danish children that was observed in the > cross-European PISA project. All of this is well documented in the > literature, but it is rather marginal and transitory. Eventually, normal > Danish children all learn good Danish and become fluent readers. > > > > -- Brian MacWhinney > > > > On Feb 9, 2011, at 1:27 PM, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > > > >> A propos, are there any published studies out there that point to > measurable difference in rate of completion of first-language acquisition by > speakers of one language compared to another? Or even of mastery of one > aspect of L1 acquisition (phonology, morphology, etc.) by speakers of one > language compared to another? > >> > >> --fritz > >> > >> Frederick J. Newmeyer > >> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > >> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > University > >> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > >> > >> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, A. Katz wrote: > >> > >>> Tom, > >>> > >>> If the language is dying, then the advice not to listen to somebody > under forty because they don't know how to speak may be sound, but not for > the reason that you suggest. It could be there are no fluent speakers under > forty. It seems very unlikely that one would have to arrive at age forty > before acquiring fluency, especially in a hunter gatherer culture where > death before forty might be quite common. > >>> > >>> But if you have evidence to the contrary that fully immersed, > monolingual young speakers of a language cannot speak it with communicative > effect until age forty, then this is a big discovery that ought to be > published and shared with the scientific community. > >>> > >>> --Aya > >>> > >>> > >>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: > >>> > >>>> Right on, John. And one could make a prediction--hopefully someday to > be tested by acquisition studies--that Navajo kids will not master the fully > complexcity of the Athabaskan verb by age 10, or 15, or 20. I once reviewed > a grammar in Papua New Guniea of a language that had comparable complexity > on the verb (three positions, 6-8 categoriers each, massive zeroing& > morphonemic). I had to ask Carle Whitehead--is this guy for real? He said, > yes, he's been in the island for 20 years, really knows his stuff. So I > asked the guy--at what age are kids considered fuill-fledged speakers? He > said-- the old people say, don't listen to anybody under forty, they don't > know how to speak. In my work with the Utes, one exchange has stuck out, an > elder (ka-para'ni-wa-t, he's not walking about any more) who was pointed to > me as the best orator in the tribe. I told him that, and he said: "Oh, I am > nothing. You should have heard the Old Ones; when they spoke, you could see > it all in front > of your eyes". Part of it is due to the complex Ute deictic system, which > invades NPs, ADVs& the verb. The combinations, and the subtle choices of > when to combine the deictic particle with other categories, are a whole > wond(e)rous world. Cheers, TG > >>>> ========== > >>>> On 2/9/2011 10:13 AM, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > >>>>> Aya, > >>>>> I think I was the one who said first that Navajo is not a language > for > >>>>> amateurs. I'll second what Tom said--you should learn something > >>>>> about Navajo (or some other Athabaskan language) before making > >>>>> statements like this. Some languages are just plain objectively > harder than > >>>>> others, regardless of typological similarly to one's native language. > If you > >>>>> don't believe this, do an experiment in which you take speakers of > English, > >>>>> Turkish, Georgian, Chinese, whatever you want, try to teach them > Navajo, Hopi, > >>>>> and Cree (for example), and see which one gives them the most > trouble. > >>>>> I guarantee it will be Navajo. And there is an objective reason for > it-- > >>>>> the morphophonemics are just unbelievably complex. > >>>>> John > >>>>> Quoting "A. Katz": > >>>>>> Tom, > >>>>>> I don't think that is a valid viewpoint with regard to Athabaskan or > any > >>>>>> other language family. > >>>>>> Victor Golla earlier had a much better phrasing when he wrote: > >>>>>> "Let that read: "A language that is not for amateurs is not for > >>>>>> ADULT people."" > >>>>>> But in fact no language is easy for adults to learn who have not > already > >>>>>> learned a language with a similar typology. If your native language > works > >>>>>> similarly to the one you are learning, then you have an enormous > advantage > >>>>>> as an adult second language learner. > >>>>>> The remark about how Navajo is not for amateurs was made in the > context of > >>>>>> people who have no experience with languages of a similar typology. > >>>>>> To make this a universal statement about the difficulty of Navajo > without > >>>>>> qualification is to suggest that some languages are "easy" and > others are > >>>>>> "impossible". Not only is this not true from an objective > standpoint, it > >>>>>> also perpetuates the prejudice that English (or IE) is a "normal" > language > >>>>>> and that every language should be measured against this norm. > >>>>>> Best, > >>>>>> --Aya > >>>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: > >>>>>>> Before you actually tried to learn an Athabaskan language, or at > the very > >>>>>>> least worked on one, maybe you had better refrain from asserting > that "a > >>>>>>> language that is not for amateurs is not for people". TG > >>>>>>> ========= > >>>>>>> On 2/8/2011 6:33 AM, A. Katz wrote: > >>>>>>>> A language that is not for amateurs is not for people. > >>>>>>>> This has nothing to do with RS or computer language teaching. As > others > >>>>>>>> have stated, the technologically based systems are not a panacea. > >>>>>>>> But a language that ordinary people can't pick by talking to their > parents > >>>>>>>> in childhood is either dead already or not a human language. > >>>>>>>> --Aya > >>>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > >>>>>>>>> I would be amazed if a single person actually learns to speak > Navajo > >>>>>>>>> using Rosetta Stone. This is not a language for amateurs. > >>>>>>>>> John > >>>>>>>>> Quoting "s.t. bischoff": > >>>>>>>>>> Hi all, > >>>>>>>>>> Over the last week I was involved with an event at the American > Indian > >>>>>>>>>> Language Development Institute and the folks that created the > Navajo > >>>>>>>>>> Rosetta > >>>>>>>>>> Stone gave a short talk about the software. What follows is my > >>>>>>>>>> understanding > >>>>>>>>>> of how it came to be. > >>>>>>>>>> The Navajo Rosetta Stones was created in collaboration with > Rosetta > >>>>>> Stone > >>>>>>>>>> and the non-profit Navajo Language Renaissance (NLR). NLR is a > >>>>>> non-profit > >>>>>>>>>> organization that is NOT affiliated with the tribal council or > >>>>>> government > >>>>>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>>>> any way, for obvious reasons I think (e.g. getting council > approval for > >>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>> project). However, it has been endorsed by the school leadership > and NLR > >>>>>>>>>> is > >>>>>>>>>> actively trying to get the school district to adopt the > software. You > >>>>>> can > >>>>>>>>>> view the NLR website here > http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ A > >>>>>>>>>> non-community member started NLR after using Rosetta Stone to > learn > >>>>>>>>>> Russian. > >>>>>>>>>> She thought it would be good if Rosetta Stone created a Navajo > version. > >>>>>>>>>> She > >>>>>>>>>> contacted Rosetta Stone (RS), and they told her they would > provide here > >>>>>>>>>> with > >>>>>>>>>> the software to develop the lessons, a photographer, and > technical > >>>>>>>>>> assistants (limited on the ground, mostly by phone) to develop > the > >>>>>>>>>> program > >>>>>>>>>> for $300,000. Another option would be for her to apply for a > grant from > >>>>>>>>>> RS > >>>>>>>>>> to cover most of the costs. So the NLR was created, a > partnership > >>>>>> between > >>>>>>>>>> community members and one non-community member, as a non-profit > >>>>>>>>>> organization and applied. RS gave two grants the year they > applied, one > >>>>>>>>>> went > >>>>>>>>>> to NLR. The grant covered all but $27,000 of the $300,000. So > NLR had to > >>>>>>>>>> pay > >>>>>>>>>> RS $27,000 to have access to the software to create the Navajo > Rosetta > >>>>>>>>>> Stone. This means they had to create the lessons and pay > speakers and > >>>>>>>>>> informants themselves. RS provided the software, a photographer, > and > >>>>>>>>>> technical support for the $27,000. NLR now is the only group > that can > >>>>>>>>>> sell > >>>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone, which they do for $150 per license and > $200 for a > >>>>>>>>>> personal box set. It is not clear if they have to pay RS a > percentage of > >>>>>>>>>> those revenues or not. When I asked a clear answer wasn't given. > NLR > >>>>>> also > >>>>>>>>>> has a "training" session for administrators and teachers which > costs > >>>>>>>>>> $1500 a > >>>>>>>>>> day and $400 per 3 hours. Needless to say, it is not > un-controversial in > >>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>> community for many of the usual reasons. Ironically, the speaker > after > >>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>> Rosetta Stone folks gave a talk that demonstrated how to create > nearly > >>>>>>>>>> identical language lessons as Rosetta Stone's simply using power > point. > >>>>>> I > >>>>>>>>>> was encouraged to let folks know that they should contact the > NLR if > >>>>>> they > >>>>>>>>>> have any questions at mbittinger at rosettastone.com. You can try > a free > >>>>>>>>>> introductory lesson here > http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ The > >>>>>>>>>> folks > >>>>>>>>>> at NLR praised RS for their efforts and felt they had really > done them a > >>>>>>>>>> service. In short, they were very happy with the arrangement and > how it > >>>>>>>>>> was > >>>>>>>>>> working out. They were also upset by the controversies > surrounding the > >>>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone and felt they were really the result of a > >>>>>>>>>> misunderstanding and misguided assumptions. One finally thing, > they did > >>>>>>>>>> seem > >>>>>>>>>> to think that it was not a pancea, but rather another useful > tool in > >>>>>>>>>> language revitalization efforts. > >>>>>>>>>> Cheers, > >>>>>>>>>> Shannon > >>>>>>>>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > University > >>>>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > University > >> > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 12 > Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2011 14:40:56 -0500 > From: Craig Hancock > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Roseta Stone: Redux > To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Message-ID: <4D52EDC8.3020102 at albany.edu> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > Brian, > This strikes as a bit like Lake Woebegone (Where all the children > are above average). > > normal Danish children all learn good Danish and become fluent readers > > Is acquiring a language totally separate from the uses of that > language? Are we just acquiring the forms and then differing in our > ability to put them to use or are the uses themselves a major part of > what we are acquiring? Are lexicon and syntax wholly separate, or do we > go on acquiring the lexico-grammar as we enter more deeply into adult > worlds of discourse? > Anyone in literacy education knows that too many American children > fail to reach high levels of fluency as readers and writers. Doesn't > that somehow mean they have failed to acquire the language? > > Craig > > On 2/9/2011 2:04 PM, Brian MacWhinney wrote: > > Fritz, > > > > There are studies in places like the Journal of Child Language by Dorthe > Bleses, Hans Basb?l, and colleagues at Southern Denmark University on the > delay of the acquisition of Danish phonology in comparison to other European > languages, mostly attributed to the complexities of the vowel system and the > various assimilatory processes. There is a corresponding delay in the > acquisition of reading by Danish children that was observed in the > cross-European PISA project. All of this is well documented in the > literature, but it is rather marginal and transitory. Eventually, normal > Danish children all learn good Danish and become fluent readers. > > > > -- Brian MacWhinney > > > > On Feb 9, 2011, at 1:27 PM, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > > > >> A propos, are there any published studies out there that point to > measurable difference in rate of completion of first-language acquisition by > speakers of one language compared to another? Or even of mastery of one > aspect of L1 acquisition (phonology, morphology, etc.) by speakers of one > language compared to another? > >> > >> --fritz > >> > >> Frederick J. Newmeyer > >> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > >> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > University > >> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > >> > >> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, A. Katz wrote: > >> > >>> Tom, > >>> > >>> If the language is dying, then the advice not to listen to somebody > under forty because they don't know how to speak may be sound, but not for > the reason that you suggest. It could be there are no fluent speakers under > forty. It seems very unlikely that one would have to arrive at age forty > before acquiring fluency, especially in a hunter gatherer culture where > death before forty might be quite common. > >>> > >>> But if you have evidence to the contrary that fully immersed, > monolingual young speakers of a language cannot speak it with communicative > effect until age forty, then this is a big discovery that ought to be > published and shared with the scientific community. > >>> > >>> --Aya > >>> > >>> > >>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: > >>> > >>>> Right on, John. And one could make a prediction--hopefully someday to > be tested by acquisition studies--that Navajo kids will not master the fully > complexcity of the Athabaskan verb by age 10, or 15, or 20. I once reviewed > a grammar in Papua New Guniea of a language that had comparable complexity > on the verb (three positions, 6-8 categoriers each, massive zeroing& > morphonemic). I had to ask Carle Whitehead--is this guy for real? He said, > yes, he's been in the island for 20 years, really knows his stuff. So I > asked the guy--at what age are kids considered fuill-fledged speakers? He > said-- the old people say, don't listen to anybody under forty, they don't > know how to speak. In my work with the Utes, one exchange has stuck out, an > elder (ka-para'ni-wa-t, he's not walking about any more) who was pointed to > me as the best orator in the tribe. I told him that, and he said: "Oh, I am > nothing. You should have heard the Old Ones; when they spoke, you could see > it all in front > of your eyes". Part of it is due to the complex Ute deictic system, which > invades NPs, ADVs& the verb. The combinations, and the subtle choices of > when to combine the deictic particle with other categories, are a whole > wond(e)rous world. Cheers, TG > >>>> ========== > >>>> On 2/9/2011 10:13 AM, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > >>>>> Aya, > >>>>> I think I was the one who said first that Navajo is not a language > for > >>>>> amateurs. I'll second what Tom said--you should learn something > >>>>> about Navajo (or some other Athabaskan language) before making > >>>>> statements like this. Some languages are just plain objectively > harder than > >>>>> others, regardless of typological similarly to one's native language. > If you > >>>>> don't believe this, do an experiment in which you take speakers of > English, > >>>>> Turkish, Georgian, Chinese, whatever you want, try to teach them > Navajo, Hopi, > >>>>> and Cree (for example), and see which one gives them the most > trouble. > >>>>> I guarantee it will be Navajo. And there is an objective reason for > it-- > >>>>> the morphophonemics are just unbelievably complex. > >>>>> John > >>>>> Quoting "A. Katz": > >>>>>> Tom, > >>>>>> I don't think that is a valid viewpoint with regard to Athabaskan or > any > >>>>>> other language family. > >>>>>> Victor Golla earlier had a much better phrasing when he wrote: > >>>>>> "Let that read: "A language that is not for amateurs is not for > >>>>>> ADULT people."" > >>>>>> But in fact no language is easy for adults to learn who have not > already > >>>>>> learned a language with a similar typology. If your native language > works > >>>>>> similarly to the one you are learning, then you have an enormous > advantage > >>>>>> as an adult second language learner. > >>>>>> The remark about how Navajo is not for amateurs was made in the > context of > >>>>>> people who have no experience with languages of a similar typology. > >>>>>> To make this a universal statement about the difficulty of Navajo > without > >>>>>> qualification is to suggest that some languages are "easy" and > others are > >>>>>> "impossible". Not only is this not true from an objective > standpoint, it > >>>>>> also perpetuates the prejudice that English (or IE) is a "normal" > language > >>>>>> and that every language should be measured against this norm. > >>>>>> Best, > >>>>>> --Aya > >>>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: > >>>>>>> Before you actually tried to learn an Athabaskan language, or at > the very > >>>>>>> least worked on one, maybe you had better refrain from asserting > that "a > >>>>>>> language that is not for amateurs is not for people". TG > >>>>>>> ========= > >>>>>>> On 2/8/2011 6:33 AM, A. Katz wrote: > >>>>>>>> A language that is not for amateurs is not for people. > >>>>>>>> This has nothing to do with RS or computer language teaching. As > others > >>>>>>>> have stated, the technologically based systems are not a panacea. > >>>>>>>> But a language that ordinary people can't pick by talking to their > parents > >>>>>>>> in childhood is either dead already or not a human language. > >>>>>>>> --Aya > >>>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > >>>>>>>>> I would be amazed if a single person actually learns to speak > Navajo > >>>>>>>>> using Rosetta Stone. This is not a language for amateurs. > >>>>>>>>> John > >>>>>>>>> Quoting "s.t. bischoff": > >>>>>>>>>> Hi all, > >>>>>>>>>> Over the last week I was involved with an event at the American > Indian > >>>>>>>>>> Language Development Institute and the folks that created the > Navajo > >>>>>>>>>> Rosetta > >>>>>>>>>> Stone gave a short talk about the software. What follows is my > >>>>>>>>>> understanding > >>>>>>>>>> of how it came to be. > >>>>>>>>>> The Navajo Rosetta Stones was created in collaboration with > Rosetta > >>>>>> Stone > >>>>>>>>>> and the non-profit Navajo Language Renaissance (NLR). NLR is a > >>>>>> non-profit > >>>>>>>>>> organization that is NOT affiliated with the tribal council or > >>>>>> government > >>>>>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>>>> any way, for obvious reasons I think (e.g. getting council > approval for > >>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>> project). However, it has been endorsed by the school leadership > and NLR > >>>>>>>>>> is > >>>>>>>>>> actively trying to get the school district to adopt the > software. You > >>>>>> can > >>>>>>>>>> view the NLR website here > http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ A > >>>>>>>>>> non-community member started NLR after using Rosetta Stone to > learn > >>>>>>>>>> Russian. > >>>>>>>>>> She thought it would be good if Rosetta Stone created a Navajo > version. > >>>>>>>>>> She > >>>>>>>>>> contacted Rosetta Stone (RS), and they told her they would > provide here > >>>>>>>>>> with > >>>>>>>>>> the software to develop the lessons, a photographer, and > technical > >>>>>>>>>> assistants (limited on the ground, mostly by phone) to develop > the > >>>>>>>>>> program > >>>>>>>>>> for $300,000. Another option would be for her to apply for a > grant from > >>>>>>>>>> RS > >>>>>>>>>> to cover most of the costs. So the NLR was created, a > partnership > >>>>>> between > >>>>>>>>>> community members and one non-community member, as a non-profit > >>>>>>>>>> organization and applied. RS gave two grants the year they > applied, one > >>>>>>>>>> went > >>>>>>>>>> to NLR. The grant covered all but $27,000 of the $300,000. So > NLR had to > >>>>>>>>>> pay > >>>>>>>>>> RS $27,000 to have access to the software to create the Navajo > Rosetta > >>>>>>>>>> Stone. This means they had to create the lessons and pay > speakers and > >>>>>>>>>> informants themselves. RS provided the software, a photographer, > and > >>>>>>>>>> technical support for the $27,000. NLR now is the only group > that can > >>>>>>>>>> sell > >>>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone, which they do for $150 per license and > $200 for a > >>>>>>>>>> personal box set. It is not clear if they have to pay RS a > percentage of > >>>>>>>>>> those revenues or not. When I asked a clear answer wasn't given. > NLR > >>>>>> also > >>>>>>>>>> has a "training" session for administrators and teachers which > costs > >>>>>>>>>> $1500 a > >>>>>>>>>> day and $400 per 3 hours. Needless to say, it is not > un-controversial in > >>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>> community for many of the usual reasons. Ironically, the speaker > after > >>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>> Rosetta Stone folks gave a talk that demonstrated how to create > nearly > >>>>>>>>>> identical language lessons as Rosetta Stone's simply using power > point. > >>>>>> I > >>>>>>>>>> was encouraged to let folks know that they should contact the > NLR if > >>>>>> they > >>>>>>>>>> have any questions at mbittinger at rosettastone.com. You can try > a free > >>>>>>>>>> introductory lesson here > http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ The > >>>>>>>>>> folks > >>>>>>>>>> at NLR praised RS for their efforts and felt they had really > done them a > >>>>>>>>>> service. In short, they were very happy with the arrangement and > how it > >>>>>>>>>> was > >>>>>>>>>> working out. They were also upset by the controversies > surrounding the > >>>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone and felt they were really the result of a > >>>>>>>>>> misunderstanding and misguided assumptions. One finally thing, > they did > >>>>>>>>>> seem > >>>>>>>>>> to think that it was not a pancea, but rather another useful > tool in > >>>>>>>>>> language revitalization efforts. > >>>>>>>>>> Cheers, > >>>>>>>>>> Shannon > >>>>>>>>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > University > >>>>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > University > >> > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 13 > Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 14:57:26 -0500 (EST) > From: Geoffrey Steven Nathan > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Roseta Stone: Redux > To: Frederick J Newmeyer , > funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Message-ID: > <705420958.576965.1297281446751.JavaMail.root at starship.merit.edu> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > Yes, there's lots of research on relative complexity of grammatical systems > as related to first language acquisition, and, of course, more complex, > idiosyncratic, irregular morphological systems are harder to learn and > acquired later than simpler, more regular ones expressing roughly the same > notion. > Dan Slobin (are you on this list, Dan?) did much research in the 70's on > this topic, comparing, IIRC, Serbo-Croatian (which existed then) and > Turkish, and maybe some other languages. > Here's an abstract from one of those papers: > > > The ability of children between the ages of 2; 0 and 4; 8 to produce > locative pre- or postpositions was investigated in English, Italian, > Serbo-Croatian, and Turkish. Across languages, there was a general order of > development: (1) ?in?, ?on?, ?under?, and ?beside?, (2) ?between?, ?back? > and ?front? with featured objects, (3) ?back? and ?front? with non-featured > objects. This order of development is discussed in terms of nonlinguistic > growth in conceptual ability. Language-specific differences in the general > pattern of development are discussed in terms of a number of linguistic > factors which may facilitate or retard the child's discovery of the > linguistic means for encoding concepts. > > > ? Journal of Child Language (1979), 6: 529-545 > > > Geoff > > Geoffrey S. Nathan > Faculty Liaison, C&IT > and Professor, Linguistics Program > http://blogs.wayne.edu/proftech/ > +1 (313) 577-1259 (C&IT) > +1 (313) 577-8621 (English/Linguistics) > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Frederick J Newmeyer" > To: "A. Katz" > Cc: "Tom Givon" , john at research.haifa.ac.il, "Funknet" > > Sent: Wednesday, February 9, 2011 1:27:25 PM > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Roseta Stone: Redux > > A propos, are there any published studies out there that point to > measurable difference in rate of completion of first-language acquisition by > speakers of one language compared to another? Or even of mastery of one > aspect of L1 acquisition (phonology, morphology, etc.) by speakers of one > language compared to another? > > --fritz > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > University > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, A. Katz wrote: > > > Tom, > > > > If the language is dying, then the advice not to listen to somebody under > > forty because they don't know how to speak may be sound, but not for the > > reason that you suggest. It could be there are no fluent speakers under > > forty. It seems very unlikely that one would have to arrive at age forty > > before acquiring fluency, especially in a hunter gatherer culture where > death > > before forty might be quite common. > > > > But if you have evidence to the contrary that fully immersed, monolingual > > young speakers of a language cannot speak it with communicative effect > until > > age forty, then this is a big discovery that ought to be published and > shared > > with the scientific community. > > > > --Aya > > > > > > On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: > > > >> > >> > >> > >> Right on, John. And one could make a prediction--hopefully someday to be > >> tested by acquisition studies--that Navajo kids will not master the > fully > >> complexcity of the Athabaskan verb by age 10, or 15, or 20. I once > reviewed > >> a grammar in Papua New Guniea of a language that had comparable > complexity > >> on the verb (three positions, 6-8 categoriers each, massive zeroing & > >> morphonemic). I had to ask Carle Whitehead--is this guy for real? He > said, > >> yes, he's been in the island for 20 years, really knows his stuff. So I > >> asked the guy--at what age are kids considered fuill-fledged speakers? > He > >> said-- the old people say, don't listen to anybody under forty, they > don't > >> know how to speak. In my work with the Utes, one exchange has stuck out, > >> an elder (ka-para'ni-wa-t, he's not walking about any more) who was > pointed > >> to me as the best orator in the tribe. I told him that, and he said: > "Oh, I > >> am nothing. You should have heard the Old Ones; when they spoke, you > could > >> see it all in front of your eyes". Part of it is due to the complex Ute > >> deictic system, which invades NPs, ADVs & the verb. The combinations, > and > >> the subtle choices of when to combine the deictic particle with other > >> categories, are a whole wond(e)rous world. Cheers, TG > >> > >> ========== > >> > >> > >> > >> On 2/9/2011 10:13 AM, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > >>> Aya, > >>> I think I was the one who said first that Navajo is not a language for > >>> amateurs. I'll second what Tom said--you should learn something > >>> about Navajo (or some other Athabaskan language) before making > >>> statements like this. Some languages are just plain objectively harder > >>> than > >>> others, regardless of typological similarly to one's native language. > If > >>> you > >>> don't believe this, do an experiment in which you take speakers of > >>> English, > >>> Turkish, Georgian, Chinese, whatever you want, try to teach them > Navajo, > >>> Hopi, > >>> and Cree (for example), and see which one gives them the most trouble. > >>> I guarantee it will be Navajo. And there is an objective reason for > it-- > >>> the morphophonemics are just unbelievably complex. > >>> John > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Quoting "A. Katz": > >>> > >>>> Tom, > >>>> > >>>> I don't think that is a valid viewpoint with regard to Athabaskan or > any > >>>> other language family. > >>>> > >>>> Victor Golla earlier had a much better phrasing when he wrote: > >>>> > >>>> "Let that read: "A language that is not for amateurs is not for > >>>> ADULT people."" > >>>> > >>>> But in fact no language is easy for adults to learn who have not > already > >>>> learned a language with a similar typology. If your native language > works > >>>> similarly to the one you are learning, then you have an enormous > >>>> advantage > >>>> as an adult second language learner. > >>>> > >>>> The remark about how Navajo is not for amateurs was made in the > context > >>>> of > >>>> people who have no experience with languages of a similar typology. > >>>> To make this a universal statement about the difficulty of Navajo > without > >>>> qualification is to suggest that some languages are "easy" and others > are > >>>> "impossible". Not only is this not true from an objective standpoint, > it > >>>> also perpetuates the prejudice that English (or IE) is a "normal" > >>>> language > >>>> and that every language should be measured against this norm. > >>>> > >>>> Best, > >>>> > >>>> --Aya > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Before you actually tried to learn an Athabaskan language, or at the > >>>>> very > >>>>> least worked on one, maybe you had better refrain from asserting that > "a > >>>>> language that is not for amateurs is not for people". TG > >>>>> > >>>>> ========= > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On 2/8/2011 6:33 AM, A. Katz wrote: > >>>>>> A language that is not for amateurs is not for people. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> This has nothing to do with RS or computer language teaching. As > others > >>>>>> have stated, the technologically based systems are not a panacea. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> But a language that ordinary people can't pick by talking to their > >>>>>> parents > >>>>>> in childhood is either dead already or not a human language. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> --Aya > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> I would be amazed if a single person actually learns to speak > Navajo > >>>>>>> using Rosetta Stone. This is not a language for amateurs. > >>>>>>> John > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Quoting "s.t. bischoff": > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Hi all, > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Over the last week I was involved with an event at the American > >>>>>>>> Indian > >>>>>>>> Language Development Institute and the folks that created the > Navajo > >>>>>>>> Rosetta > >>>>>>>> Stone gave a short talk about the software. What follows is my > >>>>>>>> understanding > >>>>>>>> of how it came to be. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> The Navajo Rosetta Stones was created in collaboration with > Rosetta > >>>> Stone > >>>>>>>> and the non-profit Navajo Language Renaissance (NLR). NLR is a > >>>> non-profit > >>>>>>>> organization that is NOT affiliated with the tribal council or > >>>> government > >>>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>> any way, for obvious reasons I think (e.g. getting council > approval > >>>>>>>> for > >>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>> project). However, it has been endorsed by the school leadership > and > >>>>>>>> NLR > >>>>>>>> is > >>>>>>>> actively trying to get the school district to adopt the software. > You > >>>> can > >>>>>>>> view the NLR website here http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/A > >>>>>>>> non-community member started NLR after using Rosetta Stone to > learn > >>>>>>>> Russian. > >>>>>>>> She thought it would be good if Rosetta Stone created a Navajo > >>>>>>>> version. > >>>>>>>> She > >>>>>>>> contacted Rosetta Stone (RS), and they told her they would provide > >>>>>>>> here > >>>>>>>> with > >>>>>>>> the software to develop the lessons, a photographer, and technical > >>>>>>>> assistants (limited on the ground, mostly by phone) to develop the > >>>>>>>> program > >>>>>>>> for $300,000. Another option would be for her to apply for a grant > >>>>>>>> from > >>>>>>>> RS > >>>>>>>> to cover most of the costs. So the NLR was created, a partnership > >>>> between > >>>>>>>> community members and one non-community member, as a non-profit > >>>>>>>> organization and applied. RS gave two grants the year they > applied, > >>>>>>>> one > >>>>>>>> went > >>>>>>>> to NLR. The grant covered all but $27,000 of the $300,000. So NLR > had > >>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>> pay > >>>>>>>> RS $27,000 to have access to the software to create the Navajo > >>>>>>>> Rosetta > >>>>>>>> Stone. This means they had to create the lessons and pay speakers > and > >>>>>>>> informants themselves. RS provided the software, a photographer, > and > >>>>>>>> technical support for the $27,000. NLR now is the only group that > can > >>>>>>>> sell > >>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone, which they do for $150 per license and $200 > for > >>>>>>>> a > >>>>>>>> personal box set. It is not clear if they have to pay RS a > percentage > >>>>>>>> of > >>>>>>>> those revenues or not. When I asked a clear answer wasn't given. > NLR > >>>> also > >>>>>>>> has a "training" session for administrators and teachers which > costs > >>>>>>>> $1500 a > >>>>>>>> day and $400 per 3 hours. Needless to say, it is not > un-controversial > >>>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>> community for many of the usual reasons. Ironically, the speaker > >>>>>>>> after > >>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>> Rosetta Stone folks gave a talk that demonstrated how to create > >>>>>>>> nearly > >>>>>>>> identical language lessons as Rosetta Stone's simply using power > >>>>>>>> point. > >>>> I > >>>>>>>> was encouraged to let folks know that they should contact the NLR > if > >>>> they > >>>>>>>> have any questions at mbittinger at rosettastone.com. You can try a > free > >>>>>>>> introductory lesson here http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/The > >>>>>>>> folks > >>>>>>>> at NLR praised RS for their efforts and felt they had really done > >>>>>>>> them a > >>>>>>>> service. In short, they were very happy with the arrangement and > how > >>>>>>>> it > >>>>>>>> was > >>>>>>>> working out. They were also upset by the controversies surrounding > >>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone and felt they were really the result of a > >>>>>>>> misunderstanding and misguided assumptions. One finally thing, > they > >>>>>>>> did > >>>>>>>> seem > >>>>>>>> to think that it was not a pancea, but rather another useful tool > in > >>>>>>>> language revitalization efforts. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Cheers, > >>>>>>>> Shannon > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > >>>>>>> University > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > University > >> > >> > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 14 > Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 12:50:16 -0800 (PST) > From: "A. Katz" > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Roseta Stone: Redux > To: Craig Hancock > Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; Format="flowed" > > I seem to recall that in "The Evolution of Language Out of Pre-Language" > Dan Slobin had a sort of dissenting article at the end in which he > mentioned that Turkish children use grammatical morphology at the one word > level, so that they are never actually speaking a pidgin Turkish > at any point in their language development. > > --Aya > > On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Craig Hancock wrote: > > > Brian, > > This strikes as a bit like Lake Woebegone (Where all the children are > > above average). > > > > normal Danish children all learn good Danish and become fluent readers > > > > Is acquiring a language totally separate from the uses of that > language? > > Are we just acquiring the forms and then differing in our ability to put > them > > to use or are the uses themselves a major part of what we are acquiring? > Are > > lexicon and syntax wholly separate, or do we go on acquiring the > > lexico-grammar as we enter more deeply into adult worlds of discourse? > > Anyone in literacy education knows that too many American children > fail > > to reach high levels of fluency as readers and writers. Doesn't that > somehow > > mean they have failed to acquire the language? > > > > Craig > > > > On 2/9/2011 2:04 PM, Brian MacWhinney wrote: > >> Fritz, > >> > >> There are studies in places like the Journal of Child Language by Dorthe > >> Bleses, Hans Basb?l, and colleagues at Southern Denmark University on > the > >> delay of the acquisition of Danish phonology in comparison to other > >> European languages, mostly attributed to the complexities of the vowel > >> system and the various assimilatory processes. There is a corresponding > >> delay in the acquisition of reading by Danish children that was observed > in > >> the cross-European PISA project. All of this is well documented in the > >> literature, but it is rather marginal and transitory. Eventually, > normal > >> Danish children all learn good Danish and become fluent readers. > >> > >> -- Brian MacWhinney > >> > >> On Feb 9, 2011, at 1:27 PM, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > >> > >>> A propos, are there any published studies out there that point to > >>> measurable difference in rate of completion of first-language > acquisition > >>> by speakers of one language compared to another? Or even of mastery of > one > >>> aspect of L1 acquisition (phonology, morphology, etc.) by speakers of > one > >>> language compared to another? > >>> > >>> --fritz > >>> > >>> Frederick J. Newmeyer > >>> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > >>> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > >>> University > >>> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > >>> > >>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, A. Katz wrote: > >>> > >>>> Tom, > >>>> > >>>> If the language is dying, then the advice not to listen to somebody > under > >>>> forty because they don't know how to speak may be sound, but not for > the > >>>> reason that you suggest. It could be there are no fluent speakers > under > >>>> forty. It seems very unlikely that one would have to arrive at age > forty > >>>> before acquiring fluency, especially in a hunter gatherer culture > where > >>>> death before forty might be quite common. > >>>> > >>>> But if you have evidence to the contrary that fully immersed, > monolingual > >>>> young speakers of a language cannot speak it with communicative effect > >>>> until age forty, then this is a big discovery that ought to be > published > >>>> and shared with the scientific community. > >>>> > >>>> --Aya > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Right on, John. And one could make a prediction--hopefully someday to > be > >>>>> tested by acquisition studies--that Navajo kids will not master the > >>>>> fully complexcity of the Athabaskan verb by age 10, or 15, or 20. I > once > >>>>> reviewed a grammar in Papua New Guniea of a language that had > comparable > >>>>> complexity on the verb (three positions, 6-8 categoriers each, > massive > >>>>> zeroing& morphonemic). I had to ask Carle Whitehead--is this guy for > >>>>> real? He said, yes, he's been in the island for 20 years, really > knows > >>>>> his stuff. So I asked the guy--at what age are kids considered > >>>>> fuill-fledged speakers? He said-- the old people say, don't listen to > >>>>> anybody under forty, they don't know how to speak. In my work with > the > >>>>> Utes, one exchange has stuck out, an elder (ka-para'ni-wa-t, he's not > >>>>> walking about any more) who was pointed to me as the best orator in > the > >>>>> tribe. I told him that, and he said: "Oh, I am nothing. You should > have > >>>>> heard the Old Ones; when they spoke, you could see it all in front of > >>>>> your eyes". Part of it is due to the complex Ute deictic system, > which > >>>>> invades NPs, ADVs& the verb. The combinations, and the subtle > choices > >>>>> of when to combine the deictic particle with other categories, are a > >>>>> whole wond(e)rous world. Cheers, TG > >>>>> ========== > >>>>> On 2/9/2011 10:13 AM, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > >>>>>> Aya, > >>>>>> I think I was the one who said first that Navajo is not a language > for > >>>>>> amateurs. I'll second what Tom said--you should learn something > >>>>>> about Navajo (or some other Athabaskan language) before making > >>>>>> statements like this. Some languages are just plain objectively > harder > >>>>>> than > >>>>>> others, regardless of typological similarly to one's native > language. > >>>>>> If you > >>>>>> don't believe this, do an experiment in which you take speakers of > >>>>>> English, > >>>>>> Turkish, Georgian, Chinese, whatever you want, try to teach them > >>>>>> Navajo, Hopi, > >>>>>> and Cree (for example), and see which one gives them the most > trouble. > >>>>>> I guarantee it will be Navajo. And there is an objective reason for > >>>>>> it-- > >>>>>> the morphophonemics are just unbelievably complex. > >>>>>> John > >>>>>> Quoting "A. Katz": > >>>>>>> Tom, > >>>>>>> I don't think that is a valid viewpoint with regard to Athabaskan > or > >>>>>>> any > >>>>>>> other language family. > >>>>>>> Victor Golla earlier had a much better phrasing when he wrote: > >>>>>>> "Let that read: "A language that is not for amateurs is not for > >>>>>>> ADULT people."" > >>>>>>> But in fact no language is easy for adults to learn who have not > >>>>>>> already > >>>>>>> learned a language with a similar typology. If your native language > >>>>>>> works > >>>>>>> similarly to the one you are learning, then you have an enormous > >>>>>>> advantage > >>>>>>> as an adult second language learner. > >>>>>>> The remark about how Navajo is not for amateurs was made in the > >>>>>>> context of > >>>>>>> people who have no experience with languages of a similar typology. > >>>>>>> To make this a universal statement about the difficulty of Navajo > >>>>>>> without > >>>>>>> qualification is to suggest that some languages are "easy" and > others > >>>>>>> are > >>>>>>> "impossible". Not only is this not true from an objective > standpoint, > >>>>>>> it > >>>>>>> also perpetuates the prejudice that English (or IE) is a "normal" > >>>>>>> language > >>>>>>> and that every language should be measured against this norm. > >>>>>>> Best, > >>>>>>> --Aya > >>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: > >>>>>>>> Before you actually tried to learn an Athabaskan language, or at > the > >>>>>>>> very > >>>>>>>> least worked on one, maybe you had better refrain from asserting > that > >>>>>>>> "a > >>>>>>>> language that is not for amateurs is not for people". TG > >>>>>>>> ========= > >>>>>>>> On 2/8/2011 6:33 AM, A. Katz wrote: > >>>>>>>>> A language that is not for amateurs is not for people. > >>>>>>>>> This has nothing to do with RS or computer language teaching. As > >>>>>>>>> others > >>>>>>>>> have stated, the technologically based systems are not a panacea. > >>>>>>>>> But a language that ordinary people can't pick by talking to > their > >>>>>>>>> parents > >>>>>>>>> in childhood is either dead already or not a human language. > >>>>>>>>> --Aya > >>>>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> I would be amazed if a single person actually learns to speak > >>>>>>>>>> Navajo > >>>>>>>>>> using Rosetta Stone. This is not a language for amateurs. > >>>>>>>>>> John > >>>>>>>>>> Quoting "s.t. bischoff": > >>>>>>>>>>> Hi all, > >>>>>>>>>>> Over the last week I was involved with an event at the American > >>>>>>>>>>> Indian > >>>>>>>>>>> Language Development Institute and the folks that created the > >>>>>>>>>>> Navajo > >>>>>>>>>>> Rosetta > >>>>>>>>>>> Stone gave a short talk about the software. What follows is my > >>>>>>>>>>> understanding > >>>>>>>>>>> of how it came to be. > >>>>>>>>>>> The Navajo Rosetta Stones was created in collaboration with > >>>>>>>>>>> Rosetta > >>>>>>> Stone > >>>>>>>>>>> and the non-profit Navajo Language Renaissance (NLR). NLR is a > >>>>>>> non-profit > >>>>>>>>>>> organization that is NOT affiliated with the tribal council or > >>>>>>> government > >>>>>>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>>>>> any way, for obvious reasons I think (e.g. getting council > >>>>>>>>>>> approval for > >>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>> project). However, it has been endorsed by the school > leadership > >>>>>>>>>>> and NLR > >>>>>>>>>>> is > >>>>>>>>>>> actively trying to get the school district to adopt the > software. > >>>>>>>>>>> You > >>>>>>> can > >>>>>>>>>>> view the NLR website here > http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ > >>>>>>>>>>> A > >>>>>>>>>>> non-community member started NLR after using Rosetta Stone to > >>>>>>>>>>> learn > >>>>>>>>>>> Russian. > >>>>>>>>>>> She thought it would be good if Rosetta Stone created a Navajo > >>>>>>>>>>> version. > >>>>>>>>>>> She > >>>>>>>>>>> contacted Rosetta Stone (RS), and they told her they would > provide > >>>>>>>>>>> here > >>>>>>>>>>> with > >>>>>>>>>>> the software to develop the lessons, a photographer, and > >>>>>>>>>>> technical > >>>>>>>>>>> assistants (limited on the ground, mostly by phone) to develop > the > >>>>>>>>>>> program > >>>>>>>>>>> for $300,000. Another option would be for her to apply for a > grant > >>>>>>>>>>> from > >>>>>>>>>>> RS > >>>>>>>>>>> to cover most of the costs. So the NLR was created, a > partnership > >>>>>>> between > >>>>>>>>>>> community members and one non-community member, as a > non-profit > >>>>>>>>>>> organization and applied. RS gave two grants the year they > >>>>>>>>>>> applied, one > >>>>>>>>>>> went > >>>>>>>>>>> to NLR. The grant covered all but $27,000 of the $300,000. So > NLR > >>>>>>>>>>> had to > >>>>>>>>>>> pay > >>>>>>>>>>> RS $27,000 to have access to the software to create the Navajo > >>>>>>>>>>> Rosetta > >>>>>>>>>>> Stone. This means they had to create the lessons and pay > speakers > >>>>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>>> informants themselves. RS provided the software, a > photographer, > >>>>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>>> technical support for the $27,000. NLR now is the only group > that > >>>>>>>>>>> can > >>>>>>>>>>> sell > >>>>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone, which they do for $150 per license and > $200 > >>>>>>>>>>> for a > >>>>>>>>>>> personal box set. It is not clear if they have to pay RS a > >>>>>>>>>>> percentage of > >>>>>>>>>>> those revenues or not. When I asked a clear answer wasn't > given. > >>>>>>>>>>> NLR > >>>>>>> also > >>>>>>>>>>> has a "training" session for administrators and teachers which > >>>>>>>>>>> costs > >>>>>>>>>>> $1500 a > >>>>>>>>>>> day and $400 per 3 hours. Needless to say, it is not > >>>>>>>>>>> un-controversial in > >>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>> community for many of the usual reasons. Ironically, the > speaker > >>>>>>>>>>> after > >>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>> Rosetta Stone folks gave a talk that demonstrated how to create > >>>>>>>>>>> nearly > >>>>>>>>>>> identical language lessons as Rosetta Stone's simply using > power > >>>>>>>>>>> point. > >>>>>>> I > >>>>>>>>>>> was encouraged to let folks know that they should contact the > NLR > >>>>>>>>>>> if > >>>>>>> they > >>>>>>>>>>> have any questions at mbittinger at rosettastone.com. You can try > a > >>>>>>>>>>> free > >>>>>>>>>>> introductory lesson here > http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ > >>>>>>>>>>> The > >>>>>>>>>>> folks > >>>>>>>>>>> at NLR praised RS for their efforts and felt they had really > done > >>>>>>>>>>> them a > >>>>>>>>>>> service. In short, they were very happy with the arrangement > and > >>>>>>>>>>> how it > >>>>>>>>>>> was > >>>>>>>>>>> working out. They were also upset by the controversies > surrounding > >>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone and felt they were really the result of a > >>>>>>>>>>> misunderstanding and misguided assumptions. One finally thing, > >>>>>>>>>>> they did > >>>>>>>>>>> seem > >>>>>>>>>>> to think that it was not a pancea, but rather another useful > tool > >>>>>>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>>>>> language revitalization efforts. > >>>>>>>>>>> Cheers, > >>>>>>>>>>> Shannon > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>>>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > >>>>>>>>>> University > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > >>>>>> University > >>> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 15 > Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 14:15:12 -0800 > From: Alex Walker > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Roseta Stone: Redux > To: "Geoffrey S. Nathan" > Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu, Frederick J Newmeyer > > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 > > Has anyone done acquisition studies of children in monolingual Georgian > homes? Georgian is the only national language I've encountered with > morphological complexity comparable to that seen in many American Indian > languages, and it's also in no danger of dying any time soon. I would very > much like to know whether anyone has worked with Georgian data to answer > some of the questions raised in this thread. > > On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 11:57 AM, Geoffrey Steven Nathan < > geoffnathan at wayne.edu> wrote: > > > Yes, there's lots of research on relative complexity of grammatical > systems > > as related to first language acquisition, and, of course, more complex, > > idiosyncratic, irregular morphological systems are harder to learn and > > acquired later than simpler, more regular ones expressing roughly the > same > > notion. > > Dan Slobin (are you on this list, Dan?) did much research in the 70's on > > this topic, comparing, IIRC, Serbo-Croatian (which existed then) and > > Turkish, and maybe some other languages. > > Here's an abstract from one of those papers: > > > > > > The ability of children between the ages of 2; 0 and 4; 8 to produce > > locative pre- or postpositions was investigated in English, Italian, > > Serbo-Croatian, and Turkish. Across languages, there was a general order > of > > development: (1) ?in?, ?on?, ?under?, and ?beside?, (2) ?between?, ?back? > > and ?front? with featured objects, (3) ?back? and ?front? with > non-featured > > objects. This order of development is discussed in terms of nonlinguistic > > growth in conceptual ability. Language-specific differences in the > general > > pattern of development are discussed in terms of a number of linguistic > > factors which may facilitate or retard the child's discovery of the > > linguistic means for encoding concepts. > > > > > > ? Journal of Child Language (1979), 6: 529-545 > > > > > > Geoff > > > > Geoffrey S. Nathan > > Faculty Liaison, C&IT > > and Professor, Linguistics Program > > http://blogs.wayne.edu/proftech/ > > +1 (313) 577-1259 (C&IT) > > +1 (313) 577-8621 (English/Linguistics) > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > > From: "Frederick J Newmeyer" > > To: "A. Katz" > > Cc: "Tom Givon" , john at research.haifa.ac.il, > "Funknet" > > > > Sent: Wednesday, February 9, 2011 1:27:25 PM > > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Roseta Stone: Redux > > > > A propos, are there any published studies out there that point to > > measurable difference in rate of completion of first-language acquisition > by > > speakers of one language compared to another? Or even of mastery of one > > aspect of L1 acquisition (phonology, morphology, etc.) by speakers of one > > language compared to another? > > > > --fritz > > > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > > University > > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > > > On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, A. Katz wrote: > > > > > Tom, > > > > > > If the language is dying, then the advice not to listen to somebody > under > > > forty because they don't know how to speak may be sound, but not for > the > > > reason that you suggest. It could be there are no fluent speakers under > > > forty. It seems very unlikely that one would have to arrive at age > forty > > > before acquiring fluency, especially in a hunter gatherer culture where > > death > > > before forty might be quite common. > > > > > > But if you have evidence to the contrary that fully immersed, > monolingual > > > young speakers of a language cannot speak it with communicative effect > > until > > > age forty, then this is a big discovery that ought to be published and > > shared > > > with the scientific community. > > > > > > --Aya > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Right on, John. And one could make a prediction--hopefully someday to > be > > >> tested by acquisition studies--that Navajo kids will not master the > > fully > > >> complexcity of the Athabaskan verb by age 10, or 15, or 20. I once > > reviewed > > >> a grammar in Papua New Guniea of a language that had comparable > > complexity > > >> on the verb (three positions, 6-8 categoriers each, massive zeroing & > > >> morphonemic). I had to ask Carle Whitehead--is this guy for real? He > > said, > > >> yes, he's been in the island for 20 years, really knows his stuff. So > I > > >> asked the guy--at what age are kids considered fuill-fledged speakers? > > He > > >> said-- the old people say, don't listen to anybody under forty, they > > don't > > >> know how to speak. In my work with the Utes, one exchange has stuck > out, > > >> an elder (ka-para'ni-wa-t, he's not walking about any more) who was > > pointed > > >> to me as the best orator in the tribe. I told him that, and he said: > > "Oh, I > > >> am nothing. You should have heard the Old Ones; when they spoke, you > > could > > >> see it all in front of your eyes". Part of it is due to the complex > Ute > > >> deictic system, which invades NPs, ADVs & the verb. The combinations, > > and > > >> the subtle choices of when to combine the deictic particle with other > > >> categories, are a whole wond(e)rous world. Cheers, TG > > >> > > >> ========== > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> On 2/9/2011 10:13 AM, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > > >>> Aya, > > >>> I think I was the one who said first that Navajo is not a language > for > > >>> amateurs. I'll second what Tom said--you should learn something > > >>> about Navajo (or some other Athabaskan language) before making > > >>> statements like this. Some languages are just plain objectively > harder > > >>> than > > >>> others, regardless of typological similarly to one's native language. > > If > > >>> you > > >>> don't believe this, do an experiment in which you take speakers of > > >>> English, > > >>> Turkish, Georgian, Chinese, whatever you want, try to teach them > > Navajo, > > >>> Hopi, > > >>> and Cree (for example), and see which one gives them the most > trouble. > > >>> I guarantee it will be Navajo. And there is an objective reason for > > it-- > > >>> the morphophonemics are just unbelievably complex. > > >>> John > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Quoting "A. Katz": > > >>> > > >>>> Tom, > > >>>> > > >>>> I don't think that is a valid viewpoint with regard to Athabaskan or > > any > > >>>> other language family. > > >>>> > > >>>> Victor Golla earlier had a much better phrasing when he wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> "Let that read: "A language that is not for amateurs is not for > > >>>> ADULT people."" > > >>>> > > >>>> But in fact no language is easy for adults to learn who have not > > already > > >>>> learned a language with a similar typology. If your native language > > works > > >>>> similarly to the one you are learning, then you have an enormous > > >>>> advantage > > >>>> as an adult second language learner. > > >>>> > > >>>> The remark about how Navajo is not for amateurs was made in the > > context > > >>>> of > > >>>> people who have no experience with languages of a similar typology. > > >>>> To make this a universal statement about the difficulty of Navajo > > without > > >>>> qualification is to suggest that some languages are "easy" and > others > > are > > >>>> "impossible". Not only is this not true from an objective > standpoint, > > it > > >>>> also perpetuates the prejudice that English (or IE) is a "normal" > > >>>> language > > >>>> and that every language should be measured against this norm. > > >>>> > > >>>> Best, > > >>>> > > >>>> --Aya > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Before you actually tried to learn an Athabaskan language, or at > the > > >>>>> very > > >>>>> least worked on one, maybe you had better refrain from asserting > that > > "a > > >>>>> language that is not for amateurs is not for people". TG > > >>>>> > > >>>>> ========= > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> On 2/8/2011 6:33 AM, A. Katz wrote: > > >>>>>> A language that is not for amateurs is not for people. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> This has nothing to do with RS or computer language teaching. As > > others > > >>>>>> have stated, the technologically based systems are not a panacea. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> But a language that ordinary people can't pick by talking to their > > >>>>>> parents > > >>>>>> in childhood is either dead already or not a human language. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> --Aya > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> I would be amazed if a single person actually learns to speak > > Navajo > > >>>>>>> using Rosetta Stone. This is not a language for amateurs. > > >>>>>>> John > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Quoting "s.t. bischoff": > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Hi all, > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Over the last week I was involved with an event at the American > > >>>>>>>> Indian > > >>>>>>>> Language Development Institute and the folks that created the > > Navajo > > >>>>>>>> Rosetta > > >>>>>>>> Stone gave a short talk about the software. What follows is my > > >>>>>>>> understanding > > >>>>>>>> of how it came to be. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> The Navajo Rosetta Stones was created in collaboration with > > Rosetta > > >>>> Stone > > >>>>>>>> and the non-profit Navajo Language Renaissance (NLR). NLR is a > > >>>> non-profit > > >>>>>>>> organization that is NOT affiliated with the tribal council or > > >>>> government > > >>>>>>>> in > > >>>>>>>> any way, for obvious reasons I think (e.g. getting council > > approval > > >>>>>>>> for > > >>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>> project). However, it has been endorsed by the school leadership > > and > > >>>>>>>> NLR > > >>>>>>>> is > > >>>>>>>> actively trying to get the school district to adopt the > software. > > You > > >>>> can > > >>>>>>>> view the NLR website here > http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/A > > >>>>>>>> non-community member started NLR after using Rosetta Stone to > > learn > > >>>>>>>> Russian. > > >>>>>>>> She thought it would be good if Rosetta Stone created a Navajo > > >>>>>>>> version. > > >>>>>>>> She > > >>>>>>>> contacted Rosetta Stone (RS), and they told her they would > provide > > >>>>>>>> here > > >>>>>>>> with > > >>>>>>>> the software to develop the lessons, a photographer, and > technical > > >>>>>>>> assistants (limited on the ground, mostly by phone) to develop > the > > >>>>>>>> program > > >>>>>>>> for $300,000. Another option would be for her to apply for a > grant > > >>>>>>>> from > > >>>>>>>> RS > > >>>>>>>> to cover most of the costs. So the NLR was created, a > partnership > > >>>> between > > >>>>>>>> community members and one non-community member, as a non-profit > > >>>>>>>> organization and applied. RS gave two grants the year they > > applied, > > >>>>>>>> one > > >>>>>>>> went > > >>>>>>>> to NLR. The grant covered all but $27,000 of the $300,000. So > NLR > > had > > >>>>>>>> to > > >>>>>>>> pay > > >>>>>>>> RS $27,000 to have access to the software to create the Navajo > > >>>>>>>> Rosetta > > >>>>>>>> Stone. This means they had to create the lessons and pay > speakers > > and > > >>>>>>>> informants themselves. RS provided the software, a photographer, > > and > > >>>>>>>> technical support for the $27,000. NLR now is the only group > that > > can > > >>>>>>>> sell > > >>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone, which they do for $150 per license and > $200 > > for > > >>>>>>>> a > > >>>>>>>> personal box set. It is not clear if they have to pay RS a > > percentage > > >>>>>>>> of > > >>>>>>>> those revenues or not. When I asked a clear answer wasn't given. > > NLR > > >>>> also > > >>>>>>>> has a "training" session for administrators and teachers which > > costs > > >>>>>>>> $1500 a > > >>>>>>>> day and $400 per 3 hours. Needless to say, it is not > > un-controversial > > >>>>>>>> in > > >>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>> community for many of the usual reasons. Ironically, the speaker > > >>>>>>>> after > > >>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>> Rosetta Stone folks gave a talk that demonstrated how to create > > >>>>>>>> nearly > > >>>>>>>> identical language lessons as Rosetta Stone's simply using power > > >>>>>>>> point. > > >>>> I > > >>>>>>>> was encouraged to let folks know that they should contact the > NLR > > if > > >>>> they > > >>>>>>>> have any questions at mbittinger at rosettastone.com. You can try > a > > free > > >>>>>>>> introductory lesson here > http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/The > > >>>>>>>> folks > > >>>>>>>> at NLR praised RS for their efforts and felt they had really > done > > >>>>>>>> them a > > >>>>>>>> service. In short, they were very happy with the arrangement and > > how > > >>>>>>>> it > > >>>>>>>> was > > >>>>>>>> working out. They were also upset by the controversies > surrounding > > >>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone and felt they were really the result of a > > >>>>>>>> misunderstanding and misguided assumptions. One finally thing, > > they > > >>>>>>>> did > > >>>>>>>> seem > > >>>>>>>> to think that it was not a pancea, but rather another useful > tool > > in > > >>>>>>>> language revitalization efforts. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Cheers, > > >>>>>>>> Shannon > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > >>>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > > >>>>>>> University > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > >>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > > University > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 16 > Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 16:00:53 -0700 > From: Lise Menn > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Roseta Stone: Redux > To: "A. Katz" , funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Message-ID: <074FF6EE-E63C-412A-A422-A224A6F97673 at colorado.edu> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed; > delsp=yes > > that's right. And child language and pidgin aren't the same, in any > case, for any language I know about, any more than any of them are > telegrams. But there are arcane reaches of languages that most people > don't learn, confounding the definition of what 'acquire' means: > Japanese honorifics and noun classifiers have elegant refinements, > crafts and professions have jargons... > > On Feb 9, 2011, at 1:50 PM, A. Katz wrote: > > > I seem to recall that in "The Evolution of Language Out of Pre- > > Language" Dan Slobin had a sort of dissenting article at the end in > > which he mentioned that Turkish children use grammatical morphology > > at the one word level, so that they are never actually speaking a > > pidgin Turkish at any point in their language development. > > > > --Aya > > > > On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Craig Hancock wrote: > > > >> Brian, > >> This strikes as a bit like Lake Woebegone (Where all the children > >> are above average). > >> > >> normal Danish children all learn good Danish and become fluent > >> readers > >> > >> Is acquiring a language totally separate from the uses of that > >> language? Are we just acquiring the forms and then differing in our > >> ability to put them to use or are the uses themselves a major part > >> of what we are acquiring? Are lexicon and syntax wholly separate, > >> or do we go on acquiring the lexico-grammar as we enter more deeply > >> into adult worlds of discourse? > >> Anyone in literacy education knows that too many American > >> children fail to reach high levels of fluency as readers and > >> writers. Doesn't that somehow mean they have failed to acquire the > >> language? > >> > >> Craig > >> > >> On 2/9/2011 2:04 PM, Brian MacWhinney wrote: > >>> Fritz, > >>> There are studies in places like the Journal of Child Language by > >>> Dorthe Bleses, Hans Basb?l, and colleagues at Southern Denmark > >>> University on the delay of the acquisition of Danish phonology in > >>> comparison to other European languages, mostly attributed to the > >>> complexities of the vowel system and the various assimilatory > >>> processes. There is a corresponding delay in the acquisition of > >>> reading by Danish children that was observed in the cross-European > >>> PISA project. All of this is well documented in the literature, > >>> but it is rather marginal and transitory. Eventually, normal > >>> Danish children all learn good Danish and become fluent readers. > >>> -- Brian MacWhinney > >>> On Feb 9, 2011, at 1:27 PM, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > >>>> A propos, are there any published studies out there that point to > >>>> measurable difference in rate of completion of first-language > >>>> acquisition by speakers of one language compared to another? Or > >>>> even of mastery of one aspect of L1 acquisition (phonology, > >>>> morphology, etc.) by speakers of one language compared to another? > >>>> --fritz > >>>> Frederick J. Newmeyer > >>>> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > >>>> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon > >>>> Fraser University > >>>> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > >>>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, A. Katz wrote: > >>>>> Tom, > >>>>> If the language is dying, then the advice not to listen to > >>>>> somebody under forty because they don't know how to speak may be > >>>>> sound, but not for the reason that you suggest. It could be > >>>>> there are no fluent speakers under forty. It seems very unlikely > >>>>> that one would have to arrive at age forty before acquiring > >>>>> fluency, especially in a hunter gatherer culture where death > >>>>> before forty might be quite common. > >>>>> But if you have evidence to the contrary that fully immersed, > >>>>> monolingual young speakers of a language cannot speak it with > >>>>> communicative effect until age forty, then this is a big > >>>>> discovery that ought to be published and shared with the > >>>>> scientific community. > >>>>> > >>>>> --Aya > >>>>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: > >>>>>> Right on, John. And one could make a prediction--hopefully > >>>>>> someday to be tested by acquisition studies--that Navajo kids > >>>>>> will not master the fully complexcity of the Athabaskan verb by > >>>>>> age 10, or 15, or 20. I once reviewed a grammar in Papua New > >>>>>> Guniea of a language that had comparable complexity on the verb > >>>>>> (three positions, 6-8 categoriers each, massive zeroing& > >>>>>> morphonemic). I had to ask Carle Whitehead--is this guy for > >>>>>> real? He said, yes, he's been in the island for 20 years, > >>>>>> really knows his stuff. So I asked the guy--at what age are > >>>>>> kids considered fuill-fledged speakers? He said-- the old > >>>>>> people say, don't listen to anybody under forty, they don't > >>>>>> know how to speak. In my work with the Utes, one exchange has > >>>>>> stuck out, an elder (ka-para'ni-wa-t, he's not walking about > >>>>>> any more) who was pointed to me as the best orator in the > >>>>>> tribe. I told him that, and he said: "Oh, I am nothing. You > >>>>>> should have heard the Old Ones; when they spoke, you could see > >>>>>> it all in front of your eyes". Part of it is due to the complex > >>>>>> Ute deictic system, which invades NPs, ADVs& the verb. The > >>>>>> combinations, and the subtle choices of when to combine the > >>>>>> deictic particle with other categories, are a whole wond(e)rous > >>>>>> world. Cheers, TG > >>>>>> ========== > >>>>>> On 2/9/2011 10:13 AM, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > >>>>>>> Aya, > >>>>>>> I think I was the one who said first that Navajo is not a > >>>>>>> language for > >>>>>>> amateurs. I'll second what Tom said--you should learn something > >>>>>>> about Navajo (or some other Athabaskan language) before making > >>>>>>> statements like this. Some languages are just plain > >>>>>>> objectively harder than > >>>>>>> others, regardless of typological similarly to one's native > >>>>>>> language. If you > >>>>>>> don't believe this, do an experiment in which you take > >>>>>>> speakers of English, > >>>>>>> Turkish, Georgian, Chinese, whatever you want, try to teach > >>>>>>> them Navajo, Hopi, > >>>>>>> and Cree (for example), and see which one gives them the most > >>>>>>> trouble. > >>>>>>> I guarantee it will be Navajo. And there is an objective > >>>>>>> reason for it-- > >>>>>>> the morphophonemics are just unbelievably complex. > >>>>>>> John > >>>>>>> Quoting "A. Katz": > >>>>>>>> Tom, > >>>>>>>> I don't think that is a valid viewpoint with regard to > >>>>>>>> Athabaskan or any > >>>>>>>> other language family. > >>>>>>>> Victor Golla earlier had a much better phrasing when he wrote: > >>>>>>>> "Let that read: "A language that is not for amateurs is not for > >>>>>>>> ADULT people."" > >>>>>>>> But in fact no language is easy for adults to learn who have > >>>>>>>> not already > >>>>>>>> learned a language with a similar typology. If your native > >>>>>>>> language works > >>>>>>>> similarly to the one you are learning, then you have an > >>>>>>>> enormous advantage > >>>>>>>> as an adult second language learner. > >>>>>>>> The remark about how Navajo is not for amateurs was made in > >>>>>>>> the context of > >>>>>>>> people who have no experience with languages of a similar > >>>>>>>> typology. > >>>>>>>> To make this a universal statement about the difficulty of > >>>>>>>> Navajo without > >>>>>>>> qualification is to suggest that some languages are "easy" > >>>>>>>> and others are > >>>>>>>> "impossible". Not only is this not true from an objective > >>>>>>>> standpoint, it > >>>>>>>> also perpetuates the prejudice that English (or IE) is a > >>>>>>>> "normal" language > >>>>>>>> and that every language should be measured against this norm. > >>>>>>>> Best, > >>>>>>>> --Aya > >>>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: > >>>>>>>>> Before you actually tried to learn an Athabaskan language, > >>>>>>>>> or at the very > >>>>>>>>> least worked on one, maybe you had better refrain from > >>>>>>>>> asserting that "a > >>>>>>>>> language that is not for amateurs is not for people". TG > >>>>>>>>> ========= > >>>>>>>>> On 2/8/2011 6:33 AM, A. Katz wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> A language that is not for amateurs is not for people. > >>>>>>>>>> This has nothing to do with RS or computer language > >>>>>>>>>> teaching. As others > >>>>>>>>>> have stated, the technologically based systems are not a > >>>>>>>>>> panacea. > >>>>>>>>>> But a language that ordinary people can't pick by talking > >>>>>>>>>> to their parents > >>>>>>>>>> in childhood is either dead already or not a human language. > >>>>>>>>>> --Aya > >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> I would be amazed if a single person actually learns to > >>>>>>>>>>> speak Navajo > >>>>>>>>>>> using Rosetta Stone. This is not a language for amateurs. > >>>>>>>>>>> John > >>>>>>>>>>> Quoting "s.t. bischoff": > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all, > >>>>>>>>>>>> Over the last week I was involved with an event at the > >>>>>>>>>>>> American Indian > >>>>>>>>>>>> Language Development Institute and the folks that created > >>>>>>>>>>>> the Navajo > >>>>>>>>>>>> Rosetta > >>>>>>>>>>>> Stone gave a short talk about the software. What follows > >>>>>>>>>>>> is my > >>>>>>>>>>>> understanding > >>>>>>>>>>>> of how it came to be. > >>>>>>>>>>>> The Navajo Rosetta Stones was created in collaboration > >>>>>>>>>>>> with Rosetta > >>>>>>>> Stone > >>>>>>>>>>>> and the non-profit Navajo Language Renaissance (NLR). NLR > >>>>>>>>>>>> is a > >>>>>>>> non-profit > >>>>>>>>>>>> organization that is NOT affiliated with the tribal > >>>>>>>>>>>> council or > >>>>>>>> government > >>>>>>>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>>>>>> any way, for obvious reasons I think (e.g. getting > >>>>>>>>>>>> council approval for > >>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>> project). However, it has been endorsed by the school > >>>>>>>>>>>> leadership and NLR > >>>>>>>>>>>> is > >>>>>>>>>>>> actively trying to get the school district to adopt the > >>>>>>>>>>>> software. You > >>>>>>>> can > >>>>>>>>>>>> view the NLR website here > http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ > >>>>>>>>>>>> A > >>>>>>>>>>>> non-community member started NLR after using Rosetta > >>>>>>>>>>>> Stone to learn > >>>>>>>>>>>> Russian. > >>>>>>>>>>>> She thought it would be good if Rosetta Stone created a > >>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo version. > >>>>>>>>>>>> She > >>>>>>>>>>>> contacted Rosetta Stone (RS), and they told her they > >>>>>>>>>>>> would provide here > >>>>>>>>>>>> with > >>>>>>>>>>>> the software to develop the lessons, a photographer, and > >>>>>>>>>>>> technical > >>>>>>>>>>>> assistants (limited on the ground, mostly by phone) to > >>>>>>>>>>>> develop the > >>>>>>>>>>>> program > >>>>>>>>>>>> for $300,000. Another option would be for her to apply > >>>>>>>>>>>> for a grant from > >>>>>>>>>>>> RS > >>>>>>>>>>>> to cover most of the costs. So the NLR was created, a > >>>>>>>>>>>> partnership > >>>>>>>> between > >>>>>>>>>>>> community members and one non-community member, as a non- > >>>>>>>>>>>> profit > >>>>>>>>>>>> organization and applied. RS gave two grants the year > >>>>>>>>>>>> they applied, one > >>>>>>>>>>>> went > >>>>>>>>>>>> to NLR. The grant covered all but $27,000 of the > >>>>>>>>>>>> $300,000. So NLR had to > >>>>>>>>>>>> pay > >>>>>>>>>>>> RS $27,000 to have access to the software to create the > >>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta > >>>>>>>>>>>> Stone. This means they had to create the lessons and pay > >>>>>>>>>>>> speakers and > >>>>>>>>>>>> informants themselves. RS provided the software, a > >>>>>>>>>>>> photographer, and > >>>>>>>>>>>> technical support for the $27,000. NLR now is the only > >>>>>>>>>>>> group that can > >>>>>>>>>>>> sell > >>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone, which they do for $150 per license > >>>>>>>>>>>> and $200 for a > >>>>>>>>>>>> personal box set. It is not clear if they have to pay RS > >>>>>>>>>>>> a percentage of > >>>>>>>>>>>> those revenues or not. When I asked a clear answer wasn't > >>>>>>>>>>>> given. NLR > >>>>>>>> also > >>>>>>>>>>>> has a "training" session for administrators and teachers > >>>>>>>>>>>> which costs > >>>>>>>>>>>> $1500 a > >>>>>>>>>>>> day and $400 per 3 hours. Needless to say, it is not un- > >>>>>>>>>>>> controversial in > >>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>> community for many of the usual reasons. Ironically, the > >>>>>>>>>>>> speaker after > >>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>> Rosetta Stone folks gave a talk that demonstrated how to > >>>>>>>>>>>> create nearly > >>>>>>>>>>>> identical language lessons as Rosetta Stone's simply > >>>>>>>>>>>> using power point. > >>>>>>>> I > >>>>>>>>>>>> was encouraged to let folks know that they should contact > >>>>>>>>>>>> the NLR if > >>>>>>>> they > >>>>>>>>>>>> have any questions at mbittinger at rosettastone.com. You > >>>>>>>>>>>> can try a free > >>>>>>>>>>>> introductory lesson here > http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ > >>>>>>>>>>>> The > >>>>>>>>>>>> folks > >>>>>>>>>>>> at NLR praised RS for their efforts and felt they had > >>>>>>>>>>>> really done them a > >>>>>>>>>>>> service. In short, they were very happy with the > >>>>>>>>>>>> arrangement and how it > >>>>>>>>>>>> was > >>>>>>>>>>>> working out. They were also upset by the controversies > >>>>>>>>>>>> surrounding the > >>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone and felt they were really the result > >>>>>>>>>>>> of a > >>>>>>>>>>>> misunderstanding and misguided assumptions. One finally > >>>>>>>>>>>> thing, they did > >>>>>>>>>>>> seem > >>>>>>>>>>>> to think that it was not a pancea, but rather another > >>>>>>>>>>>> useful tool in > >>>>>>>>>>>> language revitalization efforts. > >>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers, > >>>>>>>>>>>> Shannon > >>>>>>>>>>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>>>>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of > >>>>>>>>>>> Haifa University > >>>>>>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > >>>>>>> University > >> > >> > >> > > Lise Menn Home Office: 303-444-4274 > 1625 Mariposa Ave Fax: 303-413-0017 > Boulder CO 80302 > home page: http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/ > > Professor Emerita of Linguistics > Fellow, Institute of Cognitive Science > University of Colorado > > Secretary, AAAS Section Z [Linguistics] > Fellow, Linguistic Society of America > > Campus Mail Address: > UCB 594, Institute for Cognitive Science > > Campus Physical Address: > CINC 234 > 1777 Exposition Ave, Boulder > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 17 > Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 17:33:56 -0600 > From: "Robert Englebretson" > Subject: [FUNKNET] 1-year lecturer position in lab phonetics/phonology > at Rice U > To: > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; > reply-type=original > > The Department of Linguistics at Rice University is now accepting > applications for a lecturer position in laboratory phonetics and phonology. > The successful applicant will be asked to teach courses in both of these > areas, an introductory linguistics course, and may teach additional courses > in his or her subject area. This is a one-year appointment, and the course > load is four courses for that year. Deadline for receipt of applications > is > March 25, 2011. Ph.D. is required by time of appointment; position start > date is July 1, 2011. > > We especially welcome applications from researchers who share the > department's interest in approaching language from a usage-based > perspective > with solid empirical grounding in primary data, especially approaches of a > cognitive, social-interactional, and/or functional nature. See also our > departmental web site at http://ling.rice.edu. > > Application materials include: cover letter, CV, teaching statement, sample > of written work, and names and contact information for three references. > Past teaching evaluations and/or information about course topics the > applicant could teach are also welcome but not required at this time. > > Rice University is committed to affirmative action and equal opportunity in > education and employment. Rice does not discriminate on the basis of race, > color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national or ethnic origin, age, > disability or veteran status. Rice University is an Equal > Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer. > > Address for Applications: > Search Committee > Department of Linguistics, MS-23 > Rice University > 6100 Main Street > Houston, TX 77005 > USA > > > ****************************************************************** > Dr. Robert Englebretson *Associate Professor and Graduate Advisor* > Dept. of Linguistics, MS23 > Rice University > 6100 Main St. > Houston, TX 77005-1892 > Phone: 713 348-4776 > E-mail: reng at rice.edu > http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~reng > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 18 > Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2011 19:53:18 -0800 > From: "Dan I. Slobin" > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Roseta Stone: Redux > To: Lise Menn ,"A. Katz" , > funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20110209192906.01240e48 at berkeley.edu> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed > > A few responses to previous postings: > > Yes, languages with transparent and consistent > agglutinative morphology, in the verbal or > nominal systems, allow for rapid acquisition, > with some productive inflections at the one-word > stage. Turkish morphology, having virtually no > irregular patterns, is quite securely mastered by > age 3 at the latest, and often much > earlier. And, in general, complex morphology, of > various types, presents no serious problems with > regard to acquisition of the basic grammar of the > relevant constructions. For details of > successful early acquistion of morphology in a > number of such "complex"languages see volumes of > my crosslinguistic series: Vol. 1 (Hebrew, > Polish, Turkish), Vol. 2 (Hungarian), Vol. 3 > (Georgian, West Greenlandic, K'iche' Maya, > Warlpiri, Sesotho), Vol. 4 (Estonian, Finnish, > Korean). Comparable findings are available for > the acquisition of Inuktitut, Tzeltal, > Tzotzil,Yucatec Maya, Hindi, Tamil, and > others. What children find difficult--as do > inguists--are multiply-determined and/or > unpredictable morphophonological patterns. > > So it depends on what you want to credit as > "total acquisition" or "completion of > acquisition." An English-speaking 10-year-old > can fluently produce a range of syntactic > structures, in various genres and registers, > without having mastered all of the irregular verb > forms and a number of subordinate syntactic > constructions. Furthermore, remember that a > bility to produce a pattern in some contexts is > far from commanding its full range of semantic > and pragmatic functions. And when all of you > Funknetters became undergraduate and graduate > students, and later professionals, you were still > acquiring many aspects of English grammar, > vocabulary, and style. Indeed, it goes on > throughout the lifespan of an engaged individual. > > There are no established criteria for full > mastery, but there are numerous studies, in all > five of the crosslinguistic volumes and > elsewhere, of prolonged acquisition of various parts of a linguistic > system. > > As noted, I've written about the error of > expecting early child language to mirror pidgins. > > Best, > > Dan (with references following, many of mine > available for download at > http://psychology.berkeley.edu/faculty/profiles/dslobin.html > Slobin, D. I. (1985, 1992, 1997). The > crosslinguistic study of language acquisition. > Vol. 1: The Data (1985); Vol. 2: Theoretical > issues (1985); Vol. 3 (1992); Vol. 4 (1997); Vol. > 5: Expanding the contexts (1997). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. > Slobin, D. I. (2004). From ontogenesis to > phylogenesis: What can child language tell us > about language evolution? In J. Langer, S. T. > Parker, & C. Milbrath (Eds.), Biology and > Knowledge revisited: From neurogenesis to > psychogenesis (pp. 255-285). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. > > > At 03:00 PM 2/9/2011, Lise Menn wrote: > >that's right. And child language and pidgin aren't the same, in any > >case, for any language I know about, any more than any of them are > >telegrams. But there are arcane reaches of languages that most people > >don't learn, confounding the definition of what 'acquire' means: > >Japanese honorifics and noun classifiers have elegant refinements, > >crafts and professions have jargons... > > > >On Feb 9, 2011, at 1:50 PM, A. Katz wrote: > > > >>I seem to recall that in "The Evolution of > >>Language Out of Pre- Language" Dan Slobin had a > >>sort of dissenting article at the end in > >>which he mentioned that Turkish children use grammatical morphology > >>at the one word level, so that they are never actually speaking a > >>pidgin Turkish at any point in their language development. > >> > >> --Aya > >> > >>On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Craig Hancock wrote: > >> > >>>Brian, > >>> This strikes as a bit like Lake Woebegone (Where all the children > >>>are above average). > >>> > >>>normal Danish children all learn good Danish and become fluent > >>>readers > >>> > >>> Is acquiring a language totally separate from the uses of that > >>>language? Are we just acquiring the forms and then differing in our > >>>ability to put them to use or are the uses themselves a major part > >>>of what we are acquiring? Are lexicon and syntax wholly separate, > >>>or do we go on acquiring the lexico-grammar as we enter more deeply > >>>into adult worlds of discourse? > >>> Anyone in literacy education knows that too many American > >>>children fail to reach high levels of fluency as readers and > >>>writers. Doesn't that somehow mean they have failed to acquire the > >>>language? > >>> > >>>Craig > >>> > >>>On 2/9/2011 2:04 PM, Brian MacWhinney wrote: > >>>>Fritz, > >>>>There are studies in places like the Journal of Child Language by > >>>>Dorthe Bleses, Hans Basb?l, and colleagues at Southern Denmark > >>>>University on the delay of the acquisition of Danish phonology in > >>>>comparison to other European languages, mostly attributed to the > >>>>complexities of the vowel system and the various assimilatory > >>>>processes. There is a corresponding delay in the acquisition of > >>>>reading by Danish children that was observed in the cross-European > >>>>PISA project. All of this is well documented in the literature, > >>>>but it is rather marginal and transitory. Eventually, normal > >>>>Danish children all learn good Danish and become fluent readers. > >>>>-- Brian MacWhinney > >>>>On Feb 9, 2011, at 1:27 PM, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > >>>>>A propos, are there any published studies out there that point to > >>>>>measurable difference in rate of completion of first-language > >>>>>acquisition by speakers of one language compared to another? Or > >>>>>even of mastery of one aspect of L1 acquisition (phonology, > >>>>>morphology, etc.) by speakers of one language compared to another? > >>>>>--fritz > >>>>>Frederick J. Newmeyer > >>>>>Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > >>>>>Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon > >>>>>Fraser University > >>>>>[for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > >>>>>On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, A. Katz wrote: > >>>>>>Tom, > >>>>>>If the language is dying, then the advice not to listen to > >>>>>>somebody under forty because they don't know how to speak may be > >>>>>>sound, but not for the reason that you suggest. It could be > >>>>>>there are no fluent speakers under forty. It seems very unlikely > >>>>>>that one would have to arrive at age forty before acquiring > >>>>>>fluency, especially in a hunter gatherer culture where death > >>>>>>before forty might be quite common. > >>>>>>But if you have evidence to the contrary that fully immersed, > >>>>>>monolingual young speakers of a language cannot speak it with > >>>>>>communicative effect until age forty, then this is a big > >>>>>>discovery that ought to be published and shared with the > >>>>>>scientific community. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> --Aya > >>>>>>On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: > >>>>>>>Right on, John. And one could make a prediction--hopefully > >>>>>>>someday to be tested by acquisition studies--that Navajo kids > >>>>>>>will not master the fully complexcity of the Athabaskan verb by > >>>>>>>age 10, or 15, or 20. I once reviewed a grammar in Papua New > >>>>>>>Guniea of a language that had comparable complexity on the verb > >>>>>>>(three positions, 6-8 categoriers each, massive zeroing& > >>>>>>>morphonemic). I had to ask Carle Whitehead--is this guy for > >>>>>>>real? He said, yes, he's been in the island for 20 years, > >>>>>>>really knows his stuff. So I asked the guy--at what age are > >>>>>>>kids considered fuill-fledged speakers? He said-- the old > >>>>>>>people say, don't listen to anybody under forty, they don't > >>>>>>>know how to speak. In my work with the Utes, one exchange has > >>>>>>>stuck out, an elder (ka-para'ni-wa-t, he's not walking about > >>>>>>>any more) who was pointed to me as the best orator in the > >>>>>>>tribe. I told him that, and he said: "Oh, I am nothing. You > >>>>>>>should have heard the Old Ones; when they spoke, you could see > >>>>>>>it all in front of your eyes". Part of it is due to the complex > >>>>>>>Ute deictic system, which invades NPs, ADVs& the verb. The > >>>>>>>combinations, and the subtle choices of when to combine the > >>>>>>>deictic particle with other categories, are a whole wond(e)rous > >>>>>>>world. Cheers, TG > >>>>>>>========== > >>>>>>>On 2/9/2011 10:13 AM, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > >>>>>>>>Aya, > >>>>>>>>I think I was the one who said first that Navajo is not a > >>>>>>>>language for > >>>>>>>>amateurs. I'll second what Tom said--you should learn something > >>>>>>>>about Navajo (or some other Athabaskan language) before making > >>>>>>>>statements like this. Some languages are just plain > >>>>>>>>objectively harder than > >>>>>>>>others, regardless of typological similarly to one's native > >>>>>>>>language. If you > >>>>>>>>don't believe this, do an experiment in which you take > >>>>>>>>speakers of English, > >>>>>>>>Turkish, Georgian, Chinese, whatever you want, try to teach > >>>>>>>>them Navajo, Hopi, > >>>>>>>>and Cree (for example), and see which one gives them the most > >>>>>>>>trouble. > >>>>>>>>I guarantee it will be Navajo. And there is an objective > >>>>>>>>reason for it-- > >>>>>>>>the morphophonemics are just unbelievably complex. > >>>>>>>>John > >>>>>>>>Quoting "A. Katz": > >>>>>>>>>Tom, > >>>>>>>>>I don't think that is a valid viewpoint with regard to > >>>>>>>>>Athabaskan or any > >>>>>>>>>other language family. > >>>>>>>>>Victor Golla earlier had a much better phrasing when he wrote: > >>>>>>>>>"Let that read: "A language that is not for amateurs is not for > >>>>>>>>>ADULT people."" > >>>>>>>>>But in fact no language is easy for adults to learn who have > >>>>>>>>>not already > >>>>>>>>>learned a language with a similar typology. If your native > >>>>>>>>>language works > >>>>>>>>>similarly to the one you are learning, then you have an > >>>>>>>>>enormous advantage > >>>>>>>>>as an adult second language learner. > >>>>>>>>>The remark about how Navajo is not for amateurs was made in > >>>>>>>>>the context of > >>>>>>>>>people who have no experience with languages of a similar > >>>>>>>>>typology. > >>>>>>>>>To make this a universal statement about the difficulty of > >>>>>>>>>Navajo without > >>>>>>>>>qualification is to suggest that some languages are "easy" > >>>>>>>>>and others are > >>>>>>>>>"impossible". Not only is this not true from an objective > >>>>>>>>>standpoint, it > >>>>>>>>>also perpetuates the prejudice that English (or IE) is a > >>>>>>>>>"normal" language > >>>>>>>>>and that every language should be measured against this norm. > >>>>>>>>>Best, > >>>>>>>>> --Aya > >>>>>>>>>On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>Before you actually tried to learn an Athabaskan language, > >>>>>>>>>>or at the very > >>>>>>>>>>least worked on one, maybe you had better refrain from > >>>>>>>>>>asserting that "a > >>>>>>>>>>language that is not for amateurs is not for people". TG > >>>>>>>>>>========= > >>>>>>>>>>On 2/8/2011 6:33 AM, A. Katz wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>A language that is not for amateurs is not for people. > >>>>>>>>>>>This has nothing to do with RS or computer language > >>>>>>>>>>>teaching. As others > >>>>>>>>>>>have stated, the technologically based systems are not a > >>>>>>>>>>>panacea. > >>>>>>>>>>>But a language that ordinary people can't pick by talking > >>>>>>>>>>>to their parents > >>>>>>>>>>>in childhood is either dead already or not a human language. > >>>>>>>>>>> --Aya > >>>>>>>>>>>On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>I would be amazed if a single person actually learns to > >>>>>>>>>>>>speak Navajo > >>>>>>>>>>>>using Rosetta Stone. This is not a language for amateurs. > >>>>>>>>>>>>John > >>>>>>>>>>>>Quoting "s.t. bischoff": > >>>>>>>>>>>>>Hi all, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>Over the last week I was involved with an event at the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>American Indian > >>>>>>>>>>>>>Language Development Institute and the folks that created > >>>>>>>>>>>>>the Navajo > >>>>>>>>>>>>>Rosetta > >>>>>>>>>>>>>Stone gave a short talk about the software. What follows > >>>>>>>>>>>>>is my > >>>>>>>>>>>>>understanding > >>>>>>>>>>>>>of how it came to be. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>The Navajo Rosetta Stones was created in collaboration > >>>>>>>>>>>>>with Rosetta > >>>>>>>>>Stone > >>>>>>>>>>>>>and the non-profit Navajo Language Renaissance (NLR). NLR > >>>>>>>>>>>>>is a > >>>>>>>>>non-profit > >>>>>>>>>>>>>organization that is NOT affiliated with the tribal > >>>>>>>>>>>>>council or > >>>>>>>>>government > >>>>>>>>>>>>>in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>any way, for obvious reasons I think (e.g. getting > >>>>>>>>>>>>>council approval for > >>>>>>>>>>>>>the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>project). However, it has been endorsed by the school > >>>>>>>>>>>>>leadership and NLR > >>>>>>>>>>>>>is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>actively trying to get the school district to adopt the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>software. You > >>>>>>>>>can > >>>>>>>>>>>>>view the NLR website here > >>>>>>>>>>>>>http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ A > >>>>>>>>>>>>>non-community member started NLR after using Rosetta > >>>>>>>>>>>>>Stone to learn > >>>>>>>>>>>>>Russian. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>She thought it would be good if Rosetta Stone created a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>Navajo version. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>She > >>>>>>>>>>>>>contacted Rosetta Stone (RS), and they told her they > >>>>>>>>>>>>>would provide here > >>>>>>>>>>>>>with > >>>>>>>>>>>>>the software to develop the lessons, a photographer, and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>technical > >>>>>>>>>>>>>assistants (limited on the ground, mostly by phone) to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>develop the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>program > >>>>>>>>>>>>>for $300,000. Another option would be for her to apply > >>>>>>>>>>>>>for a grant from > >>>>>>>>>>>>>RS > >>>>>>>>>>>>>to cover most of the costs. So the NLR was created, a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>partnership > >>>>>>>>>between > >>>>>>>>>>>>>community members and one non-community member, as a non- > profit > >>>>>>>>>>>>>organization and applied. RS gave two grants the year > >>>>>>>>>>>>>they applied, one > >>>>>>>>>>>>>went > >>>>>>>>>>>>>to NLR. The grant covered all but $27,000 of the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>$300,000. So NLR had to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>pay > >>>>>>>>>>>>>RS $27,000 to have access to the software to create the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>Navajo Rosetta > >>>>>>>>>>>>>Stone. This means they had to create the lessons and pay > >>>>>>>>>>>>>speakers and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>informants themselves. RS provided the software, a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>photographer, and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>technical support for the $27,000. NLR now is the only > >>>>>>>>>>>>>group that can > >>>>>>>>>>>>>sell > >>>>>>>>>>>>>Navajo Rosetta Stone, which they do for $150 per license > >>>>>>>>>>>>>and $200 for a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>personal box set. It is not clear if they have to pay RS > >>>>>>>>>>>>>a percentage of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>those revenues or not. When I asked a clear answer wasn't > >>>>>>>>>>>>>given. NLR > >>>>>>>>>also > >>>>>>>>>>>>>has a "training" session for administrators and teachers > >>>>>>>>>>>>>which costs > >>>>>>>>>>>>>$1500 a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>day and $400 per 3 hours. Needless > >>>>>>>>>>>>>to say, it is not un- controversial in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>community for many of the usual reasons. Ironically, the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>speaker after > >>>>>>>>>>>>>the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>Rosetta Stone folks gave a talk that demonstrated how to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>create nearly > >>>>>>>>>>>>>identical language lessons as Rosetta Stone's simply > >>>>>>>>>>>>>using power point. > >>>>>>>>>I > >>>>>>>>>>>>>was encouraged to let folks know that they should contact > >>>>>>>>>>>>>the NLR if > >>>>>>>>>they > >>>>>>>>>>>>>have any questions at mbittinger at rosettastone.com. You > >>>>>>>>>>>>>can try a free > >>>>>>>>>>>>>introductory lesson here > >>>>>>>>>>>>>http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ The > >>>>>>>>>>>>>folks > >>>>>>>>>>>>>at NLR praised RS for their efforts and felt they had > >>>>>>>>>>>>>really done them a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>service. In short, they were very happy with the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>arrangement and how it > >>>>>>>>>>>>>was > >>>>>>>>>>>>>working out. They were also upset by the controversies > >>>>>>>>>>>>>surrounding the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>Navajo Rosetta Stone and felt they were really the result > >>>>>>>>>>>>>of a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>misunderstanding and misguided assumptions. One finally > >>>>>>>>>>>>>thing, they did > >>>>>>>>>>>>>seem > >>>>>>>>>>>>>to think that it was not a pancea, but rather another > >>>>>>>>>>>>>useful tool in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>language revitalization efforts. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>Cheers, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>Shannon > > >>>>>>>>>>>>------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>>>>>>>>>This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of > >>>>>>>>>>>>Haifa University > > >>>>>>>>------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>>>>>This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > >>>>>>>>University > >>> > >>> > > > >Lise Menn Home Office: 303-444-4274 > >1625 Mariposa Ave Fax: 303-413-0017 > >Boulder CO 80302 > >home page: http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/ > > > >Professor Emerita of Linguistics > >Fellow, Institute of Cognitive Science > >University of Colorado > > > >Secretary, AAAS Section Z [Linguistics] > >Fellow, Linguistic Society of America > > > >Campus Mail Address: > >UCB 594, Institute for Cognitive Science > > > >Campus Physical Address: > >CINC 234 > >1777 Exposition Ave, Boulder > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Dan I. Slobin > Professor Emeritus of Psychology and Linguistics > > Department of Psychology email: slobin at berkeley.edu > 3210 Tolman #1650 phone (Dept): 1-510-642-5292 > University of California phone (home): 1-510-848-1769 > Berkeley, CA 94720-1650, USA fax: 1-510-642-5293 > http://psychology.berkeley.edu/faculty/profiles/dslobin.html > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 19 > Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 21:15:09 -0700 > From: Sherman Wilcox > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Roseta Stone: Redux > To: "Dan I. Slobin" > Cc: Lise Menn , funknet at mailman.rice.edu, > "A. > Katz" > Message-ID: <9B8BABED-AAD9-45D5-A503-0F9BEF0FA04D at unm.edu> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > On Feb 9, 2011, at 8:53 PM, Dan I. Slobin wrote: > > > And when all of you Funknetters became undergraduate and graduate > students, and later professionals, you were still acquiring many aspects of > English grammar, vocabulary, and style. Indeed, it goes on throughout the > lifespan of an engaged individual. > > > Okay, so writing isn't the same as speaking. Nevertheless, I think this > interview with Ernest Hemingway is relevant: > > Interviewer: How much rewriting do you do? > > Hemingway: It depends. I rewrote the ending of "Farewell to Arms," the last > page of it, 39 times before I was satisfied. > > Interviewer: Was there some technical problem there? What was it that had > stumped you? > > Hemingway: Getting the words right. > > > -- > Sherman Wilcox, Ph.D. > Professor > Department of Linguistics > University of New Mexico > Albuquerque, NM 87131 > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 20 > Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 07:15:36 +0000 > From: Elena Lieven > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Roseta Stone: Redux > To: "Dan I. Slobin" > Cc: Lise Menn , funknet at mailman.rice.edu, > "A. > Katz" > Message-ID: <4D539098.6040105 at eva.mpg.de> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > Dan is right. Of course it depends what is meant by 'acquiring a > language'. The skills of highly educated people or public speakers and > great story tellers in oral cultures will not necessarily be acquired by > all members of a community. Ewa Dabrowska has shown this for some > aspects of case morphology in Polish and for passives and quantifer > scope in English - both studies of adult native speakers > elena lieven > > Dan I. Slobin wrote: > > A few responses to previous postings: > > > > Yes, languages with transparent and consistent agglutinative > > morphology, in the verbal or nominal systems, allow for rapid > > acquisition, with some productive inflections at the one-word stage. > > Turkish morphology, having virtually no irregular patterns, is quite > > securely mastered by age 3 at the latest, and often much earlier. > > And, in general, complex morphology, of various types, presents no > > serious problems with regard to acquisition of the basic grammar of > > the relevant constructions. For details of successful early > > acquistion of morphology in a number of such "complex"languages see > > volumes of my crosslinguistic series: Vol. 1 (Hebrew, Polish, > > Turkish), Vol. 2 (Hungarian), Vol. 3 (Georgian, West Greenlandic, > > K'iche' Maya, Warlpiri, Sesotho), Vol. 4 (Estonian, Finnish, Korean). > > Comparable findings are available for the acquisition of Inuktitut, > > Tzeltal, Tzotzil,Yucatec Maya, Hindi, Tamil, and others. What > > children find difficult--as do inguists--are multiply-determined > > and/or unpredictable morphophonological patterns. > > > > So it depends on what you want to credit as "total acquisition" or > > "completion of acquisition." An English-speaking 10-year-old can > > fluently produce a range of syntactic structures, in various genres > > and registers, without having mastered all of the irregular verb forms > > and a number of subordinate syntactic constructions. Furthermore, > > remember that a bility to produce a pattern in some contexts is far > > from commanding its full range of semantic and pragmatic functions. > > And when all of you Funknetters became undergraduate and graduate > > students, and later professionals, you were still acquiring many > > aspects of English grammar, vocabulary, and style. Indeed, it goes on > > throughout the lifespan of an engaged individual. > > > > There are no established criteria for full mastery, but there are > > numerous studies, in all five of the crosslinguistic volumes and > > elsewhere, of prolonged acquisition of various parts of a linguistic > > system. > > > > As noted, I've written about the error of expecting early child > > language to mirror pidgins. > > > > Best, > > > > Dan (with references following, many of mine available for download at > > http://psychology.berkeley.edu/faculty/profiles/dslobin.html > > Slobin, D. I. (1985, 1992, 1997). The crosslinguistic study of > > language acquisition. Vol. 1: The Data (1985); Vol. 2: Theoretical > > issues (1985); Vol. 3 (1992); Vol. 4 (1997); Vol. 5: Expanding the > > contexts (1997). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. > > Slobin, D. I. (2004). From ontogenesis to phylogenesis: What can > > child language tell us about language evolution? In J. Langer, S. T. > > Parker, & C. Milbrath (Eds.), Biology and Knowledge revisited: From > > neurogenesis to psychogenesis (pp. 255-285). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence > > Erlbaum Associates. > > > > > > At 03:00 PM 2/9/2011, Lise Menn wrote: > >> that's right. And child language and pidgin aren't the same, in any > >> case, for any language I know about, any more than any of them are > >> telegrams. But there are arcane reaches of languages that most people > >> don't learn, confounding the definition of what 'acquire' means: > >> Japanese honorifics and noun classifiers have elegant refinements, > >> crafts and professions have jargons... > >> > >> On Feb 9, 2011, at 1:50 PM, A. Katz wrote: > >> > >>> I seem to recall that in "The Evolution of Language Out of Pre- > >>> Language" Dan Slobin had a sort of dissenting article at the end in > >>> which he mentioned that Turkish children use grammatical morphology > >>> at the one word level, so that they are never actually speaking a > >>> pidgin Turkish at any point in their language development. > >>> > >>> --Aya > >>> > >>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Craig Hancock wrote: > >>> > >>>> Brian, > >>>> This strikes as a bit like Lake Woebegone (Where all the children > >>>> are above average). > >>>> > >>>> normal Danish children all learn good Danish and become fluent > >>>> readers > >>>> > >>>> Is acquiring a language totally separate from the uses of that > >>>> language? Are we just acquiring the forms and then differing in our > >>>> ability to put them to use or are the uses themselves a major part > >>>> of what we are acquiring? Are lexicon and syntax wholly separate, > >>>> or do we go on acquiring the lexico-grammar as we enter more deeply > >>>> into adult worlds of discourse? > >>>> Anyone in literacy education knows that too many American > >>>> children fail to reach high levels of fluency as readers and > >>>> writers. Doesn't that somehow mean they have failed to acquire the > >>>> language? > >>>> > >>>> Craig > >>>> > >>>> On 2/9/2011 2:04 PM, Brian MacWhinney wrote: > >>>>> Fritz, > >>>>> There are studies in places like the Journal of Child Language by > >>>>> Dorthe Bleses, Hans Basb?l, and colleagues at Southern Denmark > >>>>> University on the delay of the acquisition of Danish phonology in > >>>>> comparison to other European languages, mostly attributed to the > >>>>> complexities of the vowel system and the various assimilatory > >>>>> processes. There is a corresponding delay in the acquisition of > >>>>> reading by Danish children that was observed in the cross-European > >>>>> PISA project. All of this is well documented in the literature, > >>>>> but it is rather marginal and transitory. Eventually, normal > >>>>> Danish children all learn good Danish and become fluent readers. > >>>>> -- Brian MacWhinney > >>>>> On Feb 9, 2011, at 1:27 PM, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > >>>>>> A propos, are there any published studies out there that point to > >>>>>> measurable difference in rate of completion of first-language > >>>>>> acquisition by speakers of one language compared to another? Or > >>>>>> even of mastery of one aspect of L1 acquisition (phonology, > >>>>>> morphology, etc.) by speakers of one language compared to another? > >>>>>> --fritz > >>>>>> Frederick J. Newmeyer > >>>>>> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > >>>>>> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon > >>>>>> Fraser University > >>>>>> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > >>>>>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, A. Katz wrote: > >>>>>>> Tom, > >>>>>>> If the language is dying, then the advice not to listen to > >>>>>>> somebody under forty because they don't know how to speak may be > >>>>>>> sound, but not for the reason that you suggest. It could be > >>>>>>> there are no fluent speakers under forty. It seems very unlikely > >>>>>>> that one would have to arrive at age forty before acquiring > >>>>>>> fluency, especially in a hunter gatherer culture where death > >>>>>>> before forty might be quite common. > >>>>>>> But if you have evidence to the contrary that fully immersed, > >>>>>>> monolingual young speakers of a language cannot speak it with > >>>>>>> communicative effect until age forty, then this is a big > >>>>>>> discovery that ought to be published and shared with the > >>>>>>> scientific community. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> --Aya > >>>>>>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: > >>>>>>>> Right on, John. And one could make a prediction--hopefully > >>>>>>>> someday to be tested by acquisition studies--that Navajo kids > >>>>>>>> will not master the fully complexcity of the Athabaskan verb by > >>>>>>>> age 10, or 15, or 20. I once reviewed a grammar in Papua New > >>>>>>>> Guniea of a language that had comparable complexity on the verb > >>>>>>>> (three positions, 6-8 categoriers each, massive zeroing& > >>>>>>>> morphonemic). I had to ask Carle Whitehead--is this guy for > >>>>>>>> real? He said, yes, he's been in the island for 20 years, > >>>>>>>> really knows his stuff. So I asked the guy--at what age are > >>>>>>>> kids considered fuill-fledged speakers? He said-- the old > >>>>>>>> people say, don't listen to anybody under forty, they don't > >>>>>>>> know how to speak. In my work with the Utes, one exchange has > >>>>>>>> stuck out, an elder (ka-para'ni-wa-t, he's not walking about > >>>>>>>> any more) who was pointed to me as the best orator in the > >>>>>>>> tribe. I told him that, and he said: "Oh, I am nothing. You > >>>>>>>> should have heard the Old Ones; when they spoke, you could see > >>>>>>>> it all in front of your eyes". Part of it is due to the complex > >>>>>>>> Ute deictic system, which invades NPs, ADVs& the verb. The > >>>>>>>> combinations, and the subtle choices of when to combine the > >>>>>>>> deictic particle with other categories, are a whole wond(e)rous > >>>>>>>> world. Cheers, TG > >>>>>>>> ========== > >>>>>>>> On 2/9/2011 10:13 AM, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > >>>>>>>>> Aya, > >>>>>>>>> I think I was the one who said first that Navajo is not a > >>>>>>>>> language for > >>>>>>>>> amateurs. I'll second what Tom said--you should learn something > >>>>>>>>> about Navajo (or some other Athabaskan language) before making > >>>>>>>>> statements like this. Some languages are just plain > >>>>>>>>> objectively harder than > >>>>>>>>> others, regardless of typological similarly to one's native > >>>>>>>>> language. If you > >>>>>>>>> don't believe this, do an experiment in which you take > >>>>>>>>> speakers of English, > >>>>>>>>> Turkish, Georgian, Chinese, whatever you want, try to teach > >>>>>>>>> them Navajo, Hopi, > >>>>>>>>> and Cree (for example), and see which one gives them the most > >>>>>>>>> trouble. > >>>>>>>>> I guarantee it will be Navajo. And there is an objective > >>>>>>>>> reason for it-- > >>>>>>>>> the morphophonemics are just unbelievably complex. > >>>>>>>>> John > >>>>>>>>> Quoting "A. Katz": > >>>>>>>>>> Tom, > >>>>>>>>>> I don't think that is a valid viewpoint with regard to > >>>>>>>>>> Athabaskan or any > >>>>>>>>>> other language family. > >>>>>>>>>> Victor Golla earlier had a much better phrasing when he wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> "Let that read: "A language that is not for amateurs is not for > >>>>>>>>>> ADULT people."" > >>>>>>>>>> But in fact no language is easy for adults to learn who have > >>>>>>>>>> not already > >>>>>>>>>> learned a language with a similar typology. If your native > >>>>>>>>>> language works > >>>>>>>>>> similarly to the one you are learning, then you have an > >>>>>>>>>> enormous advantage > >>>>>>>>>> as an adult second language learner. > >>>>>>>>>> The remark about how Navajo is not for amateurs was made in > >>>>>>>>>> the context of > >>>>>>>>>> people who have no experience with languages of a similar > >>>>>>>>>> typology. > >>>>>>>>>> To make this a universal statement about the difficulty of > >>>>>>>>>> Navajo without > >>>>>>>>>> qualification is to suggest that some languages are "easy" > >>>>>>>>>> and others are > >>>>>>>>>> "impossible". Not only is this not true from an objective > >>>>>>>>>> standpoint, it > >>>>>>>>>> also perpetuates the prejudice that English (or IE) is a > >>>>>>>>>> "normal" language > >>>>>>>>>> and that every language should be measured against this norm. > >>>>>>>>>> Best, > >>>>>>>>>> --Aya > >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> Before you actually tried to learn an Athabaskan language, > >>>>>>>>>>> or at the very > >>>>>>>>>>> least worked on one, maybe you had better refrain from > >>>>>>>>>>> asserting that "a > >>>>>>>>>>> language that is not for amateurs is not for people". TG > >>>>>>>>>>> ========= > >>>>>>>>>>> On 2/8/2011 6:33 AM, A. Katz wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> A language that is not for amateurs is not for people. > >>>>>>>>>>>> This has nothing to do with RS or computer language > >>>>>>>>>>>> teaching. As others > >>>>>>>>>>>> have stated, the technologically based systems are not a > >>>>>>>>>>>> panacea. > >>>>>>>>>>>> But a language that ordinary people can't pick by talking > >>>>>>>>>>>> to their parents > >>>>>>>>>>>> in childhood is either dead already or not a human language. > >>>>>>>>>>>> --Aya > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I would be amazed if a single person actually learns to > >>>>>>>>>>>>> speak Navajo > >>>>>>>>>>>>> using Rosetta Stone. This is not a language for amateurs. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> John > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Quoting "s.t. bischoff": > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Over the last week I was involved with an event at the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> American Indian > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Language Development Institute and the folks that created > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Navajo > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rosetta > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stone gave a short talk about the software. What follows > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is my > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of how it came to be. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Navajo Rosetta Stones was created in collaboration > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> with Rosetta > >>>>>>>>>> Stone > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the non-profit Navajo Language Renaissance (NLR). NLR > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a > >>>>>>>>>> non-profit > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> organization that is NOT affiliated with the tribal > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> council or > >>>>>>>>>> government > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> any way, for obvious reasons I think (e.g. getting > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> council approval for > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> project). However, it has been endorsed by the school > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> leadership and NLR > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> actively trying to get the school district to adopt the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> software. You > >>>>>>>>>> can > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> view the NLR website here > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ A > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-community member started NLR after using Rosetta > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stone to learn > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Russian. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> She thought it would be good if Rosetta Stone created a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo version. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> She > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> contacted Rosetta Stone (RS), and they told her they > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> would provide here > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> with > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the software to develop the lessons, a photographer, and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> technical > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> assistants (limited on the ground, mostly by phone) to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> develop the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> program > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> for $300,000. Another option would be for her to apply > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> for a grant from > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> RS > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to cover most of the costs. So the NLR was created, a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> partnership > >>>>>>>>>> between > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> community members and one non-community member, as a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> non- profit > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> organization and applied. RS gave two grants the year > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> they applied, one > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> went > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to NLR. The grant covered all but $27,000 of the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> $300,000. So NLR had to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> pay > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> RS $27,000 to have access to the software to create the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stone. This means they had to create the lessons and pay > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> speakers and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> informants themselves. RS provided the software, a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> photographer, and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> technical support for the $27,000. NLR now is the only > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> group that can > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> sell > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone, which they do for $150 per license > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and $200 for a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> personal box set. It is not clear if they have to pay RS > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a percentage of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> those revenues or not. When I asked a clear answer wasn't > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> given. NLR > >>>>>>>>>> also > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> has a "training" session for administrators and teachers > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> which costs > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> $1500 a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> day and $400 per 3 hours. Needless to say, it is not un- > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> controversial in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> community for many of the usual reasons. Ironically, the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> speaker after > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rosetta Stone folks gave a talk that demonstrated how to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> create nearly > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> identical language lessons as Rosetta Stone's simply > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> using power point. > >>>>>>>>>> I > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> was encouraged to let folks know that they should contact > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the NLR if > >>>>>>>>>> they > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> have any questions at mbittinger at rosettastone.com. You > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> can try a free > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> introductory lesson here > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ The > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> folks > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> at NLR praised RS for their efforts and felt they had > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> really done them a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> service. In short, they were very happy with the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> arrangement and how it > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> was > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> working out. They were also upset by the controversies > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> surrounding the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone and felt they were really the result > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> misunderstanding and misguided assumptions. One finally > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> thing, they did > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> seem > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to think that it was not a pancea, but rather another > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> useful tool in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> language revitalization efforts. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shannon > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Haifa University > >>>>>>>>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > >>>>>>>>> University > >>>> > >>>> > >> > >> Lise Menn Home Office: 303-444-4274 > >> 1625 Mariposa Ave Fax: 303-413-0017 > >> Boulder CO 80302 > >> home page: http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/ > >> > >> Professor Emerita of Linguistics > >> Fellow, Institute of Cognitive Science > >> University of Colorado > >> > >> Secretary, AAAS Section Z [Linguistics] > >> Fellow, Linguistic Society of America > >> > >> Campus Mail Address: > >> UCB 594, Institute for Cognitive Science > >> > >> Campus Physical Address: > >> CINC 234 > >> 1777 Exposition Ave, Boulder > >> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > Dan I. Slobin > > Professor Emeritus of Psychology and Linguistics > > > > Department of Psychology email: slobin at berkeley.edu > > 3210 Tolman #1650 phone (Dept): 1-510-642-5292 > > University of California phone (home): 1-510-848-1769 > > Berkeley, CA 94720-1650, USA fax: 1-510-642-5293 > > http://psychology.berkeley.edu/faculty/profiles/dslobin.html > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > -- > Elena Lieven > Department of Developmental and Comparative Psychology > Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology > Deutscher Platz 6 > D-04103 Leipzig > Germany > > Tel.+49-(0)341-3550 404 > +49-(0)341-3550 400 (Department Coordinator: Henriette Zeidler) > Fax.+49-(0)341-3550 444 > > and > > Max Planck Child Study Centre > School of Psychological Sciences > University of Manchester > Manchester M13 9PL > UK > > Tel.+44-(0)161-275 2580 > +44-(0)161-275 2444 (Research Secretary: Mickie Glover) > Fax.+44-(0)161-275 8587 > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 21 > Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 10:19:23 +0200 > From: john at research.haifa.ac.il > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Roseta Stone: Redux > To: Elena Lieven > Cc: Lise Menn , "A. Katz" , > "Dan I. Slobin" , funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Message-ID: <1297325963.4d539f8b3ce1a at webmail.haifa.ac.il> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1255 > > Delays in the acquisition of SPOKEN Danish would presumably be due not to > the > vowels (which are similar to other Scandinavian languages and much less > typologically peculiar than e.g. Dutch and some southern USA dialects) but > to > the rampant glottalization processe which really are typologically bizarre > and > which is the main source of complex allophony. It's the same idea as the > American pronunciation of 'button' or 'mountain' (with no vowel in the > second > syllable but rather a syllabic n with a glottal stop before) except that it > occurs not just with alveolar+alveolar but with all combinations and the > nasal > isn't syllabic but combined with the preceding consonant in one or another > way. > The Danish pronunciation of 'Copenhagen' in natural speech sounds to me > like > it's just two syllables long. When I was working on Circassian (the dialect > here has about 60 phonemes, mostly due to double and triple articulations) > I > got the same feeling that somewhere along the way native speakers had > decided > that it was normal to take neighboring consonantal articulations, even in > the > next syllable, and just say them all at the same time. Delays in the > acquisition of WRITTEN Danish, on the other hand, are undoubtedly due to > the > antiquated spelling system, which has essentially never been updated. This > is > conceptually a separate problem, although they are related in the sense > that > many of the counterintuitive spellings are the product of the same > historical > process which produced the glottalization processes. > There is no question that the greater difficulty of learning some languages > is a > serious problem for some language revival programs. I see much more hope > for > reviving Algonquian languages than for reviving Athabascan languages (and > Polynesian languages would be a comparative cinch). I suppose that members > of > the groups might recognize this and 'dumb down' the languages in one way or > another (making the morphophonemics simpler, eliminating phonemic contrasts > when one of the sounds is really hard to pronounce, etc.), but obviously > this > is their decision. > John > > Quoting Elena Lieven : > > > Dan is right. Of course it depends what is meant by 'acquiring a > > language'. The skills of highly educated people or public speakers and > > great story tellers in oral cultures will not necessarily be acquired by > > all members of a community. Ewa Dabrowska has shown this for some > > aspects of case morphology in Polish and for passives and quantifer > > scope in English - both studies of adult native speakers > > elena lieven > > > > Dan I. Slobin wrote: > > > A few responses to previous postings: > > > > > > Yes, languages with transparent and consistent agglutinative > > > morphology, in the verbal or nominal systems, allow for rapid > > > acquisition, with some productive inflections at the one-word stage. > > > Turkish morphology, having virtually no irregular patterns, is quite > > > securely mastered by age 3 at the latest, and often much earlier. > > > And, in general, complex morphology, of various types, presents no > > > serious problems with regard to acquisition of the basic grammar of > > > the relevant constructions. For details of successful early > > > acquistion of morphology in a number of such "complex"languages see > > > volumes of my crosslinguistic series: Vol. 1 (Hebrew, Polish, > > > Turkish), Vol. 2 (Hungarian), Vol. 3 (Georgian, West Greenlandic, > > > K'iche' Maya, Warlpiri, Sesotho), Vol. 4 (Estonian, Finnish, Korean). > > > Comparable findings are available for the acquisition of Inuktitut, > > > Tzeltal, Tzotzil,Yucatec Maya, Hindi, Tamil, and others. What > > > children find difficult--as do inguists--are multiply-determined > > > and/or unpredictable morphophonological patterns. > > > > > > So it depends on what you want to credit as "total acquisition" or > > > "completion of acquisition." An English-speaking 10-year-old can > > > fluently produce a range of syntactic structures, in various genres > > > and registers, without having mastered all of the irregular verb forms > > > and a number of subordinate syntactic constructions. Furthermore, > > > remember that a bility to produce a pattern in some contexts is far > > > from commanding its full range of semantic and pragmatic functions. > > > And when all of you Funknetters became undergraduate and graduate > > > students, and later professionals, you were still acquiring many > > > aspects of English grammar, vocabulary, and style. Indeed, it goes on > > > throughout the lifespan of an engaged individual. > > > > > > There are no established criteria for full mastery, but there are > > > numerous studies, in all five of the crosslinguistic volumes and > > > elsewhere, of prolonged acquisition of various parts of a linguistic > > > system. > > > > > > As noted, I've written about the error of expecting early child > > > language to mirror pidgins. > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > Dan (with references following, many of mine available for download at > > > http://psychology.berkeley.edu/faculty/profiles/dslobin.html > > > Slobin, D. I. (1985, 1992, 1997). The crosslinguistic study of > > > language acquisition. Vol. 1: The Data (1985); Vol. 2: Theoretical > > > issues (1985); Vol. 3 (1992); Vol. 4 (1997); Vol. 5: Expanding the > > > contexts (1997). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. > > > Slobin, D. I. (2004). From ontogenesis to phylogenesis: What can > > > child language tell us about language evolution? In J. Langer, S. T. > > > Parker, & C. Milbrath (Eds.), Biology and Knowledge revisited: From > > > neurogenesis to psychogenesis (pp. 255-285). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence > > > Erlbaum Associates. > > > > > > > > > At 03:00 PM 2/9/2011, Lise Menn wrote: > > >> that's right. And child language and pidgin aren't the same, in any > > >> case, for any language I know about, any more than any of them are > > >> telegrams. But there are arcane reaches of languages that most people > > >> don't learn, confounding the definition of what 'acquire' means: > > >> Japanese honorifics and noun classifiers have elegant refinements, > > >> crafts and professions have jargons... > > >> > > >> On Feb 9, 2011, at 1:50 PM, A. Katz wrote: > > >> > > >>> I seem to recall that in "The Evolution of Language Out of Pre- > > >>> Language" Dan Slobin had a sort of dissenting article at the end in > > >>> which he mentioned that Turkish children use grammatical morphology > > >>> at the one word level, so that they are never actually speaking a > > >>> pidgin Turkish at any point in their language development. > > >>> > > >>> --Aya > > >>> > > >>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Craig Hancock wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> Brian, > > >>>> This strikes as a bit like Lake Woebegone (Where all the children > > >>>> are above average). > > >>>> > > >>>> normal Danish children all learn good Danish and become fluent > > >>>> readers > > >>>> > > >>>> Is acquiring a language totally separate from the uses of that > > >>>> language? Are we just acquiring the forms and then differing in our > > >>>> ability to put them to use or are the uses themselves a major part > > >>>> of what we are acquiring? Are lexicon and syntax wholly separate, > > >>>> or do we go on acquiring the lexico-grammar as we enter more deeply > > >>>> into adult worlds of discourse? > > >>>> Anyone in literacy education knows that too many American > > >>>> children fail to reach high levels of fluency as readers and > > >>>> writers. Doesn't that somehow mean they have failed to acquire the > > >>>> language? > > >>>> > > >>>> Craig > > >>>> > > >>>> On 2/9/2011 2:04 PM, Brian MacWhinney wrote: > > >>>>> Fritz, > > >>>>> There are studies in places like the Journal of Child Language by > > >>>>> Dorthe Bleses, Hans Basb?l, and colleagues at Southern Denmark > > >>>>> University on the delay of the acquisition of Danish phonology in > > >>>>> comparison to other European languages, mostly attributed to the > > >>>>> complexities of the vowel system and the various assimilatory > > >>>>> processes. There is a corresponding delay in the acquisition of > > >>>>> reading by Danish children that was observed in the cross-European > > >>>>> PISA project. All of this is well documented in the literature, > > >>>>> but it is rather marginal and transitory. Eventually, normal > > >>>>> Danish children all learn good Danish and become fluent readers. > > >>>>> -- Brian MacWhinney > > >>>>> On Feb 9, 2011, at 1:27 PM, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > > >>>>>> A propos, are there any published studies out there that point to > > >>>>>> measurable difference in rate of completion of first-language > > >>>>>> acquisition by speakers of one language compared to another? Or > > >>>>>> even of mastery of one aspect of L1 acquisition (phonology, > > >>>>>> morphology, etc.) by speakers of one language compared to another? > > >>>>>> --fritz > > >>>>>> Frederick J. Newmeyer > > >>>>>> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > > >>>>>> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon > > >>>>>> Fraser University > > >>>>>> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > >>>>>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, A. Katz wrote: > > >>>>>>> Tom, > > >>>>>>> If the language is dying, then the advice not to listen to > > >>>>>>> somebody under forty because they don't know how to speak may be > > >>>>>>> sound, but not for the reason that you suggest. It could be > > >>>>>>> there are no fluent speakers under forty. It seems very unlikely > > >>>>>>> that one would have to arrive at age forty before acquiring > > >>>>>>> fluency, especially in a hunter gatherer culture where death > > >>>>>>> before forty might be quite common. > > >>>>>>> But if you have evidence to the contrary that fully immersed, > > >>>>>>> monolingual young speakers of a language cannot speak it with > > >>>>>>> communicative effect until age forty, then this is a big > > >>>>>>> discovery that ought to be published and shared with the > > >>>>>>> scientific community. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> --Aya > > >>>>>>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: > > >>>>>>>> Right on, John. And one could make a prediction--hopefully > > >>>>>>>> someday to be tested by acquisition studies--that Navajo kids > > >>>>>>>> will not master the fully complexcity of the Athabaskan verb by > > >>>>>>>> age 10, or 15, or 20. I once reviewed a grammar in Papua New > > >>>>>>>> Guniea of a language that had comparable complexity on the verb > > >>>>>>>> (three positions, 6-8 categoriers each, massive zeroing& > > >>>>>>>> morphonemic). I had to ask Carle Whitehead--is this guy for > > >>>>>>>> real? He said, yes, he's been in the island for 20 years, > > >>>>>>>> really knows his stuff. So I asked the guy--at what age are > > >>>>>>>> kids considered fuill-fledged speakers? He said-- the old > > >>>>>>>> people say, don't listen to anybody under forty, they don't > > >>>>>>>> know how to speak. In my work with the Utes, one exchange has > > >>>>>>>> stuck out, an elder (ka-para'ni-wa-t, he's not walking about > > >>>>>>>> any more) who was pointed to me as the best orator in the > > >>>>>>>> tribe. I told him that, and he said: "Oh, I am nothing. You > > >>>>>>>> should have heard the Old Ones; when they spoke, you could see > > >>>>>>>> it all in front of your eyes". Part of it is due to the complex > > >>>>>>>> Ute deictic system, which invades NPs, ADVs& the verb. The > > >>>>>>>> combinations, and the subtle choices of when to combine the > > >>>>>>>> deictic particle with other categories, are a whole wond(e)rous > > >>>>>>>> world. Cheers, TG > > >>>>>>>> ========== > > >>>>>>>> On 2/9/2011 10:13 AM, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> Aya, > > >>>>>>>>> I think I was the one who said first that Navajo is not a > > >>>>>>>>> language for > > >>>>>>>>> amateurs. I'll second what Tom said--you should learn something > > >>>>>>>>> about Navajo (or some other Athabaskan language) before making > > >>>>>>>>> statements like this. Some languages are just plain > > >>>>>>>>> objectively harder than > > >>>>>>>>> others, regardless of typological similarly to one's native > > >>>>>>>>> language. If you > > >>>>>>>>> don't believe this, do an experiment in which you take > > >>>>>>>>> speakers of English, > > >>>>>>>>> Turkish, Georgian, Chinese, whatever you want, try to teach > > >>>>>>>>> them Navajo, Hopi, > > >>>>>>>>> and Cree (for example), and see which one gives them the most > > >>>>>>>>> trouble. > > >>>>>>>>> I guarantee it will be Navajo. And there is an objective > > >>>>>>>>> reason for it-- > > >>>>>>>>> the morphophonemics are just unbelievably complex. > > >>>>>>>>> John > > >>>>>>>>> Quoting "A. Katz": > > >>>>>>>>>> Tom, > > >>>>>>>>>> I don't think that is a valid viewpoint with regard to > > >>>>>>>>>> Athabaskan or any > > >>>>>>>>>> other language family. > > >>>>>>>>>> Victor Golla earlier had a much better phrasing when he wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>> "Let that read: "A language that is not for amateurs is not > for > > >>>>>>>>>> ADULT people."" > > >>>>>>>>>> But in fact no language is easy for adults to learn who have > > >>>>>>>>>> not already > > >>>>>>>>>> learned a language with a similar typology. If your native > > >>>>>>>>>> language works > > >>>>>>>>>> similarly to the one you are learning, then you have an > > >>>>>>>>>> enormous advantage > > >>>>>>>>>> as an adult second language learner. > > >>>>>>>>>> The remark about how Navajo is not for amateurs was made in > > >>>>>>>>>> the context of > > >>>>>>>>>> people who have no experience with languages of a similar > > >>>>>>>>>> typology. > > >>>>>>>>>> To make this a universal statement about the difficulty of > > >>>>>>>>>> Navajo without > > >>>>>>>>>> qualification is to suggest that some languages are "easy" > > >>>>>>>>>> and others are > > >>>>>>>>>> "impossible". Not only is this not true from an objective > > >>>>>>>>>> standpoint, it > > >>>>>>>>>> also perpetuates the prejudice that English (or IE) is a > > >>>>>>>>>> "normal" language > > >>>>>>>>>> and that every language should be measured against this norm. > > >>>>>>>>>> Best, > > >>>>>>>>>> --Aya > > >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>> Before you actually tried to learn an Athabaskan language, > > >>>>>>>>>>> or at the very > > >>>>>>>>>>> least worked on one, maybe you had better refrain from > > >>>>>>>>>>> asserting that "a > > >>>>>>>>>>> language that is not for amateurs is not for people". TG > > >>>>>>>>>>> ========= > > >>>>>>>>>>> On 2/8/2011 6:33 AM, A. Katz wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>> A language that is not for amateurs is not for people. > > >>>>>>>>>>>> This has nothing to do with RS or computer language > > >>>>>>>>>>>> teaching. As others > > >>>>>>>>>>>> have stated, the technologically based systems are not a > > >>>>>>>>>>>> panacea. > > >>>>>>>>>>>> But a language that ordinary people can't pick by talking > > >>>>>>>>>>>> to their parents > > >>>>>>>>>>>> in childhood is either dead already or not a human language. > > >>>>>>>>>>>> --Aya > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I would be amazed if a single person actually learns to > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> speak Navajo > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> using Rosetta Stone. This is not a language for amateurs. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> John > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Quoting "s.t. bischoff": > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Over the last week I was involved with an event at the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> American Indian > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Language Development Institute and the folks that created > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Navajo > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rosetta > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stone gave a short talk about the software. What follows > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is my > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of how it came to be. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Navajo Rosetta Stones was created in collaboration > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> with Rosetta > > >>>>>>>>>> Stone > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the non-profit Navajo Language Renaissance (NLR). NLR > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a > > >>>>>>>>>> non-profit > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> organization that is NOT affiliated with the tribal > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> council or > > >>>>>>>>>> government > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> any way, for obvious reasons I think (e.g. getting > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> council approval for > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> project). However, it has been endorsed by the school > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> leadership and NLR > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> actively trying to get the school district to adopt the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> software. You > > >>>>>>>>>> can > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> view the NLR website here > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ A > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-community member started NLR after using Rosetta > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stone to learn > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Russian. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> She thought it would be good if Rosetta Stone created a > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo version. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> She > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> contacted Rosetta Stone (RS), and they told her they > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> would provide here > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> with > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the software to develop the lessons, a photographer, and > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> technical > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> assistants (limited on the ground, mostly by phone) to > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> develop the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> program > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> for $300,000. Another option would be for her to apply > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> for a grant from > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> RS > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to cover most of the costs. So the NLR was created, a > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> partnership > > >>>>>>>>>> between > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> community members and one non-community member, as a > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> non- profit > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> organization and applied. RS gave two grants the year > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> they applied, one > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> went > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to NLR. The grant covered all but $27,000 of the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> $300,000. So NLR had to > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> pay > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> RS $27,000 to have access to the software to create the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stone. This means they had to create the lessons and pay > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> speakers and > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> informants themselves. RS provided the software, a > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> photographer, and > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> technical support for the $27,000. NLR now is the only > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> group that can > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> sell > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone, which they do for $150 per license > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and $200 for a > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> personal box set. It is not clear if they have to pay RS > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a percentage of > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> those revenues or not. When I asked a clear answer wasn't > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> given. NLR > > >>>>>>>>>> also > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> has a "training" session for administrators and teachers > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> which costs > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> $1500 a > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> day and $400 per 3 hours. Needless to say, it is not un- > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> controversial in > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> community for many of the usual reasons. Ironically, the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> speaker after > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rosetta Stone folks gave a talk that demonstrated how to > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> create nearly > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> identical language lessons as Rosetta Stone's simply > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> using power point. > > >>>>>>>>>> I > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> was encouraged to let folks know that they should contact > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the NLR if > > >>>>>>>>>> they > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> have any questions at mbittinger at rosettastone.com. You > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> can try a free > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> introductory lesson here > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ The > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> folks > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> at NLR praised RS for their efforts and felt they had > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> really done them a > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> service. In short, they were very happy with the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> arrangement and how it > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> was > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> working out. They were also upset by the controversies > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> surrounding the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone and felt they were really the result > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> misunderstanding and misguided assumptions. One finally > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> thing, they did > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> seem > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to think that it was not a pancea, but rather another > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> useful tool in > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> language revitalization efforts. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shannon > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Haifa University > > >>>>>>>>> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > > >>>>>>>>> University > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >> > > >> Lise Menn Home Office: 303-444-4274 > > >> 1625 Mariposa Ave Fax: 303-413-0017 > > >> Boulder CO 80302 > > >> home page: http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/ > > >> > > >> Professor Emerita of Linguistics > > >> Fellow, Institute of Cognitive Science > > >> University of Colorado > > >> > > >> Secretary, AAAS Section Z [Linguistics] > > >> Fellow, Linguistic Society of America > > >> > > >> Campus Mail Address: > > >> UCB 594, Institute for Cognitive Science > > >> > > >> Campus Physical Address: > > >> CINC 234 > > >> 1777 Exposition Ave, Boulder > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > Dan I. Slobin > > > Professor Emeritus of Psychology and Linguistics > > > > > > Department of Psychology email: slobin at berkeley.edu > > > 3210 Tolman #1650 phone (Dept): 1-510-642-5292 > > > University of California phone (home): 1-510-848-1769 > > > Berkeley, CA 94720-1650, USA fax: 1-510-642-5293 > > > http://psychology.berkeley.edu/faculty/profiles/dslobin.html > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Elena Lieven > > Department of Developmental and Comparative Psychology > > Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology > > Deutscher Platz 6 > > D-04103 Leipzig > > Germany > > > > Tel.+49-(0)341-3550 404 > > +49-(0)341-3550 400 (Department Coordinator: Henriette Zeidler) > > Fax.+49-(0)341-3550 444 > > > > and > > > > Max Planck Child Study Centre > > School of Psychological Sciences > > University of Manchester > > Manchester M13 9PL > > UK > > > > Tel.+44-(0)161-275 2580 > > +44-(0)161-275 2444 (Research Secretary: Mickie Glover) > > Fax.+44-(0)161-275 8587 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 22 > Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 11:06:50 +0100 > From: Hartmut Haberland > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Roseta Stone: Redux > To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Cc: john at research.haifa.ac.il > Message-ID: <4D53B8BA.6040309 at ruc.dk> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1255; format=flowed > > The occurrence of /st?d/ (it is not quite clear how to describe it > phonetically) in Danish has given rise to much mystification, but it is > certainly not the source of any allophony and, besides, its functional > load is close to zero. Many Danish speakers don't have it and it never > gives rise to serious ambiguities (the standard example is /mor/ > 'mother' vs. /mord/ 'murder', the second one with /st?d/, usually > disambiguated in context - except in puns, of course). On the other > hand, the Danish vowel system is rather complex with 25 phonemes in > stressed syllables plus two shwa phonemes. On top of that there are 19 > 'short' and 19 'long' diphthongs. And some allophonic variation, plus > frequent full assimilation of shwa to adjacent sonorants. > > K?benhavn in relaxed everyday speech has still three syllables, but the > second one is a syllabic [m]. > > As to the Danish spelling system, it may be "antiquated", but still > much less so than the English one. While it is very difficult to read an > English text aloud (in a comprehensible way) without having undstood the > content, this is not nearly as difficult with a Danish text. Of course, > Danish spelling is not nearly as systematic visa`-vis the sounds as, > e.g. Czech or Finnish (or even German), and there are a few irritating > homographs which are not homophones (steg 'roast (of meat)' almost > sounds like English 'sty', and steg 'climbed' almost like English > 'stay'), but it is much less antiquated as English spelling. (English > almosts sides with Arabic and Hebrew, although I admit that there are > vowel letters in English. But they contain pretty little information > about vowel quality and mark mostly /where/ the vowel phonemes are, not > /what/ vowels they represent.) Children with English as their first > langauge should have much more problems learning to read and write than > Danish ones. > > Hartmut Haberland > (not a native speaker of Danish, but still learning after almost 40 years) > > Den 10-02-2011 09:19, john at research.haifa.ac.il skrev: > > Delays in the acquisition of SPOKEN Danish would presumably be due not to > the > > vowels (which are similar to other Scandinavian languages and much less > > typologically peculiar than e.g. Dutch and some southern USA dialects) > but to > > the rampant glottalization processe which really are typologically > bizarre and > > which is the main source of complex allophony. It's the same idea as the > > American pronunciation of 'button' or 'mountain' (with no vowel in the > second > > syllable but rather a syllabic n with a glottal stop before) except that > it > > occurs not just with alveolar+alveolar but with all combinations and the > nasal > > isn't syllabic but combined with the preceding consonant in one or > another way. > > The Danish pronunciation of 'Copenhagen' in natural speech sounds to me > like > > it's just two syllables long. When I was working on Circassian (the > dialect > > here has about 60 phonemes, mostly due to double and triple > articulations) I > > got the same feeling that somewhere along the way native speakers had > decided > > that it was normal to take neighboring consonantal articulations, even in > the > > next syllable, and just say them all at the same time. Delays in the > > acquisition of WRITTEN Danish, on the other hand, are undoubtedly due to > the > > antiquated spelling system, which has essentially never been updated. > This is > > conceptually a separate problem, although they are related in the sense > that > > many of the counterintuitive spellings are the product of the same > historical > > process which produced the glottalization processes. > > There is no question that the greater difficulty of learning some > languages is a > > serious problem for some language revival programs. I see much more hope > for > > reviving Algonquian languages than for reviving Athabascan languages (and > > Polynesian languages would be a comparative cinch). I suppose that > members of > > the groups might recognize this and 'dumb down' the languages in one way > or > > another (making the morphophonemics simpler, eliminating phonemic > contrasts > > when one of the sounds is really hard to pronounce, etc.), but obviously > this > > is their decision. > > John > > > > Quoting Elena Lieven: > > > >> Dan is right. Of course it depends what is meant by 'acquiring a > >> language'. The skills of highly educated people or public speakers and > >> great story tellers in oral cultures will not necessarily be acquired by > >> all members of a community. Ewa Dabrowska has shown this for some > >> aspects of case morphology in Polish and for passives and quantifer > >> scope in English - both studies of adult native speakers > >> elena lieven > >> > >> Dan I. Slobin wrote: > >>> A few responses to previous postings: > >>> > >>> Yes, languages with transparent and consistent agglutinative > >>> morphology, in the verbal or nominal systems, allow for rapid > >>> acquisition, with some productive inflections at the one-word stage. > >>> Turkish morphology, having virtually no irregular patterns, is quite > >>> securely mastered by age 3 at the latest, and often much earlier. > >>> And, in general, complex morphology, of various types, presents no > >>> serious problems with regard to acquisition of the basic grammar of > >>> the relevant constructions. For details of successful early > >>> acquistion of morphology in a number of such "complex"languages see > >>> volumes of my crosslinguistic series: Vol. 1 (Hebrew, Polish, > >>> Turkish), Vol. 2 (Hungarian), Vol. 3 (Georgian, West Greenlandic, > >>> K'iche' Maya, Warlpiri, Sesotho), Vol. 4 (Estonian, Finnish, Korean). > >>> Comparable findings are available for the acquisition of Inuktitut, > >>> Tzeltal, Tzotzil,Yucatec Maya, Hindi, Tamil, and others. What > >>> children find difficult--as do inguists--are multiply-determined > >>> and/or unpredictable morphophonological patterns. > >>> > >>> So it depends on what you want to credit as "total acquisition" or > >>> "completion of acquisition." An English-speaking 10-year-old can > >>> fluently produce a range of syntactic structures, in various genres > >>> and registers, without having mastered all of the irregular verb forms > >>> and a number of subordinate syntactic constructions. Furthermore, > >>> remember that a bility to produce a pattern in some contexts is far > >>> from commanding its full range of semantic and pragmatic functions. > >>> And when all of you Funknetters became undergraduate and graduate > >>> students, and later professionals, you were still acquiring many > >>> aspects of English grammar, vocabulary, and style. Indeed, it goes on > >>> throughout the lifespan of an engaged individual. > >>> > >>> There are no established criteria for full mastery, but there are > >>> numerous studies, in all five of the crosslinguistic volumes and > >>> elsewhere, of prolonged acquisition of various parts of a linguistic > >>> system. > >>> > >>> As noted, I've written about the error of expecting early child > >>> language to mirror pidgins. > >>> > >>> Best, > >>> > >>> Dan (with references following, many of mine available for download at > >>> http://psychology.berkeley.edu/faculty/profiles/dslobin.html > >>> Slobin, D. I. (1985, 1992, 1997). The crosslinguistic study of > >>> language acquisition. Vol. 1: The Data (1985); Vol. 2: Theoretical > >>> issues (1985); Vol. 3 (1992); Vol. 4 (1997); Vol. 5: Expanding the > >>> contexts (1997). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. > >>> Slobin, D. I. (2004). From ontogenesis to phylogenesis: What can > >>> child language tell us about language evolution? In J. Langer, S. T. > >>> Parker,& C. Milbrath (Eds.), Biology and Knowledge revisited: From > >>> neurogenesis to psychogenesis (pp. 255-285). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence > >>> Erlbaum Associates. > >>> > >>> > >>> At 03:00 PM 2/9/2011, Lise Menn wrote: > >>>> that's right. And child language and pidgin aren't the same, in any > >>>> case, for any language I know about, any more than any of them are > >>>> telegrams. But there are arcane reaches of languages that most people > >>>> don't learn, confounding the definition of what 'acquire' means: > >>>> Japanese honorifics and noun classifiers have elegant refinements, > >>>> crafts and professions have jargons... > >>>> > >>>> On Feb 9, 2011, at 1:50 PM, A. Katz wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> I seem to recall that in "The Evolution of Language Out of Pre- > >>>>> Language" Dan Slobin had a sort of dissenting article at the end in > >>>>> which he mentioned that Turkish children use grammatical morphology > >>>>> at the one word level, so that they are never actually speaking a > >>>>> pidgin Turkish at any point in their language development. > >>>>> > >>>>> --Aya > >>>>> > >>>>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Craig Hancock wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Brian, > >>>>>> This strikes as a bit like Lake Woebegone (Where all the children > >>>>>> are above average). > >>>>>> > >>>>>> normal Danish children all learn good Danish and become fluent > >>>>>> readers > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Is acquiring a language totally separate from the uses of that > >>>>>> language? Are we just acquiring the forms and then differing in our > >>>>>> ability to put them to use or are the uses themselves a major part > >>>>>> of what we are acquiring? Are lexicon and syntax wholly separate, > >>>>>> or do we go on acquiring the lexico-grammar as we enter more deeply > >>>>>> into adult worlds of discourse? > >>>>>> Anyone in literacy education knows that too many American > >>>>>> children fail to reach high levels of fluency as readers and > >>>>>> writers. Doesn't that somehow mean they have failed to acquire the > >>>>>> language? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Craig > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On 2/9/2011 2:04 PM, Brian MacWhinney wrote: > >>>>>>> Fritz, > >>>>>>> There are studies in places like the Journal of Child Language by > >>>>>>> Dorthe Bleses, Hans Basb?l, and colleagues at Southern Denmark > >>>>>>> University on the delay of the acquisition of Danish phonology in > >>>>>>> comparison to other European languages, mostly attributed to the > >>>>>>> complexities of the vowel system and the various assimilatory > >>>>>>> processes. There is a corresponding delay in the acquisition of > >>>>>>> reading by Danish children that was observed in the cross-European > >>>>>>> PISA project. All of this is well documented in the literature, > >>>>>>> but it is rather marginal and transitory. Eventually, normal > >>>>>>> Danish children all learn good Danish and become fluent readers. > >>>>>>> -- Brian MacWhinney > >>>>>>> On Feb 9, 2011, at 1:27 PM, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > >>>>>>>> A propos, are there any published studies out there that point to > >>>>>>>> measurable difference in rate of completion of first-language > >>>>>>>> acquisition by speakers of one language compared to another? Or > >>>>>>>> even of mastery of one aspect of L1 acquisition (phonology, > >>>>>>>> morphology, etc.) by speakers of one language compared to another? > >>>>>>>> --fritz > >>>>>>>> Frederick J. Newmeyer > >>>>>>>> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > >>>>>>>> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon > >>>>>>>> Fraser University > >>>>>>>> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > >>>>>>>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, A. Katz wrote: > >>>>>>>>> Tom, > >>>>>>>>> If the language is dying, then the advice not to listen to > >>>>>>>>> somebody under forty because they don't know how to speak may be > >>>>>>>>> sound, but not for the reason that you suggest. It could be > >>>>>>>>> there are no fluent speakers under forty. It seems very unlikely > >>>>>>>>> that one would have to arrive at age forty before acquiring > >>>>>>>>> fluency, especially in a hunter gatherer culture where death > >>>>>>>>> before forty might be quite common. > >>>>>>>>> But if you have evidence to the contrary that fully immersed, > >>>>>>>>> monolingual young speakers of a language cannot speak it with > >>>>>>>>> communicative effect until age forty, then this is a big > >>>>>>>>> discovery that ought to be published and shared with the > >>>>>>>>> scientific community. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> --Aya > >>>>>>>>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> Right on, John. And one could make a prediction--hopefully > >>>>>>>>>> someday to be tested by acquisition studies--that Navajo kids > >>>>>>>>>> will not master the fully complexcity of the Athabaskan verb by > >>>>>>>>>> age 10, or 15, or 20. I once reviewed a grammar in Papua New > >>>>>>>>>> Guniea of a language that had comparable complexity on the verb > >>>>>>>>>> (three positions, 6-8 categoriers each, massive zeroing& > >>>>>>>>>> morphonemic). I had to ask Carle Whitehead--is this guy for > >>>>>>>>>> real? He said, yes, he's been in the island for 20 years, > >>>>>>>>>> really knows his stuff. So I asked the guy--at what age are > >>>>>>>>>> kids considered fuill-fledged speakers? He said-- the old > >>>>>>>>>> people say, don't listen to anybody under forty, they don't > >>>>>>>>>> know how to speak. In my work with the Utes, one exchange has > >>>>>>>>>> stuck out, an elder (ka-para'ni-wa-t, he's not walking about > >>>>>>>>>> any more) who was pointed to me as the best orator in the > >>>>>>>>>> tribe. I told him that, and he said: "Oh, I am nothing. You > >>>>>>>>>> should have heard the Old Ones; when they spoke, you could see > >>>>>>>>>> it all in front of your eyes". Part of it is due to the complex > >>>>>>>>>> Ute deictic system, which invades NPs, ADVs& the verb. The > >>>>>>>>>> combinations, and the subtle choices of when to combine the > >>>>>>>>>> deictic particle with other categories, are a whole wond(e)rous > >>>>>>>>>> world. Cheers, TG > >>>>>>>>>> ========== > >>>>>>>>>> On 2/9/2011 10:13 AM, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> Aya, > >>>>>>>>>>> I think I was the one who said first that Navajo is not a > >>>>>>>>>>> language for > >>>>>>>>>>> amateurs. I'll second what Tom said--you should learn something > >>>>>>>>>>> about Navajo (or some other Athabaskan language) before making > >>>>>>>>>>> statements like this. Some languages are just plain > >>>>>>>>>>> objectively harder than > >>>>>>>>>>> others, regardless of typological similarly to one's native > >>>>>>>>>>> language. If you > >>>>>>>>>>> don't believe this, do an experiment in which you take > >>>>>>>>>>> speakers of English, > >>>>>>>>>>> Turkish, Georgian, Chinese, whatever you want, try to teach > >>>>>>>>>>> them Navajo, Hopi, > >>>>>>>>>>> and Cree (for example), and see which one gives them the most > >>>>>>>>>>> trouble. > >>>>>>>>>>> I guarantee it will be Navajo. And there is an objective > >>>>>>>>>>> reason for it-- > >>>>>>>>>>> the morphophonemics are just unbelievably complex. > >>>>>>>>>>> John > >>>>>>>>>>> Quoting "A. Katz": > >>>>>>>>>>>> Tom, > >>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think that is a valid viewpoint with regard to > >>>>>>>>>>>> Athabaskan or any > >>>>>>>>>>>> other language family. > >>>>>>>>>>>> Victor Golla earlier had a much better phrasing when he wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> "Let that read: "A language that is not for amateurs is not > for > >>>>>>>>>>>> ADULT people."" > >>>>>>>>>>>> But in fact no language is easy for adults to learn who have > >>>>>>>>>>>> not already > >>>>>>>>>>>> learned a language with a similar typology. If your native > >>>>>>>>>>>> language works > >>>>>>>>>>>> similarly to the one you are learning, then you have an > >>>>>>>>>>>> enormous advantage > >>>>>>>>>>>> as an adult second language learner. > >>>>>>>>>>>> The remark about how Navajo is not for amateurs was made in > >>>>>>>>>>>> the context of > >>>>>>>>>>>> people who have no experience with languages of a similar > >>>>>>>>>>>> typology. > >>>>>>>>>>>> To make this a universal statement about the difficulty of > >>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo without > >>>>>>>>>>>> qualification is to suggest that some languages are "easy" > >>>>>>>>>>>> and others are > >>>>>>>>>>>> "impossible". Not only is this not true from an objective > >>>>>>>>>>>> standpoint, it > >>>>>>>>>>>> also perpetuates the prejudice that English (or IE) is a > >>>>>>>>>>>> "normal" language > >>>>>>>>>>>> and that every language should be measured against this norm. > >>>>>>>>>>>> Best, > >>>>>>>>>>>> --Aya > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Before you actually tried to learn an Athabaskan language, > >>>>>>>>>>>>> or at the very > >>>>>>>>>>>>> least worked on one, maybe you had better refrain from > >>>>>>>>>>>>> asserting that "a > >>>>>>>>>>>>> language that is not for amateurs is not for people". TG > >>>>>>>>>>>>> ========= > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/8/2011 6:33 AM, A. Katz wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> A language that is not for amateurs is not for people. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> This has nothing to do with RS or computer language > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> teaching. As others > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> have stated, the technologically based systems are not a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> panacea. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> But a language that ordinary people can't pick by talking > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to their parents > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in childhood is either dead already or not a human language. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> --Aya > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would be amazed if a single person actually learns to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speak Navajo > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using Rosetta Stone. This is not a language for amateurs. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> John > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Quoting "s.t. bischoff": > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Over the last week I was involved with an event at the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> American Indian > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Language Development Institute and the folks that created > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Navajo > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rosetta > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stone gave a short talk about the software. What follows > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is my > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of how it came to be. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Navajo Rosetta Stones was created in collaboration > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with Rosetta > >>>>>>>>>>>> Stone > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the non-profit Navajo Language Renaissance (NLR). NLR > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a > >>>>>>>>>>>> non-profit > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> organization that is NOT affiliated with the tribal > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> council or > >>>>>>>>>>>> government > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any way, for obvious reasons I think (e.g. getting > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> council approval for > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> project). However, it has been endorsed by the school > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> leadership and NLR > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actively trying to get the school district to adopt the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> software. You > >>>>>>>>>>>> can > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> view the NLR website here > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ A > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-community member started NLR after using Rosetta > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stone to learn > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Russian. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> She thought it would be good if Rosetta Stone created a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo version. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> She > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contacted Rosetta Stone (RS), and they told her they > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would provide here > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the software to develop the lessons, a photographer, and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> technical > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assistants (limited on the ground, mostly by phone) to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> develop the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> program > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for $300,000. Another option would be for her to apply > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for a grant from > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RS > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to cover most of the costs. So the NLR was created, a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> partnership > >>>>>>>>>>>> between > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community members and one non-community member, as a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non- profit > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> organization and applied. RS gave two grants the year > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they applied, one > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> went > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to NLR. The grant covered all but $27,000 of the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> $300,000. So NLR had to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pay > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RS $27,000 to have access to the software to create the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stone. This means they had to create the lessons and pay > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speakers and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> informants themselves. RS provided the software, a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> photographer, and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> technical support for the $27,000. NLR now is the only > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> group that can > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sell > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone, which they do for $150 per license > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and $200 for a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> personal box set. It is not clear if they have to pay RS > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a percentage of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those revenues or not. When I asked a clear answer wasn't > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> given. NLR > >>>>>>>>>>>> also > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has a "training" session for administrators and teachers > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which costs > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> $1500 a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> day and $400 per 3 hours. Needless to say, it is not un- > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> controversial in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community for many of the usual reasons. Ironically, the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speaker after > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rosetta Stone folks gave a talk that demonstrated how to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> create nearly > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> identical language lessons as Rosetta Stone's simply > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using power point. > >>>>>>>>>>>> I > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was encouraged to let folks know that they should contact > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the NLR if > >>>>>>>>>>>> they > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have any questions at mbittinger at rosettastone.com. You > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can try a free > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introductory lesson here > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ The > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> folks > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at NLR praised RS for their efforts and felt they had > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really done them a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> service. In short, they were very happy with the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arrangement and how it > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> working out. They were also upset by the controversies > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> surrounding the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone and felt they were really the result > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> misunderstanding and misguided assumptions. One finally > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thing, they did > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seem > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to think that it was not a pancea, but rather another > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> useful tool in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language revitalization efforts. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shannon > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Haifa University > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>>>>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > >>>>>>>>>>> University > >>>>>> > >>>> Lise Menn Home Office: 303-444-4274 > >>>> 1625 Mariposa Ave Fax: 303-413-0017 > >>>> Boulder CO 80302 > >>>> home page: http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/ > >>>> > >>>> Professor Emerita of Linguistics > >>>> Fellow, Institute of Cognitive Science > >>>> University of Colorado > >>>> > >>>> Secretary, AAAS Section Z [Linguistics] > >>>> Fellow, Linguistic Society of America > >>>> > >>>> Campus Mail Address: > >>>> UCB 594, Institute for Cognitive Science > >>>> > >>>> Campus Physical Address: > >>>> CINC 234 > >>>> 1777 Exposition Ave, Boulder > >>>> > >>>> > >>> Dan I. Slobin > >>> Professor Emeritus of Psychology and Linguistics > >>> > >>> Department of Psychology email: slobin at berkeley.edu > >>> 3210 Tolman #1650 phone (Dept): 1-510-642-5292 > >>> University of California phone (home): 1-510-848-1769 > >>> Berkeley, CA 94720-1650, USA fax: 1-510-642-5293 > >>> http://psychology.berkeley.edu/faculty/profiles/dslobin.html > >>> > >>> > >> -- > >> Elena Lieven > >> Department of Developmental and Comparative Psychology > >> Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology > >> Deutscher Platz 6 > >> D-04103 Leipzig > >> Germany > >> > >> Tel.+49-(0)341-3550 404 > >> +49-(0)341-3550 400 (Department Coordinator: Henriette Zeidler) > >> Fax.+49-(0)341-3550 444 > >> > >> and > >> > >> Max Planck Child Study Centre > >> School of Psychological Sciences > >> University of Manchester > >> Manchester M13 9PL > >> UK > >> > >> Tel.+44-(0)161-275 2580 > >> +44-(0)161-275 2444 (Research Secretary: Mickie Glover) > >> Fax.+44-(0)161-275 8587 > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 23 > Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 13:35:13 +0200 > From: john at research.haifa.ac.il > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Roseta Stone: Redux > To: Hartmut Haberland > Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Message-ID: <1297337713.4d53cd71afa19 at webmail.haifa.ac.il> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1255 > > The reason that I suspected stod (sorry my computer can't type the slash) > as producing particular problems rather than the vowel system is that as > far as I know (which isn't much...) the vowel system of Danish isn't so > different from that of other Scandinavian languages, at least not in a way > so as to cause particular difficulties, whereas there's nothing > intimidating > like stod in other Scandinavian languages (or, for me at least, in European > languages at all). The question isn't whether it causes ambiguities, the > question is how hard it is to say accurately. I thought I had read that it > is associated with some changes in the preceding vowel (lengthening or > shortening?), but maybe I got this confused with something else. I believe > that > Danes perceive the first nasal in their pronunciation of > Copenhagen as a syllabic nasal, but to a second language learner its > duration in normal speech can be so brief that it's hard to hear as a > separate > syllable (I remember attempting to pronounce it like the second syllable of > English 'something' when pronounced like 'sumpm' with a syllabic m and a > Dane > telling me they would only say it like that when speaking carefully). > In fact English spelling is indeed antiquated and reading researchers have > read that Danish and English are the two most difficult European languages > to learn to read at a basic level. > John > > > > > > Quoting Hartmut Haberland : > > > The occurrence of /st?d/ (it is not quite clear how to describe it > > phonetically) in Danish has given rise to much mystification, but it is > > certainly not the source of any allophony and, besides, its functional > > load is close to zero. Many Danish speakers don't have it and it never > > gives rise to serious ambiguities (the standard example is /mor/ > > 'mother' vs. /mord/ 'murder', the second one with /st?d/, usually > > disambiguated in context - except in puns, of course). On the other > > hand, the Danish vowel system is rather complex with 25 phonemes in > > stressed syllables plus two shwa phonemes. On top of that there are 19 > > 'short' and 19 'long' diphthongs. And some allophonic variation, plus > > frequent full assimilation of shwa to adjacent sonorants. > > > > K?benhavn in relaxed everyday speech has still three syllables, but the > > second one is a syllabic [m]. > > > > As to the Danish spelling system, it may be "antiquated", but still > > much less so than the English one. While it is very difficult to read an > > English text aloud (in a comprehensible way) without having undstood the > > content, this is not nearly as difficult with a Danish text. Of course, > > Danish spelling is not nearly as systematic visa`-vis the sounds as, > > e.g. Czech or Finnish (or even German), and there are a few irritating > > homographs which are not homophones (steg 'roast (of meat)' almost > > sounds like English 'sty', and steg 'climbed' almost like English > > 'stay'), but it is much less antiquated as English spelling. (English > > almosts sides with Arabic and Hebrew, although I admit that there are > > vowel letters in English. But they contain pretty little information > > about vowel quality and mark mostly /where/ the vowel phonemes are, not > > /what/ vowels they represent.) Children with English as their first > > langauge should have much more problems learning to read and write than > > Danish ones. > > > > Hartmut Haberland > > (not a native speaker of Danish, but still learning after almost 40 > years) > > > > Den 10-02-2011 09:19, john at research.haifa.ac.il skrev: > > > Delays in the acquisition of SPOKEN Danish would presumably be due not > to > > the > > > vowels (which are similar to other Scandinavian languages and much less > > > typologically peculiar than e.g. Dutch and some southern USA dialects) > but > > to > > > the rampant glottalization processe which really are typologically > bizarre > > and > > > which is the main source of complex allophony. It's the same idea as > the > > > American pronunciation of 'button' or 'mountain' (with no vowel in the > > second > > > syllable but rather a syllabic n with a glottal stop before) except > that it > > > occurs not just with alveolar+alveolar but with all combinations and > the > > nasal > > > isn't syllabic but combined with the preceding consonant in one or > another > > way. > > > The Danish pronunciation of 'Copenhagen' in natural speech sounds to me > > like > > > it's just two syllables long. When I was working on Circassian (the > dialect > > > here has about 60 phonemes, mostly due to double and triple > articulations) > > I > > > got the same feeling that somewhere along the way native speakers had > > decided > > > that it was normal to take neighboring consonantal articulations, even > in > > the > > > next syllable, and just say them all at the same time. Delays in the > > > acquisition of WRITTEN Danish, on the other hand, are undoubtedly due > to > > the > > > antiquated spelling system, which has essentially never been updated. > This > > is > > > conceptually a separate problem, although they are related in the sense > > that > > > many of the counterintuitive spellings are the product of the same > > historical > > > process which produced the glottalization processes. > > > There is no question that the greater difficulty of learning some > languages > > is a > > > serious problem for some language revival programs. I see much more > hope > > for > > > reviving Algonquian languages than for reviving Athabascan languages > (and > > > Polynesian languages would be a comparative cinch). I suppose that > members > > of > > > the groups might recognize this and 'dumb down' the languages in one > way or > > > another (making the morphophonemics simpler, eliminating phonemic > contrasts > > > when one of the sounds is really hard to pronounce, etc.), but > obviously > > this > > > is their decision. > > > John > > > > > > Quoting Elena Lieven: > > > > > >> Dan is right. Of course it depends what is meant by 'acquiring a > > >> language'. The skills of highly educated people or public speakers > and > > >> great story tellers in oral cultures will not necessarily be acquired > by > > >> all members of a community. Ewa Dabrowska has shown this for some > > >> aspects of case morphology in Polish and for passives and quantifer > > >> scope in English - both studies of adult native speakers > > >> elena lieven > > >> > > >> Dan I. Slobin wrote: > > >>> A few responses to previous postings: > > >>> > > >>> Yes, languages with transparent and consistent agglutinative > > >>> morphology, in the verbal or nominal systems, allow for rapid > > >>> acquisition, with some productive inflections at the one-word stage. > > >>> Turkish morphology, having virtually no irregular patterns, is quite > > >>> securely mastered by age 3 at the latest, and often much earlier. > > >>> And, in general, complex morphology, of various types, presents no > > >>> serious problems with regard to acquisition of the basic grammar of > > >>> the relevant constructions. For details of successful early > > >>> acquistion of morphology in a number of such "complex"languages see > > >>> volumes of my crosslinguistic series: Vol. 1 (Hebrew, Polish, > > >>> Turkish), Vol. 2 (Hungarian), Vol. 3 (Georgian, West Greenlandic, > > >>> K'iche' Maya, Warlpiri, Sesotho), Vol. 4 (Estonian, Finnish, Korean). > > >>> Comparable findings are available for the acquisition of Inuktitut, > > >>> Tzeltal, Tzotzil,Yucatec Maya, Hindi, Tamil, and others. What > > >>> children find difficult--as do inguists--are multiply-determined > > >>> and/or unpredictable morphophonological patterns. > > >>> > > >>> So it depends on what you want to credit as "total acquisition" or > > >>> "completion of acquisition." An English-speaking 10-year-old can > > >>> fluently produce a range of syntactic structures, in various genres > > >>> and registers, without having mastered all of the irregular verb > forms > > >>> and a number of subordinate syntactic constructions. Furthermore, > > >>> remember that a bility to produce a pattern in some contexts is far > > >>> from commanding its full range of semantic and pragmatic functions. > > >>> And when all of you Funknetters became undergraduate and graduate > > >>> students, and later professionals, you were still acquiring many > > >>> aspects of English grammar, vocabulary, and style. Indeed, it goes > on > > >>> throughout the lifespan of an engaged individual. > > >>> > > >>> There are no established criteria for full mastery, but there are > > >>> numerous studies, in all five of the crosslinguistic volumes and > > >>> elsewhere, of prolonged acquisition of various parts of a linguistic > > >>> system. > > >>> > > >>> As noted, I've written about the error of expecting early child > > >>> language to mirror pidgins. > > >>> > > >>> Best, > > >>> > > >>> Dan (with references following, many of mine available for download > at > > >>> http://psychology.berkeley.edu/faculty/profiles/dslobin.html > > >>> Slobin, D. I. (1985, 1992, 1997). The crosslinguistic study of > > >>> language acquisition. Vol. 1: The Data (1985); Vol. 2: Theoretical > > >>> issues (1985); Vol. 3 (1992); Vol. 4 (1997); Vol. 5: Expanding the > > >>> contexts (1997). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. > > >>> Slobin, D. I. (2004). From ontogenesis to phylogenesis: What can > > >>> child language tell us about language evolution? In J. Langer, S. T. > > >>> Parker,& C. Milbrath (Eds.), Biology and Knowledge revisited: From > > >>> neurogenesis to psychogenesis (pp. 255-285). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence > > >>> Erlbaum Associates. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> At 03:00 PM 2/9/2011, Lise Menn wrote: > > >>>> that's right. And child language and pidgin aren't the same, in any > > >>>> case, for any language I know about, any more than any of them are > > >>>> telegrams. But there are arcane reaches of languages that most > people > > >>>> don't learn, confounding the definition of what 'acquire' means: > > >>>> Japanese honorifics and noun classifiers have elegant refinements, > > >>>> crafts and professions have jargons... > > >>>> > > >>>> On Feb 9, 2011, at 1:50 PM, A. Katz wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>> I seem to recall that in "The Evolution of Language Out of Pre- > > >>>>> Language" Dan Slobin had a sort of dissenting article at the end in > > >>>>> which he mentioned that Turkish children use grammatical morphology > > >>>>> at the one word level, so that they are never actually speaking a > > >>>>> pidgin Turkish at any point in their language development. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> --Aya > > >>>>> > > >>>>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Craig Hancock wrote: > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> Brian, > > >>>>>> This strikes as a bit like Lake Woebegone (Where all the > children > > >>>>>> are above average). > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> normal Danish children all learn good Danish and become fluent > > >>>>>> readers > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Is acquiring a language totally separate from the uses of that > > >>>>>> language? Are we just acquiring the forms and then differing in > our > > >>>>>> ability to put them to use or are the uses themselves a major part > > >>>>>> of what we are acquiring? Are lexicon and syntax wholly separate, > > >>>>>> or do we go on acquiring the lexico-grammar as we enter more > deeply > > >>>>>> into adult worlds of discourse? > > >>>>>> Anyone in literacy education knows that too many American > > >>>>>> children fail to reach high levels of fluency as readers and > > >>>>>> writers. Doesn't that somehow mean they have failed to acquire the > > >>>>>> language? > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Craig > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> On 2/9/2011 2:04 PM, Brian MacWhinney wrote: > > >>>>>>> Fritz, > > >>>>>>> There are studies in places like the Journal of Child Language by > > >>>>>>> Dorthe Bleses, Hans Basb?l, and colleagues at Southern Denmark > > >>>>>>> University on the delay of the acquisition of Danish phonology in > > >>>>>>> comparison to other European languages, mostly attributed to the > > >>>>>>> complexities of the vowel system and the various assimilatory > > >>>>>>> processes. There is a corresponding delay in the acquisition of > > >>>>>>> reading by Danish children that was observed in the > cross-European > > >>>>>>> PISA project. All of this is well documented in the literature, > > >>>>>>> but it is rather marginal and transitory. Eventually, normal > > >>>>>>> Danish children all learn good Danish and become fluent readers. > > >>>>>>> -- Brian MacWhinney > > >>>>>>> On Feb 9, 2011, at 1:27 PM, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > > >>>>>>>> A propos, are there any published studies out there that point > to > > >>>>>>>> measurable difference in rate of completion of first-language > > >>>>>>>> acquisition by speakers of one language compared to another? Or > > >>>>>>>> even of mastery of one aspect of L1 acquisition (phonology, > > >>>>>>>> morphology, etc.) by speakers of one language compared to > another? > > >>>>>>>> --fritz > > >>>>>>>> Frederick J. Newmeyer > > >>>>>>>> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > > >>>>>>>> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon > > >>>>>>>> Fraser University > > >>>>>>>> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > >>>>>>>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, A. Katz wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> Tom, > > >>>>>>>>> If the language is dying, then the advice not to listen to > > >>>>>>>>> somebody under forty because they don't know how to speak may > be > > >>>>>>>>> sound, but not for the reason that you suggest. It could be > > >>>>>>>>> there are no fluent speakers under forty. It seems very > unlikely > > >>>>>>>>> that one would have to arrive at age forty before acquiring > > >>>>>>>>> fluency, especially in a hunter gatherer culture where death > > >>>>>>>>> before forty might be quite common. > > >>>>>>>>> But if you have evidence to the contrary that fully immersed, > > >>>>>>>>> monolingual young speakers of a language cannot speak it with > > >>>>>>>>> communicative effect until age forty, then this is a big > > >>>>>>>>> discovery that ought to be published and shared with the > > >>>>>>>>> scientific community. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> --Aya > > >>>>>>>>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>> Right on, John. And one could make a prediction--hopefully > > >>>>>>>>>> someday to be tested by acquisition studies--that Navajo kids > > >>>>>>>>>> will not master the fully complexcity of the Athabaskan verb > by > > >>>>>>>>>> age 10, or 15, or 20. I once reviewed a grammar in Papua New > > >>>>>>>>>> Guniea of a language that had comparable complexity on the > verb > > >>>>>>>>>> (three positions, 6-8 categoriers each, massive zeroing& > > >>>>>>>>>> morphonemic). I had to ask Carle Whitehead--is this guy for > > >>>>>>>>>> real? He said, yes, he's been in the island for 20 years, > > >>>>>>>>>> really knows his stuff. So I asked the guy--at what age are > > >>>>>>>>>> kids considered fuill-fledged speakers? He said-- the old > > >>>>>>>>>> people say, don't listen to anybody under forty, they don't > > >>>>>>>>>> know how to speak. In my work with the Utes, one exchange has > > >>>>>>>>>> stuck out, an elder (ka-para'ni-wa-t, he's not walking about > > >>>>>>>>>> any more) who was pointed to me as the best orator in the > > >>>>>>>>>> tribe. I told him that, and he said: "Oh, I am nothing. You > > >>>>>>>>>> should have heard the Old Ones; when they spoke, you could see > > >>>>>>>>>> it all in front of your eyes". Part of it is due to the > complex > > >>>>>>>>>> Ute deictic system, which invades NPs, ADVs& the verb. The > > >>>>>>>>>> combinations, and the subtle choices of when to combine the > > >>>>>>>>>> deictic particle with other categories, are a whole > wond(e)rous > > >>>>>>>>>> world. Cheers, TG > > >>>>>>>>>> ========== > > >>>>>>>>>> On 2/9/2011 10:13 AM, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>> Aya, > > >>>>>>>>>>> I think I was the one who said first that Navajo is not a > > >>>>>>>>>>> language for > > >>>>>>>>>>> amateurs. I'll second what Tom said--you should learn > something > > >>>>>>>>>>> about Navajo (or some other Athabaskan language) before > making > > >>>>>>>>>>> statements like this. Some languages are just plain > > >>>>>>>>>>> objectively harder than > > >>>>>>>>>>> others, regardless of typological similarly to one's native > > >>>>>>>>>>> language. If you > > >>>>>>>>>>> don't believe this, do an experiment in which you take > > >>>>>>>>>>> speakers of English, > > >>>>>>>>>>> Turkish, Georgian, Chinese, whatever you want, try to teach > > >>>>>>>>>>> them Navajo, Hopi, > > >>>>>>>>>>> and Cree (for example), and see which one gives them the most > > >>>>>>>>>>> trouble. > > >>>>>>>>>>> I guarantee it will be Navajo. And there is an objective > > >>>>>>>>>>> reason for it-- > > >>>>>>>>>>> the morphophonemics are just unbelievably complex. > > >>>>>>>>>>> John > > >>>>>>>>>>> Quoting "A. Katz": > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Tom, > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think that is a valid viewpoint with regard to > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Athabaskan or any > > >>>>>>>>>>>> other language family. > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Victor Golla earlier had a much better phrasing when he > wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>> "Let that read: "A language that is not for amateurs is not > for > > >>>>>>>>>>>> ADULT people."" > > >>>>>>>>>>>> But in fact no language is easy for adults to learn who have > > >>>>>>>>>>>> not already > > >>>>>>>>>>>> learned a language with a similar typology. If your native > > >>>>>>>>>>>> language works > > >>>>>>>>>>>> similarly to the one you are learning, then you have an > > >>>>>>>>>>>> enormous advantage > > >>>>>>>>>>>> as an adult second language learner. > > >>>>>>>>>>>> The remark about how Navajo is not for amateurs was made in > > >>>>>>>>>>>> the context of > > >>>>>>>>>>>> people who have no experience with languages of a similar > > >>>>>>>>>>>> typology. > > >>>>>>>>>>>> To make this a universal statement about the difficulty of > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo without > > >>>>>>>>>>>> qualification is to suggest that some languages are "easy" > > >>>>>>>>>>>> and others are > > >>>>>>>>>>>> "impossible". Not only is this not true from an objective > > >>>>>>>>>>>> standpoint, it > > >>>>>>>>>>>> also perpetuates the prejudice that English (or IE) is a > > >>>>>>>>>>>> "normal" language > > >>>>>>>>>>>> and that every language should be measured against this > norm. > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Best, > > >>>>>>>>>>>> --Aya > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Before you actually tried to learn an Athabaskan language, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> or at the very > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> least worked on one, maybe you had better refrain from > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> asserting that "a > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> language that is not for amateurs is not for people". TG > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> ========= > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/8/2011 6:33 AM, A. Katz wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> A language that is not for amateurs is not for people. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> This has nothing to do with RS or computer language > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> teaching. As others > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> have stated, the technologically based systems are not a > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> panacea. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> But a language that ordinary people can't pick by talking > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to their parents > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in childhood is either dead already or not a human > language. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> --Aya > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would be amazed if a single person actually learns to > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speak Navajo > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using Rosetta Stone. This is not a language for amateurs. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> John > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Quoting "s.t. bischoff": > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Over the last week I was involved with an event at the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> American Indian > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Language Development Institute and the folks that > created > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Navajo > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rosetta > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stone gave a short talk about the software. What follows > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is my > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of how it came to be. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Navajo Rosetta Stones was created in collaboration > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with Rosetta > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Stone > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the non-profit Navajo Language Renaissance (NLR). > NLR > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a > > >>>>>>>>>>>> non-profit > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> organization that is NOT affiliated with the tribal > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> council or > > >>>>>>>>>>>> government > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any way, for obvious reasons I think (e.g. getting > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> council approval for > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> project). However, it has been endorsed by the school > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> leadership and NLR > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actively trying to get the school district to adopt the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> software. You > > >>>>>>>>>>>> can > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> view the NLR website here > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ A > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-community member started NLR after using Rosetta > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stone to learn > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Russian. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> She thought it would be good if Rosetta Stone created a > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo version. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> She > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contacted Rosetta Stone (RS), and they told her they > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would provide here > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the software to develop the lessons, a photographer, > and > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> technical > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assistants (limited on the ground, mostly by phone) to > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> develop the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> program > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for $300,000. Another option would be for her to apply > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for a grant from > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RS > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to cover most of the costs. So the NLR was created, a > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> partnership > > >>>>>>>>>>>> between > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community members and one non-community member, as a > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non- profit > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> organization and applied. RS gave two grants the year > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they applied, one > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> went > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to NLR. The grant covered all but $27,000 of the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> $300,000. So NLR had to > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pay > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RS $27,000 to have access to the software to create the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stone. This means they had to create the lessons and pay > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speakers and > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> informants themselves. RS provided the software, a > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> photographer, and > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> technical support for the $27,000. NLR now is the only > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> group that can > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sell > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone, which they do for $150 per license > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and $200 for a > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> personal box set. It is not clear if they have to pay RS > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a percentage of > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those revenues or not. When I asked a clear answer > wasn't > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> given. NLR > > >>>>>>>>>>>> also > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has a "training" session for administrators and teachers > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which costs > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> $1500 a > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> day and $400 per 3 hours. Needless to say, it is not un- > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> controversial in > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community for many of the usual reasons. Ironically, the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speaker after > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rosetta Stone folks gave a talk that demonstrated how to > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> create nearly > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> identical language lessons as Rosetta Stone's simply > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using power point. > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was encouraged to let folks know that they should > contact > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the NLR if > > >>>>>>>>>>>> they > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have any questions at mbittinger at rosettastone.com. You > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can try a free > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introductory lesson here > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ The > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> folks > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at NLR praised RS for their efforts and felt they had > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really done them a > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> service. In short, they were very happy with the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arrangement and how it > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> working out. They were also upset by the controversies > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> surrounding the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone and felt they were really the > result > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> misunderstanding and misguided assumptions. One finally > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thing, they did > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seem > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to think that it was not a pancea, but rather another > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> useful tool in > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language revitalization efforts. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shannon > > >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Haifa University > > >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > >>>>>>>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > > >>>>>>>>>>> University > > >>>>>> > > >>>> Lise Menn Home Office: 303-444-4274 > > >>>> 1625 Mariposa Ave Fax: 303-413-0017 > > >>>> Boulder CO 80302 > > >>>> home page: http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/ > > >>>> > > >>>> Professor Emerita of Linguistics > > >>>> Fellow, Institute of Cognitive Science > > >>>> University of Colorado > > >>>> > > >>>> Secretary, AAAS Section Z [Linguistics] > > >>>> Fellow, Linguistic Society of America > > >>>> > > >>>> Campus Mail Address: > > >>>> UCB 594, Institute for Cognitive Science > > >>>> > > >>>> Campus Physical Address: > > >>>> CINC 234 > > >>>> 1777 Exposition Ave, Boulder > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>> Dan I. Slobin > > >>> Professor Emeritus of Psychology and Linguistics > > >>> > > >>> Department of Psychology email: slobin at berkeley.edu > > >>> 3210 Tolman #1650 phone (Dept): 1-510-642-5292 > > >>> University of California phone (home): 1-510-848-1769 > > >>> Berkeley, CA 94720-1650, USA fax: 1-510-642-5293 > > >>> http://psychology.berkeley.edu/faculty/profiles/dslobin.html > > >>> > > >>> > > >> -- > > >> Elena Lieven > > >> Department of Developmental and Comparative Psychology > > >> Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology > > >> Deutscher Platz 6 > > >> D-04103 Leipzig > > >> Germany > > >> > > >> Tel.+49-(0)341-3550 404 > > >> +49-(0)341-3550 400 (Department Coordinator: Henriette Zeidler) > > >> Fax.+49-(0)341-3550 444 > > >> > > >> and > > >> > > >> Max Planck Child Study Centre > > >> School of Psychological Sciences > > >> University of Manchester > > >> Manchester M13 9PL > > >> UK > > >> > > >> Tel.+44-(0)161-275 2580 > > >> +44-(0)161-275 2444 (Research Secretary: Mickie Glover) > > >> Fax.+44-(0)161-275 8587 > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > University > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 24 > Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 09:14:13 -0500 > From: Craig Hancock > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Roseta Stone: Redux > To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Message-ID: <4D53F2B5.4020202 at albany.edu> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > What is the current status of the competence performance > distinction from the functional side? > > Craig > > > On 2/10/2011 2:15 AM, Elena Lieven wrote: > > Dan is right. Of course it depends what is meant by 'acquiring a > > language'. The skills of highly educated people or public speakers > > and great story tellers in oral cultures will not necessarily be > > acquired by all members of a community. Ewa Dabrowska has shown this > > for some aspects of case morphology in Polish and for passives and > > quantifer scope in English - both studies of adult native speakers > > elena lieven > > > > Dan I. Slobin wrote: > >> A few responses to previous postings: > >> > >> Yes, languages with transparent and consistent agglutinative > >> morphology, in the verbal or nominal systems, allow for rapid > >> acquisition, with some productive inflections at the one-word stage. > >> Turkish morphology, having virtually no irregular patterns, is quite > >> securely mastered by age 3 at the latest, and often much earlier. > >> And, in general, complex morphology, of various types, presents no > >> serious problems with regard to acquisition of the basic grammar of > >> the relevant constructions. For details of successful early > >> acquistion of morphology in a number of such "complex"languages see > >> volumes of my crosslinguistic series: Vol. 1 (Hebrew, Polish, > >> Turkish), Vol. 2 (Hungarian), Vol. 3 (Georgian, West Greenlandic, > >> K'iche' Maya, Warlpiri, Sesotho), Vol. 4 (Estonian, Finnish, > >> Korean). Comparable findings are available for the acquisition of > >> Inuktitut, Tzeltal, Tzotzil,Yucatec Maya, Hindi, Tamil, and others. > >> What children find difficult--as do inguists--are multiply-determined > >> and/or unpredictable morphophonological patterns. > >> > >> So it depends on what you want to credit as "total acquisition" or > >> "completion of acquisition." An English-speaking 10-year-old can > >> fluently produce a range of syntactic structures, in various genres > >> and registers, without having mastered all of the irregular verb > >> forms and a number of subordinate syntactic constructions. > >> Furthermore, remember that a bility to produce a pattern in some > >> contexts is far from commanding its full range of semantic and > >> pragmatic functions. And when all of you Funknetters became > >> undergraduate and graduate students, and later professionals, you > >> were still acquiring many aspects of English grammar, vocabulary, and > >> style. Indeed, it goes on throughout the lifespan of an engaged > >> individual. > >> > >> There are no established criteria for full mastery, but there are > >> numerous studies, in all five of the crosslinguistic volumes and > >> elsewhere, of prolonged acquisition of various parts of a linguistic > >> system. > >> > >> As noted, I've written about the error of expecting early child > >> language to mirror pidgins. > >> > >> Best, > >> > >> Dan (with references following, many of mine available for download > >> at http://psychology.berkeley.edu/faculty/profiles/dslobin.html > >> Slobin, D. I. (1985, 1992, 1997). The crosslinguistic study of > >> language acquisition. Vol. 1: The Data (1985); Vol. 2: Theoretical > >> issues (1985); Vol. 3 (1992); Vol. 4 (1997); Vol. 5: Expanding the > >> contexts (1997). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. > >> Slobin, D. I. (2004). From ontogenesis to phylogenesis: What can > >> child language tell us about language evolution? In J. Langer, S. T. > >> Parker, & C. Milbrath (Eds.), Biology and Knowledge revisited: From > >> neurogenesis to psychogenesis (pp. 255-285). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence > >> Erlbaum Associates. > >> > >> > >> At 03:00 PM 2/9/2011, Lise Menn wrote: > >>> that's right. And child language and pidgin aren't the same, in any > >>> case, for any language I know about, any more than any of them are > >>> telegrams. But there are arcane reaches of languages that most people > >>> don't learn, confounding the definition of what 'acquire' means: > >>> Japanese honorifics and noun classifiers have elegant refinements, > >>> crafts and professions have jargons... > >>> > >>> On Feb 9, 2011, at 1:50 PM, A. Katz wrote: > >>> > >>>> I seem to recall that in "The Evolution of Language Out of Pre- > >>>> Language" Dan Slobin had a sort of dissenting article at the end in > >>>> which he mentioned that Turkish children use grammatical morphology > >>>> at the one word level, so that they are never actually speaking a > >>>> pidgin Turkish at any point in their language development. > >>>> > >>>> --Aya > >>>> > >>>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Craig Hancock wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Brian, > >>>>> This strikes as a bit like Lake Woebegone (Where all the children > >>>>> are above average). > >>>>> > >>>>> normal Danish children all learn good Danish and become fluent > >>>>> readers > >>>>> > >>>>> Is acquiring a language totally separate from the uses of that > >>>>> language? Are we just acquiring the forms and then differing in our > >>>>> ability to put them to use or are the uses themselves a major part > >>>>> of what we are acquiring? Are lexicon and syntax wholly separate, > >>>>> or do we go on acquiring the lexico-grammar as we enter more deeply > >>>>> into adult worlds of discourse? > >>>>> Anyone in literacy education knows that too many American > >>>>> children fail to reach high levels of fluency as readers and > >>>>> writers. Doesn't that somehow mean they have failed to acquire the > >>>>> language? > >>>>> > >>>>> Craig > >>>>> > >>>>> On 2/9/2011 2:04 PM, Brian MacWhinney wrote: > >>>>>> Fritz, > >>>>>> There are studies in places like the Journal of Child Language by > >>>>>> Dorthe Bleses, Hans Basb?l, and colleagues at Southern Denmark > >>>>>> University on the delay of the acquisition of Danish phonology in > >>>>>> comparison to other European languages, mostly attributed to the > >>>>>> complexities of the vowel system and the various assimilatory > >>>>>> processes. There is a corresponding delay in the acquisition of > >>>>>> reading by Danish children that was observed in the cross-European > >>>>>> PISA project. All of this is well documented in the literature, > >>>>>> but it is rather marginal and transitory. Eventually, normal > >>>>>> Danish children all learn good Danish and become fluent readers. > >>>>>> -- Brian MacWhinney > >>>>>> On Feb 9, 2011, at 1:27 PM, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > >>>>>>> A propos, are there any published studies out there that point to > >>>>>>> measurable difference in rate of completion of first-language > >>>>>>> acquisition by speakers of one language compared to another? Or > >>>>>>> even of mastery of one aspect of L1 acquisition (phonology, > >>>>>>> morphology, etc.) by speakers of one language compared to another? > >>>>>>> --fritz > >>>>>>> Frederick J. Newmeyer > >>>>>>> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > >>>>>>> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon > >>>>>>> Fraser University > >>>>>>> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > >>>>>>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, A. Katz wrote: > >>>>>>>> Tom, > >>>>>>>> If the language is dying, then the advice not to listen to > >>>>>>>> somebody under forty because they don't know how to speak may be > >>>>>>>> sound, but not for the reason that you suggest. It could be > >>>>>>>> there are no fluent speakers under forty. It seems very unlikely > >>>>>>>> that one would have to arrive at age forty before acquiring > >>>>>>>> fluency, especially in a hunter gatherer culture where death > >>>>>>>> before forty might be quite common. > >>>>>>>> But if you have evidence to the contrary that fully immersed, > >>>>>>>> monolingual young speakers of a language cannot speak it with > >>>>>>>> communicative effect until age forty, then this is a big > >>>>>>>> discovery that ought to be published and shared with the > >>>>>>>> scientific community. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> --Aya > >>>>>>>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: > >>>>>>>>> Right on, John. And one could make a prediction--hopefully > >>>>>>>>> someday to be tested by acquisition studies--that Navajo kids > >>>>>>>>> will not master the fully complexcity of the Athabaskan verb by > >>>>>>>>> age 10, or 15, or 20. I once reviewed a grammar in Papua New > >>>>>>>>> Guniea of a language that had comparable complexity on the verb > >>>>>>>>> (three positions, 6-8 categoriers each, massive zeroing& > >>>>>>>>> morphonemic). I had to ask Carle Whitehead--is this guy for > >>>>>>>>> real? He said, yes, he's been in the island for 20 years, > >>>>>>>>> really knows his stuff. So I asked the guy--at what age are > >>>>>>>>> kids considered fuill-fledged speakers? He said-- the old > >>>>>>>>> people say, don't listen to anybody under forty, they don't > >>>>>>>>> know how to speak. In my work with the Utes, one exchange has > >>>>>>>>> stuck out, an elder (ka-para'ni-wa-t, he's not walking about > >>>>>>>>> any more) who was pointed to me as the best orator in the > >>>>>>>>> tribe. I told him that, and he said: "Oh, I am nothing. You > >>>>>>>>> should have heard the Old Ones; when they spoke, you could see > >>>>>>>>> it all in front of your eyes". Part of it is due to the complex > >>>>>>>>> Ute deictic system, which invades NPs, ADVs& the verb. The > >>>>>>>>> combinations, and the subtle choices of when to combine the > >>>>>>>>> deictic particle with other categories, are a whole wond(e)rous > >>>>>>>>> world. Cheers, TG > >>>>>>>>> ========== > >>>>>>>>> On 2/9/2011 10:13 AM, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> Aya, > >>>>>>>>>> I think I was the one who said first that Navajo is not a > >>>>>>>>>> language for > >>>>>>>>>> amateurs. I'll second what Tom said--you should learn something > >>>>>>>>>> about Navajo (or some other Athabaskan language) before making > >>>>>>>>>> statements like this. Some languages are just plain > >>>>>>>>>> objectively harder than > >>>>>>>>>> others, regardless of typological similarly to one's native > >>>>>>>>>> language. If you > >>>>>>>>>> don't believe this, do an experiment in which you take > >>>>>>>>>> speakers of English, > >>>>>>>>>> Turkish, Georgian, Chinese, whatever you want, try to teach > >>>>>>>>>> them Navajo, Hopi, > >>>>>>>>>> and Cree (for example), and see which one gives them the most > >>>>>>>>>> trouble. > >>>>>>>>>> I guarantee it will be Navajo. And there is an objective > >>>>>>>>>> reason for it-- > >>>>>>>>>> the morphophonemics are just unbelievably complex. > >>>>>>>>>> John > >>>>>>>>>> Quoting "A. Katz": > >>>>>>>>>>> Tom, > >>>>>>>>>>> I don't think that is a valid viewpoint with regard to > >>>>>>>>>>> Athabaskan or any > >>>>>>>>>>> other language family. > >>>>>>>>>>> Victor Golla earlier had a much better phrasing when he wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> "Let that read: "A language that is not for amateurs is not for > >>>>>>>>>>> ADULT people."" > >>>>>>>>>>> But in fact no language is easy for adults to learn who have > >>>>>>>>>>> not already > >>>>>>>>>>> learned a language with a similar typology. If your native > >>>>>>>>>>> language works > >>>>>>>>>>> similarly to the one you are learning, then you have an > >>>>>>>>>>> enormous advantage > >>>>>>>>>>> as an adult second language learner. > >>>>>>>>>>> The remark about how Navajo is not for amateurs was made in > >>>>>>>>>>> the context of > >>>>>>>>>>> people who have no experience with languages of a similar > >>>>>>>>>>> typology. > >>>>>>>>>>> To make this a universal statement about the difficulty of > >>>>>>>>>>> Navajo without > >>>>>>>>>>> qualification is to suggest that some languages are "easy" > >>>>>>>>>>> and others are > >>>>>>>>>>> "impossible". Not only is this not true from an objective > >>>>>>>>>>> standpoint, it > >>>>>>>>>>> also perpetuates the prejudice that English (or IE) is a > >>>>>>>>>>> "normal" language > >>>>>>>>>>> and that every language should be measured against this norm. > >>>>>>>>>>> Best, > >>>>>>>>>>> --Aya > >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> Before you actually tried to learn an Athabaskan language, > >>>>>>>>>>>> or at the very > >>>>>>>>>>>> least worked on one, maybe you had better refrain from > >>>>>>>>>>>> asserting that "a > >>>>>>>>>>>> language that is not for amateurs is not for people". TG > >>>>>>>>>>>> ========= > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/8/2011 6:33 AM, A. Katz wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> A language that is not for amateurs is not for people. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> This has nothing to do with RS or computer language > >>>>>>>>>>>>> teaching. As others > >>>>>>>>>>>>> have stated, the technologically based systems are not a > >>>>>>>>>>>>> panacea. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> But a language that ordinary people can't pick by talking > >>>>>>>>>>>>> to their parents > >>>>>>>>>>>>> in childhood is either dead already or not a human language. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> --Aya > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would be amazed if a single person actually learns to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> speak Navajo > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> using Rosetta Stone. This is not a language for amateurs. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> John > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Quoting "s.t. bischoff": > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Over the last week I was involved with an event at the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> American Indian > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Language Development Institute and the folks that created > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Navajo > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rosetta > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stone gave a short talk about the software. What follows > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is my > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of how it came to be. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Navajo Rosetta Stones was created in collaboration > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with Rosetta > >>>>>>>>>>> Stone > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the non-profit Navajo Language Renaissance (NLR). NLR > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a > >>>>>>>>>>> non-profit > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> organization that is NOT affiliated with the tribal > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> council or > >>>>>>>>>>> government > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any way, for obvious reasons I think (e.g. getting > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> council approval for > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> project). However, it has been endorsed by the school > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> leadership and NLR > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actively trying to get the school district to adopt the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> software. You > >>>>>>>>>>> can > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> view the NLR website here > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ A > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-community member started NLR after using Rosetta > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stone to learn > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Russian. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> She thought it would be good if Rosetta Stone created a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo version. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> She > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contacted Rosetta Stone (RS), and they told her they > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would provide here > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the software to develop the lessons, a photographer, and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> technical > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assistants (limited on the ground, mostly by phone) to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> develop the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> program > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for $300,000. Another option would be for her to apply > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for a grant from > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RS > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to cover most of the costs. So the NLR was created, a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> partnership > >>>>>>>>>>> between > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community members and one non-community member, as a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non- profit > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> organization and applied. RS gave two grants the year > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they applied, one > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> went > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to NLR. The grant covered all but $27,000 of the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> $300,000. So NLR had to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pay > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RS $27,000 to have access to the software to create the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stone. This means they had to create the lessons and pay > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speakers and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> informants themselves. RS provided the software, a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> photographer, and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> technical support for the $27,000. NLR now is the only > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> group that can > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sell > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone, which they do for $150 per license > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and $200 for a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> personal box set. It is not clear if they have to pay RS > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a percentage of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those revenues or not. When I asked a clear answer wasn't > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> given. NLR > >>>>>>>>>>> also > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has a "training" session for administrators and teachers > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which costs > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> $1500 a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> day and $400 per 3 hours. Needless to say, it is not un- > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> controversial in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community for many of the usual reasons. Ironically, the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speaker after > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rosetta Stone folks gave a talk that demonstrated how to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> create nearly > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> identical language lessons as Rosetta Stone's simply > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using power point. > >>>>>>>>>>> I > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was encouraged to let folks know that they should contact > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the NLR if > >>>>>>>>>>> they > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have any questions at mbittinger at rosettastone.com. You > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can try a free > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introductory lesson here > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ The > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> folks > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at NLR praised RS for their efforts and felt they had > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really done them a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> service. In short, they were very happy with the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arrangement and how it > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> working out. They were also upset by the controversies > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> surrounding the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone and felt they were really the result > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> misunderstanding and misguided assumptions. One finally > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thing, they did > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seem > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to think that it was not a pancea, but rather another > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> useful tool in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language revitalization efforts. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shannon > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Haifa University > >>>>>>>>>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > >>>>>>>>>> University > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>> > >>> Lise Menn Home Office: 303-444-4274 > >>> 1625 Mariposa Ave Fax: 303-413-0017 > >>> Boulder CO 80302 > >>> home page: http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/ > >>> > >>> Professor Emerita of Linguistics > >>> Fellow, Institute of Cognitive Science > >>> University of Colorado > >>> > >>> Secretary, AAAS Section Z [Linguistics] > >>> Fellow, Linguistic Society of America > >>> > >>> Campus Mail Address: > >>> UCB 594, Institute for Cognitive Science > >>> > >>> Campus Physical Address: > >>> CINC 234 > >>> 1777 Exposition Ave, Boulder > >>> > >>> > >> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> Dan I. Slobin > >> Professor Emeritus of Psychology and Linguistics > >> > >> Department of Psychology email: slobin at berkeley.edu > >> 3210 Tolman #1650 phone (Dept): 1-510-642-5292 > >> University of California phone (home): 1-510-848-1769 > >> Berkeley, CA 94720-1650, USA fax: 1-510-642-5293 > >> http://psychology.berkeley.edu/faculty/profiles/dslobin.html > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 25 > Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 10:14:27 -0500 > From: Daniel Everett > Subject: [FUNKNET] New work by Steve Piantadosi > To: Funknet Funknet > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > Steve Piantadosi is part of the team now beginning work on Piraha. I think > that this work is exciting and it certainly seems relevant to the readers of > this list. > > Dan > > > http://web.mit.edu/ > http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2011/words-count-0210.html > > There is also an article in Nature News on this work: > > http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110124/full/news.2011.40.html > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 26 > Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 17:22:35 +0200 > From: john at research.haifa.ac.il > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Roseta Stone: Redux > To: Hartmut Haberland > Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Message-ID: <1297351355.4d5402bbc0b6c at webmail.haifa.ac.il> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1255 > > Actually, Hartmut, if you're a linguist who's been studying Danish for > almost 40 years and you can't even figure out how to DESCRIBE stod > phonetically, don't you think this is pretty good evidence that it > would be a significant problem for language learners? > Best wishes, > John > > > > Quoting Hartmut Haberland : > > > The occurrence of /st?d/ (it is not quite clear how to describe it > > phonetically) in Danish has given rise to much mystification, but it is > > certainly not the source of any allophony and, besides, its functional > > load is close to zero. Many Danish speakers don't have it and it never > > gives rise to serious ambiguities (the standard example is /mor/ > > 'mother' vs. /mord/ 'murder', the second one with /st?d/, usually > > disambiguated in context - except in puns, of course). On the other > > hand, the Danish vowel system is rather complex with 25 phonemes in > > stressed syllables plus two shwa phonemes. On top of that there are 19 > > 'short' and 19 'long' diphthongs. And some allophonic variation, plus > > frequent full assimilation of shwa to adjacent sonorants. > > > > K?benhavn in relaxed everyday speech has still three syllables, but the > > second one is a syllabic [m]. > > > > As to the Danish spelling system, it may be "antiquated", but still > > much less so than the English one. While it is very difficult to read an > > English text aloud (in a comprehensible way) without having undstood the > > content, this is not nearly as difficult with a Danish text. Of course, > > Danish spelling is not nearly as systematic visa`-vis the sounds as, > > e.g. Czech or Finnish (or even German), and there are a few irritating > > homographs which are not homophones (steg 'roast (of meat)' almost > > sounds like English 'sty', and steg 'climbed' almost like English > > 'stay'), but it is much less antiquated as English spelling. (English > > almosts sides with Arabic and Hebrew, although I admit that there are > > vowel letters in English. But they contain pretty little information > > about vowel quality and mark mostly /where/ the vowel phonemes are, not > > /what/ vowels they represent.) Children with English as their first > > langauge should have much more problems learning to read and write than > > Danish ones. > > > > Hartmut Haberland > > (not a native speaker of Danish, but still learning after almost 40 > years) > > > > Den 10-02-2011 09:19, john at research.haifa.ac.il skrev: > > > Delays in the acquisition of SPOKEN Danish would presumably be due not > to > > the > > > vowels (which are similar to other Scandinavian languages and much less > > > typologically peculiar than e.g. Dutch and some southern USA dialects) > but > > to > > > the rampant glottalization processe which really are typologically > bizarre > > and > > > which is the main source of complex allophony. It's the same idea as > the > > > American pronunciation of 'button' or 'mountain' (with no vowel in the > > second > > > syllable but rather a syllabic n with a glottal stop before) except > that it > > > occurs not just with alveolar+alveolar but with all combinations and > the > > nasal > > > isn't syllabic but combined with the preceding consonant in one or > another > > way. > > > The Danish pronunciation of 'Copenhagen' in natural speech sounds to me > > like > > > it's just two syllables long. When I was working on Circassian (the > dialect > > > here has about 60 phonemes, mostly due to double and triple > articulations) > > I > > > got the same feeling that somewhere along the way native speakers had > > decided > > > that it was normal to take neighboring consonantal articulations, even > in > > the > > > next syllable, and just say them all at the same time. Delays in the > > > acquisition of WRITTEN Danish, on the other hand, are undoubtedly due > to > > the > > > antiquated spelling system, which has essentially never been updated. > This > > is > > > conceptually a separate problem, although they are related in the sense > > that > > > many of the counterintuitive spellings are the product of the same > > historical > > > process which produced the glottalization processes. > > > There is no question that the greater difficulty of learning some > languages > > is a > > > serious problem for some language revival programs. I see much more > hope > > for > > > reviving Algonquian languages than for reviving Athabascan languages > (and > > > Polynesian languages would be a comparative cinch). I suppose that > members > > of > > > the groups might recognize this and 'dumb down' the languages in one > way or > > > another (making the morphophonemics simpler, eliminating phonemic > contrasts > > > when one of the sounds is really hard to pronounce, etc.), but > obviously > > this > > > is their decision. > > > John > > > > > > Quoting Elena Lieven: > > > > > >> Dan is right. Of course it depends what is meant by 'acquiring a > > >> language'. The skills of highly educated people or public speakers > and > > >> great story tellers in oral cultures will not necessarily be acquired > by > > >> all members of a community. Ewa Dabrowska has shown this for some > > >> aspects of case morphology in Polish and for passives and quantifer > > >> scope in English - both studies of adult native speakers > > >> elena lieven > > >> > > >> Dan I. Slobin wrote: > > >>> A few responses to previous postings: > > >>> > > >>> Yes, languages with transparent and consistent agglutinative > > >>> morphology, in the verbal or nominal systems, allow for rapid > > >>> acquisition, with some productive inflections at the one-word stage. > > >>> Turkish morphology, having virtually no irregular patterns, is quite > > >>> securely mastered by age 3 at the latest, and often much earlier. > > >>> And, in general, complex morphology, of various types, presents no > > >>> serious problems with regard to acquisition of the basic grammar of > > >>> the relevant constructions. For details of successful early > > >>> acquistion of morphology in a number of such "complex"languages see > > >>> volumes of my crosslinguistic series: Vol. 1 (Hebrew, Polish, > > >>> Turkish), Vol. 2 (Hungarian), Vol. 3 (Georgian, West Greenlandic, > > >>> K'iche' Maya, Warlpiri, Sesotho), Vol. 4 (Estonian, Finnish, Korean). > > >>> Comparable findings are available for the acquisition of Inuktitut, > > >>> Tzeltal, Tzotzil,Yucatec Maya, Hindi, Tamil, and others. What > > >>> children find difficult--as do inguists--are multiply-determined > > >>> and/or unpredictable morphophonological patterns. > > >>> > > >>> So it depends on what you want to credit as "total acquisition" or > > >>> "completion of acquisition." An English-speaking 10-year-old can > > >>> fluently produce a range of syntactic structures, in various genres > > >>> and registers, without having mastered all of the irregular verb > forms > > >>> and a number of subordinate syntactic constructions. Furthermore, > > >>> remember that a bility to produce a pattern in some contexts is far > > >>> from commanding its full range of semantic and pragmatic functions. > > >>> And when all of you Funknetters became undergraduate and graduate > > >>> students, and later professionals, you were still acquiring many > > >>> aspects of English grammar, vocabulary, and style. Indeed, it goes > on > > >>> throughout the lifespan of an engaged individual. > > >>> > > >>> There are no established criteria for full mastery, but there are > > >>> numerous studies, in all five of the crosslinguistic volumes and > > >>> elsewhere, of prolonged acquisition of various parts of a linguistic > > >>> system. > > >>> > > >>> As noted, I've written about the error of expecting early child > > >>> language to mirror pidgins. > > >>> > > >>> Best, > > >>> > > >>> Dan (with references following, many of mine available for download > at > > >>> http://psychology.berkeley.edu/faculty/profiles/dslobin.html > > >>> Slobin, D. I. (1985, 1992, 1997). The crosslinguistic study of > > >>> language acquisition. Vol. 1: The Data (1985); Vol. 2: Theoretical > > >>> issues (1985); Vol. 3 (1992); Vol. 4 (1997); Vol. 5: Expanding the > > >>> contexts (1997). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. > > >>> Slobin, D. I. (2004). From ontogenesis to phylogenesis: What can > > >>> child language tell us about language evolution? In J. Langer, S. T. > > >>> Parker,& C. Milbrath (Eds.), Biology and Knowledge revisited: From > > >>> neurogenesis to psychogenesis (pp. 255-285). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence > > >>> Erlbaum Associates. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> At 03:00 PM 2/9/2011, Lise Menn wrote: > > >>>> that's right. And child language and pidgin aren't the same, in any > > >>>> case, for any language I know about, any more than any of them are > > >>>> telegrams. But there are arcane reaches of languages that most > people > > >>>> don't learn, confounding the definition of what 'acquire' means: > > >>>> Japanese honorifics and noun classifiers have elegant refinements, > > >>>> crafts and professions have jargons... > > >>>> > > >>>> On Feb 9, 2011, at 1:50 PM, A. Katz wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>> I seem to recall that in "The Evolution of Language Out of Pre- > > >>>>> Language" Dan Slobin had a sort of dissenting article at the end in > > >>>>> which he mentioned that Turkish children use grammatical morphology > > >>>>> at the one word level, so that they are never actually speaking a > > >>>>> pidgin Turkish at any point in their language development. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> --Aya > > >>>>> > > >>>>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Craig Hancock wrote: > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> Brian, > > >>>>>> This strikes as a bit like Lake Woebegone (Where all the > children > > >>>>>> are above average). > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> normal Danish children all learn good Danish and become fluent > > >>>>>> readers > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Is acquiring a language totally separate from the uses of that > > >>>>>> language? Are we just acquiring the forms and then differing in > our > > >>>>>> ability to put them to use or are the uses themselves a major part > > >>>>>> of what we are acquiring? Are lexicon and syntax wholly separate, > > >>>>>> or do we go on acquiring the lexico-grammar as we enter more > deeply > > >>>>>> into adult worlds of discourse? > > >>>>>> Anyone in literacy education knows that too many American > > >>>>>> children fail to reach high levels of fluency as readers and > > >>>>>> writers. Doesn't that somehow mean they have failed to acquire the > > >>>>>> language? > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Craig > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> On 2/9/2011 2:04 PM, Brian MacWhinney wrote: > > >>>>>>> Fritz, > > >>>>>>> There are studies in places like the Journal of Child Language by > > >>>>>>> Dorthe Bleses, Hans Basb?l, and colleagues at Southern Denmark > > >>>>>>> University on the delay of the acquisition of Danish phonology in > > >>>>>>> comparison to other European languages, mostly attributed to the > > >>>>>>> complexities of the vowel system and the various assimilatory > > >>>>>>> processes. There is a corresponding delay in the acquisition of > > >>>>>>> reading by Danish children that was observed in the > cross-European > > >>>>>>> PISA project. All of this is well documented in the literature, > > >>>>>>> but it is rather marginal and transitory. Eventually, normal > > >>>>>>> Danish children all learn good Danish and become fluent readers. > > >>>>>>> -- Brian MacWhinney > > >>>>>>> On Feb 9, 2011, at 1:27 PM, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > > >>>>>>>> A propos, are there any published studies out there that point > to > > >>>>>>>> measurable difference in rate of completion of first-language > > >>>>>>>> acquisition by speakers of one language compared to another? Or > > >>>>>>>> even of mastery of one aspect of L1 acquisition (phonology, > > >>>>>>>> morphology, etc.) by speakers of one language compared to > another? > > >>>>>>>> --fritz > > >>>>>>>> Frederick J. Newmeyer > > >>>>>>>> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > > >>>>>>>> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon > > >>>>>>>> Fraser University > > >>>>>>>> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > >>>>>>>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, A. Katz wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> Tom, > > >>>>>>>>> If the language is dying, then the advice not to listen to > > >>>>>>>>> somebody under forty because they don't know how to speak may > be > > >>>>>>>>> sound, but not for the reason that you suggest. It could be > > >>>>>>>>> there are no fluent speakers under forty. It seems very > unlikely > > >>>>>>>>> that one would have to arrive at age forty before acquiring > > >>>>>>>>> fluency, especially in a hunter gatherer culture where death > > >>>>>>>>> before forty might be quite common. > > >>>>>>>>> But if you have evidence to the contrary that fully immersed, > > >>>>>>>>> monolingual young speakers of a language cannot speak it with > > >>>>>>>>> communicative effect until age forty, then this is a big > > >>>>>>>>> discovery that ought to be published and shared with the > > >>>>>>>>> scientific community. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> --Aya > > >>>>>>>>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>> Right on, John. And one could make a prediction--hopefully > > >>>>>>>>>> someday to be tested by acquisition studies--that Navajo kids > > >>>>>>>>>> will not master the fully complexcity of the Athabaskan verb > by > > >>>>>>>>>> age 10, or 15, or 20. I once reviewed a grammar in Papua New > > >>>>>>>>>> Guniea of a language that had comparable complexity on the > verb > > >>>>>>>>>> (three positions, 6-8 categoriers each, massive zeroing& > > >>>>>>>>>> morphonemic). I had to ask Carle Whitehead--is this guy for > > >>>>>>>>>> real? He said, yes, he's been in the island for 20 years, > > >>>>>>>>>> really knows his stuff. So I asked the guy--at what age are > > >>>>>>>>>> kids considered fuill-fledged speakers? He said-- the old > > >>>>>>>>>> people say, don't listen to anybody under forty, they don't > > >>>>>>>>>> know how to speak. In my work with the Utes, one exchange has > > >>>>>>>>>> stuck out, an elder (ka-para'ni-wa-t, he's not walking about > > >>>>>>>>>> any more) who was pointed to me as the best orator in the > > >>>>>>>>>> tribe. I told him that, and he said: "Oh, I am nothing. You > > >>>>>>>>>> should have heard the Old Ones; when they spoke, you could see > > >>>>>>>>>> it all in front of your eyes". Part of it is due to the > complex > > >>>>>>>>>> Ute deictic system, which invades NPs, ADVs& the verb. The > > >>>>>>>>>> combinations, and the subtle choices of when to combine the > > >>>>>>>>>> deictic particle with other categories, are a whole > wond(e)rous > > >>>>>>>>>> world. Cheers, TG > > >>>>>>>>>> ========== > > >>>>>>>>>> On 2/9/2011 10:13 AM, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>> Aya, > > >>>>>>>>>>> I think I was the one who said first that Navajo is not a > > >>>>>>>>>>> language for > > >>>>>>>>>>> amateurs. I'll second what Tom said--you should learn > something > > >>>>>>>>>>> about Navajo (or some other Athabaskan language) before > making > > >>>>>>>>>>> statements like this. Some languages are just plain > > >>>>>>>>>>> objectively harder than > > >>>>>>>>>>> others, regardless of typological similarly to one's native > > >>>>>>>>>>> language. If you > > >>>>>>>>>>> don't believe this, do an experiment in which you take > > >>>>>>>>>>> speakers of English, > > >>>>>>>>>>> Turkish, Georgian, Chinese, whatever you want, try to teach > > >>>>>>>>>>> them Navajo, Hopi, > > >>>>>>>>>>> and Cree (for example), and see which one gives them the most > > >>>>>>>>>>> trouble. > > >>>>>>>>>>> I guarantee it will be Navajo. And there is an objective > > >>>>>>>>>>> reason for it-- > > >>>>>>>>>>> the morphophonemics are just unbelievably complex. > > >>>>>>>>>>> John > > >>>>>>>>>>> Quoting "A. Katz": > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Tom, > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think that is a valid viewpoint with regard to > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Athabaskan or any > > >>>>>>>>>>>> other language family. > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Victor Golla earlier had a much better phrasing when he > wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>> "Let that read: "A language that is not for amateurs is not > for > > >>>>>>>>>>>> ADULT people."" > > >>>>>>>>>>>> But in fact no language is easy for adults to learn who have > > >>>>>>>>>>>> not already > > >>>>>>>>>>>> learned a language with a similar typology. If your native > > >>>>>>>>>>>> language works > > >>>>>>>>>>>> similarly to the one you are learning, then you have an > > >>>>>>>>>>>> enormous advantage > > >>>>>>>>>>>> as an adult second language learner. > > >>>>>>>>>>>> The remark about how Navajo is not for amateurs was made in > > >>>>>>>>>>>> the context of > > >>>>>>>>>>>> people who have no experience with languages of a similar > > >>>>>>>>>>>> typology. > > >>>>>>>>>>>> To make this a universal statement about the difficulty of > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo without > > >>>>>>>>>>>> qualification is to suggest that some languages are "easy" > > >>>>>>>>>>>> and others are > > >>>>>>>>>>>> "impossible". Not only is this not true from an objective > > >>>>>>>>>>>> standpoint, it > > >>>>>>>>>>>> also perpetuates the prejudice that English (or IE) is a > > >>>>>>>>>>>> "normal" language > > >>>>>>>>>>>> and that every language should be measured against this > norm. > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Best, > > >>>>>>>>>>>> --Aya > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Before you actually tried to learn an Athabaskan language, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> or at the very > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> least worked on one, maybe you had better refrain from > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> asserting that "a > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> language that is not for amateurs is not for people". TG > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> ========= > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/8/2011 6:33 AM, A. Katz wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> A language that is not for amateurs is not for people. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> This has nothing to do with RS or computer language > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> teaching. As others > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> have stated, the technologically based systems are not a > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> panacea. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> But a language that ordinary people can't pick by talking > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to their parents > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in childhood is either dead already or not a human > language. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> --Aya > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would be amazed if a single person actually learns to > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speak Navajo > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using Rosetta Stone. This is not a language for amateurs. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> John > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Quoting "s.t. bischoff": > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Over the last week I was involved with an event at the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> American Indian > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Language Development Institute and the folks that > created > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Navajo > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rosetta > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stone gave a short talk about the software. What follows > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is my > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of how it came to be. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Navajo Rosetta Stones was created in collaboration > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with Rosetta > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Stone > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the non-profit Navajo Language Renaissance (NLR). > NLR > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a > > >>>>>>>>>>>> non-profit > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> organization that is NOT affiliated with the tribal > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> council or > > >>>>>>>>>>>> government > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any way, for obvious reasons I think (e.g. getting > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> council approval for > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> project). However, it has been endorsed by the school > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> leadership and NLR > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actively trying to get the school district to adopt the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> software. You > > >>>>>>>>>>>> can > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> view the NLR website here > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ A > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-community member started NLR after using Rosetta > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stone to learn > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Russian. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> She thought it would be good if Rosetta Stone created a > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo version. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> She > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contacted Rosetta Stone (RS), and they told her they > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would provide here > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the software to develop the lessons, a photographer, > and > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> technical > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assistants (limited on the ground, mostly by phone) to > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> develop the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> program > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for $300,000. Another option would be for her to apply > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for a grant from > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RS > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to cover most of the costs. So the NLR was created, a > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> partnership > > >>>>>>>>>>>> between > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community members and one non-community member, as a > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non- profit > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> organization and applied. RS gave two grants the year > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they applied, one > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> went > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to NLR. The grant covered all but $27,000 of the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> $300,000. So NLR had to > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pay > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RS $27,000 to have access to the software to create the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stone. This means they had to create the lessons and pay > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speakers and > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> informants themselves. RS provided the software, a > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> photographer, and > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> technical support for the $27,000. NLR now is the only > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> group that can > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sell > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone, which they do for $150 per license > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and $200 for a > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> personal box set. It is not clear if they have to pay RS > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a percentage of > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those revenues or not. When I asked a clear answer > wasn't > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> given. NLR > > >>>>>>>>>>>> also > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has a "training" session for administrators and teachers > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which costs > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> $1500 a > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> day and $400 per 3 hours. Needless to say, it is not un- > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> controversial in > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community for many of the usual reasons. Ironically, the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speaker after > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rosetta Stone folks gave a talk that demonstrated how to > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> create nearly > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> identical language lessons as Rosetta Stone's simply > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using power point. > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was encouraged to let folks know that they should > contact > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the NLR if > > >>>>>>>>>>>> they > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have any questions at mbittinger at rosettastone.com. You > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can try a free > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introductory lesson here > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ The > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> folks > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at NLR praised RS for their efforts and felt they had > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really done them a > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> service. In short, they were very happy with the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arrangement and how it > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> working out. They were also upset by the controversies > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> surrounding the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone and felt they were really the > result > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> misunderstanding and misguided assumptions. One finally > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thing, they did > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seem > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to think that it was not a pancea, but rather another > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> useful tool in > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language revitalization efforts. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shannon > > >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Haifa University > > >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > >>>>>>>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > > >>>>>>>>>>> University > > >>>>>> > > >>>> Lise Menn Home Office: 303-444-4274 > > >>>> 1625 Mariposa Ave Fax: 303-413-0017 > > >>>> Boulder CO 80302 > > >>>> home page: http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/ > > >>>> > > >>>> Professor Emerita of Linguistics > > >>>> Fellow, Institute of Cognitive Science > > >>>> University of Colorado > > >>>> > > >>>> Secretary, AAAS Section Z [Linguistics] > > >>>> Fellow, Linguistic Society of America > > >>>> > > >>>> Campus Mail Address: > > >>>> UCB 594, Institute for Cognitive Science > > >>>> > > >>>> Campus Physical Address: > > >>>> CINC 234 > > >>>> 1777 Exposition Ave, Boulder > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>> Dan I. Slobin > > >>> Professor Emeritus of Psychology and Linguistics > > >>> > > >>> Department of Psychology email: slobin at berkeley.edu > > >>> 3210 Tolman #1650 phone (Dept): 1-510-642-5292 > > >>> University of California phone (home): 1-510-848-1769 > > >>> Berkeley, CA 94720-1650, USA fax: 1-510-642-5293 > > >>> http://psychology.berkeley.edu/faculty/profiles/dslobin.html > > >>> > > >>> > > >> -- > > >> Elena Lieven > > >> Department of Developmental and Comparative Psychology > > >> Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology > > >> Deutscher Platz 6 > > >> D-04103 Leipzig > > >> Germany > > >> > > >> Tel.+49-(0)341-3550 404 > > >> +49-(0)341-3550 400 (Department Coordinator: Henriette Zeidler) > > >> Fax.+49-(0)341-3550 444 > > >> > > >> and > > >> > > >> Max Planck Child Study Centre > > >> School of Psychological Sciences > > >> University of Manchester > > >> Manchester M13 9PL > > >> UK > > >> > > >> Tel.+44-(0)161-275 2580 > > >> +44-(0)161-275 2444 (Research Secretary: Mickie Glover) > > >> Fax.+44-(0)161-275 8587 > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > University > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 27 > Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 10:35:39 -0500 > From: Craig Hancock > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Roseta Stone: Redux > To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Message-ID: <4D5405CB.4030603 at albany.edu> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > On 2/9/2011 11:15 PM, Sherman Wilcox wrote: > Sherman, > I think Hemingway was being a bit disingenuous with "getting the > words right," a bit like a cook saying he wanted to "get the ingredients > right" in a recipe. It's a flip answer, for whatever reasons. The words > have everything to do with each other and with the functional pressure > of the whole novel at that critical, concluding point. He had to pay > attention to plot resolution (or resistance to that), point-of-view (a > constant attention in fiction), to staying within character (though > characters are often dynamic), to getting the conversation right > (character speaking the way characters speak), and so on. > Fiction may draw on elements of language very common to speech, but > it puts them to work in very careful ways. Some of the patterns are > obvious: past tense verbs, perfect aspect verbs, present participle > clauses, personal pronouns (1st and/or 3rd person, depending on the > narration), synthetic negation, public verbs (speech act verbs). Both > present tense verbs and "attributive adjectives" correlate negatively > (see Biber, Dimensions of Register Variation, 1995). The lack of > adjectives is probably driven by less complex nominalization, especially > in comparison to news writing and academic writing, which are both > heavily nominalized. > The work of the story pressures an appropriate language. In this > case, fluency means responding appropriately to that pressure, > developing one's craft over considerable time. > > Craig > > > > On Feb 9, 2011, at 8:53 PM, Dan I. Slobin wrote: > > > >> And when all of you Funknetters became undergraduate and graduate > students, and later professionals, you were still acquiring many aspects of > English grammar, vocabulary, and style. Indeed, it goes on throughout the > lifespan of an engaged individual. > > > > Okay, so writing isn't the same as speaking. Nevertheless, I think this > interview with Ernest Hemingway is relevant: > > > > Interviewer: How much rewriting do you do? > > > > Hemingway: It depends. I rewrote the ending of "Farewell to Arms," the > last page of it, 39 times before I was satisfied. > > > > Interviewer: Was there some technical problem there? What was it that had > stumped you? > > > > Hemingway: Getting the words right. > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 28 > Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 09:55:59 -0700 > From: Sherman Wilcox > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Roseta Stone: Redux > To: Craig Hancock > Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Message-ID: <51C30422-F8D9-41F8-B80C-DE42A5DC63BB at unm.edu> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > On Feb 10, 2011, at 8:35 AM, Craig Hancock wrote: > > > I think Hemingway was being a bit disingenuous with "getting the words > right," > > I don't know if he was being disingenuous. Mostly, I just thought it was a > nice quote that reinforced, in a slightly different way, the point Dan was > making. Here's another one that I love about the craft of writing: > > "If it sounds like writing, I rewrite it." (Elmore Leonard, Newsweek, April > 22, 1985) > > -- > Sherman > > > > > > End of FUNKNET Digest, Vol 89, Issue 8 > ************************************** > From mark at polymathix.com Thu Feb 10 19:55:32 2011 From: mark at polymathix.com (Mark P. Line) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 13:55:32 -0600 Subject: stochastic learning In-Reply-To: Message-ID: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic_gradient_descent -- Mark s.t. bischoff wrote: > Can anyone provide me with a concise and clear definition of "stochastic > learning"? I find I am having difficulty getting the idea across to my > students...which suggests I haven't quite got it right myself. > > Cheers, > Shannon > > From john at research.haifa.ac.il Thu Feb 10 22:42:32 2011 From: john at research.haifa.ac.il (john at research.haifa.ac.il) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2011 00:42:32 +0200 Subject: Roseta Stone: Redux In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Georgian is not comparable to Athabascan languages in words of morphological complexity, it isn't even close. It's initially counter-intuitive, but once you get the idea it isn't really bad. I wouldn't put it at the level of difficulty which would prove to be just too much for almost all non-natives (I would put at least Athabascan, Iroquoian, Salishan, and Inuit in this category). John Quoting Alex Walker : > Has anyone done acquisition studies of children in monolingual Georgian > homes? Georgian is the only national language I've encountered with > morphological complexity comparable to that seen in many American Indian > languages, and it's also in no danger of dying any time soon. I would very > much like to know whether anyone has worked with Georgian data to answer > some of the questions raised in this thread. > > On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 11:57 AM, Geoffrey Steven Nathan < > geoffnathan at wayne.edu> wrote: > > > Yes, there's lots of research on relative complexity of grammatical systems > > as related to first language acquisition, and, of course, more complex, > > idiosyncratic, irregular morphological systems are harder to learn and > > acquired later than simpler, more regular ones expressing roughly the same > > notion. > > Dan Slobin (are you on this list, Dan?) did much research in the 70's on > > this topic, comparing, IIRC, Serbo-Croatian (which existed then) and > > Turkish, and maybe some other languages. > > Here's an abstract from one of those papers: > > > > > > The ability of children between the ages of 2; 0 and 4; 8 to produce > > locative pre- or postpositions was investigated in English, Italian, > > Serbo-Croatian, and Turkish. Across languages, there was a general order of > > development: (1) ‘in’, ‘on’, ‘under’, and ‘beside’, (2) ‘between’, ‘back’ > > and ‘front’ with featured objects, (3) ‘back’ and ‘front’ with non-featured > > objects. This order of development is discussed in terms of nonlinguistic > > growth in conceptual ability. Language-specific differences in the general > > pattern of development are discussed in terms of a number of linguistic > > factors which may facilitate or retard the child's discovery of the > > linguistic means for encoding concepts. > > > > > > • Journal of Child Language (1979), 6: 529-545 > > > > > > Geoff > > > > Geoffrey S. Nathan > > Faculty Liaison, C&IT > > and Professor, Linguistics Program > > http://blogs.wayne.edu/proftech/ > > +1 (313) 577-1259 (C&IT) > > +1 (313) 577-8621 (English/Linguistics) > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > > From: "Frederick J Newmeyer" > > To: "A. Katz" > > Cc: "Tom Givon" , john at research.haifa.ac.il, "Funknet" > > > > Sent: Wednesday, February 9, 2011 1:27:25 PM > > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Roseta Stone: Redux > > > > A propos, are there any published studies out there that point to > > measurable difference in rate of completion of first-language acquisition > by > > speakers of one language compared to another? Or even of mastery of one > > aspect of L1 acquisition (phonology, morphology, etc.) by speakers of one > > language compared to another? > > > > --fritz > > > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > > University > > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > > > On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, A. Katz wrote: > > > > > Tom, > > > > > > If the language is dying, then the advice not to listen to somebody under > > > forty because they don't know how to speak may be sound, but not for the > > > reason that you suggest. It could be there are no fluent speakers under > > > forty. It seems very unlikely that one would have to arrive at age forty > > > before acquiring fluency, especially in a hunter gatherer culture where > > death > > > before forty might be quite common. > > > > > > But if you have evidence to the contrary that fully immersed, monolingual > > > young speakers of a language cannot speak it with communicative effect > > until > > > age forty, then this is a big discovery that ought to be published and > > shared > > > with the scientific community. > > > > > > --Aya > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Right on, John. And one could make a prediction--hopefully someday to be > > >> tested by acquisition studies--that Navajo kids will not master the > > fully > > >> complexcity of the Athabaskan verb by age 10, or 15, or 20. I once > > reviewed > > >> a grammar in Papua New Guniea of a language that had comparable > > complexity > > >> on the verb (three positions, 6-8 categoriers each, massive zeroing & > > >> morphonemic). I had to ask Carle Whitehead--is this guy for real? He > > said, > > >> yes, he's been in the island for 20 years, really knows his stuff. So I > > >> asked the guy--at what age are kids considered fuill-fledged speakers? > > He > > >> said-- the old people say, don't listen to anybody under forty, they > > don't > > >> know how to speak. In my work with the Utes, one exchange has stuck out, > > >> an elder (ka-para'ni-wa-t, he's not walking about any more) who was > > pointed > > >> to me as the best orator in the tribe. I told him that, and he said: > > "Oh, I > > >> am nothing. You should have heard the Old Ones; when they spoke, you > > could > > >> see it all in front of your eyes". Part of it is due to the complex Ute > > >> deictic system, which invades NPs, ADVs & the verb. The combinations, > > and > > >> the subtle choices of when to combine the deictic particle with other > > >> categories, are a whole wond(e)rous world. Cheers, TG > > >> > > >> ========== > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> On 2/9/2011 10:13 AM, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > > >>> Aya, > > >>> I think I was the one who said first that Navajo is not a language for > > >>> amateurs. I'll second what Tom said--you should learn something > > >>> about Navajo (or some other Athabaskan language) before making > > >>> statements like this. Some languages are just plain objectively harder > > >>> than > > >>> others, regardless of typological similarly to one's native language. > > If > > >>> you > > >>> don't believe this, do an experiment in which you take speakers of > > >>> English, > > >>> Turkish, Georgian, Chinese, whatever you want, try to teach them > > Navajo, > > >>> Hopi, > > >>> and Cree (for example), and see which one gives them the most trouble. > > >>> I guarantee it will be Navajo. And there is an objective reason for > > it-- > > >>> the morphophonemics are just unbelievably complex. > > >>> John > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Quoting "A. Katz": > > >>> > > >>>> Tom, > > >>>> > > >>>> I don't think that is a valid viewpoint with regard to Athabaskan or > > any > > >>>> other language family. > > >>>> > > >>>> Victor Golla earlier had a much better phrasing when he wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> "Let that read: "A language that is not for amateurs is not for > > >>>> ADULT people."" > > >>>> > > >>>> But in fact no language is easy for adults to learn who have not > > already > > >>>> learned a language with a similar typology. If your native language > > works > > >>>> similarly to the one you are learning, then you have an enormous > > >>>> advantage > > >>>> as an adult second language learner. > > >>>> > > >>>> The remark about how Navajo is not for amateurs was made in the > > context > > >>>> of > > >>>> people who have no experience with languages of a similar typology. > > >>>> To make this a universal statement about the difficulty of Navajo > > without > > >>>> qualification is to suggest that some languages are "easy" and others > > are > > >>>> "impossible". Not only is this not true from an objective standpoint, > > it > > >>>> also perpetuates the prejudice that English (or IE) is a "normal" > > >>>> language > > >>>> and that every language should be measured against this norm. > > >>>> > > >>>> Best, > > >>>> > > >>>> --Aya > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Before you actually tried to learn an Athabaskan language, or at the > > >>>>> very > > >>>>> least worked on one, maybe you had better refrain from asserting that > > "a > > >>>>> language that is not for amateurs is not for people". TG > > >>>>> > > >>>>> ========= > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> On 2/8/2011 6:33 AM, A. Katz wrote: > > >>>>>> A language that is not for amateurs is not for people. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> This has nothing to do with RS or computer language teaching. As > > others > > >>>>>> have stated, the technologically based systems are not a panacea. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> But a language that ordinary people can't pick by talking to their > > >>>>>> parents > > >>>>>> in childhood is either dead already or not a human language. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> --Aya > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> I would be amazed if a single person actually learns to speak > > Navajo > > >>>>>>> using Rosetta Stone. This is not a language for amateurs. > > >>>>>>> John > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Quoting "s.t. bischoff": > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Hi all, > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Over the last week I was involved with an event at the American > > >>>>>>>> Indian > > >>>>>>>> Language Development Institute and the folks that created the > > Navajo > > >>>>>>>> Rosetta > > >>>>>>>> Stone gave a short talk about the software. What follows is my > > >>>>>>>> understanding > > >>>>>>>> of how it came to be. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> The Navajo Rosetta Stones was created in collaboration with > > Rosetta > > >>>> Stone > > >>>>>>>> and the non-profit Navajo Language Renaissance (NLR). NLR is a > > >>>> non-profit > > >>>>>>>> organization that is NOT affiliated with the tribal council or > > >>>> government > > >>>>>>>> in > > >>>>>>>> any way, for obvious reasons I think (e.g. getting council > > approval > > >>>>>>>> for > > >>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>> project). However, it has been endorsed by the school leadership > > and > > >>>>>>>> NLR > > >>>>>>>> is > > >>>>>>>> actively trying to get the school district to adopt the software. > > You > > >>>> can > > >>>>>>>> view the NLR website here http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/A > > >>>>>>>> non-community member started NLR after using Rosetta Stone to > > learn > > >>>>>>>> Russian. > > >>>>>>>> She thought it would be good if Rosetta Stone created a Navajo > > >>>>>>>> version. > > >>>>>>>> She > > >>>>>>>> contacted Rosetta Stone (RS), and they told her they would provide > > >>>>>>>> here > > >>>>>>>> with > > >>>>>>>> the software to develop the lessons, a photographer, and technical > > >>>>>>>> assistants (limited on the ground, mostly by phone) to develop the > > >>>>>>>> program > > >>>>>>>> for $300,000. Another option would be for her to apply for a grant > > >>>>>>>> from > > >>>>>>>> RS > > >>>>>>>> to cover most of the costs. So the NLR was created, a partnership > > >>>> between > > >>>>>>>> community members and one non-community member, as a non-profit > > >>>>>>>> organization and applied. RS gave two grants the year they > > applied, > > >>>>>>>> one > > >>>>>>>> went > > >>>>>>>> to NLR. The grant covered all but $27,000 of the $300,000. So NLR > > had > > >>>>>>>> to > > >>>>>>>> pay > > >>>>>>>> RS $27,000 to have access to the software to create the Navajo > > >>>>>>>> Rosetta > > >>>>>>>> Stone. This means they had to create the lessons and pay speakers > > and > > >>>>>>>> informants themselves. RS provided the software, a photographer, > > and > > >>>>>>>> technical support for the $27,000. NLR now is the only group that > > can > > >>>>>>>> sell > > >>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone, which they do for $150 per license and $200 > > for > > >>>>>>>> a > > >>>>>>>> personal box set. It is not clear if they have to pay RS a > > percentage > > >>>>>>>> of > > >>>>>>>> those revenues or not. When I asked a clear answer wasn't given. > > NLR > > >>>> also > > >>>>>>>> has a "training" session for administrators and teachers which > > costs > > >>>>>>>> $1500 a > > >>>>>>>> day and $400 per 3 hours. Needless to say, it is not > > un-controversial > > >>>>>>>> in > > >>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>> community for many of the usual reasons. Ironically, the speaker > > >>>>>>>> after > > >>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>> Rosetta Stone folks gave a talk that demonstrated how to create > > >>>>>>>> nearly > > >>>>>>>> identical language lessons as Rosetta Stone's simply using power > > >>>>>>>> point. > > >>>> I > > >>>>>>>> was encouraged to let folks know that they should contact the NLR > > if > > >>>> they > > >>>>>>>> have any questions at mbittinger at rosettastone.com. You can try a > > free > > >>>>>>>> introductory lesson here > http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/The > > >>>>>>>> folks > > >>>>>>>> at NLR praised RS for their efforts and felt they had really done > > >>>>>>>> them a > > >>>>>>>> service. In short, they were very happy with the arrangement and > > how > > >>>>>>>> it > > >>>>>>>> was > > >>>>>>>> working out. They were also upset by the controversies surrounding > > >>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone and felt they were really the result of a > > >>>>>>>> misunderstanding and misguided assumptions. One finally thing, > > they > > >>>>>>>> did > > >>>>>>>> seem > > >>>>>>>> to think that it was not a pancea, but rather another useful tool > > in > > >>>>>>>> language revitalization efforts. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Cheers, > > >>>>>>>> Shannon > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > >>>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > > >>>>>>> University > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > >>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > > University > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University From sepkit at utu.fi Sun Feb 13 14:26:10 2011 From: sepkit at utu.fi (=?iso-8859-1?B?IlNlcHBvIEtpdHRpbOQi?=) Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2011 16:26:10 +0200 Subject: Final call for papers: Variation and typology (Helsinki, 25.-27.8.2011) Message-ID: (apologies for multiple postings) Variation and Typology: New trends in Syntactic Research Helsinki, August 25–27, 2011 In recent years, theoretical discussion around syntactic issues has been characterized by a growing interest towards variation, both dialectal and cross-linguistic. Typological considerations have proven to be essential even for research on individual languages. On the other hand, detailed studies of variation within languages (e.g. studies of dialectical variation) and variation across closely related languages have attracted more interest among typologists. One consequence of this has been that the focus in dialect research has shifted from phonological and morphological towards syntactic questions. Whether this will turn out to be a mere adjustment in attention or a major paradigm shift, a broadened perspective is welcome and also necessary. In order for new approaches to emerge, old ones need to be combined in novel ways. This symposium offers a forum for scholars interested in syntactic questions within typology and variation (and combinations thereof) and willing to contribute to this collective shift of focus. The goal of the symposium is to approach the concept of variation from a broader perspective for gaining new insights into what variation (in its different forms) can reveal about language. Basically, variation can be seen both language-internal (e.g. dialects, sociolects etc.) and cross-linguistic (typological variation).There are numerous studies of both of these, but only quite recently has there been real effort to combine these two aspects of variation (e.g. Kortmann 2004, Nevalainen et al. 2006, Barbiers et al. 2008). Special attention will be given to the oft-neglected areas which fall between the foci of linguistic typology and variation studies within syntax when these are seen as separate fields of study. The question we would like to be addressed is briefly: what do we gai n by studying variation both within and across languages. Put another way, what are the implications of variation studies and language typology to one another? We heartily welcome papers related to the overall enterprise. Possible topics for talks include, but, as usual, are not restricted to, the following: – dialect syntax vs. syntactic typology: what is the relation between cross-linguistic variation and dialectal variation? – accounting for variation in syntactic theory: rigid rules, fuzzy templates, or something else? – implications of language variation to typological data selection & research: what is the ‘best variant’ of a language to be presented in reference grammars? What are the consequences of relying on standard language data in cross-linguistic research? And what is the significance of having vs. not having variation data available to the grammarian? – how to take into account variation in typological research in syntax? - case studies of variation within and across languages (e.g. clause combining, use of reflexive pronouns, possessive constructions, argument marking, word order variations, etc. etc. within and across languages) - methodological contributions to variation: to what extent do we need different machinery for dealing with different types of variation, and to what extent are we dealing with “just variation”? - variation and marginal constructions: do we need a distinction between core and periphery in grammar? Does this involve a distinction between common and dialectal variants? Are certain constructions marginal both in dialects and across languages? - borderline between dialectal and typological variation: e.g. issues of dealing with closely related languages, distinguishing between dialects vs. languages, spontaneous vs. contact-induced variation, etc. - qualitative methods in typology and dialect studies For more information please visit the webpage of the symposium at: http://www.linguistics.fi/variation Invited speakers: Balthasar Bickel (University of Leipzig) Joan Bresnan (Stanford University) Marja-Liisa Helasvuo (University of Turku) Scientific committee Sjef Barbiers (University of Amsterdam) Hans Boas (University of Texas, Austin) Hannele Forsberg (University of Eastern Finland) Bernd Kortmann (University of Freiburg) Ekkehard König (Freie Universität Berlin) Michel Launey (University of Paris 7) Silvia Luraghi (University of Pavia) Jan-Ola Östman (University of Helsinki) Cecilia Poletto (University of Padova) Stéphane Robert (CNRS) Anna Siewierska (University of Lancaster) Jussi Ylikoski (University of Helsinki) Organizing committee Seppo Kittilä (University of Helsinki) Aki Kyröläinen (University of Turku) Meri Larjavaara (Åbo Akademi University) Jaakko Leino (Research Institute for the Languages of Finland) Alexandre Nikolaev (University of Eastern Finland) Maria Vilkuna (Research Institute for the Languages of Finland) Abstract submission Please send your abstract to typ-variation /at/ helsinki.fi no later than March 1, 2011. The length of abstracts should not exceed 500 words (excluding data and references). Abstracts will be evaluated by the members of the scientific committee and also by the organizing committee. Letters of acceptance will be sent by March 31, 2011. The abstracts themselves must be anonymous, but the body of the message should include the following information: Name of the participant Title of presentation Affiliation E-mail address Whether the paper is meant as a section paper, a poster, or a workshop Workshops The symposium will include a workshop on Finnish and Finnic dialect syntax. Proposals for all workshops should be submitted no later than February 11, 2011. Notification of acceptance will be given by March 7, 2011. These one-day workshops will run in parallel sessions with the main conference program. Alternatively, the first day of the symposium may be dedicated to workshops. The symposium organizers will provide the lecture rooms and other facilities, but the workshop organizers will be responsible for the organization of their workshops (choosing the speakers etc.). Key dates: – Deadline for abstract submission: March 1, 2011 – Notification of acceptance: March 31, 2011 – Proposals for workshops: February 11, 2011 – Notification of acceptance of workshops: March 7, 2011 Activities: – Presentations by the invited speakers – Presentations by other participants – Posters – Workshops Registration The registration deadline is August 5, 2011. An on-line registration form to the symposium will appear on the webpage of the symposium after the evaluation of abstracts. Registration fees General: 100 Euro Members of the association: 80 Euro Undergraduate students: 50 Euro Finnish participants are requested to pay the registration fee to the SKY bank account when they register for the conference (bank account number 174530-71243 (Nordea)). Participants from abroad are likewise requested to pay in advance by bank transfer, if at all possible, to the SKY bank account in Finland (Bank: Nordea; IBAN: FI76 1745 3000 0712 43, BIC: NDEAFIHH). However, we may also accept payment IN CASH (only in Euros; moreover, we CANNOT accept credit cards of any sort) upon arrival in case bank transfer is not possible. If you have paid via bank transfer from abroad, we would kindly ask you to bring a COPY of the original transaction receipt with you and present it upon registration. References Barbiers, Sjef & Olaf Koeneman & Marika Lekakou & Margreet van der Ham (eds.) 2008. Microvariation in syntactic doubling. Syntax and Semantics, volume 36. Bingley: Emerald. Kortmann, Bernd (ed.) 2004. Dialectology meets typology: dialect grammar from a cross-linguistic perspective. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Nevalainen, Terttu & Juhani Klemola & Mikko Laitinen (eds.) 2006. Types of variation: diachronic, dialectical and typological interfaces. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. From sclancy at UCHICAGO.EDU Mon Feb 14 13:02:47 2011 From: sclancy at UCHICAGO.EDU (Steven Clancy) Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 07:02:47 -0600 Subject: Call for papers - SCLC 2011 Message-ID: American University (Washington, DC, USA) and the Slavic Cognitive Linguistics Association present THE ELEVENTH ANNUAL CONFERENCE OF THE SLAVIC COGNITIVE LINGUISTICS ASSOCIATION (SCLC-2011) October 14-16, 2011 American University (Washington, DC, USA) The Slavic Cognitive Linguistics Association (SCLA) announces the Call for Papers for the 2011 annual conference. The conference will be held on the campus of American University (Washington, DC, USA) on Friday, October 14 through Sunday, October 16, 2011. Keynote speakers will be announced soon. CALL FOR PAPERS Abstracts are invited for presentations addressing issues of significance for cognitive linguistics with some bearing on data from the Slavic languages. As long as there is a cognitive orientation, papers may be on synchronic or diachronic topics in any of the traditional areas of phonetics, phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, discourse analysis, or sociolinguistics. In addition to the Slavic Languages, relevant papers on other languages of Central and Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union are also acceptable. Abstracts may be submitted up until the deadline of April 8, 2011 to sclcAbstracts at gmail.com. Abstracts should be approximately 500 words, but strict word limits are not required. Notification of acceptance will be provided by May 31, 2011. The abstract should be submitted as a word or pdf file as an attachment to an email message with “SCLC abstract submission” in the subject headline. Abstracts should be anonymous, but the author’s name, affiliation and contact information should be included in the email message. Most presentations at SCLC are given in English, but may be in the native (Slavic) language of the presenter. However, if the presentation is not to be made in English we ask that you provide an abstract in English in addition to an abstract in any other SCLA language. Each presentation will be given 20 minutes and will be followed by a 10-minute discussion period. FURTHER INFORMATION Information on transportation, accommodations, and the conference venue will be forthcoming. Please see the conference website for further information. http://languages.uchicago.edu/scla We hope you will be able to join us for SCLC-2011. Please forward this call for papers to your colleagues and graduate students who may be interested in presenting or attending. Sincerely, Tore Nesset Dagmar Divjak Alina Israeli President, SCLA Vice-President, SCLA Conference Organizer and Host, American University on behalf of the SCLA officers and the 2011 SCLA organizing committee From tgivon at uoregon.edu Wed Feb 16 03:13:23 2011 From: tgivon at uoregon.edu (Tom Givon) Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 20:13:23 -0700 Subject: child language Message-ID: Dead FUNK people, In 2002 I accepted for publication, in a TSL volume I edited, an article by my good friend Dan Slobin. I disagreed strongly with what he had to say, but felt that one might as well have a vigorous discussion. In that article, Dan challenged the meaningfulness of a whole research programme, that of seeking similarities between early child language (1-2 yrs) and other developmental ('emergent') processes such as language diachrony, SLA-pidginization and language evolution. A week or so ago, Dan cited that article, once again implying that it was the last word on the subject, and thus that the discussion should be closed. In 2009 I published a whole book ("The Genesis of Syntactic Complexity", Amsterdam: Benjamins) suggesting, and trying to show, that the discussion was far from closed, and that seeking similarities between the four developmental trends of language is both theoretically sound and empirically feasible. At the time, somewhat tongue-in-cheek, I said I was sorely tempted to dedicate the book to my old teacher Noam Chomsky, given his infuriating treatment of the subject in a 2002 article (Hauser et al. 2002). In retrospect, I see that I should have dedicated the book to Dan Slobin, since both he and Chomsky were the proximate catalysts for writing the book; and unlike Chomsky Dan is still my good friend. In his recent FUNK contribution, Dan leveled his guns most specifically at the pernicious suggestion (Givon 1979; Bickerton 1981) that the similarities between early child language and SLA pidgin could be legitimate and revealing. I would like to briefly sketch out the beginning of an answer, and also give a promisory note for a more extensive, quantified, text-based study that will back up my claims--tho of course I don't intend to close the discussion once and for all even then. My investigation of this topic started in 1979, in ch. 5, 7 of "On Understanding Grammar" ( NY:Academic Press). I set up there a comparison between some of the main structural and communicative properties of pre-gram,matical vs. grammatical communication. After 30 years of tinkering, that comparison may be summarized as follows: FUNCTIONAL/COMMUNICATIVE PROPERTIES: 1. *Lexicon over grammar*: Pre-grammatical communication relies maximally on the lexicon, leaving communicative intent largely un-coded and thus heavily dependent on contextual inferences. In contrast, grammatical communication codes much more of the communicative intent via grammar. 2. *Coherence scope*: The thematic and/or topical coherence units of pre-grammatical communication are much shorter. In early child language, for example (ca. Lois Bloom's 1970/1973 1-word stage, ca. 1 yr old), it approximates 1-clause, thus "mono-propositional coherence". It gradually gets longer, and is clearly multi-propositional by the so-called 2-word stage (Bowerman 1973, ca. 2-yr). 3. *Dependence on care-taker turns*: In early child language (Ochs et al. 1979) the one-word contributions of the child are complemented/supplemented, both syntactically and communicatively, by the adult interlocutor's contributions. 4. *Context dependency*: Early child communication is, therefore, much more heavily context-dependent. 6. *Speech acts*: The ratio of manipulative vs. informative (declarative, question) speech acts will be highest in early child language, and will decrease over acquisition. STRUCTURALLY PROPERTIES: 6.*Noun/verb coding ratio*: The ration of N/V in early child comminication (e.g. Lois Blooms 1970/1973 transcipts) is highest, and decreases during acquisition. 7. *Grammatical morphology*: The use of productive (as against frozen) grammatical morphology is minimal in early child language, and increases during acquisition. 8. *Grammatical constructions*: In early child language, in part due the 7. above, syntactic constructions (speech acts, voice, subordination, etc.) show low differentiation. They emerge and differentiate gradually during acquisition. 9. *Syntactic complexity*: Overall, early child language shows minimal syntactic complexity, which then increases gradually during acquisition. PROMISSORY NOTE: All these properties can be studied empirically in a quantified manner--in transcripts of natural oral communication. The relevant comparison with the adult grammatical register should obviously involve informal oral communication. None of these properties are absolute either/or; rather, they are all a matter of degree. They must be studied language by language, and one would predict that in languages with more-regular morphology the acquisition of productive (as against frozen) morphology would come earlier. But one would still predict the gradient suggested in 7 above. Further, one could predict that in languages where the adult input of verbs obligatorily comes with some morphology (Hebrew, Spanish, Navajo), lexical verbs will be acquired initially with some frozen morphology; but that morphology would not be productive at the earliest stages. Likewise, one could predict that in languages where the adult input of nouns obligatorily comes with some morphology (Bantu), nouns will be acquired early with frozen morphology; but that the richness of Bantu nominal-class morphology, and in particular its extensive ramifications into the grammar of both NPs and VPs, will be acquired later and gradually. So, I hereby promise to find the time to do this kind of quantified comparative study, and present the result for y'all to inspect & decide. I promise to include at least 4 languages (Hebrew, Spanish, English, Swahili), as well as English-based SLA-pidgin. While this is obviously an impoverished typological sample, it does include some of the major relevant typological parameters. And one needs to know the languages in order to do the study (the CHILDES transcripts, alas, come without inter-lineal glosses). I can only hope that other people may want to pick up the gauntlet and extend this study to other languages. As in other sciences, theoretical arguments can only be resolved by well-design empirical investigation. The worst thing one would want to see in child language studies is a premature closure. Best, TG From macw at cmu.edu Wed Feb 16 21:49:33 2011 From: macw at cmu.edu (Brian MacWhinney) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 16:49:33 -0500 Subject: child language In-Reply-To: <4D5B40D3.1020508@uoregon.edu> Message-ID: Folks, This examination promises to be better than the Super Bowl. And, unlike the Super Bowl, where my home team lost, I don't have strong bets on either side. Seriously, this is an important issue and the more we can articulate the relevant factors involved, the better for theoretical development. I am happy to see no reference here to Broca's aphasia, with the focus instead on comparing diachrony, SLA, and child language. My understanding of Dan's earlier emphasis is that he denied the link or correspondences (?) between diachrony and child language. Perhaps he can clarify his position vis a vis SLA. In regards to SLA, it is important to nominate corpora concretely. One classic corpus, which is available in TalkBank on the web, is the Klein-Perdue ESF corpus. But maybe Tom has something else in mind. Within the ESF, there are lots of subtypes. The most revealing would be those that involve learning of a Indo-European language from speakers who have non-Indo-European sources (such as Turkish-German or Arabic-French). Regarding child language corpora, I assume we can dispense with interlinear glosses for English. For Hebrew, we should soon have a full morphemic line courtesy Shuly Wintner and Bracha Nir. Instead of Swahili, I would recommend the Demuth Sesotho corpus. For Spanish, nearly all of the corpora have already been morphemicized. There is also a grammatical relations tier for the syntactic structure. On the substantive front, it seems to me that some of these predicted parallels amount to foregone conclusions. One can take as a general developmental principle for both biology and mind the fact that simple things precede complex things, or that combinations do not arise before their components. Manfred Pienemann's Processibility Theory or Kim Oller's phonological development theory are cases in point. One hardly needs more than natural compositionality to predict some of these parallels. However, some of these predicted parallels cannot be so simply reduced. More importantly, do these parallels also work in the same way vis a vis diachrony, where the starting point is already complex? Good luck in this analysis, -- Brian MacWhinney, On Feb 15, 2011, at 10:13 PM, Tom Givon wrote: > > > Dead FUNK people, > > In 2002 I accepted for publication, in a TSL volume I edited, an article by my good friend Dan Slobin. I disagreed strongly with what he had to say, but felt that one might as well have a vigorous discussion. In that article, Dan challenged the meaningfulness of a whole research programme, that of seeking similarities between early child language (1-2 yrs) and other developmental ('emergent') processes such as language diachrony, SLA-pidginization and language evolution. A week or so ago, Dan cited that article, once again implying that it was the last word on the subject, and thus that the discussion should be closed. > > In 2009 I published a whole book ("The Genesis of Syntactic Complexity", Amsterdam: Benjamins) suggesting, and trying to show, that the discussion was far from closed, and that seeking similarities between the four developmental trends of language is both theoretically sound and empirically feasible. At the time, somewhat tongue-in-cheek, I said I was sorely tempted to dedicate the book to my old teacher Noam Chomsky, given his infuriating treatment of the subject in a 2002 article (Hauser et al. 2002). In retrospect, I see that I should have dedicated the book to Dan Slobin, since both he and Chomsky were the proximate catalysts for writing the book; and unlike Chomsky Dan is still my good friend. > > In his recent FUNK contribution, Dan leveled his guns most specifically at the pernicious suggestion (Givon 1979; Bickerton 1981) that the similarities between early child language and SLA pidgin could be legitimate and revealing. I would like to briefly sketch out the beginning of an answer, and also give a promisory note for a more extensive, quantified, text-based study that will back up my claims--tho of course I don't intend to close the discussion once and for all even then. My investigation of this topic started in 1979, in ch. 5, 7 of "On Understanding Grammar" ( NY:Academic Press). I set up there a comparison between some of the main structural and communicative properties of pre-gram,matical vs. grammatical communication. After 30 years of tinkering, that comparison may be summarized as follows: > > FUNCTIONAL/COMMUNICATIVE PROPERTIES: > 1. Lexicon over grammar: Pre-grammatical communication relies maximally on the lexicon, leaving communicative intent largely un-coded and thus heavily dependent on contextual inferences. In contrast, grammatical communication codes much more of the communicative intent via grammar. > 2. Coherence scope: The thematic and/or topical coherence units of pre-grammatical communication are much shorter. In early child language, for example (ca. Lois Bloom's 1970/1973 1-word stage, ca. 1 yr old), it approximates 1-clause, thus "mono-propositional coherence". It gradually gets longer, and is clearly multi-propositional by the so-called 2-word stage (Bowerman 1973, ca. 2-yr). > 3. Dependence on care-taker turns: In early child language (Ochs et al. 1979) the one-word contributions of the child are complemented/supplemented, both syntactically and communicatively, by the adult interlocutor's contributions. > 4. Context dependency: Early child communication is, therefore, much more heavily context-dependent. > 6. Speech acts: The ratio of manipulative vs. informative (declarative, question) speech acts will be highest in early child language, and will decrease over acquisition. > > STRUCTURALLY PROPERTIES: > 6. Noun/verb coding ratio: The ration of N/V in early child comminication (e.g. Lois Blooms 1970/1973 transcipts) is highest, and decreases during acquisition. > 7. Grammatical morphology: The use of productive (as against frozen) grammatical morphology is minimal in early child language, and increases during acquisition. > 8. Grammatical constructions: In early child language, in part due the 7. above, syntactic constructions (speech acts, voice, subordination, etc.) show low differentiation. They emerge and differentiate gradually during acquisition. > 9. Syntactic complexity: Overall, early child language shows minimal syntactic complexity, which then increases gradually during acquisition. > > PROMISSORY NOTE: > All these properties can be studied empirically in a quantified manner--in transcripts of natural oral communication. The relevant comparison with the adult grammatical register should obviously involve informal oral communication. None of these properties are absolute either/or; rather, they are all a matter of degree. They must be studied language by language, and one would predict that in languages with more-regular morphology the acquisition of productive (as against frozen) morphology would come earlier. But one would still predict the gradient suggested in 7 above. Further, one could predict that in languages where the adult input of verbs obligatorily comes with some morphology (Hebrew, Spanish, Navajo), lexical verbs will be acquired initially with some frozen morphology; but that morphology would not be productive at the earliest stages. Likewise, one could predict that in languages where the adult input of nouns obligatorily comes with some morphology (Bantu), nouns will be acquired early with frozen morphology; but that the richness of Bantu nominal-class morphology, and in particular its extensive ramifications into the grammar of both NPs and VPs, will be acquired later and gradually. > > So, I hereby promise to find the time to do this kind of quantified comparative study, and present the result for y'all to inspect & decide. I promise to include at least 4 languages (Hebrew, Spanish, English, Swahili), as well as English-based SLA-pidgin. While this is obviously an impoverished typological sample, it does include some of the major relevant typological parameters. And one needs to know the languages in order to do the study (the CHILDES transcripts, alas, come without inter-lineal glosses). I can only hope that other people may want to pick up the gauntlet and extend this study to other languages. As in other sciences, theoretical arguments can only be resolved by well-design empirical investigation. The worst thing one would want to see in child language studies is a premature closure. > > Best, TG > > > From amnfn at well.com Fri Feb 18 19:35:29 2011 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 11:35:29 -0800 Subject: child language In-Reply-To: <4D5B40D3.1020508@uoregon.edu> Message-ID: Tom, This seems like a very worthwhile undertaking. I do have some methodological and theoretical questions about your future study. Reading your "Functional/communicative properties", I found they made so much sense that I wondered how anyone could disagree with them. This had me wondering further whether they could be falsifiable --or might they be tautologies. Take the first one: "Pre-grammatical communication relies maximally on the lexicon, leaving communicative intent largely un-coded and thus heavily dependent on contextual inferences. In contrast, grammatical communication codes much more of the communicative intent via grammar." How could that NOT be true? What would an alternative hypothesis be? Isn't this completely dependent on the idea that language normally consists of grammar plus lexicon, and that when you take away the grammar, all you have left is the lexicon -- and context? Could communicative intent theoretically be coded by the lexicon? Is that an alternative hypothesis? How would we test for this? A similar issue comes up with coherence: "In early child language, for example (ca. Lois Bloom's 1970/1973 1-word stage, ca. 1 yr old), it approximates 1-clause, thus "mono-propositional coherence". It gradually gets longer, and is clearly multi-propositional by the so-called 2-word stage" How would you test for multipropositional coherence at the one word stage? What would the child have to do to demonstrate mutlipropositionsl coherence, short of using more than one word per proposition? A similar issue troubles me when it comes to the structural properties that you listed: " The ration of N/V in early child comminication (e.g. Lois Blooms 1970/1973 transcipts) is highest, and decreases during acquisition." How do you do determine what is a noun or a verb, at the one word stage, for instance, when a single word stands for a proposition? It seems to me that nouns and verbs are categories that apply only in a contrastive way, within a grammatically differentiated sentence. Suppose an English speaking infant pointed to a fly buzzing over the crib and said "Fly!" How would you know whether it was a noun or a verb? Even if the child were using a language that had grammatical morphology to mark nouns and verbs, it might not be appropriate to count it that way, if the morphology is not productive for that speaker. This is a problem that crops up with pidgins as well as child language: that linguists should not decide the grammatical category of the word used by a pidgin speaker based on the grammatical category that the word has for a speaker of the standard language. For instance, in an English based Pidgin where the word "him" is being used as a generalized marker of transitivity, you're not going to count it as a third person masculine singular accusative pronoun, are you? So one of my questions about the methodology of your study on child language is: how are you going to determine grammatical category in a child's developing use of a language in the process of acquisition? This requires not only that you be fluent in the standard language, but also that you acquire fluency in the idiolanguage used by the subject. I think it would be hard to do using a corpus. You might need to interact with some of these children in order to get their context. --Aya On Tue, 15 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: > > > Dead FUNK people, > > In 2002 I accepted for publication, in a TSL volume I edited, an article by > my good friend Dan Slobin. I disagreed strongly with what he had to say, but > felt that one might as well have a vigorous discussion. In that article, Dan > challenged the meaningfulness of a whole research programme, that of seeking > similarities between early child language (1-2 yrs) and other developmental > ('emergent') processes such as language diachrony, SLA-pidginization and > language evolution. A week or so ago, Dan cited that article, once again > implying that it was the last word on the subject, and thus that the > discussion should be closed. > > In 2009 I published a whole book ("The Genesis of Syntactic Complexity", > Amsterdam: Benjamins) suggesting, and trying to show, that the discussion was > far from closed, and that seeking similarities between the four developmental > trends of language is both theoretically sound and empirically feasible. At > the time, somewhat tongue-in-cheek, I said I was sorely tempted to dedicate > the book to my old teacher Noam Chomsky, given his infuriating treatment of > the subject in a 2002 article (Hauser et al. 2002). In retrospect, I see that > I should have dedicated the book to Dan Slobin, since both he and Chomsky > were the proximate catalysts for writing the book; and unlike Chomsky Dan is > still my good friend. > > In his recent FUNK contribution, Dan leveled his guns most specifically at > the pernicious suggestion (Givon 1979; Bickerton 1981) that the similarities > between early child language and SLA pidgin could be legitimate and > revealing. I would like to briefly sketch out the beginning of an answer, and > also give a promisory note for a more extensive, quantified, text-based study > that will back up my claims--tho of course I don't intend to close the > discussion once and for all even then. My investigation of this topic started > in 1979, in ch. 5, 7 of "On Understanding Grammar" ( NY:Academic Press). I > set up there a comparison between some of the main structural and > communicative properties of pre-gram,matical vs. grammatical communication. > After 30 years of tinkering, that comparison may be summarized as follows: > > FUNCTIONAL/COMMUNICATIVE PROPERTIES: > 1. *Lexicon over grammar*: Pre-grammatical communication relies maximally on > the lexicon, leaving communicative intent largely un-coded and thus heavily > dependent on contextual inferences. In contrast, grammatical communication > codes much more of the communicative intent via grammar. > 2. *CoherencPre-grammatical communication relies maximally on > the lexicon, leaving communicative intent largely un-coded and thus heavily > dependent on contextual inferences. In contrast, grammat The ration of N/V in early child comminication > (e.g. Lois Blooms 1970/1973 transcipts) is highest, and decreases during > acquisition. ical communication > codes much more of the communicative intent via grammar.e scope*: The thematic and/or topical coherence units of > pre-grammatical communication are much shorter. In early child language, for > example (ca. Lois BlIn early child language, for > example (ca. Lois Bloom's 1970/1973 1-word stage, ca. 1 yr old), it > approximates 1-clause, thus "mono-propositional coherence". It graoom's 1970/1973 1-word stage, ca. 1 yr old), it > approximates 1-clause, thus "mono-propositional coherence". It gradually gets > longer, and is clearly multi-propositional by the so-called 2-word stage > (Bowerman 1973, ca. 2-yr). > 3. *Dependence on care-taker turns*: In early child language (Ochs et al. > 1979) the one-word contributions of the child are complemented/supplemented, > both syntactically and communicatively, by the adult interlocutor's > contributions. > 4. *Context dependency*: Early child communication is, therefore, much more > heavily context-dependent. > 6. *Speech acts*: The ratio of manipulative vs. informative (declarative, > question) speech acts will be highest in early child language, and will > decrease over acquisition. > > STRUCTURALLY PROPERTIES: > 6.*Noun/verb coding ratio*: The ration of N/V in early child comminication > (e.g. Lois Blooms 1970/1973 transcipts) is highest, and decreases during > acquisition. > 7. *Grammatical morphology*: The use of productive (as against frozen) > grammatical morphology is minimal in early child language, and increases > during acquisition. > 8. *Grammatical constructions*: In early child language, in part due the 7. > above, syntactic constructions (speech acts, voice, subordination, etc.) show > low differentiation. They emerge and differentiate gradually during > acquisition. > 9. *Syntactic complexity*: Overall, early child language shows minimal > syntactic complexity, which then increases gradually during acquisition. > > PROMISSORY NOTE: > All these properties can be studied empirically in a quantified manner--in > transcripts of natural oral communication. The relevant comparison with the > adult grammatical register should obviously involve informal oral > communication. None of these properties are absolute either/or; rather, they > are all a matter of degree. They must be studied language by language, and > one would predict that in languages with more-regular morphology the > acquisition of productive (as against frozen) morphology would come earlier. > But one would still predict the gradient suggested in 7 above. Further, one > could predict that in languages where the adult input of verbs obligatorily > comes with some morphology (Hebrew, Spanish, Navajo), lexical verbs will be > acquired initially with some frozen morphology; but that morphology would not > be productive at the earliest stages. Likewise, one could predict that in > languages where the adult input of nouns obligatorily comes with some > morphology (Bantu), nouns will be acquired early with frozen morphology; but > that the richness of Bantu nominal-class morphology, and in particular its > extensive ramifications into the grammar of both NPs and VPs, will be > acquired later and gradually. > > So, I hereby promise to find the time to do this kind of quantified > comparative study, and present the result for y'all to inspect & decide. I > promise to include at least 4 languages (Hebrew, Spanish, English, Swahili), > as well as English-based SLA-pidgin. While this is obviously an impoverished > typological sample, it does include some of the major relevant typological > parameters. And one needs to know the languages in order to do the study (the > CHILDES transcripts, alas, come without inter-lineal glosses). I can only > hope that other people may want to pick up the gauntlet and extend this study > to other languages. As in other sciences, theoretical arguments can only be > resolved by well-design empirical investigation. The worst thing one would > want to see in child language studies is a premature closure. > > Best, TG > > > > From tgivon at uoregon.edu Sat Feb 19 07:45:57 2011 From: tgivon at uoregon.edu (Tom Givon) Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2011 00:45:57 -0700 Subject: 2 languages make your brain buff =?windows-1252?Q?=96_?=The Chart - CNN.com Blogs Message-ID: Cheer up, y'guys, it's never too late. Just when you thought linguistics may be useless. Just disregard the hustle links at the end. TG ================== http://pagingdrgupta.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/18/foreign-language-learning-good-for-your-brain/?hpt=C2 From haspelmath at eva.mpg.de Sat Feb 19 17:42:20 2011 From: haspelmath at eva.mpg.de (Martin Haspelmath) Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2011 18:42:20 +0100 Subject: doctoral fellowship in linguistics, MPI-EVA Leipzig Message-ID: *Doctoral fellowship in linguistics* The Department of Linguistics of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology (Leipzig) seeks candidates for a three-year doctoral fellowship in linguistics. The candidates should be able to make contributions to the department's areas of research. The Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology studies human diversity and human origins in a multidisciplinary perspective. The contribution of linguistics to this goal lies in the study of the history and prehistory of languages (and peoples) around the world (especially non-European languages), as well as the current diversity of human languages (linguistic fieldwork on little-described and endangered languages and language typology). The Department of Linguistics collaborates with the Department of Evolutionary Genetics and the Max Planck Research Group on Comparative Population Linguistics to compare the evidence from linguistics and genetics for the prehistory of human populations. The largest recent collaborative projects of the Department of Linguistics are the World Atlas of Language Structures (http://wals.info/) and Loanword Typology (http://wold.livingsources.org/). More information on these and other projects is available on the institute's website (see below). Doctoral fellows should already have an MA in Linguistics or an equivalent qualification, and be either registered or qualified to register in a recognized doctoral program at a university or equivalent degree-awarding institution. Doctoral fellows have the possibility of obtaining their doctoral degree through the University of Leipzig (http:/www.uni-leipzig.de). Regular participation in the department's talks, seminars and workshops is expected. Except for approved absences (e.g. fieldwork, conferences, vacation), the place of work is Leipzig. The fellowship is available from 01 October 2011, but a later starting date may be negotiated, no later, however, than 01 January 2012. There are no teaching obligations, but the opportunity for teaching in the linguistics program of the University of Leipzig exists. Good knowledge of English is required. Applicants are requested to send a C.V., statement of research interests, and a sample of written work on a relevant topic to: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology Prof. Dr. Bernard Comrie - Doctoral fellow position Deutscher Platz 6 D-04103 Leipzig, Germany or by e-mail to: comrie at eva.mpg.de (in which case supplementary materials available only in hard copy should be sent to the above mailing address). e-mail:comrie at eva.mpg.de fax: +49 341 35 50 333 institute web site: http://www.eva.mpg.de Deadline for receipt of applications: 04 April 2011 From language at sprynet.com Sun Feb 20 22:27:40 2011 From: language at sprynet.com (alex gross) Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2011 17:27:40 -0500 Subject: "Being bilingual may delay Alzheimer's and boost brain power..." Message-ID: Here's some pleasant news from The Guardian, at least for those of us fortunate enough to be bi- or multi-lingual...assuming it doesn't get contradicted by another set of texts next month... http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/feb/18/bilingual-alzheimers-brain-power-multitasking All the best to everyone! alex From lise.menn at colorado.edu Mon Feb 21 02:45:09 2011 From: lise.menn at colorado.edu (Lise Menn) Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2011 21:45:09 -0500 Subject: "Being bilingual may delay Alzheimer's and boost brain power..." In-Reply-To: <03781104F74F499FBE98B807198EF1A7@aa82807a474cf4> Message-ID: AAAS Section Z: Linguistics and Language Sciences are proud to have sponsored this symposium, with presentations by organizer Judith Kroll and by Janet Werker, Karen Emmorey, Teresa Bajo, Sonja Kotz, and Ellen Bialystok. The evidence presented was very impressive. Thanks for posting the link, Alex. Lise Menn, Secretary, Section Z On Feb 20, 2011, at 5:27 PM, alex gross wrote: > Here's some pleasant news from The Guardian, at least for those of > us fortunate enough to be bi- or multi-lingual...assuming it doesn't > get contradicted by another set of texts next month... > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/feb/18/bilingual-alzheimers-brain-power-multitasking > > All the best to everyone! > > alex Lise Menn Home Office: 303-444-4274 1625 Mariposa Ave Fax: 303-413-0017 Boulder CO 80302 home page: http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/ Professor Emerita of Linguistics Fellow, Institute of Cognitive Science University of Colorado Secretary, AAAS Section Z [Linguistics] Fellow, Linguistic Society of America Campus Mail Address: UCB 594, Institute for Cognitive Science Campus Physical Address: CINC 234 1777 Exposition Ave, Boulder From Anju.Saxena at lingfil.uu.se Mon Feb 21 05:11:07 2011 From: Anju.Saxena at lingfil.uu.se (Anju Saxena) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 06:11:07 +0100 Subject: Workshop on Comparing Approaches to Measuring Linguistic Differences Message-ID: Workshop on Comparing Approaches to Measuring Linguistic Differences 24-25 October 2011 University of Gothenburg Web Site: Invited Speakers (confirmed so far): - Michael Cysouw (Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München) - John Nerbonne (University of Groningen) - Søren Wichmann (MPI Leipzig) Call for Papers: We invite researchers to submit proposals for presentations at the workshop, including but not limited to topics such as: - Explicit comparison/evaluation of different methods using the same data - What do the methods measure? - linguistically informed evaluation of automatic approaches to measuring linguistic differences - Beyond lexicostatistics: quantification of grammatical and semantic differences, in an automatic or non-automatic framework - Methodological challenges for historical-comparative linguistics - Quantitative aspects of traditional methods in historical linguistics - New data sources for measuring linguistic differences and their methodological challenges - Case studies on individual languages, language families or linguistic areas Abstracts should be one (A4 or letter) page long, with 25 mm/one inch margins and the text in a 12 point Roman font. A second page may be included for references and/or data. Abstracts -- in pdf format only -- should be sent to: (change the parenthesized expressions into the appropriate characters). Important Dates: - 15 April 2011: Submission deadline - 15 May 2011: Acceptance notification - 24-25 October 2011: Workshop For more details, visit the workshop homepage: -- Anju Saxena Professor of Linguistics Dept. of Linguistics & Philology Uppsala University Sweden http://www2.lingfil.uu.se/personal/anjusaxena/ From macw at cmu.edu Mon Feb 21 20:50:11 2011 From: macw at cmu.edu (Brian MacWhinney) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 15:50:11 -0500 Subject: "Being bilingual may delay Alzheimer's and boost brain power..." In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Colleagues, Does this work control for SES? In the old days of research on IQ and bilingualism, the target populations were lower-SES Welsh miners (as in the depictions in "How Green Was My Valley") and the results showed that their bilingualism was "subtractive". In this age of globalization, on the other hand, the bililngual groups being studied often have certain educational and social advantages and now we find that bilingualism is "additive" and "protective". Of course, these advantaged groups have better access to health care, better diets, better working conditions, and so on (as in the Belsky model of SES effects). Don't we need comparisons that contrast these various social configurations, before we can conclude that bilingualism per se has these positive effects. But perhaps the symposium or some of the research papers produced by this illustrious group of researchers has already tackled this issue? I would love pointers to papers clarifying this issue. -- Brian MacWhinney On Feb 20, 2011, at 9:45 PM, Lise Menn wrote: > AAAS Section Z: Linguistics and Language Sciences are proud to have sponsored this symposium, with presentations by organizer Judith Kroll and by Janet Werker, Karen Emmorey, Teresa Bajo, Sonja Kotz, and Ellen Bialystok. The evidence presented was very impressive. > Thanks for posting the link, Alex. > Lise Menn, Secretary, Section Z > > On Feb 20, 2011, at 5:27 PM, alex gross wrote: > >> Here's some pleasant news from The Guardian, at least for those of us fortunate enough to be bi- or multi-lingual...assuming it doesn't get contradicted by another set of texts next month... >> >> http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/feb/18/bilingual-alzheimers-brain-power-multitasking >> >> All the best to everyone! >> >> alex > > Lise Menn Home Office: 303-444-4274 > 1625 Mariposa Ave Fax: 303-413-0017 > Boulder CO 80302 > home page: http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/ > > Professor Emerita of Linguistics > Fellow, Institute of Cognitive Science > University of Colorado > > Secretary, AAAS Section Z [Linguistics] > Fellow, Linguistic Society of America > > Campus Mail Address: > UCB 594, Institute for Cognitive Science > > Campus Physical Address: > CINC 234 > 1777 Exposition Ave, Boulder > > > > From tgivon at uoregon.edu Mon Feb 21 22:08:19 2011 From: tgivon at uoregon.edu (Tom Givon) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 15:08:19 -0700 Subject: "Being bilingual may delay Alzheimer's and boost brain power..." In-Reply-To: <5107B5EB-627B-42CB-B120-07785DFE7F9D@cmu.edu> Message-ID: Dear Brian-- Of course, tho I really don't know for sure, I suppose for lack of an adequate sample? Fr. Matteo Ricci, SJ (1552-1610), who opened China for the Jesuits & became a revered Sinologist, dies at 58 (see J. Spence's "The Memory Palace of Matteo Ricci", NY: Viking, 1984). And he was a noted Menemonist too, plenty of hippocampus exercises, using the old medieval system of planting texts along complex locations (like Luria's patient in "The Mind of the Mnemonist"). My late friend & benefactor Jon Verhaar, SJ, certainly a fluent Dutch-German-English-Indonesian-Latin speaker, died at the age of ca. 75 (tho his mother lived to be 98; I don't think she was multilingual, tho). My Jesuit friend Augustino Gianto, SJ in the Vatican, a terrific multilingual Semitic scholar, is only in his 50s, I think, and thus not yet a proper data point for Jesuits. Finally, just to skew the sample a bit, my mother will be 100 in October & still got a mind like a steel trap, can remind you of your most trivial sins going back to antiquity, still thinks she rules the Universe. And bingo, she used to be fluent in Spanish, Bulgarian, Russian, French, Italian and Hebrew. So she seems ti beat all the Jesuits I know & admire. You reckon. Cheers, TG =============== On 2/21/2011 2:35 PM, Brian MacWhinney wrote: > So, does the Jesuit priest who learned 80 languages get to live to 130? > > -- Brian From feist at louisiana.edu Mon Feb 21 22:08:40 2011 From: feist at louisiana.edu (Michele Feist) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 16:08:40 -0600 Subject: 2nd CFP: EMCL 5.2 - Chicago Message-ID: apologies for multiple postings The Center for the Study of Languages at the University of Chicago together with The Center for East European and Russian/Eurasian Studies (CEERES) present Empirical Methods in Cognitive Linguistics 5.2 (EMCL-5.2) — Chicago The Integration of Corpus and Experimental Methods 13 – 18 June 2011 http://languages.uchicago.edu/emcl5-2 Call for Participation We invite applications to the next workshop on Empirical Methods in Cognitive Linguistics – EMCL 5.2 – to be held at the University of Chicago (Chicago, IL), 13 – 18 June 2011. The EMCL workshop series aims to encourage dialogue between language researchers who routinely employ different methodologies. This dialogue is initiated within an environment where novices and specialists combine their skills to develop a research project together. For EMCL 5.2, we will focus on the integration of corpus and experimental methods in language research. Intended audience: Early career language researchers (i.e., graduate students, postdocs, junior faculty, etc.) grounded in theoretical issues surrounding cognitive linguistics, cognitive science, embodiment, and/or situated cognition. No prior training with corpus or experimental methods is necessary. Format: Selected students (maximum 8 per group, for a total of 24) will be invited to join one of the 3 hands-on mini-labs at the workshop. Each group will be led by two researchers who will work cooperatively – one specializing in corpus methods, and one in experimental methods. As a group, each mini-lab will walk through the process of deciding on a research question; developing empirically testable hypotheses and designing the means to test those hypotheses; collecting, analyzing, and interpreting the data; and presenting their findings before an audience. The workshop will end with a mini-conference in which each group will have the opportunity to present their study and participate in a general discussion. Workshop faculty: Group 1: Michele Feist University of Louisiana at Lafayette Research interests: lexical semantics; spatial and motion language; acquisition of semantics; linguistic typology; language and thought www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~mif8232 Steven Clancy University of Chicago Research interests: cognitive linguistics; case semantics and verbal semantics; grammaticalization; historical linguistics; quantitative methods and corpus methods home.uchicago.edu/~sclancy Group 2: Dagmar Divjak University of Sheffield Research interests: lexical semantics, usage-based cognitive linguistics, the role of frequency, corpus methods, grammar-lexis interface, near-synonyms, aspect and modality, language acquisition www.sheffield.ac.uk/russian/staff/profiles/divjakd.html Ben Bergen University of California San Diego Research interests: lexical and constructional meaning processing; figurative language comprehension; embodiment in models of language use www.cogsci.ucsd.edu/~bkbergen Group 3: Laura Carlson University of Notre Dame Research interests: spatial language; spatial reference frames; how we remember and use landmarks; why we get lost www.nd.edu/~lcarlson Mark Davies Brigham Young University Research interests: corpus design, creation, and use; historical change (especially syntax); genre-based variation (especially syntax), frequency and collocational data; English, Spanish, and Portuguese http://davies-linguistics.byu.edu/ Accommodations Accommodations are available within easy walking distance of the university; prices range from $60+ per night for a single, or $80+ per night for a double. Further information will be given to accepted participants after notification of acceptance to the workshop. Participation fee: $300.00 Fees will cover the costs of organization and faculty travel and accommodations and will also cover most meals for participants during the workshop. Application To apply, please send the following: 1. A letter of application, maximum of two pages, describing a. Your background and research interests b. Your reasons for wanting to participate in EMCL 5.2 c. The research group you would like to work in and why 2. A copy of your curriculum vitae. Please submit all materials electronically to emcl5.2.chicago at gmail.com. The application deadline is 15 March 2011. Accepted applicants will be notified on or before 1 May 2011. **Please note: Participation is strictly limited to accepted applicants so as to preserve the pedagogical integrity of the workshop atmosphere. * * * We thank the following organizations for their generous support of EMCL 5.2 The Center for the Study of Languages The Center for East European and Russian/Eurasian Studies (CEERES) -- EMCL 5.2 Organizing Committee: Michele I. Feist, University of Louisiana at Lafayette Steven Clancy, University of Chicago From macw at cmu.edu Tue Feb 22 02:17:35 2011 From: macw at cmu.edu (Brian MacWhinney) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 21:17:35 -0500 Subject: "Being bilingual may delay Alzheimer's and boost brain power..." In-Reply-To: <1298323634.13735.15.camel@predicate> Message-ID: Dear Elissa, Monica, Ellen, Tom, and Colleagues, Yes, I was thinking of the Hakuta and Diaz article and others that raised similar issues at that time, when expressing worries about the role of SES. Hakuta and Diaz found strong relations between amount of bilingualism and IQ in kids, as measured by Raven's matrices and picture vocabulary. When SES was partialled out, the correlation decreased to a level that was still significant, but just barely. One question is whether including further attitudinal and class-based measures may have removed further variance. But the issue in this symposium and posting was not about kid's IQ, but protection against Alzheimer's Disease (AD). On that front, the results of the Craik, Bialystok, and Freedman paper (Neurology 2010) are quite impressive, much like the results for nuns who keep a diary. http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2009/03/24/nuns_alzheimers_study/ In this study of AD and bilingualism, the bilinguals entered Toronto's Baycrest clinic at an average age of 75.5, whereas the monolinguals entered at the age of 71.4. Moreover, as Ellen Bialystok noted in an email to me (she can't post to FunkNet), they did indeed control for SES. They also note that the bilingual groups differed from the monolingual group in two regards. First, the bilinguals were far more likely to be immigrants than the monolinguals. Second, the monolinguals had more schooling, which makes the result even more impressive, although the authors note that this may have been a result of disorder in Europe during World War II. One interesting issue here is whether the four years of protection against the onset of AD that appears in the bilingual group is a result of bilingualism or immigrant status. I might offer a third possibility, which is that protection against a rapid onset of AD arises not from bilingualism, but from the overall cognitive and perceptual challenges presented by biculturalism. I batted this idea around with a couple of my connectionist colleagues this afternoon and they said that they interpret these protection results as applying to any system that manages to construct "deep attractors". The idea is that years spent paying attention to fine details will give one at least a few years to be able to overcome the initial effect of AD deterioration, before control is no longer possible. The Toronto study is very persuasive and informative regarding AD. But, I am still concerned about the broader issue of general advantages accruing from bilingualism throughout the lifespan. There are certainly advantages in areas such as task switching and attention, but I would like to see these studies of bilingualism in high-SES communities such as Canada matched by studies of the effects of bilingualism in more diverse social and cultural configurations. -- Brian MacWhinney On Feb 21, 2011, at 4:27 PM, Elissa Asp wrote: > It is standard practice to control for potential demographic confounds > such as education, occupational history (and in this case immigration > history and fluency) and so on in this type of study. This paper was not > an exception to that practice. You can read it in the journal > "Neurology". (There's a link to the abstract and the journal in the BBC > article.) Regards, Elissa > On Mon, 2011-02-21 at 15:50 -0500, Brian MacWhinney wrote: >> Dear Colleagues, >> >> Does this work control for SES? In the old days of research on IQ and bilingualism, the target populations were lower-SES Welsh miners (as in the depictions in "How Green Was My Valley") and the results showed that their bilingualism was "subtractive". In this age of globalization, on the other hand, the bililngual groups being studied often have certain educational and social advantages and now we find that bilingualism is "additive" and "protective". Of course, these advantaged groups have better access to health care, better diets, better working conditions, and so on (as in the Belsky model of SES effects). Don't we need comparisons that contrast these various social configurations, before we can conclude that bilingualism per se has these positive effects. But perhaps the symposium or some of the research papers produced by this illustrious group of researchers has already tackled this issue? I would love pointers to papers clarifying this issue. >> >> -- Brian MacWhinney >> >> On Feb 20, 2011, at 9:45 PM, Lise Menn wrote: >> >>> AAAS Section Z: Linguistics and Language Sciences are proud to have sponsored this symposium, with presentations by organizer Judith Kroll and by Janet Werker, Karen Emmorey, Teresa Bajo, Sonja Kotz, and Ellen Bialystok. The evidence presented was very impressive. >>> Thanks for posting the link, Alex. >>> Lise Menn, Secretary, Section Z >>> >>> On Feb 20, 2011, at 5:27 PM, alex gross wrote: >>> >>>> Here's some pleasant news from The Guardian, at least for those of us fortunate enough to be bi- or multi-lingual...assuming it doesn't get contradicted by another set of texts next month... >>>> >>>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/feb/18/bilingual-alzheimers-brain-power-multitasking >>>> >>>> All the best to everyone! >>>> >>>> alex >>> >>> Lise Menn Home Office: 303-444-4274 >>> 1625 Mariposa Ave Fax: 303-413-0017 >>> Boulder CO 80302 >>> home page: http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/ >>> >>> Professor Emerita of Linguistics >>> Fellow, Institute of Cognitive Science >>> University of Colorado >>> >>> Secretary, AAAS Section Z [Linguistics] >>> Fellow, Linguistic Society of America >>> >>> Campus Mail Address: >>> UCB 594, Institute for Cognitive Science >>> >>> Campus Physical Address: >>> CINC 234 >>> 1777 Exposition Ave, Boulder >>> >>> >>> >>> >> > > > From lise.menn at Colorado.EDU Tue Feb 22 21:20:33 2011 From: lise.menn at Colorado.EDU (Lise Menn) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2011 14:20:33 -0700 Subject: bilingualism is good for the brain - Chronicle picks up our story Message-ID: Here's the link to a very good summary of the Section Z bilingualism symposium, from the Chronicle of Higher Education, including necessary cautions in interpretation; it also notes the section on foreign language training that Amy Weinberg organized for us. Thanks to Joan Maling for the link, which she got via the Federal Register. We're all over! http://chronicle.com/article/Being-Bilingual-Beneficial/126462/?sid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en Regards, Lise Lise Menn Home Office: 303-444-4274 1625 Mariposa Ave Fax: 303-413-0017 Boulder CO 80302 http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/index.html Professor Emerita of Linguistics Fellow, Institute of Cognitive Science University of Colorado Secretary, AAAS Section Z [Linguistics] Fellow, Linguistic Society of America Campus Mail Address: UCB 594, Institute for Cognitive Science Campus Physical Address: CINC 234 1777 Exposition Ave, Boulder From oesten.dahl at ling.su.se Tue Feb 22 22:08:07 2011 From: oesten.dahl at ling.su.se (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=D6sten_Dahl?=) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2011 23:08:07 +0100 Subject: "Being bilingual may delay Alzheimer's and boost brain power..." In-Reply-To: <03781104F74F499FBE98B807198EF1A7@aa82807a474cf4> Message-ID: So what does "bilingual" mean in this context? It seems to me that it is being used in a rather vague way, possibly conflating quite different situations. Is a bilingual person someone who has grown up speaking more than one language, or is it anyone who has some knowledge of a second language? And it is using the second language, or knowing it, that is crucial? -- Having to speak a non-native language daily may be like solving cross-words, which is supposed to be good for keeping your cognitive abilities intact. But if you know the language from an early age, it might not take any special effort to speak it, and thus there may be no positive effect. So generalizing about "bilingual people" would be rather misleading. But maybe there are other things going on. - östen -----Ursprungligt meddelande----- Från: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] För alex gross Skickat: den 20 februari 2011 23:28 Till: funknet at mailman.rice.edu Ämne: [FUNKNET] "Being bilingual may delay Alzheimer's and boost brain power..." Here's some pleasant news from The Guardian, at least for those of us fortunate enough to be bi- or multi-lingual...assuming it doesn't get contradicted by another set of texts next month... http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/feb/18/bilingual-alzheimers-brain-power-multitasking All the best to everyone! alex From lise.menn at Colorado.EDU Tue Feb 22 22:34:51 2011 From: lise.menn at Colorado.EDU (Lise Menn) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2011 15:34:51 -0700 Subject: "Being bilingual may delay Alzheimer's and boost brain power..." In-Reply-To: Message-ID: go look at the original publication - the link is posted, in the Guardian article, and here it is, also: http://www.neurology.org/content/75/19/1726.abstract?sid=63045016-6a3b-4c35-86d2-ea93215d4fde Lise On Feb 22, 2011, at 3:08 PM, Östen Dahl wrote: > So what does "bilingual" mean in this context? It seems to me that > it is being used in a rather vague way, possibly conflating quite > different situations. Is a bilingual person someone who has grown up > speaking more than one language, or is it anyone who has some > knowledge of a second language? And it is using the second language, > or knowing it, that is crucial? -- Having to speak a non-native > language daily may be like solving cross-words, which is supposed to > be good for keeping your cognitive abilities intact. But if you know > the language from an early age, it might not take any special effort > to speak it, and thus there may be no positive effect. So > generalizing about "bilingual people" would be rather misleading. > But maybe there are other things going on. > - östen > > > -----Ursprungligt meddelande----- > Från: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu > ] För alex gross > Skickat: den 20 februari 2011 23:28 > Till: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Ämne: [FUNKNET] "Being bilingual may delay Alzheimer's and boost > brain power..." > > Here's some pleasant news from The Guardian, at least for those of > us fortunate enough to be bi- or multi-lingual...assuming it doesn't > get contradicted by another set of texts next month... > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/feb/18/bilingual-alzheimers-brain-power-multitasking > > All the best to everyone! > > alex > Lise Menn Home Office: 303-444-4274 1625 Mariposa Ave Fax: 303-413-0017 Boulder CO 80302 http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/index.html Professor Emerita of Linguistics Fellow, Institute of Cognitive Science University of Colorado Secretary, AAAS Section Z [Linguistics] Fellow, Linguistic Society of America Campus Mail Address: UCB 594, Institute for Cognitive Science Campus Physical Address: CINC 234 1777 Exposition Ave, Boulder From tgivon at uoregon.edu Tue Feb 22 23:51:43 2011 From: tgivon at uoregon.edu (Tom Givon) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2011 16:51:43 -0700 Subject: "Being bilingual may delay Alzheimer's and boost brain power..." In-Reply-To: <59B1D596-3541-4A52-A37D-81473564AE81@colorado.edu> Message-ID: Thanks, Lise. Still, there was only an abstract there, and it does not answer Osten's very apt question: Are all types & degrees of bilingualism equally effective as to the reported effect? I think of most interest, from my perspective, is this question: Is there a difference here between early (childhood) SLA vs. late (post-pubert) SLA? I keep going back to the studies by my colleague Helen Neville & her cohorts (early 1990s), showing a strong neurological difference between the two types of (fluent) bilingualism. My interpretation of her findings is that fluent late bilinguals work their (covert) R-cortex attentional system much harder to achieve their fluency, presumable to compensate for a much lower activation of the L-cortex IFG. If I could venture a guess, the subjects of the Canadian report were all immigrants & late-bilinguals. If true, this could mean that accelerated attentional work rather than bilingualism per se is behind the phenomenon. Apropos, it would be nice to do some comparison between high-performance musicians vs. non-musicians. My guess would be that musicians who are good at running several melody lines (voices) simultaneously (say conductors? Pianists? Singers-guitarists? Singers-pianists? Good double-string fiddlers?) probably have accelerated attentional activation too. And assuming that music is just another language (to some of us this is sorta obvious), could fluent musicians be studied as another bilingual sample? Cheers, TG ============== On 2/22/2011 3:34 PM, Lise Menn wrote: > go look at the original publication - the link is posted, in the > Guardian article, and here it is, also: > http://www.neurology.org/content/75/19/1726.abstract?sid=63045016-6a3b-4c35-86d2-ea93215d4fde > > Lise > > On Feb 22, 2011, at 3:08 PM, Östen Dahl wrote: > >> So what does "bilingual" mean in this context? It seems to me that it >> is being used in a rather vague way, possibly conflating quite >> different situations. Is a bilingual person someone who has grown up >> speaking more than one language, or is it anyone who has some >> knowledge of a second language? And it is using the second language, >> or knowing it, that is crucial? -- Having to speak a non-native >> language daily may be like solving cross-words, which is supposed to >> be good for keeping your cognitive abilities intact. But if you know >> the language from an early age, it might not take any special effort >> to speak it, and thus there may be no positive effect. So >> generalizing about "bilingual people" would be rather misleading. But >> maybe there are other things going on. >> - östen >> >> >> -----Ursprungligt meddelande----- >> Från: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu >> [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] För alex gross >> Skickat: den 20 februari 2011 23:28 >> Till: funknet at mailman.rice.edu >> Ämne: [FUNKNET] "Being bilingual may delay Alzheimer's and boost >> brain power..." >> >> Here's some pleasant news from The Guardian, at least for those of us >> fortunate enough to be bi- or multi-lingual...assuming it doesn't get >> contradicted by another set of texts next month... >> >> http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/feb/18/bilingual-alzheimers-brain-power-multitasking >> >> >> All the best to everyone! >> >> alex >> > > Lise Menn Home Office: 303-444-4274 > 1625 Mariposa Ave Fax: 303-413-0017 > Boulder CO 80302 > http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/index.html > > Professor Emerita of Linguistics > Fellow, Institute of Cognitive Science > University of Colorado > > Secretary, AAAS Section Z [Linguistics] > Fellow, Linguistic Society of America > > Campus Mail Address: > UCB 594, Institute for Cognitive Science > > Campus Physical Address: > CINC 234 > 1777 Exposition Ave, Boulder > > > > From vanvalin at buffalo.edu Wed Feb 23 08:43:04 2011 From: vanvalin at buffalo.edu (Robert Van Valin Jr) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 09:43:04 +0100 Subject: 2011 Role and Reference Grammar Conference--Second call Message-ID: The biannual International Course and Conference on Role and Reference Grammar (RRG) “Functional Linguistics: Grammar, Communication & Cognition” will be hosted by the Facultad de Letras, at the Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, in Santiago de Chile, August 11th – 13th, 2011. The international Conference will be preceded by two-day workshops: an introductory course and a workshop in Computational Linguistics based on the FunGramKB framework. The Conference will stage papers and plenary sessions. Our keynote speakers will be Robert D. Van Valin, Jr. (Heinrich-Heine-University Düsseldorf), Francisco Cortés Rodríguez (Universidad de La Laguna) and Rolf Kailuweit (Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg). The 2011 Conference will deal with issues in Functional Linguistics in all its pertinent topics. Papers dealing with further elaboration of RRG in areas like morphology, syntax, semantics, information structure, as well as language processing are encouraged. Abstracts must be received electronically by March 15th, 2011 at 2011RRG at gmail.com. Abstracts should be no longer than two pages, including data and references, and must be submitted as Word documents (a PDF version is also required if special characters are included). The abstracts should be anonymous. The email message must include the following information: author’s name, affiliation, email address, and title of the abstract. There is a limit of one single-authored presentation and one co-authored presentation per participant. The selection of papers for presentation will be communicated by May 1st, 2011. The talks will last twenty minutes, followed by another ten minutes for discussion. For further information, please check our website: http://rrg2011.weebly.com From kobin at umail.ucsb.edu Wed Feb 23 12:03:23 2011 From: kobin at umail.ucsb.edu (Kobin Kendrick) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 13:03:23 +0100 Subject: Postdoctoral Research Positions at MPI for Psycholinguistics Message-ID: Postdoctoral Research Positions: Interactional Foundations of Language In connection with the ERC Advanced Grant to Stephen Levinson, three postdoctoral staff positions are expected to be available from June 1st2011, in the general field of the study of human communication interaction. The research will have two foci: (i) interactional timing and synchronization, and (ii) the process of action and speech act recognition. We are now looking for researchers who can address either or both of these foci from at least one of the following methodologies: (a) interactional analysis of a non-IndoEuropean language (or any sign language) using corpus methods and statistics (b) developmental studies of interaction with pre-linguistic infants and/or children to the age of seven using experimental techniques (c) studies of online processing during interactive language use with e.g. EEG or eye-tracking The positions will be for one or two years in the first instance, renewable for up to five years. Pure research positions, with access to all the requisite lab facilities (cognitive neuroimaging, reaction time, baby-lab, etc.), they offer excellent opportunities to learn new techniques and build a vita. The Max Planck Society is an equal opportunity employer. The business of the institute is conducted in English and candidates should have excellent written and spoken command of this language. Applicants are advised to explore the MPI for Psycholinguistics website (e.g. http://www.mpi.nl/research/research-projects/interactional-foundations-of-language), http://www.mpi.nl/news/levinson-awarded-prestigious-erc-advance-grant ). Applications should include a vita, a clear statement of personal research goals, a description of special research skills, attached sample publications, and the names of three referees. Applications will be considered on an on-going basis until the positions are filled. Please send applications (in English) electronically to: Edith Sjoerdsma (secretary to Prof. S.C. Levinson ) e-mail: Edith.Sjoerdsma at mpi.nl From lise.menn at Colorado.EDU Thu Feb 24 02:33:34 2011 From: lise.menn at Colorado.EDU (Lise Menn) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 19:33:34 -0700 Subject: "Being bilingual may delay Alzheimer's and boost brain power..." In-Reply-To: <4D644C0F.2010508@uoregon.edu> Message-ID: Interesting ideas, but assembling the data is a huge job. BTW, if you follow the link to the Neurology abstract, you can find a link to the pdf of the full article for download. Lise On Feb 22, 2011, at 4:51 PM, Tom Givon wrote: > > > Thanks, Lise. Still, there was only an abstract there, and it does > not answer Osten's very apt question: Are all types & degrees of > bilingualism equally effective as to the reported effect? I think > of most interest, from my perspective, is this question: Is there a > difference here between early (childhood) SLA vs. late (post-pubert) > SLA? I keep going back to the studies by my colleague Helen Neville > & her cohorts (early 1990s), showing a strong neurological > difference between the two types of (fluent) bilingualism. My > interpretation of her findings is that fluent late bilinguals work > their (covert) R-cortex attentional system much harder to achieve > their fluency, presumable to compensate for a much lower activation > of the L-cortex IFG. If I could venture a guess, the subjects of the > Canadian report were all immigrants & late-bilinguals. If true, this > could mean that accelerated attentional work rather than > bilingualism per se is behind the phenomenon. > > Apropos, it would be nice to do some comparison between high- > performance musicians vs. non-musicians. My guess would be that > musicians who are good at running several melody lines (voices) > simultaneously (say conductors? Pianists? Singers-guitarists? > Singers-pianists? Good double-string fiddlers?) probably have > accelerated attentional activation too. And assuming that music is > just another language (to some of us this is sorta obvious), could > fluent musicians be studied as another bilingual sample? > > Cheers, TG > > ============== > > > On 2/22/2011 3:34 PM, Lise Menn wrote: >> go look at the original publication - the link is posted, in the >> Guardian article, and here it is, also: >> http://www.neurology.org/content/75/19/1726.abstract?sid=63045016-6a3b-4c35-86d2-ea93215d4fde >> Lise >> >> On Feb 22, 2011, at 3:08 PM, Östen Dahl wrote: >> >>> So what does "bilingual" mean in this context? It seems to me that >>> it is being used in a rather vague way, possibly conflating quite >>> different situations. Is a bilingual person someone who has grown >>> up speaking more than one language, or is it anyone who has some >>> knowledge of a second language? And it is using the second >>> language, or knowing it, that is crucial? -- Having to speak a non- >>> native language daily may be like solving cross-words, which is >>> supposed to be good for keeping your cognitive abilities intact. >>> But if you know the language from an early age, it might not take >>> any special effort to speak it, and thus there may be no positive >>> effect. So generalizing about "bilingual people" would be rather >>> misleading. But maybe there are other things going on. >>> - östen >>> >>> >>> -----Ursprungligt meddelande----- >>> Från: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu >>> ] För alex gross >>> Skickat: den 20 februari 2011 23:28 >>> Till: funknet at mailman.rice.edu >>> Ämne: [FUNKNET] "Being bilingual may delay Alzheimer's and boost >>> brain power..." >>> >>> Here's some pleasant news from The Guardian, at least for those of >>> us fortunate enough to be bi- or multi-lingual...assuming it >>> doesn't get contradicted by another set of texts next month... >>> >>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/feb/18/bilingual-alzheimers-brain-power-multitasking >>> >>> All the best to everyone! >>> >>> alex >>> >> >> Lise Menn Home Office: 303-444-4274 >> 1625 Mariposa Ave Fax: 303-413-0017 >> Boulder CO 80302 >> http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/index.html >> >> Professor Emerita of Linguistics >> Fellow, Institute of Cognitive Science >> University of Colorado >> >> Secretary, AAAS Section Z [Linguistics] >> Fellow, Linguistic Society of America >> >> Campus Mail Address: >> UCB 594, Institute for Cognitive Science >> >> Campus Physical Address: >> CINC 234 >> 1777 Exposition Ave, Boulder >> >> >> >> > Lise Menn Home Office: 303-444-4274 1625 Mariposa Ave Fax: 303-413-0017 Boulder CO 80302 http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/index.html Professor Emerita of Linguistics Fellow, Institute of Cognitive Science University of Colorado Secretary, AAAS Section Z [Linguistics] Fellow, Linguistic Society of America Campus Mail Address: UCB 594, Institute for Cognitive Science Campus Physical Address: CINC 234 1777 Exposition Ave, Boulder From sclancy at uchicago.edu Thu Feb 24 17:11:55 2011 From: sclancy at uchicago.edu (Steven Clancy) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 11:11:55 -0600 Subject: 2nd CFP: EMCL-5.2 - Chicago Message-ID: The Center for the Study of Languages at the University of Chicago together with The Center for East European and Russian/Eurasian Studies (CEERES) and The Center for Latin American Studies (CLAS) present Empirical Methods in Cognitive Linguistics 5.2 (EMCL-5.2) — Chicago The Integration of Corpus and Experimental Methods 13 – 18 June 2011 http://languages.uchicago.edu/emcl5-2 Call for Participation We invite applications to the next workshop on Empirical Methods in Cognitive Linguistics – EMCL 5.2 – to be held at the University of Chicago (Chicago, IL), 13 – 18 June 2011. The EMCL workshop series aims to encourage dialogue between language researchers who routinely employ different methodologies. This dialogue is initiated within an environment where novices and specialists combine their skills to develop a research project together. For EMCL 5.2, we will focus on the integration of corpus and experimental methods in language research. Intended audience: Early career language researchers (i.e., graduate students, postdocs, junior faculty, etc.) grounded in theoretical issues surrounding cognitive linguistics, cognitive science, embodiment, and/or situated cognition. No prior training with corpus or experimental methods is necessary. Format: Selected students (maximum 8 per group, for a total of 24) will be invited to join one of the 3 hands-on mini-labs at the workshop. Each group will be led by two researchers who will work cooperatively – one specializing in corpus methods, and one in experimental methods. As a group, each mini-lab will walk through the process of deciding on a research question; developing empirically testable hypotheses and designing the means to test those hypotheses; collecting, analyzing, and interpreting the data; and presenting their findings before an audience. The workshop will end with a mini-conference in which each group will have the opportunity to present their study and participate in a general discussion. Workshop faculty: Group 1: Michele Feist University of Louisiana at Lafayette Research interests: lexical semantics; spatial and motion language; acquisition of semantics; linguistic typology; language and thought www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~mif8232 Steven Clancy University of Chicago Research interests: cognitive linguistics; case semantics and verbal semantics; grammaticalization; historical linguistics; quantitative methods and corpus methods home.uchicago.edu/~sclancy Group 2: Dagmar Divjak University of Sheffield Research interests: lexical semantics, usage-based cognitive linguistics, the role of frequency, corpus methods, grammar-lexis interface, near-synonyms, aspect and modality, language acquisition www.sheffield.ac.uk/russian/staff/profiles/divjakd.html Ben Bergen University of California San Diego Research interests: lexical and constructional meaning processing; figurative language comprehension; embodiment in models of language use www.cogsci.ucsd.edu/~bkbergen Group 3: Laura Carlson University of Notre Dame Research interests: spatial language; spatial reference frames; how we remember and use landmarks; why we get lost www.nd.edu/~lcarlson Mark Davies Brigham Young University Research interests: corpus design, creation, and use; historical change (especially syntax); genre-based variation (especially syntax), frequency and collocational data; English, Spanish, and Portuguese http://davies-linguistics.byu.edu/ Accommodations Accommodations are available within easy walking distance of the university; prices range from $60+ per night for a single, or $80+ per night for a double. Further information will be given to accepted participants after notification of acceptance to the workshop. Participation fee: $300.00 Fees will cover the costs of organization and faculty travel and accommodations and will also cover most meals for participants during the workshop. Application To apply, please send the following: 1. A letter of application, maximum of two pages, describing a. Your background and research interests b. Your reasons for wanting to participate in EMCL 5.2 c. The research group you would like to work in and why 2. A copy of your curriculum vitae. Please submit all materials electronically to emcl5.2.chicago at gmail.com. The application deadline is 15 March 2011. Accepted applicants will be notified on or before 1 May 2011. **Please note: Participation is strictly limited to accepted applicants so as to preserve the pedagogical integrity of the workshop atmosphere. * * * We thank the following organizations for their generous support of EMCL 5.2 The Center for the Study of Languages The Center for East European and Russian/Eurasian Studies (CEERES) The Center for Latin American Studies (CLAS) -- EMCL 5.2 Organizing Committee: Michele I. Feist, University of Louisiana at Lafayette Steven Clancy, University of Chicago From language at sprynet.com Thu Feb 24 18:03:25 2011 From: language at sprynet.com (alex gross) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 13:03:25 -0500 Subject: "Being bilingual may delay Alzheimer's and boost brain power..." Message-ID: Sorry for the delay in getting back to you, Lise, I've been busy welcoming my great half-nephew (who like many in the family is tri-lingual) during his visit from England. I believe you and your colleagues deserve to be congratulated for your hard work in demonstrating the link between bilingualism and AD, and I don't think you should take reservations voiced by others here too seriously. Tom, it's quite obvious to anyone familiar with this field that my neighbor who runs the fruit stand down the street & speaks Arabic, Spanish, & English for business purposes isn't quite in the same category as people who are truly challenged to reflect on complex realities in language A and then try to express them in language B. Though even his brain might be just a bit more stimulated than that of mere monoglots... The various categories of bilinguals were long ago pretty well delineated by Francois Grosjean in his 1982 "Life with Two Languages: An Introduction to Bilingualism" (Harvard U. Press) and no doubt by other works since then, and I don't quite see the point of bringing these categories up again simply to cast doubt on Lise's study. I was nonetheless quite happy to find your reference to "The Memory Palace of Matteo Ricci," a book that meant a great deal to me when I first read it during my Chinese period in the mid Eighties (& when I also heard Spence lecture). It describes some remarkable instances of Ricci's culture blindness, for instance (based on memory...) Ricci's certainty when he showed the Chinese his painted, naturalistic, blood-dripping wooden crucifix that he was clearly demonstrating to them the true glory of Christ, though the Chinese merely interpreted it as evidence that he must be a devil worshipper. Or the conclusion they reached, after Ricci ranted on and on about the sheer & total oneness of god, that he could only be some kind of Muslim. Such instances of culture blindness are almost as blatant as those regularly displayed by some mainstream linguists. I also don't think that the people whom I most respect as genuine professional linguists--my old translator friends at the UN--would find much to doubt in the study by Lise and her colleagues. I further believe there's a great deal to celebrate in Lise's study, since it links language and linguistics with medical studies and with at least some standards of scientific proof, something linguistics today severely lacks. I mentioned a few months ago that instead of harping on the limitations of so-called mainstream linguistics (an easy task), I would try this year to present some positive beginnings for a new study of language. So let me start now--even if it may take a bit of time to put it all together (though nowhere near so long as the mainstreamers have taken to come up with almost nothing). One reason I am highly impressed with Lise's study (and also why I was happy to learn that Anne Marie is a speech therapist) is that I have become ever more certain over the years that the real center of language study lies not in grammar at all but in language physiology and the sheer physicality of language. This is a point I already started making in several of my papers and articles during the Nineties, and I want to stress it even more forcefully now. Based on what I believe can be easily demonstrated as the true center of language, I will even go so far as to insist that all of those who have held up grammar as the definitive guide and centering point for language--from Panini and his commentators, to Dionysos Thrax, to Ibn Abi Ishaq, to Varro and Priscian, to the Modistae and the Port Royal School, to the German Junggrammatiker, to the Saussureans, and finally even to the unfortunate Chomskians--that all of them have been demonstrably mistaken. There was of course a very good reason why these doubtless worthy scholars all centered in on grammar. It sounded so dry and clean, so abstract and intellectual, it gave the illusion of being a major organizing principle, it held out the promise that something truly important had been discovered. Which of course added to the pride and self-esteem of the scholars who detected it. It little mattered that each discoverer in each culture had usually confronted a very different grammar, since it was then just one quick leap into the even more fascinating--but quite untenable--belief that all grammars in all languages everywhere must be remarkably similar. Or if they failed to be similar, then they were obviously deviant and inferior grammars, and those who employed them were deviant and inferior peoples. But language is only incidentally dry and clean or abstract and intellectual. It springs from the very wellspring of life itself, language belongs in the same class as those three moist, messy, and clammy life concoctions that so many people most fear and least want to talk about. We all know what those three are: birth, sex, and death--and language is definitely the fourth among them. And that is why laymen and scholars alike have so desperately sought out clean, dry, and abstract formulations about them. I have discussed these moist, clammy origins of language in several published and/or presented papers and articles, how language most probably evolved from the scent markings and spray markings of more primitive animals & turned into sound markings, how it is related to chemical excrescences of unicellular organisms or the territorial sprayings of mammals and other animals. URLS for two of those publications are found towards the end. Language is the fourth of those three wells of moistness, and its physiological locus is not installed in some never-never "language organ" but of course right inside our nervous and muscular systems. It exists primarily as a network for self-preservation and self-defense and a means of distinguishing family from strangers, friends from foes, clan members from outsiders. And it plays this role even in the highest echelons of our societies, including scientists and scholars. It is not sufficiently recognized that learning to speak a language requires not merely learning grammar, vocabulary, idioms, and cultural usages, it also urgently demands that we embed all of these into the network of our nerves and muscles if we are ever truly to speak any language, including our own. As such, learning a language is more similar to learning how to box or play tennis or throw and catch a ball than it is to memorizing a series of dates or names or sales figures or drawing creative diagrams to show how grammar supposedly works. This is where Rosetta Stone falls down when it supposes that if you want to know the time, asking "?Que hora es?" or "Che ore sono" in Spanish or Italian will necessarily help you to understand the answer, which might be not the expected one at all but "My wife borrowed the good watch, and this one doesn't work." And this is also where our academic linguists fall down just as badly when they suppose that language inevitably follows structured, innate principles. We must not only pronounce our questions correctly in a foreign language, we must fully understand the answer and be ready with a follow-up question or comment. This requires not only good hearing and nerve endings but well-timed muscular coordination. The muscles employed are far smaller than those we use in boxing or tennis, but their use and timing must be exquisitely sensitive. Language can perhaps best be seen from a variety of perspectives: as a protective covering that envelops all of us in varying degrees according to our age, our accomplishments, and our place in society. Or as a series of parries and thrusts in an extended fencing match. Or as a set of evasions and strikes in ninjutsu. Or as a set of probes aimed at determining proper bounds, also requiring proper advances or retreats. And all of these comparisons are by no means limited to advanced or "witty" stages of repartee--they are just as common among five-year olds moving from one parent to another to gain advantage. I can go a great deal further along the lines I have laid out here and with your permission hope to do so later on. I am simply afraid that what I have said so far is perhaps already more than strange enough for some of you, and that you might be tempted to react with brief, contemptuous putdowns or at best the usual sort of semi-learned obscurantism that appears here more often than it should. Or to question or ridicule my supposed academic achievements, as one of you did a few years ago. If any of this is your intent, may I ask you, if you possibly can, to please refrain. This would be especially true for grad students, who might be tempted to earn brownie points from their advisors by launching a mega-attack against ideas contrary to what they have been taught. In any case, after fifty years of failed mentalism, it's scarcely surprising that we would find resistance to a combined body-mind approach to language. Those of you who have bothered to visit my website ought to have discovered by now that my publications include not only contributions to linguistics, including invited & peer-reviewed papers in our field, but also in translation studies and MT, in Chinese medicine, in endocrinology, in sexual education, and in Elizabethan, Ancient Greek, and modern German theatre. My more informal articles and reviews delve even more deeply in all these fields. >>From this perspective, I sometimes find myself both shocked and disturbed by the narrowness of education displayed by a few who contribute to this group, along with the doctrinal and dogmatic points of view such narrowness encourages. I truly hope there can be room here for a broader perspective on language. With only the very best to all of you! alex URLS for my language-spray pieces: http://language.home.sprynet.com/lingdex/ariadne.htm#totop http://languag2.home.sprynet.com/f/evidence.htm#top ************************************************************** The principal purpose of language is not communication but to persuade ourselves that we know what we are talking about, when quite often we do not. ************************************************************** From lise.menn at Colorado.EDU Thu Feb 24 19:22:39 2011 From: lise.menn at Colorado.EDU (Lise Menn) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 12:22:39 -0700 Subject: "Being bilingual may delay Alzheimer's and boost brain power..." In-Reply-To: <05BFE4D971B2421DBC9FD9AE6D42C346@aa82807a474cf4> Message-ID: whoo, wait, Alex - it's NOT my study - though I wish it were! This and the related papers come from the symposium organized by Judith Kroll, and the particular study on AD is by Ellen Bialystok and colleagues! Lise On Feb 24, 2011, at 11:03 AM, alex gross wrote: > Sorry for the delay in getting back to you, Lise, I've been busy > welcoming my great half-nephew (who like many in the family is tri- > lingual) during his visit from England. > > I believe you and your colleagues deserve to be congratulated for > your hard work in demonstrating the link between bilingualism and > AD, and I don't think you should take reservations voiced by others > here too seriously. Tom, it's quite obvious to anyone familiar with > this field that my neighbor who runs the fruit stand down the street > & speaks Arabic, Spanish, & English for business purposes isn't > quite in the same category as people who are truly challenged to > reflect on complex realities in language A and then try to express > them in language B. Though even his brain might be just a bit more > stimulated than that of mere monoglots... > > The various categories of bilinguals were long ago pretty well > delineated by Francois Grosjean in his 1982 "Life with Two > Languages: An Introduction to Bilingualism" (Harvard U. Press) and > no doubt by other works since then, and I don't quite see the point > of bringing these categories up again simply to cast doubt on Lise's > study. > > I was nonetheless quite happy to find your reference to "The Memory > Palace of Matteo Ricci," a book that meant a great deal to me when I > first read it during my Chinese period in the mid Eighties (& when I > also heard Spence lecture). It describes some remarkable instances > of Ricci's culture blindness, for instance (based on memory...) > Ricci's certainty when he showed the Chinese his painted, > naturalistic, blood-dripping wooden crucifix that he was clearly > demonstrating to them the true glory of Christ, though the Chinese > merely interpreted it as evidence that he must be a devil > worshipper. Or the conclusion they reached, after Ricci ranted on > and on about the sheer & total oneness of god, that he could only be > some kind of Muslim. Such instances of culture blindness are almost > as blatant as those regularly displayed by some mainstream linguists. > > I also don't think that the people whom I most respect as genuine > professional linguists--my old translator friends at the UN--would > find much to doubt in the study by Lise and her colleagues. > > I further believe there's a great deal to celebrate in Lise's > study, since it links language and linguistics with medical studies > and with at least some standards of scientific proof, something > linguistics today severely lacks. > > I mentioned a few months ago that instead of harping on the > limitations of so-called mainstream linguistics (an easy task), I > would try this year to present some positive beginnings for a new > study of language. So let me start now--even if it may take a bit > of time to put it all together (though nowhere near so long as the > mainstreamers have taken to come up with almost nothing). > > One reason I am highly impressed with Lise's study (and also why I > was happy to learn that Anne Marie is a speech therapist) is that I > have become ever more certain over the years that the real center of > language study lies not in grammar at all but in language physiology > and the sheer physicality of language. This is a point I already > started making in several of my papers and articles during the > Nineties, and I want to stress it even more forcefully now. > > Based on what I believe can be easily demonstrated as the true > center of language, I will even go so far as to insist that all of > those who have held up grammar as the definitive guide and centering > point for language--from Panini and his commentators, to Dionysos > Thrax, to Ibn Abi Ishaq, to Varro and Priscian, to the Modistae and > the Port Royal School, to the German Junggrammatiker, to the > Saussureans, and finally even to the unfortunate Chomskians--that > all of them have been demonstrably mistaken. > > There was of course a very good reason why these doubtless worthy > scholars all centered in on grammar. It sounded so dry and clean, so > abstract and intellectual, it gave the illusion of being a major > organizing principle, it held out the promise that something truly > important had been discovered. Which of course added to the pride > and self-esteem of the scholars who detected it. It little mattered > that each discoverer in each culture had usually confronted a very > different grammar, since it was then just one quick leap into the > even more fascinating--but quite untenable--belief that all grammars > in all languages everywhere must be remarkably similar. Or if they > failed to be similar, then they were obviously deviant and inferior > grammars, and those who employed them were deviant and inferior > peoples. > > But language is only incidentally dry and clean or abstract and > intellectual. It springs from the very wellspring of life itself, > language belongs in the same class as those three moist, messy, and > clammy life concoctions that so many people most fear and least want > to talk about. > > We all know what those three are: birth, sex, and death--and > language is definitely the fourth among them. And that is why > laymen and scholars alike have so desperately sought out clean, dry, > and abstract formulations about them. > > I have discussed these moist, clammy origins of language in several > published and/or presented papers and articles, how language most > probably evolved from the scent markings and spray markings of more > primitive animals & turned into sound markings, how it is related to > chemical excrescences of unicellular organisms or the territorial > sprayings of mammals and other animals. URLS for two of those > publications are found towards the end. > > Language is the fourth of those three wells of moistness, and its > physiological locus is not installed in some never-never "language > organ" but of course right inside our nervous and muscular systems. > It exists primarily as a network for self-preservation and self- > defense and a means of distinguishing family from strangers, friends > from foes, clan members from outsiders. And it plays this role even > in the highest echelons of our societies, including scientists and > scholars. > > It is not sufficiently recognized that learning to speak a language > requires not merely learning grammar, vocabulary, idioms, and > cultural usages, it also urgently demands that we embed all of these > into the network of our nerves and muscles if we are ever truly to > speak any language, including our own. As such, learning a language > is more similar to learning how to box or play tennis or throw and > catch a ball than it is to memorizing a series of dates or names or > sales figures or drawing creative diagrams to show how grammar > supposedly works. > > This is where Rosetta Stone falls down when it supposes that if you > want to know the time, asking "?Que hora es?" or "Che ore sono" in > Spanish or Italian will necessarily help you to understand the > answer, which might be not the expected one at all but "My wife > borrowed the good watch, and this one doesn't work." And this is > also where our academic linguists fall down just as badly when they > suppose that language inevitably follows structured, innate > principles. > > We must not only pronounce our questions correctly in a foreign > language, we must fully understand the answer and be ready with a > follow-up question or comment. This requires not only good hearing > and nerve endings but well-timed muscular coordination. The muscles > employed are far smaller than those we use in boxing or tennis, but > their use and timing must be exquisitely sensitive. > > Language can perhaps best be seen from a variety of perspectives: as > a protective covering that envelops all of us in varying degrees > according to our age, our accomplishments, and our place in > society. Or as a series of parries and thrusts in an extended > fencing match. Or as a set of evasions and strikes in ninjutsu. > Or as a set of probes aimed at determining proper bounds, also > requiring proper advances or retreats. And all of these comparisons > are by no means limited to advanced or "witty" stages of repartee-- > they are just as common among five-year olds moving from one parent > to another to gain advantage. > > I can go a great deal further along the lines I have laid out here > and with your permission hope to do so later on. I am simply afraid > that what I have said so far is perhaps already more than strange > enough for some of you, and that you might be tempted to react with > brief, contemptuous putdowns or at best the usual sort of semi- > learned obscurantism that appears here more often than it should. > Or to question or ridicule my supposed academic achievements, as one > of you did a few years ago. > > If any of this is your intent, may I ask you, if you possibly can, > to please refrain. This would be especially true for grad students, > who might be tempted to earn brownie points from their advisors by > launching a mega-attack against ideas contrary to what they have > been taught. In any case, after fifty years of failed mentalism, > it's scarcely surprising that we would find resistance to a combined > body-mind approach to language. > > Those of you who have bothered to visit my website ought to have > discovered by now that my publications include not only > contributions to linguistics, including invited & peer-reviewed > papers in our field, but also in translation studies and MT, in > Chinese medicine, in endocrinology, in sexual education, and in > Elizabethan, Ancient Greek, and modern German theatre. My more > informal articles and reviews delve even more deeply in all these > fields. > >> From this perspective, I sometimes find myself both shocked and >> disturbed by > the narrowness of education displayed by a few who contribute to > this group, along with the doctrinal and dogmatic points of view > such narrowness encourages. I truly hope there can be room here for > a broader perspective on language. > > With only the very best to all of you! > > alex > > URLS for my language-spray pieces: > > http://language.home.sprynet.com/lingdex/ariadne.htm#totop > > http://languag2.home.sprynet.com/f/evidence.htm#top > > ************************************************************** > The principal purpose of language is not communication but to > persuade ourselves > that we know what we are talking about, when quite often we do not. > > ************************************************************** Lise Menn Home Office: 303-444-4274 1625 Mariposa Ave Fax: 303-413-0017 Boulder CO 80302 home page: http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/ Professor Emerita of Linguistics Fellow, Institute of Cognitive Science University of Colorado Secretary, AAAS Section Z [Linguistics] Fellow, Linguistic Society of America Campus Mail Address: UCB 594, Institute for Cognitive Science Campus Physical Address: CINC 234 1777 Exposition Ave, Boulder From grvsmth at panix.com Thu Feb 24 19:42:43 2011 From: grvsmth at panix.com (Angus B. Grieve-Smith) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 14:42:43 -0500 Subject: "Being bilingual may delay Alzheimer's and boost brain power..." In-Reply-To: <05BFE4D971B2421DBC9FD9AE6D42C346@aa82807a474cf4> Message-ID: On Thu, February 24, 2011 1:03 pm, alex gross wrote: > One reason I am highly impressed with Lise's study (and also why I was > happy to learn that Anne Marie is a speech therapist) is that I have become > ever more certain over the years that the real center of language study lies > not in grammar at all but in language physiology and the sheer physicality of > language. Shouldn't it be up to individual scholars what the real center of their studies is? I didn't like it when Chomsky told me that grammar was the real center, and I don't like it when you tell me that physiology is the real center. I don't see any evidence that there's an objective center to language study independent of our perspectives. To paraphrase Bertrand Russell (and include one of Chomsky's favorite insults): my subfield is the real center of language, yours is peripheral, and hers is uninteresting. For me personally, I'm not even sure that language study has a center; maybe it's polycentric. -- -Angus B. Grieve-Smith Saint John's University grvsmth at panix.com From language at sprynet.com Thu Feb 24 20:11:32 2011 From: language at sprynet.com (alex gross) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 15:11:32 -0500 Subject: "Being bilingual may delay Alzheimer's and boost brain power..." Message-ID: Actually, I agree with you, Angus, in fact extremely well put. But I also agree with what I have written. Let's say that maybe it's time to look a good deal more closely at a perspective that has been largely ignored, and for the reasons which I have suggested. Very best! alex ----- Original Message ----- From: "Angus B. Grieve-Smith" To: "Funknet" Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2011 2:42 PM Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] "Being bilingual may delay Alzheimer's and boost brain power..." > On Thu, February 24, 2011 1:03 pm, alex gross wrote: > >> One reason I am highly impressed with Lise's study (and also why I was >> happy to learn that Anne Marie is a speech therapist) is that I have > become > ever more certain over the years that the real center of > language study lies >> not in grammar at all but in language physiology and the sheer > physicality of >> language. > > Shouldn't it be up to individual scholars what the real center of their > studies is? I didn't like it when Chomsky told me that grammar was the > real center, and I don't like it when you tell me that physiology is the > real center. I don't see any evidence that there's an objective center to > language study independent of our perspectives. > > To paraphrase Bertrand Russell (and include one of Chomsky's favorite > insults): my subfield is the real center of language, yours is peripheral, > and hers is uninteresting. > > For me personally, I'm not even sure that language study has a center; > maybe it's polycentric. > > -- > -Angus B. Grieve-Smith > Saint John's University > grvsmth at panix.com > > > From language at sprynet.com Thu Feb 24 20:14:58 2011 From: language at sprynet.com (alex gross) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 15:14:58 -0500 Subject: "Being bilingual may delay Alzheimer's and boost brain power..." Message-ID: Yes, of course, Lise! I said "you and your colleagues" the first time around, but it just gets a bit prolix to repeat it every time. Maybe Hungarian has a solution for this, as I understand it has a solution for continually having to repeat "each other" in some English usages. All the best! alex ----- Original Message ----- From: Lise Menn To: alex gross Cc: Funknet ; chomsky at mit.edu ; Frederick J Newmeyer Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2011 2:22 PM Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] "Being bilingual may delay Alzheimer's and boost brain power..." whoo, wait, Alex - it's NOT my study - though I wish it were! This and the related papers come from the symposium organized by Judith Kroll, and the particular study on AD is by Ellen Bialystok and colleagues! Lise On Feb 24, 2011, at 11:03 AM, alex gross wrote: Sorry for the delay in getting back to you, Lise, I've been busy welcoming my great half-nephew (who like many in the family is tri-lingual) during his visit from England. I believe you and your colleagues deserve to be congratulated for your hard work in demonstrating the link between bilingualism and AD, and I don't think you should take reservations voiced by others here too seriously. Tom, it's quite obvious to anyone familiar with this field that my neighbor who runs the fruit stand down the street & speaks Arabic, Spanish, & English for business purposes isn't quite in the same category as people who are truly challenged to reflect on complex realities in language A and then try to express them in language B. Though even his brain might be just a bit more stimulated than that of mere monoglots... The various categories of bilinguals were long ago pretty well delineated by Francois Grosjean in his 1982 "Life with Two Languages: An Introduction to Bilingualism" (Harvard U. Press) and no doubt by other works since then, and I don't quite see the point of bringing these categories up again simply to cast doubt on Lise's study. I was nonetheless quite happy to find your reference to "The Memory Palace of Matteo Ricci," a book that meant a great deal to me when I first read it during my Chinese period in the mid Eighties (& when I also heard Spence lecture). It describes some remarkable instances of Ricci's culture blindness, for instance (based on memory...) Ricci's certainty when he showed the Chinese his painted, naturalistic, blood-dripping wooden crucifix that he was clearly demonstrating to them the true glory of Christ, though the Chinese merely interpreted it as evidence that he must be a devil worshipper. Or the conclusion they reached, after Ricci ranted on and on about the sheer & total oneness of god, that he could only be some kind of Muslim. Such instances of culture blindness are almost as blatant as those regularly displayed by some mainstream linguists. I also don't think that the people whom I most respect as genuine professional linguists--my old translator friends at the UN--would find much to doubt in the study by Lise and her colleagues. I further believe there's a great deal to celebrate in Lise's study, since it links language and linguistics with medical studies and with at least some standards of scientific proof, something linguistics today severely lacks. I mentioned a few months ago that instead of harping on the limitations of so-called mainstream linguistics (an easy task), I would try this year to present some positive beginnings for a new study of language. So let me start now--even if it may take a bit of time to put it all together (though nowhere near so long as the mainstreamers have taken to come up with almost nothing). One reason I am highly impressed with Lise's study (and also why I was happy to learn that Anne Marie is a speech therapist) is that I have become ever more certain over the years that the real center of language study lies not in grammar at all but in language physiology and the sheer physicality of language. This is a point I already started making in several of my papers and articles during the Nineties, and I want to stress it even more forcefully now. Based on what I believe can be easily demonstrated as the true center of language, I will even go so far as to insist that all of those who have held up grammar as the definitive guide and centering point for language--from Panini and his commentators, to Dionysos Thrax, to Ibn Abi Ishaq, to Varro and Priscian, to the Modistae and the Port Royal School, to the German Junggrammatiker, to the Saussureans, and finally even to the unfortunate Chomskians--that all of them have been demonstrably mistaken. There was of course a very good reason why these doubtless worthy scholars all centered in on grammar. It sounded so dry and clean, so abstract and intellectual, it gave the illusion of being a major organizing principle, it held out the promise that something truly important had been discovered. Which of course added to the pride and self-esteem of the scholars who detected it. It little mattered that each discoverer in each culture had usually confronted a very different grammar, since it was then just one quick leap into the even more fascinating--but quite untenable--belief that all grammars in all languages everywhere must be remarkably similar. Or if they failed to be similar, then they were obviously deviant and inferior grammars, and those who employed them were deviant and inferior peoples. But language is only incidentally dry and clean or abstract and intellectual. It springs from the very wellspring of life itself, language belongs in the same class as those three moist, messy, and clammy life concoctions that so many people most fear and least want to talk about. We all know what those three are: birth, sex, and death--and language is definitely the fourth among them. And that is why laymen and scholars alike have so desperately sought out clean, dry, and abstract formulations about them. I have discussed these moist, clammy origins of language in several published and/or presented papers and articles, how language most probably evolved from the scent markings and spray markings of more primitive animals & turned into sound markings, how it is related to chemical excrescences of unicellular organisms or the territorial sprayings of mammals and other animals. URLS for two of those publications are found towards the end. Language is the fourth of those three wells of moistness, and its physiological locus is not installed in some never-never "language organ" but of course right inside our nervous and muscular systems. It exists primarily as a network for self-preservation and self-defense and a means of distinguishing family from strangers, friends from foes, clan members from outsiders. And it plays this role even in the highest echelons of our societies, including scientists and scholars. It is not sufficiently recognized that learning to speak a language requires not merely learning grammar, vocabulary, idioms, and cultural usages, it also urgently demands that we embed all of these into the network of our nerves and muscles if we are ever truly to speak any language, including our own. As such, learning a language is more similar to learning how to box or play tennis or throw and catch a ball than it is to memorizing a series of dates or names or sales figures or drawing creative diagrams to show how grammar supposedly works. This is where Rosetta Stone falls down when it supposes that if you want to know the time, asking "?Que hora es?" or "Che ore sono" in Spanish or Italian will necessarily help you to understand the answer, which might be not the expected one at all but "My wife borrowed the good watch, and this one doesn't work." And this is also where our academic linguists fall down just as badly when they suppose that language inevitably follows structured, innate principles. We must not only pronounce our questions correctly in a foreign language, we must fully understand the answer and be ready with a follow-up question or comment. This requires not only good hearing and nerve endings but well-timed muscular coordination. The muscles employed are far smaller than those we use in boxing or tennis, but their use and timing must be exquisitely sensitive. Language can perhaps best be seen from a variety of perspectives: as a protective covering that envelops all of us in varying degrees according to our age, our accomplishments, and our place in society. Or as a series of parries and thrusts in an extended fencing match. Or as a set of evasions and strikes in ninjutsu. Or as a set of probes aimed at determining proper bounds, also requiring proper advances or retreats. And all of these comparisons are by no means limited to advanced or "witty" stages of repartee--they are just as common among five-year olds moving from one parent to another to gain advantage. I can go a great deal further along the lines I have laid out here and with your permission hope to do so later on. I am simply afraid that what I have said so far is perhaps already more than strange enough for some of you, and that you might be tempted to react with brief, contemptuous putdowns or at best the usual sort of semi-learned obscurantism that appears here more often than it should. Or to question or ridicule my supposed academic achievements, as one of you did a few years ago. If any of this is your intent, may I ask you, if you possibly can, to please refrain. This would be especially true for grad students, who might be tempted to earn brownie points from their advisors by launching a mega-attack against ideas contrary to what they have been taught. In any case, after fifty years of failed mentalism, it's scarcely surprising that we would find resistance to a combined body-mind approach to language. Those of you who have bothered to visit my website ought to have discovered by now that my publications include not only contributions to linguistics, including invited & peer-reviewed papers in our field, but also in translation studies and MT, in Chinese medicine, in endocrinology, in sexual education, and in Elizabethan, Ancient Greek, and modern German theatre. My more informal articles and reviews delve even more deeply in all these fields. From this perspective, I sometimes find myself both shocked and disturbed by the narrowness of education displayed by a few who contribute to this group, along with the doctrinal and dogmatic points of view such narrowness encourages. I truly hope there can be room here for a broader perspective on language. With only the very best to all of you! alex URLS for my language-spray pieces: http://language.home.sprynet.com/lingdex/ariadne.htm#totop http://languag2.home.sprynet.com/f/evidence.htm#top ************************************************************** The principal purpose of language is not communication but to persuade ourselves that we know what we are talking about, when quite often we do not. ************************************************************** Lise Menn Home Office: 303-444-4274 1625 Mariposa Ave Fax: 303-413-0017 Boulder CO 80302 home page: http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/ Professor Emerita of Linguistics Fellow, Institute of Cognitive Science University of Colorado Secretary, AAAS Section Z [Linguistics] Fellow, Linguistic Society of America Campus Mail Address: UCB 594, Institute for Cognitive Science Campus Physical Address: CINC 234 1777 Exposition Ave, Boulder From oesten.dahl at ling.su.se Thu Feb 24 22:21:52 2011 From: oesten.dahl at ling.su.se (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=D6sten_Dahl?=) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 23:21:52 +0100 Subject: "Being bilingual may delay Alzheimer's and boost brain power..." In-Reply-To: Message-ID: For those who like me cannot access the link Lise Menn provided, here is one that does not require a subscription to the journal: http://intraspec.ca/CraikBialystokFreedman2010.pdf The authors give a fairly clear definition of what they mean by "bilingual": "The criterion for classification as bilingual was having spent the majority of life, at least from early adulthood, regularly using at least 2 languages." In other words, it is regular use rather than knowledge that is criterial, and the authors treat bilingualism that originates in childhood and early adulthood alike. Yet, the abstract, rather misleadingly in my opinion, uses the term "lifelong bilingualism". Another study reports slightly different results (Chertkow et al., Multilingualism (But Not Always Bilingualism) Delays the Onset of Alzheimer Disease: Evidence From a Bilingual Community; Alzheimer Disease & Associated Disorders, 24:118-125; doi: 10.1097/WAD.0b013e3181ca1221). In this case, I have regrettably only been able to access the abstract. Chertkow et al. found that the protective effect showed up in a group of "multilingual immigrants to Canada" but not among nonimmigrants "raised in both official languages of Canada-French and English". To judge from the title of the paper, the authors seem to want to attribute their result to differences in the number of languages known. The obvious alternative is an explanation in terms of the age when the second language is learnt -- which is compatible with the idea that it is the extra effort involved in using a non-native language that is responsible for the protective effect. However, Chertkow et al. also report that there was a tendency for "nonimmigrants whose first language was French" to behave somewhat like the immigrants, apparently meaning that there was some protective effect there. I am not sure how this is to be interpreted; maybe someone who has access to the full paper can give more information here. In any case, I think their paper shows that it is not irrelevant how bilingualism is defined. - östen From v.evans at bangor.ac.uk Fri Feb 25 22:50:34 2011 From: v.evans at bangor.ac.uk (Vyv Evans) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 22:50:34 +0000 Subject: FIRST CALL FOR PAPERS - 4th UK Cognitive Linguistics Conference Message-ID: FIRST CALL FOR PAPERS 4^th UK Cognitive Linguistics Conference (UK-CLC4) The UK Cognitive Linguistics Association is pleased to announce the 4^th UK Cognitive Linguistics Conference (UK-CLC4), to be held at King's College London on July 10-12, 2012. For more information, please visit the conference website at http://www.kcl.ac.uk/schools/sspp/education/events/ukclc4/ Confirmed keynote speakers: · Professor Stephen Levinson (Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics) · Professor George Lakoff (University of California - Berkely) · Professor Gilles Fauconnier (University of California - San Diego) · Professor Elena Lieven (Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology) · Professor Martin Pickering (University of Edinburgh) · Professor Lawrence Barsalou (Emory University) Abstracts: We invite the submission of abstracts (for talks or poster presentations) addressing all aspects of Cognitive Linguistics. These include, but are by no means limited to: · Domains and frame semantics · Categorisation, prototypes and polysemy · Metaphor and metonymy · Mental spaces and conceptual blending · Cognitive and construction grammar · Embodiment and linguistic relativity · Language acquisition and language impairment · Language evolution and language change · Language use Cognitive Linguistics is an inherently interdisciplinary enterprise which is broadly concerned with the connection between language and cognition in relation to body, culture and contexts of use. We therefore invite interdisciplinary research that combines theories and methods from across the cognitive, biological and social sciences. These include, but are not limited to: · Linguistics · Psycholinguistics · Anthropology · Evolution · Paleoanthropology · Primatology · Neuroscience · Cognitive and developmental psychology · Discourse and Communication studies Talks will be allocated 20 minutes, plus 10 minutes for question. Posters will stay up for a day and be allocated to dedicated, timetabled sessions. The language of the conference is English. Submission: Abstracts of no more than 300 words (excluding references) should be submitted online via the conference website: http://www.kcl.ac.uk/schools/sspp/education/events/ukclc4/ All abstracts will be subject to double-blind peer review by an international Scientific Committee. The deadline for abstract submission is 15 December, 2011. Notification of acceptance decisions will be communicated by 15 February 2012. Important dates: * Abstract submission deadline: 15 December 2011 * Notification of authors: 15 February 2012 * 'Early bird' registration deadline: 1 March 2012 * Registration deadline: 1 May 2012 * Conference: 10-12 July 2012 -- Prof. Vyv Evans Professor of Linguistics www.vyvevans.net Head of School School of Linguistics & English Language Bangor University www.bangor.ac.uk/linguistics General Editor of 'Language & Cognition' A Mouton de Gruyter journal www.languageandcognition.net -- Gall y neges e-bost hon, ac unrhyw atodiadau a anfonwyd gyda hi, gynnwys deunydd cyfrinachol ac wedi eu bwriadu i'w defnyddio'n unig gan y sawl y cawsant eu cyfeirio ato (atynt). Os ydych wedi derbyn y neges e-bost hon trwy gamgymeriad, rhowch wybod i'r anfonwr ar unwaith a dilëwch y neges. Os na fwriadwyd anfon y neges atoch chi, rhaid i chi beidio â defnyddio, cadw neu ddatgelu unrhyw wybodaeth a gynhwysir ynddi. Mae unrhyw farn neu safbwynt yn eiddo i'r sawl a'i hanfonodd yn unig ac nid yw o anghenraid yn cynrychioli barn Prifysgol Bangor. Nid yw Prifysgol Bangor yn gwarantu bod y neges e-bost hon neu unrhyw atodiadau yn rhydd rhag firysau neu 100% yn ddiogel. Oni bai fod hyn wedi ei ddatgan yn uniongyrchol yn nhestun yr e-bost, nid bwriad y neges e-bost hon yw ffurfio contract rhwymol - mae rhestr o lofnodwyr awdurdodedig ar gael o Swyddfa Cyllid Prifysgol Bangor. www.bangor.ac.uk This email and any attachments may contain confidential material and is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this email. If you are not the intended recipient(s), you must not use, retain or disclose any information contained in this email. Any views or opinions are solely those of the sender and do not necessarily represent those of the Bangor University. Bangor University does not guarantee that this email or any attachments are free from viruses or 100% secure. Unless expressly stated in the body of the text of the email, this email is not intended to form a binding contract - a list of authorised signatories is available from the Bangor University Finance Office. www.bangor.ac.uk From language at sprynet.com Mon Feb 28 02:06:17 2011 From: language at sprynet.com (alex gross) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 21:06:17 -0500 Subject: Test Message-ID: Test From tgivon at uoregon.edu Mon Feb 28 02:26:34 2011 From: tgivon at uoregon.edu (Tom Givon) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 19:26:34 -0700 Subject: Test In-Reply-To: <823229DC8F6B400788847E160A9F00DC@aa82807a474cf4> Message-ID: Hey, you finally broke a FUNKNET record. Care to guess which one? TG =============================== On 2/27/2011 7:06 PM, alex gross wrote: > Test > From c.cleirigh at gmail.com Mon Feb 28 02:34:40 2011 From: c.cleirigh at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?ChRIS_CL=C9iRIGh?=) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 13:34:40 +1100 Subject: Test In-Reply-To: <4D6B07DA.7090506@uoregon.edu> Message-ID: I'll have a go: The most number of unanswered postings? ChRIS On 28 February 2011 13:26, Tom Givon wrote: > > > Hey, you finally broke a FUNKNET record. Care to guess which one? TG > > =============================== > > On 2/27/2011 7:06 PM, alex gross wrote: > >> Test >> >> > -- ==================================== Three Ways Language Is Related To Our Material Being Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 602): Language is able to create meaning because it is related to our material being (ourselves, and our environment) in three distinct and complementary ways. … it is a *part of* the material world … it is a *theory about* the material world … it is a *metaphor for* the material world … http://cleirigh.wordpress.com/ http://thinkingoutsidetheagora.blogspot. co m / http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/sys-fun/ ==================================== From language at sprynet.com Mon Feb 28 06:59:02 2011 From: language at sprynet.com (alex gross) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 01:59:02 -0500 Subject: FOR TOM & CHRIS---Fw: Mail delivery failed: returning message to sender Message-ID: No, Tom & Chris, you've got it wrong. I did not post my test for want of responses (of which there have been a few private & encouraging ones) but in response to the following message. It suggested that I was unable to post here, which is clearly untrue. Anyway, it has to be mistaken, since the message it mentions was posted over a month ago, and I expect it is either a system glitch or a poorly executed prank. All the best! alex ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mail Delivery System" To: Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2011 11:21 AM Subject: Mail delivery failed: returning message to sender > This message was created automatically by mail delivery software. > > A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its > recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed: > > fjn at u.washington.edu > funknet at mailman.rice.edu > keithjohnson at berkeley.edu > > ------ This is a copy of the message, including all the headers. ------ > > Return-path: > Received: from [66.215.121.104] (helo=[192.168.1.141]) > by elasmtp-junco.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) > (envelope-from ) > id 1PtMte-0008TQ-At; Sat, 26 Feb 2011 11:21:30 -0500 > Received: from przmmt01.its.calpoly.edu (LHLO przmmt01.its.calpoly.edu) > (129.65.64.27) by przmms03.its.calpoly.edu with LMTP; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 > 15:14:08 -0800 (PST) > Received: from gabriel.its.calpoly.edu (prod-loopback.its.calpoly.edu > [129.65.64.9]) by przmmt01.its.calpoly.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id > 8EC989D0051 for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 > 15:14:08 -0800 (PST) > Received: from mailman.rice.edu ([128.42.201.6]) by > gabriel.its.calpoly.edu with ESMTP; 24 Jan 2011 15:14:08 -0800 > Received: from mailman.rice.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by > mailman.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15B5E3C1C2; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 > 17:14:05 -0600 (CST) > Received: from mailman.rice.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by > mailman.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D91E3C1A2 for > ; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 17:14:04 -0600 (CST) > Received: from mailman.rice.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by mailman.rice.edu > (mailman.rice.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id > SNfwpiVKj3Ib for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 > 17:14:04 -0600 (CST) > Received: from elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net > (elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.66]) by mailman.rice.edu > (Postfix) with ESMTP id 329893C1A1 for ; Mon, 24 > Jan 2011 17:14:00 -0600 (CST) > Received: from [24.215.229.249] (helo=aa82807a474cf4) by > elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) > (envelope-from ) id 1PhVbj-00083t-Ig; Mon, 24 Jan > 2011 18:13:59 -0500 > Received: from przmmt01.its.calpoly.edu (LHLO przmmt01.its.calpoly.edu) > (129.65.64.27) by przmms03.its.calpoly.edu with LMTP; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 > 15:14:08 -0800 (PST) > Received: from gabriel.its.calpoly.edu (prod-loopback.its.calpoly.edu > [129.65.64.9]) by przmmt01.its.calpoly.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id > 8EC989D0051 for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 > 15:14:08 -0800 (PST) > Received: from mailman.rice.edu ([128.42.201.6]) by > gabriel.its.calpoly.edu with ESMTP; 24 Jan 2011 15:14:08 -0800 > Received: from mailman.rice.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by > mailman.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15B5E3C1C2; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 > 17:14:05 -0600 (CST) > Received: from mailman.rice.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by > mailman.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D91E3C1A2 for > ; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 17:14:04 -0600 (CST) > Received: from mailman.rice.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by mailman.rice.edu > (mailman.rice.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id > SNfwpiVKj3Ib for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 > 17:14:04 -0600 (CST) > Received: from elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net > (elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.66]) by mailman.rice.edu > (Postfix) with ESMTP id 329893C1A1 for ; Mon, 24 > Jan 2011 17:14:00 -0600 (CST) > Received: from [24.215.229.249] (helo=aa82807a474cf4) by > elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) > (envelope-from ) id 1PhVbj-00083t-Ig; Mon, 24 Jan > 2011 18:13:59 -0500 > X-Ironport-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true > X-Ironport-Anti-Spam-Result: > AnUAAEuWPU2AKskGlGdsb2JhbACJZZsHFQEBAgkLCAkRBR+tZI1vBIVQhHSJVYga > X-Ironport-Av: E=Sophos;i="4.60,372,1291622400"; > d="scan'208";a="66542514" > X-Originating-Ip-Address: 128.42.201.6 > Received: from przmmt01.its.calpoly.edu (LHLO przmmt01.its.calpoly.edu) > (129.65.64.27) by przmms03.its.calpoly.edu with LMTP; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 > 15:14:08 -0800 (PST) > Received: from gabriel.its.calpoly.edu (prod-loopback.its.calpoly.edu > [129.65.64.9]) by przmmt01.its.calpoly.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id > 8EC989D0051 for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 > 15:14:08 -0800 (PST) > Received: from mailman.rice.edu ([128.42.201.6]) by > gabriel.its.calpoly.edu with ESMTP; 24 Jan 2011 15:14:08 -0800 > Received: from mailman.rice.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by > mailman.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15B5E3C1C2; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 > 17:14:05 -0600 (CST) > Received: from mailman.rice.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by > mailman.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D91E3C1A2 for > ; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 17:14:04 -0600 (CST) > Received: from mailman.rice.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by mailman.rice.edu > (mailman.rice.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id > SNfwpiVKj3Ib for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 > 17:14:04 -0600 (CST) > Received: from elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net > (elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.66]) by mailman.rice.edu > (Postfix) with ESMTP id 329893C1A1 for ; Mon, 24 > Jan 2011 17:14:00 -0600 (CST) > Received: from [24.215.229.249] (helo=aa82807a474cf4) by > elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) > (envelope-from ) id 1PhVbj-00083t-Ig; Mon, 24 Jan > 2011 18:13:59 -0500 > Received: from przmmt01.its.calpoly.edu (LHLO przmmt01.its.calpoly.edu) > (129.65.64.27) by przmms03.its.calpoly.edu with LMTP; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 > 15:14:08 -0800 (PST) > Received: from gabriel.its.calpoly.edu (prod-loopback.its.calpoly.edu > [129.65.64.9]) by przmmt01.its.calpoly.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id > 8EC989D0051 for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 > 15:14:08 -0800 (PST) > Received: from mailman.rice.edu ([128.42.201.6]) by > gabriel.its.calpoly.edu with ESMTP; 24 Jan 2011 15:14:08 -0800 > Received: from mailman.rice.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by > mailman.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15B5E3C1C2; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 > 17:14:05 -0600 (CST) > Received: from mailman.rice.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by > mailman.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D91E3C1A2 for > ; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 17:14:04 -0600 (CST) > Received: from mailman.rice.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by mailman.rice.edu > (mailman.rice.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id > SNfwpiVKj3Ib for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 > 17:14:04 -0600 (CST) > Received: from elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net > (elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.66]) by mailman.rice.edu > (Postfix) with ESMTP id 329893C1A1 for ; Mon, 24 > Jan 2011 17:14:00 -0600 (CST) > Received: from [24.215.229.249] (helo=aa82807a474cf4) by > elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) > (envelope-from ) id 1PhVbj-00083t-Ig; Mon, 24 Jan > 2011 18:13:59 -0500 > X-Original-To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Delivered-To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Received: from przmmt01.its.calpoly.edu (LHLO przmmt01.its.calpoly.edu) > (129.65.64.27) by przmms03.its.calpoly.edu with LMTP; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 > 15:14:08 -0800 (PST) > Received: from gabriel.its.calpoly.edu (prod-loopback.its.calpoly.edu > [129.65.64.9]) by przmmt01.its.calpoly.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id > 8EC989D0051 for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 > 15:14:08 -0800 (PST) > Received: from mailman.rice.edu ([128.42.201.6]) by > gabriel.its.calpoly.edu with ESMTP; 24 Jan 2011 15:14:08 -0800 > Received: from mailman.rice.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by > mailman.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15B5E3C1C2; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 > 17:14:05 -0600 (CST) > Received: from mailman.rice.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by > mailman.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D91E3C1A2 for > ; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 17:14:04 -0600 (CST) > Received: from mailman.rice.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by mailman.rice.edu > (mailman.rice.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id > SNfwpiVKj3Ib for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 > 17:14:04 -0600 (CST) > Received: from elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net > (elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.66]) by mailman.rice.edu > (Postfix) with ESMTP id 329893C1A1 for ; Mon, 24 > Jan 2011 17:14:00 -0600 (CST) > Received: from [24.215.229.249] (helo=aa82807a474cf4) by > elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) > (envelope-from ) id 1PhVbj-00083t-Ig; Mon, 24 Jan > 2011 18:13:59 -0500 > X-Virus-Scanned: by amavis-2.6.0 at mailman.rice.edu > Authentication-Results: mailman.rice.edu (amavis); domainkeys=pass > header.from=language at sprynet.com > Received: from przmmt01.its.calpoly.edu (LHLO przmmt01.its.calpoly.edu) > (129.65.64.27) by przmms03.its.calpoly.edu with LMTP; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 > 15:14:08 -0800 (PST) > Received: from gabriel.its.calpoly.edu (prod-loopback.its.calpoly.edu > [129.65.64.9]) by przmmt01.its.calpoly.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id > 8EC989D0051 for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 > 15:14:08 -0800 (PST) > Received: from mailman.rice.edu ([128.42.201.6]) by > gabriel.its.calpoly.edu with ESMTP; 24 Jan 2011 15:14:08 -0800 > Received: from mailman.rice.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by > mailman.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15B5E3C1C2; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 > 17:14:05 -0600 (CST) > Received: from mailman.rice.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by > mailman.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D91E3C1A2 for > ; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 17:14:04 -0600 (CST) > Received: from mailman.rice.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by mailman.rice.edu > (mailman.rice.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id > SNfwpiVKj3Ib for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 > 17:14:04 -0600 (CST) > Received: from elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net > (elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.66]) by mailman.rice.edu > (Postfix) with ESMTP id 329893C1A1 for ; Mon, 24 > Jan 2011 17:14:00 -0600 (CST) > Received: from [24.215.229.249] (helo=aa82807a474cf4) by > elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) > (envelope-from ) id 1PhVbj-00083t-Ig; Mon, 24 Jan > 2011 18:13:59 -0500 > X-Policyd-Weight: NOT_IN_SBL_XBL_SPAMHAUS=-1.5 NOT_IN_SPAMCOP=-1.5 > NOT_IN_BL_NJABL=-1.5 CL_IP_EQ_HELO_IP=-2 (check from: .sprynet. - helo: > .elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink. - helo-domain: .earthlink.) > FROM/MX_MATCHES_NOT_HELO(DOMAIN)=1; rate: -5.5 > Received: from przmmt01.its.calpoly.edu (LHLO przmmt01.its.calpoly.edu) > (129.65.64.27) by przmms03.its.calpoly.edu with LMTP; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 > 15:14:08 -0800 (PST) > Received: from gabriel.its.calpoly.edu (prod-loopback.its.calpoly.edu > [129.65.64.9]) by przmmt01.its.calpoly.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id > 8EC989D0051 for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 > 15:14:08 -0800 (PST) > Received: from mailman.rice.edu ([128.42.201.6]) by > gabriel.its.calpoly.edu with ESMTP; 24 Jan 2011 15:14:08 -0800 > Received: from mailman.rice.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by > mailman.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15B5E3C1C2; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 > 17:14:05 -0600 (CST) > Received: from mailman.rice.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by > mailman.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D91E3C1A2 for > ; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 17:14:04 -0600 (CST) > Received: from mailman.rice.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by mailman.rice.edu > (mailman.rice.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id > SNfwpiVKj3Ib for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 > 17:14:04 -0600 (CST) > Received: from elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net > (elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.66]) by mailman.rice.edu > (Postfix) with ESMTP id 329893C1A1 for ; Mon, 24 > Jan 2011 17:14:00 -0600 (CST) > Received: from [24.215.229.249] (helo=aa82807a474cf4) by > elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) > (envelope-from ) id 1PhVbj-00083t-Ig; Mon, 24 Jan > 2011 18:13:59 -0500 > Domainkey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; > d=sprynet.com; > b=VFu/EaEZhddoy9nZirKftqabYW1YG1/Li4217O4SPOBl77SimBJMIhCZhF5IB1cB; > h=Received:Message-ID:From:To:Cc:References:Subject:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Priority:X-MSMail-Priority:X-Mailer:X-MIMEOLE:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP; > Received: from przmmt01.its.calpoly.edu (LHLO przmmt01.its.calpoly.edu) > (129.65.64.27) by przmms03.its.calpoly.edu with LMTP; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 > 15:14:08 -0800 (PST) > Received: from gabriel.its.calpoly.edu (prod-loopback.its.calpoly.edu > [129.65.64.9]) by przmmt01.its.calpoly.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id > 8EC989D0051 for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 > 15:14:08 -0800 (PST) > Received: from mailman.rice.edu ([128.42.201.6]) by > gabriel.its.calpoly.edu with ESMTP; 24 Jan 2011 15:14:08 -0800 > Received: from mailman.rice.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by > mailman.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15B5E3C1C2; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 > 17:14:05 -0600 (CST) > Received: from mailman.rice.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by > mailman.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D91E3C1A2 for > ; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 17:14:04 -0600 (CST) > Received: from mailman.rice.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by mailman.rice.edu > (mailman.rice.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id > SNfwpiVKj3Ib for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 > 17:14:04 -0600 (CST) > Received: from elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net > (elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.66]) by mailman.rice.edu > (Postfix) with ESMTP id 329893C1A1 for ; Mon, 24 > Jan 2011 17:14:00 -0600 (CST) > Received: from [24.215.229.249] (helo=aa82807a474cf4) by > elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) > (envelope-from ) id 1PhVbj-00083t-Ig; Mon, 24 Jan > 2011 18:13:59 -0500 > Message-Id: > From: "alex gross" > To: "Keith Johnson" , > > References: > Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 18:14:01 -0500 > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; > reply-type=response > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > X-Priority: 3 > X-Msmail-Priority: Normal > X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931 > X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5994 > X-Elnk-Trace: > 44454ca3654da6d05741bb2dafe82705d26d9b9edb73dbfba6ee534ac1dd9ed8ebdbdc9cd1e04aeb350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c > X-Originating-Ip: 24.215.229.249 > Cc: Frederick J Newmeyer > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Rosetta Stone acquires the rights to endangered > languages > X-Beenthere: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 > Precedence: list > List-Id: FUNKNET -- Discussion of issues in Functional Linguistics > > List-Unsubscribe: , > > List-Archive: > List-Post: > List-Help: > List-Subscribe: , > > Sender: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu > Errors-To: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu > > Of course the main problem concerning Rosetta Stone has not > been remotely addressed here, nor did I expect it to be. > > Had linguists continued on the intersecting paths of Whorf, > Sapir, Bloomfield, and Hayakawa during the Sixties, the > entire Rosetta Stone encroachment would have never come > about. Descriptivist linguists showed sensitivity to Native > American languages and regarded them as views of reality > in many ways as valid as our own, creating a close unity > between Native American speakers and the scholars who > studied them. Our profession would then have been in a > position to explain to them why Rosetta Stone could not truly > help them. And the aim of the Semanticist movement was > to create an ongoing and far-reaching critique of American > trends in politics, advertising, and religion, which could > have led to a heightened consciousness of the many ways > language can lead us astray and why simplistic tools like > Rosetta Stone are of limited use. > > But instead the profession has squandered the enormous > prestige enjoyed by linguistics 50 years ago in pompous > and demonstrably false proclamations about universal grammar, > deep structure, and hard wiring, not to mention endless > feuding between angry factions over the details of this > monumental failure. > > As I pointed out in an earlier post: > > So-called "mainstream linguistics" ends up being on > about the same level of credibility as all those TV ads > for "Rosetta Stone." Just as they claim you can "learn a > language," without bothering to mention whether by > "learn" they mean read, speak, understand what is > spoken back to you, translate in either direction, > or simply pick up the general sense, so "mainstream > linguistics" stakes out vast fields of competence but > never comes remotely near actually achieving them. > > Yes, Rosetta Stone has engaged in outrageously false > claims on behalf of its so-called method for a number > of years now. But many mainstream linguists have > engaged in equally noxious rhetoric about the alleged > triumph of their supposed breakthroughs or about the > imminent advent of MT and automatic language systems > they have championed. And they have continued to do > so despite ample evidence to the contrary over at least > the last four decades. And yet other linguists , who have > been perfectly aware that these claims were overstated, > have chosen to remain silent. > > It is not the slightest bit surprising that the guiding > force of so-called mainstream linguistics stems from > the same era that also handed us the notion that man can > "conquer" the planet, that highways can "conquer" the > wilderness, that cities can "conquer" landscape, that > modernity can "conquer" traditional ways. Indeed, > the main thrust of language study today is still centered > on the eminently falsifiable doctrine that language > itself can be conquered and open the way to some > ill-defined realm where deep knowledge of "grammar" > can give rise to deep knowledge of reality. > > All the best to every one! > > alex > > ************************************************************** > The principal purpose of language is not communication but to persuade > ourselves > that we know what we are talking about, when quite often we do not. > > ************************************************************** > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Keith Johnson" > To: > Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2011 11:50 AM > Subject: [FUNKNET] Rosetta Stone acquires the rights to endangered > languages > > >> Hi Funksters, >> >> My subject heading is intentionally provocative, but this article raises >> a couple of >> issues. Is it a good thing for Rosetta Stone to have an endangered >> languages >> unit? >> >> Keith Johnson >> >> http://www.adn.com/2011/01/19/1657429/alaska-natives-team-up-with-rosetta.html >> >> >> > > From bischoff.st at gmail.com Mon Feb 28 13:53:22 2011 From: bischoff.st at gmail.com (s.t. bischoff) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 08:53:22 -0500 Subject: SLA Message-ID: Hi all, A student of mine is an elementary school ESL instructor. She has noticed that if a child arrives to the school without a cohort of speakers of the same L1 (say Igbo), the student seems to pick up English much quicker than those students that arrive with a cohort of speakers of the same L1 (e.g. all Spanish speakers). Intuitively this make sense. However, I was wondering if anyone was familiar with research in this area? I tried a number of different search terms but have had difficulty finding anything. Thanks, Shannon From anne_mariedevlin at hotmail.com Mon Feb 28 15:07:49 2011 From: anne_mariedevlin at hotmail.com (anne marie devlin) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 15:07:49 +0000 Subject: SLA In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 08:53:22 -0500 > From: bischoff.st at gmail.com > To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Subject: [FUNKNET] SLA > > Hi all, > > A student of mine is an elementary school ESL instructor. She has noticed > that if a child arrives to the school without a cohort of speakers of the > same L1 (say Igbo), the student seems to pick up English much quicker than > those students that arrive with a cohort of speakers of the same L1 (e.g. > all Spanish speakers). Intuitively this make sense. However, I was > wondering if anyone was familiar with research in this area? I tried a > number of different search terms but have had difficulty finding anything. > > Thanks, > Shannon From mark at polymathix.com Mon Feb 28 15:11:19 2011 From: mark at polymathix.com (Mark P. Line) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 09:11:19 -0600 Subject: FOR TOM & CHRIS---Fw: Mail delivery failed: returning message to sender In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Since delivery failed for three apparently unrelated addresses, it doesn't really indicate much of anything about Funknet and your ability to post to it. There was probably trouble either in your outgoing mail server or in a hub that was common to all three addresses. It's been a while since I've had to debug email, but I'm betting the servers at calpoly.edu were unable to forward your message. -- Mark Mark P. Line Bartlesville, OK alex gross wrote: > No, Tom & Chris, you've got it wrong. I did not post my test for want of > responses (of which there have been a few private & encouraging ones) but > in > response to the following message. It suggested that I was unable to post > here, which is clearly untrue. Anyway, it has to be mistaken, since the > message it mentions was posted over a month ago, and I expect it is either > a > system glitch or a poorly executed prank. > > All the best! > > alex > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Mail Delivery System" > > To: > Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2011 11:21 AM > Subject: Mail delivery failed: returning message to sender > > >> This message was created automatically by mail delivery software. >> >> A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its >> recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed: >> >> fjn at u.washington.edu >> funknet at mailman.rice.edu >> keithjohnson at berkeley.edu >> >> ------ This is a copy of the message, including all the headers. ------ >> >> Return-path: >> Received: from [66.215.121.104] (helo=[192.168.1.141]) >> by elasmtp-junco.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) >> (envelope-from ) >> id 1PtMte-0008TQ-At; Sat, 26 Feb 2011 11:21:30 -0500 >> Received: from przmmt01.its.calpoly.edu (LHLO przmmt01.its.calpoly.edu) >> (129.65.64.27) by przmms03.its.calpoly.edu with LMTP; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 >> 15:14:08 -0800 (PST) >> Received: from gabriel.its.calpoly.edu (prod-loopback.its.calpoly.edu >> [129.65.64.9]) by przmmt01.its.calpoly.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id >> 8EC989D0051 for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 >> 15:14:08 -0800 (PST) >> Received: from mailman.rice.edu ([128.42.201.6]) by >> gabriel.its.calpoly.edu with ESMTP; 24 Jan 2011 15:14:08 -0800 >> Received: from mailman.rice.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by >> mailman.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15B5E3C1C2; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 >> 17:14:05 -0600 (CST) >> Received: from mailman.rice.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by >> mailman.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D91E3C1A2 for >> ; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 17:14:04 -0600 (CST) >> Received: from mailman.rice.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by mailman.rice.edu >> (mailman.rice.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id >> SNfwpiVKj3Ib for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 >> 17:14:04 -0600 (CST) >> Received: from elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net >> (elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.66]) by >> mailman.rice.edu >> (Postfix) with ESMTP id 329893C1A1 for ; Mon, >> 24 >> Jan 2011 17:14:00 -0600 (CST) >> Received: from [24.215.229.249] (helo=aa82807a474cf4) by >> elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) >> (envelope-from ) id 1PhVbj-00083t-Ig; Mon, 24 Jan >> 2011 18:13:59 -0500 >> Received: from przmmt01.its.calpoly.edu (LHLO przmmt01.its.calpoly.edu) >> (129.65.64.27) by przmms03.its.calpoly.edu with LMTP; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 >> 15:14:08 -0800 (PST) >> Received: from gabriel.its.calpoly.edu (prod-loopback.its.calpoly.edu >> [129.65.64.9]) by przmmt01.its.calpoly.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id >> 8EC989D0051 for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 >> 15:14:08 -0800 (PST) >> Received: from mailman.rice.edu ([128.42.201.6]) by >> gabriel.its.calpoly.edu with ESMTP; 24 Jan 2011 15:14:08 -0800 >> Received: from mailman.rice.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by >> mailman.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15B5E3C1C2; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 >> 17:14:05 -0600 (CST) >> Received: from mailman.rice.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by >> mailman.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D91E3C1A2 for >> ; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 17:14:04 -0600 (CST) >> Received: from mailman.rice.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by mailman.rice.edu >> (mailman.rice.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id >> SNfwpiVKj3Ib for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 >> 17:14:04 -0600 (CST) >> Received: from elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net >> (elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.66]) by >> mailman.rice.edu >> (Postfix) with ESMTP id 329893C1A1 for ; Mon, >> 24 >> Jan 2011 17:14:00 -0600 (CST) >> Received: from [24.215.229.249] (helo=aa82807a474cf4) by >> elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) >> (envelope-from ) id 1PhVbj-00083t-Ig; Mon, 24 Jan >> 2011 18:13:59 -0500 >> X-Ironport-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true >> X-Ironport-Anti-Spam-Result: >> AnUAAEuWPU2AKskGlGdsb2JhbACJZZsHFQEBAgkLCAkRBR+tZI1vBIVQhHSJVYga >> X-Ironport-Av: E=Sophos;i="4.60,372,1291622400"; >> d="scan'208";a="66542514" >> X-Originating-Ip-Address: 128.42.201.6 >> Received: from przmmt01.its.calpoly.edu (LHLO przmmt01.its.calpoly.edu) >> (129.65.64.27) by przmms03.its.calpoly.edu with LMTP; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 >> 15:14:08 -0800 (PST) >> Received: from gabriel.its.calpoly.edu (prod-loopback.its.calpoly.edu >> [129.65.64.9]) by przmmt01.its.calpoly.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id >> 8EC989D0051 for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 >> 15:14:08 -0800 (PST) >> Received: from mailman.rice.edu ([128.42.201.6]) by >> gabriel.its.calpoly.edu with ESMTP; 24 Jan 2011 15:14:08 -0800 >> Received: from mailman.rice.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by >> mailman.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15B5E3C1C2; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 >> 17:14:05 -0600 (CST) >> Received: from mailman.rice.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by >> mailman.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D91E3C1A2 for >> ; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 17:14:04 -0600 (CST) >> Received: from mailman.rice.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by mailman.rice.edu >> (mailman.rice.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id >> SNfwpiVKj3Ib for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 >> 17:14:04 -0600 (CST) >> Received: from elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net >> (elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.66]) by >> mailman.rice.edu >> (Postfix) with ESMTP id 329893C1A1 for ; Mon, >> 24 >> Jan 2011 17:14:00 -0600 (CST) >> Received: from [24.215.229.249] (helo=aa82807a474cf4) by >> elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) >> (envelope-from ) id 1PhVbj-00083t-Ig; Mon, 24 Jan >> 2011 18:13:59 -0500 >> Received: from przmmt01.its.calpoly.edu (LHLO przmmt01.its.calpoly.edu) >> (129.65.64.27) by przmms03.its.calpoly.edu with LMTP; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 >> 15:14:08 -0800 (PST) >> Received: from gabriel.its.calpoly.edu (prod-loopback.its.calpoly.edu >> [129.65.64.9]) by przmmt01.its.calpoly.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id >> 8EC989D0051 for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 >> 15:14:08 -0800 (PST) >> Received: from mailman.rice.edu ([128.42.201.6]) by >> gabriel.its.calpoly.edu with ESMTP; 24 Jan 2011 15:14:08 -0800 >> Received: from mailman.rice.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by >> mailman.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15B5E3C1C2; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 >> 17:14:05 -0600 (CST) >> Received: from mailman.rice.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by >> mailman.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D91E3C1A2 for >> ; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 17:14:04 -0600 (CST) >> Received: from mailman.rice.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by mailman.rice.edu >> (mailman.rice.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id >> SNfwpiVKj3Ib for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 >> 17:14:04 -0600 (CST) >> Received: from elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net >> (elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.66]) by >> mailman.rice.edu >> (Postfix) with ESMTP id 329893C1A1 for ; Mon, >> 24 >> Jan 2011 17:14:00 -0600 (CST) >> Received: from [24.215.229.249] (helo=aa82807a474cf4) by >> elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) >> (envelope-from ) id 1PhVbj-00083t-Ig; Mon, 24 Jan >> 2011 18:13:59 -0500 >> X-Original-To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu >> Delivered-To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu >> Received: from przmmt01.its.calpoly.edu (LHLO przmmt01.its.calpoly.edu) >> (129.65.64.27) by przmms03.its.calpoly.edu with LMTP; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 >> 15:14:08 -0800 (PST) >> Received: from gabriel.its.calpoly.edu (prod-loopback.its.calpoly.edu >> [129.65.64.9]) by przmmt01.its.calpoly.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id >> 8EC989D0051 for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 >> 15:14:08 -0800 (PST) >> Received: from mailman.rice.edu ([128.42.201.6]) by >> gabriel.its.calpoly.edu with ESMTP; 24 Jan 2011 15:14:08 -0800 >> Received: from mailman.rice.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by >> mailman.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15B5E3C1C2; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 >> 17:14:05 -0600 (CST) >> Received: from mailman.rice.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by >> mailman.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D91E3C1A2 for >> ; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 17:14:04 -0600 (CST) >> Received: from mailman.rice.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by mailman.rice.edu >> (mailman.rice.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id >> SNfwpiVKj3Ib for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 >> 17:14:04 -0600 (CST) >> Received: from elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net >> (elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.66]) by >> mailman.rice.edu >> (Postfix) with ESMTP id 329893C1A1 for ; Mon, >> 24 >> Jan 2011 17:14:00 -0600 (CST) >> Received: from [24.215.229.249] (helo=aa82807a474cf4) by >> elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) >> (envelope-from ) id 1PhVbj-00083t-Ig; Mon, 24 Jan >> 2011 18:13:59 -0500 >> X-Virus-Scanned: by amavis-2.6.0 at mailman.rice.edu >> Authentication-Results: mailman.rice.edu (amavis); domainkeys=pass >> header.from=language at sprynet.com >> Received: from przmmt01.its.calpoly.edu (LHLO przmmt01.its.calpoly.edu) >> (129.65.64.27) by przmms03.its.calpoly.edu with LMTP; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 >> 15:14:08 -0800 (PST) >> Received: from gabriel.its.calpoly.edu (prod-loopback.its.calpoly.edu >> [129.65.64.9]) by przmmt01.its.calpoly.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id >> 8EC989D0051 for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 >> 15:14:08 -0800 (PST) >> Received: from mailman.rice.edu ([128.42.201.6]) by >> gabriel.its.calpoly.edu with ESMTP; 24 Jan 2011 15:14:08 -0800 >> Received: from mailman.rice.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by >> mailman.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15B5E3C1C2; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 >> 17:14:05 -0600 (CST) >> Received: from mailman.rice.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by >> mailman.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D91E3C1A2 for >> ; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 17:14:04 -0600 (CST) >> Received: from mailman.rice.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by mailman.rice.edu >> (mailman.rice.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id >> SNfwpiVKj3Ib for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 >> 17:14:04 -0600 (CST) >> Received: from elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net >> (elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.66]) by >> mailman.rice.edu >> (Postfix) with ESMTP id 329893C1A1 for ; Mon, >> 24 >> Jan 2011 17:14:00 -0600 (CST) >> Received: from [24.215.229.249] (helo=aa82807a474cf4) by >> elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) >> (envelope-from ) id 1PhVbj-00083t-Ig; Mon, 24 Jan >> 2011 18:13:59 -0500 >> X-Policyd-Weight: NOT_IN_SBL_XBL_SPAMHAUS=-1.5 NOT_IN_SPAMCOP=-1.5 >> NOT_IN_BL_NJABL=-1.5 CL_IP_EQ_HELO_IP=-2 (check from: .sprynet. - helo: >> .elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink. - helo-domain: .earthlink.) >> FROM/MX_MATCHES_NOT_HELO(DOMAIN)=1; rate: -5.5 >> Received: from przmmt01.its.calpoly.edu (LHLO przmmt01.its.calpoly.edu) >> (129.65.64.27) by przmms03.its.calpoly.edu with LMTP; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 >> 15:14:08 -0800 (PST) >> Received: from gabriel.its.calpoly.edu (prod-loopback.its.calpoly.edu >> [129.65.64.9]) by przmmt01.its.calpoly.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id >> 8EC989D0051 for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 >> 15:14:08 -0800 (PST) >> Received: from mailman.rice.edu ([128.42.201.6]) by >> gabriel.its.calpoly.edu with ESMTP; 24 Jan 2011 15:14:08 -0800 >> Received: from mailman.rice.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by >> mailman.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15B5E3C1C2; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 >> 17:14:05 -0600 (CST) >> Received: from mailman.rice.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by >> mailman.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D91E3C1A2 for >> ; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 17:14:04 -0600 (CST) >> Received: from mailman.rice.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by mailman.rice.edu >> (mailman.rice.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id >> SNfwpiVKj3Ib for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 >> 17:14:04 -0600 (CST) >> Received: from elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net >> (elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.66]) by >> mailman.rice.edu >> (Postfix) with ESMTP id 329893C1A1 for ; Mon, >> 24 >> Jan 2011 17:14:00 -0600 (CST) >> Received: from [24.215.229.249] (helo=aa82807a474cf4) by >> elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) >> (envelope-from ) id 1PhVbj-00083t-Ig; Mon, 24 Jan >> 2011 18:13:59 -0500 >> Domainkey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; >> d=sprynet.com; >> b=VFu/EaEZhddoy9nZirKftqabYW1YG1/Li4217O4SPOBl77SimBJMIhCZhF5IB1cB; >> h=Received:Message-ID:From:To:Cc:References:Subject:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Priority:X-MSMail-Priority:X-Mailer:X-MIMEOLE:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP; >> Received: from przmmt01.its.calpoly.edu (LHLO przmmt01.its.calpoly.edu) >> (129.65.64.27) by przmms03.its.calpoly.edu with LMTP; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 >> 15:14:08 -0800 (PST) >> Received: from gabriel.its.calpoly.edu (prod-loopback.its.calpoly.edu >> [129.65.64.9]) by przmmt01.its.calpoly.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id >> 8EC989D0051 for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 >> 15:14:08 -0800 (PST) >> Received: from mailman.rice.edu ([128.42.201.6]) by >> gabriel.its.calpoly.edu with ESMTP; 24 Jan 2011 15:14:08 -0800 >> Received: from mailman.rice.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by >> mailman.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15B5E3C1C2; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 >> 17:14:05 -0600 (CST) >> Received: from mailman.rice.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by >> mailman.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D91E3C1A2 for >> ; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 17:14:04 -0600 (CST) >> Received: from mailman.rice.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by mailman.rice.edu >> (mailman.rice.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id >> SNfwpiVKj3Ib for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 >> 17:14:04 -0600 (CST) >> Received: from elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net >> (elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.66]) by >> mailman.rice.edu >> (Postfix) with ESMTP id 329893C1A1 for ; Mon, >> 24 >> Jan 2011 17:14:00 -0600 (CST) >> Received: from [24.215.229.249] (helo=aa82807a474cf4) by >> elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) >> (envelope-from ) id 1PhVbj-00083t-Ig; Mon, 24 Jan >> 2011 18:13:59 -0500 >> Message-Id: >> From: "alex gross" >> To: "Keith Johnson" , >> >> References: >> Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 18:14:01 -0500 >> Mime-Version: 1.0 >> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; >> reply-type=response >> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >> X-Priority: 3 >> X-Msmail-Priority: Normal >> X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931 >> X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5994 >> X-Elnk-Trace: >> 44454ca3654da6d05741bb2dafe82705d26d9b9edb73dbfba6ee534ac1dd9ed8ebdbdc9cd1e04aeb350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c >> X-Originating-Ip: 24.215.229.249 >> Cc: Frederick J Newmeyer >> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Rosetta Stone acquires the rights to endangered >> languages >> X-Beenthere: funknet at mailman.rice.edu >> X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 >> Precedence: list >> List-Id: FUNKNET -- Discussion of issues in Functional Linguistics >> >> List-Unsubscribe: , >> >> List-Archive: >> List-Post: >> List-Help: >> List-Subscribe: , >> >> Sender: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu >> Errors-To: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu >> >> Of course the main problem concerning Rosetta Stone has not >> been remotely addressed here, nor did I expect it to be. >> >> Had linguists continued on the intersecting paths of Whorf, >> Sapir, Bloomfield, and Hayakawa during the Sixties, the >> entire Rosetta Stone encroachment would have never come >> about. Descriptivist linguists showed sensitivity to Native >> American languages and regarded them as views of reality >> in many ways as valid as our own, creating a close unity >> between Native American speakers and the scholars who >> studied them. Our profession would then have been in a >> position to explain to them why Rosetta Stone could not truly >> help them. And the aim of the Semanticist movement was >> to create an ongoing and far-reaching critique of American >> trends in politics, advertising, and religion, which could >> have led to a heightened consciousness of the many ways >> language can lead us astray and why simplistic tools like >> Rosetta Stone are of limited use. >> >> But instead the profession has squandered the enormous >> prestige enjoyed by linguistics 50 years ago in pompous >> and demonstrably false proclamations about universal grammar, >> deep structure, and hard wiring, not to mention endless >> feuding between angry factions over the details of this >> monumental failure. >> >> As I pointed out in an earlier post: >> >> So-called "mainstream linguistics" ends up being on >> about the same level of credibility as all those TV ads >> for "Rosetta Stone." Just as they claim you can "learn a >> language," without bothering to mention whether by >> "learn" they mean read, speak, understand what is >> spoken back to you, translate in either direction, >> or simply pick up the general sense, so "mainstream >> linguistics" stakes out vast fields of competence but >> never comes remotely near actually achieving them. >> >> Yes, Rosetta Stone has engaged in outrageously false >> claims on behalf of its so-called method for a number >> of years now. But many mainstream linguists have >> engaged in equally noxious rhetoric about the alleged >> triumph of their supposed breakthroughs or about the >> imminent advent of MT and automatic language systems >> they have championed. And they have continued to do >> so despite ample evidence to the contrary over at least >> the last four decades. And yet other linguists , who have >> been perfectly aware that these claims were overstated, >> have chosen to remain silent. >> >> It is not the slightest bit surprising that the guiding >> force of so-called mainstream linguistics stems from >> the same era that also handed us the notion that man can >> "conquer" the planet, that highways can "conquer" the >> wilderness, that cities can "conquer" landscape, that >> modernity can "conquer" traditional ways. Indeed, >> the main thrust of language study today is still centered >> on the eminently falsifiable doctrine that language >> itself can be conquered and open the way to some >> ill-defined realm where deep knowledge of "grammar" >> can give rise to deep knowledge of reality. >> >> All the best to every one! >> >> alex >> >> ************************************************************** >> The principal purpose of language is not communication but to persuade >> ourselves >> that we know what we are talking about, when quite often we do not. >> >> ************************************************************** >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Keith Johnson" >> To: >> Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2011 11:50 AM >> Subject: [FUNKNET] Rosetta Stone acquires the rights to endangered >> languages >> >> >>> Hi Funksters, >>> >>> My subject heading is intentionally provocative, but this article >>> raises >>> a couple of >>> issues. Is it a good thing for Rosetta Stone to have an endangered >>> languages >>> unit? >>> >>> Keith Johnson >>> >>> http://www.adn.com/2011/01/19/1657429/alaska-natives-team-up-with-rosetta.html >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > > -- Mark Mark P. Line Bartlesville, OK From anne_mariedevlin at hotmail.com Mon Feb 28 15:20:54 2011 From: anne_mariedevlin at hotmail.com (anne marie devlin) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 15:20:54 +0000 Subject: SLA In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi Shannon, There is actually some research out there at the moment which suggests that if a student has a close friend with the same L1, then the acquisition process happens much faster. It seems to be connected with 'courage' for want of a better word. When the learner has a bit of support s/he is more likely to make contact with native speakers. This work is being carried out as part of the Barcelona Age project (BAF). In general, one factor in successful SLA seems to be intensity of contact with the language and it has been well documented (look at Barbara Freed's work). for children and ESL success or lack of, try Jennifer Miller. She conducted some wonderful research into children and esl in Australia. I'm not sure if she looked precisely at the point you mentioned, but her work is certainly worth looking at. Hope that helps AM > Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 08:53:22 -0500 > From: bischoff.st at gmail.com > To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Subject: [FUNKNET] SLA > > Hi all, > > A student of mine is an elementary school ESL instructor. She has noticed > that if a child arrives to the school without a cohort of speakers of the > same L1 (say Igbo), the student seems to pick up English much quicker than > those students that arrive with a cohort of speakers of the same L1 (e.g. > all Spanish speakers). Intuitively this make sense. However, I was > wondering if anyone was familiar with research in this area? I tried a > number of different search terms but have had difficulty finding anything. > > Thanks, > Shannon From reng at rice.edu Mon Feb 28 15:27:32 2011 From: reng at rice.edu (Robert Englebretson) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 20:57:32 +0530 Subject: Funknet list admin and netiquette Message-ID: Dear List Members, Given some questions I have received recently in my role as Funknet's list admin, I thought it was time to send out a reminder about the administration of this list, as well as a few points of netiquette common to e-mail lists more generally. First, here are the e-mail addresses and web URL you need to interact with Funknet. To post a message to Funknet, i.e. to send an e-mail to all 1,070+ people subscribed to the list: funknet at mailman.rice.edu The address to contact me, the list admin: funknet-owner at mailman.rice.edu The address to use for Mailman commands (e.g. 'subscribe', 'unsubscribe', etc.): funknet-request at mailman.rice.edu To access Funknet's web administrative interface, visit: https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/funknet Among other things, this page allows you to subscribe or unsubscribe from the list, to update your e-mail address, to change your subscription options (such as 'vacation mode' or 'digest mode'), to reset or retrieve your Mailman password, to view list archives, and to find the addresses for posting to the list or for contacting the admin. IF you ever need the above information in the future, remember that it also can be found in the message header of each e-mail you receive from Funknet--but you will have to view 'full headers' or the 'message source' to see it. Please remember that Funknet is an unmoderated list. This means that no one reads or filters or approves your posts before the Mailman software processes them and sends them along to all 1070+ list members. Mailman does catch spam and junkmail from non-subscribers, as well as the occasional admin request that a subscriber may accidentally send to the list. Funknet list admin is strictly a volunteer position in the midst of the usual busy academic work schedule, and I simply don't have time to run Funknet as a moderated list. We trust Funknet members to 'moderate' their own posts, and to observe basic netiquette. - Do not 'flame' other list members - Refrain from posting off-topic messages. The purpose of this list is to discuss issues in functional linguistics (broadly construed) - do not reply to off-topic messages on the list (what you write to someone off-list is your own business of course!) - Don't send 'test' messages or other 'administrivia' to the list - Keep the subject line relevant to the message topic (especially important if you're replying to a message in 'digest mode') While this is not a moderated list, I do have the ability to put individual members on moderated status (meaning I have to manually approve anything they send to Funknet)--and I have done so for people who repeatedly violate any of the above basic netiquette. Fortunately in the last decade of running the list, I've only had to resort to this on two occasions. If you ever do have any questions, or run into problems with the list or your subscription, please don't hesitate to e-mail me! I make a point of responding to e-mails within 24 hours (although if I'm traveling, it may be slightly longer). Just FYI, here are the two most common scenarios that people tend to e-mail me about: (1) "I just got this automated e-mail from funknet-bounces saying my posting has been rejected, and that I'm not allowed to post to the list. But I'm receiving messages just fine, and I've been subscribed for 20 years, so I don't understand why I can't post!" I typically get several such messages each month--unfortunately sometimes not nearly as polite as the above scenario. Invariably, if you receive an automated message saying that you're not allowed to post, the reason is that you are trying to send from an address that is different from your subscription address. Usually this happens because (1) you're sending from an alias rather than your actual e-mail address, or (2) your university changed the format of your e-mail address (e.g. no longer includes the hostname in the address), but you did not update this for the address on file with the Mailman server. If this ever happens to you, either visit the Funknet web interface and fix it yourself, or e-mail me to do it for you. (2) "I'm sending a bunch of pictures and PDF files to Funknet, but my message keeps being rejected with an error saying something about an 'invalid part'." Funknet is set so as to disallow messages with attachments. There are at least two good reasons for this: (1) this is to prevent subscribers whose e-mail account has been hacked from inadvertently e-mailing a virus to everyone on the list; the 'no attachments' policy has prevented this from happening at least three times during the past decade. (2) A number of Funknet subscribers are on slower connections, or in places where they have to pay for their e-mail by the kilobyte; disallowing attachments is a basic courtesy for such subscribers. If you feel you need to share a PDF or other large file with the list, it's best to put it on a web site and send the URL to the list instead of sending the attachment. In general, the Funknet admin policy is to be as hands-off as possible! But the list does in fact have an admin, and you're welcome to contact me at funknet-owner at mailman.rice.edu if you ever have any questions or need assistance with the list. Best, --Robert Englebretson From reng at rice.edu Mon Feb 28 15:41:37 2011 From: reng at rice.edu (Robert Englebretson) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 21:11:37 +0530 Subject: FOR TOM & CHRIS---Fw: Mail delivery failed: returning message to sender In-Reply-To: <5fce3edb83cd7190a0243b26c2a4e09e.squirrel@sm.webmail.pair.com> Message-ID: Plese do not post any further messages on this thread! The original message and all subsequent replies have not been related to the topic of this mailing list (discussion of issues in functional linguistics), the delivery failure is unrelated to Funknet, and messages intended for only two people are best sent to those individuals directly, rather than cluttering up the inboxes of all 1070 subscribers. --Robert Englebretson, Funknet list admin From phonosemantics at earthlink.net Mon Feb 28 21:48:41 2011 From: phonosemantics at earthlink.net (jess tauber) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 16:48:41 -0500 Subject: Not seeing what you mean.... Message-ID: http://www.livescience.com/13003-blindness-brain-language-110228.html Visual cortex refunctionalized for language processing in people with early blindness. Jess Tauber phonosemantics at earthlink.net From feist at louisiana.edu Wed Feb 2 20:03:58 2011 From: feist at louisiana.edu (Michele Feist) Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2011 14:03:58 -0600 Subject: CFP: EMCL 5.2 - Chicago Message-ID: The Center for the Study of Languages at the University of Chicago together with The Center for East European and Russian/Eurasian Studies (CEERES) present Empirical Methods in Cognitive Linguistics 5.2 (EMCL-5.2) ? Chicago The Integration of Corpus and Experimental Methods 13 ? 18 June 2011 http://languages.uchicago.edu/emcl5-2 Call for Participation We invite applications to the next workshop on Empirical Methods in Cognitive Linguistics ? EMCL 5.2 ? to be held at the University of Chicago (Chicago, IL), 13 ? 18 June 2011. The EMCL workshop series aims to encourage dialogue between language researchers who routinely employ different methodologies. This dialogue is initiated within an environment where novices and specialists combine their skills to develop a research project together. For EMCL 5.2, we will focus on the integration of corpus and experimental methods in language research. Intended audience: Early career language researchers (i.e., graduate students, postdocs, junior faculty, etc.) grounded in theoretical issues surrounding cognitive linguistics, cognitive science, embodiment, and/or situated cognition. No prior training with corpus or experimental methods is necessary. Format: Selected students (maximum 8 per group, for a total of 24) will be invited to join one of the 3 hands-on mini-labs at the workshop. Each group will be led by two researchers who will work cooperatively ? one specializing in corpus methods, and one in experimental methods. As a group, each mini-lab will walk through the process of deciding on a research question; developing empirically testable hypotheses and designing the means to test those hypotheses; collecting, analyzing, and interpreting the data; and presenting their findings before an audience. The workshop will end with a mini-conference in which each group will have the opportunity to present their study and participate in a general discussion. Workshop faculty: Group 1: Michele Feist University of Louisiana at Lafayette Research interests: lexical semantics; spatial and motion language; acquisition of semantics; linguistic typology; language and thought www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~mif8232 Steven Clancy University of Chicago Research interests: cognitive linguistics; case semantics and verbal semantics; grammaticalization; historical linguistics; quantitative methods and corpus methods home.uchicago.edu/~sclancy Group 2: Dagmar Divjak University of Sheffield Research interests: lexical semantics, usage-based cognitive linguistics, the role of frequency, corpus methods, grammar-lexis interface, near-synonyms, aspect and modality, language acquisition www.sheffield.ac.uk/russian/staff/profiles/divjakd.html Ben Bergen University of California San Diego Research interests: lexical and constructional meaning processing; figurative language comprehension; embodiment in models of language use www.cogsci.ucsd.edu/~bkbergen Group 3: Laura Carlson University of Notre Dame Research interests: spatial language; spatial reference frames; how we remember and use landmarks; why we get lost www.nd.edu/~lcarlson Mark Davies Brigham Young University Research interests: corpus design, creation, and use; historical change (especially syntax); genre-based variation (especially syntax), frequency and collocational data; English, Spanish, and Portuguese http://davies-linguistics.byu.edu/ Accommodations Accommodations are available within easy walking distance of the university; prices range from $60+ per night for a single, or $80+ per night for a double. Further information will be given to accepted participants after notification of acceptance to the workshop. Participation fee: $300.00 Fees will cover the costs of organization and faculty travel and accommodations and will also cover most meals for participants during the workshop. Application To apply, please send the following: 1. A letter of application, maximum of two pages, describing a. Your background and research interests b. Your reasons for wanting to participate in EMCL 5.2 c. The research group you would like to work in and why 2. A copy of your curriculum vitae. Please submit all materials electronically to emcl5.2.chicago (at) gmail.com. The application deadline is 15 March 2011. Accepted applicants will be notified on or before 1 May 2011. **Please note: Participation is strictly limited to accepted applicants so as to preserve the pedagogical integrity of the workshop atmosphere. * * * We thank the following organizations for their generous support of EMCL 5.2 The Center for the Study of Languages The Center for East European and Russian/Eurasian Studies (CEERES) -- EMCL 5.2 Organizing Committee: Michele I. Feist, University of Louisiana at Lafayette Steven Clancy, University of Chicago From hopper at cmu.edu Thu Feb 3 01:24:33 2011 From: hopper at cmu.edu (Paul Hopper) Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2011 20:24:33 -0500 Subject: [Fwd: PRESS RELEASE: FAU Graduate Students Offer Speech Therapy Via Webcam to Republic of Rwanda Citizens] Message-ID: ---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- Subject: PRESS RELEASE: FAU Graduate Students Offer Speech Therapy Via Webcam to Republic of Rwanda Citizens From: "Lisa Metcalf" Date: Wed, February 2, 2011 10:57 To: "Lisa Metcalf" Cc: "Kristine Gobbo" "Lynn Laurenti" "Gregg Sekscienski" "Toni Wolf" -------------------------------------------------------------------------- [new media .gif] MEDIA CONTACT: Toni Wolf 561-297-3029, twolf4 at fau.edu FAU Graduate Students Offer Speech Therapy Via Webcam to Republic of Rwanda Citizens BOCA RATON, FL (February 2, 2011) - Graduate students in the speech pathology and audiology program in Florida Atlantic University's department of communication sciences and disorders have established a program with the Republic of Rwanda to offer speech and language services to its citizens. Using Skype webcam video, the graduate students teach "accent reduction therapy" to Rwandan businesspeople to improve their English pronunciation so that they can conduct business with Americans. "Rwandans learn British English, and the idioms, vocabulary, tone and stress patterns of British English are quite different from American English," said Dale Williams, Ph.D., professor of communication sciences and disorders at FAU. "The therapy is helping the Rwandans to better understand Americans and be understood by them." The speech therapy program with Rwanda was established through the Koinonia Foundation, a nonprofit organization that provides solar power to schools, medical care and other services begun by Williams, a Peace Corp volunteer who taught in Ghana in the early 1980s. FAU graduate student Michela Mir has worked with two groups in Rwanda over the last year, completing tasks that had them listening to different methods of word pronunciation, along with reviewing diagrams that showed how different vowels are produced in the mouth, with tongue placement and jaw movement. "I used research-based techniques, word lists and drills, moving from words to phrases to sentences and eventually to having a whole conversation," said Mir. "There were technical difficulties because the Skype connection takes a lot of bandwidth, which isn't easily available in Rwanda. But despite that, Skype seems to be an effective way to conduct therapy. You're face to face with them in real time." For more information, contact Dr. Dale Williams at 561-297-3238 or dwilliam at fau.edu. -FAU- About Florida Atlantic University: Florida Atlantic University opened its doors in 1964 as the fifth public university in Florida. Today, the University serves more than 28,000 undergraduate and graduate students on seven campuses and sites. Building on its rich tradition as a teaching university, with a world-class faculty, FAU hosts 10 colleges: the Dorothy F. Schmidt College of Arts & Letters, the College of Business, the College for Design and Social Inquiry, the College of Education, the College of Engineering & Computer Science, the Graduate College, the Harriet L. Wilkes Honors College, the Charles E. Schmidt College of Medicine, the Christine E. Lynn College of Nursing and the Charles E. Schmidt College of Science. For more information, visit www.fau.edu. Lisa Metcalf Associate Director, Media Relations Florida Atlantic University 777 Glades Road ADM 286 Boca Raton, FL 33431 561-297-3022 - OFFICE 561-297-3001 - FAX 561-706-2030 - CELL -- Paul J. Hopper Paul Mellon Distinguished Professor of Humanities Department of English Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA 15213 and Senior External Fellow School of Language and Literature Freiburg Institute for Advanced Studies (FRIAS) Albertstr. 19 D-79105 Freiburg i.Br. Germany From amnfn at well.com Thu Feb 3 13:05:55 2011 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 05:05:55 -0800 Subject: [Fwd: PRESS RELEASE: FAU Graduate Students Offer Speech Therapy Via Webcam to Republic of Rwanda Citizens] In-Reply-To: <45b52853386f0a90d9888c8f04fb40cc.squirrel@webmail.andrew.cmu.edu> Message-ID: Interesting! I never thought trying to switch from a British pronunciation target to an American target would be called "therapy". That somehow implies that one dialect is less "healthy" than the other. --Aya On Wed, 2 Feb 2011, Paul Hopper wrote: > > > > > > ---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- > Subject: PRESS RELEASE: FAU Graduate Students Offer Speech Therapy Via > Webcam to Republic of Rwanda Citizens > From: "Lisa Metcalf" > Date: Wed, February 2, 2011 10:57 > To: "Lisa Metcalf" > Cc: "Kristine Gobbo" > "Lynn Laurenti" > "Gregg Sekscienski" > "Toni Wolf" > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > [new media .gif] > > > > MEDIA CONTACT: Toni Wolf > > 561-297-3029, twolf4 at fau.edu > > > > FAU Graduate Students Offer Speech Therapy Via Webcam > to Republic of Rwanda Citizens > > > > BOCA RATON, FL (February 2, 2011) - Graduate students in the > speech pathology and audiology program in Florida Atlantic > University's department of communication sciences and > disorders have established a program with the Republic of > Rwanda to offer speech and language services to its citizens. > > Using Skype webcam video, the graduate students teach "accent > reduction therapy" to Rwandan businesspeople to improve their > English pronunciation so that they can conduct business with > Americans. > > "Rwandans learn British English, and the idioms, vocabulary, tone and > stress patterns of British English are quite different from American > English," said Dale Williams, Ph.D., professor of communication sciences > and disorders at FAU. "The therapy is helping the Rwandans to better > understand Americans and be understood by them." > > The speech therapy program with Rwanda was established through the > Koinonia Foundation, a nonprofit organization that provides solar power to > schools, medical care and other services begun by Williams, a Peace Corp > volunteer who taught in Ghana in the early 1980s. > > FAU graduate student Michela Mir has worked with two groups in Rwanda over > the last year, completing tasks that had them listening to different > methods of word pronunciation, along with reviewing diagrams that showed > how different vowels are produced in the mouth, with tongue placement and > jaw movement. > > "I used research-based techniques, word lists and drills, moving from > words to phrases to sentences and eventually to having a whole > conversation," said Mir. "There were technical difficulties because the > Skype connection takes a lot of bandwidth, which isn't easily available in > Rwanda. But despite that, Skype seems to be an effective way to conduct > therapy. You're face to face with them in real time." > > For more information, contact Dr. Dale Williams at > 561-297-3238 or dwilliam at fau.edu. > > > > -FAU- > > > > About Florida Atlantic University: > > Florida Atlantic University opened its doors in 1964 as the fifth public > university in Florida. Today, the University serves more than 28,000 > undergraduate and graduate students on seven campuses and sites. Building > on its rich tradition as a teaching university, with a world-class > faculty, FAU hosts 10 colleges: the Dorothy F. Schmidt College of Arts & > Letters, the College of Business, the College for Design and Social > Inquiry, the College of Education, the College of Engineering & Computer > Science, the Graduate College, the Harriet L. Wilkes Honors College, the > Charles E. Schmidt College of Medicine, the Christine E. Lynn College of > Nursing and the Charles E. Schmidt College of Science. For more > information, visit www.fau.edu. > > > > > > > > > Lisa Metcalf > Associate Director, Media Relations > Florida Atlantic University > 777 Glades Road > ADM 286 > Boca Raton, FL 33431 > 561-297-3022 - OFFICE > 561-297-3001 - FAX > 561-706-2030 - CELL > > > > -- > Paul J. Hopper > Paul Mellon Distinguished Professor of Humanities > Department of English > Carnegie Mellon University > Pittsburgh, PA 15213 > and > Senior External Fellow > School of Language and Literature > Freiburg Institute for Advanced Studies (FRIAS) > Albertstr. 19 > D-79105 Freiburg i.Br. > Germany > From mark at polymathix.com Thu Feb 3 13:13:56 2011 From: mark at polymathix.com (Mark P. Line) Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 07:13:56 -0600 Subject: [Fwd: PRESS RELEASE: FAU Graduate Students Offer Speech Therapy Via Webcam to Republic of Rwanda Citizens] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: And judging from the number of American TV commercials that are voiced over in British English, it doesn't appear that the business world really sees the British accent as a problem in the first place. Now, if a Rwandan entrepreneur wanted to open a used car dealership in Tuscaloosa, that might be different.... -- Mark Mark P. Line Bartlesville, OK A. Katz wrote: > Interesting! I never thought trying to switch from a British pronunciation > target to an American target would be called "therapy". That somehow > implies that one dialect is less "healthy" than the other. > > --Aya > > > On Wed, 2 Feb 2011, Paul Hopper wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> >> ---------------------------- Original Message >> ---------------------------- >> Subject: PRESS RELEASE: FAU Graduate Students Offer Speech Therapy Via >> Webcam to Republic of Rwanda Citizens >> From: "Lisa Metcalf" >> Date: Wed, February 2, 2011 10:57 >> To: "Lisa Metcalf" >> Cc: "Kristine Gobbo" >> "Lynn Laurenti" >> "Gregg Sekscienski" >> "Toni Wolf" >> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> [new media .gif] >> >> >> >> MEDIA CONTACT: Toni Wolf >> >> 561-297-3029, twolf4 at fau.edu >> >> >> >> FAU Graduate Students Offer Speech Therapy Via Webcam >> to Republic of Rwanda Citizens >> >> >> >> BOCA RATON, FL (February 2, 2011) - Graduate students in the >> speech pathology and audiology program in Florida Atlantic >> University's department of communication sciences and >> disorders have established a program with the Republic of >> Rwanda to offer speech and language services to its citizens. >> >> Using Skype webcam video, the graduate students teach "accent >> reduction therapy" to Rwandan businesspeople to improve their >> English pronunciation so that they can conduct business with >> Americans. >> >> "Rwandans learn British English, and the idioms, vocabulary, tone and >> stress patterns of British English are quite different from American >> English," said Dale Williams, Ph.D., professor of communication sciences >> and disorders at FAU. "The therapy is helping the Rwandans to better >> understand Americans and be understood by them." >> >> The speech therapy program with Rwanda was established through the >> Koinonia Foundation, a nonprofit organization that provides solar power >> to >> schools, medical care and other services begun by Williams, a Peace Corp >> volunteer who taught in Ghana in the early 1980s. >> >> FAU graduate student Michela Mir has worked with two groups in Rwanda >> over >> the last year, completing tasks that had them listening to different >> methods of word pronunciation, along with reviewing diagrams that showed >> how different vowels are produced in the mouth, with tongue placement >> and >> jaw movement. >> >> "I used research-based techniques, word lists and drills, moving from >> words to phrases to sentences and eventually to having a whole >> conversation," said Mir. "There were technical difficulties because the >> Skype connection takes a lot of bandwidth, which isn't easily available >> in >> Rwanda. But despite that, Skype seems to be an effective way to conduct >> therapy. You're face to face with them in real time." >> >> For more information, contact Dr. Dale Williams at >> 561-297-3238 or dwilliam at fau.edu. >> >> >> >> -FAU- >> >> >> >> About Florida Atlantic University: >> >> Florida Atlantic University opened its doors in 1964 as the fifth public >> university in Florida. Today, the University serves more than 28,000 >> undergraduate and graduate students on seven campuses and sites. >> Building >> on its rich tradition as a teaching university, with a world-class >> faculty, FAU hosts 10 colleges: the Dorothy F. Schmidt College of Arts & >> Letters, the College of Business, the College for Design and Social >> Inquiry, the College of Education, the College of Engineering & >> Computer >> Science, the Graduate College, the Harriet L. Wilkes Honors College, the >> Charles E. Schmidt College of Medicine, the Christine E. Lynn College of >> Nursing and the Charles E. Schmidt College of Science. For more >> information, visit www.fau.edu. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Lisa Metcalf >> Associate Director, Media Relations >> Florida Atlantic University >> 777 Glades Road >> ADM 286 >> Boca Raton, FL 33431 >> 561-297-3022 - OFFICE >> 561-297-3001 - FAX >> 561-706-2030 - CELL >> >> >> >> -- >> Paul J. Hopper >> Paul Mellon Distinguished Professor of Humanities >> Department of English >> Carnegie Mellon University >> Pittsburgh, PA 15213 >> and >> Senior External Fellow >> School of Language and Literature >> Freiburg Institute for Advanced Studies (FRIAS) >> Albertstr. 19 >> D-79105 Freiburg i.Br. >> Germany >> > > -- Mark Mark P. Line Bartlesville, OK From carlosmnash at gmail.com Thu Feb 3 14:29:37 2011 From: carlosmnash at gmail.com (Carlos M Nash) Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 08:29:37 -0600 Subject: [Fwd: PRESS RELEASE: FAU Graduate Students Offer Speech Therapy Via Webcam to Republic of Rwanda Citizens] In-Reply-To: <45b52853386f0a90d9888c8f04fb40cc.squirrel@webmail.andrew.cmu.edu> Message-ID: I find it absolutely embarrassing, frustrating, and depressing that, in the 21st century, this sort of philosophy is being passed on to future academics. With the significant amount of British media accessed by Americans on a daily basis, and exposure to different varieties of British English from British actors in Hollywood, you would think there would be some negative indicator (e.g. lack or loss of profit) if there were difficulties for the average American consumer to comprehend non-American varieties. In the meantime, I'll watch another 30 minutes of BBC News before walking to campus in subzero temperature. Best Wishes. ------------------------------ Carlos M Nash Department of Anthropology University of Kansas From taisaoliveira at yahoo.com Thu Feb 3 14:45:50 2011 From: taisaoliveira at yahoo.com (=?utf-8?B?VGHDrXNhIFBlcmVz?=) Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 06:45:50 -0800 Subject: CALL FOR PAPERS Message-ID: 1st INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON FUNCTIONAL LINGUISTICS May 25th-27th, 2011 Local: UFMS/Campus de Tr?s Lagoas ? Unidade I Tr?s Lagoas-MS The aim of the I Simp?sio Internacional de Lingu?stica Funcional? I SILF (International Symposium of Functional Linguistics), to be held at Universidade Federal de Mato Grosso do Sul ? UFMS, Campus of Tr?s Lagoas, is to bring together students and researchers from different functionalist theoretical perspectives to discuss current researches on Language description (including sign languages), Typological studies, Linguistic change and Cognitive Linguistics. INVITED SPEAKERS: - LEHMANN, Christian (Universit?t Erfurt/GERMANY) - MACKENZIE, John Lachlan (UvA, VrijeUniversiteit, ILTEC/PORTUGAL) - BENTES, Anna Christina (UNICAMP/BRAZIL) - BRAGA, Maria Luiza (UFRJ/BRAZIL) - CAMACHO, Roberto Gomes (UNESP/BRAZIL) - CARDOSO, Val?ria Faria (UNEMAT/BRAZIL) - DALL?AGLIO HATTNHER, Marize Mattos (UNESP/BRAZIL) - FURTADO DA CUNHA, Maria Ang?lica (UFRN/BRAZIL) -MORI, Angel Humberto Corbera (UNICAMP/BRAZIL) - MOURA NEVES, Maria Helena (UNESP/UPM/BRAZIL) - PEZATTI, Erotilde Goreti (UNESP/BRAZIL) - SALOM?O, Margarida (UFJF/BRAZIL) We invite researchers to submit abstracts that have aFunctional theoretical background or are linked to any of the functionalist perspectives as follows: - Theory of Functional Grammar - Theory of Functional Discourse Grammar - Theory of Role and Reference Grammar - Theory of Systemic Functional Grammar - Theory of Grammaticalization - West Coast Functionalism - Rhetorical Structure Theory - Textual Linguistics - Sociocognitivism - Functionalism andteaching - Typology and functionalism - Functionalism and language change We now invite the submission of abstracts for paper presentations. Papers will be allocated 20 minutes plus 10 minutes for discussion. The deadline for submitting abstracts is February 20, 2011. To submit your abstract, please access the link (http://www.silf2011.com/Normas-e-Submiss%C3%A3o-de-resumos.php). All the abstracts will be evaluated anonymously. In order to check the evaluation status of your abstract, visit the page www.silf2011.com. ABSTRATC FORMATTING: ? Minimum of 200 words, maximum 300 words; ? Title: Caps, centered; ? Author?s name: two lines after the title, right-aligned; ? Membership: a line below the author?s name; ? The abstract text: two lines below the affiliation, no indentation of paragraphs, Times New Roman 12, single spacing. ? Abstracts must be submitted in Portuguese only. IMPORTANT DATES: ? Deadline for payment with discount ? 03/30/2011; ? Deadline for payment without discount ? 05/25/2011; Ouvir Ler foneticamente Dicion?rio - Ver dicion?rio detalhado 1. pronome 1. you 2. thee PROGRAMME COMMITTEE: Profa. Dra. Ta?sa Peres de Oliveira Prof. Dr. Edson Rosa Francisco de Souza Prof. Dr. Sebasti?o Carlos Leite Gon?alves Prof. Dr. Eduardo Penhavel Profa. Alessandra Regina Guerra MORE INFORMATION: www.silf2011.com Email: silf2011 at gmail.comand simposio2011 at silf2011.com Profa. Dra. Taisa Peres de Oliveira Universidade Federal de Mato Grosso do Sul Departamento de Educa?ao/Programa de Mestrado em Letras Campus de Tres Lagoas From bgnathaleigh at gmail.com Thu Feb 3 14:56:55 2011 From: bgnathaleigh at gmail.com (Natalie Weber) Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 08:56:55 -0600 Subject: [Fwd: PRESS RELEASE: FAU Graduate Students Offer Speech Therapy Via Webcam to Republic of Rwanda Citizens] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Thinking cynically here: Like Carlos and Mark, I doubt that a British accent impedes business in America. But I do know of Americans who have trouble with African accents. And African accent + British turns of speech would be even more difficult. I wonder if it would be more accurate to say that this "therapy" aids in developing a more American accent, no matter what English dialect you had previously learned, and is called "speech therapy" to make it more palatable to those who pay for the service? Many language courses do not emphasize natural pronunciation, assuming that "it will just come when you are more fluent", so I would imagine such a speech therapy service could be in high demand. No way of knowing for sure, of course, without partaking in the speech therapy course itself or asking the people involved. But this is what it sounded like to me from the description. --Natalie Weber On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 8:29 AM, Carlos M Nash wrote: > I find it absolutely embarrassing, frustrating, and depressing that, in the > 21st century, this sort of philosophy is being passed on to future > academics. With the significant amount of British media accessed by > Americans on a daily basis, and exposure to different varieties of British > English from British actors in Hollywood, you would think there would be > some negative indicator (e.g. lack or loss of profit) if there were > difficulties for the average American consumer to comprehend non-American > varieties. > > In the meantime, I'll watch another 30 minutes of BBC News before walking > to > campus in subzero temperature. > > Best Wishes. > ------------------------------ > Carlos M Nash > Department of Anthropology > University of Kansas > From dcyr at yorku.ca Thu Feb 3 15:01:57 2011 From: dcyr at yorku.ca (Danielle E. Cyr) Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 10:01:57 -0500 Subject: [Fwd: PRESS RELEASE: FAU Graduate Students Offer Speech Therapy Via Webcam to Republic of Rwanda Citizens] In-Reply-To: <45b52853386f0a90d9888c8f04fb40cc.squirrel@webmail.andrew.cmu.edu> Message-ID: Very interesting indeed. Most English-Canadian universities where French is taught hire instructors from France, Belgium, Switzerland and former French colonies rather than native French-Canadians. With the result that students graduate in French from Anglo-Canadian universities barely able to understand their fellow French-Canadian citizens. Perhaps French-Canadian teachers could make money offering speech "therapy" to these graduates ... Interestingly, though, all English speaking Canadian politicians who need to learn French make sure that they learn the French-Canadian variety so that they can be recognized as friendly to French-Canadian voters. In return, French-Canadian voters tend to be reluctant to grant their vote to English-Canadians speaking French with a "Parisian" accent. Warmest regards to all despite our -20?C here. Danielle Quoting Paul Hopper : > > > > > > ---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- > Subject: PRESS RELEASE: FAU Graduate Students Offer Speech Therapy Via > Webcam to Republic of Rwanda Citizens > From: "Lisa Metcalf" > Date: Wed, February 2, 2011 10:57 > To: "Lisa Metcalf" > Cc: "Kristine Gobbo" > "Lynn Laurenti" > "Gregg Sekscienski" > "Toni Wolf" > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > [new media .gif] > > > > MEDIA CONTACT: Toni Wolf > > 561-297-3029, twolf4 at fau.edu > > > > FAU Graduate Students Offer Speech Therapy Via Webcam > to Republic of Rwanda Citizens > > > > BOCA RATON, FL (February 2, 2011) - Graduate students in the > speech pathology and audiology program in Florida Atlantic > University's department of communication sciences and > disorders have established a program with the Republic of > Rwanda to offer speech and language services to its citizens. > > Using Skype webcam video, the graduate students teach "accent > reduction therapy" to Rwandan businesspeople to improve their > English pronunciation so that they can conduct business with > Americans. > > "Rwandans learn British English, and the idioms, vocabulary, tone and > stress patterns of British English are quite different from American > English," said Dale Williams, Ph.D., professor of communication sciences > and disorders at FAU. "The therapy is helping the Rwandans to better > understand Americans and be understood by them." > > The speech therapy program with Rwanda was established through the > Koinonia Foundation, a nonprofit organization that provides solar power to > schools, medical care and other services begun by Williams, a Peace Corp > volunteer who taught in Ghana in the early 1980s. > > FAU graduate student Michela Mir has worked with two groups in Rwanda over > the last year, completing tasks that had them listening to different > methods of word pronunciation, along with reviewing diagrams that showed > how different vowels are produced in the mouth, with tongue placement and > jaw movement. > > "I used research-based techniques, word lists and drills, moving from > words to phrases to sentences and eventually to having a whole > conversation," said Mir. "There were technical difficulties because the > Skype connection takes a lot of bandwidth, which isn't easily available in > Rwanda. But despite that, Skype seems to be an effective way to conduct > therapy. You're face to face with them in real time." > > For more information, contact Dr. Dale Williams at > 561-297-3238 or dwilliam at fau.edu. > > > > -FAU- > > > > About Florida Atlantic University: > > Florida Atlantic University opened its doors in 1964 as the fifth public > university in Florida. Today, the University serves more than 28,000 > undergraduate and graduate students on seven campuses and sites. Building > on its rich tradition as a teaching university, with a world-class > faculty, FAU hosts 10 colleges: the Dorothy F. Schmidt College of Arts & > Letters, the College of Business, the College for Design and Social > Inquiry, the College of Education, the College of Engineering & Computer > Science, the Graduate College, the Harriet L. Wilkes Honors College, the > Charles E. Schmidt College of Medicine, the Christine E. Lynn College of > Nursing and the Charles E. Schmidt College of Science. For more > information, visit www.fau.edu. > > > > > > > > > Lisa Metcalf > Associate Director, Media Relations > Florida Atlantic University > 777 Glades Road > ADM 286 > Boca Raton, FL 33431 > 561-297-3022 - OFFICE > 561-297-3001 - FAX > 561-706-2030 - CELL > > > > -- > Paul J. Hopper > Paul Mellon Distinguished Professor of Humanities > Department of English > Carnegie Mellon University > Pittsburgh, PA 15213 > and > Senior External Fellow > School of Language and Literature > Freiburg Institute for Advanced Studies (FRIAS) > Albertstr. 19 > D-79105 Freiburg i.Br. > Germany > "The only hope we have as human beings is to learn each other's languages. Only then can we truly hope to understand one another." Professor Danielle E. Cyr Department of French Studies York University Toronto, ON, Canada, M3J 1P3 Tel. 1.416.736.2100 #310180 FAX. 1.416.736.5924 dcyr at yorku.ca From grvsmth at panix.com Thu Feb 3 15:23:47 2011 From: grvsmth at panix.com (Angus B. Grieve-Smith) Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 10:23:47 -0500 Subject: [Fwd: PRESS RELEASE: FAU Graduate Students Offer Speech Therapy Via Webcam to Republic of Rwanda Citizens] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 2/3/2011 9:56 AM, Natalie Weber wrote: > I wonder if it would be more accurate to say that this "therapy" aids in > developing a more American accent, no matter what English dialect you had > previously learned, and is called "speech therapy" to make it more palatable > to those who pay for the service? Many language courses do not emphasize > natural pronunciation, assuming that "it will just come when you are more > fluent", so I would imagine such a speech therapy service could be in high > demand. I think that accents are being pathologized because that puts speech trainers in a class of "medical practitioners" rather than teachers, and allows them to demand higher fees and greater prestige. It may even be paid for by some insurance companies, for all I know. It may also be a case of "when you've got a hammer, everything looks like a nail." These two explanations are not mutually exclusive. -- -Angus B. Grieve-Smith grvsmth at panix.com From amnfn at well.com Thu Feb 3 15:33:55 2011 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 07:33:55 -0800 Subject: [Fwd: PRESS RELEASE: FAU Graduate Students Offer Speech Therapy Via Webcam to Republic of Rwanda Citizens] In-Reply-To: <4D4AC883.2000107@panix.com> Message-ID: Angus, I agree. Your explanations make sense. Especially the first one! --Aya On Thu, 3 Feb 2011, Angus B. Grieve-Smith wrote: > On 2/3/2011 9:56 AM, Natalie Weber wrote: >> I wonder if it would be more accurate to say that this "therapy" aids in >> developing a more American accent, no matter what English dialect you had >> previously learned, and is called "speech therapy" to make it more >> palatable >> to those who pay for the service? Many language courses do not emphasize >> natural pronunciation, assuming that "it will just come when you are more >> fluent", so I would imagine such a speech therapy service could be in high >> demand. > I think that accents are being pathologized because that puts speech > trainers in a class of "medical practitioners" rather than teachers, and > allows them to demand higher fees and greater prestige. It may even be paid > for by some insurance companies, for all I know. > > It may also be a case of "when you've got a hammer, everything looks like > a nail." These two explanations are not mutually exclusive. > > -- > -Angus B. Grieve-Smith > grvsmth at panix.com > > From mark at polymathix.com Thu Feb 3 19:43:53 2011 From: mark at polymathix.com (Mark P. Line) Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 13:43:53 -0600 Subject: [Fwd: PRESS RELEASE: FAU Graduate Students Offer Speech Therapy Via Webcam to Republic of Rwanda Citizens] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Maybe it's more palatable to their Rwandan clients to hear "your English is too British for the Americans" than to hear "your English is too African for the Americans". -- Mark Mark P. Line Bartlesville, OK (experiencing a heat wave at 19F) Natalie Weber wrote: > Thinking cynically here: > Like Carlos and Mark, I doubt that a British accent impedes business in > America. But I do know of Americans who have trouble with African accents. > And African accent + British turns of speech would be even more difficult. > I > wonder if it would be more accurate to say that this "therapy" aids in > developing a more American accent, no matter what English dialect you had > previously learned, and is called "speech therapy" to make it more > palatable > to those who pay for the service? Many language courses do not emphasize > natural pronunciation, assuming that "it will just come when you are more > fluent", so I would imagine such a speech therapy service could be in high > demand. > > No way of knowing for sure, of course, without partaking in the speech > therapy course itself or asking the people involved. But this is what it > sounded like to me from the description. > > --Natalie Weber > > On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 8:29 AM, Carlos M Nash > wrote: > >> I find it absolutely embarrassing, frustrating, and depressing that, in >> the >> 21st century, this sort of philosophy is being passed on to future >> academics. With the significant amount of British media accessed by >> Americans on a daily basis, and exposure to different varieties of >> British >> English from British actors in Hollywood, you would think there would be >> some negative indicator (e.g. lack or loss of profit) if there were >> difficulties for the average American consumer to comprehend >> non-American >> varieties. >> >> In the meantime, I'll watch another 30 minutes of BBC News before >> walking >> to >> campus in subzero temperature. >> >> Best Wishes. >> ------------------------------ >> Carlos M Nash >> Department of Anthropology >> University of Kansas >> > > From tgivon at uoregon.edu Thu Feb 3 22:36:46 2011 From: tgivon at uoregon.edu (Tom Givon) Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 15:36:46 -0700 Subject: [Fwd: PRESS RELEASE: FAU Graduate Students Offer Speech Therapy Via Webcam to Republic of Rwanda Citizens] In-Reply-To: <503cf786a9f2736f1022d78cc40aaf23.squirrel@sm.webmail.pair.com> Message-ID: In the old days in SLA, we used to do contrastive analysis of the native (L1) & target (L2) languages in order to understand potential phonological & grammatical difficulties that L1 speakers may have in trying to learn L2. Put another way, you had to know BOTH languages to teach L2 to native speakers of L1. I just wonder what these hustlers really know about the highly complex KinyaRwanda tonal system, which in my experience makes the native KR speakers' English intonation so unlike English? My beloved student Alexandre Kimenyi, RIP, lived and taught in this country for 40-odd years, yet to the very end I could barely undferstand his--fluent!--English. When there's enough $$$ jingling, hustlers will follow (viz our earlier discussion on RS) And alas, our field--or at least its margins--is not immune. TG =============== On 2/3/2011 12:43 PM, Mark P. Line wrote: > Maybe it's more palatable to their Rwandan clients to hear "your English > is too British for the Americans" than to hear "your English is too > African for the Americans". > > -- Mark > > Mark P. Line > Bartlesville, OK (experiencing a heat wave at 19F) > > > Natalie Weber wrote: >> Thinking cynically here: >> Like Carlos and Mark, I doubt that a British accent impedes business in >> America. But I do know of Americans who have trouble with African accents. >> And African accent + British turns of speech would be even more difficult. >> I >> wonder if it would be more accurate to say that this "therapy" aids in >> developing a more American accent, no matter what English dialect you had >> previously learned, and is called "speech therapy" to make it more >> palatable >> to those who pay for the service? Many language courses do not emphasize >> natural pronunciation, assuming that "it will just come when you are more >> fluent", so I would imagine such a speech therapy service could be in high >> demand. >> >> No way of knowing for sure, of course, without partaking in the speech >> therapy course itself or asking the people involved. But this is what it >> sounded like to me from the description. >> >> --Natalie Weber >> >> On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 8:29 AM, Carlos M Nash >> wrote: >> >>> I find it absolutely embarrassing, frustrating, and depressing that, in >>> the >>> 21st century, this sort of philosophy is being passed on to future >>> academics. With the significant amount of British media accessed by >>> Americans on a daily basis, and exposure to different varieties of >>> British >>> English from British actors in Hollywood, you would think there would be >>> some negative indicator (e.g. lack or loss of profit) if there were >>> difficulties for the average American consumer to comprehend >>> non-American >>> varieties. >>> >>> In the meantime, I'll watch another 30 minutes of BBC News before >>> walking >>> to >>> campus in subzero temperature. >>> >>> Best Wishes. >>> ------------------------------ >>> Carlos M Nash >>> Department of Anthropology >>> University of Kansas >>> >> From hopper at cmu.edu Fri Feb 4 04:10:05 2011 From: hopper at cmu.edu (Paul Hopper) Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 23:10:05 -0500 Subject: [Fwd: PRESS RELEASE: FAU Graduate Students Offer Speech Therapy Via Webcam to Republic of Rwanda Citizens] In-Reply-To: <4D4AC883.2000107@panix.com> Message-ID: Yes, Angus gets it right. Terminology is part of the power/money play of medical organizations. Optometrists have explicit rules about it (a brochure put out by the New York State Optometrics Association recommended that clients should be referred to as "patients", the receptionist should be a "nurse", to insist on the title "Doctor", etc.) I too wondered if there isn't a bit of global rivalry surfacing here between the British and American accents. There's quite a story to be told about this, I think. Paul On Thu, February 3, 2011 10:23, Angus B. Grieve-Smith wrote: > On 2/3/2011 9:56 AM, Natalie Weber wrote: > >> I wonder if it would be more accurate to say that this "therapy" aids >> in developing a more American accent, no matter what English dialect you >> had previously learned, and is called "speech therapy" to make it more >> palatable to those who pay for the service? Many language courses do not >> emphasize natural pronunciation, assuming that "it will just come when >> you are more fluent", so I would imagine such a speech therapy service >> could be in high demand. > I think that accents are being pathologized because that puts > speech trainers in a class of "medical practitioners" rather than teachers, > and allows them to demand higher fees and greater prestige. It may even be > paid for by some insurance companies, for all I know. > > It may also be a case of "when you've got a hammer, everything > looks like a nail." These two explanations are not mutually exclusive. > > -- > -Angus B. Grieve-Smith > grvsmth at panix.com > > > -- Paul J. Hopper Paul Mellon Distinguished Professor of Humanities Department of English Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA 15213 and Senior External Fellow School of Language and Literature Freiburg Institute for Advanced Studies (FRIAS) Albertstr. 19 D-79105 Freiburg i.Br. Germany From language at sprynet.com Fri Feb 4 10:08:44 2011 From: language at sprynet.com (alex gross) Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2011 05:08:44 -0500 Subject: [Fwd: PRESS RELEASE: FAU Graduate Students Offer Speech Therapy Via Webcam to Republic of Rwanda Citizens] Message-ID: Thanks for your message, Paul. Yes, Angus has it right. And you certainly have it right about this: > I too wondered if there isn't a bit of global rivalry surfacing > here between the British and American accents. There's > quite a story to be told about this, I think. Yes, there is. I grew up in the US but against the background of a British family on my father's side. Have a half-brother who was a well-known British artist & a half-sister who after my father's passing continued to publish the A-Z Atlas of London. Spent considerable time with my older siblings when they came over here during my youth & visited with them in England during the 50s. I lived in the UK from 1963 to 1971, worked as a dramaturg for the Royal Shakespeare, have published in both nations, and have written extensively on Brit-US relations including accents, for instance the following on-line excerpts from my Sixties book: http://untoldsixties.net/eng2.htm#totop http://untoldsixties.net/eng1.htm#totop http://untoldsixties.net/thea.htm#totop I would simply add the following thoughts: Those many Brit actors & TV reporters who flourish over here have for the most part had their Brit accents & expressions cleaned up for US usage. Though I doubt if they used the U/Fla method... When I was in Britain, posh RP tones became so overbearing that there was a strong reaction against them. And if I'm not mistaken the English sociolinguist Peter Trudgill has campaigned fiercely against them. Which has led to the many more varied accents one hears on English TV today. Not all Americans, even among the educated, are able to understand all (or even many) Brit accents. And not all Brits can handle many American ones. Some episodes of "Shameless" I can follow, others leave me mystified. There are even a few pieces of Monty Python where subtitles would be useful. Most Americans don't want to admit they don't understand some Briticisms, & vice versa for the Brits. There could be a linguistic principle here, that people in general don't care to confess when they don't understand something, after all others might interpret this as a failing. Here's an amusing story I so far have only one source for: at a WWII strategy meeting Monty spent some time upbraiding Ike about how barbaric Americans proved themselves whenever they pronounced "schedule" with an "sk" sound. Ike took it for as long as he could but finally replied, "Well, I guess it's wrong, Monty, it must be just something I learned in shool." All the best to everyone! alex PS--Since this purports to be a scholarly group, you might be interested in Norman W. Schur's book "British English" (Harper Perennial 1987). It functions as an English- American dictionary listing 5,000 differences in nouns, verbs, adjectives, & idioms between the two languages. Other similar volumes exist. ************************************************** The principal purpose of language is not communication but to persuade ourselves that we know what we are talking about, when quite often we do not. ************************************************** ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Hopper" To: "Angus B. Grieve-Smith" Cc: Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 11:10 PM Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] [Fwd: PRESS RELEASE: FAU Graduate Students Offer Speech Therapy Via Webcam to Republic of Rwanda Citizens] > Yes, Angus gets it right. Terminology is part of the power/money play of > medical organizations. Optometrists have explicit rules about it (a > brochure put out by the New York State Optometrics Association recommended > that clients should be referred to as "patients", the receptionist should > be a "nurse", to insist on the title "Doctor", etc.) > > I too wondered if there isn't a bit of global rivalry surfacing here > between the British and American accents. There's quite a story to be told > about this, I think. > > Paul > > On Thu, February 3, 2011 10:23, Angus B. Grieve-Smith wrote: >> On 2/3/2011 9:56 AM, Natalie Weber wrote: >> >>> I wonder if it would be more accurate to say that this "therapy" aids >>> in developing a more American accent, no matter what English dialect you >>> had previously learned, and is called "speech therapy" to make it more >>> palatable to those who pay for the service? Many language courses do not >>> emphasize natural pronunciation, assuming that "it will just come when >>> you are more fluent", so I would imagine such a speech therapy service >>> could be in high demand. >> I think that accents are being pathologized because that puts >> speech trainers in a class of "medical practitioners" rather than >> teachers, >> and allows them to demand higher fees and greater prestige. It may even >> be >> paid for by some insurance companies, for all I know. >> >> It may also be a case of "when you've got a hammer, everything >> looks like a nail." These two explanations are not mutually exclusive. >> >> -- >> -Angus B. Grieve-Smith >> grvsmth at panix.com >> >> >> > > > -- > Paul J. Hopper > Paul Mellon Distinguished Professor of Humanities > Department of English > Carnegie Mellon University > Pittsburgh, PA 15213 > and > Senior External Fellow > School of Language and Literature > Freiburg Institute for Advanced Studies (FRIAS) > Albertstr. 19 > D-79105 Freiburg i.Br. > Germany > > > From anne_mariedevlin at hotmail.com Sat Feb 5 00:00:29 2011 From: anne_mariedevlin at hotmail.com (anne marie devlin) Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2011 00:00:29 +0000 Subject: [Fwd: PRESS RELEASE: FAU Graduate Students Offer Speech Therapy Via Webcam to Republic of Rwanda Citizens] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: From: anne_mariedevlin at hotmail.com To: language at sprynet.com Subject: RE: [FUNKNET] [Fwd: PRESS RELEASE: FAU Graduate Students Offer Speech Therapy Via Webcam to Republic of Rwanda Citizens] Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2011 13:13:11 +0000 British RP is used by less that 5% of the population and is by no means the accent of aspiration. Its position has been usurped by estuary English. However, what puzzles me is the 'fact' that Rwandan speakers of English as a second/foreign language have managed to acquire such a strong British (RP) accent complete with idioms that are incomprehensible to the American public. I have been working with adult NNSs of English for more than 20 years and have met very few whose accent is not obviously that of their first language regardless of the locus of learning. I have also worked with Rwandans and have found their accent to be more similar to that of anglophone Africans albeit tinged with French. I agree with the last post re: rivalry in the TEFL world and the probable commercial basis for this. There were many interesting comments about the many varieties of English which leads to the question 'which variety of American English will the Rwandans be converted to?'. Accent is a huge issue as it carries many social connotations and can act as a barrier or a conduit into various spheres of society. However, it is a notoriously difficult area of acquisition - with some SLA researchers believing that a native accent can't be acquired after the onset of puberty. There is, however, a movement towards a neutral accent as espoused by those (see Jennifer Jenkins) developing English as a Lingua Franca (ELF). This accent is accepting of some intra-lingual differences and the main focus is on international intelligibility However, I think the bigger question relates to 'ownership' of English - or any other language- and the 'right' of NNSs to be accepted as such. Surely we have moved away from the Eliza Doolittle model! On a slightly more facetious note, why Rwandans? Surely, they are minor trade partners! AM > From: language at sprynet.com > To: hopper at cmu.edu; grvsmth at panix.com > Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2011 05:08:44 -0500 > CC: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] [Fwd: PRESS RELEASE: FAU Graduate Students Offer Speech Therapy Via Webcam to Republic of Rwanda Citizens] > > Thanks for your message, Paul. Yes, Angus has it right. > And you certainly have it right about this: > > > I too wondered if there isn't a bit of global rivalry surfacing > > here between the British and American accents. There's > > quite a story to be told about this, I think. > > Yes, there is. I grew up in the US but against the > background of a British family on my father's side. Have > a half-brother who was a well-known British artist & > a half-sister who after my father's passing continued to > publish the A-Z Atlas of London. Spent considerable > time with my older siblings when they came over here > during my youth & visited with them in England during > the 50s. I lived in the UK from 1963 to 1971, worked as a > dramaturg for the Royal Shakespeare, have published > in both nations, and have written extensively on Brit-US > relations including accents, for instance the following on-line > excerpts from my Sixties book: > > http://untoldsixties.net/eng2.htm#totop > > http://untoldsixties.net/eng1.htm#totop > > http://untoldsixties.net/thea.htm#totop > > I would simply add the following thoughts: > > Those many Brit actors & TV reporters who flourish > over here have for the most part had their Brit accents & > expressions cleaned up for US usage. Though I doubt > if they used the U/Fla method... > > When I was in Britain, posh RP tones became so > overbearing that there was a strong reaction against them. > And if I'm not mistaken the English sociolinguist > Peter Trudgill has campaigned fiercely against them. > Which has led to the many more varied accents one > hears on English TV today. > > Not all Americans, even among the educated, > are able to understand all (or even many) Brit accents. > And not all Brits can handle many American ones. > Some episodes of "Shameless" I can follow, others > leave me mystified. There are even a few pieces of > Monty Python where subtitles would be useful. > > Most Americans don't want to admit they don't > understand some Briticisms, & vice versa for the Brits. > There could be a linguistic principle here, that people > in general don't care to confess when they don't > understand something, after all others might interpret > this as a failing. > > Here's an amusing story I so far have only one > source for: at a WWII strategy meeting Monty spent > some time upbraiding Ike about how barbaric > Americans proved themselves whenever they > pronounced "schedule" with an "sk" sound. > Ike took it for as long as he could but finally > replied, "Well, I guess it's wrong, Monty, it > must be just something I learned in shool." > > All the best to everyone! > > alex > > PS--Since this purports to be a scholarly group, you might > be interested in Norman W. Schur's book "British English" > (Harper Perennial 1987). It functions as an English- > American dictionary listing 5,000 differences in nouns, > verbs, adjectives, & idioms between the two languages. > Other similar volumes exist. > > ************************************************** > The principal purpose of language is not communication but to persuade > ourselves > that we know what we are talking about, when quite often we do not. > > ************************************************** > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Paul Hopper" > To: "Angus B. Grieve-Smith" > Cc: > Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 11:10 PM > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] [Fwd: PRESS RELEASE: FAU Graduate Students Offer > Speech Therapy Via Webcam to Republic of Rwanda Citizens] > > > > Yes, Angus gets it right. Terminology is part of the power/money play of > > medical organizations. Optometrists have explicit rules about it (a > > brochure put out by the New York State Optometrics Association recommended > > that clients should be referred to as "patients", the receptionist should > > be a "nurse", to insist on the title "Doctor", etc.) > > > > I too wondered if there isn't a bit of global rivalry surfacing here > > between the British and American accents. There's quite a story to be told > > about this, I think. > > > > Paul > > > > On Thu, February 3, 2011 10:23, Angus B. Grieve-Smith wrote: > >> On 2/3/2011 9:56 AM, Natalie Weber wrote: > >> > >>> I wonder if it would be more accurate to say that this "therapy" aids > >>> in developing a more American accent, no matter what English dialect you > >>> had previously learned, and is called "speech therapy" to make it more > >>> palatable to those who pay for the service? Many language courses do not > >>> emphasize natural pronunciation, assuming that "it will just come when > >>> you are more fluent", so I would imagine such a speech therapy service > >>> could be in high demand. > >> I think that accents are being pathologized because that puts > >> speech trainers in a class of "medical practitioners" rather than > >> teachers, > >> and allows them to demand higher fees and greater prestige. It may even > >> be > >> paid for by some insurance companies, for all I know. > >> > >> It may also be a case of "when you've got a hammer, everything > >> looks like a nail." These two explanations are not mutually exclusive. > >> > >> -- > >> -Angus B. Grieve-Smith > >> grvsmth at panix.com > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > > Paul J. Hopper > > Paul Mellon Distinguished Professor of Humanities > > Department of English > > Carnegie Mellon University > > Pittsburgh, PA 15213 > > and > > Senior External Fellow > > School of Language and Literature > > Freiburg Institute for Advanced Studies (FRIAS) > > Albertstr. 19 > > D-79105 Freiburg i.Br. > > Germany > > > > > > > From language at sprynet.com Sat Feb 5 06:24:03 2011 From: language at sprynet.com (alex gross) Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2011 01:24:03 -0500 Subject: [Fwd: PRESS RELEASE: FAU Graduate Students Offer Speech Therapy Via Webcam to Republic of Rwanda Citizens] Message-ID: Glad you posted this here as well, Anne Marie. I agree with every single word. I have the feeling that even during the 60s I, along with most of the people I worked with--that all of us were instinctively gravitating away from RP & towards estuary. As I said towards the end of my British English piece--concerning an attempt by the University of Surrey translation studies department to insist that all "low-class American translations" must be forthwith replaced by "high-class English translations"--"who will explain these neologisms to the 95% of the British people who do not speak received high quality British English?" Among linguists I've always been very impressed with speech therapists, and especially with David Crystal, since his practical knowledge of this sphere so well anchors all of his other remarkable work. I wonder if he may not be, faute de mieux, the greatest living linguist, a true descriptivist in the tradition of Bloomfield, Sapir, et al. Yes, there is a "standard American accent," which TV announcers & others aspire to, pretty much free of regional traces, whether from New York or Boston, the midwest or the south. All the best! alex British RP is used by less that 5% of the population and is by no means the accent of aspiration. Its position has been usurped by estuary English. However, what puzzles me is the 'fact' that Rwandan speakers of English as a second/foreign language have managed to acquire such a strong British (RP) accent complete with idioms that are incomprehensible to the American public. I have been working with adult NNSs of English for more than 20 years and have met very few whose accent is not obviously that of their first language regardless of the locus of learning. I have also worked with Rwandans and have found their accent to be more similar to that of anglophone Africans albeit tinged with French. I agree with the last post re: rivalry in the TEFL world and the probable commercial basis for this. There were many interesting comments about the many varieties of English which leads to the question 'which variety of American English will the Rwandans be converted to?'. Accent is a huge issue as it carries many social connotations and can act as a barrier or a conduit into various spheres of society. However, it is a notoriously difficult area of acquisition - with some SLA researchers believing that a native accent can't be acquired after the onset of puberty. There is, however, a movement towards a neutral accent as espoused by those (see Jennifer Jenkins) developing English as a Lingua Franca (ELF). This accent is accepting of some intra-lingual differences and the main focus is on international intelligibility However, I think the bigger question relates to 'ownership' of English - or any other language- and the 'right' of NNSs to be accepted as such. Surely we have moved away from the Eliza Doolittle model! On a slightly more facetious note, why Rwandans? Surely, they are minor trade partners! AM > From: language at sprynet.com > To: hopper at cmu.edu; grvsmth at panix.com > Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2011 05:08:44 -0500 > CC: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] [Fwd: PRESS RELEASE: FAU Graduate Students Offer > Speech Therapy Via Webcam to Republic of Rwanda Citizens] > > Thanks for your message, Paul. Yes, Angus has it right. > And you certainly have it right about this: > > > I too wondered if there isn't a bit of global rivalry surfacing > > here between the British and American accents. There's > > quite a story to be told about this, I think. > > Yes, there is. I grew up in the US but against the > background of a British family on my father's side. Have > a half-brother who was a well-known British artist & > a half-sister who after my father's passing continued to > publish the A-Z Atlas of London. Spent considerable > time with my older siblings when they came over here > during my youth & visited with them in England during > the 50s. I lived in the UK from 1963 to 1971, worked as a > dramaturg for the Royal Shakespeare, have published > in both nations, and have written extensively on Brit-US > relations including accents, for instance the following on-line > excerpts from my Sixties book: > > http://untoldsixties.net/eng2.htm#totop > > http://untoldsixties.net/eng1.htm#totop > > http://untoldsixties.net/thea.htm#totop > > I would simply add the following thoughts: > > Those many Brit actors & TV reporters who flourish > over here have for the most part had their Brit accents & > expressions cleaned up for US usage. Though I doubt > if they used the U/Fla method... > > When I was in Britain, posh RP tones became so > overbearing that there was a strong reaction against them. > And if I'm not mistaken the English sociolinguist > Peter Trudgill has campaigned fiercely against them. > Which has led to the many more varied accents one > hears on English TV today. > > Not all Americans, even among the educated, > are able to understand all (or even many) Brit accents. > And not all Brits can handle many American ones. > Some episodes of "Shameless" I can follow, others > leave me mystified. There are even a few pieces of > Monty Python where subtitles would be useful. > > Most Americans don't want to admit they don't > understand some Briticisms, & vice versa for the Brits. > There could be a linguistic principle here, that people > in general don't care to confess when they don't > understand something, after all others might interpret > this as a failing. > > Here's an amusing story I so far have only one > source for: at a WWII strategy meeting Monty spent > some time upbraiding Ike about how barbaric > Americans proved themselves whenever they > pronounced "schedule" with an "sk" sound. > Ike took it for as long as he could but finally > replied, "Well, I guess it's wrong, Monty, it > must be just something I learned in shool." > > All the best to everyone! > > alex > > PS--Since this purports to be a scholarly group, you might > be interested in Norman W. Schur's book "British English" > (Harper Perennial 1987). It functions as an English- > American dictionary listing 5,000 differences in nouns, > verbs, adjectives, & idioms between the two languages. > Other similar volumes exist. > > ************************************************** > The principal purpose of language is not communication but to persuade > ourselves > that we know what we are talking about, when quite often we do not. > > ************************************************** > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Paul Hopper" > To: "Angus B. Grieve-Smith" > Cc: > Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 11:10 PM > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] [Fwd: PRESS RELEASE: FAU Graduate Students Offer > Speech Therapy Via Webcam to Republic of Rwanda Citizens] > > > > Yes, Angus gets it right. Terminology is part of the power/money play of > > medical organizations. Optometrists have explicit rules about it (a > > brochure put out by the New York State Optometrics Association > > recommended > > that clients should be referred to as "patients", the receptionist > > should > > be a "nurse", to insist on the title "Doctor", etc.) > > > > I too wondered if there isn't a bit of global rivalry surfacing here > > between the British and American accents. There's quite a story to be > > told > > about this, I think. > > > > Paul > > > > On Thu, February 3, 2011 10:23, Angus B. Grieve-Smith wrote: > >> On 2/3/2011 9:56 AM, Natalie Weber wrote: > >> > >>> I wonder if it would be more accurate to say that this "therapy" aids > >>> in developing a more American accent, no matter what English dialect > >>> you > >>> had previously learned, and is called "speech therapy" to make it more > >>> palatable to those who pay for the service? Many language courses do > >>> not > >>> emphasize natural pronunciation, assuming that "it will just come when > >>> you are more fluent", so I would imagine such a speech therapy service > >>> could be in high demand. > >> I think that accents are being pathologized because that puts > >> speech trainers in a class of "medical practitioners" rather than > >> teachers, > >> and allows them to demand higher fees and greater prestige. It may even > >> be > >> paid for by some insurance companies, for all I know. > >> > >> It may also be a case of "when you've got a hammer, everything > >> looks like a nail." These two explanations are not mutually exclusive. > >> > >> -- > >> -Angus B. Grieve-Smith > >> grvsmth at panix.com > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > > Paul J. Hopper > > Paul Mellon Distinguished Professor of Humanities > > Department of English > > Carnegie Mellon University > > Pittsburgh, PA 15213 > > and > > Senior External Fellow > > School of Language and Literature > > Freiburg Institute for Advanced Studies (FRIAS) > > Albertstr. 19 > > D-79105 Freiburg i.Br. > > Germany > > > > > > > From grvsmth at panix.com Sat Feb 5 17:08:54 2011 From: grvsmth at panix.com (Angus B. Grieve-Smith) Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2011 12:08:54 -0500 Subject: [Fwd: PRESS RELEASE: FAU Graduate Students Offer Speech Therapy Via Webcam to Republic of Rwanda Citizens] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 2/5/2011 1:24 AM, alex gross wrote: > Yes, there is a "standard American accent," which TV announcers & > others aspire to, pretty much free of regional traces, whether from > New York or Boston, the midwest or the south. Like all other "standard accents," it's a myth, more concerned with the avoidance of stigmatized regional forms than anything positive. It's closer to the accents of the Midwest and the West than it is to anything from the Northeast or the South, but it's definitely different from any specific Midwestern accent. And of course, since we're talking about Africans, it should be pointed out that while many African Americans can approximate this standard as well as anyone else in the country, it's particularly far from most Black English accents. There is also a (white) "Southern" regional standard that many people throughout the South aspire to, and I would guess that includes many FAU students, although maybe not speech pathology majors. It shares some features with a number of Black English accents. In my experience native Africans have slightly higher prestige in the US than African Americans who were born and raised here, and they are often identified as native Africans by British or French features in their accents. This raises the possibility that the "therapy" could wind up training these Rwandans to pronounce English in ways that would lower their social status instead of raising it. -- -Angus B. Grieve-Smith grvsmth at panix.com From language at sprynet.com Sat Feb 5 21:14:37 2011 From: language at sprynet.com (alex gross) Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2011 16:14:37 -0500 Subject: [Fwd: PRESS RELEASE: FAU Graduate Students Offer Speech Therapy Via Webcam to Republic of Rwanda Citizens] Message-ID: > Like all other "standard accents," it's a myth, Yes, of course it's a myth, and as you say, all standard accents are myths. But this does not mean it is not sought after by many people working in film, TV, & the theatre, plus quite a few other Americans eager to modify their accents. At least the actors among them are often able to switch over to many other accents when they need to. But for all those people it's not a myth at all, it's compellingly real. Thanks for your message! All the best! alex > On 2/5/2011 1:24 AM, alex gross wrote: >> Yes, there is a "standard American accent," which TV announcers & others >> aspire to, pretty much free of regional traces, whether from New York or >> Boston, the midwest or the south. > Like all other "standard accents," it's a myth, more concerned with > the avoidance of stigmatized regional forms than anything positive. It's > closer to the accents of the Midwest and the West than it is to anything > from the Northeast or the South, but it's definitely different from any > specific Midwestern accent. And of course, since we're talking about > Africans, it should be pointed out that while many African Americans can > approximate this standard as well as anyone else in the country, it's > particularly far from most Black English accents. > > There is also a (white) "Southern" regional standard that many people > throughout the South aspire to, and I would guess that includes many FAU > students, although maybe not speech pathology majors. It shares some > features with a number of Black English accents. In my experience native > Africans have slightly higher prestige in the US than African Americans > who were born and raised here, and they are often identified as native > Africans by British or French features in their accents. This raises the > possibility that the "therapy" could wind up training these Rwandans to > pronounce English in ways that would lower their social status instead of > raising it. > > -- > -Angus B. Grieve-Smith > grvsmth at panix.com > > From mark at polymathix.com Sat Feb 5 23:32:53 2011 From: mark at polymathix.com (Mark P. Line) Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2011 17:32:53 -0600 Subject: [Fwd: PRESS RELEASE: FAU Graduate Students Offer Speech Therapy Via Webcam to Republic of Rwanda Citizens] In-Reply-To: <10DDC1818B694E228725F2DFAC733835@aa82807a474cf4> Message-ID: Doesn't that sort of beg the question? I think the point is that there is NO OBJECTIVE STANDARD for a "standard accent", no matter who tells you otherwise and how important they are. So the language pursued by people working in film, TV and theatre is the language approved by their directors, producers or, umm, speech therapists. Those folks are no more privy to divine articulatory wisdom than anybody else. So, it's still a myth. But like all myths, it has its believers no matter how far removed it might be from reality. -- Mark Mark P. Line Bartlesville, OK alex gross wrote: > >> Like all other "standard accents," it's a myth, > > Yes, of course it's a myth, and as you say, all standard accents are > myths. > But this does not mean it is not sought after by many people working in > film, TV, & the theatre, plus quite a few other Americans eager to modify > their accents. At least the actors among them are often able to switch > over > to many other accents when they need to. > > But for all those people it's not a myth at all, it's compellingly real. > > Thanks for your message! > > All the best! > > alex > > >> On 2/5/2011 1:24 AM, alex gross wrote: >>> Yes, there is a "standard American accent," which TV announcers & >>> others >>> aspire to, pretty much free of regional traces, whether from New York >>> or >>> Boston, the midwest or the south. >> Like all other "standard accents," it's a myth, more concerned with >> the avoidance of stigmatized regional forms than anything positive. >> It's >> closer to the accents of the Midwest and the West than it is to anything >> from the Northeast or the South, but it's definitely different from any >> specific Midwestern accent. And of course, since we're talking about >> Africans, it should be pointed out that while many African Americans can >> approximate this standard as well as anyone else in the country, it's >> particularly far from most Black English accents. >> >> There is also a (white) "Southern" regional standard that many >> people >> throughout the South aspire to, and I would guess that includes many FAU >> students, although maybe not speech pathology majors. It shares some >> features with a number of Black English accents. In my experience >> native >> Africans have slightly higher prestige in the US than African Americans >> who were born and raised here, and they are often identified as native >> Africans by British or French features in their accents. This raises >> the >> possibility that the "therapy" could wind up training these Rwandans to >> pronounce English in ways that would lower their social status instead >> of >> raising it. >> >> -- >> -Angus B. Grieve-Smith >> grvsmth at panix.com >> >> > > > -- Mark Mark P. Line Bartlesville, OK From language at sprynet.com Sun Feb 6 22:42:07 2011 From: language at sprynet.com (alex gross) Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2011 17:42:07 -0500 Subject: [Fwd: PRESS RELEASE: FAU Graduate Students Offer Speech Therapy Via Webcam to Republic of Rwanda Citizens] Message-ID: > Doesn't that sort of beg the question? Not really, Mark. I don't quite get what you're objecting to, I've already said sure, it's a myth. What more do you want? But some myths can take on reality among their believers. If we go on this way, we'll find ourselves almost in metaphysical unreality. > I think the point is that there is NO OBJECTIVE STANDARD for a "standard > accent", no matter who tells you otherwise and how important they are. Yes, of course. There was also no objective reality to the sort of English we were told we should be speaking up until the 1970s. Yet lots of people either spoke it or tried it or felt they ought to. > So the language pursued by people working in film, TV and theatre is > the language approved by their directors, producers or, umm, speech > therapists. Those folks are no more privy to divine articulatory wisdom > than anybody else. Yes, but you can't put on a play or create a film or TV script without deciding what accent people will use or should use. Actors expect to be told this sort of thing. Here I speak from theatre experience-- should directors tell them there are no rules & they can use any accent they want (though in a few cases they can)? Also, I've never heard anyone in the theatre claim directors are "privy to divine articulatory wisdom." They're artists, Mark, sure, artists have their faults, but I'm a trifle worried you're just a few steps away here from playing Cromwell's game, that all theatre (or perhaps all TV) must be closed down as false and frivolous. What about estuary english? Is that a myth too? I suppose you could make that case, since it too does not create a genuine form of standard English for all of Britain but only for the southeast. Which means that someone speaking deep Yorkshire or Scots or Welsh will still have trouble twisting their uvulas around it. But socially & culturally it still marks quite an advance over RP. So it's not really a myth either. > So, it's still a myth. But like all myths, it has its believers no matter > how far removed it might be from reality. We really don't have an argument here, Mark. I love "reality" as much as you do, I just think it can sometimes be hard to harness. How about the idea that everything we believe may be a myth? Capitalism is supposed to create wealth, but we just saw it do the opposite. Medical research is supposed to ultimately make us live forever, the space program will have us living on uncountable galaxies. Are these myths? I rather think they may be. Eppur si muove....things keep moving regardless. All the best! alex PS--Not your fault at all, Mark, but I wonder if most of today's credentialed linguists may not be so ignorant of practical language applications, including theatre and literary uses, that they can't formulate an informed opinion about specialized or contrived languages. A few examples: 1. Ancient Greek scholars have long disputed why Athens' great tragedians did not write their plays in Athenian Greek but in a semi-Doric Corinthian dialect, offering every possible explanation except the one I'm willing to bet is correct. In portraying the gods and serious themes, they simply did not consider it appropriate to employ the same speech forms they used for buying fish and wine. You'll find more of my reflections on ancient Greek theatre at: http://language.home.sprynet.com/theatdex/satyrs.htm#totop 2. Numerous Elizabethan scholars have pointed out that Shakespeare and his contemporaries wanted a more elevated form of language than that used in the streets to convey events taking place on the stage, and their audience indeed craved such a language. They're probably right. 3. The devotion to British English by so many educated Americans today is probably motivated by similar reasons, the need to believe that a slightly heightened vocabulary conveys a more genuine reality than their everyday manner of speaking. These are all contrived uses of language. In this light, is it really so evil or reprehensible for Americans to seek out a standardized form of language for use in their films and TV? Or don't Americans qualify for such a privilege? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark P. Line" To: Sent: Saturday, February 05, 2011 6:32 PM Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] [Fwd: PRESS RELEASE: FAU Graduate Students Offer Speech Therapy Via Webcam to Republic of Rwanda Citizens] > Doesn't that sort of beg the question? > > I think the point is that there is NO OBJECTIVE STANDARD for a "standard > accent", no matter who tells you otherwise and how important they are. > > So the language pursued by people working in film, TV and theatre is the > language approved by their directors, producers or, umm, speech > therapists. Those folks are no more privy to divine articulatory wisdom > than anybody else. > > So, it's still a myth. But like all myths, it has its believers no matter > how far removed it might be from reality. > > -- Mark > > Mark P. Line > Bartlesville, OK > > > > alex gross wrote: >> >>> Like all other "standard accents," it's a myth, >> >> Yes, of course it's a myth, and as you say, all standard accents are >> myths. >> But this does not mean it is not sought after by many people working in >> film, TV, & the theatre, plus quite a few other Americans eager to modify >> their accents. At least the actors among them are often able to switch >> over >> to many other accents when they need to. >> >> But for all those people it's not a myth at all, it's compellingly real. >> >> Thanks for your message! >> >> All the best! >> >> alex >> >> >>> On 2/5/2011 1:24 AM, alex gross wrote: >>>> Yes, there is a "standard American accent," which TV announcers & >>>> others >>>> aspire to, pretty much free of regional traces, whether from New York >>>> or >>>> Boston, the midwest or the south. >>> Like all other "standard accents," it's a myth, more concerned with >>> the avoidance of stigmatized regional forms than anything positive. >>> It's >>> closer to the accents of the Midwest and the West than it is to anything >>> from the Northeast or the South, but it's definitely different from any >>> specific Midwestern accent. And of course, since we're talking about >>> Africans, it should be pointed out that while many African Americans can >>> approximate this standard as well as anyone else in the country, it's >>> particularly far from most Black English accents. >>> >>> There is also a (white) "Southern" regional standard that many >>> people >>> throughout the South aspire to, and I would guess that includes many FAU >>> students, although maybe not speech pathology majors. It shares some >>> features with a number of Black English accents. In my experience >>> native >>> Africans have slightly higher prestige in the US than African Americans >>> who were born and raised here, and they are often identified as native >>> Africans by British or French features in their accents. This raises >>> the >>> possibility that the "therapy" could wind up training these Rwandans to >>> pronounce English in ways that would lower their social status instead >>> of >>> raising it. >>> >>> -- >>> -Angus B. Grieve-Smith >>> grvsmth at panix.com >>> >>> >> >> >> > > > -- Mark > > Mark P. Line > Bartlesville, OK > > From bischoff.st at gmail.com Mon Feb 7 20:16:19 2011 From: bischoff.st at gmail.com (s.t. bischoff) Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2011 15:16:19 -0500 Subject: Roseta Stone: Redux Message-ID: Hi all, Over the last week I was involved with an event at the American Indian Language Development Institute and the folks that created the Navajo Rosetta Stone gave a short talk about the software. What follows is my understanding of how it came to be. The Navajo Rosetta Stones was created in collaboration with Rosetta Stone and the non-profit Navajo Language Renaissance (NLR). NLR is a non-profit organization that is NOT affiliated with the tribal council or government in any way, for obvious reasons I think (e.g. getting council approval for the project). However, it has been endorsed by the school leadership and NLR is actively trying to get the school district to adopt the software. You can view the NLR website here http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ A non-community member started NLR after using Rosetta Stone to learn Russian. She thought it would be good if Rosetta Stone created a Navajo version. She contacted Rosetta Stone (RS), and they told her they would provide here with the software to develop the lessons, a photographer, and technical assistants (limited on the ground, mostly by phone) to develop the program for $300,000. Another option would be for her to apply for a grant from RS to cover most of the costs. So the NLR was created, a partnership between community members and one non-community member, as a non-profit organization and applied. RS gave two grants the year they applied, one went to NLR. The grant covered all but $27,000 of the $300,000. So NLR had to pay RS $27,000 to have access to the software to create the Navajo Rosetta Stone. This means they had to create the lessons and pay speakers and informants themselves. RS provided the software, a photographer, and technical support for the $27,000. NLR now is the only group that can sell Navajo Rosetta Stone, which they do for $150 per license and $200 for a personal box set. It is not clear if they have to pay RS a percentage of those revenues or not. When I asked a clear answer wasn't given. NLR also has a "training" session for administrators and teachers which costs $1500 a day and $400 per 3 hours. Needless to say, it is not un-controversial in the community for many of the usual reasons. Ironically, the speaker after the Rosetta Stone folks gave a talk that demonstrated how to create nearly identical language lessons as Rosetta Stone's simply using power point. I was encouraged to let folks know that they should contact the NLR if they have any questions at mbittinger at rosettastone.com. You can try a free introductory lesson here http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ The folks at NLR praised RS for their efforts and felt they had really done them a service. In short, they were very happy with the arrangement and how it was working out. They were also upset by the controversies surrounding the Navajo Rosetta Stone and felt they were really the result of a misunderstanding and misguided assumptions. One finally thing, they did seem to think that it was not a pancea, but rather another useful tool in language revitalization efforts. Cheers, Shannon From john at research.haifa.ac.il Tue Feb 8 08:16:04 2011 From: john at research.haifa.ac.il (john at research.haifa.ac.il) Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2011 10:16:04 +0200 Subject: Roseta Stone: Redux In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I would be amazed if a single person actually learns to speak Navajo using Rosetta Stone. This is not a language for amateurs. John Quoting "s.t. bischoff" : > Hi all, > > Over the last week I was involved with an event at the American Indian > Language Development Institute and the folks that created the Navajo Rosetta > Stone gave a short talk about the software. What follows is my understanding > of how it came to be. > > The Navajo Rosetta Stones was created in collaboration with Rosetta Stone > and the non-profit Navajo Language Renaissance (NLR). NLR is a non-profit > organization that is NOT affiliated with the tribal council or government in > any way, for obvious reasons I think (e.g. getting council approval for the > project). However, it has been endorsed by the school leadership and NLR is > actively trying to get the school district to adopt the software. You can > view the NLR website here http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ A > non-community member started NLR after using Rosetta Stone to learn Russian. > She thought it would be good if Rosetta Stone created a Navajo version. She > contacted Rosetta Stone (RS), and they told her they would provide here with > the software to develop the lessons, a photographer, and technical > assistants (limited on the ground, mostly by phone) to develop the program > for $300,000. Another option would be for her to apply for a grant from RS > to cover most of the costs. So the NLR was created, a partnership between > community members and one non-community member, as a non-profit > organization and applied. RS gave two grants the year they applied, one went > to NLR. The grant covered all but $27,000 of the $300,000. So NLR had to pay > RS $27,000 to have access to the software to create the Navajo Rosetta > Stone. This means they had to create the lessons and pay speakers and > informants themselves. RS provided the software, a photographer, and > technical support for the $27,000. NLR now is the only group that can sell > Navajo Rosetta Stone, which they do for $150 per license and $200 for a > personal box set. It is not clear if they have to pay RS a percentage of > those revenues or not. When I asked a clear answer wasn't given. NLR also > has a "training" session for administrators and teachers which costs $1500 a > day and $400 per 3 hours. Needless to say, it is not un-controversial in the > community for many of the usual reasons. Ironically, the speaker after the > Rosetta Stone folks gave a talk that demonstrated how to create nearly > identical language lessons as Rosetta Stone's simply using power point. I > was encouraged to let folks know that they should contact the NLR if they > have any questions at mbittinger at rosettastone.com. You can try a free > introductory lesson here http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ The folks > at NLR praised RS for their efforts and felt they had really done them a > service. In short, they were very happy with the arrangement and how it was > working out. They were also upset by the controversies surrounding the > Navajo Rosetta Stone and felt they were really the result of a > misunderstanding and misguided assumptions. One finally thing, they did seem > to think that it was not a pancea, but rather another useful tool in > language revitalization efforts. > > Cheers, > Shannon > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University From anne_mariedevlin at hotmail.com Tue Feb 8 11:14:00 2011 From: anne_mariedevlin at hotmail.com (anne marie devlin) Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2011 11:14:00 +0000 Subject: voice adjustment room Message-ID: Dear all, following on from the thread re: accent correction for Rwandans doing business in the States, I'd just like to draw your attention to a clip from the Irish comedy/satire programme the Savage Eye. It recently featured a skit on the 'voice correction room' - a place where prospective Eastern European bar staff are taken to be turned into authentic Irish bar staff. I've given the link for the entire programme, but the relevant part starts at about 3mins 16secs and lasts for about 45 secs. There is also a bit further on which deals with accent. As a warning, the programme is not for the sensitive and contains lots of profanities. http://www.rte.ie/player/#v=1091000. If this link doesn't work in your area and you would like to see it, I can send it to you individually. AM From amnfn at well.com Tue Feb 8 13:33:53 2011 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2011 05:33:53 -0800 Subject: Roseta Stone: Redux In-Reply-To: <1297152964.4d50fbc4c80bc@webmail.haifa.ac.il> Message-ID: A language that is not for amateurs is not for people. This has nothing to do with RS or computer language teaching. As others have stated, the technologically based systems are not a panacea. But a language that ordinary people can't pick by talking to their parents in childhood is either dead already or not a human language. --Aya On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > I would be amazed if a single person actually learns to speak Navajo > using Rosetta Stone. This is not a language for amateurs. > John > > > > > Quoting "s.t. bischoff" : > >> Hi all, >> >> Over the last week I was involved with an event at the American Indian >> Language Development Institute and the folks that created the Navajo Rosetta >> Stone gave a short talk about the software. What follows is my understanding >> of how it came to be. >> >> The Navajo Rosetta Stones was created in collaboration with Rosetta Stone >> and the non-profit Navajo Language Renaissance (NLR). NLR is a non-profit >> organization that is NOT affiliated with the tribal council or government in >> any way, for obvious reasons I think (e.g. getting council approval for the >> project). However, it has been endorsed by the school leadership and NLR is >> actively trying to get the school district to adopt the software. You can >> view the NLR website here http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ A >> non-community member started NLR after using Rosetta Stone to learn Russian. >> She thought it would be good if Rosetta Stone created a Navajo version. She >> contacted Rosetta Stone (RS), and they told her they would provide here with >> the software to develop the lessons, a photographer, and technical >> assistants (limited on the ground, mostly by phone) to develop the program >> for $300,000. Another option would be for her to apply for a grant from RS >> to cover most of the costs. So the NLR was created, a partnership between >> community members and one non-community member, as a non-profit >> organization and applied. RS gave two grants the year they applied, one went >> to NLR. The grant covered all but $27,000 of the $300,000. So NLR had to pay >> RS $27,000 to have access to the software to create the Navajo Rosetta >> Stone. This means they had to create the lessons and pay speakers and >> informants themselves. RS provided the software, a photographer, and >> technical support for the $27,000. NLR now is the only group that can sell >> Navajo Rosetta Stone, which they do for $150 per license and $200 for a >> personal box set. It is not clear if they have to pay RS a percentage of >> those revenues or not. When I asked a clear answer wasn't given. NLR also >> has a "training" session for administrators and teachers which costs $1500 a >> day and $400 per 3 hours. Needless to say, it is not un-controversial in the >> community for many of the usual reasons. Ironically, the speaker after the >> Rosetta Stone folks gave a talk that demonstrated how to create nearly >> identical language lessons as Rosetta Stone's simply using power point. I >> was encouraged to let folks know that they should contact the NLR if they >> have any questions at mbittinger at rosettastone.com. You can try a free >> introductory lesson here http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ The folks >> at NLR praised RS for their efforts and felt they had really done them a >> service. In short, they were very happy with the arrangement and how it was >> working out. They were also upset by the controversies surrounding the >> Navajo Rosetta Stone and felt they were really the result of a >> misunderstanding and misguided assumptions. One finally thing, they did seem >> to think that it was not a pancea, but rather another useful tool in >> language revitalization efforts. >> >> Cheers, >> Shannon >> > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University > > From john at research.haifa.ac.il Tue Feb 8 15:23:22 2011 From: john at research.haifa.ac.il (john at research.haifa.ac.il) Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2011 17:23:22 +0200 Subject: Roseta Stone: Redux In-Reply-To: <2128485122.312381297176607588.JavaMail.root@zimbra.humboldt.edu> Message-ID: Since moving to Israel I've dabbled in Circassian (there are two Circassian-speaking villages here) and I think it can give Navajo a run for its money. It's harder in terms of phonetics/phonology and not far behind morphophonemically. John Quoting Victor.Golla at humboldt.edu: > Aya-- > > > A language that is not for amateurs is not for people. > > Let that read: "A language that is not for amateurs is not for > ADULT people." > > Whatever the neurological reality of the Critical Period, it is an > empirical fact that non-native speakers past puberty experience great > difficulty in acquiring anything resembling fluency in an Athabaskan > language. (That Ken Hale did so only proves the rule. The astoundingly > low incidence of true polyglotism deserves its own serious study.) > > Sapir called the Athabaskan languages the "son-of-a-bitchingest" > ever devised by humankind. No doubt, every ordinary Navajo child > who wants to can pick up Navajo as fast as your or my or Sapir's did > English, but God only knows how they do it. With Muriel Saville-Troike > the one, brave exception, acquisition researchers have largely > avoided Navajo, despite its obvious theoretical potential. (One suspects > that part of the problem is that such research requires some degree > of competence in the language of study. See above.) > > I must admit that it's been a while since I took a look at acquisition > studies (or the lack thereof) for Navajo or Athabaskan generally. > I would be delighted to hear that some well-designed studies have gotten > under way in the last decade. If not, they'd better hurry. Fewer than > 10% of Navajo kids *on the reservation* were speaking the language > the last time someone looked. > > --Victor Golla > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "A. Katz" > To: john at research.haifa.ac.il > Cc: "s.t. bischoff" , funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Sent: Tuesday, February 8, 2011 5:33:53 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Roseta Stone: Redux > > A language that is not for amateurs is not for people. > > This has nothing to do with RS or computer language teaching. As others > have stated, the technologically based systems are not a panacea. > > But a language that ordinary people can't pick by talking to their parents > in childhood is either dead already or not a human language. > > --Aya > > > On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > > > I would be amazed if a single person actually learns to speak Navajo > > using Rosetta Stone. This is not a language for amateurs. > > John > > > > > > > > > > Quoting "s.t. bischoff" : > > > >> Hi all, > >> > >> Over the last week I was involved with an event at the American Indian > >> Language Development Institute and the folks that created the Navajo > Rosetta > >> Stone gave a short talk about the software. What follows is my > understanding > >> of how it came to be. > >> > >> The Navajo Rosetta Stones was created in collaboration with Rosetta Stone > >> and the non-profit Navajo Language Renaissance (NLR). NLR is a non-profit > >> organization that is NOT affiliated with the tribal council or government > in > >> any way, for obvious reasons I think (e.g. getting council approval for > the > >> project). However, it has been endorsed by the school leadership and NLR > is > >> actively trying to get the school district to adopt the software. You can > >> view the NLR website here http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ A > >> non-community member started NLR after using Rosetta Stone to learn > Russian. > >> She thought it would be good if Rosetta Stone created a Navajo version. > She > >> contacted Rosetta Stone (RS), and they told her they would provide here > with > >> the software to develop the lessons, a photographer, and technical > >> assistants (limited on the ground, mostly by phone) to develop the program > >> for $300,000. Another option would be for her to apply for a grant from RS > >> to cover most of the costs. So the NLR was created, a partnership between > >> community members and one non-community member, as a non-profit > >> organization and applied. RS gave two grants the year they applied, one > went > >> to NLR. The grant covered all but $27,000 of the $300,000. So NLR had to > pay > >> RS $27,000 to have access to the software to create the Navajo Rosetta > >> Stone. This means they had to create the lessons and pay speakers and > >> informants themselves. RS provided the software, a photographer, and > >> technical support for the $27,000. NLR now is the only group that can sell > >> Navajo Rosetta Stone, which they do for $150 per license and $200 for a > >> personal box set. It is not clear if they have to pay RS a percentage of > >> those revenues or not. When I asked a clear answer wasn't given. NLR also > >> has a "training" session for administrators and teachers which costs $1500 > a > >> day and $400 per 3 hours. Needless to say, it is not un-controversial in > the > >> community for many of the usual reasons. Ironically, the speaker after the > >> Rosetta Stone folks gave a talk that demonstrated how to create nearly > >> identical language lessons as Rosetta Stone's simply using power point. I > >> was encouraged to let folks know that they should contact the NLR if they > >> have any questions at mbittinger at rosettastone.com. You can try a free > >> introductory lesson here http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ The folks > >> at NLR praised RS for their efforts and felt they had really done them a > >> service. In short, they were very happy with the arrangement and how it > was > >> working out. They were also upset by the controversies surrounding the > >> Navajo Rosetta Stone and felt they were really the result of a > >> misunderstanding and misguided assumptions. One finally thing, they did > seem > >> to think that it was not a pancea, but rather another useful tool in > >> language revitalization efforts. > >> > >> Cheers, > >> Shannon > >> > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University From tgivon at uoregon.edu Wed Feb 9 00:04:50 2011 From: tgivon at uoregon.edu (Tom Givon) Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2011 17:04:50 -0700 Subject: Roseta Stone: Redux In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Before you actually tried to learn an Athabaskan language, or at the very least worked on one, maybe you had better refrain from asserting that "a language that is not for amateurs is not for people". TG ========= On 2/8/2011 6:33 AM, A. Katz wrote: > A language that is not for amateurs is not for people. > > This has nothing to do with RS or computer language teaching. As > others have stated, the technologically based systems are not a panacea. > > But a language that ordinary people can't pick by talking to their > parents in childhood is either dead already or not a human language. > > --Aya > > > On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > >> I would be amazed if a single person actually learns to speak Navajo >> using Rosetta Stone. This is not a language for amateurs. >> John >> >> >> >> >> Quoting "s.t. bischoff" : >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> Over the last week I was involved with an event at the American Indian >>> Language Development Institute and the folks that created the Navajo >>> Rosetta >>> Stone gave a short talk about the software. What follows is my >>> understanding >>> of how it came to be. >>> >>> The Navajo Rosetta Stones was created in collaboration with Rosetta >>> Stone >>> and the non-profit Navajo Language Renaissance (NLR). NLR is a >>> non-profit >>> organization that is NOT affiliated with the tribal council or >>> government in >>> any way, for obvious reasons I think (e.g. getting council approval >>> for the >>> project). However, it has been endorsed by the school leadership and >>> NLR is >>> actively trying to get the school district to adopt the software. >>> You can >>> view the NLR website here http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ A >>> non-community member started NLR after using Rosetta Stone to learn >>> Russian. >>> She thought it would be good if Rosetta Stone created a Navajo >>> version. She >>> contacted Rosetta Stone (RS), and they told her they would provide >>> here with >>> the software to develop the lessons, a photographer, and technical >>> assistants (limited on the ground, mostly by phone) to develop the >>> program >>> for $300,000. Another option would be for her to apply for a grant >>> from RS >>> to cover most of the costs. So the NLR was created, a partnership >>> between >>> community members and one non-community member, as a non-profit >>> organization and applied. RS gave two grants the year they applied, >>> one went >>> to NLR. The grant covered all but $27,000 of the $300,000. So NLR >>> had to pay >>> RS $27,000 to have access to the software to create the Navajo Rosetta >>> Stone. This means they had to create the lessons and pay speakers and >>> informants themselves. RS provided the software, a photographer, and >>> technical support for the $27,000. NLR now is the only group that >>> can sell >>> Navajo Rosetta Stone, which they do for $150 per license and $200 for a >>> personal box set. It is not clear if they have to pay RS a >>> percentage of >>> those revenues or not. When I asked a clear answer wasn't given. NLR >>> also >>> has a "training" session for administrators and teachers which costs >>> $1500 a >>> day and $400 per 3 hours. Needless to say, it is not >>> un-controversial in the >>> community for many of the usual reasons. Ironically, the speaker >>> after the >>> Rosetta Stone folks gave a talk that demonstrated how to create nearly >>> identical language lessons as Rosetta Stone's simply using power >>> point. I >>> was encouraged to let folks know that they should contact the NLR if >>> they >>> have any questions at mbittinger at rosettastone.com. You can try a free >>> introductory lesson here http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ The >>> folks >>> at NLR praised RS for their efforts and felt they had really done >>> them a >>> service. In short, they were very happy with the arrangement and how >>> it was >>> working out. They were also upset by the controversies surrounding the >>> Navajo Rosetta Stone and felt they were really the result of a >>> misunderstanding and misguided assumptions. One finally thing, they >>> did seem >>> to think that it was not a pancea, but rather another useful tool in >>> language revitalization efforts. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Shannon >>> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University >> >> From tgivon at uoregon.edu Wed Feb 9 04:13:22 2011 From: tgivon at uoregon.edu (Tom Givon) Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2011 21:13:22 -0700 Subject: note from Vic Golla Message-ID: Vic Golla has asked me to post this note re. Athanaskan. My 5 years of working on Tolowa pale in comparison with his lifetime with the Hupa. TG =============== > A language that is not for amateurs is not for people. Let that read: "A language that is not for amateurs is not for ADULT people." Whatever the neurological reality of the Critical Period, it is an empirical fact that non-native speakers past puberty experience great difficulty in acquiring anything resembling fluency in an Athabaskan language. (That Ken Hale did so only proves the rule. The astoundingly low incidence of true polyglotism deserves its own serious study.) Sapir called the Athabaskan languages the "son-of-a-bitchingest" ever devised by humankind. No doubt, every ordinary Navajo child who wants to can pick up Navajo as fast as your or my or Sapir's did English, but God only knows how they do it. With Muriel Saville-Troike the one, brave exception, acquisition researchers have largely avoided Navajo, despite its obvious theoretical potential. (One suspects that part of the problem is that such research requires some degree of competence in the language of study. See above.) I must admit that it's been a while since I took a look at acquisition studies (or the lack thereof) for Navajo or Athabaskan generally. I would be delighted to hear that some well-designed studies have gotten under way in the last decade. If not, they'd better hurry. Fewer than 10% of Navajo kids *on the reservation* were speaking the language the last time someone looked. --Victor Golla From anne_mariedevlin at hotmail.com Wed Feb 9 09:25:18 2011 From: anne_mariedevlin at hotmail.com (anne marie devlin) Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 09:25:18 +0000 Subject: voice adjustment room Message-ID: Dear all, unfortunately, the clip I mentioned is not available in all areas - copyright reasons! The broadcaster posts clips to youtube after the programme has been aired. I will look out for it and will send on the link as soon as I find it. Many apologies. AM From anne_mariedevlin at hotmail.com Wed Feb 9 09:48:57 2011 From: anne_mariedevlin at hotmail.com (anne marie devlin) Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 09:48:57 +0000 Subject: voice adjustment room Message-ID: Dear all, youtube has come up trumps and the clip is now available at the following link. The relevant part starts at 3 mins 30 secs. http://www.youtube.com/user/ThePaxTube There is another clip with a voice coach mimicking the Irish accent, but it hasn't reached youtube yet. AM From amnfn at well.com Wed Feb 9 13:35:10 2011 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 05:35:10 -0800 Subject: Roseta Stone: Redux In-Reply-To: <4D51DA22.8080308@uoregon.edu> Message-ID: Tom, I don't think that is a valid viewpoint with regard to Athabaskan or any other language family. Victor Golla earlier had a much better phrasing when he wrote: "Let that read: "A language that is not for amateurs is not for ADULT people."" But in fact no language is easy for adults to learn who have not already learned a language with a similar typology. If your native language works similarly to the one you are learning, then you have an enormous advantage as an adult second language learner. The remark about how Navajo is not for amateurs was made in the context of people who have no experience with languages of a similar typology. To make this a universal statement about the difficulty of Navajo without qualification is to suggest that some languages are "easy" and others are "impossible". Not only is this not true from an objective standpoint, it also perpetuates the prejudice that English (or IE) is a "normal" language and that every language should be measured against this norm. Best, --Aya On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: > > > Before you actually tried to learn an Athabaskan language, or at the very > least worked on one, maybe you had better refrain from asserting that "a > language that is not for amateurs is not for people". TG > > ========= > > > > On 2/8/2011 6:33 AM, A. Katz wrote: >> A language that is not for amateurs is not for people. >> >> This has nothing to do with RS or computer language teaching. As others >> have stated, the technologically based systems are not a panacea. >> >> But a language that ordinary people can't pick by talking to their parents >> in childhood is either dead already or not a human language. >> >> --Aya >> >> >> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: >> >>> I would be amazed if a single person actually learns to speak Navajo >>> using Rosetta Stone. This is not a language for amateurs. >>> John >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Quoting "s.t. bischoff" : >>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> Over the last week I was involved with an event at the American Indian >>>> Language Development Institute and the folks that created the Navajo >>>> Rosetta >>>> Stone gave a short talk about the software. What follows is my >>>> understanding >>>> of how it came to be. >>>> >>>> The Navajo Rosetta Stones was created in collaboration with Rosetta Stone >>>> and the non-profit Navajo Language Renaissance (NLR). NLR is a non-profit >>>> organization that is NOT affiliated with the tribal council or government >>>> in >>>> any way, for obvious reasons I think (e.g. getting council approval for >>>> the >>>> project). However, it has been endorsed by the school leadership and NLR >>>> is >>>> actively trying to get the school district to adopt the software. You can >>>> view the NLR website here http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ A >>>> non-community member started NLR after using Rosetta Stone to learn >>>> Russian. >>>> She thought it would be good if Rosetta Stone created a Navajo version. >>>> She >>>> contacted Rosetta Stone (RS), and they told her they would provide here >>>> with >>>> the software to develop the lessons, a photographer, and technical >>>> assistants (limited on the ground, mostly by phone) to develop the >>>> program >>>> for $300,000. Another option would be for her to apply for a grant from >>>> RS >>>> to cover most of the costs. So the NLR was created, a partnership between >>>> community members and one non-community member, as a non-profit >>>> organization and applied. RS gave two grants the year they applied, one >>>> went >>>> to NLR. The grant covered all but $27,000 of the $300,000. So NLR had to >>>> pay >>>> RS $27,000 to have access to the software to create the Navajo Rosetta >>>> Stone. This means they had to create the lessons and pay speakers and >>>> informants themselves. RS provided the software, a photographer, and >>>> technical support for the $27,000. NLR now is the only group that can >>>> sell >>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone, which they do for $150 per license and $200 for a >>>> personal box set. It is not clear if they have to pay RS a percentage of >>>> those revenues or not. When I asked a clear answer wasn't given. NLR also >>>> has a "training" session for administrators and teachers which costs >>>> $1500 a >>>> day and $400 per 3 hours. Needless to say, it is not un-controversial in >>>> the >>>> community for many of the usual reasons. Ironically, the speaker after >>>> the >>>> Rosetta Stone folks gave a talk that demonstrated how to create nearly >>>> identical language lessons as Rosetta Stone's simply using power point. I >>>> was encouraged to let folks know that they should contact the NLR if they >>>> have any questions at mbittinger at rosettastone.com. You can try a free >>>> introductory lesson here http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ The >>>> folks >>>> at NLR praised RS for their efforts and felt they had really done them a >>>> service. In short, they were very happy with the arrangement and how it >>>> was >>>> working out. They were also upset by the controversies surrounding the >>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone and felt they were really the result of a >>>> misunderstanding and misguided assumptions. One finally thing, they did >>>> seem >>>> to think that it was not a pancea, but rather another useful tool in >>>> language revitalization efforts. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Shannon >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University >>> >>> > > From john at research.haifa.ac.il Wed Feb 9 17:13:52 2011 From: john at research.haifa.ac.il (john at research.haifa.ac.il) Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 19:13:52 +0200 Subject: Roseta Stone: Redux In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Aya, I think I was the one who said first that Navajo is not a language for amateurs. I'll second what Tom said--you should learn something about Navajo (or some other Athabaskan language) before making statements like this. Some languages are just plain objectively harder than others, regardless of typological similarly to one's native language. If you don't believe this, do an experiment in which you take speakers of English, Turkish, Georgian, Chinese, whatever you want, try to teach them Navajo, Hopi, and Cree (for example), and see which one gives them the most trouble. I guarantee it will be Navajo. And there is an objective reason for it-- the morphophonemics are just unbelievably complex. John Quoting "A. Katz" : > Tom, > > I don't think that is a valid viewpoint with regard to Athabaskan or any > other language family. > > Victor Golla earlier had a much better phrasing when he wrote: > > "Let that read: "A language that is not for amateurs is not for > ADULT people."" > > But in fact no language is easy for adults to learn who have not already > learned a language with a similar typology. If your native language works > similarly to the one you are learning, then you have an enormous advantage > as an adult second language learner. > > The remark about how Navajo is not for amateurs was made in the context of > people who have no experience with languages of a similar typology. > To make this a universal statement about the difficulty of Navajo without > qualification is to suggest that some languages are "easy" and others are > "impossible". Not only is this not true from an objective standpoint, it > also perpetuates the prejudice that English (or IE) is a "normal" language > and that every language should be measured against this norm. > > Best, > > --Aya > > > > > > > On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: > > > > > > > Before you actually tried to learn an Athabaskan language, or at the very > > least worked on one, maybe you had better refrain from asserting that "a > > language that is not for amateurs is not for people". TG > > > > ========= > > > > > > > > On 2/8/2011 6:33 AM, A. Katz wrote: > >> A language that is not for amateurs is not for people. > >> > >> This has nothing to do with RS or computer language teaching. As others > >> have stated, the technologically based systems are not a panacea. > >> > >> But a language that ordinary people can't pick by talking to their parents > >> in childhood is either dead already or not a human language. > >> > >> --Aya > >> > >> > >> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > >> > >>> I would be amazed if a single person actually learns to speak Navajo > >>> using Rosetta Stone. This is not a language for amateurs. > >>> John > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Quoting "s.t. bischoff" : > >>> > >>>> Hi all, > >>>> > >>>> Over the last week I was involved with an event at the American Indian > >>>> Language Development Institute and the folks that created the Navajo > >>>> Rosetta > >>>> Stone gave a short talk about the software. What follows is my > >>>> understanding > >>>> of how it came to be. > >>>> > >>>> The Navajo Rosetta Stones was created in collaboration with Rosetta > Stone > >>>> and the non-profit Navajo Language Renaissance (NLR). NLR is a > non-profit > >>>> organization that is NOT affiliated with the tribal council or > government > >>>> in > >>>> any way, for obvious reasons I think (e.g. getting council approval for > >>>> the > >>>> project). However, it has been endorsed by the school leadership and NLR > >>>> is > >>>> actively trying to get the school district to adopt the software. You > can > >>>> view the NLR website here http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ A > >>>> non-community member started NLR after using Rosetta Stone to learn > >>>> Russian. > >>>> She thought it would be good if Rosetta Stone created a Navajo version. > >>>> She > >>>> contacted Rosetta Stone (RS), and they told her they would provide here > >>>> with > >>>> the software to develop the lessons, a photographer, and technical > >>>> assistants (limited on the ground, mostly by phone) to develop the > >>>> program > >>>> for $300,000. Another option would be for her to apply for a grant from > >>>> RS > >>>> to cover most of the costs. So the NLR was created, a partnership > between > >>>> community members and one non-community member, as a non-profit > >>>> organization and applied. RS gave two grants the year they applied, one > >>>> went > >>>> to NLR. The grant covered all but $27,000 of the $300,000. So NLR had to > >>>> pay > >>>> RS $27,000 to have access to the software to create the Navajo Rosetta > >>>> Stone. This means they had to create the lessons and pay speakers and > >>>> informants themselves. RS provided the software, a photographer, and > >>>> technical support for the $27,000. NLR now is the only group that can > >>>> sell > >>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone, which they do for $150 per license and $200 for a > >>>> personal box set. It is not clear if they have to pay RS a percentage of > >>>> those revenues or not. When I asked a clear answer wasn't given. NLR > also > >>>> has a "training" session for administrators and teachers which costs > >>>> $1500 a > >>>> day and $400 per 3 hours. Needless to say, it is not un-controversial in > >>>> the > >>>> community for many of the usual reasons. Ironically, the speaker after > >>>> the > >>>> Rosetta Stone folks gave a talk that demonstrated how to create nearly > >>>> identical language lessons as Rosetta Stone's simply using power point. > I > >>>> was encouraged to let folks know that they should contact the NLR if > they > >>>> have any questions at mbittinger at rosettastone.com. You can try a free > >>>> introductory lesson here http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ The > >>>> folks > >>>> at NLR praised RS for their efforts and felt they had really done them a > >>>> service. In short, they were very happy with the arrangement and how it > >>>> was > >>>> working out. They were also upset by the controversies surrounding the > >>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone and felt they were really the result of a > >>>> misunderstanding and misguided assumptions. One finally thing, they did > >>>> seem > >>>> to think that it was not a pancea, but rather another useful tool in > >>>> language revitalization efforts. > >>>> > >>>> Cheers, > >>>> Shannon > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University > >>> > >>> > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University From tgivon at uoregon.edu Wed Feb 9 17:39:34 2011 From: tgivon at uoregon.edu (Tom Givon) Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 10:39:34 -0700 Subject: Roseta Stone: Redux In-Reply-To: <1297271632.4d52cb508d748@webmail.haifa.ac.il> Message-ID: Right on, John. And one could make a prediction--hopefully someday to be tested by acquisition studies--that Navajo kids will not master the fully complexcity of the Athabaskan verb by age 10, or 15, or 20. I once reviewed a grammar in Papua New Guniea of a language that had comparable complexity on the verb (three positions, 6-8 categoriers each, massive zeroing & morphonemic). I had to ask Carle Whitehead--is this guy for real? He said, yes, he's been in the island for 20 years, really knows his stuff. So I asked the guy--at what age are kids considered fuill-fledged speakers? He said-- the old people say, don't listen to anybody under forty, they don't know how to speak. In my work with the Utes, one exchange has stuck out, an elder (ka-para'ni-wa-t, he's not walking about any more) who was pointed to me as the best orator in the tribe. I told him that, and he said: "Oh, I am nothing. You should have heard the Old Ones; when they spoke, you could see it all in front of your eyes". Part of it is due to the complex Ute deictic system, which invades NPs, ADVs & the verb. The combinations, and the subtle choices of when to combine the deictic particle with other categories, are a whole wond(e)rous world. Cheers, TG ========== On 2/9/2011 10:13 AM, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > Aya, > I think I was the one who said first that Navajo is not a language for > amateurs. I'll second what Tom said--you should learn something > about Navajo (or some other Athabaskan language) before making > statements like this. Some languages are just plain objectively harder than > others, regardless of typological similarly to one's native language. If you > don't believe this, do an experiment in which you take speakers of English, > Turkish, Georgian, Chinese, whatever you want, try to teach them Navajo, Hopi, > and Cree (for example), and see which one gives them the most trouble. > I guarantee it will be Navajo. And there is an objective reason for it-- > the morphophonemics are just unbelievably complex. > John > > > > > > Quoting "A. Katz": > >> Tom, >> >> I don't think that is a valid viewpoint with regard to Athabaskan or any >> other language family. >> >> Victor Golla earlier had a much better phrasing when he wrote: >> >> "Let that read: "A language that is not for amateurs is not for >> ADULT people."" >> >> But in fact no language is easy for adults to learn who have not already >> learned a language with a similar typology. If your native language works >> similarly to the one you are learning, then you have an enormous advantage >> as an adult second language learner. >> >> The remark about how Navajo is not for amateurs was made in the context of >> people who have no experience with languages of a similar typology. >> To make this a universal statement about the difficulty of Navajo without >> qualification is to suggest that some languages are "easy" and others are >> "impossible". Not only is this not true from an objective standpoint, it >> also perpetuates the prejudice that English (or IE) is a "normal" language >> and that every language should be measured against this norm. >> >> Best, >> >> --Aya >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: >> >>> >>> Before you actually tried to learn an Athabaskan language, or at the very >>> least worked on one, maybe you had better refrain from asserting that "a >>> language that is not for amateurs is not for people". TG >>> >>> ========= >>> >>> >>> >>> On 2/8/2011 6:33 AM, A. Katz wrote: >>>> A language that is not for amateurs is not for people. >>>> >>>> This has nothing to do with RS or computer language teaching. As others >>>> have stated, the technologically based systems are not a panacea. >>>> >>>> But a language that ordinary people can't pick by talking to their parents >>>> in childhood is either dead already or not a human language. >>>> >>>> --Aya >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: >>>> >>>>> I would be amazed if a single person actually learns to speak Navajo >>>>> using Rosetta Stone. This is not a language for amateurs. >>>>> John >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Quoting "s.t. bischoff": >>>>> >>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>> >>>>>> Over the last week I was involved with an event at the American Indian >>>>>> Language Development Institute and the folks that created the Navajo >>>>>> Rosetta >>>>>> Stone gave a short talk about the software. What follows is my >>>>>> understanding >>>>>> of how it came to be. >>>>>> >>>>>> The Navajo Rosetta Stones was created in collaboration with Rosetta >> Stone >>>>>> and the non-profit Navajo Language Renaissance (NLR). NLR is a >> non-profit >>>>>> organization that is NOT affiliated with the tribal council or >> government >>>>>> in >>>>>> any way, for obvious reasons I think (e.g. getting council approval for >>>>>> the >>>>>> project). However, it has been endorsed by the school leadership and NLR >>>>>> is >>>>>> actively trying to get the school district to adopt the software. You >> can >>>>>> view the NLR website here http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ A >>>>>> non-community member started NLR after using Rosetta Stone to learn >>>>>> Russian. >>>>>> She thought it would be good if Rosetta Stone created a Navajo version. >>>>>> She >>>>>> contacted Rosetta Stone (RS), and they told her they would provide here >>>>>> with >>>>>> the software to develop the lessons, a photographer, and technical >>>>>> assistants (limited on the ground, mostly by phone) to develop the >>>>>> program >>>>>> for $300,000. Another option would be for her to apply for a grant from >>>>>> RS >>>>>> to cover most of the costs. So the NLR was created, a partnership >> between >>>>>> community members and one non-community member, as a non-profit >>>>>> organization and applied. RS gave two grants the year they applied, one >>>>>> went >>>>>> to NLR. The grant covered all but $27,000 of the $300,000. So NLR had to >>>>>> pay >>>>>> RS $27,000 to have access to the software to create the Navajo Rosetta >>>>>> Stone. This means they had to create the lessons and pay speakers and >>>>>> informants themselves. RS provided the software, a photographer, and >>>>>> technical support for the $27,000. NLR now is the only group that can >>>>>> sell >>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone, which they do for $150 per license and $200 for a >>>>>> personal box set. It is not clear if they have to pay RS a percentage of >>>>>> those revenues or not. When I asked a clear answer wasn't given. NLR >> also >>>>>> has a "training" session for administrators and teachers which costs >>>>>> $1500 a >>>>>> day and $400 per 3 hours. Needless to say, it is not un-controversial in >>>>>> the >>>>>> community for many of the usual reasons. Ironically, the speaker after >>>>>> the >>>>>> Rosetta Stone folks gave a talk that demonstrated how to create nearly >>>>>> identical language lessons as Rosetta Stone's simply using power point. >> I >>>>>> was encouraged to let folks know that they should contact the NLR if >> they >>>>>> have any questions at mbittinger at rosettastone.com. You can try a free >>>>>> introductory lesson here http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ The >>>>>> folks >>>>>> at NLR praised RS for their efforts and felt they had really done them a >>>>>> service. In short, they were very happy with the arrangement and how it >>>>>> was >>>>>> working out. They were also upset by the controversies surrounding the >>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone and felt they were really the result of a >>>>>> misunderstanding and misguided assumptions. One finally thing, they did >>>>>> seem >>>>>> to think that it was not a pancea, but rather another useful tool in >>>>>> language revitalization efforts. >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>> Shannon >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University >>>>> >>>>> >>> > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University From amnfn at well.com Wed Feb 9 18:03:58 2011 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 10:03:58 -0800 Subject: Roseta Stone: Redux In-Reply-To: <1297271632.4d52cb508d748@webmail.haifa.ac.il> Message-ID: John, So do you think that having extremely complex morphophonemics is not a typological trait for a language? If so, what do you think it is instead? --Aya On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > Aya, > I think I was the one who said first that Navajo is not a language for > amateurs. I'll second what Tom said--you should learn something > about Navajo (or some other Athabaskan language) before making > statements like this. Some languages are just plain objectively harder than > others, regardless of typological similarly to one's native language. If you > don't believe this, do an experiment in which you take speakers of English, > Turkish, Georgian, Chinese, whatever you want, try to teach them Navajo, Hopi, > and Cree (for example), and see which one gives them the most trouble. > I guarantee it will be Navajo. And there is an objective reason for it-- > the morphophonemics are just unbelievably complex. > John > > > > > > Quoting "A. Katz" : > >> Tom, >> >> I don't think that is a valid viewpoint with regard to Athabaskan or any >> other language family. >> >> Victor Golla earlier had a much better phrasing when he wrote: >> >> "Let that read: "A language that is not for amateurs is not for >> ADULT people."" >> >> But in fact no language is easy for adults to learn who have not already >> learned a language with a similar typology. If your native language works >> similarly to the one you are learning, then you have an enormous advantage >> as an adult second language learner. >> >> The remark about how Navajo is not for amateurs was made in the context of >> people who have no experience with languages of a similar typology. >> To make this a universal statement about the difficulty of Navajo without >> qualification is to suggest that some languages are "easy" and others are >> "impossible". Not only is this not true from an objective standpoint, it >> also perpetuates the prejudice that English (or IE) is a "normal" language >> and that every language should be measured against this norm. >> >> Best, >> >> --Aya >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> Before you actually tried to learn an Athabaskan language, or at the very >>> least worked on one, maybe you had better refrain from asserting that "a >>> language that is not for amateurs is not for people". TG >>> >>> ========= >>> >>> >>> >>> On 2/8/2011 6:33 AM, A. Katz wrote: >>>> A language that is not for amateurs is not for people. >>>> >>>> This has nothing to do with RS or computer language teaching. As others >>>> have stated, the technologically based systems are not a panacea. >>>> >>>> But a language that ordinary people can't pick by talking to their parents >>>> in childhood is either dead already or not a human language. >>>> >>>> --Aya >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: >>>> >>>>> I would be amazed if a single person actually learns to speak Navajo >>>>> using Rosetta Stone. This is not a language for amateurs. >>>>> John >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Quoting "s.t. bischoff" : >>>>> >>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>> >>>>>> Over the last week I was involved with an event at the American Indian >>>>>> Language Development Institute and the folks that created the Navajo >>>>>> Rosetta >>>>>> Stone gave a short talk about the software. What follows is my >>>>>> understanding >>>>>> of how it came to be. >>>>>> >>>>>> The Navajo Rosetta Stones was created in collaboration with Rosetta >> Stone >>>>>> and the non-profit Navajo Language Renaissance (NLR). NLR is a >> non-profit >>>>>> organization that is NOT affiliated with the tribal council or >> government >>>>>> in >>>>>> any way, for obvious reasons I think (e.g. getting council approval for >>>>>> the >>>>>> project). However, it has been endorsed by the school leadership and NLR >>>>>> is >>>>>> actively trying to get the school district to adopt the software. You >> can >>>>>> view the NLR website here http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ A >>>>>> non-community member started NLR after using Rosetta Stone to learn >>>>>> Russian. >>>>>> She thought it would be good if Rosetta Stone created a Navajo version. >>>>>> She >>>>>> contacted Rosetta Stone (RS), and they told her they would provide here >>>>>> with >>>>>> the software to develop the lessons, a photographer, and technical >>>>>> assistants (limited on the ground, mostly by phone) to develop the >>>>>> program >>>>>> for $300,000. Another option would be for her to apply for a grant from >>>>>> RS >>>>>> to cover most of the costs. So the NLR was created, a partnership >> between >>>>>> community members and one non-community member, as a non-profit >>>>>> organization and applied. RS gave two grants the year they applied, one >>>>>> went >>>>>> to NLR. The grant covered all but $27,000 of the $300,000. So NLR had to >>>>>> pay >>>>>> RS $27,000 to have access to the software to create the Navajo Rosetta >>>>>> Stone. This means they had to create the lessons and pay speakers and >>>>>> informants themselves. RS provided the software, a photographer, and >>>>>> technical support for the $27,000. NLR now is the only group that can >>>>>> sell >>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone, which they do for $150 per license and $200 for a >>>>>> personal box set. It is not clear if they have to pay RS a percentage of >>>>>> those revenues or not. When I asked a clear answer wasn't given. NLR >> also >>>>>> has a "training" session for administrators and teachers which costs >>>>>> $1500 a >>>>>> day and $400 per 3 hours. Needless to say, it is not un-controversial in >>>>>> the >>>>>> community for many of the usual reasons. Ironically, the speaker after >>>>>> the >>>>>> Rosetta Stone folks gave a talk that demonstrated how to create nearly >>>>>> identical language lessons as Rosetta Stone's simply using power point. >> I >>>>>> was encouraged to let folks know that they should contact the NLR if >> they >>>>>> have any questions at mbittinger at rosettastone.com. You can try a free >>>>>> introductory lesson here http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ The >>>>>> folks >>>>>> at NLR praised RS for their efforts and felt they had really done them a >>>>>> service. In short, they were very happy with the arrangement and how it >>>>>> was >>>>>> working out. They were also upset by the controversies surrounding the >>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone and felt they were really the result of a >>>>>> misunderstanding and misguided assumptions. One finally thing, they did >>>>>> seem >>>>>> to think that it was not a pancea, but rather another useful tool in >>>>>> language revitalization efforts. >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>> Shannon >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >> > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University > > From amnfn at well.com Wed Feb 9 18:10:14 2011 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 10:10:14 -0800 Subject: Roseta Stone: Redux In-Reply-To: <4D52D156.4030509@uoregon.edu> Message-ID: Tom, If the language is dying, then the advice not to listen to somebody under forty because they don't know how to speak may be sound, but not for the reason that you suggest. It could be there are no fluent speakers under forty. It seems very unlikely that one would have to arrive at age forty before acquiring fluency, especially in a hunter gatherer culture where death before forty might be quite common. But if you have evidence to the contrary that fully immersed, monolingual young speakers of a language cannot speak it with communicative effect until age forty, then this is a big discovery that ought to be published and shared with the scientific community. --Aya On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: > > > > Right on, John. And one could make a prediction--hopefully someday to be > tested by acquisition studies--that Navajo kids will not master the fully > complexcity of the Athabaskan verb by age 10, or 15, or 20. I once reviewed a > grammar in Papua New Guniea of a language that had comparable complexity on > the verb (three positions, 6-8 categoriers each, massive zeroing & > morphonemic). I had to ask Carle Whitehead--is this guy for real? He said, > yes, he's been in the island for 20 years, really knows his stuff. So I asked > the guy--at what age are kids considered fuill-fledged speakers? He said-- > the old people say, don't listen to anybody under forty, they don't know how > to speak. In my work with the Utes, one exchange has stuck out, an elder > (ka-para'ni-wa-t, he's not walking about any more) who was pointed to me as > the best orator in the tribe. I told him that, and he said: "Oh, I am > nothing. You should have heard the Old Ones; when they spoke, you could see > it all in front of your eyes". Part of it is due to the complex Ute deictic > system, which invades NPs, ADVs & the verb. The combinations, and the subtle > choices of when to combine the deictic particle with other categories, are a > whole wond(e)rous world. Cheers, TG > > ========== > > > > On 2/9/2011 10:13 AM, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: >> Aya, >> I think I was the one who said first that Navajo is not a language for >> amateurs. I'll second what Tom said--you should learn something >> about Navajo (or some other Athabaskan language) before making >> statements like this. Some languages are just plain objectively harder than >> others, regardless of typological similarly to one's native language. If >> you >> don't believe this, do an experiment in which you take speakers of English, >> Turkish, Georgian, Chinese, whatever you want, try to teach them Navajo, >> Hopi, >> and Cree (for example), and see which one gives them the most trouble. >> I guarantee it will be Navajo. And there is an objective reason for it-- >> the morphophonemics are just unbelievably complex. >> John >> >> >> >> >> >> Quoting "A. Katz": >> >>> Tom, >>> >>> I don't think that is a valid viewpoint with regard to Athabaskan or any >>> other language family. >>> >>> Victor Golla earlier had a much better phrasing when he wrote: >>> >>> "Let that read: "A language that is not for amateurs is not for >>> ADULT people."" >>> >>> But in fact no language is easy for adults to learn who have not already >>> learned a language with a similar typology. If your native language works >>> similarly to the one you are learning, then you have an enormous advantage >>> as an adult second language learner. >>> >>> The remark about how Navajo is not for amateurs was made in the context of >>> people who have no experience with languages of a similar typology. >>> To make this a universal statement about the difficulty of Navajo without >>> qualification is to suggest that some languages are "easy" and others are >>> "impossible". Not only is this not true from an objective standpoint, it >>> also perpetuates the prejudice that English (or IE) is a "normal" language >>> and that every language should be measured against this norm. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> --Aya >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Before you actually tried to learn an Athabaskan language, or at the very >>>> least worked on one, maybe you had better refrain from asserting that "a >>>> language that is not for amateurs is not for people". TG >>>> >>>> ========= >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 2/8/2011 6:33 AM, A. Katz wrote: >>>>> A language that is not for amateurs is not for people. >>>>> >>>>> This has nothing to do with RS or computer language teaching. As others >>>>> have stated, the technologically based systems are not a panacea. >>>>> >>>>> But a language that ordinary people can't pick by talking to their >>>>> parents >>>>> in childhood is either dead already or not a human language. >>>>> >>>>> --Aya >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I would be amazed if a single person actually learns to speak Navajo >>>>>> using Rosetta Stone. This is not a language for amateurs. >>>>>> John >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Quoting "s.t. bischoff": >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Over the last week I was involved with an event at the American Indian >>>>>>> Language Development Institute and the folks that created the Navajo >>>>>>> Rosetta >>>>>>> Stone gave a short talk about the software. What follows is my >>>>>>> understanding >>>>>>> of how it came to be. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The Navajo Rosetta Stones was created in collaboration with Rosetta >>> Stone >>>>>>> and the non-profit Navajo Language Renaissance (NLR). NLR is a >>> non-profit >>>>>>> organization that is NOT affiliated with the tribal council or >>> government >>>>>>> in >>>>>>> any way, for obvious reasons I think (e.g. getting council approval >>>>>>> for >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> project). However, it has been endorsed by the school leadership and >>>>>>> NLR >>>>>>> is >>>>>>> actively trying to get the school district to adopt the software. You >>> can >>>>>>> view the NLR website here http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ A >>>>>>> non-community member started NLR after using Rosetta Stone to learn >>>>>>> Russian. >>>>>>> She thought it would be good if Rosetta Stone created a Navajo >>>>>>> version. >>>>>>> She >>>>>>> contacted Rosetta Stone (RS), and they told her they would provide >>>>>>> here >>>>>>> with >>>>>>> the software to develop the lessons, a photographer, and technical >>>>>>> assistants (limited on the ground, mostly by phone) to develop the >>>>>>> program >>>>>>> for $300,000. Another option would be for her to apply for a grant >>>>>>> from >>>>>>> RS >>>>>>> to cover most of the costs. So the NLR was created, a partnership >>> between >>>>>>> community members and one non-community member, as a non-profit >>>>>>> organization and applied. RS gave two grants the year they applied, >>>>>>> one >>>>>>> went >>>>>>> to NLR. The grant covered all but $27,000 of the $300,000. So NLR had >>>>>>> to >>>>>>> pay >>>>>>> RS $27,000 to have access to the software to create the Navajo Rosetta >>>>>>> Stone. This means they had to create the lessons and pay speakers and >>>>>>> informants themselves. RS provided the software, a photographer, and >>>>>>> technical support for the $27,000. NLR now is the only group that can >>>>>>> sell >>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone, which they do for $150 per license and $200 for >>>>>>> a >>>>>>> personal box set. It is not clear if they have to pay RS a percentage >>>>>>> of >>>>>>> those revenues or not. When I asked a clear answer wasn't given. NLR >>> also >>>>>>> has a "training" session for administrators and teachers which costs >>>>>>> $1500 a >>>>>>> day and $400 per 3 hours. Needless to say, it is not un-controversial >>>>>>> in >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> community for many of the usual reasons. Ironically, the speaker after >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> Rosetta Stone folks gave a talk that demonstrated how to create nearly >>>>>>> identical language lessons as Rosetta Stone's simply using power >>>>>>> point. >>> I >>>>>>> was encouraged to let folks know that they should contact the NLR if >>> they >>>>>>> have any questions at mbittinger at rosettastone.com. You can try a free >>>>>>> introductory lesson here http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ The >>>>>>> folks >>>>>>> at NLR praised RS for their efforts and felt they had really done them >>>>>>> a >>>>>>> service. In short, they were very happy with the arrangement and how >>>>>>> it >>>>>>> was >>>>>>> working out. They were also upset by the controversies surrounding the >>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone and felt they were really the result of a >>>>>>> misunderstanding and misguided assumptions. One finally thing, they >>>>>>> did >>>>>>> seem >>>>>>> to think that it was not a pancea, but rather another useful tool in >>>>>>> language revitalization efforts. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>> Shannon >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa >>>>>> University >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University > > From dan at daneverett.org Wed Feb 9 18:26:34 2011 From: dan at daneverett.org (Daniel Everett) Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 13:26:34 -0500 Subject: Survival International Interview Message-ID: http://www.survivalinternational.org/articles/3110 Survival International beginning a series of interviews with people who are known to have contributed to this area and I am very proud to be the first interview now featured on their site. I send it along in case you're interested. Dan From tgivon at uoregon.edu Wed Feb 9 00:25:57 2011 From: tgivon at uoregon.edu (Tom Givon) Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2011 17:25:57 -0700 Subject: forward from Vic Golla Message-ID: Vic Golla has asked by to post this communication. My 5 years of working on Tolowa pale in comparison with his lifetime with the Hupa. TG =============== > A language that is not for amateurs is not for people. Let that read: "A language that is not for amateurs is not for ADULT people." Whatever the neurological reality of the Critical Period, it is an empirical fact that non-native speakers past puberty experience great difficulty in acquiring anything resembling fluency in an Athabaskan language. (That Ken Hale did so only proves the rule. The astoundingly low incidence of true polyglotism deserves its own serious study.) Sapir called the Athabaskan languages the "son-of-a-bitchingest" ever devised by humankind. No doubt, every ordinary Navajo child who wants to can pick up Navajo as fast as your or my or Sapir's did English, but God only knows how they do it. With Muriel Saville-Troike the one, brave exception, acquisition researchers have largely avoided Navajo, despite its obvious theoretical potential. (One suspects that part of the problem is that such research requires some degree of competence in the language of study. See above.) I must admit that it's been a while since I took a look at acquisition studies (or the lack thereof) for Navajo or Athabaskan generally. I would be delighted to hear that some well-designed studies have gotten under way in the last decade. If not, they'd better hurry. Fewer than 10% of Navajo kids *on the reservation* were speaking the language the last time someone looked. --Victor Golla From fjn at u.washington.edu Wed Feb 9 18:27:25 2011 From: fjn at u.washington.edu (Frederick J Newmeyer) Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 10:27:25 -0800 Subject: Roseta Stone: Redux In-Reply-To: Message-ID: A propos, are there any published studies out there that point to measurable difference in rate of completion of first-language acquisition by speakers of one language compared to another? Or even of mastery of one aspect of L1 acquisition (phonology, morphology, etc.) by speakers of one language compared to another? --fritz Frederick J. Newmeyer Professor Emeritus, University of Washington Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, A. Katz wrote: > Tom, > > If the language is dying, then the advice not to listen to somebody under > forty because they don't know how to speak may be sound, but not for the > reason that you suggest. It could be there are no fluent speakers under > forty. It seems very unlikely that one would have to arrive at age forty > before acquiring fluency, especially in a hunter gatherer culture where death > before forty might be quite common. > > But if you have evidence to the contrary that fully immersed, monolingual > young speakers of a language cannot speak it with communicative effect until > age forty, then this is a big discovery that ought to be published and shared > with the scientific community. > > --Aya > > > On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: > >> >> >> >> Right on, John. And one could make a prediction--hopefully someday to be >> tested by acquisition studies--that Navajo kids will not master the fully >> complexcity of the Athabaskan verb by age 10, or 15, or 20. I once reviewed >> a grammar in Papua New Guniea of a language that had comparable complexity >> on the verb (three positions, 6-8 categoriers each, massive zeroing & >> morphonemic). I had to ask Carle Whitehead--is this guy for real? He said, >> yes, he's been in the island for 20 years, really knows his stuff. So I >> asked the guy--at what age are kids considered fuill-fledged speakers? He >> said-- the old people say, don't listen to anybody under forty, they don't >> know how to speak. In my work with the Utes, one exchange has stuck out, >> an elder (ka-para'ni-wa-t, he's not walking about any more) who was pointed >> to me as the best orator in the tribe. I told him that, and he said: "Oh, I >> am nothing. You should have heard the Old Ones; when they spoke, you could >> see it all in front of your eyes". Part of it is due to the complex Ute >> deictic system, which invades NPs, ADVs & the verb. The combinations, and >> the subtle choices of when to combine the deictic particle with other >> categories, are a whole wond(e)rous world. Cheers, TG >> >> ========== >> >> >> >> On 2/9/2011 10:13 AM, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: >>> Aya, >>> I think I was the one who said first that Navajo is not a language for >>> amateurs. I'll second what Tom said--you should learn something >>> about Navajo (or some other Athabaskan language) before making >>> statements like this. Some languages are just plain objectively harder >>> than >>> others, regardless of typological similarly to one's native language. If >>> you >>> don't believe this, do an experiment in which you take speakers of >>> English, >>> Turkish, Georgian, Chinese, whatever you want, try to teach them Navajo, >>> Hopi, >>> and Cree (for example), and see which one gives them the most trouble. >>> I guarantee it will be Navajo. And there is an objective reason for it-- >>> the morphophonemics are just unbelievably complex. >>> John >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Quoting "A. Katz": >>> >>>> Tom, >>>> >>>> I don't think that is a valid viewpoint with regard to Athabaskan or any >>>> other language family. >>>> >>>> Victor Golla earlier had a much better phrasing when he wrote: >>>> >>>> "Let that read: "A language that is not for amateurs is not for >>>> ADULT people."" >>>> >>>> But in fact no language is easy for adults to learn who have not already >>>> learned a language with a similar typology. If your native language works >>>> similarly to the one you are learning, then you have an enormous >>>> advantage >>>> as an adult second language learner. >>>> >>>> The remark about how Navajo is not for amateurs was made in the context >>>> of >>>> people who have no experience with languages of a similar typology. >>>> To make this a universal statement about the difficulty of Navajo without >>>> qualification is to suggest that some languages are "easy" and others are >>>> "impossible". Not only is this not true from an objective standpoint, it >>>> also perpetuates the prejudice that English (or IE) is a "normal" >>>> language >>>> and that every language should be measured against this norm. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> --Aya >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Before you actually tried to learn an Athabaskan language, or at the >>>>> very >>>>> least worked on one, maybe you had better refrain from asserting that "a >>>>> language that is not for amateurs is not for people". TG >>>>> >>>>> ========= >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 2/8/2011 6:33 AM, A. Katz wrote: >>>>>> A language that is not for amateurs is not for people. >>>>>> >>>>>> This has nothing to do with RS or computer language teaching. As others >>>>>> have stated, the technologically based systems are not a panacea. >>>>>> >>>>>> But a language that ordinary people can't pick by talking to their >>>>>> parents >>>>>> in childhood is either dead already or not a human language. >>>>>> >>>>>> --Aya >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I would be amazed if a single person actually learns to speak Navajo >>>>>>> using Rosetta Stone. This is not a language for amateurs. >>>>>>> John >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Quoting "s.t. bischoff": >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Over the last week I was involved with an event at the American >>>>>>>> Indian >>>>>>>> Language Development Institute and the folks that created the Navajo >>>>>>>> Rosetta >>>>>>>> Stone gave a short talk about the software. What follows is my >>>>>>>> understanding >>>>>>>> of how it came to be. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The Navajo Rosetta Stones was created in collaboration with Rosetta >>>> Stone >>>>>>>> and the non-profit Navajo Language Renaissance (NLR). NLR is a >>>> non-profit >>>>>>>> organization that is NOT affiliated with the tribal council or >>>> government >>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>> any way, for obvious reasons I think (e.g. getting council approval >>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> project). However, it has been endorsed by the school leadership and >>>>>>>> NLR >>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>> actively trying to get the school district to adopt the software. You >>>> can >>>>>>>> view the NLR website here http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ A >>>>>>>> non-community member started NLR after using Rosetta Stone to learn >>>>>>>> Russian. >>>>>>>> She thought it would be good if Rosetta Stone created a Navajo >>>>>>>> version. >>>>>>>> She >>>>>>>> contacted Rosetta Stone (RS), and they told her they would provide >>>>>>>> here >>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>> the software to develop the lessons, a photographer, and technical >>>>>>>> assistants (limited on the ground, mostly by phone) to develop the >>>>>>>> program >>>>>>>> for $300,000. Another option would be for her to apply for a grant >>>>>>>> from >>>>>>>> RS >>>>>>>> to cover most of the costs. So the NLR was created, a partnership >>>> between >>>>>>>> community members and one non-community member, as a non-profit >>>>>>>> organization and applied. RS gave two grants the year they applied, >>>>>>>> one >>>>>>>> went >>>>>>>> to NLR. The grant covered all but $27,000 of the $300,000. So NLR had >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> pay >>>>>>>> RS $27,000 to have access to the software to create the Navajo >>>>>>>> Rosetta >>>>>>>> Stone. This means they had to create the lessons and pay speakers and >>>>>>>> informants themselves. RS provided the software, a photographer, and >>>>>>>> technical support for the $27,000. NLR now is the only group that can >>>>>>>> sell >>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone, which they do for $150 per license and $200 for >>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>> personal box set. It is not clear if they have to pay RS a percentage >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> those revenues or not. When I asked a clear answer wasn't given. NLR >>>> also >>>>>>>> has a "training" session for administrators and teachers which costs >>>>>>>> $1500 a >>>>>>>> day and $400 per 3 hours. Needless to say, it is not un-controversial >>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> community for many of the usual reasons. Ironically, the speaker >>>>>>>> after >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> Rosetta Stone folks gave a talk that demonstrated how to create >>>>>>>> nearly >>>>>>>> identical language lessons as Rosetta Stone's simply using power >>>>>>>> point. >>>> I >>>>>>>> was encouraged to let folks know that they should contact the NLR if >>>> they >>>>>>>> have any questions at mbittinger at rosettastone.com. You can try a free >>>>>>>> introductory lesson here http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ The >>>>>>>> folks >>>>>>>> at NLR praised RS for their efforts and felt they had really done >>>>>>>> them a >>>>>>>> service. In short, they were very happy with the arrangement and how >>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>> working out. They were also upset by the controversies surrounding >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone and felt they were really the result of a >>>>>>>> misunderstanding and misguided assumptions. One finally thing, they >>>>>>>> did >>>>>>>> seem >>>>>>>> to think that it was not a pancea, but rather another useful tool in >>>>>>>> language revitalization efforts. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>> Shannon >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa >>>>>>> University >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University >> >> > From tgivon at uoregon.edu Wed Feb 9 18:34:01 2011 From: tgivon at uoregon.edu (Tom Givon) Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 11:34:01 -0700 Subject: Roseta Stone: Redux In-Reply-To: Message-ID: That language in PNG was not dying. It was on a n isolate island, no bilingualism, no contact. Some day it might just occured to you that linguistics is not only about arguments, but occasionally about simple facts. TG ============= On 2/9/2011 11:10 AM, A. Katz wrote: > Tom, > > If the language is dying, then the advice not to listen to somebody > under forty because they don't know how to speak may be sound, but not > for the reason that you suggest. It could be there are no fluent > speakers under forty. It seems very unlikely that one would have to > arrive at age forty before acquiring fluency, especially in a hunter > gatherer culture where death before forty might be quite common. > > But if you have evidence to the contrary that fully immersed, > monolingual young speakers of a language cannot speak it with > communicative effect until age forty, then this is a big discovery > that ought to be published and shared with the scientific community. > > --Aya > > > On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: > >> >> >> >> Right on, John. And one could make a prediction--hopefully someday to >> be tested by acquisition studies--that Navajo kids will not master >> the fully complexcity of the Athabaskan verb by age 10, or 15, or 20. >> I once reviewed a grammar in Papua New Guniea of a language that had >> comparable complexity on the verb (three positions, 6-8 categoriers >> each, massive zeroing & morphonemic). I had to ask Carle >> Whitehead--is this guy for real? He said, yes, he's been in the >> island for 20 years, really knows his stuff. So I asked the guy--at >> what age are kids considered fuill-fledged speakers? He said-- the >> old people say, don't listen to anybody under forty, they don't know >> how to speak. In my work with the Utes, one exchange has stuck out, >> an elder (ka-para'ni-wa-t, he's not walking about any more) who was >> pointed to me as the best orator in the tribe. I told him that, and >> he said: "Oh, I am nothing. You should have heard the Old Ones; when >> they spoke, you could see it all in front of your eyes". Part of it >> is due to the complex Ute deictic system, which invades NPs, ADVs & >> the verb. The combinations, and the subtle choices of when to combine >> the deictic particle with other categories, are a whole wond(e)rous >> world. Cheers, TG >> >> ========== >> >> >> >> On 2/9/2011 10:13 AM, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: >>> Aya, >>> I think I was the one who said first that Navajo is not a language for >>> amateurs. I'll second what Tom said--you should learn something >>> about Navajo (or some other Athabaskan language) before making >>> statements like this. Some languages are just plain objectively >>> harder than >>> others, regardless of typological similarly to one's native >>> language. If you >>> don't believe this, do an experiment in which you take speakers of >>> English, >>> Turkish, Georgian, Chinese, whatever you want, try to teach them >>> Navajo, Hopi, >>> and Cree (for example), and see which one gives them the most trouble. >>> I guarantee it will be Navajo. And there is an objective reason for >>> it-- >>> the morphophonemics are just unbelievably complex. >>> John >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Quoting "A. Katz": >>> >>>> Tom, >>>> >>>> I don't think that is a valid viewpoint with regard to Athabaskan >>>> or any >>>> other language family. >>>> >>>> Victor Golla earlier had a much better phrasing when he wrote: >>>> >>>> "Let that read: "A language that is not for amateurs is not for >>>> ADULT people."" >>>> >>>> But in fact no language is easy for adults to learn who have not >>>> already >>>> learned a language with a similar typology. If your native language >>>> works >>>> similarly to the one you are learning, then you have an enormous >>>> advantage >>>> as an adult second language learner. >>>> >>>> The remark about how Navajo is not for amateurs was made in the >>>> context of >>>> people who have no experience with languages of a similar typology. >>>> To make this a universal statement about the difficulty of Navajo >>>> without >>>> qualification is to suggest that some languages are "easy" and >>>> others are >>>> "impossible". Not only is this not true from an objective >>>> standpoint, it >>>> also perpetuates the prejudice that English (or IE) is a "normal" >>>> language >>>> and that every language should be measured against this norm. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> --Aya >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Before you actually tried to learn an Athabaskan language, or at >>>>> the very >>>>> least worked on one, maybe you had better refrain from asserting >>>>> that "a >>>>> language that is not for amateurs is not for people". TG >>>>> >>>>> ========= >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 2/8/2011 6:33 AM, A. Katz wrote: >>>>>> A language that is not for amateurs is not for people. >>>>>> >>>>>> This has nothing to do with RS or computer language teaching. As >>>>>> others >>>>>> have stated, the technologically based systems are not a panacea. >>>>>> >>>>>> But a language that ordinary people can't pick by talking to >>>>>> their parents >>>>>> in childhood is either dead already or not a human language. >>>>>> >>>>>> --Aya >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I would be amazed if a single person actually learns to speak >>>>>>> Navajo >>>>>>> using Rosetta Stone. This is not a language for amateurs. >>>>>>> John >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Quoting "s.t. bischoff": >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Over the last week I was involved with an event at the American >>>>>>>> Indian >>>>>>>> Language Development Institute and the folks that created the >>>>>>>> Navajo >>>>>>>> Rosetta >>>>>>>> Stone gave a short talk about the software. What follows is my >>>>>>>> understanding >>>>>>>> of how it came to be. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The Navajo Rosetta Stones was created in collaboration with >>>>>>>> Rosetta >>>> Stone >>>>>>>> and the non-profit Navajo Language Renaissance (NLR). NLR is a >>>> non-profit >>>>>>>> organization that is NOT affiliated with the tribal council or >>>> government >>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>> any way, for obvious reasons I think (e.g. getting council >>>>>>>> approval for >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> project). However, it has been endorsed by the school >>>>>>>> leadership and NLR >>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>> actively trying to get the school district to adopt the >>>>>>>> software. You >>>> can >>>>>>>> view the NLR website here >>>>>>>> http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ A >>>>>>>> non-community member started NLR after using Rosetta Stone to >>>>>>>> learn >>>>>>>> Russian. >>>>>>>> She thought it would be good if Rosetta Stone created a Navajo >>>>>>>> version. >>>>>>>> She >>>>>>>> contacted Rosetta Stone (RS), and they told her they would >>>>>>>> provide here >>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>> the software to develop the lessons, a photographer, and >>>>>>>> technical >>>>>>>> assistants (limited on the ground, mostly by phone) to develop the >>>>>>>> program >>>>>>>> for $300,000. Another option would be for her to apply for a >>>>>>>> grant from >>>>>>>> RS >>>>>>>> to cover most of the costs. So the NLR was created, a partnership >>>> between >>>>>>>> community members and one non-community member, as a non-profit >>>>>>>> organization and applied. RS gave two grants the year they >>>>>>>> applied, one >>>>>>>> went >>>>>>>> to NLR. The grant covered all but $27,000 of the $300,000. So >>>>>>>> NLR had to >>>>>>>> pay >>>>>>>> RS $27,000 to have access to the software to create the Navajo >>>>>>>> Rosetta >>>>>>>> Stone. This means they had to create the lessons and pay >>>>>>>> speakers and >>>>>>>> informants themselves. RS provided the software, a >>>>>>>> photographer, and >>>>>>>> technical support for the $27,000. NLR now is the only group >>>>>>>> that can >>>>>>>> sell >>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone, which they do for $150 per license and >>>>>>>> $200 for a >>>>>>>> personal box set. It is not clear if they have to pay RS a >>>>>>>> percentage of >>>>>>>> those revenues or not. When I asked a clear answer wasn't >>>>>>>> given. NLR >>>> also >>>>>>>> has a "training" session for administrators and teachers which >>>>>>>> costs >>>>>>>> $1500 a >>>>>>>> day and $400 per 3 hours. Needless to say, it is not >>>>>>>> un-controversial in >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> community for many of the usual reasons. Ironically, the >>>>>>>> speaker after >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> Rosetta Stone folks gave a talk that demonstrated how to create >>>>>>>> nearly >>>>>>>> identical language lessons as Rosetta Stone's simply using >>>>>>>> power point. >>>> I >>>>>>>> was encouraged to let folks know that they should contact the >>>>>>>> NLR if >>>> they >>>>>>>> have any questions at mbittinger at rosettastone.com. You can try >>>>>>>> a free >>>>>>>> introductory lesson here >>>>>>>> http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ The >>>>>>>> folks >>>>>>>> at NLR praised RS for their efforts and felt they had really >>>>>>>> done them a >>>>>>>> service. In short, they were very happy with the arrangement >>>>>>>> and how it >>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>> working out. They were also upset by the controversies >>>>>>>> surrounding the >>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone and felt they were really the result of a >>>>>>>> misunderstanding and misguided assumptions. One finally thing, >>>>>>>> they did >>>>>>>> seem >>>>>>>> to think that it was not a pancea, but rather another useful >>>>>>>> tool in >>>>>>>> language revitalization efforts. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>> Shannon >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa >>>>>>> University >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa >>> University >> >> From marc at northwestern.edu Wed Feb 9 18:34:07 2011 From: marc at northwestern.edu (Marc Ettlinger) Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 12:34:07 -0600 Subject: Non-fluent native speakers of Navajo Message-ID: I find the anecdote below fascinating - that L1 speakers of Navajo may not be considered fluent well into adulthood. Is there any actual evidence that this isn't simply a "kids these days mangle the language" type of comment (which you'd probably get from old English speakers commenting on whether American teens speak English correctly, as well) or something having to do with the influence of language contact on younger learners? More generally, I'd be curious to hear about any evidence of people still learning their first language past their teens that isn't simply an instance of language change. People generally write about language decline in older speakers - if there are cases where adults are still learning, I imagine it's been written up somewhere? Thanks, Marc Message: 7 Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2011 10:39:34 -0700 From: Tom Givon Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Roseta Stone: Redux To: john at research.haifa.ac.il Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu, "A. Katz" Message-ID: <4D52D156.4030509 at uoregon.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Right on, John. And one could make a prediction--hopefully someday to be tested by acquisition studies--that Navajo kids will not master the fully complexcity of the Athabaskan verb by age 10, or 15, or 20. I once reviewed a grammar in Papua New Guniea of a language that had comparable complexity on the verb (three positions, 6-8 categoriers each, massive zeroing & morphonemic). I had to ask Carle Whitehead--is this guy for real? He said, yes, he's been in the island for 20 years, really knows his stuff. So I asked the guy--at what age are kids considered fuill-fledged speakers? He said-- the old people say, don't listen to anybody under forty, they don't know how to speak. In my work with the Utes, one exchange has stuck out, an elder (ka-para'ni-wa-t, he's not walking about any more) who was pointed to me as the best orator in the tribe. I told him that, and he said: "Oh, I am nothing. You should have heard the Old Ones; when they spoke, you could see it all in front of your eyes". Part of it is due to the complex Ute deictic system, which invades NPs, ADVs & the verb. The combinations, and the subtle choices of when to combine the deictic particle with other categories, are a whole wond(e)rous world. Cheers, TG ========== -- Marc Ettlinger Postdoctoral Researcher Northwestern University Institute of Neuroscience 2240 Campus Drive Evanston, IL, 60208 847-491-2430 marc at northwestern.edu http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/~met179/ From amnfn at well.com Wed Feb 9 18:36:44 2011 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 10:36:44 -0800 Subject: Roseta Stone: Redux In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Fritz, That's a really good question. I look forward to hearing if other Funknetters know of such studies. --Aya On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > A propos, are there any published studies out there that point to measurable > difference in rate of completion of first-language acquisition by speakers of > one language compared to another? Or even of mastery of one aspect of L1 > acquisition (phonology, morphology, etc.) by speakers of one language > compared to another? > > --fritz > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, A. Katz wrote: > >> Tom, >> >> If the language is dying, then the advice not to listen to somebody under >> forty because they don't know how to speak may be sound, but not for the >> reason that you suggest. It could be there are no fluent speakers under >> forty. It seems very unlikely that one would have to arrive at age forty >> before acquiring fluency, especially in a hunter gatherer culture where >> death before forty might be quite common. >> >> But if you have evidence to the contrary that fully immersed, monolingual >> young speakers of a language cannot speak it with communicative effect >> until age forty, then this is a big discovery that ought to be published >> and shared with the scientific community. >> >> --Aya >> >> >> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> >>> Right on, John. And one could make a prediction--hopefully someday to be >>> tested by acquisition studies--that Navajo kids will not master the fully >>> complexcity of the Athabaskan verb by age 10, or 15, or 20. I once >>> reviewed a grammar in Papua New Guniea of a language that had comparable >>> complexity on the verb (three positions, 6-8 categoriers each, massive >>> zeroing & morphonemic). I had to ask Carle Whitehead--is this guy for >>> real? He said, yes, he's been in the island for 20 years, really knows his >>> stuff. So I asked the guy--at what age are kids considered fuill-fledged >>> speakers? He said-- the old people say, don't listen to anybody under >>> forty, they don't know how to speak. In my work with the Utes, one >>> exchange has stuck out, an elder (ka-para'ni-wa-t, he's not walking about >>> any more) who was pointed to me as the best orator in the tribe. I told >>> him that, and he said: "Oh, I am nothing. You should have heard the Old >>> Ones; when they spoke, you could see it all in front of your eyes". Part >>> of it is due to the complex Ute deictic system, which invades NPs, ADVs & >>> the verb. The combinations, and the subtle choices of when to combine the >>> deictic particle with other categories, are a whole wond(e)rous world. >>> Cheers, TG >>> >>> ========== >>> >>> >>> >>> On 2/9/2011 10:13 AM, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: >>>> Aya, >>>> I think I was the one who said first that Navajo is not a language for >>>> amateurs. I'll second what Tom said--you should learn something >>>> about Navajo (or some other Athabaskan language) before making >>>> statements like this. Some languages are just plain objectively harder >>>> than >>>> others, regardless of typological similarly to one's native language. If >>>> you >>>> don't believe this, do an experiment in which you take speakers of >>>> English, >>>> Turkish, Georgian, Chinese, whatever you want, try to teach them Navajo, >>>> Hopi, >>>> and Cree (for example), and see which one gives them the most trouble. >>>> I guarantee it will be Navajo. And there is an objective reason for it-- >>>> the morphophonemics are just unbelievably complex. >>>> John >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Quoting "A. Katz": >>>> >>>>> Tom, >>>>> >>>>> I don't think that is a valid viewpoint with regard to Athabaskan or any >>>>> other language family. >>>>> >>>>> Victor Golla earlier had a much better phrasing when he wrote: >>>>> >>>>> "Let that read: "A language that is not for amateurs is not for >>>>> ADULT people."" >>>>> >>>>> But in fact no language is easy for adults to learn who have not already >>>>> learned a language with a similar typology. If your native language >>>>> works >>>>> similarly to the one you are learning, then you have an enormous >>>>> advantage >>>>> as an adult second language learner. >>>>> >>>>> The remark about how Navajo is not for amateurs was made in the context >>>>> of >>>>> people who have no experience with languages of a similar typology. >>>>> To make this a universal statement about the difficulty of Navajo >>>>> without >>>>> qualification is to suggest that some languages are "easy" and others >>>>> are >>>>> "impossible". Not only is this not true from an objective standpoint, it >>>>> also perpetuates the prejudice that English (or IE) is a "normal" >>>>> language >>>>> and that every language should be measured against this norm. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> --Aya >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Before you actually tried to learn an Athabaskan language, or at the >>>>>> very >>>>>> least worked on one, maybe you had better refrain from asserting that >>>>>> "a >>>>>> language that is not for amateurs is not for people". TG >>>>>> >>>>>> ========= >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 2/8/2011 6:33 AM, A. Katz wrote: >>>>>>> A language that is not for amateurs is not for people. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This has nothing to do with RS or computer language teaching. As >>>>>>> others >>>>>>> have stated, the technologically based systems are not a panacea. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But a language that ordinary people can't pick by talking to their >>>>>>> parents >>>>>>> in childhood is either dead already or not a human language. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> --Aya >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I would be amazed if a single person actually learns to speak Navajo >>>>>>>> using Rosetta Stone. This is not a language for amateurs. >>>>>>>> John >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Quoting "s.t. bischoff": >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Over the last week I was involved with an event at the American >>>>>>>>> Indian >>>>>>>>> Language Development Institute and the folks that created the Navajo >>>>>>>>> Rosetta >>>>>>>>> Stone gave a short talk about the software. What follows is my >>>>>>>>> understanding >>>>>>>>> of how it came to be. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The Navajo Rosetta Stones was created in collaboration with Rosetta >>>>> Stone >>>>>>>>> and the non-profit Navajo Language Renaissance (NLR). NLR is a >>>>> non-profit >>>>>>>>> organization that is NOT affiliated with the tribal council or >>>>> government >>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>> any way, for obvious reasons I think (e.g. getting council approval >>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> project). However, it has been endorsed by the school leadership and >>>>>>>>> NLR >>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>> actively trying to get the school district to adopt the software. >>>>>>>>> You >>>>> can >>>>>>>>> view the NLR website here http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ A >>>>>>>>> non-community member started NLR after using Rosetta Stone to learn >>>>>>>>> Russian. >>>>>>>>> She thought it would be good if Rosetta Stone created a Navajo >>>>>>>>> version. >>>>>>>>> She >>>>>>>>> contacted Rosetta Stone (RS), and they told her they would provide >>>>>>>>> here >>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>> the software to develop the lessons, a photographer, and technical >>>>>>>>> assistants (limited on the ground, mostly by phone) to develop the >>>>>>>>> program >>>>>>>>> for $300,000. Another option would be for her to apply for a grant >>>>>>>>> from >>>>>>>>> RS >>>>>>>>> to cover most of the costs. So the NLR was created, a partnership >>>>> between >>>>>>>>> community members and one non-community member, as a non-profit >>>>>>>>> organization and applied. RS gave two grants the year they applied, >>>>>>>>> one >>>>>>>>> went >>>>>>>>> to NLR. The grant covered all but $27,000 of the $300,000. So NLR >>>>>>>>> had to >>>>>>>>> pay >>>>>>>>> RS $27,000 to have access to the software to create the Navajo >>>>>>>>> Rosetta >>>>>>>>> Stone. This means they had to create the lessons and pay speakers >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> informants themselves. RS provided the software, a photographer, and >>>>>>>>> technical support for the $27,000. NLR now is the only group that >>>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>>> sell >>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone, which they do for $150 per license and $200 >>>>>>>>> for a >>>>>>>>> personal box set. It is not clear if they have to pay RS a >>>>>>>>> percentage of >>>>>>>>> those revenues or not. When I asked a clear answer wasn't given. NLR >>>>> also >>>>>>>>> has a "training" session for administrators and teachers which costs >>>>>>>>> $1500 a >>>>>>>>> day and $400 per 3 hours. Needless to say, it is not >>>>>>>>> un-controversial in >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> community for many of the usual reasons. Ironically, the speaker >>>>>>>>> after >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> Rosetta Stone folks gave a talk that demonstrated how to create >>>>>>>>> nearly >>>>>>>>> identical language lessons as Rosetta Stone's simply using power >>>>>>>>> point. >>>>> I >>>>>>>>> was encouraged to let folks know that they should contact the NLR if >>>>> they >>>>>>>>> have any questions at mbittinger at rosettastone.com. You can try a >>>>>>>>> free >>>>>>>>> introductory lesson here http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ The >>>>>>>>> folks >>>>>>>>> at NLR praised RS for their efforts and felt they had really done >>>>>>>>> them a >>>>>>>>> service. In short, they were very happy with the arrangement and how >>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>>> working out. They were also upset by the controversies surrounding >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone and felt they were really the result of a >>>>>>>>> misunderstanding and misguided assumptions. One finally thing, they >>>>>>>>> did >>>>>>>>> seem >>>>>>>>> to think that it was not a pancea, but rather another useful tool in >>>>>>>>> language revitalization efforts. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>>> Shannon >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa >>>>>>>> University >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University >>> >>> >> > > From amnfn at well.com Wed Feb 9 18:41:32 2011 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 10:41:32 -0800 Subject: Roseta Stone: Redux In-Reply-To: <4D52DE19.8010409@uoregon.edu> Message-ID: I look forward to hearing more about this occurrence. Are you going to publish about it, or has something already been published? I'm perfectly open to the possibility that this is so, but have never heard of such a thing before. It is not common knowledge, even among linguists. I look forward to learning more about it. This information should be shared with the scientific community. Best, --Aya On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: > > > That language in PNG was not dying. It was on a n isolate island, no > bilingualism, no contact. Some day it might just occured to you that > linguistics is not only about arguments, but occasionally about simple facts. > TG > > ============= > > On 2/9/2011 11:10 AM, A. Katz wrote: >> Tom, >> >> If the language is dying, then the advice not to listen to somebody under >> forty because they don't know how to speak may be sound, but not for the >> reason that you suggest. It could be there are no fluent speakers under >> forty. It seems very unlikely that one would have to arrive at age forty >> before acquiring fluency, especially in a hunter gatherer culture where >> death before forty might be quite common. >> >> But if you have evidence to the contrary that fully immersed, monolingual >> young speakers of a language cannot speak it with communicative effect >> until age forty, then this is a big discovery that ought to be published >> and shared with the scientific community. >> >> --Aya >> >> >> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> >>> Right on, John. And one could make a prediction--hopefully someday to be >>> tested by acquisition studies--that Navajo kids will not master the fully >>> complexcity of the Athabaskan verb by age 10, or 15, or 20. I once >>> reviewed a grammar in Papua New Guniea of a language that had comparable >>> complexity on the verb (three positions, 6-8 categoriers each, massive >>> zeroing & morphonemic). I had to ask Carle Whitehead--is this guy for >>> real? He said, yes, he's been in the island for 20 years, really knows his >>> stuff. So I asked the guy--at what age are kids considered fuill-fledged >>> speakers? He said-- the old people say, don't listen to anybody under >>> forty, they don't know how to speak. In my work with the Utes, one >>> exchange has stuck out, an elder (ka-para'ni-wa-t, he's not walking about >>> any more) who was pointed to me as the best orator in the tribe. I told >>> him that, and he said: "Oh, I am nothing. You should have heard the Old >>> Ones; when they spoke, you could see it all in front of your eyes". Part >>> of it is due to the complex Ute deictic system, which invades NPs, ADVs & >>> the verb. The combinations, and the subtle choices of when to combine the >>> deictic particle with other categories, are a whole wond(e)rous world. >>> Cheers, TG >>> >>> ========== >>> >>> >>> >>> On 2/9/2011 10:13 AM, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: >>>> Aya, >>>> I think I was the one who said first that Navajo is not a language for >>>> amateurs. I'll second what Tom said--you should learn something >>>> about Navajo (or some other Athabaskan language) before making >>>> statements like this. Some languages are just plain objectively harder >>>> than >>>> others, regardless of typological similarly to one's native language. If >>>> you >>>> don't believe this, do an experiment in which you take speakers of >>>> English, >>>> Turkish, Georgian, Chinese, whatever you want, try to teach them Navajo, >>>> Hopi, >>>> and Cree (for example), and see which one gives them the most trouble. >>>> I guarantee it will be Navajo. And there is an objective reason for it-- >>>> the morphophonemics are just unbelievably complex. >>>> John >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Quoting "A. Katz": >>>> >>>>> Tom, >>>>> >>>>> I don't think that is a valid viewpoint with regard to Athabaskan or any >>>>> other language family. >>>>> >>>>> Victor Golla earlier had a much better phrasing when he wrote: >>>>> >>>>> "Let that read: "A language that is not for amateurs is not for >>>>> ADULT people."" >>>>> >>>>> But in fact no language is easy for adults to learn who have not already >>>>> learned a language with a similar typology. If your native language >>>>> works >>>>> similarly to the one you are learning, then you have an enormous >>>>> advantage >>>>> as an adult second language learner. >>>>> >>>>> The remark about how Navajo is not for amateurs was made in the context >>>>> of >>>>> people who have no experience with languages of a similar typology. >>>>> To make this a universal statement about the difficulty of Navajo >>>>> without >>>>> qualification is to suggest that some languages are "easy" and others >>>>> are >>>>> "impossible". Not only is this not true from an objective standpoint, it >>>>> also perpetuates the prejudice that English (or IE) is a "normal" >>>>> language >>>>> and that every language should be measured against this norm. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> --Aya >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Before you actually tried to learn an Athabaskan language, or at the >>>>>> very >>>>>> least worked on one, maybe you had better refrain from asserting that >>>>>> "a >>>>>> language that is not for amateurs is not for people". TG >>>>>> >>>>>> ========= >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 2/8/2011 6:33 AM, A. Katz wrote: >>>>>>> A language that is not for amateurs is not for people. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This has nothing to do with RS or computer language teaching. As >>>>>>> others >>>>>>> have stated, the technologically based systems are not a panacea. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But a language that ordinary people can't pick by talking to their >>>>>>> parents >>>>>>> in childhood is either dead already or not a human language. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> --Aya >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I would be amazed if a single person actually learns to speak Navajo >>>>>>>> using Rosetta Stone. This is not a language for amateurs. >>>>>>>> John >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Quoting "s.t. bischoff": >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Over the last week I was involved with an event at the American >>>>>>>>> Indian >>>>>>>>> Language Development Institute and the folks that created the Navajo >>>>>>>>> Rosetta >>>>>>>>> Stone gave a short talk about the software. What follows is my >>>>>>>>> understanding >>>>>>>>> of how it came to be. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The Navajo Rosetta Stones was created in collaboration with Rosetta >>>>> Stone >>>>>>>>> and the non-profit Navajo Language Renaissance (NLR). NLR is a >>>>> non-profit >>>>>>>>> organization that is NOT affiliated with the tribal council or >>>>> government >>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>> any way, for obvious reasons I think (e.g. getting council approval >>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> project). However, it has been endorsed by the school leadership and >>>>>>>>> NLR >>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>> actively trying to get the school district to adopt the software. >>>>>>>>> You >>>>> can >>>>>>>>> view the NLR website here http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ A >>>>>>>>> non-community member started NLR after using Rosetta Stone to learn >>>>>>>>> Russian. >>>>>>>>> She thought it would be good if Rosetta Stone created a Navajo >>>>>>>>> version. >>>>>>>>> She >>>>>>>>> contacted Rosetta Stone (RS), and they told her they would provide >>>>>>>>> here >>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>> the software to develop the lessons, a photographer, and technical >>>>>>>>> assistants (limited on the ground, mostly by phone) to develop the >>>>>>>>> program >>>>>>>>> for $300,000. Another option would be for her to apply for a grant >>>>>>>>> from >>>>>>>>> RS >>>>>>>>> to cover most of the costs. So the NLR was created, a partnership >>>>> between >>>>>>>>> community members and one non-community member, as a non-profit >>>>>>>>> organization and applied. RS gave two grants the year they applied, >>>>>>>>> one >>>>>>>>> went >>>>>>>>> to NLR. The grant covered all but $27,000 of the $300,000. So NLR >>>>>>>>> had to >>>>>>>>> pay >>>>>>>>> RS $27,000 to have access to the software to create the Navajo >>>>>>>>> Rosetta >>>>>>>>> Stone. This means they had to create the lessons and pay speakers >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> informants themselves. RS provided the software, a photographer, and >>>>>>>>> technical support for the $27,000. NLR now is the only group that >>>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>>> sell >>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone, which they do for $150 per license and $200 >>>>>>>>> for a >>>>>>>>> personal box set. It is not clear if they have to pay RS a >>>>>>>>> percentage of >>>>>>>>> those revenues or not. When I asked a clear answer wasn't given. NLR >>>>> also >>>>>>>>> has a "training" session for administrators and teachers which costs >>>>>>>>> $1500 a >>>>>>>>> day and $400 per 3 hours. Needless to say, it is not >>>>>>>>> un-controversial in >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> community for many of the usual reasons. Ironically, the speaker >>>>>>>>> after >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> Rosetta Stone folks gave a talk that demonstrated how to create >>>>>>>>> nearly >>>>>>>>> identical language lessons as Rosetta Stone's simply using power >>>>>>>>> point. >>>>> I >>>>>>>>> was encouraged to let folks know that they should contact the NLR if >>>>> they >>>>>>>>> have any questions at mbittinger at rosettastone.com. You can try a >>>>>>>>> free >>>>>>>>> introductory lesson here http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ The >>>>>>>>> folks >>>>>>>>> at NLR praised RS for their efforts and felt they had really done >>>>>>>>> them a >>>>>>>>> service. In short, they were very happy with the arrangement and how >>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>>> working out. They were also upset by the controversies surrounding >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone and felt they were really the result of a >>>>>>>>> misunderstanding and misguided assumptions. One finally thing, they >>>>>>>>> did >>>>>>>>> seem >>>>>>>>> to think that it was not a pancea, but rather another useful tool in >>>>>>>>> language revitalization efforts. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>>> Shannon >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa >>>>>>>> University >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University >>> >>> > > From macw at cmu.edu Wed Feb 9 19:04:17 2011 From: macw at cmu.edu (Brian MacWhinney) Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 14:04:17 -0500 Subject: Roseta Stone: Redux In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Fritz, There are studies in places like the Journal of Child Language by Dorthe Bleses, Hans Basb?l, and colleagues at Southern Denmark University on the delay of the acquisition of Danish phonology in comparison to other European languages, mostly attributed to the complexities of the vowel system and the various assimilatory processes. There is a corresponding delay in the acquisition of reading by Danish children that was observed in the cross-European PISA project. All of this is well documented in the literature, but it is rather marginal and transitory. Eventually, normal Danish children all learn good Danish and become fluent readers. -- Brian MacWhinney On Feb 9, 2011, at 1:27 PM, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > A propos, are there any published studies out there that point to measurable difference in rate of completion of first-language acquisition by speakers of one language compared to another? Or even of mastery of one aspect of L1 acquisition (phonology, morphology, etc.) by speakers of one language compared to another? > > --fritz > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, A. Katz wrote: > >> Tom, >> >> If the language is dying, then the advice not to listen to somebody under forty because they don't know how to speak may be sound, but not for the reason that you suggest. It could be there are no fluent speakers under forty. It seems very unlikely that one would have to arrive at age forty before acquiring fluency, especially in a hunter gatherer culture where death before forty might be quite common. >> >> But if you have evidence to the contrary that fully immersed, monolingual young speakers of a language cannot speak it with communicative effect until age forty, then this is a big discovery that ought to be published and shared with the scientific community. >> >> --Aya >> >> >> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: >> >>> Right on, John. And one could make a prediction--hopefully someday to be tested by acquisition studies--that Navajo kids will not master the fully complexcity of the Athabaskan verb by age 10, or 15, or 20. I once reviewed a grammar in Papua New Guniea of a language that had comparable complexity on the verb (three positions, 6-8 categoriers each, massive zeroing & morphonemic). I had to ask Carle Whitehead--is this guy for real? He said, yes, he's been in the island for 20 years, really knows his stuff. So I asked the guy--at what age are kids considered fuill-fledged speakers? He said-- the old people say, don't listen to anybody under forty, they don't know how to speak. In my work with the Utes, one exchange has stuck out, an elder (ka-para'ni-wa-t, he's not walking about any more) who was pointed to me as the best orator in the tribe. I told him that, and he said: "Oh, I am nothing. You should have heard the Old Ones; when they spoke, you could see it all in front of your eyes". Part of it is due to the complex Ute deictic system, which invades NPs, ADVs & the verb. The combinations, and the subtle choices of when to combine the deictic particle with other categories, are a whole wond(e)rous world. Cheers, TG >>> ========== >>> On 2/9/2011 10:13 AM, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: >>>> Aya, >>>> I think I was the one who said first that Navajo is not a language for >>>> amateurs. I'll second what Tom said--you should learn something >>>> about Navajo (or some other Athabaskan language) before making >>>> statements like this. Some languages are just plain objectively harder than >>>> others, regardless of typological similarly to one's native language. If you >>>> don't believe this, do an experiment in which you take speakers of English, >>>> Turkish, Georgian, Chinese, whatever you want, try to teach them Navajo, Hopi, >>>> and Cree (for example), and see which one gives them the most trouble. >>>> I guarantee it will be Navajo. And there is an objective reason for it-- >>>> the morphophonemics are just unbelievably complex. >>>> John >>>> Quoting "A. Katz": >>>>> Tom, >>>>> I don't think that is a valid viewpoint with regard to Athabaskan or any >>>>> other language family. >>>>> Victor Golla earlier had a much better phrasing when he wrote: >>>>> "Let that read: "A language that is not for amateurs is not for >>>>> ADULT people."" >>>>> But in fact no language is easy for adults to learn who have not already >>>>> learned a language with a similar typology. If your native language works >>>>> similarly to the one you are learning, then you have an enormous advantage >>>>> as an adult second language learner. >>>>> The remark about how Navajo is not for amateurs was made in the context of >>>>> people who have no experience with languages of a similar typology. >>>>> To make this a universal statement about the difficulty of Navajo without >>>>> qualification is to suggest that some languages are "easy" and others are >>>>> "impossible". Not only is this not true from an objective standpoint, it >>>>> also perpetuates the prejudice that English (or IE) is a "normal" language >>>>> and that every language should be measured against this norm. >>>>> Best, >>>>> --Aya >>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: >>>>>> Before you actually tried to learn an Athabaskan language, or at the very >>>>>> least worked on one, maybe you had better refrain from asserting that "a >>>>>> language that is not for amateurs is not for people". TG >>>>>> ========= >>>>>> On 2/8/2011 6:33 AM, A. Katz wrote: >>>>>>> A language that is not for amateurs is not for people. >>>>>>> This has nothing to do with RS or computer language teaching. As others >>>>>>> have stated, the technologically based systems are not a panacea. >>>>>>> But a language that ordinary people can't pick by talking to their parents >>>>>>> in childhood is either dead already or not a human language. >>>>>>> --Aya >>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: >>>>>>>> I would be amazed if a single person actually learns to speak Navajo >>>>>>>> using Rosetta Stone. This is not a language for amateurs. >>>>>>>> John >>>>>>>> Quoting "s.t. bischoff": >>>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>>> Over the last week I was involved with an event at the American Indian >>>>>>>>> Language Development Institute and the folks that created the Navajo >>>>>>>>> Rosetta >>>>>>>>> Stone gave a short talk about the software. What follows is my >>>>>>>>> understanding >>>>>>>>> of how it came to be. >>>>>>>>> The Navajo Rosetta Stones was created in collaboration with Rosetta >>>>> Stone >>>>>>>>> and the non-profit Navajo Language Renaissance (NLR). NLR is a >>>>> non-profit >>>>>>>>> organization that is NOT affiliated with the tribal council or >>>>> government >>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>> any way, for obvious reasons I think (e.g. getting council approval for >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> project). However, it has been endorsed by the school leadership and NLR >>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>> actively trying to get the school district to adopt the software. You >>>>> can >>>>>>>>> view the NLR website here http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ A >>>>>>>>> non-community member started NLR after using Rosetta Stone to learn >>>>>>>>> Russian. >>>>>>>>> She thought it would be good if Rosetta Stone created a Navajo version. >>>>>>>>> She >>>>>>>>> contacted Rosetta Stone (RS), and they told her they would provide here >>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>> the software to develop the lessons, a photographer, and technical >>>>>>>>> assistants (limited on the ground, mostly by phone) to develop the >>>>>>>>> program >>>>>>>>> for $300,000. Another option would be for her to apply for a grant from >>>>>>>>> RS >>>>>>>>> to cover most of the costs. So the NLR was created, a partnership >>>>> between >>>>>>>>> community members and one non-community member, as a non-profit >>>>>>>>> organization and applied. RS gave two grants the year they applied, one >>>>>>>>> went >>>>>>>>> to NLR. The grant covered all but $27,000 of the $300,000. So NLR had to >>>>>>>>> pay >>>>>>>>> RS $27,000 to have access to the software to create the Navajo Rosetta >>>>>>>>> Stone. This means they had to create the lessons and pay speakers and >>>>>>>>> informants themselves. RS provided the software, a photographer, and >>>>>>>>> technical support for the $27,000. NLR now is the only group that can >>>>>>>>> sell >>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone, which they do for $150 per license and $200 for a >>>>>>>>> personal box set. It is not clear if they have to pay RS a percentage of >>>>>>>>> those revenues or not. When I asked a clear answer wasn't given. NLR >>>>> also >>>>>>>>> has a "training" session for administrators and teachers which costs >>>>>>>>> $1500 a >>>>>>>>> day and $400 per 3 hours. Needless to say, it is not un-controversial in >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> community for many of the usual reasons. Ironically, the speaker after >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> Rosetta Stone folks gave a talk that demonstrated how to create nearly >>>>>>>>> identical language lessons as Rosetta Stone's simply using power point. >>>>> I >>>>>>>>> was encouraged to let folks know that they should contact the NLR if >>>>> they >>>>>>>>> have any questions at mbittinger at rosettastone.com. You can try a free >>>>>>>>> introductory lesson here http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ The >>>>>>>>> folks >>>>>>>>> at NLR praised RS for their efforts and felt they had really done them a >>>>>>>>> service. In short, they were very happy with the arrangement and how it >>>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>>> working out. They were also upset by the controversies surrounding the >>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone and felt they were really the result of a >>>>>>>>> misunderstanding and misguided assumptions. One finally thing, they did >>>>>>>>> seem >>>>>>>>> to think that it was not a pancea, but rather another useful tool in >>>>>>>>> language revitalization efforts. >>>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>>> Shannon >>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University >> > > From tgivon at uoregon.edu Wed Feb 9 19:12:50 2011 From: tgivon at uoregon.edu (Tom Givon) Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 12:12:50 -0700 Subject: Roseta Stone: Redux In-Reply-To: <90E93631-B2F5-4F65-BEFF-4B764AD84339@cmu.edu> Message-ID: I think the question of (dis) fluency & completeness for L1 are rather distinct. A child can be extremely fluent in child pidgin, or even more fluent at various stages of grammaticalization. Unlike L2 learners, whose pidgin is rather halting. Anybody can verify this by comparing the pause distribution in the CHILDES transcripts with L2 pidgin transcipts (say Bickerton's Hawaii Pidgin?). Tho of course Broca's aphasia pidgin is the most disfluent. Something sort-of resembling such a comparison may be found in ch. 10 of my "Genesis of Syntactic Complexity" (Benjamins 2009). TG ========== On 2/9/2011 12:04 PM, Brian MacWhinney wrote: > Fritz, > > There are studies in places like the Journal of Child Language by Dorthe Bleses, Hans Basb?l, and colleagues at Southern Denmark University on the delay of the acquisition of Danish phonology in comparison to other European languages, mostly attributed to the complexities of the vowel system and the various assimilatory processes. There is a corresponding delay in the acquisition of reading by Danish children that was observed in the cross-European PISA project. All of this is well documented in the literature, but it is rather marginal and transitory. Eventually, normal Danish children all learn good Danish and become fluent readers. > > -- Brian MacWhinney > > On Feb 9, 2011, at 1:27 PM, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > >> A propos, are there any published studies out there that point to measurable difference in rate of completion of first-language acquisition by speakers of one language compared to another? Or even of mastery of one aspect of L1 acquisition (phonology, morphology, etc.) by speakers of one language compared to another? >> >> --fritz >> >> Frederick J. Newmeyer >> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington >> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University >> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] >> >> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, A. Katz wrote: >> >>> Tom, >>> >>> If the language is dying, then the advice not to listen to somebody under forty because they don't know how to speak may be sound, but not for the reason that you suggest. It could be there are no fluent speakers under forty. It seems very unlikely that one would have to arrive at age forty before acquiring fluency, especially in a hunter gatherer culture where death before forty might be quite common. >>> >>> But if you have evidence to the contrary that fully immersed, monolingual young speakers of a language cannot speak it with communicative effect until age forty, then this is a big discovery that ought to be published and shared with the scientific community. >>> >>> --Aya >>> >>> >>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: >>> >>>> Right on, John. And one could make a prediction--hopefully someday to be tested by acquisition studies--that Navajo kids will not master the fully complexcity of the Athabaskan verb by age 10, or 15, or 20. I once reviewed a grammar in Papua New Guniea of a language that had comparable complexity on the verb (three positions, 6-8 categoriers each, massive zeroing& morphonemic). I had to ask Carle Whitehead--is this guy for real? He said, yes, he's been in the island for 20 years, really knows his stuff. So I asked the guy--at what age are kids considered fuill-fledged speakers? He said-- the old people say, don't listen to anybody under forty, they don't know how to speak. In my work with the Utes, one exchange has stuck out, an elder (ka-para'ni-wa-t, he's not walking about any more) who was pointed to me as the best orator in the tribe. I told him that, and he said: "Oh, I am nothing. You should have heard the Old Ones; when they spoke, you could see it all in front of your eyes". Part of it is due to the complex Ute deictic system, which invades NPs, ADVs& the verb. The combinations, and the subtle choices of when to combine the deictic particle with other categories, are a whole wond(e)rous world. Cheers, TG >>>> ========== >>>> On 2/9/2011 10:13 AM, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: >>>>> Aya, >>>>> I think I was the one who said first that Navajo is not a language for >>>>> amateurs. I'll second what Tom said--you should learn something >>>>> about Navajo (or some other Athabaskan language) before making >>>>> statements like this. Some languages are just plain objectively harder than >>>>> others, regardless of typological similarly to one's native language. If you >>>>> don't believe this, do an experiment in which you take speakers of English, >>>>> Turkish, Georgian, Chinese, whatever you want, try to teach them Navajo, Hopi, >>>>> and Cree (for example), and see which one gives them the most trouble. >>>>> I guarantee it will be Navajo. And there is an objective reason for it-- >>>>> the morphophonemics are just unbelievably complex. >>>>> John >>>>> Quoting "A. Katz": >>>>>> Tom, >>>>>> I don't think that is a valid viewpoint with regard to Athabaskan or any >>>>>> other language family. >>>>>> Victor Golla earlier had a much better phrasing when he wrote: >>>>>> "Let that read: "A language that is not for amateurs is not for >>>>>> ADULT people."" >>>>>> But in fact no language is easy for adults to learn who have not already >>>>>> learned a language with a similar typology. If your native language works >>>>>> similarly to the one you are learning, then you have an enormous advantage >>>>>> as an adult second language learner. >>>>>> The remark about how Navajo is not for amateurs was made in the context of >>>>>> people who have no experience with languages of a similar typology. >>>>>> To make this a universal statement about the difficulty of Navajo without >>>>>> qualification is to suggest that some languages are "easy" and others are >>>>>> "impossible". Not only is this not true from an objective standpoint, it >>>>>> also perpetuates the prejudice that English (or IE) is a "normal" language >>>>>> and that every language should be measured against this norm. >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> --Aya >>>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: >>>>>>> Before you actually tried to learn an Athabaskan language, or at the very >>>>>>> least worked on one, maybe you had better refrain from asserting that "a >>>>>>> language that is not for amateurs is not for people". TG >>>>>>> ========= >>>>>>> On 2/8/2011 6:33 AM, A. Katz wrote: >>>>>>>> A language that is not for amateurs is not for people. >>>>>>>> This has nothing to do with RS or computer language teaching. As others >>>>>>>> have stated, the technologically based systems are not a panacea. >>>>>>>> But a language that ordinary people can't pick by talking to their parents >>>>>>>> in childhood is either dead already or not a human language. >>>>>>>> --Aya >>>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: >>>>>>>>> I would be amazed if a single person actually learns to speak Navajo >>>>>>>>> using Rosetta Stone. This is not a language for amateurs. >>>>>>>>> John >>>>>>>>> Quoting "s.t. bischoff": >>>>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>>>> Over the last week I was involved with an event at the American Indian >>>>>>>>>> Language Development Institute and the folks that created the Navajo >>>>>>>>>> Rosetta >>>>>>>>>> Stone gave a short talk about the software. What follows is my >>>>>>>>>> understanding >>>>>>>>>> of how it came to be. >>>>>>>>>> The Navajo Rosetta Stones was created in collaboration with Rosetta >>>>>> Stone >>>>>>>>>> and the non-profit Navajo Language Renaissance (NLR). NLR is a >>>>>> non-profit >>>>>>>>>> organization that is NOT affiliated with the tribal council or >>>>>> government >>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>> any way, for obvious reasons I think (e.g. getting council approval for >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> project). However, it has been endorsed by the school leadership and NLR >>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>> actively trying to get the school district to adopt the software. You >>>>>> can >>>>>>>>>> view the NLR website here http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ A >>>>>>>>>> non-community member started NLR after using Rosetta Stone to learn >>>>>>>>>> Russian. >>>>>>>>>> She thought it would be good if Rosetta Stone created a Navajo version. >>>>>>>>>> She >>>>>>>>>> contacted Rosetta Stone (RS), and they told her they would provide here >>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>> the software to develop the lessons, a photographer, and technical >>>>>>>>>> assistants (limited on the ground, mostly by phone) to develop the >>>>>>>>>> program >>>>>>>>>> for $300,000. Another option would be for her to apply for a grant from >>>>>>>>>> RS >>>>>>>>>> to cover most of the costs. So the NLR was created, a partnership >>>>>> between >>>>>>>>>> community members and one non-community member, as a non-profit >>>>>>>>>> organization and applied. RS gave two grants the year they applied, one >>>>>>>>>> went >>>>>>>>>> to NLR. The grant covered all but $27,000 of the $300,000. So NLR had to >>>>>>>>>> pay >>>>>>>>>> RS $27,000 to have access to the software to create the Navajo Rosetta >>>>>>>>>> Stone. This means they had to create the lessons and pay speakers and >>>>>>>>>> informants themselves. RS provided the software, a photographer, and >>>>>>>>>> technical support for the $27,000. NLR now is the only group that can >>>>>>>>>> sell >>>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone, which they do for $150 per license and $200 for a >>>>>>>>>> personal box set. It is not clear if they have to pay RS a percentage of >>>>>>>>>> those revenues or not. When I asked a clear answer wasn't given. NLR >>>>>> also >>>>>>>>>> has a "training" session for administrators and teachers which costs >>>>>>>>>> $1500 a >>>>>>>>>> day and $400 per 3 hours. Needless to say, it is not un-controversial in >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> community for many of the usual reasons. Ironically, the speaker after >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> Rosetta Stone folks gave a talk that demonstrated how to create nearly >>>>>>>>>> identical language lessons as Rosetta Stone's simply using power point. >>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>> was encouraged to let folks know that they should contact the NLR if >>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>> have any questions at mbittinger at rosettastone.com. You can try a free >>>>>>>>>> introductory lesson here http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ The >>>>>>>>>> folks >>>>>>>>>> at NLR praised RS for their efforts and felt they had really done them a >>>>>>>>>> service. In short, they were very happy with the arrangement and how it >>>>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>>>> working out. They were also upset by the controversies surrounding the >>>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone and felt they were really the result of a >>>>>>>>>> misunderstanding and misguided assumptions. One finally thing, they did >>>>>>>>>> seem >>>>>>>>>> to think that it was not a pancea, but rather another useful tool in >>>>>>>>>> language revitalization efforts. >>>>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>>>> Shannon >>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University >> > From hancock at albany.edu Wed Feb 9 19:40:56 2011 From: hancock at albany.edu (Craig Hancock) Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 14:40:56 -0500 Subject: Roseta Stone: Redux In-Reply-To: <90E93631-B2F5-4F65-BEFF-4B764AD84339@cmu.edu> Message-ID: Brian, This strikes as a bit like Lake Woebegone (Where all the children are above average). normal Danish children all learn good Danish and become fluent readers Is acquiring a language totally separate from the uses of that language? Are we just acquiring the forms and then differing in our ability to put them to use or are the uses themselves a major part of what we are acquiring? Are lexicon and syntax wholly separate, or do we go on acquiring the lexico-grammar as we enter more deeply into adult worlds of discourse? Anyone in literacy education knows that too many American children fail to reach high levels of fluency as readers and writers. Doesn't that somehow mean they have failed to acquire the language? Craig On 2/9/2011 2:04 PM, Brian MacWhinney wrote: > Fritz, > > There are studies in places like the Journal of Child Language by Dorthe Bleses, Hans Basb?l, and colleagues at Southern Denmark University on the delay of the acquisition of Danish phonology in comparison to other European languages, mostly attributed to the complexities of the vowel system and the various assimilatory processes. There is a corresponding delay in the acquisition of reading by Danish children that was observed in the cross-European PISA project. All of this is well documented in the literature, but it is rather marginal and transitory. Eventually, normal Danish children all learn good Danish and become fluent readers. > > -- Brian MacWhinney > > On Feb 9, 2011, at 1:27 PM, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > >> A propos, are there any published studies out there that point to measurable difference in rate of completion of first-language acquisition by speakers of one language compared to another? Or even of mastery of one aspect of L1 acquisition (phonology, morphology, etc.) by speakers of one language compared to another? >> >> --fritz >> >> Frederick J. Newmeyer >> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington >> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University >> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] >> >> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, A. Katz wrote: >> >>> Tom, >>> >>> If the language is dying, then the advice not to listen to somebody under forty because they don't know how to speak may be sound, but not for the reason that you suggest. It could be there are no fluent speakers under forty. It seems very unlikely that one would have to arrive at age forty before acquiring fluency, especially in a hunter gatherer culture where death before forty might be quite common. >>> >>> But if you have evidence to the contrary that fully immersed, monolingual young speakers of a language cannot speak it with communicative effect until age forty, then this is a big discovery that ought to be published and shared with the scientific community. >>> >>> --Aya >>> >>> >>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: >>> >>>> Right on, John. And one could make a prediction--hopefully someday to be tested by acquisition studies--that Navajo kids will not master the fully complexcity of the Athabaskan verb by age 10, or 15, or 20. I once reviewed a grammar in Papua New Guniea of a language that had comparable complexity on the verb (three positions, 6-8 categoriers each, massive zeroing& morphonemic). I had to ask Carle Whitehead--is this guy for real? He said, yes, he's been in the island for 20 years, really knows his stuff. So I asked the guy--at what age are kids considered fuill-fledged speakers? He said-- the old people say, don't listen to anybody under forty, they don't know how to speak. In my work with the Utes, one exchange has stuck out, an elder (ka-para'ni-wa-t, he's not walking about any more) who was pointed to me as the best orator in the tribe. I told him that, and he said: "Oh, I am nothing. You should have heard the Old Ones; when they spoke, you could see it all in front of your eyes". Part of it is due to the complex Ute deictic system, which invades NPs, ADVs& the verb. The combinations, and the subtle choices of when to combine the deictic particle with other categories, are a whole wond(e)rous world. Cheers, TG >>>> ========== >>>> On 2/9/2011 10:13 AM, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: >>>>> Aya, >>>>> I think I was the one who said first that Navajo is not a language for >>>>> amateurs. I'll second what Tom said--you should learn something >>>>> about Navajo (or some other Athabaskan language) before making >>>>> statements like this. Some languages are just plain objectively harder than >>>>> others, regardless of typological similarly to one's native language. If you >>>>> don't believe this, do an experiment in which you take speakers of English, >>>>> Turkish, Georgian, Chinese, whatever you want, try to teach them Navajo, Hopi, >>>>> and Cree (for example), and see which one gives them the most trouble. >>>>> I guarantee it will be Navajo. And there is an objective reason for it-- >>>>> the morphophonemics are just unbelievably complex. >>>>> John >>>>> Quoting "A. Katz": >>>>>> Tom, >>>>>> I don't think that is a valid viewpoint with regard to Athabaskan or any >>>>>> other language family. >>>>>> Victor Golla earlier had a much better phrasing when he wrote: >>>>>> "Let that read: "A language that is not for amateurs is not for >>>>>> ADULT people."" >>>>>> But in fact no language is easy for adults to learn who have not already >>>>>> learned a language with a similar typology. If your native language works >>>>>> similarly to the one you are learning, then you have an enormous advantage >>>>>> as an adult second language learner. >>>>>> The remark about how Navajo is not for amateurs was made in the context of >>>>>> people who have no experience with languages of a similar typology. >>>>>> To make this a universal statement about the difficulty of Navajo without >>>>>> qualification is to suggest that some languages are "easy" and others are >>>>>> "impossible". Not only is this not true from an objective standpoint, it >>>>>> also perpetuates the prejudice that English (or IE) is a "normal" language >>>>>> and that every language should be measured against this norm. >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> --Aya >>>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: >>>>>>> Before you actually tried to learn an Athabaskan language, or at the very >>>>>>> least worked on one, maybe you had better refrain from asserting that "a >>>>>>> language that is not for amateurs is not for people". TG >>>>>>> ========= >>>>>>> On 2/8/2011 6:33 AM, A. Katz wrote: >>>>>>>> A language that is not for amateurs is not for people. >>>>>>>> This has nothing to do with RS or computer language teaching. As others >>>>>>>> have stated, the technologically based systems are not a panacea. >>>>>>>> But a language that ordinary people can't pick by talking to their parents >>>>>>>> in childhood is either dead already or not a human language. >>>>>>>> --Aya >>>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: >>>>>>>>> I would be amazed if a single person actually learns to speak Navajo >>>>>>>>> using Rosetta Stone. This is not a language for amateurs. >>>>>>>>> John >>>>>>>>> Quoting "s.t. bischoff": >>>>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>>>> Over the last week I was involved with an event at the American Indian >>>>>>>>>> Language Development Institute and the folks that created the Navajo >>>>>>>>>> Rosetta >>>>>>>>>> Stone gave a short talk about the software. What follows is my >>>>>>>>>> understanding >>>>>>>>>> of how it came to be. >>>>>>>>>> The Navajo Rosetta Stones was created in collaboration with Rosetta >>>>>> Stone >>>>>>>>>> and the non-profit Navajo Language Renaissance (NLR). NLR is a >>>>>> non-profit >>>>>>>>>> organization that is NOT affiliated with the tribal council or >>>>>> government >>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>> any way, for obvious reasons I think (e.g. getting council approval for >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> project). However, it has been endorsed by the school leadership and NLR >>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>> actively trying to get the school district to adopt the software. You >>>>>> can >>>>>>>>>> view the NLR website here http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ A >>>>>>>>>> non-community member started NLR after using Rosetta Stone to learn >>>>>>>>>> Russian. >>>>>>>>>> She thought it would be good if Rosetta Stone created a Navajo version. >>>>>>>>>> She >>>>>>>>>> contacted Rosetta Stone (RS), and they told her they would provide here >>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>> the software to develop the lessons, a photographer, and technical >>>>>>>>>> assistants (limited on the ground, mostly by phone) to develop the >>>>>>>>>> program >>>>>>>>>> for $300,000. Another option would be for her to apply for a grant from >>>>>>>>>> RS >>>>>>>>>> to cover most of the costs. So the NLR was created, a partnership >>>>>> between >>>>>>>>>> community members and one non-community member, as a non-profit >>>>>>>>>> organization and applied. RS gave two grants the year they applied, one >>>>>>>>>> went >>>>>>>>>> to NLR. The grant covered all but $27,000 of the $300,000. So NLR had to >>>>>>>>>> pay >>>>>>>>>> RS $27,000 to have access to the software to create the Navajo Rosetta >>>>>>>>>> Stone. This means they had to create the lessons and pay speakers and >>>>>>>>>> informants themselves. RS provided the software, a photographer, and >>>>>>>>>> technical support for the $27,000. NLR now is the only group that can >>>>>>>>>> sell >>>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone, which they do for $150 per license and $200 for a >>>>>>>>>> personal box set. It is not clear if they have to pay RS a percentage of >>>>>>>>>> those revenues or not. When I asked a clear answer wasn't given. NLR >>>>>> also >>>>>>>>>> has a "training" session for administrators and teachers which costs >>>>>>>>>> $1500 a >>>>>>>>>> day and $400 per 3 hours. Needless to say, it is not un-controversial in >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> community for many of the usual reasons. Ironically, the speaker after >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> Rosetta Stone folks gave a talk that demonstrated how to create nearly >>>>>>>>>> identical language lessons as Rosetta Stone's simply using power point. >>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>> was encouraged to let folks know that they should contact the NLR if >>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>> have any questions at mbittinger at rosettastone.com. You can try a free >>>>>>>>>> introductory lesson here http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ The >>>>>>>>>> folks >>>>>>>>>> at NLR praised RS for their efforts and felt they had really done them a >>>>>>>>>> service. In short, they were very happy with the arrangement and how it >>>>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>>>> working out. They were also upset by the controversies surrounding the >>>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone and felt they were really the result of a >>>>>>>>>> misunderstanding and misguided assumptions. One finally thing, they did >>>>>>>>>> seem >>>>>>>>>> to think that it was not a pancea, but rather another useful tool in >>>>>>>>>> language revitalization efforts. >>>>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>>>> Shannon >>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University >> From geoffnathan at wayne.edu Wed Feb 9 19:57:26 2011 From: geoffnathan at wayne.edu (Geoffrey Steven Nathan) Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 14:57:26 -0500 Subject: Roseta Stone: Redux In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Yes, there's lots of research on relative complexity of grammatical systems as related to first language acquisition, and, of course, more complex, idiosyncratic, irregular morphological systems are harder to learn and acquired later than simpler, more regular ones expressing roughly the same notion. Dan Slobin (are you on this list, Dan?) did much research in the 70's on this topic, comparing, IIRC, Serbo-Croatian (which existed then) and Turkish, and maybe some other languages. Here's an abstract from one of those papers: The ability of children between the ages of 2; 0 and 4; 8 to produce locative pre- or postpositions was investigated in English, Italian, Serbo-Croatian, and Turkish. Across languages, there was a general order of development: (1) ?in?, ?on?, ?under?, and ?beside?, (2) ?between?, ?back? and ?front? with featured objects, (3) ?back? and ?front? with non-featured objects. This order of development is discussed in terms of nonlinguistic growth in conceptual ability. Language-specific differences in the general pattern of development are discussed in terms of a number of linguistic factors which may facilitate or retard the child's discovery of the linguistic means for encoding concepts. ? Journal of Child Language (1979), 6: 529-545 Geoff Geoffrey S. Nathan Faculty Liaison, C&IT and Professor, Linguistics Program http://blogs.wayne.edu/proftech/ +1 (313) 577-1259 (C&IT) +1 (313) 577-8621 (English/Linguistics) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Frederick J Newmeyer" To: "A. Katz" Cc: "Tom Givon" , john at research.haifa.ac.il, "Funknet" Sent: Wednesday, February 9, 2011 1:27:25 PM Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Roseta Stone: Redux A propos, are there any published studies out there that point to measurable difference in rate of completion of first-language acquisition by speakers of one language compared to another? Or even of mastery of one aspect of L1 acquisition (phonology, morphology, etc.) by speakers of one language compared to another? --fritz Frederick J. Newmeyer Professor Emeritus, University of Washington Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, A. Katz wrote: > Tom, > > If the language is dying, then the advice not to listen to somebody under > forty because they don't know how to speak may be sound, but not for the > reason that you suggest. It could be there are no fluent speakers under > forty. It seems very unlikely that one would have to arrive at age forty > before acquiring fluency, especially in a hunter gatherer culture where death > before forty might be quite common. > > But if you have evidence to the contrary that fully immersed, monolingual > young speakers of a language cannot speak it with communicative effect until > age forty, then this is a big discovery that ought to be published and shared > with the scientific community. > > --Aya > > > On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: > >> >> >> >> Right on, John. And one could make a prediction--hopefully someday to be >> tested by acquisition studies--that Navajo kids will not master the fully >> complexcity of the Athabaskan verb by age 10, or 15, or 20. I once reviewed >> a grammar in Papua New Guniea of a language that had comparable complexity >> on the verb (three positions, 6-8 categoriers each, massive zeroing & >> morphonemic). I had to ask Carle Whitehead--is this guy for real? He said, >> yes, he's been in the island for 20 years, really knows his stuff. So I >> asked the guy--at what age are kids considered fuill-fledged speakers? He >> said-- the old people say, don't listen to anybody under forty, they don't >> know how to speak. In my work with the Utes, one exchange has stuck out, >> an elder (ka-para'ni-wa-t, he's not walking about any more) who was pointed >> to me as the best orator in the tribe. I told him that, and he said: "Oh, I >> am nothing. You should have heard the Old Ones; when they spoke, you could >> see it all in front of your eyes". Part of it is due to the complex Ute >> deictic system, which invades NPs, ADVs & the verb. The combinations, and >> the subtle choices of when to combine the deictic particle with other >> categories, are a whole wond(e)rous world. Cheers, TG >> >> ========== >> >> >> >> On 2/9/2011 10:13 AM, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: >>> Aya, >>> I think I was the one who said first that Navajo is not a language for >>> amateurs. I'll second what Tom said--you should learn something >>> about Navajo (or some other Athabaskan language) before making >>> statements like this. Some languages are just plain objectively harder >>> than >>> others, regardless of typological similarly to one's native language. If >>> you >>> don't believe this, do an experiment in which you take speakers of >>> English, >>> Turkish, Georgian, Chinese, whatever you want, try to teach them Navajo, >>> Hopi, >>> and Cree (for example), and see which one gives them the most trouble. >>> I guarantee it will be Navajo. And there is an objective reason for it-- >>> the morphophonemics are just unbelievably complex. >>> John >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Quoting "A. Katz": >>> >>>> Tom, >>>> >>>> I don't think that is a valid viewpoint with regard to Athabaskan or any >>>> other language family. >>>> >>>> Victor Golla earlier had a much better phrasing when he wrote: >>>> >>>> "Let that read: "A language that is not for amateurs is not for >>>> ADULT people."" >>>> >>>> But in fact no language is easy for adults to learn who have not already >>>> learned a language with a similar typology. If your native language works >>>> similarly to the one you are learning, then you have an enormous >>>> advantage >>>> as an adult second language learner. >>>> >>>> The remark about how Navajo is not for amateurs was made in the context >>>> of >>>> people who have no experience with languages of a similar typology. >>>> To make this a universal statement about the difficulty of Navajo without >>>> qualification is to suggest that some languages are "easy" and others are >>>> "impossible". Not only is this not true from an objective standpoint, it >>>> also perpetuates the prejudice that English (or IE) is a "normal" >>>> language >>>> and that every language should be measured against this norm. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> --Aya >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Before you actually tried to learn an Athabaskan language, or at the >>>>> very >>>>> least worked on one, maybe you had better refrain from asserting that "a >>>>> language that is not for amateurs is not for people". TG >>>>> >>>>> ========= >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 2/8/2011 6:33 AM, A. Katz wrote: >>>>>> A language that is not for amateurs is not for people. >>>>>> >>>>>> This has nothing to do with RS or computer language teaching. As others >>>>>> have stated, the technologically based systems are not a panacea. >>>>>> >>>>>> But a language that ordinary people can't pick by talking to their >>>>>> parents >>>>>> in childhood is either dead already or not a human language. >>>>>> >>>>>> --Aya >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I would be amazed if a single person actually learns to speak Navajo >>>>>>> using Rosetta Stone. This is not a language for amateurs. >>>>>>> John >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Quoting "s.t. bischoff": >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Over the last week I was involved with an event at the American >>>>>>>> Indian >>>>>>>> Language Development Institute and the folks that created the Navajo >>>>>>>> Rosetta >>>>>>>> Stone gave a short talk about the software. What follows is my >>>>>>>> understanding >>>>>>>> of how it came to be. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The Navajo Rosetta Stones was created in collaboration with Rosetta >>>> Stone >>>>>>>> and the non-profit Navajo Language Renaissance (NLR). NLR is a >>>> non-profit >>>>>>>> organization that is NOT affiliated with the tribal council or >>>> government >>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>> any way, for obvious reasons I think (e.g. getting council approval >>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> project). However, it has been endorsed by the school leadership and >>>>>>>> NLR >>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>> actively trying to get the school district to adopt the software. You >>>> can >>>>>>>> view the NLR website here http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ A >>>>>>>> non-community member started NLR after using Rosetta Stone to learn >>>>>>>> Russian. >>>>>>>> She thought it would be good if Rosetta Stone created a Navajo >>>>>>>> version. >>>>>>>> She >>>>>>>> contacted Rosetta Stone (RS), and they told her they would provide >>>>>>>> here >>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>> the software to develop the lessons, a photographer, and technical >>>>>>>> assistants (limited on the ground, mostly by phone) to develop the >>>>>>>> program >>>>>>>> for $300,000. Another option would be for her to apply for a grant >>>>>>>> from >>>>>>>> RS >>>>>>>> to cover most of the costs. So the NLR was created, a partnership >>>> between >>>>>>>> community members and one non-community member, as a non-profit >>>>>>>> organization and applied. RS gave two grants the year they applied, >>>>>>>> one >>>>>>>> went >>>>>>>> to NLR. The grant covered all but $27,000 of the $300,000. So NLR had >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> pay >>>>>>>> RS $27,000 to have access to the software to create the Navajo >>>>>>>> Rosetta >>>>>>>> Stone. This means they had to create the lessons and pay speakers and >>>>>>>> informants themselves. RS provided the software, a photographer, and >>>>>>>> technical support for the $27,000. NLR now is the only group that can >>>>>>>> sell >>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone, which they do for $150 per license and $200 for >>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>> personal box set. It is not clear if they have to pay RS a percentage >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> those revenues or not. When I asked a clear answer wasn't given. NLR >>>> also >>>>>>>> has a "training" session for administrators and teachers which costs >>>>>>>> $1500 a >>>>>>>> day and $400 per 3 hours. Needless to say, it is not un-controversial >>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> community for many of the usual reasons. Ironically, the speaker >>>>>>>> after >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> Rosetta Stone folks gave a talk that demonstrated how to create >>>>>>>> nearly >>>>>>>> identical language lessons as Rosetta Stone's simply using power >>>>>>>> point. >>>> I >>>>>>>> was encouraged to let folks know that they should contact the NLR if >>>> they >>>>>>>> have any questions at mbittinger at rosettastone.com. You can try a free >>>>>>>> introductory lesson here http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ The >>>>>>>> folks >>>>>>>> at NLR praised RS for their efforts and felt they had really done >>>>>>>> them a >>>>>>>> service. In short, they were very happy with the arrangement and how >>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>> working out. They were also upset by the controversies surrounding >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone and felt they were really the result of a >>>>>>>> misunderstanding and misguided assumptions. One finally thing, they >>>>>>>> did >>>>>>>> seem >>>>>>>> to think that it was not a pancea, but rather another useful tool in >>>>>>>> language revitalization efforts. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>> Shannon >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa >>>>>>> University >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University >> >> > From amnfn at well.com Wed Feb 9 20:50:16 2011 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 12:50:16 -0800 Subject: Roseta Stone: Redux In-Reply-To: <4D52EDC8.3020102@albany.edu> Message-ID: I seem to recall that in "The Evolution of Language Out of Pre-Language" Dan Slobin had a sort of dissenting article at the end in which he mentioned that Turkish children use grammatical morphology at the one word level, so that they are never actually speaking a pidgin Turkish at any point in their language development. --Aya On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Craig Hancock wrote: > Brian, > This strikes as a bit like Lake Woebegone (Where all the children are > above average). > > normal Danish children all learn good Danish and become fluent readers > > Is acquiring a language totally separate from the uses of that language? > Are we just acquiring the forms and then differing in our ability to put them > to use or are the uses themselves a major part of what we are acquiring? Are > lexicon and syntax wholly separate, or do we go on acquiring the > lexico-grammar as we enter more deeply into adult worlds of discourse? > Anyone in literacy education knows that too many American children fail > to reach high levels of fluency as readers and writers. Doesn't that somehow > mean they have failed to acquire the language? > > Craig > > On 2/9/2011 2:04 PM, Brian MacWhinney wrote: >> Fritz, >> >> There are studies in places like the Journal of Child Language by Dorthe >> Bleses, Hans Basb?l, and colleagues at Southern Denmark University on the >> delay of the acquisition of Danish phonology in comparison to other >> European languages, mostly attributed to the complexities of the vowel >> system and the various assimilatory processes. There is a corresponding >> delay in the acquisition of reading by Danish children that was observed in >> the cross-European PISA project. All of this is well documented in the >> literature, but it is rather marginal and transitory. Eventually, normal >> Danish children all learn good Danish and become fluent readers. >> >> -- Brian MacWhinney >> >> On Feb 9, 2011, at 1:27 PM, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: >> >>> A propos, are there any published studies out there that point to >>> measurable difference in rate of completion of first-language acquisition >>> by speakers of one language compared to another? Or even of mastery of one >>> aspect of L1 acquisition (phonology, morphology, etc.) by speakers of one >>> language compared to another? >>> >>> --fritz >>> >>> Frederick J. Newmeyer >>> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington >>> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser >>> University >>> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] >>> >>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, A. Katz wrote: >>> >>>> Tom, >>>> >>>> If the language is dying, then the advice not to listen to somebody under >>>> forty because they don't know how to speak may be sound, but not for the >>>> reason that you suggest. It could be there are no fluent speakers under >>>> forty. It seems very unlikely that one would have to arrive at age forty >>>> before acquiring fluency, especially in a hunter gatherer culture where >>>> death before forty might be quite common. >>>> >>>> But if you have evidence to the contrary that fully immersed, monolingual >>>> young speakers of a language cannot speak it with communicative effect >>>> until age forty, then this is a big discovery that ought to be published >>>> and shared with the scientific community. >>>> >>>> --Aya >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: >>>> >>>>> Right on, John. And one could make a prediction--hopefully someday to be >>>>> tested by acquisition studies--that Navajo kids will not master the >>>>> fully complexcity of the Athabaskan verb by age 10, or 15, or 20. I once >>>>> reviewed a grammar in Papua New Guniea of a language that had comparable >>>>> complexity on the verb (three positions, 6-8 categoriers each, massive >>>>> zeroing& morphonemic). I had to ask Carle Whitehead--is this guy for >>>>> real? He said, yes, he's been in the island for 20 years, really knows >>>>> his stuff. So I asked the guy--at what age are kids considered >>>>> fuill-fledged speakers? He said-- the old people say, don't listen to >>>>> anybody under forty, they don't know how to speak. In my work with the >>>>> Utes, one exchange has stuck out, an elder (ka-para'ni-wa-t, he's not >>>>> walking about any more) who was pointed to me as the best orator in the >>>>> tribe. I told him that, and he said: "Oh, I am nothing. You should have >>>>> heard the Old Ones; when they spoke, you could see it all in front of >>>>> your eyes". Part of it is due to the complex Ute deictic system, which >>>>> invades NPs, ADVs& the verb. The combinations, and the subtle choices >>>>> of when to combine the deictic particle with other categories, are a >>>>> whole wond(e)rous world. Cheers, TG >>>>> ========== >>>>> On 2/9/2011 10:13 AM, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: >>>>>> Aya, >>>>>> I think I was the one who said first that Navajo is not a language for >>>>>> amateurs. I'll second what Tom said--you should learn something >>>>>> about Navajo (or some other Athabaskan language) before making >>>>>> statements like this. Some languages are just plain objectively harder >>>>>> than >>>>>> others, regardless of typological similarly to one's native language. >>>>>> If you >>>>>> don't believe this, do an experiment in which you take speakers of >>>>>> English, >>>>>> Turkish, Georgian, Chinese, whatever you want, try to teach them >>>>>> Navajo, Hopi, >>>>>> and Cree (for example), and see which one gives them the most trouble. >>>>>> I guarantee it will be Navajo. And there is an objective reason for >>>>>> it-- >>>>>> the morphophonemics are just unbelievably complex. >>>>>> John >>>>>> Quoting "A. Katz": >>>>>>> Tom, >>>>>>> I don't think that is a valid viewpoint with regard to Athabaskan or >>>>>>> any >>>>>>> other language family. >>>>>>> Victor Golla earlier had a much better phrasing when he wrote: >>>>>>> "Let that read: "A language that is not for amateurs is not for >>>>>>> ADULT people."" >>>>>>> But in fact no language is easy for adults to learn who have not >>>>>>> already >>>>>>> learned a language with a similar typology. If your native language >>>>>>> works >>>>>>> similarly to the one you are learning, then you have an enormous >>>>>>> advantage >>>>>>> as an adult second language learner. >>>>>>> The remark about how Navajo is not for amateurs was made in the >>>>>>> context of >>>>>>> people who have no experience with languages of a similar typology. >>>>>>> To make this a universal statement about the difficulty of Navajo >>>>>>> without >>>>>>> qualification is to suggest that some languages are "easy" and others >>>>>>> are >>>>>>> "impossible". Not only is this not true from an objective standpoint, >>>>>>> it >>>>>>> also perpetuates the prejudice that English (or IE) is a "normal" >>>>>>> language >>>>>>> and that every language should be measured against this norm. >>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>> --Aya >>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: >>>>>>>> Before you actually tried to learn an Athabaskan language, or at the >>>>>>>> very >>>>>>>> least worked on one, maybe you had better refrain from asserting that >>>>>>>> "a >>>>>>>> language that is not for amateurs is not for people". TG >>>>>>>> ========= >>>>>>>> On 2/8/2011 6:33 AM, A. Katz wrote: >>>>>>>>> A language that is not for amateurs is not for people. >>>>>>>>> This has nothing to do with RS or computer language teaching. As >>>>>>>>> others >>>>>>>>> have stated, the technologically based systems are not a panacea. >>>>>>>>> But a language that ordinary people can't pick by talking to their >>>>>>>>> parents >>>>>>>>> in childhood is either dead already or not a human language. >>>>>>>>> --Aya >>>>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: >>>>>>>>>> I would be amazed if a single person actually learns to speak >>>>>>>>>> Navajo >>>>>>>>>> using Rosetta Stone. This is not a language for amateurs. >>>>>>>>>> John >>>>>>>>>> Quoting "s.t. bischoff": >>>>>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>>>>> Over the last week I was involved with an event at the American >>>>>>>>>>> Indian >>>>>>>>>>> Language Development Institute and the folks that created the >>>>>>>>>>> Navajo >>>>>>>>>>> Rosetta >>>>>>>>>>> Stone gave a short talk about the software. What follows is my >>>>>>>>>>> understanding >>>>>>>>>>> of how it came to be. >>>>>>>>>>> The Navajo Rosetta Stones was created in collaboration with >>>>>>>>>>> Rosetta >>>>>>> Stone >>>>>>>>>>> and the non-profit Navajo Language Renaissance (NLR). NLR is a >>>>>>> non-profit >>>>>>>>>>> organization that is NOT affiliated with the tribal council or >>>>>>> government >>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>> any way, for obvious reasons I think (e.g. getting council >>>>>>>>>>> approval for >>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>> project). However, it has been endorsed by the school leadership >>>>>>>>>>> and NLR >>>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>>> actively trying to get the school district to adopt the software. >>>>>>>>>>> You >>>>>>> can >>>>>>>>>>> view the NLR website here http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ >>>>>>>>>>> A >>>>>>>>>>> non-community member started NLR after using Rosetta Stone to >>>>>>>>>>> learn >>>>>>>>>>> Russian. >>>>>>>>>>> She thought it would be good if Rosetta Stone created a Navajo >>>>>>>>>>> version. >>>>>>>>>>> She >>>>>>>>>>> contacted Rosetta Stone (RS), and they told her they would provide >>>>>>>>>>> here >>>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>>> the software to develop the lessons, a photographer, and >>>>>>>>>>> technical >>>>>>>>>>> assistants (limited on the ground, mostly by phone) to develop the >>>>>>>>>>> program >>>>>>>>>>> for $300,000. Another option would be for her to apply for a grant >>>>>>>>>>> from >>>>>>>>>>> RS >>>>>>>>>>> to cover most of the costs. So the NLR was created, a partnership >>>>>>> between >>>>>>>>>>> community members and one non-community member, as a non-profit >>>>>>>>>>> organization and applied. RS gave two grants the year they >>>>>>>>>>> applied, one >>>>>>>>>>> went >>>>>>>>>>> to NLR. The grant covered all but $27,000 of the $300,000. So NLR >>>>>>>>>>> had to >>>>>>>>>>> pay >>>>>>>>>>> RS $27,000 to have access to the software to create the Navajo >>>>>>>>>>> Rosetta >>>>>>>>>>> Stone. This means they had to create the lessons and pay speakers >>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>> informants themselves. RS provided the software, a photographer, >>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>> technical support for the $27,000. NLR now is the only group that >>>>>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>>>>> sell >>>>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone, which they do for $150 per license and $200 >>>>>>>>>>> for a >>>>>>>>>>> personal box set. It is not clear if they have to pay RS a >>>>>>>>>>> percentage of >>>>>>>>>>> those revenues or not. When I asked a clear answer wasn't given. >>>>>>>>>>> NLR >>>>>>> also >>>>>>>>>>> has a "training" session for administrators and teachers which >>>>>>>>>>> costs >>>>>>>>>>> $1500 a >>>>>>>>>>> day and $400 per 3 hours. Needless to say, it is not >>>>>>>>>>> un-controversial in >>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>> community for many of the usual reasons. Ironically, the speaker >>>>>>>>>>> after >>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>> Rosetta Stone folks gave a talk that demonstrated how to create >>>>>>>>>>> nearly >>>>>>>>>>> identical language lessons as Rosetta Stone's simply using power >>>>>>>>>>> point. >>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>>> was encouraged to let folks know that they should contact the NLR >>>>>>>>>>> if >>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>>> have any questions at mbittinger at rosettastone.com. You can try a >>>>>>>>>>> free >>>>>>>>>>> introductory lesson here http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ >>>>>>>>>>> The >>>>>>>>>>> folks >>>>>>>>>>> at NLR praised RS for their efforts and felt they had really done >>>>>>>>>>> them a >>>>>>>>>>> service. In short, they were very happy with the arrangement and >>>>>>>>>>> how it >>>>>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>>>>> working out. They were also upset by the controversies surrounding >>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone and felt they were really the result of a >>>>>>>>>>> misunderstanding and misguided assumptions. One finally thing, >>>>>>>>>>> they did >>>>>>>>>>> seem >>>>>>>>>>> to think that it was not a pancea, but rather another useful tool >>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>> language revitalization efforts. >>>>>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>>>>> Shannon >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa >>>>>>>>>> University >>>>>> >>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa >>>>>> University >>> > > > From deseretian at gmail.com Wed Feb 9 22:15:12 2011 From: deseretian at gmail.com (Alex Walker) Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 14:15:12 -0800 Subject: Roseta Stone: Redux In-Reply-To: <705420958.576965.1297281446751.JavaMail.root@starship.merit.edu> Message-ID: Has anyone done acquisition studies of children in monolingual Georgian homes? Georgian is the only national language I've encountered with morphological complexity comparable to that seen in many American Indian languages, and it's also in no danger of dying any time soon. I would very much like to know whether anyone has worked with Georgian data to answer some of the questions raised in this thread. On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 11:57 AM, Geoffrey Steven Nathan < geoffnathan at wayne.edu> wrote: > Yes, there's lots of research on relative complexity of grammatical systems > as related to first language acquisition, and, of course, more complex, > idiosyncratic, irregular morphological systems are harder to learn and > acquired later than simpler, more regular ones expressing roughly the same > notion. > Dan Slobin (are you on this list, Dan?) did much research in the 70's on > this topic, comparing, IIRC, Serbo-Croatian (which existed then) and > Turkish, and maybe some other languages. > Here's an abstract from one of those papers: > > > The ability of children between the ages of 2; 0 and 4; 8 to produce > locative pre- or postpositions was investigated in English, Italian, > Serbo-Croatian, and Turkish. Across languages, there was a general order of > development: (1) ?in?, ?on?, ?under?, and ?beside?, (2) ?between?, ?back? > and ?front? with featured objects, (3) ?back? and ?front? with non-featured > objects. This order of development is discussed in terms of nonlinguistic > growth in conceptual ability. Language-specific differences in the general > pattern of development are discussed in terms of a number of linguistic > factors which may facilitate or retard the child's discovery of the > linguistic means for encoding concepts. > > > ? Journal of Child Language (1979), 6: 529-545 > > > Geoff > > Geoffrey S. Nathan > Faculty Liaison, C&IT > and Professor, Linguistics Program > http://blogs.wayne.edu/proftech/ > +1 (313) 577-1259 (C&IT) > +1 (313) 577-8621 (English/Linguistics) > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Frederick J Newmeyer" > To: "A. Katz" > Cc: "Tom Givon" , john at research.haifa.ac.il, "Funknet" > > Sent: Wednesday, February 9, 2011 1:27:25 PM > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Roseta Stone: Redux > > A propos, are there any published studies out there that point to > measurable difference in rate of completion of first-language acquisition by > speakers of one language compared to another? Or even of mastery of one > aspect of L1 acquisition (phonology, morphology, etc.) by speakers of one > language compared to another? > > --fritz > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > University > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, A. Katz wrote: > > > Tom, > > > > If the language is dying, then the advice not to listen to somebody under > > forty because they don't know how to speak may be sound, but not for the > > reason that you suggest. It could be there are no fluent speakers under > > forty. It seems very unlikely that one would have to arrive at age forty > > before acquiring fluency, especially in a hunter gatherer culture where > death > > before forty might be quite common. > > > > But if you have evidence to the contrary that fully immersed, monolingual > > young speakers of a language cannot speak it with communicative effect > until > > age forty, then this is a big discovery that ought to be published and > shared > > with the scientific community. > > > > --Aya > > > > > > On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: > > > >> > >> > >> > >> Right on, John. And one could make a prediction--hopefully someday to be > >> tested by acquisition studies--that Navajo kids will not master the > fully > >> complexcity of the Athabaskan verb by age 10, or 15, or 20. I once > reviewed > >> a grammar in Papua New Guniea of a language that had comparable > complexity > >> on the verb (three positions, 6-8 categoriers each, massive zeroing & > >> morphonemic). I had to ask Carle Whitehead--is this guy for real? He > said, > >> yes, he's been in the island for 20 years, really knows his stuff. So I > >> asked the guy--at what age are kids considered fuill-fledged speakers? > He > >> said-- the old people say, don't listen to anybody under forty, they > don't > >> know how to speak. In my work with the Utes, one exchange has stuck out, > >> an elder (ka-para'ni-wa-t, he's not walking about any more) who was > pointed > >> to me as the best orator in the tribe. I told him that, and he said: > "Oh, I > >> am nothing. You should have heard the Old Ones; when they spoke, you > could > >> see it all in front of your eyes". Part of it is due to the complex Ute > >> deictic system, which invades NPs, ADVs & the verb. The combinations, > and > >> the subtle choices of when to combine the deictic particle with other > >> categories, are a whole wond(e)rous world. Cheers, TG > >> > >> ========== > >> > >> > >> > >> On 2/9/2011 10:13 AM, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > >>> Aya, > >>> I think I was the one who said first that Navajo is not a language for > >>> amateurs. I'll second what Tom said--you should learn something > >>> about Navajo (or some other Athabaskan language) before making > >>> statements like this. Some languages are just plain objectively harder > >>> than > >>> others, regardless of typological similarly to one's native language. > If > >>> you > >>> don't believe this, do an experiment in which you take speakers of > >>> English, > >>> Turkish, Georgian, Chinese, whatever you want, try to teach them > Navajo, > >>> Hopi, > >>> and Cree (for example), and see which one gives them the most trouble. > >>> I guarantee it will be Navajo. And there is an objective reason for > it-- > >>> the morphophonemics are just unbelievably complex. > >>> John > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Quoting "A. Katz": > >>> > >>>> Tom, > >>>> > >>>> I don't think that is a valid viewpoint with regard to Athabaskan or > any > >>>> other language family. > >>>> > >>>> Victor Golla earlier had a much better phrasing when he wrote: > >>>> > >>>> "Let that read: "A language that is not for amateurs is not for > >>>> ADULT people."" > >>>> > >>>> But in fact no language is easy for adults to learn who have not > already > >>>> learned a language with a similar typology. If your native language > works > >>>> similarly to the one you are learning, then you have an enormous > >>>> advantage > >>>> as an adult second language learner. > >>>> > >>>> The remark about how Navajo is not for amateurs was made in the > context > >>>> of > >>>> people who have no experience with languages of a similar typology. > >>>> To make this a universal statement about the difficulty of Navajo > without > >>>> qualification is to suggest that some languages are "easy" and others > are > >>>> "impossible". Not only is this not true from an objective standpoint, > it > >>>> also perpetuates the prejudice that English (or IE) is a "normal" > >>>> language > >>>> and that every language should be measured against this norm. > >>>> > >>>> Best, > >>>> > >>>> --Aya > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Before you actually tried to learn an Athabaskan language, or at the > >>>>> very > >>>>> least worked on one, maybe you had better refrain from asserting that > "a > >>>>> language that is not for amateurs is not for people". TG > >>>>> > >>>>> ========= > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On 2/8/2011 6:33 AM, A. Katz wrote: > >>>>>> A language that is not for amateurs is not for people. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> This has nothing to do with RS or computer language teaching. As > others > >>>>>> have stated, the technologically based systems are not a panacea. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> But a language that ordinary people can't pick by talking to their > >>>>>> parents > >>>>>> in childhood is either dead already or not a human language. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> --Aya > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> I would be amazed if a single person actually learns to speak > Navajo > >>>>>>> using Rosetta Stone. This is not a language for amateurs. > >>>>>>> John > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Quoting "s.t. bischoff": > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Hi all, > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Over the last week I was involved with an event at the American > >>>>>>>> Indian > >>>>>>>> Language Development Institute and the folks that created the > Navajo > >>>>>>>> Rosetta > >>>>>>>> Stone gave a short talk about the software. What follows is my > >>>>>>>> understanding > >>>>>>>> of how it came to be. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> The Navajo Rosetta Stones was created in collaboration with > Rosetta > >>>> Stone > >>>>>>>> and the non-profit Navajo Language Renaissance (NLR). NLR is a > >>>> non-profit > >>>>>>>> organization that is NOT affiliated with the tribal council or > >>>> government > >>>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>> any way, for obvious reasons I think (e.g. getting council > approval > >>>>>>>> for > >>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>> project). However, it has been endorsed by the school leadership > and > >>>>>>>> NLR > >>>>>>>> is > >>>>>>>> actively trying to get the school district to adopt the software. > You > >>>> can > >>>>>>>> view the NLR website here http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/A > >>>>>>>> non-community member started NLR after using Rosetta Stone to > learn > >>>>>>>> Russian. > >>>>>>>> She thought it would be good if Rosetta Stone created a Navajo > >>>>>>>> version. > >>>>>>>> She > >>>>>>>> contacted Rosetta Stone (RS), and they told her they would provide > >>>>>>>> here > >>>>>>>> with > >>>>>>>> the software to develop the lessons, a photographer, and technical > >>>>>>>> assistants (limited on the ground, mostly by phone) to develop the > >>>>>>>> program > >>>>>>>> for $300,000. Another option would be for her to apply for a grant > >>>>>>>> from > >>>>>>>> RS > >>>>>>>> to cover most of the costs. So the NLR was created, a partnership > >>>> between > >>>>>>>> community members and one non-community member, as a non-profit > >>>>>>>> organization and applied. RS gave two grants the year they > applied, > >>>>>>>> one > >>>>>>>> went > >>>>>>>> to NLR. The grant covered all but $27,000 of the $300,000. So NLR > had > >>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>> pay > >>>>>>>> RS $27,000 to have access to the software to create the Navajo > >>>>>>>> Rosetta > >>>>>>>> Stone. This means they had to create the lessons and pay speakers > and > >>>>>>>> informants themselves. RS provided the software, a photographer, > and > >>>>>>>> technical support for the $27,000. NLR now is the only group that > can > >>>>>>>> sell > >>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone, which they do for $150 per license and $200 > for > >>>>>>>> a > >>>>>>>> personal box set. It is not clear if they have to pay RS a > percentage > >>>>>>>> of > >>>>>>>> those revenues or not. When I asked a clear answer wasn't given. > NLR > >>>> also > >>>>>>>> has a "training" session for administrators and teachers which > costs > >>>>>>>> $1500 a > >>>>>>>> day and $400 per 3 hours. Needless to say, it is not > un-controversial > >>>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>> community for many of the usual reasons. Ironically, the speaker > >>>>>>>> after > >>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>> Rosetta Stone folks gave a talk that demonstrated how to create > >>>>>>>> nearly > >>>>>>>> identical language lessons as Rosetta Stone's simply using power > >>>>>>>> point. > >>>> I > >>>>>>>> was encouraged to let folks know that they should contact the NLR > if > >>>> they > >>>>>>>> have any questions at mbittinger at rosettastone.com. You can try a > free > >>>>>>>> introductory lesson here http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/The > >>>>>>>> folks > >>>>>>>> at NLR praised RS for their efforts and felt they had really done > >>>>>>>> them a > >>>>>>>> service. In short, they were very happy with the arrangement and > how > >>>>>>>> it > >>>>>>>> was > >>>>>>>> working out. They were also upset by the controversies surrounding > >>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone and felt they were really the result of a > >>>>>>>> misunderstanding and misguided assumptions. One finally thing, > they > >>>>>>>> did > >>>>>>>> seem > >>>>>>>> to think that it was not a pancea, but rather another useful tool > in > >>>>>>>> language revitalization efforts. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Cheers, > >>>>>>>> Shannon > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > >>>>>>> University > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > University > >> > >> > > > > > From lise.menn at Colorado.EDU Wed Feb 9 23:00:53 2011 From: lise.menn at Colorado.EDU (Lise Menn) Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 16:00:53 -0700 Subject: Roseta Stone: Redux In-Reply-To: Message-ID: that's right. And child language and pidgin aren't the same, in any case, for any language I know about, any more than any of them are telegrams. But there are arcane reaches of languages that most people don't learn, confounding the definition of what 'acquire' means: Japanese honorifics and noun classifiers have elegant refinements, crafts and professions have jargons... On Feb 9, 2011, at 1:50 PM, A. Katz wrote: > I seem to recall that in "The Evolution of Language Out of Pre- > Language" Dan Slobin had a sort of dissenting article at the end in > which he mentioned that Turkish children use grammatical morphology > at the one word level, so that they are never actually speaking a > pidgin Turkish at any point in their language development. > > --Aya > > On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Craig Hancock wrote: > >> Brian, >> This strikes as a bit like Lake Woebegone (Where all the children >> are above average). >> >> normal Danish children all learn good Danish and become fluent >> readers >> >> Is acquiring a language totally separate from the uses of that >> language? Are we just acquiring the forms and then differing in our >> ability to put them to use or are the uses themselves a major part >> of what we are acquiring? Are lexicon and syntax wholly separate, >> or do we go on acquiring the lexico-grammar as we enter more deeply >> into adult worlds of discourse? >> Anyone in literacy education knows that too many American >> children fail to reach high levels of fluency as readers and >> writers. Doesn't that somehow mean they have failed to acquire the >> language? >> >> Craig >> >> On 2/9/2011 2:04 PM, Brian MacWhinney wrote: >>> Fritz, >>> There are studies in places like the Journal of Child Language by >>> Dorthe Bleses, Hans Basb?l, and colleagues at Southern Denmark >>> University on the delay of the acquisition of Danish phonology in >>> comparison to other European languages, mostly attributed to the >>> complexities of the vowel system and the various assimilatory >>> processes. There is a corresponding delay in the acquisition of >>> reading by Danish children that was observed in the cross-European >>> PISA project. All of this is well documented in the literature, >>> but it is rather marginal and transitory. Eventually, normal >>> Danish children all learn good Danish and become fluent readers. >>> -- Brian MacWhinney >>> On Feb 9, 2011, at 1:27 PM, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: >>>> A propos, are there any published studies out there that point to >>>> measurable difference in rate of completion of first-language >>>> acquisition by speakers of one language compared to another? Or >>>> even of mastery of one aspect of L1 acquisition (phonology, >>>> morphology, etc.) by speakers of one language compared to another? >>>> --fritz >>>> Frederick J. Newmeyer >>>> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington >>>> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon >>>> Fraser University >>>> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] >>>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, A. Katz wrote: >>>>> Tom, >>>>> If the language is dying, then the advice not to listen to >>>>> somebody under forty because they don't know how to speak may be >>>>> sound, but not for the reason that you suggest. It could be >>>>> there are no fluent speakers under forty. It seems very unlikely >>>>> that one would have to arrive at age forty before acquiring >>>>> fluency, especially in a hunter gatherer culture where death >>>>> before forty might be quite common. >>>>> But if you have evidence to the contrary that fully immersed, >>>>> monolingual young speakers of a language cannot speak it with >>>>> communicative effect until age forty, then this is a big >>>>> discovery that ought to be published and shared with the >>>>> scientific community. >>>>> >>>>> --Aya >>>>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: >>>>>> Right on, John. And one could make a prediction--hopefully >>>>>> someday to be tested by acquisition studies--that Navajo kids >>>>>> will not master the fully complexcity of the Athabaskan verb by >>>>>> age 10, or 15, or 20. I once reviewed a grammar in Papua New >>>>>> Guniea of a language that had comparable complexity on the verb >>>>>> (three positions, 6-8 categoriers each, massive zeroing& >>>>>> morphonemic). I had to ask Carle Whitehead--is this guy for >>>>>> real? He said, yes, he's been in the island for 20 years, >>>>>> really knows his stuff. So I asked the guy--at what age are >>>>>> kids considered fuill-fledged speakers? He said-- the old >>>>>> people say, don't listen to anybody under forty, they don't >>>>>> know how to speak. In my work with the Utes, one exchange has >>>>>> stuck out, an elder (ka-para'ni-wa-t, he's not walking about >>>>>> any more) who was pointed to me as the best orator in the >>>>>> tribe. I told him that, and he said: "Oh, I am nothing. You >>>>>> should have heard the Old Ones; when they spoke, you could see >>>>>> it all in front of your eyes". Part of it is due to the complex >>>>>> Ute deictic system, which invades NPs, ADVs& the verb. The >>>>>> combinations, and the subtle choices of when to combine the >>>>>> deictic particle with other categories, are a whole wond(e)rous >>>>>> world. Cheers, TG >>>>>> ========== >>>>>> On 2/9/2011 10:13 AM, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: >>>>>>> Aya, >>>>>>> I think I was the one who said first that Navajo is not a >>>>>>> language for >>>>>>> amateurs. I'll second what Tom said--you should learn something >>>>>>> about Navajo (or some other Athabaskan language) before making >>>>>>> statements like this. Some languages are just plain >>>>>>> objectively harder than >>>>>>> others, regardless of typological similarly to one's native >>>>>>> language. If you >>>>>>> don't believe this, do an experiment in which you take >>>>>>> speakers of English, >>>>>>> Turkish, Georgian, Chinese, whatever you want, try to teach >>>>>>> them Navajo, Hopi, >>>>>>> and Cree (for example), and see which one gives them the most >>>>>>> trouble. >>>>>>> I guarantee it will be Navajo. And there is an objective >>>>>>> reason for it-- >>>>>>> the morphophonemics are just unbelievably complex. >>>>>>> John >>>>>>> Quoting "A. Katz": >>>>>>>> Tom, >>>>>>>> I don't think that is a valid viewpoint with regard to >>>>>>>> Athabaskan or any >>>>>>>> other language family. >>>>>>>> Victor Golla earlier had a much better phrasing when he wrote: >>>>>>>> "Let that read: "A language that is not for amateurs is not for >>>>>>>> ADULT people."" >>>>>>>> But in fact no language is easy for adults to learn who have >>>>>>>> not already >>>>>>>> learned a language with a similar typology. If your native >>>>>>>> language works >>>>>>>> similarly to the one you are learning, then you have an >>>>>>>> enormous advantage >>>>>>>> as an adult second language learner. >>>>>>>> The remark about how Navajo is not for amateurs was made in >>>>>>>> the context of >>>>>>>> people who have no experience with languages of a similar >>>>>>>> typology. >>>>>>>> To make this a universal statement about the difficulty of >>>>>>>> Navajo without >>>>>>>> qualification is to suggest that some languages are "easy" >>>>>>>> and others are >>>>>>>> "impossible". Not only is this not true from an objective >>>>>>>> standpoint, it >>>>>>>> also perpetuates the prejudice that English (or IE) is a >>>>>>>> "normal" language >>>>>>>> and that every language should be measured against this norm. >>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>> --Aya >>>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: >>>>>>>>> Before you actually tried to learn an Athabaskan language, >>>>>>>>> or at the very >>>>>>>>> least worked on one, maybe you had better refrain from >>>>>>>>> asserting that "a >>>>>>>>> language that is not for amateurs is not for people". TG >>>>>>>>> ========= >>>>>>>>> On 2/8/2011 6:33 AM, A. Katz wrote: >>>>>>>>>> A language that is not for amateurs is not for people. >>>>>>>>>> This has nothing to do with RS or computer language >>>>>>>>>> teaching. As others >>>>>>>>>> have stated, the technologically based systems are not a >>>>>>>>>> panacea. >>>>>>>>>> But a language that ordinary people can't pick by talking >>>>>>>>>> to their parents >>>>>>>>>> in childhood is either dead already or not a human language. >>>>>>>>>> --Aya >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> I would be amazed if a single person actually learns to >>>>>>>>>>> speak Navajo >>>>>>>>>>> using Rosetta Stone. This is not a language for amateurs. >>>>>>>>>>> John >>>>>>>>>>> Quoting "s.t. bischoff": >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>>>>>> Over the last week I was involved with an event at the >>>>>>>>>>>> American Indian >>>>>>>>>>>> Language Development Institute and the folks that created >>>>>>>>>>>> the Navajo >>>>>>>>>>>> Rosetta >>>>>>>>>>>> Stone gave a short talk about the software. What follows >>>>>>>>>>>> is my >>>>>>>>>>>> understanding >>>>>>>>>>>> of how it came to be. >>>>>>>>>>>> The Navajo Rosetta Stones was created in collaboration >>>>>>>>>>>> with Rosetta >>>>>>>> Stone >>>>>>>>>>>> and the non-profit Navajo Language Renaissance (NLR). NLR >>>>>>>>>>>> is a >>>>>>>> non-profit >>>>>>>>>>>> organization that is NOT affiliated with the tribal >>>>>>>>>>>> council or >>>>>>>> government >>>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>> any way, for obvious reasons I think (e.g. getting >>>>>>>>>>>> council approval for >>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>> project). However, it has been endorsed by the school >>>>>>>>>>>> leadership and NLR >>>>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>>>> actively trying to get the school district to adopt the >>>>>>>>>>>> software. You >>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>>>>>> view the NLR website here http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ >>>>>>>>>>>> A >>>>>>>>>>>> non-community member started NLR after using Rosetta >>>>>>>>>>>> Stone to learn >>>>>>>>>>>> Russian. >>>>>>>>>>>> She thought it would be good if Rosetta Stone created a >>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo version. >>>>>>>>>>>> She >>>>>>>>>>>> contacted Rosetta Stone (RS), and they told her they >>>>>>>>>>>> would provide here >>>>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>>>> the software to develop the lessons, a photographer, and >>>>>>>>>>>> technical >>>>>>>>>>>> assistants (limited on the ground, mostly by phone) to >>>>>>>>>>>> develop the >>>>>>>>>>>> program >>>>>>>>>>>> for $300,000. Another option would be for her to apply >>>>>>>>>>>> for a grant from >>>>>>>>>>>> RS >>>>>>>>>>>> to cover most of the costs. So the NLR was created, a >>>>>>>>>>>> partnership >>>>>>>> between >>>>>>>>>>>> community members and one non-community member, as a non- >>>>>>>>>>>> profit >>>>>>>>>>>> organization and applied. RS gave two grants the year >>>>>>>>>>>> they applied, one >>>>>>>>>>>> went >>>>>>>>>>>> to NLR. The grant covered all but $27,000 of the >>>>>>>>>>>> $300,000. So NLR had to >>>>>>>>>>>> pay >>>>>>>>>>>> RS $27,000 to have access to the software to create the >>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta >>>>>>>>>>>> Stone. This means they had to create the lessons and pay >>>>>>>>>>>> speakers and >>>>>>>>>>>> informants themselves. RS provided the software, a >>>>>>>>>>>> photographer, and >>>>>>>>>>>> technical support for the $27,000. NLR now is the only >>>>>>>>>>>> group that can >>>>>>>>>>>> sell >>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone, which they do for $150 per license >>>>>>>>>>>> and $200 for a >>>>>>>>>>>> personal box set. It is not clear if they have to pay RS >>>>>>>>>>>> a percentage of >>>>>>>>>>>> those revenues or not. When I asked a clear answer wasn't >>>>>>>>>>>> given. NLR >>>>>>>> also >>>>>>>>>>>> has a "training" session for administrators and teachers >>>>>>>>>>>> which costs >>>>>>>>>>>> $1500 a >>>>>>>>>>>> day and $400 per 3 hours. Needless to say, it is not un- >>>>>>>>>>>> controversial in >>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>> community for many of the usual reasons. Ironically, the >>>>>>>>>>>> speaker after >>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>> Rosetta Stone folks gave a talk that demonstrated how to >>>>>>>>>>>> create nearly >>>>>>>>>>>> identical language lessons as Rosetta Stone's simply >>>>>>>>>>>> using power point. >>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>>>> was encouraged to let folks know that they should contact >>>>>>>>>>>> the NLR if >>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>>>> have any questions at mbittinger at rosettastone.com. You >>>>>>>>>>>> can try a free >>>>>>>>>>>> introductory lesson here http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ >>>>>>>>>>>> The >>>>>>>>>>>> folks >>>>>>>>>>>> at NLR praised RS for their efforts and felt they had >>>>>>>>>>>> really done them a >>>>>>>>>>>> service. In short, they were very happy with the >>>>>>>>>>>> arrangement and how it >>>>>>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>>>>>> working out. They were also upset by the controversies >>>>>>>>>>>> surrounding the >>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone and felt they were really the result >>>>>>>>>>>> of a >>>>>>>>>>>> misunderstanding and misguided assumptions. One finally >>>>>>>>>>>> thing, they did >>>>>>>>>>>> seem >>>>>>>>>>>> to think that it was not a pancea, but rather another >>>>>>>>>>>> useful tool in >>>>>>>>>>>> language revitalization efforts. >>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>>>>>> Shannon >>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of >>>>>>>>>>> Haifa University >>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa >>>>>>> University >> >> >> Lise Menn Home Office: 303-444-4274 1625 Mariposa Ave Fax: 303-413-0017 Boulder CO 80302 home page: http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/ Professor Emerita of Linguistics Fellow, Institute of Cognitive Science University of Colorado Secretary, AAAS Section Z [Linguistics] Fellow, Linguistic Society of America Campus Mail Address: UCB 594, Institute for Cognitive Science Campus Physical Address: CINC 234 1777 Exposition Ave, Boulder From reng at rice.edu Wed Feb 9 23:33:56 2011 From: reng at rice.edu (Robert Englebretson) Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 17:33:56 -0600 Subject: 1-year lecturer position in lab phonetics/phonology at Rice U Message-ID: The Department of Linguistics at Rice University is now accepting applications for a lecturer position in laboratory phonetics and phonology. The successful applicant will be asked to teach courses in both of these areas, an introductory linguistics course, and may teach additional courses in his or her subject area. This is a one-year appointment, and the course load is four courses for that year. Deadline for receipt of applications is March 25, 2011. Ph.D. is required by time of appointment; position start date is July 1, 2011. We especially welcome applications from researchers who share the department's interest in approaching language from a usage-based perspective with solid empirical grounding in primary data, especially approaches of a cognitive, social-interactional, and/or functional nature. See also our departmental web site at http://ling.rice.edu. Application materials include: cover letter, CV, teaching statement, sample of written work, and names and contact information for three references. Past teaching evaluations and/or information about course topics the applicant could teach are also welcome but not required at this time. Rice University is committed to affirmative action and equal opportunity in education and employment. Rice does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national or ethnic origin, age, disability or veteran status. Rice University is an Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer. Address for Applications: Search Committee Department of Linguistics, MS-23 Rice University 6100 Main Street Houston, TX 77005 USA ****************************************************************** Dr. Robert Englebretson *Associate Professor and Graduate Advisor* Dept. of Linguistics, MS23 Rice University 6100 Main St. Houston, TX 77005-1892 Phone: 713 348-4776 E-mail: reng at rice.edu http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~reng From slobin at berkeley.edu Thu Feb 10 03:53:18 2011 From: slobin at berkeley.edu (Dan I. Slobin) Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 19:53:18 -0800 Subject: Roseta Stone: Redux In-Reply-To: <074FF6EE-E63C-412A-A422-A224A6F97673@colorado.edu> Message-ID: A few responses to previous postings: Yes, languages with transparent and consistent agglutinative morphology, in the verbal or nominal systems, allow for rapid acquisition, with some productive inflections at the one-word stage. Turkish morphology, having virtually no irregular patterns, is quite securely mastered by age 3 at the latest, and often much earlier. And, in general, complex morphology, of various types, presents no serious problems with regard to acquisition of the basic grammar of the relevant constructions. For details of successful early acquistion of morphology in a number of such "complex"languages see volumes of my crosslinguistic series: Vol. 1 (Hebrew, Polish, Turkish), Vol. 2 (Hungarian), Vol. 3 (Georgian, West Greenlandic, K'iche' Maya, Warlpiri, Sesotho), Vol. 4 (Estonian, Finnish, Korean). Comparable findings are available for the acquisition of Inuktitut, Tzeltal, Tzotzil,Yucatec Maya, Hindi, Tamil, and others. What children find difficult--as do inguists--are multiply-determined and/or unpredictable morphophonological patterns. So it depends on what you want to credit as "total acquisition" or "completion of acquisition." An English-speaking 10-year-old can fluently produce a range of syntactic structures, in various genres and registers, without having mastered all of the irregular verb forms and a number of subordinate syntactic constructions. Furthermore, remember that a bility to produce a pattern in some contexts is far from commanding its full range of semantic and pragmatic functions. And when all of you Funknetters became undergraduate and graduate students, and later professionals, you were still acquiring many aspects of English grammar, vocabulary, and style. Indeed, it goes on throughout the lifespan of an engaged individual. There are no established criteria for full mastery, but there are numerous studies, in all five of the crosslinguistic volumes and elsewhere, of prolonged acquisition of various parts of a linguistic system. As noted, I've written about the error of expecting early child language to mirror pidgins. Best, Dan (with references following, many of mine available for download at http://psychology.berkeley.edu/faculty/profiles/dslobin.html Slobin, D. I. (1985, 1992, 1997). The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition. Vol. 1: The Data (1985); Vol. 2: Theoretical issues (1985); Vol. 3 (1992); Vol. 4 (1997); Vol. 5: Expanding the contexts (1997). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Slobin, D. I. (2004). From ontogenesis to phylogenesis: What can child language tell us about language evolution? In J. Langer, S. T. Parker, & C. Milbrath (Eds.), Biology and Knowledge revisited: From neurogenesis to psychogenesis (pp. 255-285). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. At 03:00 PM 2/9/2011, Lise Menn wrote: >that's right. And child language and pidgin aren't the same, in any >case, for any language I know about, any more than any of them are >telegrams. But there are arcane reaches of languages that most people >don't learn, confounding the definition of what 'acquire' means: >Japanese honorifics and noun classifiers have elegant refinements, >crafts and professions have jargons... > >On Feb 9, 2011, at 1:50 PM, A. Katz wrote: > >>I seem to recall that in "The Evolution of >>Language Out of Pre- Language" Dan Slobin had a >>sort of dissenting article at the end in >>which he mentioned that Turkish children use grammatical morphology >>at the one word level, so that they are never actually speaking a >>pidgin Turkish at any point in their language development. >> >> --Aya >> >>On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Craig Hancock wrote: >> >>>Brian, >>> This strikes as a bit like Lake Woebegone (Where all the children >>>are above average). >>> >>>normal Danish children all learn good Danish and become fluent >>>readers >>> >>> Is acquiring a language totally separate from the uses of that >>>language? Are we just acquiring the forms and then differing in our >>>ability to put them to use or are the uses themselves a major part >>>of what we are acquiring? Are lexicon and syntax wholly separate, >>>or do we go on acquiring the lexico-grammar as we enter more deeply >>>into adult worlds of discourse? >>> Anyone in literacy education knows that too many American >>>children fail to reach high levels of fluency as readers and >>>writers. Doesn't that somehow mean they have failed to acquire the >>>language? >>> >>>Craig >>> >>>On 2/9/2011 2:04 PM, Brian MacWhinney wrote: >>>>Fritz, >>>>There are studies in places like the Journal of Child Language by >>>>Dorthe Bleses, Hans Basb?l, and colleagues at Southern Denmark >>>>University on the delay of the acquisition of Danish phonology in >>>>comparison to other European languages, mostly attributed to the >>>>complexities of the vowel system and the various assimilatory >>>>processes. There is a corresponding delay in the acquisition of >>>>reading by Danish children that was observed in the cross-European >>>>PISA project. All of this is well documented in the literature, >>>>but it is rather marginal and transitory. Eventually, normal >>>>Danish children all learn good Danish and become fluent readers. >>>>-- Brian MacWhinney >>>>On Feb 9, 2011, at 1:27 PM, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: >>>>>A propos, are there any published studies out there that point to >>>>>measurable difference in rate of completion of first-language >>>>>acquisition by speakers of one language compared to another? Or >>>>>even of mastery of one aspect of L1 acquisition (phonology, >>>>>morphology, etc.) by speakers of one language compared to another? >>>>>--fritz >>>>>Frederick J. Newmeyer >>>>>Professor Emeritus, University of Washington >>>>>Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon >>>>>Fraser University >>>>>[for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] >>>>>On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, A. Katz wrote: >>>>>>Tom, >>>>>>If the language is dying, then the advice not to listen to >>>>>>somebody under forty because they don't know how to speak may be >>>>>>sound, but not for the reason that you suggest. It could be >>>>>>there are no fluent speakers under forty. It seems very unlikely >>>>>>that one would have to arrive at age forty before acquiring >>>>>>fluency, especially in a hunter gatherer culture where death >>>>>>before forty might be quite common. >>>>>>But if you have evidence to the contrary that fully immersed, >>>>>>monolingual young speakers of a language cannot speak it with >>>>>>communicative effect until age forty, then this is a big >>>>>>discovery that ought to be published and shared with the >>>>>>scientific community. >>>>>> >>>>>> --Aya >>>>>>On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: >>>>>>>Right on, John. And one could make a prediction--hopefully >>>>>>>someday to be tested by acquisition studies--that Navajo kids >>>>>>>will not master the fully complexcity of the Athabaskan verb by >>>>>>>age 10, or 15, or 20. I once reviewed a grammar in Papua New >>>>>>>Guniea of a language that had comparable complexity on the verb >>>>>>>(three positions, 6-8 categoriers each, massive zeroing& >>>>>>>morphonemic). I had to ask Carle Whitehead--is this guy for >>>>>>>real? He said, yes, he's been in the island for 20 years, >>>>>>>really knows his stuff. So I asked the guy--at what age are >>>>>>>kids considered fuill-fledged speakers? He said-- the old >>>>>>>people say, don't listen to anybody under forty, they don't >>>>>>>know how to speak. In my work with the Utes, one exchange has >>>>>>>stuck out, an elder (ka-para'ni-wa-t, he's not walking about >>>>>>>any more) who was pointed to me as the best orator in the >>>>>>>tribe. I told him that, and he said: "Oh, I am nothing. You >>>>>>>should have heard the Old Ones; when they spoke, you could see >>>>>>>it all in front of your eyes". Part of it is due to the complex >>>>>>>Ute deictic system, which invades NPs, ADVs& the verb. The >>>>>>>combinations, and the subtle choices of when to combine the >>>>>>>deictic particle with other categories, are a whole wond(e)rous >>>>>>>world. Cheers, TG >>>>>>>========== >>>>>>>On 2/9/2011 10:13 AM, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: >>>>>>>>Aya, >>>>>>>>I think I was the one who said first that Navajo is not a >>>>>>>>language for >>>>>>>>amateurs. I'll second what Tom said--you should learn something >>>>>>>>about Navajo (or some other Athabaskan language) before making >>>>>>>>statements like this. Some languages are just plain >>>>>>>>objectively harder than >>>>>>>>others, regardless of typological similarly to one's native >>>>>>>>language. If you >>>>>>>>don't believe this, do an experiment in which you take >>>>>>>>speakers of English, >>>>>>>>Turkish, Georgian, Chinese, whatever you want, try to teach >>>>>>>>them Navajo, Hopi, >>>>>>>>and Cree (for example), and see which one gives them the most >>>>>>>>trouble. >>>>>>>>I guarantee it will be Navajo. And there is an objective >>>>>>>>reason for it-- >>>>>>>>the morphophonemics are just unbelievably complex. >>>>>>>>John >>>>>>>>Quoting "A. Katz": >>>>>>>>>Tom, >>>>>>>>>I don't think that is a valid viewpoint with regard to >>>>>>>>>Athabaskan or any >>>>>>>>>other language family. >>>>>>>>>Victor Golla earlier had a much better phrasing when he wrote: >>>>>>>>>"Let that read: "A language that is not for amateurs is not for >>>>>>>>>ADULT people."" >>>>>>>>>But in fact no language is easy for adults to learn who have >>>>>>>>>not already >>>>>>>>>learned a language with a similar typology. If your native >>>>>>>>>language works >>>>>>>>>similarly to the one you are learning, then you have an >>>>>>>>>enormous advantage >>>>>>>>>as an adult second language learner. >>>>>>>>>The remark about how Navajo is not for amateurs was made in >>>>>>>>>the context of >>>>>>>>>people who have no experience with languages of a similar >>>>>>>>>typology. >>>>>>>>>To make this a universal statement about the difficulty of >>>>>>>>>Navajo without >>>>>>>>>qualification is to suggest that some languages are "easy" >>>>>>>>>and others are >>>>>>>>>"impossible". Not only is this not true from an objective >>>>>>>>>standpoint, it >>>>>>>>>also perpetuates the prejudice that English (or IE) is a >>>>>>>>>"normal" language >>>>>>>>>and that every language should be measured against this norm. >>>>>>>>>Best, >>>>>>>>> --Aya >>>>>>>>>On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>Before you actually tried to learn an Athabaskan language, >>>>>>>>>>or at the very >>>>>>>>>>least worked on one, maybe you had better refrain from >>>>>>>>>>asserting that "a >>>>>>>>>>language that is not for amateurs is not for people". TG >>>>>>>>>>========= >>>>>>>>>>On 2/8/2011 6:33 AM, A. Katz wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>A language that is not for amateurs is not for people. >>>>>>>>>>>This has nothing to do with RS or computer language >>>>>>>>>>>teaching. As others >>>>>>>>>>>have stated, the technologically based systems are not a >>>>>>>>>>>panacea. >>>>>>>>>>>But a language that ordinary people can't pick by talking >>>>>>>>>>>to their parents >>>>>>>>>>>in childhood is either dead already or not a human language. >>>>>>>>>>> --Aya >>>>>>>>>>>On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>I would be amazed if a single person actually learns to >>>>>>>>>>>>speak Navajo >>>>>>>>>>>>using Rosetta Stone. This is not a language for amateurs. >>>>>>>>>>>>John >>>>>>>>>>>>Quoting "s.t. bischoff": >>>>>>>>>>>>>Hi all, >>>>>>>>>>>>>Over the last week I was involved with an event at the >>>>>>>>>>>>>American Indian >>>>>>>>>>>>>Language Development Institute and the folks that created >>>>>>>>>>>>>the Navajo >>>>>>>>>>>>>Rosetta >>>>>>>>>>>>>Stone gave a short talk about the software. What follows >>>>>>>>>>>>>is my >>>>>>>>>>>>>understanding >>>>>>>>>>>>>of how it came to be. >>>>>>>>>>>>>The Navajo Rosetta Stones was created in collaboration >>>>>>>>>>>>>with Rosetta >>>>>>>>>Stone >>>>>>>>>>>>>and the non-profit Navajo Language Renaissance (NLR). NLR >>>>>>>>>>>>>is a >>>>>>>>>non-profit >>>>>>>>>>>>>organization that is NOT affiliated with the tribal >>>>>>>>>>>>>council or >>>>>>>>>government >>>>>>>>>>>>>in >>>>>>>>>>>>>any way, for obvious reasons I think (e.g. getting >>>>>>>>>>>>>council approval for >>>>>>>>>>>>>the >>>>>>>>>>>>>project). However, it has been endorsed by the school >>>>>>>>>>>>>leadership and NLR >>>>>>>>>>>>>is >>>>>>>>>>>>>actively trying to get the school district to adopt the >>>>>>>>>>>>>software. You >>>>>>>>>can >>>>>>>>>>>>>view the NLR website here >>>>>>>>>>>>>http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ A >>>>>>>>>>>>>non-community member started NLR after using Rosetta >>>>>>>>>>>>>Stone to learn >>>>>>>>>>>>>Russian. >>>>>>>>>>>>>She thought it would be good if Rosetta Stone created a >>>>>>>>>>>>>Navajo version. >>>>>>>>>>>>>She >>>>>>>>>>>>>contacted Rosetta Stone (RS), and they told her they >>>>>>>>>>>>>would provide here >>>>>>>>>>>>>with >>>>>>>>>>>>>the software to develop the lessons, a photographer, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>technical >>>>>>>>>>>>>assistants (limited on the ground, mostly by phone) to >>>>>>>>>>>>>develop the >>>>>>>>>>>>>program >>>>>>>>>>>>>for $300,000. Another option would be for her to apply >>>>>>>>>>>>>for a grant from >>>>>>>>>>>>>RS >>>>>>>>>>>>>to cover most of the costs. So the NLR was created, a >>>>>>>>>>>>>partnership >>>>>>>>>between >>>>>>>>>>>>>community members and one non-community member, as a non- profit >>>>>>>>>>>>>organization and applied. RS gave two grants the year >>>>>>>>>>>>>they applied, one >>>>>>>>>>>>>went >>>>>>>>>>>>>to NLR. The grant covered all but $27,000 of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>$300,000. So NLR had to >>>>>>>>>>>>>pay >>>>>>>>>>>>>RS $27,000 to have access to the software to create the >>>>>>>>>>>>>Navajo Rosetta >>>>>>>>>>>>>Stone. This means they had to create the lessons and pay >>>>>>>>>>>>>speakers and >>>>>>>>>>>>>informants themselves. RS provided the software, a >>>>>>>>>>>>>photographer, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>technical support for the $27,000. NLR now is the only >>>>>>>>>>>>>group that can >>>>>>>>>>>>>sell >>>>>>>>>>>>>Navajo Rosetta Stone, which they do for $150 per license >>>>>>>>>>>>>and $200 for a >>>>>>>>>>>>>personal box set. It is not clear if they have to pay RS >>>>>>>>>>>>>a percentage of >>>>>>>>>>>>>those revenues or not. When I asked a clear answer wasn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>given. NLR >>>>>>>>>also >>>>>>>>>>>>>has a "training" session for administrators and teachers >>>>>>>>>>>>>which costs >>>>>>>>>>>>>$1500 a >>>>>>>>>>>>>day and $400 per 3 hours. Needless >>>>>>>>>>>>>to say, it is not un- controversial in >>>>>>>>>>>>>the >>>>>>>>>>>>>community for many of the usual reasons. Ironically, the >>>>>>>>>>>>>speaker after >>>>>>>>>>>>>the >>>>>>>>>>>>>Rosetta Stone folks gave a talk that demonstrated how to >>>>>>>>>>>>>create nearly >>>>>>>>>>>>>identical language lessons as Rosetta Stone's simply >>>>>>>>>>>>>using power point. >>>>>>>>>I >>>>>>>>>>>>>was encouraged to let folks know that they should contact >>>>>>>>>>>>>the NLR if >>>>>>>>>they >>>>>>>>>>>>>have any questions at mbittinger at rosettastone.com. You >>>>>>>>>>>>>can try a free >>>>>>>>>>>>>introductory lesson here >>>>>>>>>>>>>http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ The >>>>>>>>>>>>>folks >>>>>>>>>>>>>at NLR praised RS for their efforts and felt they had >>>>>>>>>>>>>really done them a >>>>>>>>>>>>>service. In short, they were very happy with the >>>>>>>>>>>>>arrangement and how it >>>>>>>>>>>>>was >>>>>>>>>>>>>working out. They were also upset by the controversies >>>>>>>>>>>>>surrounding the >>>>>>>>>>>>>Navajo Rosetta Stone and felt they were really the result >>>>>>>>>>>>>of a >>>>>>>>>>>>>misunderstanding and misguided assumptions. One finally >>>>>>>>>>>>>thing, they did >>>>>>>>>>>>>seem >>>>>>>>>>>>>to think that it was not a pancea, but rather another >>>>>>>>>>>>>useful tool in >>>>>>>>>>>>>language revitalization efforts. >>>>>>>>>>>>>Cheers, >>>>>>>>>>>>>Shannon >>>>>>>>>>>>------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>>>>>This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of >>>>>>>>>>>>Haifa University >>>>>>>>------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa >>>>>>>>University >>> >>> > >Lise Menn Home Office: 303-444-4274 >1625 Mariposa Ave Fax: 303-413-0017 >Boulder CO 80302 >home page: http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/ > >Professor Emerita of Linguistics >Fellow, Institute of Cognitive Science >University of Colorado > >Secretary, AAAS Section Z [Linguistics] >Fellow, Linguistic Society of America > >Campus Mail Address: >UCB 594, Institute for Cognitive Science > >Campus Physical Address: >CINC 234 >1777 Exposition Ave, Boulder > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dan I. Slobin Professor Emeritus of Psychology and Linguistics Department of Psychology email: slobin at berkeley.edu 3210 Tolman #1650 phone (Dept): 1-510-642-5292 University of California phone (home): 1-510-848-1769 Berkeley, CA 94720-1650, USA fax: 1-510-642-5293 http://psychology.berkeley.edu/faculty/profiles/dslobin.html >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From wilcox at unm.edu Thu Feb 10 04:15:09 2011 From: wilcox at unm.edu (Sherman Wilcox) Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 21:15:09 -0700 Subject: Roseta Stone: Redux In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20110209192906.01240e48@berkeley.edu> Message-ID: On Feb 9, 2011, at 8:53 PM, Dan I. Slobin wrote: > And when all of you Funknetters became undergraduate and graduate students, and later professionals, you were still acquiring many aspects of English grammar, vocabulary, and style. Indeed, it goes on throughout the lifespan of an engaged individual. Okay, so writing isn't the same as speaking. Nevertheless, I think this interview with Ernest Hemingway is relevant: Interviewer: How much rewriting do you do? Hemingway: It depends. I rewrote the ending of "Farewell to Arms," the last page of it, 39 times before I was satisfied. Interviewer: Was there some technical problem there? What was it that had stumped you? Hemingway: Getting the words right. -- Sherman Wilcox, Ph.D. Professor Department of Linguistics University of New Mexico Albuquerque, NM 87131 From lieven at eva.mpg.de Thu Feb 10 07:15:36 2011 From: lieven at eva.mpg.de (Elena Lieven) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 07:15:36 +0000 Subject: Roseta Stone: Redux In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20110209192906.01240e48@berkeley.edu> Message-ID: Dan is right. Of course it depends what is meant by 'acquiring a language'. The skills of highly educated people or public speakers and great story tellers in oral cultures will not necessarily be acquired by all members of a community. Ewa Dabrowska has shown this for some aspects of case morphology in Polish and for passives and quantifer scope in English - both studies of adult native speakers elena lieven Dan I. Slobin wrote: > A few responses to previous postings: > > Yes, languages with transparent and consistent agglutinative > morphology, in the verbal or nominal systems, allow for rapid > acquisition, with some productive inflections at the one-word stage. > Turkish morphology, having virtually no irregular patterns, is quite > securely mastered by age 3 at the latest, and often much earlier. > And, in general, complex morphology, of various types, presents no > serious problems with regard to acquisition of the basic grammar of > the relevant constructions. For details of successful early > acquistion of morphology in a number of such "complex"languages see > volumes of my crosslinguistic series: Vol. 1 (Hebrew, Polish, > Turkish), Vol. 2 (Hungarian), Vol. 3 (Georgian, West Greenlandic, > K'iche' Maya, Warlpiri, Sesotho), Vol. 4 (Estonian, Finnish, Korean). > Comparable findings are available for the acquisition of Inuktitut, > Tzeltal, Tzotzil,Yucatec Maya, Hindi, Tamil, and others. What > children find difficult--as do inguists--are multiply-determined > and/or unpredictable morphophonological patterns. > > So it depends on what you want to credit as "total acquisition" or > "completion of acquisition." An English-speaking 10-year-old can > fluently produce a range of syntactic structures, in various genres > and registers, without having mastered all of the irregular verb forms > and a number of subordinate syntactic constructions. Furthermore, > remember that a bility to produce a pattern in some contexts is far > from commanding its full range of semantic and pragmatic functions. > And when all of you Funknetters became undergraduate and graduate > students, and later professionals, you were still acquiring many > aspects of English grammar, vocabulary, and style. Indeed, it goes on > throughout the lifespan of an engaged individual. > > There are no established criteria for full mastery, but there are > numerous studies, in all five of the crosslinguistic volumes and > elsewhere, of prolonged acquisition of various parts of a linguistic > system. > > As noted, I've written about the error of expecting early child > language to mirror pidgins. > > Best, > > Dan (with references following, many of mine available for download at > http://psychology.berkeley.edu/faculty/profiles/dslobin.html > Slobin, D. I. (1985, 1992, 1997). The crosslinguistic study of > language acquisition. Vol. 1: The Data (1985); Vol. 2: Theoretical > issues (1985); Vol. 3 (1992); Vol. 4 (1997); Vol. 5: Expanding the > contexts (1997). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. > Slobin, D. I. (2004). From ontogenesis to phylogenesis: What can > child language tell us about language evolution? In J. Langer, S. T. > Parker, & C. Milbrath (Eds.), Biology and Knowledge revisited: From > neurogenesis to psychogenesis (pp. 255-285). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence > Erlbaum Associates. > > > At 03:00 PM 2/9/2011, Lise Menn wrote: >> that's right. And child language and pidgin aren't the same, in any >> case, for any language I know about, any more than any of them are >> telegrams. But there are arcane reaches of languages that most people >> don't learn, confounding the definition of what 'acquire' means: >> Japanese honorifics and noun classifiers have elegant refinements, >> crafts and professions have jargons... >> >> On Feb 9, 2011, at 1:50 PM, A. Katz wrote: >> >>> I seem to recall that in "The Evolution of Language Out of Pre- >>> Language" Dan Slobin had a sort of dissenting article at the end in >>> which he mentioned that Turkish children use grammatical morphology >>> at the one word level, so that they are never actually speaking a >>> pidgin Turkish at any point in their language development. >>> >>> --Aya >>> >>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Craig Hancock wrote: >>> >>>> Brian, >>>> This strikes as a bit like Lake Woebegone (Where all the children >>>> are above average). >>>> >>>> normal Danish children all learn good Danish and become fluent >>>> readers >>>> >>>> Is acquiring a language totally separate from the uses of that >>>> language? Are we just acquiring the forms and then differing in our >>>> ability to put them to use or are the uses themselves a major part >>>> of what we are acquiring? Are lexicon and syntax wholly separate, >>>> or do we go on acquiring the lexico-grammar as we enter more deeply >>>> into adult worlds of discourse? >>>> Anyone in literacy education knows that too many American >>>> children fail to reach high levels of fluency as readers and >>>> writers. Doesn't that somehow mean they have failed to acquire the >>>> language? >>>> >>>> Craig >>>> >>>> On 2/9/2011 2:04 PM, Brian MacWhinney wrote: >>>>> Fritz, >>>>> There are studies in places like the Journal of Child Language by >>>>> Dorthe Bleses, Hans Basb?l, and colleagues at Southern Denmark >>>>> University on the delay of the acquisition of Danish phonology in >>>>> comparison to other European languages, mostly attributed to the >>>>> complexities of the vowel system and the various assimilatory >>>>> processes. There is a corresponding delay in the acquisition of >>>>> reading by Danish children that was observed in the cross-European >>>>> PISA project. All of this is well documented in the literature, >>>>> but it is rather marginal and transitory. Eventually, normal >>>>> Danish children all learn good Danish and become fluent readers. >>>>> -- Brian MacWhinney >>>>> On Feb 9, 2011, at 1:27 PM, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: >>>>>> A propos, are there any published studies out there that point to >>>>>> measurable difference in rate of completion of first-language >>>>>> acquisition by speakers of one language compared to another? Or >>>>>> even of mastery of one aspect of L1 acquisition (phonology, >>>>>> morphology, etc.) by speakers of one language compared to another? >>>>>> --fritz >>>>>> Frederick J. Newmeyer >>>>>> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington >>>>>> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon >>>>>> Fraser University >>>>>> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] >>>>>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, A. Katz wrote: >>>>>>> Tom, >>>>>>> If the language is dying, then the advice not to listen to >>>>>>> somebody under forty because they don't know how to speak may be >>>>>>> sound, but not for the reason that you suggest. It could be >>>>>>> there are no fluent speakers under forty. It seems very unlikely >>>>>>> that one would have to arrive at age forty before acquiring >>>>>>> fluency, especially in a hunter gatherer culture where death >>>>>>> before forty might be quite common. >>>>>>> But if you have evidence to the contrary that fully immersed, >>>>>>> monolingual young speakers of a language cannot speak it with >>>>>>> communicative effect until age forty, then this is a big >>>>>>> discovery that ought to be published and shared with the >>>>>>> scientific community. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> --Aya >>>>>>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: >>>>>>>> Right on, John. And one could make a prediction--hopefully >>>>>>>> someday to be tested by acquisition studies--that Navajo kids >>>>>>>> will not master the fully complexcity of the Athabaskan verb by >>>>>>>> age 10, or 15, or 20. I once reviewed a grammar in Papua New >>>>>>>> Guniea of a language that had comparable complexity on the verb >>>>>>>> (three positions, 6-8 categoriers each, massive zeroing& >>>>>>>> morphonemic). I had to ask Carle Whitehead--is this guy for >>>>>>>> real? He said, yes, he's been in the island for 20 years, >>>>>>>> really knows his stuff. So I asked the guy--at what age are >>>>>>>> kids considered fuill-fledged speakers? He said-- the old >>>>>>>> people say, don't listen to anybody under forty, they don't >>>>>>>> know how to speak. In my work with the Utes, one exchange has >>>>>>>> stuck out, an elder (ka-para'ni-wa-t, he's not walking about >>>>>>>> any more) who was pointed to me as the best orator in the >>>>>>>> tribe. I told him that, and he said: "Oh, I am nothing. You >>>>>>>> should have heard the Old Ones; when they spoke, you could see >>>>>>>> it all in front of your eyes". Part of it is due to the complex >>>>>>>> Ute deictic system, which invades NPs, ADVs& the verb. The >>>>>>>> combinations, and the subtle choices of when to combine the >>>>>>>> deictic particle with other categories, are a whole wond(e)rous >>>>>>>> world. Cheers, TG >>>>>>>> ========== >>>>>>>> On 2/9/2011 10:13 AM, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: >>>>>>>>> Aya, >>>>>>>>> I think I was the one who said first that Navajo is not a >>>>>>>>> language for >>>>>>>>> amateurs. I'll second what Tom said--you should learn something >>>>>>>>> about Navajo (or some other Athabaskan language) before making >>>>>>>>> statements like this. Some languages are just plain >>>>>>>>> objectively harder than >>>>>>>>> others, regardless of typological similarly to one's native >>>>>>>>> language. If you >>>>>>>>> don't believe this, do an experiment in which you take >>>>>>>>> speakers of English, >>>>>>>>> Turkish, Georgian, Chinese, whatever you want, try to teach >>>>>>>>> them Navajo, Hopi, >>>>>>>>> and Cree (for example), and see which one gives them the most >>>>>>>>> trouble. >>>>>>>>> I guarantee it will be Navajo. And there is an objective >>>>>>>>> reason for it-- >>>>>>>>> the morphophonemics are just unbelievably complex. >>>>>>>>> John >>>>>>>>> Quoting "A. Katz": >>>>>>>>>> Tom, >>>>>>>>>> I don't think that is a valid viewpoint with regard to >>>>>>>>>> Athabaskan or any >>>>>>>>>> other language family. >>>>>>>>>> Victor Golla earlier had a much better phrasing when he wrote: >>>>>>>>>> "Let that read: "A language that is not for amateurs is not for >>>>>>>>>> ADULT people."" >>>>>>>>>> But in fact no language is easy for adults to learn who have >>>>>>>>>> not already >>>>>>>>>> learned a language with a similar typology. If your native >>>>>>>>>> language works >>>>>>>>>> similarly to the one you are learning, then you have an >>>>>>>>>> enormous advantage >>>>>>>>>> as an adult second language learner. >>>>>>>>>> The remark about how Navajo is not for amateurs was made in >>>>>>>>>> the context of >>>>>>>>>> people who have no experience with languages of a similar >>>>>>>>>> typology. >>>>>>>>>> To make this a universal statement about the difficulty of >>>>>>>>>> Navajo without >>>>>>>>>> qualification is to suggest that some languages are "easy" >>>>>>>>>> and others are >>>>>>>>>> "impossible". Not only is this not true from an objective >>>>>>>>>> standpoint, it >>>>>>>>>> also perpetuates the prejudice that English (or IE) is a >>>>>>>>>> "normal" language >>>>>>>>>> and that every language should be measured against this norm. >>>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>>> --Aya >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Before you actually tried to learn an Athabaskan language, >>>>>>>>>>> or at the very >>>>>>>>>>> least worked on one, maybe you had better refrain from >>>>>>>>>>> asserting that "a >>>>>>>>>>> language that is not for amateurs is not for people". TG >>>>>>>>>>> ========= >>>>>>>>>>> On 2/8/2011 6:33 AM, A. Katz wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> A language that is not for amateurs is not for people. >>>>>>>>>>>> This has nothing to do with RS or computer language >>>>>>>>>>>> teaching. As others >>>>>>>>>>>> have stated, the technologically based systems are not a >>>>>>>>>>>> panacea. >>>>>>>>>>>> But a language that ordinary people can't pick by talking >>>>>>>>>>>> to their parents >>>>>>>>>>>> in childhood is either dead already or not a human language. >>>>>>>>>>>> --Aya >>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> I would be amazed if a single person actually learns to >>>>>>>>>>>>> speak Navajo >>>>>>>>>>>>> using Rosetta Stone. This is not a language for amateurs. >>>>>>>>>>>>> John >>>>>>>>>>>>> Quoting "s.t. bischoff": >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Over the last week I was involved with an event at the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> American Indian >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Language Development Institute and the folks that created >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Navajo >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rosetta >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stone gave a short talk about the software. What follows >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is my >>>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of how it came to be. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Navajo Rosetta Stones was created in collaboration >>>>>>>>>>>>>> with Rosetta >>>>>>>>>> Stone >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the non-profit Navajo Language Renaissance (NLR). NLR >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a >>>>>>>>>> non-profit >>>>>>>>>>>>>> organization that is NOT affiliated with the tribal >>>>>>>>>>>>>> council or >>>>>>>>>> government >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>>>> any way, for obvious reasons I think (e.g. getting >>>>>>>>>>>>>> council approval for >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> project). However, it has been endorsed by the school >>>>>>>>>>>>>> leadership and NLR >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> actively trying to get the school district to adopt the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> software. You >>>>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>>>>>>>> view the NLR website here >>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ A >>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-community member started NLR after using Rosetta >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stone to learn >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Russian. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> She thought it would be good if Rosetta Stone created a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo version. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> She >>>>>>>>>>>>>> contacted Rosetta Stone (RS), and they told her they >>>>>>>>>>>>>> would provide here >>>>>>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the software to develop the lessons, a photographer, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> technical >>>>>>>>>>>>>> assistants (limited on the ground, mostly by phone) to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> develop the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> program >>>>>>>>>>>>>> for $300,000. Another option would be for her to apply >>>>>>>>>>>>>> for a grant from >>>>>>>>>>>>>> RS >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to cover most of the costs. So the NLR was created, a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> partnership >>>>>>>>>> between >>>>>>>>>>>>>> community members and one non-community member, as a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> non- profit >>>>>>>>>>>>>> organization and applied. RS gave two grants the year >>>>>>>>>>>>>> they applied, one >>>>>>>>>>>>>> went >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to NLR. The grant covered all but $27,000 of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> $300,000. So NLR had to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> pay >>>>>>>>>>>>>> RS $27,000 to have access to the software to create the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stone. This means they had to create the lessons and pay >>>>>>>>>>>>>> speakers and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> informants themselves. RS provided the software, a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> photographer, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> technical support for the $27,000. NLR now is the only >>>>>>>>>>>>>> group that can >>>>>>>>>>>>>> sell >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone, which they do for $150 per license >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and $200 for a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> personal box set. It is not clear if they have to pay RS >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a percentage of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> those revenues or not. When I asked a clear answer wasn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>> given. NLR >>>>>>>>>> also >>>>>>>>>>>>>> has a "training" session for administrators and teachers >>>>>>>>>>>>>> which costs >>>>>>>>>>>>>> $1500 a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> day and $400 per 3 hours. Needless to say, it is not un- >>>>>>>>>>>>>> controversial in >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> community for many of the usual reasons. Ironically, the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> speaker after >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rosetta Stone folks gave a talk that demonstrated how to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> create nearly >>>>>>>>>>>>>> identical language lessons as Rosetta Stone's simply >>>>>>>>>>>>>> using power point. >>>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>>>>>> was encouraged to let folks know that they should contact >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the NLR if >>>>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>>>>>> have any questions at mbittinger at rosettastone.com. You >>>>>>>>>>>>>> can try a free >>>>>>>>>>>>>> introductory lesson here >>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ The >>>>>>>>>>>>>> folks >>>>>>>>>>>>>> at NLR praised RS for their efforts and felt they had >>>>>>>>>>>>>> really done them a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> service. In short, they were very happy with the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> arrangement and how it >>>>>>>>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>>>>>>>> working out. They were also upset by the controversies >>>>>>>>>>>>>> surrounding the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone and felt they were really the result >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> misunderstanding and misguided assumptions. One finally >>>>>>>>>>>>>> thing, they did >>>>>>>>>>>>>> seem >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to think that it was not a pancea, but rather another >>>>>>>>>>>>>> useful tool in >>>>>>>>>>>>>> language revitalization efforts. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shannon >>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of >>>>>>>>>>>>> Haifa University >>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa >>>>>>>>> University >>>> >>>> >> >> Lise Menn Home Office: 303-444-4274 >> 1625 Mariposa Ave Fax: 303-413-0017 >> Boulder CO 80302 >> home page: http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/ >> >> Professor Emerita of Linguistics >> Fellow, Institute of Cognitive Science >> University of Colorado >> >> Secretary, AAAS Section Z [Linguistics] >> Fellow, Linguistic Society of America >> >> Campus Mail Address: >> UCB 594, Institute for Cognitive Science >> >> Campus Physical Address: >> CINC 234 >> 1777 Exposition Ave, Boulder >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Dan I. Slobin > Professor Emeritus of Psychology and Linguistics > > Department of Psychology email: slobin at berkeley.edu > 3210 Tolman #1650 phone (Dept): 1-510-642-5292 > University of California phone (home): 1-510-848-1769 > Berkeley, CA 94720-1650, USA fax: 1-510-642-5293 > http://psychology.berkeley.edu/faculty/profiles/dslobin.html > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > -- Elena Lieven Department of Developmental and Comparative Psychology Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology Deutscher Platz 6 D-04103 Leipzig Germany Tel.+49-(0)341-3550 404 +49-(0)341-3550 400 (Department Coordinator: Henriette Zeidler) Fax.+49-(0)341-3550 444 and Max Planck Child Study Centre School of Psychological Sciences University of Manchester Manchester M13 9PL UK Tel.+44-(0)161-275 2580 +44-(0)161-275 2444 (Research Secretary: Mickie Glover) Fax.+44-(0)161-275 8587 From john at research.haifa.ac.il Thu Feb 10 08:19:23 2011 From: john at research.haifa.ac.il (john at research.haifa.ac.il) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 10:19:23 +0200 Subject: Roseta Stone: Redux In-Reply-To: <4D539098.6040105@eva.mpg.de> Message-ID: Delays in the acquisition of SPOKEN Danish would presumably be due not to the vowels (which are similar to other Scandinavian languages and much less typologically peculiar than e.g. Dutch and some southern USA dialects) but to the rampant glottalization processe which really are typologically bizarre and which is the main source of complex allophony. It's the same idea as the American pronunciation of 'button' or 'mountain' (with no vowel in the second syllable but rather a syllabic n with a glottal stop before) except that it occurs not just with alveolar+alveolar but with all combinations and the nasal isn't syllabic but combined with the preceding consonant in one or another way. The Danish pronunciation of 'Copenhagen' in natural speech sounds to me like it's just two syllables long. When I was working on Circassian (the dialect here has about 60 phonemes, mostly due to double and triple articulations) I got the same feeling that somewhere along the way native speakers had decided that it was normal to take neighboring consonantal articulations, even in the next syllable, and just say them all at the same time. Delays in the acquisition of WRITTEN Danish, on the other hand, are undoubtedly due to the antiquated spelling system, which has essentially never been updated. This is conceptually a separate problem, although they are related in the sense that many of the counterintuitive spellings are the product of the same historical process which produced the glottalization processes. There is no question that the greater difficulty of learning some languages is a serious problem for some language revival programs. I see much more hope for reviving Algonquian languages than for reviving Athabascan languages (and Polynesian languages would be a comparative cinch). I suppose that members of the groups might recognize this and 'dumb down' the languages in one way or another (making the morphophonemics simpler, eliminating phonemic contrasts when one of the sounds is really hard to pronounce, etc.), but obviously this is their decision. John Quoting Elena Lieven : > Dan is right. Of course it depends what is meant by 'acquiring a > language'. The skills of highly educated people or public speakers and > great story tellers in oral cultures will not necessarily be acquired by > all members of a community. Ewa Dabrowska has shown this for some > aspects of case morphology in Polish and for passives and quantifer > scope in English - both studies of adult native speakers > elena lieven > > Dan I. Slobin wrote: > > A few responses to previous postings: > > > > Yes, languages with transparent and consistent agglutinative > > morphology, in the verbal or nominal systems, allow for rapid > > acquisition, with some productive inflections at the one-word stage. > > Turkish morphology, having virtually no irregular patterns, is quite > > securely mastered by age 3 at the latest, and often much earlier. > > And, in general, complex morphology, of various types, presents no > > serious problems with regard to acquisition of the basic grammar of > > the relevant constructions. For details of successful early > > acquistion of morphology in a number of such "complex"languages see > > volumes of my crosslinguistic series: Vol. 1 (Hebrew, Polish, > > Turkish), Vol. 2 (Hungarian), Vol. 3 (Georgian, West Greenlandic, > > K'iche' Maya, Warlpiri, Sesotho), Vol. 4 (Estonian, Finnish, Korean). > > Comparable findings are available for the acquisition of Inuktitut, > > Tzeltal, Tzotzil,Yucatec Maya, Hindi, Tamil, and others. What > > children find difficult--as do inguists--are multiply-determined > > and/or unpredictable morphophonological patterns. > > > > So it depends on what you want to credit as "total acquisition" or > > "completion of acquisition." An English-speaking 10-year-old can > > fluently produce a range of syntactic structures, in various genres > > and registers, without having mastered all of the irregular verb forms > > and a number of subordinate syntactic constructions. Furthermore, > > remember that a bility to produce a pattern in some contexts is far > > from commanding its full range of semantic and pragmatic functions. > > And when all of you Funknetters became undergraduate and graduate > > students, and later professionals, you were still acquiring many > > aspects of English grammar, vocabulary, and style. Indeed, it goes on > > throughout the lifespan of an engaged individual. > > > > There are no established criteria for full mastery, but there are > > numerous studies, in all five of the crosslinguistic volumes and > > elsewhere, of prolonged acquisition of various parts of a linguistic > > system. > > > > As noted, I've written about the error of expecting early child > > language to mirror pidgins. > > > > Best, > > > > Dan (with references following, many of mine available for download at > > http://psychology.berkeley.edu/faculty/profiles/dslobin.html > > Slobin, D. I. (1985, 1992, 1997). The crosslinguistic study of > > language acquisition. Vol. 1: The Data (1985); Vol. 2: Theoretical > > issues (1985); Vol. 3 (1992); Vol. 4 (1997); Vol. 5: Expanding the > > contexts (1997). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. > > Slobin, D. I. (2004). From ontogenesis to phylogenesis: What can > > child language tell us about language evolution? In J. Langer, S. T. > > Parker, & C. Milbrath (Eds.), Biology and Knowledge revisited: From > > neurogenesis to psychogenesis (pp. 255-285). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence > > Erlbaum Associates. > > > > > > At 03:00 PM 2/9/2011, Lise Menn wrote: > >> that's right. And child language and pidgin aren't the same, in any > >> case, for any language I know about, any more than any of them are > >> telegrams. But there are arcane reaches of languages that most people > >> don't learn, confounding the definition of what 'acquire' means: > >> Japanese honorifics and noun classifiers have elegant refinements, > >> crafts and professions have jargons... > >> > >> On Feb 9, 2011, at 1:50 PM, A. Katz wrote: > >> > >>> I seem to recall that in "The Evolution of Language Out of Pre- > >>> Language" Dan Slobin had a sort of dissenting article at the end in > >>> which he mentioned that Turkish children use grammatical morphology > >>> at the one word level, so that they are never actually speaking a > >>> pidgin Turkish at any point in their language development. > >>> > >>> --Aya > >>> > >>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Craig Hancock wrote: > >>> > >>>> Brian, > >>>> This strikes as a bit like Lake Woebegone (Where all the children > >>>> are above average). > >>>> > >>>> normal Danish children all learn good Danish and become fluent > >>>> readers > >>>> > >>>> Is acquiring a language totally separate from the uses of that > >>>> language? Are we just acquiring the forms and then differing in our > >>>> ability to put them to use or are the uses themselves a major part > >>>> of what we are acquiring? Are lexicon and syntax wholly separate, > >>>> or do we go on acquiring the lexico-grammar as we enter more deeply > >>>> into adult worlds of discourse? > >>>> Anyone in literacy education knows that too many American > >>>> children fail to reach high levels of fluency as readers and > >>>> writers. Doesn't that somehow mean they have failed to acquire the > >>>> language? > >>>> > >>>> Craig > >>>> > >>>> On 2/9/2011 2:04 PM, Brian MacWhinney wrote: > >>>>> Fritz, > >>>>> There are studies in places like the Journal of Child Language by > >>>>> Dorthe Bleses, Hans Basb?l, and colleagues at Southern Denmark > >>>>> University on the delay of the acquisition of Danish phonology in > >>>>> comparison to other European languages, mostly attributed to the > >>>>> complexities of the vowel system and the various assimilatory > >>>>> processes. There is a corresponding delay in the acquisition of > >>>>> reading by Danish children that was observed in the cross-European > >>>>> PISA project. All of this is well documented in the literature, > >>>>> but it is rather marginal and transitory. Eventually, normal > >>>>> Danish children all learn good Danish and become fluent readers. > >>>>> -- Brian MacWhinney > >>>>> On Feb 9, 2011, at 1:27 PM, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > >>>>>> A propos, are there any published studies out there that point to > >>>>>> measurable difference in rate of completion of first-language > >>>>>> acquisition by speakers of one language compared to another? Or > >>>>>> even of mastery of one aspect of L1 acquisition (phonology, > >>>>>> morphology, etc.) by speakers of one language compared to another? > >>>>>> --fritz > >>>>>> Frederick J. Newmeyer > >>>>>> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > >>>>>> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon > >>>>>> Fraser University > >>>>>> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > >>>>>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, A. Katz wrote: > >>>>>>> Tom, > >>>>>>> If the language is dying, then the advice not to listen to > >>>>>>> somebody under forty because they don't know how to speak may be > >>>>>>> sound, but not for the reason that you suggest. It could be > >>>>>>> there are no fluent speakers under forty. It seems very unlikely > >>>>>>> that one would have to arrive at age forty before acquiring > >>>>>>> fluency, especially in a hunter gatherer culture where death > >>>>>>> before forty might be quite common. > >>>>>>> But if you have evidence to the contrary that fully immersed, > >>>>>>> monolingual young speakers of a language cannot speak it with > >>>>>>> communicative effect until age forty, then this is a big > >>>>>>> discovery that ought to be published and shared with the > >>>>>>> scientific community. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> --Aya > >>>>>>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: > >>>>>>>> Right on, John. And one could make a prediction--hopefully > >>>>>>>> someday to be tested by acquisition studies--that Navajo kids > >>>>>>>> will not master the fully complexcity of the Athabaskan verb by > >>>>>>>> age 10, or 15, or 20. I once reviewed a grammar in Papua New > >>>>>>>> Guniea of a language that had comparable complexity on the verb > >>>>>>>> (three positions, 6-8 categoriers each, massive zeroing& > >>>>>>>> morphonemic). I had to ask Carle Whitehead--is this guy for > >>>>>>>> real? He said, yes, he's been in the island for 20 years, > >>>>>>>> really knows his stuff. So I asked the guy--at what age are > >>>>>>>> kids considered fuill-fledged speakers? He said-- the old > >>>>>>>> people say, don't listen to anybody under forty, they don't > >>>>>>>> know how to speak. In my work with the Utes, one exchange has > >>>>>>>> stuck out, an elder (ka-para'ni-wa-t, he's not walking about > >>>>>>>> any more) who was pointed to me as the best orator in the > >>>>>>>> tribe. I told him that, and he said: "Oh, I am nothing. You > >>>>>>>> should have heard the Old Ones; when they spoke, you could see > >>>>>>>> it all in front of your eyes". Part of it is due to the complex > >>>>>>>> Ute deictic system, which invades NPs, ADVs& the verb. The > >>>>>>>> combinations, and the subtle choices of when to combine the > >>>>>>>> deictic particle with other categories, are a whole wond(e)rous > >>>>>>>> world. Cheers, TG > >>>>>>>> ========== > >>>>>>>> On 2/9/2011 10:13 AM, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > >>>>>>>>> Aya, > >>>>>>>>> I think I was the one who said first that Navajo is not a > >>>>>>>>> language for > >>>>>>>>> amateurs. I'll second what Tom said--you should learn something > >>>>>>>>> about Navajo (or some other Athabaskan language) before making > >>>>>>>>> statements like this. Some languages are just plain > >>>>>>>>> objectively harder than > >>>>>>>>> others, regardless of typological similarly to one's native > >>>>>>>>> language. If you > >>>>>>>>> don't believe this, do an experiment in which you take > >>>>>>>>> speakers of English, > >>>>>>>>> Turkish, Georgian, Chinese, whatever you want, try to teach > >>>>>>>>> them Navajo, Hopi, > >>>>>>>>> and Cree (for example), and see which one gives them the most > >>>>>>>>> trouble. > >>>>>>>>> I guarantee it will be Navajo. And there is an objective > >>>>>>>>> reason for it-- > >>>>>>>>> the morphophonemics are just unbelievably complex. > >>>>>>>>> John > >>>>>>>>> Quoting "A. Katz": > >>>>>>>>>> Tom, > >>>>>>>>>> I don't think that is a valid viewpoint with regard to > >>>>>>>>>> Athabaskan or any > >>>>>>>>>> other language family. > >>>>>>>>>> Victor Golla earlier had a much better phrasing when he wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> "Let that read: "A language that is not for amateurs is not for > >>>>>>>>>> ADULT people."" > >>>>>>>>>> But in fact no language is easy for adults to learn who have > >>>>>>>>>> not already > >>>>>>>>>> learned a language with a similar typology. If your native > >>>>>>>>>> language works > >>>>>>>>>> similarly to the one you are learning, then you have an > >>>>>>>>>> enormous advantage > >>>>>>>>>> as an adult second language learner. > >>>>>>>>>> The remark about how Navajo is not for amateurs was made in > >>>>>>>>>> the context of > >>>>>>>>>> people who have no experience with languages of a similar > >>>>>>>>>> typology. > >>>>>>>>>> To make this a universal statement about the difficulty of > >>>>>>>>>> Navajo without > >>>>>>>>>> qualification is to suggest that some languages are "easy" > >>>>>>>>>> and others are > >>>>>>>>>> "impossible". Not only is this not true from an objective > >>>>>>>>>> standpoint, it > >>>>>>>>>> also perpetuates the prejudice that English (or IE) is a > >>>>>>>>>> "normal" language > >>>>>>>>>> and that every language should be measured against this norm. > >>>>>>>>>> Best, > >>>>>>>>>> --Aya > >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> Before you actually tried to learn an Athabaskan language, > >>>>>>>>>>> or at the very > >>>>>>>>>>> least worked on one, maybe you had better refrain from > >>>>>>>>>>> asserting that "a > >>>>>>>>>>> language that is not for amateurs is not for people". TG > >>>>>>>>>>> ========= > >>>>>>>>>>> On 2/8/2011 6:33 AM, A. Katz wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> A language that is not for amateurs is not for people. > >>>>>>>>>>>> This has nothing to do with RS or computer language > >>>>>>>>>>>> teaching. As others > >>>>>>>>>>>> have stated, the technologically based systems are not a > >>>>>>>>>>>> panacea. > >>>>>>>>>>>> But a language that ordinary people can't pick by talking > >>>>>>>>>>>> to their parents > >>>>>>>>>>>> in childhood is either dead already or not a human language. > >>>>>>>>>>>> --Aya > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I would be amazed if a single person actually learns to > >>>>>>>>>>>>> speak Navajo > >>>>>>>>>>>>> using Rosetta Stone. This is not a language for amateurs. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> John > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Quoting "s.t. bischoff": > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Over the last week I was involved with an event at the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> American Indian > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Language Development Institute and the folks that created > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Navajo > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rosetta > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stone gave a short talk about the software. What follows > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is my > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of how it came to be. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Navajo Rosetta Stones was created in collaboration > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> with Rosetta > >>>>>>>>>> Stone > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the non-profit Navajo Language Renaissance (NLR). NLR > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a > >>>>>>>>>> non-profit > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> organization that is NOT affiliated with the tribal > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> council or > >>>>>>>>>> government > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> any way, for obvious reasons I think (e.g. getting > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> council approval for > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> project). However, it has been endorsed by the school > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> leadership and NLR > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> actively trying to get the school district to adopt the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> software. You > >>>>>>>>>> can > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> view the NLR website here > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ A > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-community member started NLR after using Rosetta > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stone to learn > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Russian. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> She thought it would be good if Rosetta Stone created a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo version. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> She > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> contacted Rosetta Stone (RS), and they told her they > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> would provide here > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> with > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the software to develop the lessons, a photographer, and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> technical > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> assistants (limited on the ground, mostly by phone) to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> develop the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> program > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> for $300,000. Another option would be for her to apply > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> for a grant from > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> RS > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to cover most of the costs. So the NLR was created, a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> partnership > >>>>>>>>>> between > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> community members and one non-community member, as a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> non- profit > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> organization and applied. RS gave two grants the year > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> they applied, one > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> went > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to NLR. The grant covered all but $27,000 of the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> $300,000. So NLR had to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> pay > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> RS $27,000 to have access to the software to create the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stone. This means they had to create the lessons and pay > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> speakers and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> informants themselves. RS provided the software, a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> photographer, and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> technical support for the $27,000. NLR now is the only > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> group that can > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> sell > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone, which they do for $150 per license > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and $200 for a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> personal box set. It is not clear if they have to pay RS > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a percentage of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> those revenues or not. When I asked a clear answer wasn't > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> given. NLR > >>>>>>>>>> also > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> has a "training" session for administrators and teachers > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> which costs > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> $1500 a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> day and $400 per 3 hours. Needless to say, it is not un- > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> controversial in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> community for many of the usual reasons. Ironically, the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> speaker after > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rosetta Stone folks gave a talk that demonstrated how to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> create nearly > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> identical language lessons as Rosetta Stone's simply > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> using power point. > >>>>>>>>>> I > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> was encouraged to let folks know that they should contact > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the NLR if > >>>>>>>>>> they > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> have any questions at mbittinger at rosettastone.com. You > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> can try a free > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> introductory lesson here > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ The > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> folks > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> at NLR praised RS for their efforts and felt they had > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> really done them a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> service. In short, they were very happy with the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> arrangement and how it > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> was > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> working out. They were also upset by the controversies > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> surrounding the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone and felt they were really the result > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> misunderstanding and misguided assumptions. One finally > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> thing, they did > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> seem > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to think that it was not a pancea, but rather another > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> useful tool in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> language revitalization efforts. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shannon > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Haifa University > >>>>>>>>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > >>>>>>>>> University > >>>> > >>>> > >> > >> Lise Menn Home Office: 303-444-4274 > >> 1625 Mariposa Ave Fax: 303-413-0017 > >> Boulder CO 80302 > >> home page: http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/ > >> > >> Professor Emerita of Linguistics > >> Fellow, Institute of Cognitive Science > >> University of Colorado > >> > >> Secretary, AAAS Section Z [Linguistics] > >> Fellow, Linguistic Society of America > >> > >> Campus Mail Address: > >> UCB 594, Institute for Cognitive Science > >> > >> Campus Physical Address: > >> CINC 234 > >> 1777 Exposition Ave, Boulder > >> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > Dan I. Slobin > > Professor Emeritus of Psychology and Linguistics > > > > Department of Psychology email: slobin at berkeley.edu > > 3210 Tolman #1650 phone (Dept): 1-510-642-5292 > > University of California phone (home): 1-510-848-1769 > > Berkeley, CA 94720-1650, USA fax: 1-510-642-5293 > > http://psychology.berkeley.edu/faculty/profiles/dslobin.html > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > -- > Elena Lieven > Department of Developmental and Comparative Psychology > Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology > Deutscher Platz 6 > D-04103 Leipzig > Germany > > Tel.+49-(0)341-3550 404 > +49-(0)341-3550 400 (Department Coordinator: Henriette Zeidler) > Fax.+49-(0)341-3550 444 > > and > > Max Planck Child Study Centre > School of Psychological Sciences > University of Manchester > Manchester M13 9PL > UK > > Tel.+44-(0)161-275 2580 > +44-(0)161-275 2444 (Research Secretary: Mickie Glover) > Fax.+44-(0)161-275 8587 > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University From hartmut at ruc.dk Thu Feb 10 10:06:50 2011 From: hartmut at ruc.dk (Hartmut Haberland) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 11:06:50 +0100 Subject: Roseta Stone: Redux In-Reply-To: <1297325963.4d539f8b3ce1a@webmail.haifa.ac.il> Message-ID: The occurrence of /st?d/ (it is not quite clear how to describe it phonetically) in Danish has given rise to much mystification, but it is certainly not the source of any allophony and, besides, its functional load is close to zero. Many Danish speakers don't have it and it never gives rise to serious ambiguities (the standard example is /mor/ 'mother' vs. /mord/ 'murder', the second one with /st?d/, usually disambiguated in context - except in puns, of course). On the other hand, the Danish vowel system is rather complex with 25 phonemes in stressed syllables plus two shwa phonemes. On top of that there are 19 'short' and 19 'long' diphthongs. And some allophonic variation, plus frequent full assimilation of shwa to adjacent sonorants. K?benhavn in relaxed everyday speech has still three syllables, but the second one is a syllabic [m]. As to the Danish spelling system, it may be "antiquated", but still much less so than the English one. While it is very difficult to read an English text aloud (in a comprehensible way) without having undstood the content, this is not nearly as difficult with a Danish text. Of course, Danish spelling is not nearly as systematic visa`-vis the sounds as, e.g. Czech or Finnish (or even German), and there are a few irritating homographs which are not homophones (steg 'roast (of meat)' almost sounds like English 'sty', and steg 'climbed' almost like English 'stay'), but it is much less antiquated as English spelling. (English almosts sides with Arabic and Hebrew, although I admit that there are vowel letters in English. But they contain pretty little information about vowel quality and mark mostly /where/ the vowel phonemes are, not /what/ vowels they represent.) Children with English as their first langauge should have much more problems learning to read and write than Danish ones. Hartmut Haberland (not a native speaker of Danish, but still learning after almost 40 years) Den 10-02-2011 09:19, john at research.haifa.ac.il skrev: > Delays in the acquisition of SPOKEN Danish would presumably be due not to the > vowels (which are similar to other Scandinavian languages and much less > typologically peculiar than e.g. Dutch and some southern USA dialects) but to > the rampant glottalization processe which really are typologically bizarre and > which is the main source of complex allophony. It's the same idea as the > American pronunciation of 'button' or 'mountain' (with no vowel in the second > syllable but rather a syllabic n with a glottal stop before) except that it > occurs not just with alveolar+alveolar but with all combinations and the nasal > isn't syllabic but combined with the preceding consonant in one or another way. > The Danish pronunciation of 'Copenhagen' in natural speech sounds to me like > it's just two syllables long. When I was working on Circassian (the dialect > here has about 60 phonemes, mostly due to double and triple articulations) I > got the same feeling that somewhere along the way native speakers had decided > that it was normal to take neighboring consonantal articulations, even in the > next syllable, and just say them all at the same time. Delays in the > acquisition of WRITTEN Danish, on the other hand, are undoubtedly due to the > antiquated spelling system, which has essentially never been updated. This is > conceptually a separate problem, although they are related in the sense that > many of the counterintuitive spellings are the product of the same historical > process which produced the glottalization processes. > There is no question that the greater difficulty of learning some languages is a > serious problem for some language revival programs. I see much more hope for > reviving Algonquian languages than for reviving Athabascan languages (and > Polynesian languages would be a comparative cinch). I suppose that members of > the groups might recognize this and 'dumb down' the languages in one way or > another (making the morphophonemics simpler, eliminating phonemic contrasts > when one of the sounds is really hard to pronounce, etc.), but obviously this > is their decision. > John > > Quoting Elena Lieven: > >> Dan is right. Of course it depends what is meant by 'acquiring a >> language'. The skills of highly educated people or public speakers and >> great story tellers in oral cultures will not necessarily be acquired by >> all members of a community. Ewa Dabrowska has shown this for some >> aspects of case morphology in Polish and for passives and quantifer >> scope in English - both studies of adult native speakers >> elena lieven >> >> Dan I. Slobin wrote: >>> A few responses to previous postings: >>> >>> Yes, languages with transparent and consistent agglutinative >>> morphology, in the verbal or nominal systems, allow for rapid >>> acquisition, with some productive inflections at the one-word stage. >>> Turkish morphology, having virtually no irregular patterns, is quite >>> securely mastered by age 3 at the latest, and often much earlier. >>> And, in general, complex morphology, of various types, presents no >>> serious problems with regard to acquisition of the basic grammar of >>> the relevant constructions. For details of successful early >>> acquistion of morphology in a number of such "complex"languages see >>> volumes of my crosslinguistic series: Vol. 1 (Hebrew, Polish, >>> Turkish), Vol. 2 (Hungarian), Vol. 3 (Georgian, West Greenlandic, >>> K'iche' Maya, Warlpiri, Sesotho), Vol. 4 (Estonian, Finnish, Korean). >>> Comparable findings are available for the acquisition of Inuktitut, >>> Tzeltal, Tzotzil,Yucatec Maya, Hindi, Tamil, and others. What >>> children find difficult--as do inguists--are multiply-determined >>> and/or unpredictable morphophonological patterns. >>> >>> So it depends on what you want to credit as "total acquisition" or >>> "completion of acquisition." An English-speaking 10-year-old can >>> fluently produce a range of syntactic structures, in various genres >>> and registers, without having mastered all of the irregular verb forms >>> and a number of subordinate syntactic constructions. Furthermore, >>> remember that a bility to produce a pattern in some contexts is far >>> from commanding its full range of semantic and pragmatic functions. >>> And when all of you Funknetters became undergraduate and graduate >>> students, and later professionals, you were still acquiring many >>> aspects of English grammar, vocabulary, and style. Indeed, it goes on >>> throughout the lifespan of an engaged individual. >>> >>> There are no established criteria for full mastery, but there are >>> numerous studies, in all five of the crosslinguistic volumes and >>> elsewhere, of prolonged acquisition of various parts of a linguistic >>> system. >>> >>> As noted, I've written about the error of expecting early child >>> language to mirror pidgins. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Dan (with references following, many of mine available for download at >>> http://psychology.berkeley.edu/faculty/profiles/dslobin.html >>> Slobin, D. I. (1985, 1992, 1997). The crosslinguistic study of >>> language acquisition. Vol. 1: The Data (1985); Vol. 2: Theoretical >>> issues (1985); Vol. 3 (1992); Vol. 4 (1997); Vol. 5: Expanding the >>> contexts (1997). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. >>> Slobin, D. I. (2004). From ontogenesis to phylogenesis: What can >>> child language tell us about language evolution? In J. Langer, S. T. >>> Parker,& C. Milbrath (Eds.), Biology and Knowledge revisited: From >>> neurogenesis to psychogenesis (pp. 255-285). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence >>> Erlbaum Associates. >>> >>> >>> At 03:00 PM 2/9/2011, Lise Menn wrote: >>>> that's right. And child language and pidgin aren't the same, in any >>>> case, for any language I know about, any more than any of them are >>>> telegrams. But there are arcane reaches of languages that most people >>>> don't learn, confounding the definition of what 'acquire' means: >>>> Japanese honorifics and noun classifiers have elegant refinements, >>>> crafts and professions have jargons... >>>> >>>> On Feb 9, 2011, at 1:50 PM, A. Katz wrote: >>>> >>>>> I seem to recall that in "The Evolution of Language Out of Pre- >>>>> Language" Dan Slobin had a sort of dissenting article at the end in >>>>> which he mentioned that Turkish children use grammatical morphology >>>>> at the one word level, so that they are never actually speaking a >>>>> pidgin Turkish at any point in their language development. >>>>> >>>>> --Aya >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Craig Hancock wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Brian, >>>>>> This strikes as a bit like Lake Woebegone (Where all the children >>>>>> are above average). >>>>>> >>>>>> normal Danish children all learn good Danish and become fluent >>>>>> readers >>>>>> >>>>>> Is acquiring a language totally separate from the uses of that >>>>>> language? Are we just acquiring the forms and then differing in our >>>>>> ability to put them to use or are the uses themselves a major part >>>>>> of what we are acquiring? Are lexicon and syntax wholly separate, >>>>>> or do we go on acquiring the lexico-grammar as we enter more deeply >>>>>> into adult worlds of discourse? >>>>>> Anyone in literacy education knows that too many American >>>>>> children fail to reach high levels of fluency as readers and >>>>>> writers. Doesn't that somehow mean they have failed to acquire the >>>>>> language? >>>>>> >>>>>> Craig >>>>>> >>>>>> On 2/9/2011 2:04 PM, Brian MacWhinney wrote: >>>>>>> Fritz, >>>>>>> There are studies in places like the Journal of Child Language by >>>>>>> Dorthe Bleses, Hans Basb?l, and colleagues at Southern Denmark >>>>>>> University on the delay of the acquisition of Danish phonology in >>>>>>> comparison to other European languages, mostly attributed to the >>>>>>> complexities of the vowel system and the various assimilatory >>>>>>> processes. There is a corresponding delay in the acquisition of >>>>>>> reading by Danish children that was observed in the cross-European >>>>>>> PISA project. All of this is well documented in the literature, >>>>>>> but it is rather marginal and transitory. Eventually, normal >>>>>>> Danish children all learn good Danish and become fluent readers. >>>>>>> -- Brian MacWhinney >>>>>>> On Feb 9, 2011, at 1:27 PM, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: >>>>>>>> A propos, are there any published studies out there that point to >>>>>>>> measurable difference in rate of completion of first-language >>>>>>>> acquisition by speakers of one language compared to another? Or >>>>>>>> even of mastery of one aspect of L1 acquisition (phonology, >>>>>>>> morphology, etc.) by speakers of one language compared to another? >>>>>>>> --fritz >>>>>>>> Frederick J. Newmeyer >>>>>>>> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington >>>>>>>> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon >>>>>>>> Fraser University >>>>>>>> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] >>>>>>>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, A. Katz wrote: >>>>>>>>> Tom, >>>>>>>>> If the language is dying, then the advice not to listen to >>>>>>>>> somebody under forty because they don't know how to speak may be >>>>>>>>> sound, but not for the reason that you suggest. It could be >>>>>>>>> there are no fluent speakers under forty. It seems very unlikely >>>>>>>>> that one would have to arrive at age forty before acquiring >>>>>>>>> fluency, especially in a hunter gatherer culture where death >>>>>>>>> before forty might be quite common. >>>>>>>>> But if you have evidence to the contrary that fully immersed, >>>>>>>>> monolingual young speakers of a language cannot speak it with >>>>>>>>> communicative effect until age forty, then this is a big >>>>>>>>> discovery that ought to be published and shared with the >>>>>>>>> scientific community. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> --Aya >>>>>>>>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Right on, John. And one could make a prediction--hopefully >>>>>>>>>> someday to be tested by acquisition studies--that Navajo kids >>>>>>>>>> will not master the fully complexcity of the Athabaskan verb by >>>>>>>>>> age 10, or 15, or 20. I once reviewed a grammar in Papua New >>>>>>>>>> Guniea of a language that had comparable complexity on the verb >>>>>>>>>> (three positions, 6-8 categoriers each, massive zeroing& >>>>>>>>>> morphonemic). I had to ask Carle Whitehead--is this guy for >>>>>>>>>> real? He said, yes, he's been in the island for 20 years, >>>>>>>>>> really knows his stuff. So I asked the guy--at what age are >>>>>>>>>> kids considered fuill-fledged speakers? He said-- the old >>>>>>>>>> people say, don't listen to anybody under forty, they don't >>>>>>>>>> know how to speak. In my work with the Utes, one exchange has >>>>>>>>>> stuck out, an elder (ka-para'ni-wa-t, he's not walking about >>>>>>>>>> any more) who was pointed to me as the best orator in the >>>>>>>>>> tribe. I told him that, and he said: "Oh, I am nothing. You >>>>>>>>>> should have heard the Old Ones; when they spoke, you could see >>>>>>>>>> it all in front of your eyes". Part of it is due to the complex >>>>>>>>>> Ute deictic system, which invades NPs, ADVs& the verb. The >>>>>>>>>> combinations, and the subtle choices of when to combine the >>>>>>>>>> deictic particle with other categories, are a whole wond(e)rous >>>>>>>>>> world. Cheers, TG >>>>>>>>>> ========== >>>>>>>>>> On 2/9/2011 10:13 AM, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Aya, >>>>>>>>>>> I think I was the one who said first that Navajo is not a >>>>>>>>>>> language for >>>>>>>>>>> amateurs. I'll second what Tom said--you should learn something >>>>>>>>>>> about Navajo (or some other Athabaskan language) before making >>>>>>>>>>> statements like this. Some languages are just plain >>>>>>>>>>> objectively harder than >>>>>>>>>>> others, regardless of typological similarly to one's native >>>>>>>>>>> language. If you >>>>>>>>>>> don't believe this, do an experiment in which you take >>>>>>>>>>> speakers of English, >>>>>>>>>>> Turkish, Georgian, Chinese, whatever you want, try to teach >>>>>>>>>>> them Navajo, Hopi, >>>>>>>>>>> and Cree (for example), and see which one gives them the most >>>>>>>>>>> trouble. >>>>>>>>>>> I guarantee it will be Navajo. And there is an objective >>>>>>>>>>> reason for it-- >>>>>>>>>>> the morphophonemics are just unbelievably complex. >>>>>>>>>>> John >>>>>>>>>>> Quoting "A. Katz": >>>>>>>>>>>> Tom, >>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think that is a valid viewpoint with regard to >>>>>>>>>>>> Athabaskan or any >>>>>>>>>>>> other language family. >>>>>>>>>>>> Victor Golla earlier had a much better phrasing when he wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> "Let that read: "A language that is not for amateurs is not for >>>>>>>>>>>> ADULT people."" >>>>>>>>>>>> But in fact no language is easy for adults to learn who have >>>>>>>>>>>> not already >>>>>>>>>>>> learned a language with a similar typology. If your native >>>>>>>>>>>> language works >>>>>>>>>>>> similarly to the one you are learning, then you have an >>>>>>>>>>>> enormous advantage >>>>>>>>>>>> as an adult second language learner. >>>>>>>>>>>> The remark about how Navajo is not for amateurs was made in >>>>>>>>>>>> the context of >>>>>>>>>>>> people who have no experience with languages of a similar >>>>>>>>>>>> typology. >>>>>>>>>>>> To make this a universal statement about the difficulty of >>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo without >>>>>>>>>>>> qualification is to suggest that some languages are "easy" >>>>>>>>>>>> and others are >>>>>>>>>>>> "impossible". Not only is this not true from an objective >>>>>>>>>>>> standpoint, it >>>>>>>>>>>> also perpetuates the prejudice that English (or IE) is a >>>>>>>>>>>> "normal" language >>>>>>>>>>>> and that every language should be measured against this norm. >>>>>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>>>>> --Aya >>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Before you actually tried to learn an Athabaskan language, >>>>>>>>>>>>> or at the very >>>>>>>>>>>>> least worked on one, maybe you had better refrain from >>>>>>>>>>>>> asserting that "a >>>>>>>>>>>>> language that is not for amateurs is not for people". TG >>>>>>>>>>>>> ========= >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/8/2011 6:33 AM, A. Katz wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> A language that is not for amateurs is not for people. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> This has nothing to do with RS or computer language >>>>>>>>>>>>>> teaching. As others >>>>>>>>>>>>>> have stated, the technologically based systems are not a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> panacea. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> But a language that ordinary people can't pick by talking >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to their parents >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in childhood is either dead already or not a human language. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> --Aya >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would be amazed if a single person actually learns to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speak Navajo >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using Rosetta Stone. This is not a language for amateurs. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> John >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Quoting "s.t. bischoff": >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Over the last week I was involved with an event at the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> American Indian >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Language Development Institute and the folks that created >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Navajo >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rosetta >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stone gave a short talk about the software. What follows >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is my >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of how it came to be. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Navajo Rosetta Stones was created in collaboration >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with Rosetta >>>>>>>>>>>> Stone >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the non-profit Navajo Language Renaissance (NLR). NLR >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a >>>>>>>>>>>> non-profit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> organization that is NOT affiliated with the tribal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> council or >>>>>>>>>>>> government >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any way, for obvious reasons I think (e.g. getting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> council approval for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> project). However, it has been endorsed by the school >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> leadership and NLR >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actively trying to get the school district to adopt the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> software. You >>>>>>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> view the NLR website here >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ A >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-community member started NLR after using Rosetta >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stone to learn >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Russian. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> She thought it would be good if Rosetta Stone created a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo version. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> She >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contacted Rosetta Stone (RS), and they told her they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would provide here >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the software to develop the lessons, a photographer, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> technical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assistants (limited on the ground, mostly by phone) to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> develop the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> program >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for $300,000. Another option would be for her to apply >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for a grant from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RS >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to cover most of the costs. So the NLR was created, a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> partnership >>>>>>>>>>>> between >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community members and one non-community member, as a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non- profit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> organization and applied. RS gave two grants the year >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they applied, one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> went >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to NLR. The grant covered all but $27,000 of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> $300,000. So NLR had to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pay >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RS $27,000 to have access to the software to create the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stone. This means they had to create the lessons and pay >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speakers and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> informants themselves. RS provided the software, a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> photographer, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> technical support for the $27,000. NLR now is the only >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> group that can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sell >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone, which they do for $150 per license >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and $200 for a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> personal box set. It is not clear if they have to pay RS >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a percentage of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those revenues or not. When I asked a clear answer wasn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> given. NLR >>>>>>>>>>>> also >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has a "training" session for administrators and teachers >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which costs >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> $1500 a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> day and $400 per 3 hours. Needless to say, it is not un- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> controversial in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community for many of the usual reasons. Ironically, the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speaker after >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rosetta Stone folks gave a talk that demonstrated how to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> create nearly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> identical language lessons as Rosetta Stone's simply >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using power point. >>>>>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was encouraged to let folks know that they should contact >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the NLR if >>>>>>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have any questions at mbittinger at rosettastone.com. You >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can try a free >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introductory lesson here >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ The >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> folks >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at NLR praised RS for their efforts and felt they had >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really done them a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> service. In short, they were very happy with the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arrangement and how it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> working out. They were also upset by the controversies >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> surrounding the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone and felt they were really the result >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> misunderstanding and misguided assumptions. One finally >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thing, they did >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seem >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to think that it was not a pancea, but rather another >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> useful tool in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language revitalization efforts. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shannon >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Haifa University >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa >>>>>>>>>>> University >>>>>> >>>> Lise Menn Home Office: 303-444-4274 >>>> 1625 Mariposa Ave Fax: 303-413-0017 >>>> Boulder CO 80302 >>>> home page: http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/ >>>> >>>> Professor Emerita of Linguistics >>>> Fellow, Institute of Cognitive Science >>>> University of Colorado >>>> >>>> Secretary, AAAS Section Z [Linguistics] >>>> Fellow, Linguistic Society of America >>>> >>>> Campus Mail Address: >>>> UCB 594, Institute for Cognitive Science >>>> >>>> Campus Physical Address: >>>> CINC 234 >>>> 1777 Exposition Ave, Boulder >>>> >>>> >>> Dan I. Slobin >>> Professor Emeritus of Psychology and Linguistics >>> >>> Department of Psychology email: slobin at berkeley.edu >>> 3210 Tolman #1650 phone (Dept): 1-510-642-5292 >>> University of California phone (home): 1-510-848-1769 >>> Berkeley, CA 94720-1650, USA fax: 1-510-642-5293 >>> http://psychology.berkeley.edu/faculty/profiles/dslobin.html >>> >>> >> -- >> Elena Lieven >> Department of Developmental and Comparative Psychology >> Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology >> Deutscher Platz 6 >> D-04103 Leipzig >> Germany >> >> Tel.+49-(0)341-3550 404 >> +49-(0)341-3550 400 (Department Coordinator: Henriette Zeidler) >> Fax.+49-(0)341-3550 444 >> >> and >> >> Max Planck Child Study Centre >> School of Psychological Sciences >> University of Manchester >> Manchester M13 9PL >> UK >> >> Tel.+44-(0)161-275 2580 >> +44-(0)161-275 2444 (Research Secretary: Mickie Glover) >> Fax.+44-(0)161-275 8587 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University From john at research.haifa.ac.il Thu Feb 10 11:35:13 2011 From: john at research.haifa.ac.il (john at research.haifa.ac.il) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 13:35:13 +0200 Subject: Roseta Stone: Redux In-Reply-To: <4D53B8BA.6040309@ruc.dk> Message-ID: The reason that I suspected stod (sorry my computer can't type the slash) as producing particular problems rather than the vowel system is that as far as I know (which isn't much...) the vowel system of Danish isn't so different from that of other Scandinavian languages, at least not in a way so as to cause particular difficulties, whereas there's nothing intimidating like stod in other Scandinavian languages (or, for me at least, in European languages at all). The question isn't whether it causes ambiguities, the question is how hard it is to say accurately. I thought I had read that it is associated with some changes in the preceding vowel (lengthening or shortening?), but maybe I got this confused with something else. I believe that Danes perceive the first nasal in their pronunciation of Copenhagen as a syllabic nasal, but to a second language learner its duration in normal speech can be so brief that it's hard to hear as a separate syllable (I remember attempting to pronounce it like the second syllable of English 'something' when pronounced like 'sumpm' with a syllabic m and a Dane telling me they would only say it like that when speaking carefully). In fact English spelling is indeed antiquated and reading researchers have read that Danish and English are the two most difficult European languages to learn to read at a basic level. John Quoting Hartmut Haberland : > The occurrence of /st?d/ (it is not quite clear how to describe it > phonetically) in Danish has given rise to much mystification, but it is > certainly not the source of any allophony and, besides, its functional > load is close to zero. Many Danish speakers don't have it and it never > gives rise to serious ambiguities (the standard example is /mor/ > 'mother' vs. /mord/ 'murder', the second one with /st?d/, usually > disambiguated in context - except in puns, of course). On the other > hand, the Danish vowel system is rather complex with 25 phonemes in > stressed syllables plus two shwa phonemes. On top of that there are 19 > 'short' and 19 'long' diphthongs. And some allophonic variation, plus > frequent full assimilation of shwa to adjacent sonorants. > > K?benhavn in relaxed everyday speech has still three syllables, but the > second one is a syllabic [m]. > > As to the Danish spelling system, it may be "antiquated", but still > much less so than the English one. While it is very difficult to read an > English text aloud (in a comprehensible way) without having undstood the > content, this is not nearly as difficult with a Danish text. Of course, > Danish spelling is not nearly as systematic visa`-vis the sounds as, > e.g. Czech or Finnish (or even German), and there are a few irritating > homographs which are not homophones (steg 'roast (of meat)' almost > sounds like English 'sty', and steg 'climbed' almost like English > 'stay'), but it is much less antiquated as English spelling. (English > almosts sides with Arabic and Hebrew, although I admit that there are > vowel letters in English. But they contain pretty little information > about vowel quality and mark mostly /where/ the vowel phonemes are, not > /what/ vowels they represent.) Children with English as their first > langauge should have much more problems learning to read and write than > Danish ones. > > Hartmut Haberland > (not a native speaker of Danish, but still learning after almost 40 years) > > Den 10-02-2011 09:19, john at research.haifa.ac.il skrev: > > Delays in the acquisition of SPOKEN Danish would presumably be due not to > the > > vowels (which are similar to other Scandinavian languages and much less > > typologically peculiar than e.g. Dutch and some southern USA dialects) but > to > > the rampant glottalization processe which really are typologically bizarre > and > > which is the main source of complex allophony. It's the same idea as the > > American pronunciation of 'button' or 'mountain' (with no vowel in the > second > > syllable but rather a syllabic n with a glottal stop before) except that it > > occurs not just with alveolar+alveolar but with all combinations and the > nasal > > isn't syllabic but combined with the preceding consonant in one or another > way. > > The Danish pronunciation of 'Copenhagen' in natural speech sounds to me > like > > it's just two syllables long. When I was working on Circassian (the dialect > > here has about 60 phonemes, mostly due to double and triple articulations) > I > > got the same feeling that somewhere along the way native speakers had > decided > > that it was normal to take neighboring consonantal articulations, even in > the > > next syllable, and just say them all at the same time. Delays in the > > acquisition of WRITTEN Danish, on the other hand, are undoubtedly due to > the > > antiquated spelling system, which has essentially never been updated. This > is > > conceptually a separate problem, although they are related in the sense > that > > many of the counterintuitive spellings are the product of the same > historical > > process which produced the glottalization processes. > > There is no question that the greater difficulty of learning some languages > is a > > serious problem for some language revival programs. I see much more hope > for > > reviving Algonquian languages than for reviving Athabascan languages (and > > Polynesian languages would be a comparative cinch). I suppose that members > of > > the groups might recognize this and 'dumb down' the languages in one way or > > another (making the morphophonemics simpler, eliminating phonemic contrasts > > when one of the sounds is really hard to pronounce, etc.), but obviously > this > > is their decision. > > John > > > > Quoting Elena Lieven: > > > >> Dan is right. Of course it depends what is meant by 'acquiring a > >> language'. The skills of highly educated people or public speakers and > >> great story tellers in oral cultures will not necessarily be acquired by > >> all members of a community. Ewa Dabrowska has shown this for some > >> aspects of case morphology in Polish and for passives and quantifer > >> scope in English - both studies of adult native speakers > >> elena lieven > >> > >> Dan I. Slobin wrote: > >>> A few responses to previous postings: > >>> > >>> Yes, languages with transparent and consistent agglutinative > >>> morphology, in the verbal or nominal systems, allow for rapid > >>> acquisition, with some productive inflections at the one-word stage. > >>> Turkish morphology, having virtually no irregular patterns, is quite > >>> securely mastered by age 3 at the latest, and often much earlier. > >>> And, in general, complex morphology, of various types, presents no > >>> serious problems with regard to acquisition of the basic grammar of > >>> the relevant constructions. For details of successful early > >>> acquistion of morphology in a number of such "complex"languages see > >>> volumes of my crosslinguistic series: Vol. 1 (Hebrew, Polish, > >>> Turkish), Vol. 2 (Hungarian), Vol. 3 (Georgian, West Greenlandic, > >>> K'iche' Maya, Warlpiri, Sesotho), Vol. 4 (Estonian, Finnish, Korean). > >>> Comparable findings are available for the acquisition of Inuktitut, > >>> Tzeltal, Tzotzil,Yucatec Maya, Hindi, Tamil, and others. What > >>> children find difficult--as do inguists--are multiply-determined > >>> and/or unpredictable morphophonological patterns. > >>> > >>> So it depends on what you want to credit as "total acquisition" or > >>> "completion of acquisition." An English-speaking 10-year-old can > >>> fluently produce a range of syntactic structures, in various genres > >>> and registers, without having mastered all of the irregular verb forms > >>> and a number of subordinate syntactic constructions. Furthermore, > >>> remember that a bility to produce a pattern in some contexts is far > >>> from commanding its full range of semantic and pragmatic functions. > >>> And when all of you Funknetters became undergraduate and graduate > >>> students, and later professionals, you were still acquiring many > >>> aspects of English grammar, vocabulary, and style. Indeed, it goes on > >>> throughout the lifespan of an engaged individual. > >>> > >>> There are no established criteria for full mastery, but there are > >>> numerous studies, in all five of the crosslinguistic volumes and > >>> elsewhere, of prolonged acquisition of various parts of a linguistic > >>> system. > >>> > >>> As noted, I've written about the error of expecting early child > >>> language to mirror pidgins. > >>> > >>> Best, > >>> > >>> Dan (with references following, many of mine available for download at > >>> http://psychology.berkeley.edu/faculty/profiles/dslobin.html > >>> Slobin, D. I. (1985, 1992, 1997). The crosslinguistic study of > >>> language acquisition. Vol. 1: The Data (1985); Vol. 2: Theoretical > >>> issues (1985); Vol. 3 (1992); Vol. 4 (1997); Vol. 5: Expanding the > >>> contexts (1997). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. > >>> Slobin, D. I. (2004). From ontogenesis to phylogenesis: What can > >>> child language tell us about language evolution? In J. Langer, S. T. > >>> Parker,& C. Milbrath (Eds.), Biology and Knowledge revisited: From > >>> neurogenesis to psychogenesis (pp. 255-285). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence > >>> Erlbaum Associates. > >>> > >>> > >>> At 03:00 PM 2/9/2011, Lise Menn wrote: > >>>> that's right. And child language and pidgin aren't the same, in any > >>>> case, for any language I know about, any more than any of them are > >>>> telegrams. But there are arcane reaches of languages that most people > >>>> don't learn, confounding the definition of what 'acquire' means: > >>>> Japanese honorifics and noun classifiers have elegant refinements, > >>>> crafts and professions have jargons... > >>>> > >>>> On Feb 9, 2011, at 1:50 PM, A. Katz wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> I seem to recall that in "The Evolution of Language Out of Pre- > >>>>> Language" Dan Slobin had a sort of dissenting article at the end in > >>>>> which he mentioned that Turkish children use grammatical morphology > >>>>> at the one word level, so that they are never actually speaking a > >>>>> pidgin Turkish at any point in their language development. > >>>>> > >>>>> --Aya > >>>>> > >>>>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Craig Hancock wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Brian, > >>>>>> This strikes as a bit like Lake Woebegone (Where all the children > >>>>>> are above average). > >>>>>> > >>>>>> normal Danish children all learn good Danish and become fluent > >>>>>> readers > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Is acquiring a language totally separate from the uses of that > >>>>>> language? Are we just acquiring the forms and then differing in our > >>>>>> ability to put them to use or are the uses themselves a major part > >>>>>> of what we are acquiring? Are lexicon and syntax wholly separate, > >>>>>> or do we go on acquiring the lexico-grammar as we enter more deeply > >>>>>> into adult worlds of discourse? > >>>>>> Anyone in literacy education knows that too many American > >>>>>> children fail to reach high levels of fluency as readers and > >>>>>> writers. Doesn't that somehow mean they have failed to acquire the > >>>>>> language? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Craig > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On 2/9/2011 2:04 PM, Brian MacWhinney wrote: > >>>>>>> Fritz, > >>>>>>> There are studies in places like the Journal of Child Language by > >>>>>>> Dorthe Bleses, Hans Basb?l, and colleagues at Southern Denmark > >>>>>>> University on the delay of the acquisition of Danish phonology in > >>>>>>> comparison to other European languages, mostly attributed to the > >>>>>>> complexities of the vowel system and the various assimilatory > >>>>>>> processes. There is a corresponding delay in the acquisition of > >>>>>>> reading by Danish children that was observed in the cross-European > >>>>>>> PISA project. All of this is well documented in the literature, > >>>>>>> but it is rather marginal and transitory. Eventually, normal > >>>>>>> Danish children all learn good Danish and become fluent readers. > >>>>>>> -- Brian MacWhinney > >>>>>>> On Feb 9, 2011, at 1:27 PM, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > >>>>>>>> A propos, are there any published studies out there that point to > >>>>>>>> measurable difference in rate of completion of first-language > >>>>>>>> acquisition by speakers of one language compared to another? Or > >>>>>>>> even of mastery of one aspect of L1 acquisition (phonology, > >>>>>>>> morphology, etc.) by speakers of one language compared to another? > >>>>>>>> --fritz > >>>>>>>> Frederick J. Newmeyer > >>>>>>>> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > >>>>>>>> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon > >>>>>>>> Fraser University > >>>>>>>> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > >>>>>>>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, A. Katz wrote: > >>>>>>>>> Tom, > >>>>>>>>> If the language is dying, then the advice not to listen to > >>>>>>>>> somebody under forty because they don't know how to speak may be > >>>>>>>>> sound, but not for the reason that you suggest. It could be > >>>>>>>>> there are no fluent speakers under forty. It seems very unlikely > >>>>>>>>> that one would have to arrive at age forty before acquiring > >>>>>>>>> fluency, especially in a hunter gatherer culture where death > >>>>>>>>> before forty might be quite common. > >>>>>>>>> But if you have evidence to the contrary that fully immersed, > >>>>>>>>> monolingual young speakers of a language cannot speak it with > >>>>>>>>> communicative effect until age forty, then this is a big > >>>>>>>>> discovery that ought to be published and shared with the > >>>>>>>>> scientific community. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> --Aya > >>>>>>>>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> Right on, John. And one could make a prediction--hopefully > >>>>>>>>>> someday to be tested by acquisition studies--that Navajo kids > >>>>>>>>>> will not master the fully complexcity of the Athabaskan verb by > >>>>>>>>>> age 10, or 15, or 20. I once reviewed a grammar in Papua New > >>>>>>>>>> Guniea of a language that had comparable complexity on the verb > >>>>>>>>>> (three positions, 6-8 categoriers each, massive zeroing& > >>>>>>>>>> morphonemic). I had to ask Carle Whitehead--is this guy for > >>>>>>>>>> real? He said, yes, he's been in the island for 20 years, > >>>>>>>>>> really knows his stuff. So I asked the guy--at what age are > >>>>>>>>>> kids considered fuill-fledged speakers? He said-- the old > >>>>>>>>>> people say, don't listen to anybody under forty, they don't > >>>>>>>>>> know how to speak. In my work with the Utes, one exchange has > >>>>>>>>>> stuck out, an elder (ka-para'ni-wa-t, he's not walking about > >>>>>>>>>> any more) who was pointed to me as the best orator in the > >>>>>>>>>> tribe. I told him that, and he said: "Oh, I am nothing. You > >>>>>>>>>> should have heard the Old Ones; when they spoke, you could see > >>>>>>>>>> it all in front of your eyes". Part of it is due to the complex > >>>>>>>>>> Ute deictic system, which invades NPs, ADVs& the verb. The > >>>>>>>>>> combinations, and the subtle choices of when to combine the > >>>>>>>>>> deictic particle with other categories, are a whole wond(e)rous > >>>>>>>>>> world. Cheers, TG > >>>>>>>>>> ========== > >>>>>>>>>> On 2/9/2011 10:13 AM, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> Aya, > >>>>>>>>>>> I think I was the one who said first that Navajo is not a > >>>>>>>>>>> language for > >>>>>>>>>>> amateurs. I'll second what Tom said--you should learn something > >>>>>>>>>>> about Navajo (or some other Athabaskan language) before making > >>>>>>>>>>> statements like this. Some languages are just plain > >>>>>>>>>>> objectively harder than > >>>>>>>>>>> others, regardless of typological similarly to one's native > >>>>>>>>>>> language. If you > >>>>>>>>>>> don't believe this, do an experiment in which you take > >>>>>>>>>>> speakers of English, > >>>>>>>>>>> Turkish, Georgian, Chinese, whatever you want, try to teach > >>>>>>>>>>> them Navajo, Hopi, > >>>>>>>>>>> and Cree (for example), and see which one gives them the most > >>>>>>>>>>> trouble. > >>>>>>>>>>> I guarantee it will be Navajo. And there is an objective > >>>>>>>>>>> reason for it-- > >>>>>>>>>>> the morphophonemics are just unbelievably complex. > >>>>>>>>>>> John > >>>>>>>>>>> Quoting "A. Katz": > >>>>>>>>>>>> Tom, > >>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think that is a valid viewpoint with regard to > >>>>>>>>>>>> Athabaskan or any > >>>>>>>>>>>> other language family. > >>>>>>>>>>>> Victor Golla earlier had a much better phrasing when he wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> "Let that read: "A language that is not for amateurs is not for > >>>>>>>>>>>> ADULT people."" > >>>>>>>>>>>> But in fact no language is easy for adults to learn who have > >>>>>>>>>>>> not already > >>>>>>>>>>>> learned a language with a similar typology. If your native > >>>>>>>>>>>> language works > >>>>>>>>>>>> similarly to the one you are learning, then you have an > >>>>>>>>>>>> enormous advantage > >>>>>>>>>>>> as an adult second language learner. > >>>>>>>>>>>> The remark about how Navajo is not for amateurs was made in > >>>>>>>>>>>> the context of > >>>>>>>>>>>> people who have no experience with languages of a similar > >>>>>>>>>>>> typology. > >>>>>>>>>>>> To make this a universal statement about the difficulty of > >>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo without > >>>>>>>>>>>> qualification is to suggest that some languages are "easy" > >>>>>>>>>>>> and others are > >>>>>>>>>>>> "impossible". Not only is this not true from an objective > >>>>>>>>>>>> standpoint, it > >>>>>>>>>>>> also perpetuates the prejudice that English (or IE) is a > >>>>>>>>>>>> "normal" language > >>>>>>>>>>>> and that every language should be measured against this norm. > >>>>>>>>>>>> Best, > >>>>>>>>>>>> --Aya > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Before you actually tried to learn an Athabaskan language, > >>>>>>>>>>>>> or at the very > >>>>>>>>>>>>> least worked on one, maybe you had better refrain from > >>>>>>>>>>>>> asserting that "a > >>>>>>>>>>>>> language that is not for amateurs is not for people". TG > >>>>>>>>>>>>> ========= > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/8/2011 6:33 AM, A. Katz wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> A language that is not for amateurs is not for people. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> This has nothing to do with RS or computer language > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> teaching. As others > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> have stated, the technologically based systems are not a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> panacea. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> But a language that ordinary people can't pick by talking > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to their parents > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in childhood is either dead already or not a human language. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> --Aya > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would be amazed if a single person actually learns to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speak Navajo > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using Rosetta Stone. This is not a language for amateurs. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> John > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Quoting "s.t. bischoff": > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Over the last week I was involved with an event at the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> American Indian > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Language Development Institute and the folks that created > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Navajo > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rosetta > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stone gave a short talk about the software. What follows > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is my > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of how it came to be. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Navajo Rosetta Stones was created in collaboration > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with Rosetta > >>>>>>>>>>>> Stone > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the non-profit Navajo Language Renaissance (NLR). NLR > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a > >>>>>>>>>>>> non-profit > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> organization that is NOT affiliated with the tribal > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> council or > >>>>>>>>>>>> government > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any way, for obvious reasons I think (e.g. getting > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> council approval for > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> project). However, it has been endorsed by the school > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> leadership and NLR > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actively trying to get the school district to adopt the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> software. You > >>>>>>>>>>>> can > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> view the NLR website here > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ A > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-community member started NLR after using Rosetta > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stone to learn > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Russian. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> She thought it would be good if Rosetta Stone created a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo version. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> She > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contacted Rosetta Stone (RS), and they told her they > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would provide here > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the software to develop the lessons, a photographer, and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> technical > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assistants (limited on the ground, mostly by phone) to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> develop the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> program > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for $300,000. Another option would be for her to apply > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for a grant from > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RS > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to cover most of the costs. So the NLR was created, a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> partnership > >>>>>>>>>>>> between > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community members and one non-community member, as a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non- profit > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> organization and applied. RS gave two grants the year > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they applied, one > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> went > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to NLR. The grant covered all but $27,000 of the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> $300,000. So NLR had to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pay > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RS $27,000 to have access to the software to create the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stone. This means they had to create the lessons and pay > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speakers and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> informants themselves. RS provided the software, a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> photographer, and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> technical support for the $27,000. NLR now is the only > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> group that can > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sell > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone, which they do for $150 per license > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and $200 for a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> personal box set. It is not clear if they have to pay RS > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a percentage of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those revenues or not. When I asked a clear answer wasn't > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> given. NLR > >>>>>>>>>>>> also > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has a "training" session for administrators and teachers > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which costs > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> $1500 a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> day and $400 per 3 hours. Needless to say, it is not un- > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> controversial in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community for many of the usual reasons. Ironically, the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speaker after > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rosetta Stone folks gave a talk that demonstrated how to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> create nearly > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> identical language lessons as Rosetta Stone's simply > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using power point. > >>>>>>>>>>>> I > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was encouraged to let folks know that they should contact > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the NLR if > >>>>>>>>>>>> they > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have any questions at mbittinger at rosettastone.com. You > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can try a free > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introductory lesson here > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ The > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> folks > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at NLR praised RS for their efforts and felt they had > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really done them a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> service. In short, they were very happy with the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arrangement and how it > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> working out. They were also upset by the controversies > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> surrounding the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone and felt they were really the result > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> misunderstanding and misguided assumptions. One finally > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thing, they did > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seem > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to think that it was not a pancea, but rather another > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> useful tool in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language revitalization efforts. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shannon > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Haifa University > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>>>>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > >>>>>>>>>>> University > >>>>>> > >>>> Lise Menn Home Office: 303-444-4274 > >>>> 1625 Mariposa Ave Fax: 303-413-0017 > >>>> Boulder CO 80302 > >>>> home page: http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/ > >>>> > >>>> Professor Emerita of Linguistics > >>>> Fellow, Institute of Cognitive Science > >>>> University of Colorado > >>>> > >>>> Secretary, AAAS Section Z [Linguistics] > >>>> Fellow, Linguistic Society of America > >>>> > >>>> Campus Mail Address: > >>>> UCB 594, Institute for Cognitive Science > >>>> > >>>> Campus Physical Address: > >>>> CINC 234 > >>>> 1777 Exposition Ave, Boulder > >>>> > >>>> > >>> Dan I. Slobin > >>> Professor Emeritus of Psychology and Linguistics > >>> > >>> Department of Psychology email: slobin at berkeley.edu > >>> 3210 Tolman #1650 phone (Dept): 1-510-642-5292 > >>> University of California phone (home): 1-510-848-1769 > >>> Berkeley, CA 94720-1650, USA fax: 1-510-642-5293 > >>> http://psychology.berkeley.edu/faculty/profiles/dslobin.html > >>> > >>> > >> -- > >> Elena Lieven > >> Department of Developmental and Comparative Psychology > >> Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology > >> Deutscher Platz 6 > >> D-04103 Leipzig > >> Germany > >> > >> Tel.+49-(0)341-3550 404 > >> +49-(0)341-3550 400 (Department Coordinator: Henriette Zeidler) > >> Fax.+49-(0)341-3550 444 > >> > >> and > >> > >> Max Planck Child Study Centre > >> School of Psychological Sciences > >> University of Manchester > >> Manchester M13 9PL > >> UK > >> > >> Tel.+44-(0)161-275 2580 > >> +44-(0)161-275 2444 (Research Secretary: Mickie Glover) > >> Fax.+44-(0)161-275 8587 > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University From hancock at albany.edu Thu Feb 10 14:14:13 2011 From: hancock at albany.edu (Craig Hancock) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 09:14:13 -0500 Subject: Roseta Stone: Redux In-Reply-To: <4D539098.6040105@eva.mpg.de> Message-ID: What is the current status of the competence performance distinction from the functional side? Craig On 2/10/2011 2:15 AM, Elena Lieven wrote: > Dan is right. Of course it depends what is meant by 'acquiring a > language'. The skills of highly educated people or public speakers > and great story tellers in oral cultures will not necessarily be > acquired by all members of a community. Ewa Dabrowska has shown this > for some aspects of case morphology in Polish and for passives and > quantifer scope in English - both studies of adult native speakers > elena lieven > > Dan I. Slobin wrote: >> A few responses to previous postings: >> >> Yes, languages with transparent and consistent agglutinative >> morphology, in the verbal or nominal systems, allow for rapid >> acquisition, with some productive inflections at the one-word stage. >> Turkish morphology, having virtually no irregular patterns, is quite >> securely mastered by age 3 at the latest, and often much earlier. >> And, in general, complex morphology, of various types, presents no >> serious problems with regard to acquisition of the basic grammar of >> the relevant constructions. For details of successful early >> acquistion of morphology in a number of such "complex"languages see >> volumes of my crosslinguistic series: Vol. 1 (Hebrew, Polish, >> Turkish), Vol. 2 (Hungarian), Vol. 3 (Georgian, West Greenlandic, >> K'iche' Maya, Warlpiri, Sesotho), Vol. 4 (Estonian, Finnish, >> Korean). Comparable findings are available for the acquisition of >> Inuktitut, Tzeltal, Tzotzil,Yucatec Maya, Hindi, Tamil, and others. >> What children find difficult--as do inguists--are multiply-determined >> and/or unpredictable morphophonological patterns. >> >> So it depends on what you want to credit as "total acquisition" or >> "completion of acquisition." An English-speaking 10-year-old can >> fluently produce a range of syntactic structures, in various genres >> and registers, without having mastered all of the irregular verb >> forms and a number of subordinate syntactic constructions. >> Furthermore, remember that a bility to produce a pattern in some >> contexts is far from commanding its full range of semantic and >> pragmatic functions. And when all of you Funknetters became >> undergraduate and graduate students, and later professionals, you >> were still acquiring many aspects of English grammar, vocabulary, and >> style. Indeed, it goes on throughout the lifespan of an engaged >> individual. >> >> There are no established criteria for full mastery, but there are >> numerous studies, in all five of the crosslinguistic volumes and >> elsewhere, of prolonged acquisition of various parts of a linguistic >> system. >> >> As noted, I've written about the error of expecting early child >> language to mirror pidgins. >> >> Best, >> >> Dan (with references following, many of mine available for download >> at http://psychology.berkeley.edu/faculty/profiles/dslobin.html >> Slobin, D. I. (1985, 1992, 1997). The crosslinguistic study of >> language acquisition. Vol. 1: The Data (1985); Vol. 2: Theoretical >> issues (1985); Vol. 3 (1992); Vol. 4 (1997); Vol. 5: Expanding the >> contexts (1997). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. >> Slobin, D. I. (2004). From ontogenesis to phylogenesis: What can >> child language tell us about language evolution? In J. Langer, S. T. >> Parker, & C. Milbrath (Eds.), Biology and Knowledge revisited: From >> neurogenesis to psychogenesis (pp. 255-285). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence >> Erlbaum Associates. >> >> >> At 03:00 PM 2/9/2011, Lise Menn wrote: >>> that's right. And child language and pidgin aren't the same, in any >>> case, for any language I know about, any more than any of them are >>> telegrams. But there are arcane reaches of languages that most people >>> don't learn, confounding the definition of what 'acquire' means: >>> Japanese honorifics and noun classifiers have elegant refinements, >>> crafts and professions have jargons... >>> >>> On Feb 9, 2011, at 1:50 PM, A. Katz wrote: >>> >>>> I seem to recall that in "The Evolution of Language Out of Pre- >>>> Language" Dan Slobin had a sort of dissenting article at the end in >>>> which he mentioned that Turkish children use grammatical morphology >>>> at the one word level, so that they are never actually speaking a >>>> pidgin Turkish at any point in their language development. >>>> >>>> --Aya >>>> >>>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Craig Hancock wrote: >>>> >>>>> Brian, >>>>> This strikes as a bit like Lake Woebegone (Where all the children >>>>> are above average). >>>>> >>>>> normal Danish children all learn good Danish and become fluent >>>>> readers >>>>> >>>>> Is acquiring a language totally separate from the uses of that >>>>> language? Are we just acquiring the forms and then differing in our >>>>> ability to put them to use or are the uses themselves a major part >>>>> of what we are acquiring? Are lexicon and syntax wholly separate, >>>>> or do we go on acquiring the lexico-grammar as we enter more deeply >>>>> into adult worlds of discourse? >>>>> Anyone in literacy education knows that too many American >>>>> children fail to reach high levels of fluency as readers and >>>>> writers. Doesn't that somehow mean they have failed to acquire the >>>>> language? >>>>> >>>>> Craig >>>>> >>>>> On 2/9/2011 2:04 PM, Brian MacWhinney wrote: >>>>>> Fritz, >>>>>> There are studies in places like the Journal of Child Language by >>>>>> Dorthe Bleses, Hans Basb?l, and colleagues at Southern Denmark >>>>>> University on the delay of the acquisition of Danish phonology in >>>>>> comparison to other European languages, mostly attributed to the >>>>>> complexities of the vowel system and the various assimilatory >>>>>> processes. There is a corresponding delay in the acquisition of >>>>>> reading by Danish children that was observed in the cross-European >>>>>> PISA project. All of this is well documented in the literature, >>>>>> but it is rather marginal and transitory. Eventually, normal >>>>>> Danish children all learn good Danish and become fluent readers. >>>>>> -- Brian MacWhinney >>>>>> On Feb 9, 2011, at 1:27 PM, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: >>>>>>> A propos, are there any published studies out there that point to >>>>>>> measurable difference in rate of completion of first-language >>>>>>> acquisition by speakers of one language compared to another? Or >>>>>>> even of mastery of one aspect of L1 acquisition (phonology, >>>>>>> morphology, etc.) by speakers of one language compared to another? >>>>>>> --fritz >>>>>>> Frederick J. Newmeyer >>>>>>> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington >>>>>>> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon >>>>>>> Fraser University >>>>>>> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] >>>>>>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, A. Katz wrote: >>>>>>>> Tom, >>>>>>>> If the language is dying, then the advice not to listen to >>>>>>>> somebody under forty because they don't know how to speak may be >>>>>>>> sound, but not for the reason that you suggest. It could be >>>>>>>> there are no fluent speakers under forty. It seems very unlikely >>>>>>>> that one would have to arrive at age forty before acquiring >>>>>>>> fluency, especially in a hunter gatherer culture where death >>>>>>>> before forty might be quite common. >>>>>>>> But if you have evidence to the contrary that fully immersed, >>>>>>>> monolingual young speakers of a language cannot speak it with >>>>>>>> communicative effect until age forty, then this is a big >>>>>>>> discovery that ought to be published and shared with the >>>>>>>> scientific community. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> --Aya >>>>>>>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: >>>>>>>>> Right on, John. And one could make a prediction--hopefully >>>>>>>>> someday to be tested by acquisition studies--that Navajo kids >>>>>>>>> will not master the fully complexcity of the Athabaskan verb by >>>>>>>>> age 10, or 15, or 20. I once reviewed a grammar in Papua New >>>>>>>>> Guniea of a language that had comparable complexity on the verb >>>>>>>>> (three positions, 6-8 categoriers each, massive zeroing& >>>>>>>>> morphonemic). I had to ask Carle Whitehead--is this guy for >>>>>>>>> real? He said, yes, he's been in the island for 20 years, >>>>>>>>> really knows his stuff. So I asked the guy--at what age are >>>>>>>>> kids considered fuill-fledged speakers? He said-- the old >>>>>>>>> people say, don't listen to anybody under forty, they don't >>>>>>>>> know how to speak. In my work with the Utes, one exchange has >>>>>>>>> stuck out, an elder (ka-para'ni-wa-t, he's not walking about >>>>>>>>> any more) who was pointed to me as the best orator in the >>>>>>>>> tribe. I told him that, and he said: "Oh, I am nothing. You >>>>>>>>> should have heard the Old Ones; when they spoke, you could see >>>>>>>>> it all in front of your eyes". Part of it is due to the complex >>>>>>>>> Ute deictic system, which invades NPs, ADVs& the verb. The >>>>>>>>> combinations, and the subtle choices of when to combine the >>>>>>>>> deictic particle with other categories, are a whole wond(e)rous >>>>>>>>> world. Cheers, TG >>>>>>>>> ========== >>>>>>>>> On 2/9/2011 10:13 AM, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Aya, >>>>>>>>>> I think I was the one who said first that Navajo is not a >>>>>>>>>> language for >>>>>>>>>> amateurs. I'll second what Tom said--you should learn something >>>>>>>>>> about Navajo (or some other Athabaskan language) before making >>>>>>>>>> statements like this. Some languages are just plain >>>>>>>>>> objectively harder than >>>>>>>>>> others, regardless of typological similarly to one's native >>>>>>>>>> language. If you >>>>>>>>>> don't believe this, do an experiment in which you take >>>>>>>>>> speakers of English, >>>>>>>>>> Turkish, Georgian, Chinese, whatever you want, try to teach >>>>>>>>>> them Navajo, Hopi, >>>>>>>>>> and Cree (for example), and see which one gives them the most >>>>>>>>>> trouble. >>>>>>>>>> I guarantee it will be Navajo. And there is an objective >>>>>>>>>> reason for it-- >>>>>>>>>> the morphophonemics are just unbelievably complex. >>>>>>>>>> John >>>>>>>>>> Quoting "A. Katz": >>>>>>>>>>> Tom, >>>>>>>>>>> I don't think that is a valid viewpoint with regard to >>>>>>>>>>> Athabaskan or any >>>>>>>>>>> other language family. >>>>>>>>>>> Victor Golla earlier had a much better phrasing when he wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> "Let that read: "A language that is not for amateurs is not for >>>>>>>>>>> ADULT people."" >>>>>>>>>>> But in fact no language is easy for adults to learn who have >>>>>>>>>>> not already >>>>>>>>>>> learned a language with a similar typology. If your native >>>>>>>>>>> language works >>>>>>>>>>> similarly to the one you are learning, then you have an >>>>>>>>>>> enormous advantage >>>>>>>>>>> as an adult second language learner. >>>>>>>>>>> The remark about how Navajo is not for amateurs was made in >>>>>>>>>>> the context of >>>>>>>>>>> people who have no experience with languages of a similar >>>>>>>>>>> typology. >>>>>>>>>>> To make this a universal statement about the difficulty of >>>>>>>>>>> Navajo without >>>>>>>>>>> qualification is to suggest that some languages are "easy" >>>>>>>>>>> and others are >>>>>>>>>>> "impossible". Not only is this not true from an objective >>>>>>>>>>> standpoint, it >>>>>>>>>>> also perpetuates the prejudice that English (or IE) is a >>>>>>>>>>> "normal" language >>>>>>>>>>> and that every language should be measured against this norm. >>>>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>>>> --Aya >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Before you actually tried to learn an Athabaskan language, >>>>>>>>>>>> or at the very >>>>>>>>>>>> least worked on one, maybe you had better refrain from >>>>>>>>>>>> asserting that "a >>>>>>>>>>>> language that is not for amateurs is not for people". TG >>>>>>>>>>>> ========= >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/8/2011 6:33 AM, A. Katz wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> A language that is not for amateurs is not for people. >>>>>>>>>>>>> This has nothing to do with RS or computer language >>>>>>>>>>>>> teaching. As others >>>>>>>>>>>>> have stated, the technologically based systems are not a >>>>>>>>>>>>> panacea. >>>>>>>>>>>>> But a language that ordinary people can't pick by talking >>>>>>>>>>>>> to their parents >>>>>>>>>>>>> in childhood is either dead already or not a human language. >>>>>>>>>>>>> --Aya >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would be amazed if a single person actually learns to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> speak Navajo >>>>>>>>>>>>>> using Rosetta Stone. This is not a language for amateurs. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> John >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Quoting "s.t. bischoff": >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Over the last week I was involved with an event at the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> American Indian >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Language Development Institute and the folks that created >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Navajo >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rosetta >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stone gave a short talk about the software. What follows >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is my >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of how it came to be. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Navajo Rosetta Stones was created in collaboration >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with Rosetta >>>>>>>>>>> Stone >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the non-profit Navajo Language Renaissance (NLR). NLR >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a >>>>>>>>>>> non-profit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> organization that is NOT affiliated with the tribal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> council or >>>>>>>>>>> government >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any way, for obvious reasons I think (e.g. getting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> council approval for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> project). However, it has been endorsed by the school >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> leadership and NLR >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actively trying to get the school district to adopt the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> software. You >>>>>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> view the NLR website here >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ A >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-community member started NLR after using Rosetta >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stone to learn >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Russian. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> She thought it would be good if Rosetta Stone created a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo version. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> She >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contacted Rosetta Stone (RS), and they told her they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would provide here >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the software to develop the lessons, a photographer, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> technical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assistants (limited on the ground, mostly by phone) to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> develop the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> program >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for $300,000. Another option would be for her to apply >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for a grant from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RS >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to cover most of the costs. So the NLR was created, a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> partnership >>>>>>>>>>> between >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community members and one non-community member, as a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non- profit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> organization and applied. RS gave two grants the year >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they applied, one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> went >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to NLR. The grant covered all but $27,000 of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> $300,000. So NLR had to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pay >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RS $27,000 to have access to the software to create the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stone. This means they had to create the lessons and pay >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speakers and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> informants themselves. RS provided the software, a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> photographer, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> technical support for the $27,000. NLR now is the only >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> group that can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sell >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone, which they do for $150 per license >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and $200 for a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> personal box set. It is not clear if they have to pay RS >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a percentage of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those revenues or not. When I asked a clear answer wasn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> given. NLR >>>>>>>>>>> also >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has a "training" session for administrators and teachers >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which costs >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> $1500 a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> day and $400 per 3 hours. Needless to say, it is not un- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> controversial in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community for many of the usual reasons. Ironically, the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speaker after >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rosetta Stone folks gave a talk that demonstrated how to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> create nearly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> identical language lessons as Rosetta Stone's simply >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using power point. >>>>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was encouraged to let folks know that they should contact >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the NLR if >>>>>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have any questions at mbittinger at rosettastone.com. You >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can try a free >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introductory lesson here >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ The >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> folks >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at NLR praised RS for their efforts and felt they had >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really done them a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> service. In short, they were very happy with the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arrangement and how it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> working out. They were also upset by the controversies >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> surrounding the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone and felt they were really the result >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> misunderstanding and misguided assumptions. One finally >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thing, they did >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seem >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to think that it was not a pancea, but rather another >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> useful tool in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language revitalization efforts. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shannon >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Haifa University >>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa >>>>>>>>>> University >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> Lise Menn Home Office: 303-444-4274 >>> 1625 Mariposa Ave Fax: 303-413-0017 >>> Boulder CO 80302 >>> home page: http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/ >>> >>> Professor Emerita of Linguistics >>> Fellow, Institute of Cognitive Science >>> University of Colorado >>> >>> Secretary, AAAS Section Z [Linguistics] >>> Fellow, Linguistic Society of America >>> >>> Campus Mail Address: >>> UCB 594, Institute for Cognitive Science >>> >>> Campus Physical Address: >>> CINC 234 >>> 1777 Exposition Ave, Boulder >>> >>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> Dan I. Slobin >> Professor Emeritus of Psychology and Linguistics >> >> Department of Psychology email: slobin at berkeley.edu >> 3210 Tolman #1650 phone (Dept): 1-510-642-5292 >> University of California phone (home): 1-510-848-1769 >> Berkeley, CA 94720-1650, USA fax: 1-510-642-5293 >> http://psychology.berkeley.edu/faculty/profiles/dslobin.html >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> > From dan at daneverett.org Thu Feb 10 15:14:27 2011 From: dan at daneverett.org (Daniel Everett) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 10:14:27 -0500 Subject: New work by Steve Piantadosi Message-ID: Steve Piantadosi is part of the team now beginning work on Piraha. I think that this work is exciting and it certainly seems relevant to the readers of this list. Dan http://web.mit.edu/ http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2011/words-count-0210.html There is also an article in Nature News on this work: http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110124/full/news.2011.40.html From john at research.haifa.ac.il Thu Feb 10 15:22:35 2011 From: john at research.haifa.ac.il (john at research.haifa.ac.il) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 17:22:35 +0200 Subject: Roseta Stone: Redux In-Reply-To: <4D53B8BA.6040309@ruc.dk> Message-ID: Actually, Hartmut, if you're a linguist who's been studying Danish for almost 40 years and you can't even figure out how to DESCRIBE stod phonetically, don't you think this is pretty good evidence that it would be a significant problem for language learners? Best wishes, John Quoting Hartmut Haberland : > The occurrence of /st?d/ (it is not quite clear how to describe it > phonetically) in Danish has given rise to much mystification, but it is > certainly not the source of any allophony and, besides, its functional > load is close to zero. Many Danish speakers don't have it and it never > gives rise to serious ambiguities (the standard example is /mor/ > 'mother' vs. /mord/ 'murder', the second one with /st?d/, usually > disambiguated in context - except in puns, of course). On the other > hand, the Danish vowel system is rather complex with 25 phonemes in > stressed syllables plus two shwa phonemes. On top of that there are 19 > 'short' and 19 'long' diphthongs. And some allophonic variation, plus > frequent full assimilation of shwa to adjacent sonorants. > > K?benhavn in relaxed everyday speech has still three syllables, but the > second one is a syllabic [m]. > > As to the Danish spelling system, it may be "antiquated", but still > much less so than the English one. While it is very difficult to read an > English text aloud (in a comprehensible way) without having undstood the > content, this is not nearly as difficult with a Danish text. Of course, > Danish spelling is not nearly as systematic visa`-vis the sounds as, > e.g. Czech or Finnish (or even German), and there are a few irritating > homographs which are not homophones (steg 'roast (of meat)' almost > sounds like English 'sty', and steg 'climbed' almost like English > 'stay'), but it is much less antiquated as English spelling. (English > almosts sides with Arabic and Hebrew, although I admit that there are > vowel letters in English. But they contain pretty little information > about vowel quality and mark mostly /where/ the vowel phonemes are, not > /what/ vowels they represent.) Children with English as their first > langauge should have much more problems learning to read and write than > Danish ones. > > Hartmut Haberland > (not a native speaker of Danish, but still learning after almost 40 years) > > Den 10-02-2011 09:19, john at research.haifa.ac.il skrev: > > Delays in the acquisition of SPOKEN Danish would presumably be due not to > the > > vowels (which are similar to other Scandinavian languages and much less > > typologically peculiar than e.g. Dutch and some southern USA dialects) but > to > > the rampant glottalization processe which really are typologically bizarre > and > > which is the main source of complex allophony. It's the same idea as the > > American pronunciation of 'button' or 'mountain' (with no vowel in the > second > > syllable but rather a syllabic n with a glottal stop before) except that it > > occurs not just with alveolar+alveolar but with all combinations and the > nasal > > isn't syllabic but combined with the preceding consonant in one or another > way. > > The Danish pronunciation of 'Copenhagen' in natural speech sounds to me > like > > it's just two syllables long. When I was working on Circassian (the dialect > > here has about 60 phonemes, mostly due to double and triple articulations) > I > > got the same feeling that somewhere along the way native speakers had > decided > > that it was normal to take neighboring consonantal articulations, even in > the > > next syllable, and just say them all at the same time. Delays in the > > acquisition of WRITTEN Danish, on the other hand, are undoubtedly due to > the > > antiquated spelling system, which has essentially never been updated. This > is > > conceptually a separate problem, although they are related in the sense > that > > many of the counterintuitive spellings are the product of the same > historical > > process which produced the glottalization processes. > > There is no question that the greater difficulty of learning some languages > is a > > serious problem for some language revival programs. I see much more hope > for > > reviving Algonquian languages than for reviving Athabascan languages (and > > Polynesian languages would be a comparative cinch). I suppose that members > of > > the groups might recognize this and 'dumb down' the languages in one way or > > another (making the morphophonemics simpler, eliminating phonemic contrasts > > when one of the sounds is really hard to pronounce, etc.), but obviously > this > > is their decision. > > John > > > > Quoting Elena Lieven: > > > >> Dan is right. Of course it depends what is meant by 'acquiring a > >> language'. The skills of highly educated people or public speakers and > >> great story tellers in oral cultures will not necessarily be acquired by > >> all members of a community. Ewa Dabrowska has shown this for some > >> aspects of case morphology in Polish and for passives and quantifer > >> scope in English - both studies of adult native speakers > >> elena lieven > >> > >> Dan I. Slobin wrote: > >>> A few responses to previous postings: > >>> > >>> Yes, languages with transparent and consistent agglutinative > >>> morphology, in the verbal or nominal systems, allow for rapid > >>> acquisition, with some productive inflections at the one-word stage. > >>> Turkish morphology, having virtually no irregular patterns, is quite > >>> securely mastered by age 3 at the latest, and often much earlier. > >>> And, in general, complex morphology, of various types, presents no > >>> serious problems with regard to acquisition of the basic grammar of > >>> the relevant constructions. For details of successful early > >>> acquistion of morphology in a number of such "complex"languages see > >>> volumes of my crosslinguistic series: Vol. 1 (Hebrew, Polish, > >>> Turkish), Vol. 2 (Hungarian), Vol. 3 (Georgian, West Greenlandic, > >>> K'iche' Maya, Warlpiri, Sesotho), Vol. 4 (Estonian, Finnish, Korean). > >>> Comparable findings are available for the acquisition of Inuktitut, > >>> Tzeltal, Tzotzil,Yucatec Maya, Hindi, Tamil, and others. What > >>> children find difficult--as do inguists--are multiply-determined > >>> and/or unpredictable morphophonological patterns. > >>> > >>> So it depends on what you want to credit as "total acquisition" or > >>> "completion of acquisition." An English-speaking 10-year-old can > >>> fluently produce a range of syntactic structures, in various genres > >>> and registers, without having mastered all of the irregular verb forms > >>> and a number of subordinate syntactic constructions. Furthermore, > >>> remember that a bility to produce a pattern in some contexts is far > >>> from commanding its full range of semantic and pragmatic functions. > >>> And when all of you Funknetters became undergraduate and graduate > >>> students, and later professionals, you were still acquiring many > >>> aspects of English grammar, vocabulary, and style. Indeed, it goes on > >>> throughout the lifespan of an engaged individual. > >>> > >>> There are no established criteria for full mastery, but there are > >>> numerous studies, in all five of the crosslinguistic volumes and > >>> elsewhere, of prolonged acquisition of various parts of a linguistic > >>> system. > >>> > >>> As noted, I've written about the error of expecting early child > >>> language to mirror pidgins. > >>> > >>> Best, > >>> > >>> Dan (with references following, many of mine available for download at > >>> http://psychology.berkeley.edu/faculty/profiles/dslobin.html > >>> Slobin, D. I. (1985, 1992, 1997). The crosslinguistic study of > >>> language acquisition. Vol. 1: The Data (1985); Vol. 2: Theoretical > >>> issues (1985); Vol. 3 (1992); Vol. 4 (1997); Vol. 5: Expanding the > >>> contexts (1997). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. > >>> Slobin, D. I. (2004). From ontogenesis to phylogenesis: What can > >>> child language tell us about language evolution? In J. Langer, S. T. > >>> Parker,& C. Milbrath (Eds.), Biology and Knowledge revisited: From > >>> neurogenesis to psychogenesis (pp. 255-285). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence > >>> Erlbaum Associates. > >>> > >>> > >>> At 03:00 PM 2/9/2011, Lise Menn wrote: > >>>> that's right. And child language and pidgin aren't the same, in any > >>>> case, for any language I know about, any more than any of them are > >>>> telegrams. But there are arcane reaches of languages that most people > >>>> don't learn, confounding the definition of what 'acquire' means: > >>>> Japanese honorifics and noun classifiers have elegant refinements, > >>>> crafts and professions have jargons... > >>>> > >>>> On Feb 9, 2011, at 1:50 PM, A. Katz wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> I seem to recall that in "The Evolution of Language Out of Pre- > >>>>> Language" Dan Slobin had a sort of dissenting article at the end in > >>>>> which he mentioned that Turkish children use grammatical morphology > >>>>> at the one word level, so that they are never actually speaking a > >>>>> pidgin Turkish at any point in their language development. > >>>>> > >>>>> --Aya > >>>>> > >>>>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Craig Hancock wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Brian, > >>>>>> This strikes as a bit like Lake Woebegone (Where all the children > >>>>>> are above average). > >>>>>> > >>>>>> normal Danish children all learn good Danish and become fluent > >>>>>> readers > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Is acquiring a language totally separate from the uses of that > >>>>>> language? Are we just acquiring the forms and then differing in our > >>>>>> ability to put them to use or are the uses themselves a major part > >>>>>> of what we are acquiring? Are lexicon and syntax wholly separate, > >>>>>> or do we go on acquiring the lexico-grammar as we enter more deeply > >>>>>> into adult worlds of discourse? > >>>>>> Anyone in literacy education knows that too many American > >>>>>> children fail to reach high levels of fluency as readers and > >>>>>> writers. Doesn't that somehow mean they have failed to acquire the > >>>>>> language? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Craig > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On 2/9/2011 2:04 PM, Brian MacWhinney wrote: > >>>>>>> Fritz, > >>>>>>> There are studies in places like the Journal of Child Language by > >>>>>>> Dorthe Bleses, Hans Basb?l, and colleagues at Southern Denmark > >>>>>>> University on the delay of the acquisition of Danish phonology in > >>>>>>> comparison to other European languages, mostly attributed to the > >>>>>>> complexities of the vowel system and the various assimilatory > >>>>>>> processes. There is a corresponding delay in the acquisition of > >>>>>>> reading by Danish children that was observed in the cross-European > >>>>>>> PISA project. All of this is well documented in the literature, > >>>>>>> but it is rather marginal and transitory. Eventually, normal > >>>>>>> Danish children all learn good Danish and become fluent readers. > >>>>>>> -- Brian MacWhinney > >>>>>>> On Feb 9, 2011, at 1:27 PM, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > >>>>>>>> A propos, are there any published studies out there that point to > >>>>>>>> measurable difference in rate of completion of first-language > >>>>>>>> acquisition by speakers of one language compared to another? Or > >>>>>>>> even of mastery of one aspect of L1 acquisition (phonology, > >>>>>>>> morphology, etc.) by speakers of one language compared to another? > >>>>>>>> --fritz > >>>>>>>> Frederick J. Newmeyer > >>>>>>>> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > >>>>>>>> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon > >>>>>>>> Fraser University > >>>>>>>> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > >>>>>>>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, A. Katz wrote: > >>>>>>>>> Tom, > >>>>>>>>> If the language is dying, then the advice not to listen to > >>>>>>>>> somebody under forty because they don't know how to speak may be > >>>>>>>>> sound, but not for the reason that you suggest. It could be > >>>>>>>>> there are no fluent speakers under forty. It seems very unlikely > >>>>>>>>> that one would have to arrive at age forty before acquiring > >>>>>>>>> fluency, especially in a hunter gatherer culture where death > >>>>>>>>> before forty might be quite common. > >>>>>>>>> But if you have evidence to the contrary that fully immersed, > >>>>>>>>> monolingual young speakers of a language cannot speak it with > >>>>>>>>> communicative effect until age forty, then this is a big > >>>>>>>>> discovery that ought to be published and shared with the > >>>>>>>>> scientific community. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> --Aya > >>>>>>>>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> Right on, John. And one could make a prediction--hopefully > >>>>>>>>>> someday to be tested by acquisition studies--that Navajo kids > >>>>>>>>>> will not master the fully complexcity of the Athabaskan verb by > >>>>>>>>>> age 10, or 15, or 20. I once reviewed a grammar in Papua New > >>>>>>>>>> Guniea of a language that had comparable complexity on the verb > >>>>>>>>>> (three positions, 6-8 categoriers each, massive zeroing& > >>>>>>>>>> morphonemic). I had to ask Carle Whitehead--is this guy for > >>>>>>>>>> real? He said, yes, he's been in the island for 20 years, > >>>>>>>>>> really knows his stuff. So I asked the guy--at what age are > >>>>>>>>>> kids considered fuill-fledged speakers? He said-- the old > >>>>>>>>>> people say, don't listen to anybody under forty, they don't > >>>>>>>>>> know how to speak. In my work with the Utes, one exchange has > >>>>>>>>>> stuck out, an elder (ka-para'ni-wa-t, he's not walking about > >>>>>>>>>> any more) who was pointed to me as the best orator in the > >>>>>>>>>> tribe. I told him that, and he said: "Oh, I am nothing. You > >>>>>>>>>> should have heard the Old Ones; when they spoke, you could see > >>>>>>>>>> it all in front of your eyes". Part of it is due to the complex > >>>>>>>>>> Ute deictic system, which invades NPs, ADVs& the verb. The > >>>>>>>>>> combinations, and the subtle choices of when to combine the > >>>>>>>>>> deictic particle with other categories, are a whole wond(e)rous > >>>>>>>>>> world. Cheers, TG > >>>>>>>>>> ========== > >>>>>>>>>> On 2/9/2011 10:13 AM, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> Aya, > >>>>>>>>>>> I think I was the one who said first that Navajo is not a > >>>>>>>>>>> language for > >>>>>>>>>>> amateurs. I'll second what Tom said--you should learn something > >>>>>>>>>>> about Navajo (or some other Athabaskan language) before making > >>>>>>>>>>> statements like this. Some languages are just plain > >>>>>>>>>>> objectively harder than > >>>>>>>>>>> others, regardless of typological similarly to one's native > >>>>>>>>>>> language. If you > >>>>>>>>>>> don't believe this, do an experiment in which you take > >>>>>>>>>>> speakers of English, > >>>>>>>>>>> Turkish, Georgian, Chinese, whatever you want, try to teach > >>>>>>>>>>> them Navajo, Hopi, > >>>>>>>>>>> and Cree (for example), and see which one gives them the most > >>>>>>>>>>> trouble. > >>>>>>>>>>> I guarantee it will be Navajo. And there is an objective > >>>>>>>>>>> reason for it-- > >>>>>>>>>>> the morphophonemics are just unbelievably complex. > >>>>>>>>>>> John > >>>>>>>>>>> Quoting "A. Katz": > >>>>>>>>>>>> Tom, > >>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think that is a valid viewpoint with regard to > >>>>>>>>>>>> Athabaskan or any > >>>>>>>>>>>> other language family. > >>>>>>>>>>>> Victor Golla earlier had a much better phrasing when he wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> "Let that read: "A language that is not for amateurs is not for > >>>>>>>>>>>> ADULT people."" > >>>>>>>>>>>> But in fact no language is easy for adults to learn who have > >>>>>>>>>>>> not already > >>>>>>>>>>>> learned a language with a similar typology. If your native > >>>>>>>>>>>> language works > >>>>>>>>>>>> similarly to the one you are learning, then you have an > >>>>>>>>>>>> enormous advantage > >>>>>>>>>>>> as an adult second language learner. > >>>>>>>>>>>> The remark about how Navajo is not for amateurs was made in > >>>>>>>>>>>> the context of > >>>>>>>>>>>> people who have no experience with languages of a similar > >>>>>>>>>>>> typology. > >>>>>>>>>>>> To make this a universal statement about the difficulty of > >>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo without > >>>>>>>>>>>> qualification is to suggest that some languages are "easy" > >>>>>>>>>>>> and others are > >>>>>>>>>>>> "impossible". Not only is this not true from an objective > >>>>>>>>>>>> standpoint, it > >>>>>>>>>>>> also perpetuates the prejudice that English (or IE) is a > >>>>>>>>>>>> "normal" language > >>>>>>>>>>>> and that every language should be measured against this norm. > >>>>>>>>>>>> Best, > >>>>>>>>>>>> --Aya > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Before you actually tried to learn an Athabaskan language, > >>>>>>>>>>>>> or at the very > >>>>>>>>>>>>> least worked on one, maybe you had better refrain from > >>>>>>>>>>>>> asserting that "a > >>>>>>>>>>>>> language that is not for amateurs is not for people". TG > >>>>>>>>>>>>> ========= > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/8/2011 6:33 AM, A. Katz wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> A language that is not for amateurs is not for people. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> This has nothing to do with RS or computer language > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> teaching. As others > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> have stated, the technologically based systems are not a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> panacea. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> But a language that ordinary people can't pick by talking > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to their parents > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in childhood is either dead already or not a human language. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> --Aya > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would be amazed if a single person actually learns to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speak Navajo > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using Rosetta Stone. This is not a language for amateurs. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> John > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Quoting "s.t. bischoff": > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Over the last week I was involved with an event at the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> American Indian > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Language Development Institute and the folks that created > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Navajo > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rosetta > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stone gave a short talk about the software. What follows > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is my > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of how it came to be. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Navajo Rosetta Stones was created in collaboration > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with Rosetta > >>>>>>>>>>>> Stone > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the non-profit Navajo Language Renaissance (NLR). NLR > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a > >>>>>>>>>>>> non-profit > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> organization that is NOT affiliated with the tribal > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> council or > >>>>>>>>>>>> government > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any way, for obvious reasons I think (e.g. getting > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> council approval for > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> project). However, it has been endorsed by the school > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> leadership and NLR > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actively trying to get the school district to adopt the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> software. You > >>>>>>>>>>>> can > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> view the NLR website here > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ A > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-community member started NLR after using Rosetta > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stone to learn > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Russian. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> She thought it would be good if Rosetta Stone created a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo version. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> She > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contacted Rosetta Stone (RS), and they told her they > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would provide here > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the software to develop the lessons, a photographer, and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> technical > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assistants (limited on the ground, mostly by phone) to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> develop the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> program > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for $300,000. Another option would be for her to apply > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for a grant from > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RS > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to cover most of the costs. So the NLR was created, a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> partnership > >>>>>>>>>>>> between > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community members and one non-community member, as a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non- profit > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> organization and applied. RS gave two grants the year > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they applied, one > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> went > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to NLR. The grant covered all but $27,000 of the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> $300,000. So NLR had to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pay > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RS $27,000 to have access to the software to create the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stone. This means they had to create the lessons and pay > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speakers and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> informants themselves. RS provided the software, a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> photographer, and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> technical support for the $27,000. NLR now is the only > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> group that can > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sell > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone, which they do for $150 per license > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and $200 for a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> personal box set. It is not clear if they have to pay RS > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a percentage of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those revenues or not. When I asked a clear answer wasn't > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> given. NLR > >>>>>>>>>>>> also > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has a "training" session for administrators and teachers > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which costs > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> $1500 a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> day and $400 per 3 hours. Needless to say, it is not un- > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> controversial in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community for many of the usual reasons. Ironically, the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speaker after > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rosetta Stone folks gave a talk that demonstrated how to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> create nearly > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> identical language lessons as Rosetta Stone's simply > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using power point. > >>>>>>>>>>>> I > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was encouraged to let folks know that they should contact > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the NLR if > >>>>>>>>>>>> they > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have any questions at mbittinger at rosettastone.com. You > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can try a free > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introductory lesson here > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ The > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> folks > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at NLR praised RS for their efforts and felt they had > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really done them a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> service. In short, they were very happy with the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arrangement and how it > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> working out. They were also upset by the controversies > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> surrounding the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone and felt they were really the result > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> misunderstanding and misguided assumptions. One finally > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thing, they did > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seem > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to think that it was not a pancea, but rather another > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> useful tool in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language revitalization efforts. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shannon > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Haifa University > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>>>>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > >>>>>>>>>>> University > >>>>>> > >>>> Lise Menn Home Office: 303-444-4274 > >>>> 1625 Mariposa Ave Fax: 303-413-0017 > >>>> Boulder CO 80302 > >>>> home page: http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/ > >>>> > >>>> Professor Emerita of Linguistics > >>>> Fellow, Institute of Cognitive Science > >>>> University of Colorado > >>>> > >>>> Secretary, AAAS Section Z [Linguistics] > >>>> Fellow, Linguistic Society of America > >>>> > >>>> Campus Mail Address: > >>>> UCB 594, Institute for Cognitive Science > >>>> > >>>> Campus Physical Address: > >>>> CINC 234 > >>>> 1777 Exposition Ave, Boulder > >>>> > >>>> > >>> Dan I. Slobin > >>> Professor Emeritus of Psychology and Linguistics > >>> > >>> Department of Psychology email: slobin at berkeley.edu > >>> 3210 Tolman #1650 phone (Dept): 1-510-642-5292 > >>> University of California phone (home): 1-510-848-1769 > >>> Berkeley, CA 94720-1650, USA fax: 1-510-642-5293 > >>> http://psychology.berkeley.edu/faculty/profiles/dslobin.html > >>> > >>> > >> -- > >> Elena Lieven > >> Department of Developmental and Comparative Psychology > >> Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology > >> Deutscher Platz 6 > >> D-04103 Leipzig > >> Germany > >> > >> Tel.+49-(0)341-3550 404 > >> +49-(0)341-3550 400 (Department Coordinator: Henriette Zeidler) > >> Fax.+49-(0)341-3550 444 > >> > >> and > >> > >> Max Planck Child Study Centre > >> School of Psychological Sciences > >> University of Manchester > >> Manchester M13 9PL > >> UK > >> > >> Tel.+44-(0)161-275 2580 > >> +44-(0)161-275 2444 (Research Secretary: Mickie Glover) > >> Fax.+44-(0)161-275 8587 > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University From hancock at albany.edu Thu Feb 10 15:35:39 2011 From: hancock at albany.edu (Craig Hancock) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 10:35:39 -0500 Subject: Roseta Stone: Redux In-Reply-To: <9B8BABED-AAD9-45D5-A503-0F9BEF0FA04D@unm.edu> Message-ID: On 2/9/2011 11:15 PM, Sherman Wilcox wrote: Sherman, I think Hemingway was being a bit disingenuous with "getting the words right," a bit like a cook saying he wanted to "get the ingredients right" in a recipe. It's a flip answer, for whatever reasons. The words have everything to do with each other and with the functional pressure of the whole novel at that critical, concluding point. He had to pay attention to plot resolution (or resistance to that), point-of-view (a constant attention in fiction), to staying within character (though characters are often dynamic), to getting the conversation right (character speaking the way characters speak), and so on. Fiction may draw on elements of language very common to speech, but it puts them to work in very careful ways. Some of the patterns are obvious: past tense verbs, perfect aspect verbs, present participle clauses, personal pronouns (1st and/or 3rd person, depending on the narration), synthetic negation, public verbs (speech act verbs). Both present tense verbs and "attributive adjectives" correlate negatively (see Biber, Dimensions of Register Variation, 1995). The lack of adjectives is probably driven by less complex nominalization, especially in comparison to news writing and academic writing, which are both heavily nominalized. The work of the story pressures an appropriate language. In this case, fluency means responding appropriately to that pressure, developing one's craft over considerable time. Craig > On Feb 9, 2011, at 8:53 PM, Dan I. Slobin wrote: > >> And when all of you Funknetters became undergraduate and graduate students, and later professionals, you were still acquiring many aspects of English grammar, vocabulary, and style. Indeed, it goes on throughout the lifespan of an engaged individual. > > Okay, so writing isn't the same as speaking. Nevertheless, I think this interview with Ernest Hemingway is relevant: > > Interviewer: How much rewriting do you do? > > Hemingway: It depends. I rewrote the ending of "Farewell to Arms," the last page of it, 39 times before I was satisfied. > > Interviewer: Was there some technical problem there? What was it that had stumped you? > > Hemingway: Getting the words right. > > From wilcox at unm.edu Thu Feb 10 16:55:59 2011 From: wilcox at unm.edu (Sherman Wilcox) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 09:55:59 -0700 Subject: Roseta Stone: Redux In-Reply-To: <4D5405CB.4030603@albany.edu> Message-ID: On Feb 10, 2011, at 8:35 AM, Craig Hancock wrote: > I think Hemingway was being a bit disingenuous with "getting the words right," I don't know if he was being disingenuous. Mostly, I just thought it was a nice quote that reinforced, in a slightly different way, the point Dan was making. Here's another one that I love about the craft of writing: "If it sounds like writing, I rewrite it." (Elmore Leonard, Newsweek, April 22, 1985) -- Sherman From bischoff.st at gmail.com Thu Feb 10 18:01:28 2011 From: bischoff.st at gmail.com (s.t. bischoff) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 13:01:28 -0500 Subject: stochastic learning Message-ID: Can anyone provide me with a concise and clear definition of "stochastic learning"? I find I am having difficulty getting the idea across to my students...which suggests I haven't quite got it right myself. Cheers, Shannon From hancock at albany.edu Thu Feb 10 18:04:13 2011 From: hancock at albany.edu (Craig Hancock) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 13:04:13 -0500 Subject: Roseta Stone: Redux In-Reply-To: <51C30422-F8D9-41F8-B80C-DE42A5DC63BB@unm.edu> Message-ID: Sherman, These are great quotes. I apprenticed under the late, great Don Murray ("A Writer Teaches Writing," among other texts), one of the fathers of the process movement in composition, who was a great compiler of these sorts of statements by writers about writing. One main point Murray always made was not just that writers revise (as they do), but that revising is a kind of REVISION, not merely a stylistic tidying up or overlay. One changes the words, phrases, clauses, sentences primarily because the work/goal of the writing requires it. Writing is hard because meaning is hard and human contact is hard. A sentence is not a "complete thought," but a move in a series of related moves. It carries forward the larger goals of the text, including different kinds of coherence. What you find, over time, is that different purposes pressure the language differently. Elmore Leonard, as detective novelist, cultivated that sort of no bullshit spoken style for his noir world and his no-nonsense protagonists. It's nice to know that there can be value in bringing writing back toward speech. At the same time, academic writing, writing in the technical fields, has other kinds of pressure, most notably toward a technical vocabulary (and a high level of nominalization.) This can certainly be made more accessible at times, but good technical writing differs in very predictable ways from speech. The general point, I guess, as a number of people have said, is that acquiring a language is a lifetime process. It could very well be that the language itself is evolving to allow us to accomplish new kinds of work in the modern world. A good writer doesn't simply acquire it, but stretches it into accomplishing new things. I think functional approaches to language have the potential to enrich our understanding of literacy. The bad news is that English teachers have drifted away from teaching/understanding language, in part because of the belief that language is primarily formal and that acquisition is inevitable. Craig On 2/10/2011 11:55 AM, Sherman Wilcox wrote: > On Feb 10, 2011, at 8:35 AM, Craig Hancock wrote: > >> I think Hemingway was being a bit disingenuous with "getting the words right," > I don't know if he was being disingenuous. Mostly, I just thought it was a nice quote that reinforced, in a slightly different way, the point Dan was making. Here's another one that I love about the craft of writing: > > "If it sounds like writing, I rewrite it." (Elmore Leonard, Newsweek, April 22, 1985) > From bischoff.st at gmail.com Thu Feb 10 18:23:06 2011 From: bischoff.st at gmail.com (s.t. bischoff) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 13:23:06 -0500 Subject: FUNKNET Digest, Vol 89, Issue 8 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: The April 2010 volume of Science had several articles on language...mostly about literacy and scienentific comprehension. One article of note was the following (the abstract follows) Academic Language and the Challenge of Reading for Learning About Science A major challenge to students learning science is the academic language in which science is written. Academic language is designed to be concise, precise, and authoritative. To achieve these goals, it uses sophisticated words and complex grammatical constructions that can disrupt reading comprehension and block learning. Students need help in learning academic vocabulary and how to process academic language if they are to become independent learners of science. At the time this made me wonder if our "notion" of fluency is perhaps a bit skewed...in regards to the languages mentioned earlier, I wonder if it would be fare to say don't listen to an English speaking scientist under 40...despite years of training I still struggle at times to follow the discourse of well meaning academics...though I have noticed a continued improvement in both my ability to understand and use the language over the years... Cheers, Shannon On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 1:00 PM, wrote: > Send FUNKNET mailing list submissions to > funknet at mailman.rice.edu > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/funknet > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > funknet-request at mailman.rice.edu > > You can reach the person managing the list at > funknet-owner at mailman.rice.edu > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of FUNKNET digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Roseta Stone: Redux (A. Katz) > 2. Re: Roseta Stone: Redux (A. Katz) > 3. Survival International Interview (Daniel Everett) > 4. forward from Vic Golla (Tom Givon) > 5. Re: Roseta Stone: Redux (Frederick J Newmeyer) > 6. Re: Roseta Stone: Redux (Tom Givon) > 7. Non-fluent native speakers of Navajo (Marc Ettlinger) > 8. Re: Roseta Stone: Redux (A. Katz) > 9. Re: Roseta Stone: Redux (A. Katz) > 10. Re: Roseta Stone: Redux (Brian MacWhinney) > 11. Re: Roseta Stone: Redux (Tom Givon) > 12. Re: Roseta Stone: Redux (Craig Hancock) > 13. Re: Roseta Stone: Redux (Geoffrey Steven Nathan) > 14. Re: Roseta Stone: Redux (A. Katz) > 15. Re: Roseta Stone: Redux (Alex Walker) > 16. Re: Roseta Stone: Redux (Lise Menn) > 17. 1-year lecturer position in lab phonetics/phonology at Rice U > (Robert Englebretson) > 18. Re: Roseta Stone: Redux (Dan I. Slobin) > 19. Re: Roseta Stone: Redux (Sherman Wilcox) > 20. Re: Roseta Stone: Redux (Elena Lieven) > 21. Re: Roseta Stone: Redux (john at research.haifa.ac.il) > 22. Re: Roseta Stone: Redux (Hartmut Haberland) > 23. Re: Roseta Stone: Redux (john at research.haifa.ac.il) > 24. Re: Roseta Stone: Redux (Craig Hancock) > 25. New work by Steve Piantadosi (Daniel Everett) > 26. Re: Roseta Stone: Redux (john at research.haifa.ac.il) > 27. Re: Roseta Stone: Redux (Craig Hancock) > 28. Re: Roseta Stone: Redux (Sherman Wilcox) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 10:03:58 -0800 (PST) > From: "A. Katz" > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Roseta Stone: Redux > To: john at research.haifa.ac.il > Cc: Tom Givon , funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Message-ID: > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed > > John, > > So do you think that having extremely complex morphophonemics is not a > typological trait for a language? If so, what do you think it is instead? > > --Aya > > > > On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > > > Aya, > > I think I was the one who said first that Navajo is not a language for > > amateurs. I'll second what Tom said--you should learn something > > about Navajo (or some other Athabaskan language) before making > > statements like this. Some languages are just plain objectively harder > than > > others, regardless of typological similarly to one's native language. If > you > > don't believe this, do an experiment in which you take speakers of > English, > > Turkish, Georgian, Chinese, whatever you want, try to teach them Navajo, > Hopi, > > and Cree (for example), and see which one gives them the most trouble. > > I guarantee it will be Navajo. And there is an objective reason for it-- > > the morphophonemics are just unbelievably complex. > > John > > > > > > > > > > > > Quoting "A. Katz" : > > > >> Tom, > >> > >> I don't think that is a valid viewpoint with regard to Athabaskan or any > >> other language family. > >> > >> Victor Golla earlier had a much better phrasing when he wrote: > >> > >> "Let that read: "A language that is not for amateurs is not for > >> ADULT people."" > >> > >> But in fact no language is easy for adults to learn who have not already > >> learned a language with a similar typology. If your native language > works > >> similarly to the one you are learning, then you have an enormous > advantage > >> as an adult second language learner. > >> > >> The remark about how Navajo is not for amateurs was made in the context > of > >> people who have no experience with languages of a similar typology. > >> To make this a universal statement about the difficulty of Navajo > without > >> qualification is to suggest that some languages are "easy" and others > are > >> "impossible". Not only is this not true from an objective standpoint, it > >> also perpetuates the prejudice that English (or IE) is a "normal" > language > >> and that every language should be measured against this norm. > >> > >> Best, > >> > >> --Aya > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> > >>> Before you actually tried to learn an Athabaskan language, or at the > very > >>> least worked on one, maybe you had better refrain from asserting that > "a > >>> language that is not for amateurs is not for people". TG > >>> > >>> ========= > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On 2/8/2011 6:33 AM, A. Katz wrote: > >>>> A language that is not for amateurs is not for people. > >>>> > >>>> This has nothing to do with RS or computer language teaching. As > others > >>>> have stated, the technologically based systems are not a panacea. > >>>> > >>>> But a language that ordinary people can't pick by talking to their > parents > >>>> in childhood is either dead already or not a human language. > >>>> > >>>> --Aya > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> I would be amazed if a single person actually learns to speak Navajo > >>>>> using Rosetta Stone. This is not a language for amateurs. > >>>>> John > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Quoting "s.t. bischoff" : > >>>>> > >>>>>> Hi all, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Over the last week I was involved with an event at the American > Indian > >>>>>> Language Development Institute and the folks that created the Navajo > >>>>>> Rosetta > >>>>>> Stone gave a short talk about the software. What follows is my > >>>>>> understanding > >>>>>> of how it came to be. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The Navajo Rosetta Stones was created in collaboration with Rosetta > >> Stone > >>>>>> and the non-profit Navajo Language Renaissance (NLR). NLR is a > >> non-profit > >>>>>> organization that is NOT affiliated with the tribal council or > >> government > >>>>>> in > >>>>>> any way, for obvious reasons I think (e.g. getting council approval > for > >>>>>> the > >>>>>> project). However, it has been endorsed by the school leadership and > NLR > >>>>>> is > >>>>>> actively trying to get the school district to adopt the software. > You > >> can > >>>>>> view the NLR website here http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ A > >>>>>> non-community member started NLR after using Rosetta Stone to learn > >>>>>> Russian. > >>>>>> She thought it would be good if Rosetta Stone created a Navajo > version. > >>>>>> She > >>>>>> contacted Rosetta Stone (RS), and they told her they would provide > here > >>>>>> with > >>>>>> the software to develop the lessons, a photographer, and technical > >>>>>> assistants (limited on the ground, mostly by phone) to develop the > >>>>>> program > >>>>>> for $300,000. Another option would be for her to apply for a grant > from > >>>>>> RS > >>>>>> to cover most of the costs. So the NLR was created, a partnership > >> between > >>>>>> community members and one non-community member, as a non-profit > >>>>>> organization and applied. RS gave two grants the year they applied, > one > >>>>>> went > >>>>>> to NLR. The grant covered all but $27,000 of the $300,000. So NLR > had to > >>>>>> pay > >>>>>> RS $27,000 to have access to the software to create the Navajo > Rosetta > >>>>>> Stone. This means they had to create the lessons and pay speakers > and > >>>>>> informants themselves. RS provided the software, a photographer, and > >>>>>> technical support for the $27,000. NLR now is the only group that > can > >>>>>> sell > >>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone, which they do for $150 per license and $200 > for a > >>>>>> personal box set. It is not clear if they have to pay RS a > percentage of > >>>>>> those revenues or not. When I asked a clear answer wasn't given. NLR > >> also > >>>>>> has a "training" session for administrators and teachers which costs > >>>>>> $1500 a > >>>>>> day and $400 per 3 hours. Needless to say, it is not > un-controversial in > >>>>>> the > >>>>>> community for many of the usual reasons. Ironically, the speaker > after > >>>>>> the > >>>>>> Rosetta Stone folks gave a talk that demonstrated how to create > nearly > >>>>>> identical language lessons as Rosetta Stone's simply using power > point. > >> I > >>>>>> was encouraged to let folks know that they should contact the NLR if > >> they > >>>>>> have any questions at mbittinger at rosettastone.com. You can try a > free > >>>>>> introductory lesson here http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/The > >>>>>> folks > >>>>>> at NLR praised RS for their efforts and felt they had really done > them a > >>>>>> service. In short, they were very happy with the arrangement and how > it > >>>>>> was > >>>>>> working out. They were also upset by the controversies surrounding > the > >>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone and felt they were really the result of a > >>>>>> misunderstanding and misguided assumptions. One finally thing, they > did > >>>>>> seem > >>>>>> to think that it was not a pancea, but rather another useful tool in > >>>>>> language revitalization efforts. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Cheers, > >>>>>> Shannon > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > University > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 10:10:14 -0800 (PST) > From: "A. Katz" > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Roseta Stone: Redux > To: Tom Givon > Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu, john at research.haifa.ac.il > Message-ID: > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed > > Tom, > > If the language is dying, then the advice not to listen to somebody under > forty because they don't know how to speak may be sound, but not for the > reason that you suggest. It could be there are no fluent speakers under > forty. It seems very unlikely that one would have to arrive at age forty > before acquiring fluency, especially in a hunter gatherer culture where > death before forty might be quite common. > > But if you have evidence to the contrary that fully immersed, monolingual > young speakers of a language cannot speak it with communicative effect > until age forty, then this is a big discovery that ought to be published > and shared with the scientific community. > > --Aya > > > On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: > > > > > > > > > Right on, John. And one could make a prediction--hopefully someday to be > > tested by acquisition studies--that Navajo kids will not master the fully > > complexcity of the Athabaskan verb by age 10, or 15, or 20. I once > reviewed a > > grammar in Papua New Guniea of a language that had comparable complexity > on > > the verb (three positions, 6-8 categoriers each, massive zeroing & > > morphonemic). I had to ask Carle Whitehead--is this guy for real? He > said, > > yes, he's been in the island for 20 years, really knows his stuff. So I > asked > > the guy--at what age are kids considered fuill-fledged speakers? He > said-- > > the old people say, don't listen to anybody under forty, they don't know > how > > to speak. In my work with the Utes, one exchange has stuck out, an elder > > (ka-para'ni-wa-t, he's not walking about any more) who was pointed to me > as > > the best orator in the tribe. I told him that, and he said: "Oh, I am > > nothing. You should have heard the Old Ones; when they spoke, you could > see > > it all in front of your eyes". Part of it is due to the complex Ute > deictic > > system, which invades NPs, ADVs & the verb. The combinations, and the > subtle > > choices of when to combine the deictic particle with other categories, > are a > > whole wond(e)rous world. Cheers, TG > > > > ========== > > > > > > > > On 2/9/2011 10:13 AM, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > >> Aya, > >> I think I was the one who said first that Navajo is not a language for > >> amateurs. I'll second what Tom said--you should learn something > >> about Navajo (or some other Athabaskan language) before making > >> statements like this. Some languages are just plain objectively harder > than > >> others, regardless of typological similarly to one's native language. If > >> you > >> don't believe this, do an experiment in which you take speakers of > English, > >> Turkish, Georgian, Chinese, whatever you want, try to teach them Navajo, > >> Hopi, > >> and Cree (for example), and see which one gives them the most trouble. > >> I guarantee it will be Navajo. And there is an objective reason for it-- > >> the morphophonemics are just unbelievably complex. > >> John > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Quoting "A. Katz": > >> > >>> Tom, > >>> > >>> I don't think that is a valid viewpoint with regard to Athabaskan or > any > >>> other language family. > >>> > >>> Victor Golla earlier had a much better phrasing when he wrote: > >>> > >>> "Let that read: "A language that is not for amateurs is not for > >>> ADULT people."" > >>> > >>> But in fact no language is easy for adults to learn who have not > already > >>> learned a language with a similar typology. If your native language > works > >>> similarly to the one you are learning, then you have an enormous > advantage > >>> as an adult second language learner. > >>> > >>> The remark about how Navajo is not for amateurs was made in the context > of > >>> people who have no experience with languages of a similar typology. > >>> To make this a universal statement about the difficulty of Navajo > without > >>> qualification is to suggest that some languages are "easy" and others > are > >>> "impossible". Not only is this not true from an objective standpoint, > it > >>> also perpetuates the prejudice that English (or IE) is a "normal" > language > >>> and that every language should be measured against this norm. > >>> > >>> Best, > >>> > >>> --Aya > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: > >>> > >>>> > >>>> Before you actually tried to learn an Athabaskan language, or at the > very > >>>> least worked on one, maybe you had better refrain from asserting that > "a > >>>> language that is not for amateurs is not for people". TG > >>>> > >>>> ========= > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On 2/8/2011 6:33 AM, A. Katz wrote: > >>>>> A language that is not for amateurs is not for people. > >>>>> > >>>>> This has nothing to do with RS or computer language teaching. As > others > >>>>> have stated, the technologically based systems are not a panacea. > >>>>> > >>>>> But a language that ordinary people can't pick by talking to their > >>>>> parents > >>>>> in childhood is either dead already or not a human language. > >>>>> > >>>>> --Aya > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> I would be amazed if a single person actually learns to speak Navajo > >>>>>> using Rosetta Stone. This is not a language for amateurs. > >>>>>> John > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Quoting "s.t. bischoff": > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Hi all, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Over the last week I was involved with an event at the American > Indian > >>>>>>> Language Development Institute and the folks that created the > Navajo > >>>>>>> Rosetta > >>>>>>> Stone gave a short talk about the software. What follows is my > >>>>>>> understanding > >>>>>>> of how it came to be. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> The Navajo Rosetta Stones was created in collaboration with Rosetta > >>> Stone > >>>>>>> and the non-profit Navajo Language Renaissance (NLR). NLR is a > >>> non-profit > >>>>>>> organization that is NOT affiliated with the tribal council or > >>> government > >>>>>>> in > >>>>>>> any way, for obvious reasons I think (e.g. getting council approval > >>>>>>> for > >>>>>>> the > >>>>>>> project). However, it has been endorsed by the school leadership > and > >>>>>>> NLR > >>>>>>> is > >>>>>>> actively trying to get the school district to adopt the software. > You > >>> can > >>>>>>> view the NLR website here http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/A > >>>>>>> non-community member started NLR after using Rosetta Stone to learn > >>>>>>> Russian. > >>>>>>> She thought it would be good if Rosetta Stone created a Navajo > >>>>>>> version. > >>>>>>> She > >>>>>>> contacted Rosetta Stone (RS), and they told her they would provide > >>>>>>> here > >>>>>>> with > >>>>>>> the software to develop the lessons, a photographer, and technical > >>>>>>> assistants (limited on the ground, mostly by phone) to develop the > >>>>>>> program > >>>>>>> for $300,000. Another option would be for her to apply for a grant > >>>>>>> from > >>>>>>> RS > >>>>>>> to cover most of the costs. So the NLR was created, a partnership > >>> between > >>>>>>> community members and one non-community member, as a non-profit > >>>>>>> organization and applied. RS gave two grants the year they applied, > >>>>>>> one > >>>>>>> went > >>>>>>> to NLR. The grant covered all but $27,000 of the $300,000. So NLR > had > >>>>>>> to > >>>>>>> pay > >>>>>>> RS $27,000 to have access to the software to create the Navajo > Rosetta > >>>>>>> Stone. This means they had to create the lessons and pay speakers > and > >>>>>>> informants themselves. RS provided the software, a photographer, > and > >>>>>>> technical support for the $27,000. NLR now is the only group that > can > >>>>>>> sell > >>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone, which they do for $150 per license and $200 > for > >>>>>>> a > >>>>>>> personal box set. It is not clear if they have to pay RS a > percentage > >>>>>>> of > >>>>>>> those revenues or not. When I asked a clear answer wasn't given. > NLR > >>> also > >>>>>>> has a "training" session for administrators and teachers which > costs > >>>>>>> $1500 a > >>>>>>> day and $400 per 3 hours. Needless to say, it is not > un-controversial > >>>>>>> in > >>>>>>> the > >>>>>>> community for many of the usual reasons. Ironically, the speaker > after > >>>>>>> the > >>>>>>> Rosetta Stone folks gave a talk that demonstrated how to create > nearly > >>>>>>> identical language lessons as Rosetta Stone's simply using power > >>>>>>> point. > >>> I > >>>>>>> was encouraged to let folks know that they should contact the NLR > if > >>> they > >>>>>>> have any questions at mbittinger at rosettastone.com. You can try a > free > >>>>>>> introductory lesson here http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/The > >>>>>>> folks > >>>>>>> at NLR praised RS for their efforts and felt they had really done > them > >>>>>>> a > >>>>>>> service. In short, they were very happy with the arrangement and > how > >>>>>>> it > >>>>>>> was > >>>>>>> working out. They were also upset by the controversies surrounding > the > >>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone and felt they were really the result of a > >>>>>>> misunderstanding and misguided assumptions. One finally thing, they > >>>>>>> did > >>>>>>> seem > >>>>>>> to think that it was not a pancea, but rather another useful tool > in > >>>>>>> language revitalization efforts. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Cheers, > >>>>>>> Shannon > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > >>>>>> University > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>> > >> > >> > >> > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 13:26:34 -0500 > From: Daniel Everett > Subject: [FUNKNET] Survival International Interview > To: Funknet Funknet > Message-ID: <438C38AE-ABAB-4933-9FBB-74D3DAA3226C at daneverett.org> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > http://www.survivalinternational.org/articles/3110 > > Survival International beginning a series of interviews with people who > are known to have contributed to this area and I am very proud to be the > first interview now featured on their site. > > I send it along in case you're interested. > > Dan > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2011 17:25:57 -0700 > From: Tom Givon > Subject: [FUNKNET] forward from Vic Golla > To: Funknet , golla at humboldt.edu > Message-ID: <4D51DF15.4070304 at uoregon.edu> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > > > Vic Golla has asked by to post this communication. My 5 years of working > on Tolowa pale in comparison with his lifetime with the Hupa. TG > > =============== > > > A language that is not for amateurs is not for people. > Let that read: "A language that is not for amateurs is not for > ADULT people." > > Whatever the neurological reality of the Critical Period, it is an > empirical fact that non-native speakers past puberty experience great > difficulty in acquiring anything resembling fluency in an Athabaskan > language. (That Ken Hale did so only proves the rule. The astoundingly > low incidence of true polyglotism deserves its own serious study.) > > Sapir called the Athabaskan languages the "son-of-a-bitchingest" > ever devised by humankind. No doubt, every ordinary Navajo child > who wants to can pick up Navajo as fast as your or my or Sapir's did > English, but God only knows how they do it. With Muriel Saville-Troike > the one, brave exception, acquisition researchers have largely > avoided Navajo, despite its obvious theoretical potential. (One suspects > that part of the problem is that such research requires some degree > of competence in the language of study. See above.) > > I must admit that it's been a while since I took a look at acquisition > studies (or the lack thereof) for Navajo or Athabaskan generally. > I would be delighted to hear that some well-designed studies have gotten > under way in the last decade. If not, they'd better hurry. Fewer than > 10% of Navajo kids *on the reservation* were speaking the language > the last time someone looked. > > --Victor Golla > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 10:27:25 -0800 (PST) > From: Frederick J Newmeyer > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Roseta Stone: Redux > To: "A. Katz" > Cc: Tom Givon , john at research.haifa.ac.il, Funknet > > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII > > A propos, are there any published studies out there that point to > measurable difference in rate of completion of first-language acquisition by > speakers of one language compared to another? Or even of mastery of one > aspect of L1 acquisition (phonology, morphology, etc.) by speakers of one > language compared to another? > > --fritz > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > University > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, A. Katz wrote: > > > Tom, > > > > If the language is dying, then the advice not to listen to somebody under > > forty because they don't know how to speak may be sound, but not for the > > reason that you suggest. It could be there are no fluent speakers under > > forty. It seems very unlikely that one would have to arrive at age forty > > before acquiring fluency, especially in a hunter gatherer culture where > death > > before forty might be quite common. > > > > But if you have evidence to the contrary that fully immersed, monolingual > > young speakers of a language cannot speak it with communicative effect > until > > age forty, then this is a big discovery that ought to be published and > shared > > with the scientific community. > > > > --Aya > > > > > > On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: > > > >> > >> > >> > >> Right on, John. And one could make a prediction--hopefully someday to be > >> tested by acquisition studies--that Navajo kids will not master the > fully > >> complexcity of the Athabaskan verb by age 10, or 15, or 20. I once > reviewed > >> a grammar in Papua New Guniea of a language that had comparable > complexity > >> on the verb (three positions, 6-8 categoriers each, massive zeroing & > >> morphonemic). I had to ask Carle Whitehead--is this guy for real? He > said, > >> yes, he's been in the island for 20 years, really knows his stuff. So I > >> asked the guy--at what age are kids considered fuill-fledged speakers? > He > >> said-- the old people say, don't listen to anybody under forty, they > don't > >> know how to speak. In my work with the Utes, one exchange has stuck > out, > >> an elder (ka-para'ni-wa-t, he's not walking about any more) who was > pointed > >> to me as the best orator in the tribe. I told him that, and he said: > "Oh, I > >> am nothing. You should have heard the Old Ones; when they spoke, you > could > >> see it all in front of your eyes". Part of it is due to the complex Ute > >> deictic system, which invades NPs, ADVs & the verb. The combinations, > and > >> the subtle choices of when to combine the deictic particle with other > >> categories, are a whole wond(e)rous world. Cheers, TG > >> > >> ========== > >> > >> > >> > >> On 2/9/2011 10:13 AM, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > >>> Aya, > >>> I think I was the one who said first that Navajo is not a language for > >>> amateurs. I'll second what Tom said--you should learn something > >>> about Navajo (or some other Athabaskan language) before making > >>> statements like this. Some languages are just plain objectively harder > >>> than > >>> others, regardless of typological similarly to one's native language. > If > >>> you > >>> don't believe this, do an experiment in which you take speakers of > >>> English, > >>> Turkish, Georgian, Chinese, whatever you want, try to teach them > Navajo, > >>> Hopi, > >>> and Cree (for example), and see which one gives them the most trouble. > >>> I guarantee it will be Navajo. And there is an objective reason for > it-- > >>> the morphophonemics are just unbelievably complex. > >>> John > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Quoting "A. Katz": > >>> > >>>> Tom, > >>>> > >>>> I don't think that is a valid viewpoint with regard to Athabaskan or > any > >>>> other language family. > >>>> > >>>> Victor Golla earlier had a much better phrasing when he wrote: > >>>> > >>>> "Let that read: "A language that is not for amateurs is not for > >>>> ADULT people."" > >>>> > >>>> But in fact no language is easy for adults to learn who have not > already > >>>> learned a language with a similar typology. If your native language > works > >>>> similarly to the one you are learning, then you have an enormous > >>>> advantage > >>>> as an adult second language learner. > >>>> > >>>> The remark about how Navajo is not for amateurs was made in the > context > >>>> of > >>>> people who have no experience with languages of a similar typology. > >>>> To make this a universal statement about the difficulty of Navajo > without > >>>> qualification is to suggest that some languages are "easy" and others > are > >>>> "impossible". Not only is this not true from an objective standpoint, > it > >>>> also perpetuates the prejudice that English (or IE) is a "normal" > >>>> language > >>>> and that every language should be measured against this norm. > >>>> > >>>> Best, > >>>> > >>>> --Aya > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Before you actually tried to learn an Athabaskan language, or at the > >>>>> very > >>>>> least worked on one, maybe you had better refrain from asserting that > "a > >>>>> language that is not for amateurs is not for people". TG > >>>>> > >>>>> ========= > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On 2/8/2011 6:33 AM, A. Katz wrote: > >>>>>> A language that is not for amateurs is not for people. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> This has nothing to do with RS or computer language teaching. As > others > >>>>>> have stated, the technologically based systems are not a panacea. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> But a language that ordinary people can't pick by talking to their > >>>>>> parents > >>>>>> in childhood is either dead already or not a human language. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> --Aya > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> I would be amazed if a single person actually learns to speak > Navajo > >>>>>>> using Rosetta Stone. This is not a language for amateurs. > >>>>>>> John > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Quoting "s.t. bischoff": > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Hi all, > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Over the last week I was involved with an event at the American > >>>>>>>> Indian > >>>>>>>> Language Development Institute and the folks that created the > Navajo > >>>>>>>> Rosetta > >>>>>>>> Stone gave a short talk about the software. What follows is my > >>>>>>>> understanding > >>>>>>>> of how it came to be. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> The Navajo Rosetta Stones was created in collaboration with > Rosetta > >>>> Stone > >>>>>>>> and the non-profit Navajo Language Renaissance (NLR). NLR is a > >>>> non-profit > >>>>>>>> organization that is NOT affiliated with the tribal council or > >>>> government > >>>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>> any way, for obvious reasons I think (e.g. getting council > approval > >>>>>>>> for > >>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>> project). However, it has been endorsed by the school leadership > and > >>>>>>>> NLR > >>>>>>>> is > >>>>>>>> actively trying to get the school district to adopt the software. > You > >>>> can > >>>>>>>> view the NLR website here http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/A > >>>>>>>> non-community member started NLR after using Rosetta Stone to > learn > >>>>>>>> Russian. > >>>>>>>> She thought it would be good if Rosetta Stone created a Navajo > >>>>>>>> version. > >>>>>>>> She > >>>>>>>> contacted Rosetta Stone (RS), and they told her they would provide > >>>>>>>> here > >>>>>>>> with > >>>>>>>> the software to develop the lessons, a photographer, and > technical > >>>>>>>> assistants (limited on the ground, mostly by phone) to develop the > >>>>>>>> program > >>>>>>>> for $300,000. Another option would be for her to apply for a grant > >>>>>>>> from > >>>>>>>> RS > >>>>>>>> to cover most of the costs. So the NLR was created, a partnership > >>>> between > >>>>>>>> community members and one non-community member, as a non-profit > >>>>>>>> organization and applied. RS gave two grants the year they > applied, > >>>>>>>> one > >>>>>>>> went > >>>>>>>> to NLR. The grant covered all but $27,000 of the $300,000. So NLR > had > >>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>> pay > >>>>>>>> RS $27,000 to have access to the software to create the Navajo > >>>>>>>> Rosetta > >>>>>>>> Stone. This means they had to create the lessons and pay speakers > and > >>>>>>>> informants themselves. RS provided the software, a photographer, > and > >>>>>>>> technical support for the $27,000. NLR now is the only group that > can > >>>>>>>> sell > >>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone, which they do for $150 per license and $200 > for > >>>>>>>> a > >>>>>>>> personal box set. It is not clear if they have to pay RS a > percentage > >>>>>>>> of > >>>>>>>> those revenues or not. When I asked a clear answer wasn't given. > NLR > >>>> also > >>>>>>>> has a "training" session for administrators and teachers which > costs > >>>>>>>> $1500 a > >>>>>>>> day and $400 per 3 hours. Needless to say, it is not > un-controversial > >>>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>> community for many of the usual reasons. Ironically, the speaker > >>>>>>>> after > >>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>> Rosetta Stone folks gave a talk that demonstrated how to create > >>>>>>>> nearly > >>>>>>>> identical language lessons as Rosetta Stone's simply using power > >>>>>>>> point. > >>>> I > >>>>>>>> was encouraged to let folks know that they should contact the NLR > if > >>>> they > >>>>>>>> have any questions at mbittinger at rosettastone.com. You can try a > free > >>>>>>>> introductory lesson here http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/The > >>>>>>>> folks > >>>>>>>> at NLR praised RS for their efforts and felt they had really done > >>>>>>>> them a > >>>>>>>> service. In short, they were very happy with the arrangement and > how > >>>>>>>> it > >>>>>>>> was > >>>>>>>> working out. They were also upset by the controversies surrounding > >>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone and felt they were really the result of a > >>>>>>>> misunderstanding and misguided assumptions. One finally thing, > they > >>>>>>>> did > >>>>>>>> seem > >>>>>>>> to think that it was not a pancea, but rather another useful tool > in > >>>>>>>> language revitalization efforts. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Cheers, > >>>>>>>> Shannon > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > >>>>>>> University > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > University > >> > >> > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2011 11:34:01 -0700 > From: Tom Givon > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Roseta Stone: Redux > To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Message-ID: <4D52DE19.8010409 at uoregon.edu> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > > > That language in PNG was not dying. It was on a n isolate island, no > bilingualism, no contact. Some day it might just occured to you that > linguistics is not only about arguments, but occasionally about simple > facts. TG > > ============= > > On 2/9/2011 11:10 AM, A. Katz wrote: > > Tom, > > > > If the language is dying, then the advice not to listen to somebody > > under forty because they don't know how to speak may be sound, but not > > for the reason that you suggest. It could be there are no fluent > > speakers under forty. It seems very unlikely that one would have to > > arrive at age forty before acquiring fluency, especially in a hunter > > gatherer culture where death before forty might be quite common. > > > > But if you have evidence to the contrary that fully immersed, > > monolingual young speakers of a language cannot speak it with > > communicative effect until age forty, then this is a big discovery > > that ought to be published and shared with the scientific community. > > > > --Aya > > > > > > On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: > > > >> > >> > >> > >> Right on, John. And one could make a prediction--hopefully someday to > >> be tested by acquisition studies--that Navajo kids will not master > >> the fully complexcity of the Athabaskan verb by age 10, or 15, or 20. > >> I once reviewed a grammar in Papua New Guniea of a language that had > >> comparable complexity on the verb (three positions, 6-8 categoriers > >> each, massive zeroing & morphonemic). I had to ask Carle > >> Whitehead--is this guy for real? He said, yes, he's been in the > >> island for 20 years, really knows his stuff. So I asked the guy--at > >> what age are kids considered fuill-fledged speakers? He said-- the > >> old people say, don't listen to anybody under forty, they don't know > >> how to speak. In my work with the Utes, one exchange has stuck out, > >> an elder (ka-para'ni-wa-t, he's not walking about any more) who was > >> pointed to me as the best orator in the tribe. I told him that, and > >> he said: "Oh, I am nothing. You should have heard the Old Ones; when > >> they spoke, you could see it all in front of your eyes". Part of it > >> is due to the complex Ute deictic system, which invades NPs, ADVs & > >> the verb. The combinations, and the subtle choices of when to combine > >> the deictic particle with other categories, are a whole wond(e)rous > >> world. Cheers, TG > >> > >> ========== > >> > >> > >> > >> On 2/9/2011 10:13 AM, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > >>> Aya, > >>> I think I was the one who said first that Navajo is not a language for > >>> amateurs. I'll second what Tom said--you should learn something > >>> about Navajo (or some other Athabaskan language) before making > >>> statements like this. Some languages are just plain objectively > >>> harder than > >>> others, regardless of typological similarly to one's native > >>> language. If you > >>> don't believe this, do an experiment in which you take speakers of > >>> English, > >>> Turkish, Georgian, Chinese, whatever you want, try to teach them > >>> Navajo, Hopi, > >>> and Cree (for example), and see which one gives them the most trouble. > >>> I guarantee it will be Navajo. And there is an objective reason for > >>> it-- > >>> the morphophonemics are just unbelievably complex. > >>> John > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Quoting "A. Katz": > >>> > >>>> Tom, > >>>> > >>>> I don't think that is a valid viewpoint with regard to Athabaskan > >>>> or any > >>>> other language family. > >>>> > >>>> Victor Golla earlier had a much better phrasing when he wrote: > >>>> > >>>> "Let that read: "A language that is not for amateurs is not for > >>>> ADULT people."" > >>>> > >>>> But in fact no language is easy for adults to learn who have not > >>>> already > >>>> learned a language with a similar typology. If your native language > >>>> works > >>>> similarly to the one you are learning, then you have an enormous > >>>> advantage > >>>> as an adult second language learner. > >>>> > >>>> The remark about how Navajo is not for amateurs was made in the > >>>> context of > >>>> people who have no experience with languages of a similar typology. > >>>> To make this a universal statement about the difficulty of Navajo > >>>> without > >>>> qualification is to suggest that some languages are "easy" and > >>>> others are > >>>> "impossible". Not only is this not true from an objective > >>>> standpoint, it > >>>> also perpetuates the prejudice that English (or IE) is a "normal" > >>>> language > >>>> and that every language should be measured against this norm. > >>>> > >>>> Best, > >>>> > >>>> --Aya > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Before you actually tried to learn an Athabaskan language, or at > >>>>> the very > >>>>> least worked on one, maybe you had better refrain from asserting > >>>>> that "a > >>>>> language that is not for amateurs is not for people". TG > >>>>> > >>>>> ========= > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On 2/8/2011 6:33 AM, A. Katz wrote: > >>>>>> A language that is not for amateurs is not for people. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> This has nothing to do with RS or computer language teaching. As > >>>>>> others > >>>>>> have stated, the technologically based systems are not a panacea. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> But a language that ordinary people can't pick by talking to > >>>>>> their parents > >>>>>> in childhood is either dead already or not a human language. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> --Aya > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> I would be amazed if a single person actually learns to speak > >>>>>>> Navajo > >>>>>>> using Rosetta Stone. This is not a language for amateurs. > >>>>>>> John > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Quoting "s.t. bischoff": > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Hi all, > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Over the last week I was involved with an event at the American > >>>>>>>> Indian > >>>>>>>> Language Development Institute and the folks that created the > >>>>>>>> Navajo > >>>>>>>> Rosetta > >>>>>>>> Stone gave a short talk about the software. What follows is my > >>>>>>>> understanding > >>>>>>>> of how it came to be. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> The Navajo Rosetta Stones was created in collaboration with > >>>>>>>> Rosetta > >>>> Stone > >>>>>>>> and the non-profit Navajo Language Renaissance (NLR). NLR is a > >>>> non-profit > >>>>>>>> organization that is NOT affiliated with the tribal council or > >>>> government > >>>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>> any way, for obvious reasons I think (e.g. getting council > >>>>>>>> approval for > >>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>> project). However, it has been endorsed by the school > >>>>>>>> leadership and NLR > >>>>>>>> is > >>>>>>>> actively trying to get the school district to adopt the > >>>>>>>> software. You > >>>> can > >>>>>>>> view the NLR website here > >>>>>>>> http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ A > >>>>>>>> non-community member started NLR after using Rosetta Stone to > >>>>>>>> learn > >>>>>>>> Russian. > >>>>>>>> She thought it would be good if Rosetta Stone created a Navajo > >>>>>>>> version. > >>>>>>>> She > >>>>>>>> contacted Rosetta Stone (RS), and they told her they would > >>>>>>>> provide here > >>>>>>>> with > >>>>>>>> the software to develop the lessons, a photographer, and > >>>>>>>> technical > >>>>>>>> assistants (limited on the ground, mostly by phone) to develop the > >>>>>>>> program > >>>>>>>> for $300,000. Another option would be for her to apply for a > >>>>>>>> grant from > >>>>>>>> RS > >>>>>>>> to cover most of the costs. So the NLR was created, a partnership > >>>> between > >>>>>>>> community members and one non-community member, as a non-profit > >>>>>>>> organization and applied. RS gave two grants the year they > >>>>>>>> applied, one > >>>>>>>> went > >>>>>>>> to NLR. The grant covered all but $27,000 of the $300,000. So > >>>>>>>> NLR had to > >>>>>>>> pay > >>>>>>>> RS $27,000 to have access to the software to create the Navajo > >>>>>>>> Rosetta > >>>>>>>> Stone. This means they had to create the lessons and pay > >>>>>>>> speakers and > >>>>>>>> informants themselves. RS provided the software, a > >>>>>>>> photographer, and > >>>>>>>> technical support for the $27,000. NLR now is the only group > >>>>>>>> that can > >>>>>>>> sell > >>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone, which they do for $150 per license and > >>>>>>>> $200 for a > >>>>>>>> personal box set. It is not clear if they have to pay RS a > >>>>>>>> percentage of > >>>>>>>> those revenues or not. When I asked a clear answer wasn't > >>>>>>>> given. NLR > >>>> also > >>>>>>>> has a "training" session for administrators and teachers which > >>>>>>>> costs > >>>>>>>> $1500 a > >>>>>>>> day and $400 per 3 hours. Needless to say, it is not > >>>>>>>> un-controversial in > >>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>> community for many of the usual reasons. Ironically, the > >>>>>>>> speaker after > >>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>> Rosetta Stone folks gave a talk that demonstrated how to create > >>>>>>>> nearly > >>>>>>>> identical language lessons as Rosetta Stone's simply using > >>>>>>>> power point. > >>>> I > >>>>>>>> was encouraged to let folks know that they should contact the > >>>>>>>> NLR if > >>>> they > >>>>>>>> have any questions at mbittinger at rosettastone.com. You can try > >>>>>>>> a free > >>>>>>>> introductory lesson here > >>>>>>>> http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ The > >>>>>>>> folks > >>>>>>>> at NLR praised RS for their efforts and felt they had really > >>>>>>>> done them a > >>>>>>>> service. In short, they were very happy with the arrangement > >>>>>>>> and how it > >>>>>>>> was > >>>>>>>> working out. They were also upset by the controversies > >>>>>>>> surrounding the > >>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone and felt they were really the result of a > >>>>>>>> misunderstanding and misguided assumptions. One finally thing, > >>>>>>>> they did > >>>>>>>> seem > >>>>>>>> to think that it was not a pancea, but rather another useful > >>>>>>>> tool in > >>>>>>>> language revitalization efforts. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Cheers, > >>>>>>>> Shannon > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > >>>>>>> University > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>> > >>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > >>> University > >> > >> > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 7 > Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 12:34:07 -0600 > From: Marc Ettlinger > Subject: [FUNKNET] Non-fluent native speakers of Navajo > To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > I find the anecdote below fascinating - that L1 speakers of Navajo may > not be considered fluent well into adulthood. > Is there any actual evidence that this isn't simply a "kids these days > mangle the language" type of comment (which you'd probably get from > old English speakers commenting on whether American teens speak > English correctly, as well) or something having to do with the > influence of language contact on younger learners? > > More generally, I'd be curious to hear about any evidence of people > still learning their first language past their teens that isn't simply > an instance of language change. > > People generally write about language decline in older speakers - if > there are cases where adults are still learning, I imagine it's been > written up somewhere? > > Thanks, > Marc > > Message: 7 > Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2011 10:39:34 -0700 > From: Tom Givon > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Roseta Stone: Redux > To: john at research.haifa.ac.il > Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu, "A. Katz" > Message-ID: <4D52D156.4030509 at uoregon.edu> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > > Right on, John. And one could make a prediction--hopefully someday to be > tested by acquisition studies--that Navajo kids will not master the > fully complexcity of the Athabaskan verb by age 10, or 15, or 20. I once > reviewed a grammar in Papua New Guniea of a language that had comparable > complexity on the verb (three positions, 6-8 categoriers each, massive > zeroing & morphonemic). I had to ask Carle Whitehead--is this guy for > real? He said, yes, he's been in the island for 20 years, really knows > his stuff. So I asked the guy--at what age are kids considered > fuill-fledged speakers? He said-- the old people say, don't listen to > anybody under forty, they don't know how to speak. In my work with the > Utes, one exchange has stuck out, an elder (ka-para'ni-wa-t, he's not > walking about any more) who was pointed to me as the best orator in the > tribe. I told him that, and he said: "Oh, I am nothing. You should have > heard the Old Ones; when they spoke, you could see it all in front of > your eyes". Part of it is due to the complex Ute deictic system, which > invades NPs, ADVs & the verb. The combinations, and the subtle choices > of when to combine the deictic particle with other categories, are a > whole wond(e)rous world. Cheers, TG > > ========== > > -- > Marc Ettlinger > Postdoctoral Researcher > Northwestern University Institute of Neuroscience > 2240 Campus Drive > Evanston, IL, 60208 > 847-491-2430 > marc at northwestern.edu > http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/~met179/ > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 8 > Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 10:36:44 -0800 (PST) > From: "A. Katz" > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Roseta Stone: Redux > To: Frederick J Newmeyer > Cc: Tom Givon , Funknet > , john at research.haifa.ac.il > Message-ID: > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed > > Fritz, > > That's a really good question. I look forward to hearing if other > Funknetters know of such studies. > > --Aya > > > On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > > > A propos, are there any published studies out there that point to > measurable > > difference in rate of completion of first-language acquisition by > speakers of > > one language compared to another? Or even of mastery of one aspect of L1 > > acquisition (phonology, morphology, etc.) by speakers of one language > > compared to another? > > > > --fritz > > > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > University > > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > > > On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, A. Katz wrote: > > > >> Tom, > >> > >> If the language is dying, then the advice not to listen to somebody > under > >> forty because they don't know how to speak may be sound, but not for the > >> reason that you suggest. It could be there are no fluent speakers under > >> forty. It seems very unlikely that one would have to arrive at age forty > >> before acquiring fluency, especially in a hunter gatherer culture where > >> death before forty might be quite common. > >> > >> But if you have evidence to the contrary that fully immersed, > monolingual > >> young speakers of a language cannot speak it with communicative effect > >> until age forty, then this is a big discovery that ought to be published > >> and shared with the scientific community. > >> > >> --Aya > >> > >> > >> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Right on, John. And one could make a prediction--hopefully someday to > be > >>> tested by acquisition studies--that Navajo kids will not master the > fully > >>> complexcity of the Athabaskan verb by age 10, or 15, or 20. I once > >>> reviewed a grammar in Papua New Guniea of a language that had > comparable > >>> complexity on the verb (three positions, 6-8 categoriers each, massive > >>> zeroing & morphonemic). I had to ask Carle Whitehead--is this guy for > >>> real? He said, yes, he's been in the island for 20 years, really knows > his > >>> stuff. So I asked the guy--at what age are kids considered > fuill-fledged > >>> speakers? He said-- the old people say, don't listen to anybody under > >>> forty, they don't know how to speak. In my work with the Utes, one > >>> exchange has stuck out, an elder (ka-para'ni-wa-t, he's not walking > about > >>> any more) who was pointed to me as the best orator in the tribe. I told > >>> him that, and he said: "Oh, I am nothing. You should have heard the Old > >>> Ones; when they spoke, you could see it all in front of your eyes". > Part > >>> of it is due to the complex Ute deictic system, which invades NPs, ADVs > & > >>> the verb. The combinations, and the subtle choices of when to combine > the > >>> deictic particle with other categories, are a whole wond(e)rous world. > >>> Cheers, TG > >>> > >>> ========== > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On 2/9/2011 10:13 AM, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > >>>> Aya, > >>>> I think I was the one who said first that Navajo is not a language for > >>>> amateurs. I'll second what Tom said--you should learn something > >>>> about Navajo (or some other Athabaskan language) before making > >>>> statements like this. Some languages are just plain objectively harder > >>>> than > >>>> others, regardless of typological similarly to one's native language. > If > >>>> you > >>>> don't believe this, do an experiment in which you take speakers of > >>>> English, > >>>> Turkish, Georgian, Chinese, whatever you want, try to teach them > Navajo, > >>>> Hopi, > >>>> and Cree (for example), and see which one gives them the most trouble. > >>>> I guarantee it will be Navajo. And there is an objective reason for > it-- > >>>> the morphophonemics are just unbelievably complex. > >>>> John > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Quoting "A. Katz": > >>>> > >>>>> Tom, > >>>>> > >>>>> I don't think that is a valid viewpoint with regard to Athabaskan or > any > >>>>> other language family. > >>>>> > >>>>> Victor Golla earlier had a much better phrasing when he wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> "Let that read: "A language that is not for amateurs is not for > >>>>> ADULT people."" > >>>>> > >>>>> But in fact no language is easy for adults to learn who have not > already > >>>>> learned a language with a similar typology. If your native language > >>>>> works > >>>>> similarly to the one you are learning, then you have an enormous > >>>>> advantage > >>>>> as an adult second language learner. > >>>>> > >>>>> The remark about how Navajo is not for amateurs was made in the > context > >>>>> of > >>>>> people who have no experience with languages of a similar typology. > >>>>> To make this a universal statement about the difficulty of Navajo > >>>>> without > >>>>> qualification is to suggest that some languages are "easy" and others > >>>>> are > >>>>> "impossible". Not only is this not true from an objective standpoint, > it > >>>>> also perpetuates the prejudice that English (or IE) is a "normal" > >>>>> language > >>>>> and that every language should be measured against this norm. > >>>>> > >>>>> Best, > >>>>> > >>>>> --Aya > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Before you actually tried to learn an Athabaskan language, or at the > >>>>>> very > >>>>>> least worked on one, maybe you had better refrain from asserting > that > >>>>>> "a > >>>>>> language that is not for amateurs is not for people". TG > >>>>>> > >>>>>> ========= > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On 2/8/2011 6:33 AM, A. Katz wrote: > >>>>>>> A language that is not for amateurs is not for people. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> This has nothing to do with RS or computer language teaching. As > >>>>>>> others > >>>>>>> have stated, the technologically based systems are not a panacea. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> But a language that ordinary people can't pick by talking to their > >>>>>>> parents > >>>>>>> in childhood is either dead already or not a human language. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> --Aya > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I would be amazed if a single person actually learns to speak > Navajo > >>>>>>>> using Rosetta Stone. This is not a language for amateurs. > >>>>>>>> John > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Quoting "s.t. bischoff": > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Hi all, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Over the last week I was involved with an event at the American > >>>>>>>>> Indian > >>>>>>>>> Language Development Institute and the folks that created the > Navajo > >>>>>>>>> Rosetta > >>>>>>>>> Stone gave a short talk about the software. What follows is my > >>>>>>>>> understanding > >>>>>>>>> of how it came to be. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> The Navajo Rosetta Stones was created in collaboration with > Rosetta > >>>>> Stone > >>>>>>>>> and the non-profit Navajo Language Renaissance (NLR). NLR is a > >>>>> non-profit > >>>>>>>>> organization that is NOT affiliated with the tribal council or > >>>>> government > >>>>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>>> any way, for obvious reasons I think (e.g. getting council > approval > >>>>>>>>> for > >>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>> project). However, it has been endorsed by the school leadership > and > >>>>>>>>> NLR > >>>>>>>>> is > >>>>>>>>> actively trying to get the school district to adopt the software. > >>>>>>>>> You > >>>>> can > >>>>>>>>> view the NLR website here > http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ A > >>>>>>>>> non-community member started NLR after using Rosetta Stone to > learn > >>>>>>>>> Russian. > >>>>>>>>> She thought it would be good if Rosetta Stone created a Navajo > >>>>>>>>> version. > >>>>>>>>> She > >>>>>>>>> contacted Rosetta Stone (RS), and they told her they would > provide > >>>>>>>>> here > >>>>>>>>> with > >>>>>>>>> the software to develop the lessons, a photographer, and > technical > >>>>>>>>> assistants (limited on the ground, mostly by phone) to develop > the > >>>>>>>>> program > >>>>>>>>> for $300,000. Another option would be for her to apply for a > grant > >>>>>>>>> from > >>>>>>>>> RS > >>>>>>>>> to cover most of the costs. So the NLR was created, a partnership > >>>>> between > >>>>>>>>> community members and one non-community member, as a non-profit > >>>>>>>>> organization and applied. RS gave two grants the year they > applied, > >>>>>>>>> one > >>>>>>>>> went > >>>>>>>>> to NLR. The grant covered all but $27,000 of the $300,000. So NLR > >>>>>>>>> had to > >>>>>>>>> pay > >>>>>>>>> RS $27,000 to have access to the software to create the Navajo > >>>>>>>>> Rosetta > >>>>>>>>> Stone. This means they had to create the lessons and pay speakers > >>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>> informants themselves. RS provided the software, a photographer, > and > >>>>>>>>> technical support for the $27,000. NLR now is the only group that > >>>>>>>>> can > >>>>>>>>> sell > >>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone, which they do for $150 per license and $200 > >>>>>>>>> for a > >>>>>>>>> personal box set. It is not clear if they have to pay RS a > >>>>>>>>> percentage of > >>>>>>>>> those revenues or not. When I asked a clear answer wasn't given. > NLR > >>>>> also > >>>>>>>>> has a "training" session for administrators and teachers which > costs > >>>>>>>>> $1500 a > >>>>>>>>> day and $400 per 3 hours. Needless to say, it is not > >>>>>>>>> un-controversial in > >>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>> community for many of the usual reasons. Ironically, the speaker > >>>>>>>>> after > >>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>> Rosetta Stone folks gave a talk that demonstrated how to create > >>>>>>>>> nearly > >>>>>>>>> identical language lessons as Rosetta Stone's simply using power > >>>>>>>>> point. > >>>>> I > >>>>>>>>> was encouraged to let folks know that they should contact the NLR > if > >>>>> they > >>>>>>>>> have any questions at mbittinger at rosettastone.com. You can try a > >>>>>>>>> free > >>>>>>>>> introductory lesson here http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/The > >>>>>>>>> folks > >>>>>>>>> at NLR praised RS for their efforts and felt they had really done > >>>>>>>>> them a > >>>>>>>>> service. In short, they were very happy with the arrangement and > how > >>>>>>>>> it > >>>>>>>>> was > >>>>>>>>> working out. They were also upset by the controversies > surrounding > >>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone and felt they were really the result of a > >>>>>>>>> misunderstanding and misguided assumptions. One finally thing, > they > >>>>>>>>> did > >>>>>>>>> seem > >>>>>>>>> to think that it was not a pancea, but rather another useful tool > in > >>>>>>>>> language revitalization efforts. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Cheers, > >>>>>>>>> Shannon > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > >>>>>>>> University > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > University > >>> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 9 > Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 10:41:32 -0800 (PST) > From: "A. Katz" > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Roseta Stone: Redux > To: Tom Givon > Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Message-ID: > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed > > I look forward to hearing more about this occurrence. Are you going to > publish about it, or has something already been published? > > I'm perfectly open to the possibility that this is so, but have never > heard of such a thing before. It is not common knowledge, even among > linguists. I look forward to learning more about it. > > This information should be shared with the scientific community. > > Best, > > --Aya > > > > On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: > > > > > > > That language in PNG was not dying. It was on a n isolate island, no > > bilingualism, no contact. Some day it might just occured to you that > > linguistics is not only about arguments, but occasionally about simple > facts. > > TG > > > > ============= > > > > On 2/9/2011 11:10 AM, A. Katz wrote: > >> Tom, > >> > >> If the language is dying, then the advice not to listen to somebody > under > >> forty because they don't know how to speak may be sound, but not for the > >> reason that you suggest. It could be there are no fluent speakers under > >> forty. It seems very unlikely that one would have to arrive at age forty > >> before acquiring fluency, especially in a hunter gatherer culture where > >> death before forty might be quite common. > >> > >> But if you have evidence to the contrary that fully immersed, > monolingual > >> young speakers of a language cannot speak it with communicative effect > >> until age forty, then this is a big discovery that ought to be published > >> and shared with the scientific community. > >> > >> --Aya > >> > >> > >> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Right on, John. And one could make a prediction--hopefully someday to > be > >>> tested by acquisition studies--that Navajo kids will not master the > fully > >>> complexcity of the Athabaskan verb by age 10, or 15, or 20. I once > >>> reviewed a grammar in Papua New Guniea of a language that had > comparable > >>> complexity on the verb (three positions, 6-8 categoriers each, massive > >>> zeroing & morphonemic). I had to ask Carle Whitehead--is this guy for > >>> real? He said, yes, he's been in the island for 20 years, really knows > his > >>> stuff. So I asked the guy--at what age are kids considered > fuill-fledged > >>> speakers? He said-- the old people say, don't listen to anybody under > >>> forty, they don't know how to speak. In my work with the Utes, one > >>> exchange has stuck out, an elder (ka-para'ni-wa-t, he's not walking > about > >>> any more) who was pointed to me as the best orator in the tribe. I told > >>> him that, and he said: "Oh, I am nothing. You should have heard the Old > >>> Ones; when they spoke, you could see it all in front of your eyes". > Part > >>> of it is due to the complex Ute deictic system, which invades NPs, ADVs > & > >>> the verb. The combinations, and the subtle choices of when to combine > the > >>> deictic particle with other categories, are a whole wond(e)rous world. > >>> Cheers, TG > >>> > >>> ========== > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On 2/9/2011 10:13 AM, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > >>>> Aya, > >>>> I think I was the one who said first that Navajo is not a language for > >>>> amateurs. I'll second what Tom said--you should learn something > >>>> about Navajo (or some other Athabaskan language) before making > >>>> statements like this. Some languages are just plain objectively harder > >>>> than > >>>> others, regardless of typological similarly to one's native language. > If > >>>> you > >>>> don't believe this, do an experiment in which you take speakers of > >>>> English, > >>>> Turkish, Georgian, Chinese, whatever you want, try to teach them > Navajo, > >>>> Hopi, > >>>> and Cree (for example), and see which one gives them the most trouble. > >>>> I guarantee it will be Navajo. And there is an objective reason for > it-- > >>>> the morphophonemics are just unbelievably complex. > >>>> John > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Quoting "A. Katz": > >>>> > >>>>> Tom, > >>>>> > >>>>> I don't think that is a valid viewpoint with regard to Athabaskan or > any > >>>>> other language family. > >>>>> > >>>>> Victor Golla earlier had a much better phrasing when he wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> "Let that read: "A language that is not for amateurs is not for > >>>>> ADULT people."" > >>>>> > >>>>> But in fact no language is easy for adults to learn who have not > already > >>>>> learned a language with a similar typology. If your native language > >>>>> works > >>>>> similarly to the one you are learning, then you have an enormous > >>>>> advantage > >>>>> as an adult second language learner. > >>>>> > >>>>> The remark about how Navajo is not for amateurs was made in the > context > >>>>> of > >>>>> people who have no experience with languages of a similar typology. > >>>>> To make this a universal statement about the difficulty of Navajo > >>>>> without > >>>>> qualification is to suggest that some languages are "easy" and others > >>>>> are > >>>>> "impossible". Not only is this not true from an objective standpoint, > it > >>>>> also perpetuates the prejudice that English (or IE) is a "normal" > >>>>> language > >>>>> and that every language should be measured against this norm. > >>>>> > >>>>> Best, > >>>>> > >>>>> --Aya > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Before you actually tried to learn an Athabaskan language, or at the > >>>>>> very > >>>>>> least worked on one, maybe you had better refrain from asserting > that > >>>>>> "a > >>>>>> language that is not for amateurs is not for people". TG > >>>>>> > >>>>>> ========= > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On 2/8/2011 6:33 AM, A. Katz wrote: > >>>>>>> A language that is not for amateurs is not for people. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> This has nothing to do with RS or computer language teaching. As > >>>>>>> others > >>>>>>> have stated, the technologically based systems are not a panacea. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> But a language that ordinary people can't pick by talking to their > >>>>>>> parents > >>>>>>> in childhood is either dead already or not a human language. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> --Aya > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I would be amazed if a single person actually learns to speak > Navajo > >>>>>>>> using Rosetta Stone. This is not a language for amateurs. > >>>>>>>> John > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Quoting "s.t. bischoff": > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Hi all, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Over the last week I was involved with an event at the American > >>>>>>>>> Indian > >>>>>>>>> Language Development Institute and the folks that created the > Navajo > >>>>>>>>> Rosetta > >>>>>>>>> Stone gave a short talk about the software. What follows is my > >>>>>>>>> understanding > >>>>>>>>> of how it came to be. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> The Navajo Rosetta Stones was created in collaboration with > Rosetta > >>>>> Stone > >>>>>>>>> and the non-profit Navajo Language Renaissance (NLR). NLR is a > >>>>> non-profit > >>>>>>>>> organization that is NOT affiliated with the tribal council or > >>>>> government > >>>>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>>> any way, for obvious reasons I think (e.g. getting council > approval > >>>>>>>>> for > >>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>> project). However, it has been endorsed by the school leadership > and > >>>>>>>>> NLR > >>>>>>>>> is > >>>>>>>>> actively trying to get the school district to adopt the software. > >>>>>>>>> You > >>>>> can > >>>>>>>>> view the NLR website here > http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ A > >>>>>>>>> non-community member started NLR after using Rosetta Stone to > learn > >>>>>>>>> Russian. > >>>>>>>>> She thought it would be good if Rosetta Stone created a Navajo > >>>>>>>>> version. > >>>>>>>>> She > >>>>>>>>> contacted Rosetta Stone (RS), and they told her they would > provide > >>>>>>>>> here > >>>>>>>>> with > >>>>>>>>> the software to develop the lessons, a photographer, and > technical > >>>>>>>>> assistants (limited on the ground, mostly by phone) to develop > the > >>>>>>>>> program > >>>>>>>>> for $300,000. Another option would be for her to apply for a > grant > >>>>>>>>> from > >>>>>>>>> RS > >>>>>>>>> to cover most of the costs. So the NLR was created, a partnership > >>>>> between > >>>>>>>>> community members and one non-community member, as a non-profit > >>>>>>>>> organization and applied. RS gave two grants the year they > applied, > >>>>>>>>> one > >>>>>>>>> went > >>>>>>>>> to NLR. The grant covered all but $27,000 of the $300,000. So NLR > >>>>>>>>> had to > >>>>>>>>> pay > >>>>>>>>> RS $27,000 to have access to the software to create the Navajo > >>>>>>>>> Rosetta > >>>>>>>>> Stone. This means they had to create the lessons and pay speakers > >>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>> informants themselves. RS provided the software, a photographer, > and > >>>>>>>>> technical support for the $27,000. NLR now is the only group that > >>>>>>>>> can > >>>>>>>>> sell > >>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone, which they do for $150 per license and $200 > >>>>>>>>> for a > >>>>>>>>> personal box set. It is not clear if they have to pay RS a > >>>>>>>>> percentage of > >>>>>>>>> those revenues or not. When I asked a clear answer wasn't given. > NLR > >>>>> also > >>>>>>>>> has a "training" session for administrators and teachers which > costs > >>>>>>>>> $1500 a > >>>>>>>>> day and $400 per 3 hours. Needless to say, it is not > >>>>>>>>> un-controversial in > >>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>> community for many of the usual reasons. Ironically, the speaker > >>>>>>>>> after > >>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>> Rosetta Stone folks gave a talk that demonstrated how to create > >>>>>>>>> nearly > >>>>>>>>> identical language lessons as Rosetta Stone's simply using power > >>>>>>>>> point. > >>>>> I > >>>>>>>>> was encouraged to let folks know that they should contact the NLR > if > >>>>> they > >>>>>>>>> have any questions at mbittinger at rosettastone.com. You can try a > >>>>>>>>> free > >>>>>>>>> introductory lesson here http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/The > >>>>>>>>> folks > >>>>>>>>> at NLR praised RS for their efforts and felt they had really done > >>>>>>>>> them a > >>>>>>>>> service. In short, they were very happy with the arrangement and > how > >>>>>>>>> it > >>>>>>>>> was > >>>>>>>>> working out. They were also upset by the controversies > surrounding > >>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone and felt they were really the result of a > >>>>>>>>> misunderstanding and misguided assumptions. One finally thing, > they > >>>>>>>>> did > >>>>>>>>> seem > >>>>>>>>> to think that it was not a pancea, but rather another useful tool > in > >>>>>>>>> language revitalization efforts. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Cheers, > >>>>>>>>> Shannon > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > >>>>>>>> University > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > University > >>> > >>> > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 10 > Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 14:04:17 -0500 > From: Brian MacWhinney > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Roseta Stone: Redux > To: Funknet > Message-ID: <90E93631-B2F5-4F65-BEFF-4B764AD84339 at cmu.edu> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 > > Fritz, > > There are studies in places like the Journal of Child Language by Dorthe > Bleses, Hans Basb?l, and colleagues at Southern Denmark University on the > delay of the acquisition of Danish phonology in comparison to other European > languages, mostly attributed to the complexities of the vowel system and the > various assimilatory processes. There is a corresponding delay in the > acquisition of reading by Danish children that was observed in the > cross-European PISA project. All of this is well documented in the > literature, but it is rather marginal and transitory. Eventually, normal > Danish children all learn good Danish and become fluent readers. > > -- Brian MacWhinney > > On Feb 9, 2011, at 1:27 PM, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > > > A propos, are there any published studies out there that point to > measurable difference in rate of completion of first-language acquisition by > speakers of one language compared to another? Or even of mastery of one > aspect of L1 acquisition (phonology, morphology, etc.) by speakers of one > language compared to another? > > > > --fritz > > > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > University > > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > > > On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, A. Katz wrote: > > > >> Tom, > >> > >> If the language is dying, then the advice not to listen to somebody > under forty because they don't know how to speak may be sound, but not for > the reason that you suggest. It could be there are no fluent speakers under > forty. It seems very unlikely that one would have to arrive at age forty > before acquiring fluency, especially in a hunter gatherer culture where > death before forty might be quite common. > >> > >> But if you have evidence to the contrary that fully immersed, > monolingual young speakers of a language cannot speak it with communicative > effect until age forty, then this is a big discovery that ought to be > published and shared with the scientific community. > >> > >> --Aya > >> > >> > >> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: > >> > >>> Right on, John. And one could make a prediction--hopefully someday to > be tested by acquisition studies--that Navajo kids will not master the fully > complexcity of the Athabaskan verb by age 10, or 15, or 20. I once reviewed > a grammar in Papua New Guniea of a language that had comparable complexity > on the verb (three positions, 6-8 categoriers each, massive zeroing & > morphonemic). I had to ask Carle Whitehead--is this guy for real? He said, > yes, he's been in the island for 20 years, really knows his stuff. So I > asked the guy--at what age are kids considered fuill-fledged speakers? He > said-- the old people say, don't listen to anybody under forty, they don't > know how to speak. In my work with the Utes, one exchange has stuck out, an > elder (ka-para'ni-wa-t, he's not walking about any more) who was pointed to > me as the best orator in the tribe. I told him that, and he said: "Oh, I am > nothing. You should have heard the Old Ones; when they spoke, you could see > it all in front o > f your eyes". Part of it is due to the complex Ute deictic system, which > invades NPs, ADVs & the verb. The combinations, and the subtle choices of > when to combine the deictic particle with other categories, are a whole > wond(e)rous world. Cheers, TG > >>> ========== > >>> On 2/9/2011 10:13 AM, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > >>>> Aya, > >>>> I think I was the one who said first that Navajo is not a language for > >>>> amateurs. I'll second what Tom said--you should learn something > >>>> about Navajo (or some other Athabaskan language) before making > >>>> statements like this. Some languages are just plain objectively harder > than > >>>> others, regardless of typological similarly to one's native language. > If you > >>>> don't believe this, do an experiment in which you take speakers of > English, > >>>> Turkish, Georgian, Chinese, whatever you want, try to teach them > Navajo, Hopi, > >>>> and Cree (for example), and see which one gives them the most trouble. > >>>> I guarantee it will be Navajo. And there is an objective reason for > it-- > >>>> the morphophonemics are just unbelievably complex. > >>>> John > >>>> Quoting "A. Katz": > >>>>> Tom, > >>>>> I don't think that is a valid viewpoint with regard to Athabaskan or > any > >>>>> other language family. > >>>>> Victor Golla earlier had a much better phrasing when he wrote: > >>>>> "Let that read: "A language that is not for amateurs is not for > >>>>> ADULT people."" > >>>>> But in fact no language is easy for adults to learn who have not > already > >>>>> learned a language with a similar typology. If your native language > works > >>>>> similarly to the one you are learning, then you have an enormous > advantage > >>>>> as an adult second language learner. > >>>>> The remark about how Navajo is not for amateurs was made in the > context of > >>>>> people who have no experience with languages of a similar typology. > >>>>> To make this a universal statement about the difficulty of Navajo > without > >>>>> qualification is to suggest that some languages are "easy" and others > are > >>>>> "impossible". Not only is this not true from an objective standpoint, > it > >>>>> also perpetuates the prejudice that English (or IE) is a "normal" > language > >>>>> and that every language should be measured against this norm. > >>>>> Best, > >>>>> --Aya > >>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: > >>>>>> Before you actually tried to learn an Athabaskan language, or at the > very > >>>>>> least worked on one, maybe you had better refrain from asserting > that "a > >>>>>> language that is not for amateurs is not for people". TG > >>>>>> ========= > >>>>>> On 2/8/2011 6:33 AM, A. Katz wrote: > >>>>>>> A language that is not for amateurs is not for people. > >>>>>>> This has nothing to do with RS or computer language teaching. As > others > >>>>>>> have stated, the technologically based systems are not a panacea. > >>>>>>> But a language that ordinary people can't pick by talking to their > parents > >>>>>>> in childhood is either dead already or not a human language. > >>>>>>> --Aya > >>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > >>>>>>>> I would be amazed if a single person actually learns to speak > Navajo > >>>>>>>> using Rosetta Stone. This is not a language for amateurs. > >>>>>>>> John > >>>>>>>> Quoting "s.t. bischoff": > >>>>>>>>> Hi all, > >>>>>>>>> Over the last week I was involved with an event at the American > Indian > >>>>>>>>> Language Development Institute and the folks that created the > Navajo > >>>>>>>>> Rosetta > >>>>>>>>> Stone gave a short talk about the software. What follows is my > >>>>>>>>> understanding > >>>>>>>>> of how it came to be. > >>>>>>>>> The Navajo Rosetta Stones was created in collaboration with > Rosetta > >>>>> Stone > >>>>>>>>> and the non-profit Navajo Language Renaissance (NLR). NLR is a > >>>>> non-profit > >>>>>>>>> organization that is NOT affiliated with the tribal council or > >>>>> government > >>>>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>>> any way, for obvious reasons I think (e.g. getting council > approval for > >>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>> project). However, it has been endorsed by the school leadership > and NLR > >>>>>>>>> is > >>>>>>>>> actively trying to get the school district to adopt the software. > You > >>>>> can > >>>>>>>>> view the NLR website here > http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ A > >>>>>>>>> non-community member started NLR after using Rosetta Stone to > learn > >>>>>>>>> Russian. > >>>>>>>>> She thought it would be good if Rosetta Stone created a Navajo > version. > >>>>>>>>> She > >>>>>>>>> contacted Rosetta Stone (RS), and they told her they would > provide here > >>>>>>>>> with > >>>>>>>>> the software to develop the lessons, a photographer, and > technical > >>>>>>>>> assistants (limited on the ground, mostly by phone) to develop > the > >>>>>>>>> program > >>>>>>>>> for $300,000. Another option would be for her to apply for a > grant from > >>>>>>>>> RS > >>>>>>>>> to cover most of the costs. So the NLR was created, a partnership > >>>>> between > >>>>>>>>> community members and one non-community member, as a non-profit > >>>>>>>>> organization and applied. RS gave two grants the year they > applied, one > >>>>>>>>> went > >>>>>>>>> to NLR. The grant covered all but $27,000 of the $300,000. So NLR > had to > >>>>>>>>> pay > >>>>>>>>> RS $27,000 to have access to the software to create the Navajo > Rosetta > >>>>>>>>> Stone. This means they had to create the lessons and pay speakers > and > >>>>>>>>> informants themselves. RS provided the software, a photographer, > and > >>>>>>>>> technical support for the $27,000. NLR now is the only group that > can > >>>>>>>>> sell > >>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone, which they do for $150 per license and $200 > for a > >>>>>>>>> personal box set. It is not clear if they have to pay RS a > percentage of > >>>>>>>>> those revenues or not. When I asked a clear answer wasn't given. > NLR > >>>>> also > >>>>>>>>> has a "training" session for administrators and teachers which > costs > >>>>>>>>> $1500 a > >>>>>>>>> day and $400 per 3 hours. Needless to say, it is not > un-controversial in > >>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>> community for many of the usual reasons. Ironically, the speaker > after > >>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>> Rosetta Stone folks gave a talk that demonstrated how to create > nearly > >>>>>>>>> identical language lessons as Rosetta Stone's simply using power > point. > >>>>> I > >>>>>>>>> was encouraged to let folks know that they should contact the NLR > if > >>>>> they > >>>>>>>>> have any questions at mbittinger at rosettastone.com. You can try a > free > >>>>>>>>> introductory lesson here http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/The > >>>>>>>>> folks > >>>>>>>>> at NLR praised RS for their efforts and felt they had really done > them a > >>>>>>>>> service. In short, they were very happy with the arrangement and > how it > >>>>>>>>> was > >>>>>>>>> working out. They were also upset by the controversies > surrounding the > >>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone and felt they were really the result of a > >>>>>>>>> misunderstanding and misguided assumptions. One finally thing, > they did > >>>>>>>>> seem > >>>>>>>>> to think that it was not a pancea, but rather another useful tool > in > >>>>>>>>> language revitalization efforts. > >>>>>>>>> Cheers, > >>>>>>>>> Shannon > >>>>>>>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > University > >>>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > University > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 11 > Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2011 12:12:50 -0700 > From: Tom Givon > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Roseta Stone: Redux > To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Message-ID: <4D52E732.80503 at uoregon.edu> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > > > I think the question of (dis) fluency & completeness for L1 are rather > distinct. A child can be extremely fluent in child pidgin, or even more > fluent at various stages of grammaticalization. Unlike L2 learners, > whose pidgin is rather halting. Anybody can verify this by comparing the > pause distribution in the CHILDES transcripts with L2 pidgin transcipts > (say Bickerton's Hawaii Pidgin?). Tho of course Broca's aphasia pidgin > is the most disfluent. Something sort-of resembling such a comparison > may be found in ch. 10 of my "Genesis of Syntactic Complexity" > (Benjamins 2009). TG > > ========== > > > On 2/9/2011 12:04 PM, Brian MacWhinney wrote: > > Fritz, > > > > There are studies in places like the Journal of Child Language by Dorthe > Bleses, Hans Basb?l, and colleagues at Southern Denmark University on the > delay of the acquisition of Danish phonology in comparison to other European > languages, mostly attributed to the complexities of the vowel system and the > various assimilatory processes. There is a corresponding delay in the > acquisition of reading by Danish children that was observed in the > cross-European PISA project. All of this is well documented in the > literature, but it is rather marginal and transitory. Eventually, normal > Danish children all learn good Danish and become fluent readers. > > > > -- Brian MacWhinney > > > > On Feb 9, 2011, at 1:27 PM, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > > > >> A propos, are there any published studies out there that point to > measurable difference in rate of completion of first-language acquisition by > speakers of one language compared to another? Or even of mastery of one > aspect of L1 acquisition (phonology, morphology, etc.) by speakers of one > language compared to another? > >> > >> --fritz > >> > >> Frederick J. Newmeyer > >> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > >> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > University > >> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > >> > >> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, A. Katz wrote: > >> > >>> Tom, > >>> > >>> If the language is dying, then the advice not to listen to somebody > under forty because they don't know how to speak may be sound, but not for > the reason that you suggest. It could be there are no fluent speakers under > forty. It seems very unlikely that one would have to arrive at age forty > before acquiring fluency, especially in a hunter gatherer culture where > death before forty might be quite common. > >>> > >>> But if you have evidence to the contrary that fully immersed, > monolingual young speakers of a language cannot speak it with communicative > effect until age forty, then this is a big discovery that ought to be > published and shared with the scientific community. > >>> > >>> --Aya > >>> > >>> > >>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: > >>> > >>>> Right on, John. And one could make a prediction--hopefully someday to > be tested by acquisition studies--that Navajo kids will not master the fully > complexcity of the Athabaskan verb by age 10, or 15, or 20. I once reviewed > a grammar in Papua New Guniea of a language that had comparable complexity > on the verb (three positions, 6-8 categoriers each, massive zeroing& > morphonemic). I had to ask Carle Whitehead--is this guy for real? He said, > yes, he's been in the island for 20 years, really knows his stuff. So I > asked the guy--at what age are kids considered fuill-fledged speakers? He > said-- the old people say, don't listen to anybody under forty, they don't > know how to speak. In my work with the Utes, one exchange has stuck out, an > elder (ka-para'ni-wa-t, he's not walking about any more) who was pointed to > me as the best orator in the tribe. I told him that, and he said: "Oh, I am > nothing. You should have heard the Old Ones; when they spoke, you could see > it all in front > of your eyes". Part of it is due to the complex Ute deictic system, which > invades NPs, ADVs& the verb. The combinations, and the subtle choices of > when to combine the deictic particle with other categories, are a whole > wond(e)rous world. Cheers, TG > >>>> ========== > >>>> On 2/9/2011 10:13 AM, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > >>>>> Aya, > >>>>> I think I was the one who said first that Navajo is not a language > for > >>>>> amateurs. I'll second what Tom said--you should learn something > >>>>> about Navajo (or some other Athabaskan language) before making > >>>>> statements like this. Some languages are just plain objectively > harder than > >>>>> others, regardless of typological similarly to one's native language. > If you > >>>>> don't believe this, do an experiment in which you take speakers of > English, > >>>>> Turkish, Georgian, Chinese, whatever you want, try to teach them > Navajo, Hopi, > >>>>> and Cree (for example), and see which one gives them the most > trouble. > >>>>> I guarantee it will be Navajo. And there is an objective reason for > it-- > >>>>> the morphophonemics are just unbelievably complex. > >>>>> John > >>>>> Quoting "A. Katz": > >>>>>> Tom, > >>>>>> I don't think that is a valid viewpoint with regard to Athabaskan or > any > >>>>>> other language family. > >>>>>> Victor Golla earlier had a much better phrasing when he wrote: > >>>>>> "Let that read: "A language that is not for amateurs is not for > >>>>>> ADULT people."" > >>>>>> But in fact no language is easy for adults to learn who have not > already > >>>>>> learned a language with a similar typology. If your native language > works > >>>>>> similarly to the one you are learning, then you have an enormous > advantage > >>>>>> as an adult second language learner. > >>>>>> The remark about how Navajo is not for amateurs was made in the > context of > >>>>>> people who have no experience with languages of a similar typology. > >>>>>> To make this a universal statement about the difficulty of Navajo > without > >>>>>> qualification is to suggest that some languages are "easy" and > others are > >>>>>> "impossible". Not only is this not true from an objective > standpoint, it > >>>>>> also perpetuates the prejudice that English (or IE) is a "normal" > language > >>>>>> and that every language should be measured against this norm. > >>>>>> Best, > >>>>>> --Aya > >>>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: > >>>>>>> Before you actually tried to learn an Athabaskan language, or at > the very > >>>>>>> least worked on one, maybe you had better refrain from asserting > that "a > >>>>>>> language that is not for amateurs is not for people". TG > >>>>>>> ========= > >>>>>>> On 2/8/2011 6:33 AM, A. Katz wrote: > >>>>>>>> A language that is not for amateurs is not for people. > >>>>>>>> This has nothing to do with RS or computer language teaching. As > others > >>>>>>>> have stated, the technologically based systems are not a panacea. > >>>>>>>> But a language that ordinary people can't pick by talking to their > parents > >>>>>>>> in childhood is either dead already or not a human language. > >>>>>>>> --Aya > >>>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > >>>>>>>>> I would be amazed if a single person actually learns to speak > Navajo > >>>>>>>>> using Rosetta Stone. This is not a language for amateurs. > >>>>>>>>> John > >>>>>>>>> Quoting "s.t. bischoff": > >>>>>>>>>> Hi all, > >>>>>>>>>> Over the last week I was involved with an event at the American > Indian > >>>>>>>>>> Language Development Institute and the folks that created the > Navajo > >>>>>>>>>> Rosetta > >>>>>>>>>> Stone gave a short talk about the software. What follows is my > >>>>>>>>>> understanding > >>>>>>>>>> of how it came to be. > >>>>>>>>>> The Navajo Rosetta Stones was created in collaboration with > Rosetta > >>>>>> Stone > >>>>>>>>>> and the non-profit Navajo Language Renaissance (NLR). NLR is a > >>>>>> non-profit > >>>>>>>>>> organization that is NOT affiliated with the tribal council or > >>>>>> government > >>>>>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>>>> any way, for obvious reasons I think (e.g. getting council > approval for > >>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>> project). However, it has been endorsed by the school leadership > and NLR > >>>>>>>>>> is > >>>>>>>>>> actively trying to get the school district to adopt the > software. You > >>>>>> can > >>>>>>>>>> view the NLR website here > http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ A > >>>>>>>>>> non-community member started NLR after using Rosetta Stone to > learn > >>>>>>>>>> Russian. > >>>>>>>>>> She thought it would be good if Rosetta Stone created a Navajo > version. > >>>>>>>>>> She > >>>>>>>>>> contacted Rosetta Stone (RS), and they told her they would > provide here > >>>>>>>>>> with > >>>>>>>>>> the software to develop the lessons, a photographer, and > technical > >>>>>>>>>> assistants (limited on the ground, mostly by phone) to develop > the > >>>>>>>>>> program > >>>>>>>>>> for $300,000. Another option would be for her to apply for a > grant from > >>>>>>>>>> RS > >>>>>>>>>> to cover most of the costs. So the NLR was created, a > partnership > >>>>>> between > >>>>>>>>>> community members and one non-community member, as a non-profit > >>>>>>>>>> organization and applied. RS gave two grants the year they > applied, one > >>>>>>>>>> went > >>>>>>>>>> to NLR. The grant covered all but $27,000 of the $300,000. So > NLR had to > >>>>>>>>>> pay > >>>>>>>>>> RS $27,000 to have access to the software to create the Navajo > Rosetta > >>>>>>>>>> Stone. This means they had to create the lessons and pay > speakers and > >>>>>>>>>> informants themselves. RS provided the software, a photographer, > and > >>>>>>>>>> technical support for the $27,000. NLR now is the only group > that can > >>>>>>>>>> sell > >>>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone, which they do for $150 per license and > $200 for a > >>>>>>>>>> personal box set. It is not clear if they have to pay RS a > percentage of > >>>>>>>>>> those revenues or not. When I asked a clear answer wasn't given. > NLR > >>>>>> also > >>>>>>>>>> has a "training" session for administrators and teachers which > costs > >>>>>>>>>> $1500 a > >>>>>>>>>> day and $400 per 3 hours. Needless to say, it is not > un-controversial in > >>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>> community for many of the usual reasons. Ironically, the speaker > after > >>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>> Rosetta Stone folks gave a talk that demonstrated how to create > nearly > >>>>>>>>>> identical language lessons as Rosetta Stone's simply using power > point. > >>>>>> I > >>>>>>>>>> was encouraged to let folks know that they should contact the > NLR if > >>>>>> they > >>>>>>>>>> have any questions at mbittinger at rosettastone.com. You can try > a free > >>>>>>>>>> introductory lesson here > http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ The > >>>>>>>>>> folks > >>>>>>>>>> at NLR praised RS for their efforts and felt they had really > done them a > >>>>>>>>>> service. In short, they were very happy with the arrangement and > how it > >>>>>>>>>> was > >>>>>>>>>> working out. They were also upset by the controversies > surrounding the > >>>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone and felt they were really the result of a > >>>>>>>>>> misunderstanding and misguided assumptions. One finally thing, > they did > >>>>>>>>>> seem > >>>>>>>>>> to think that it was not a pancea, but rather another useful > tool in > >>>>>>>>>> language revitalization efforts. > >>>>>>>>>> Cheers, > >>>>>>>>>> Shannon > >>>>>>>>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > University > >>>>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > University > >> > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 12 > Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2011 14:40:56 -0500 > From: Craig Hancock > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Roseta Stone: Redux > To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Message-ID: <4D52EDC8.3020102 at albany.edu> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > Brian, > This strikes as a bit like Lake Woebegone (Where all the children > are above average). > > normal Danish children all learn good Danish and become fluent readers > > Is acquiring a language totally separate from the uses of that > language? Are we just acquiring the forms and then differing in our > ability to put them to use or are the uses themselves a major part of > what we are acquiring? Are lexicon and syntax wholly separate, or do we > go on acquiring the lexico-grammar as we enter more deeply into adult > worlds of discourse? > Anyone in literacy education knows that too many American children > fail to reach high levels of fluency as readers and writers. Doesn't > that somehow mean they have failed to acquire the language? > > Craig > > On 2/9/2011 2:04 PM, Brian MacWhinney wrote: > > Fritz, > > > > There are studies in places like the Journal of Child Language by Dorthe > Bleses, Hans Basb?l, and colleagues at Southern Denmark University on the > delay of the acquisition of Danish phonology in comparison to other European > languages, mostly attributed to the complexities of the vowel system and the > various assimilatory processes. There is a corresponding delay in the > acquisition of reading by Danish children that was observed in the > cross-European PISA project. All of this is well documented in the > literature, but it is rather marginal and transitory. Eventually, normal > Danish children all learn good Danish and become fluent readers. > > > > -- Brian MacWhinney > > > > On Feb 9, 2011, at 1:27 PM, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > > > >> A propos, are there any published studies out there that point to > measurable difference in rate of completion of first-language acquisition by > speakers of one language compared to another? Or even of mastery of one > aspect of L1 acquisition (phonology, morphology, etc.) by speakers of one > language compared to another? > >> > >> --fritz > >> > >> Frederick J. Newmeyer > >> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > >> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > University > >> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > >> > >> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, A. Katz wrote: > >> > >>> Tom, > >>> > >>> If the language is dying, then the advice not to listen to somebody > under forty because they don't know how to speak may be sound, but not for > the reason that you suggest. It could be there are no fluent speakers under > forty. It seems very unlikely that one would have to arrive at age forty > before acquiring fluency, especially in a hunter gatherer culture where > death before forty might be quite common. > >>> > >>> But if you have evidence to the contrary that fully immersed, > monolingual young speakers of a language cannot speak it with communicative > effect until age forty, then this is a big discovery that ought to be > published and shared with the scientific community. > >>> > >>> --Aya > >>> > >>> > >>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: > >>> > >>>> Right on, John. And one could make a prediction--hopefully someday to > be tested by acquisition studies--that Navajo kids will not master the fully > complexcity of the Athabaskan verb by age 10, or 15, or 20. I once reviewed > a grammar in Papua New Guniea of a language that had comparable complexity > on the verb (three positions, 6-8 categoriers each, massive zeroing& > morphonemic). I had to ask Carle Whitehead--is this guy for real? He said, > yes, he's been in the island for 20 years, really knows his stuff. So I > asked the guy--at what age are kids considered fuill-fledged speakers? He > said-- the old people say, don't listen to anybody under forty, they don't > know how to speak. In my work with the Utes, one exchange has stuck out, an > elder (ka-para'ni-wa-t, he's not walking about any more) who was pointed to > me as the best orator in the tribe. I told him that, and he said: "Oh, I am > nothing. You should have heard the Old Ones; when they spoke, you could see > it all in front > of your eyes". Part of it is due to the complex Ute deictic system, which > invades NPs, ADVs& the verb. The combinations, and the subtle choices of > when to combine the deictic particle with other categories, are a whole > wond(e)rous world. Cheers, TG > >>>> ========== > >>>> On 2/9/2011 10:13 AM, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > >>>>> Aya, > >>>>> I think I was the one who said first that Navajo is not a language > for > >>>>> amateurs. I'll second what Tom said--you should learn something > >>>>> about Navajo (or some other Athabaskan language) before making > >>>>> statements like this. Some languages are just plain objectively > harder than > >>>>> others, regardless of typological similarly to one's native language. > If you > >>>>> don't believe this, do an experiment in which you take speakers of > English, > >>>>> Turkish, Georgian, Chinese, whatever you want, try to teach them > Navajo, Hopi, > >>>>> and Cree (for example), and see which one gives them the most > trouble. > >>>>> I guarantee it will be Navajo. And there is an objective reason for > it-- > >>>>> the morphophonemics are just unbelievably complex. > >>>>> John > >>>>> Quoting "A. Katz": > >>>>>> Tom, > >>>>>> I don't think that is a valid viewpoint with regard to Athabaskan or > any > >>>>>> other language family. > >>>>>> Victor Golla earlier had a much better phrasing when he wrote: > >>>>>> "Let that read: "A language that is not for amateurs is not for > >>>>>> ADULT people."" > >>>>>> But in fact no language is easy for adults to learn who have not > already > >>>>>> learned a language with a similar typology. If your native language > works > >>>>>> similarly to the one you are learning, then you have an enormous > advantage > >>>>>> as an adult second language learner. > >>>>>> The remark about how Navajo is not for amateurs was made in the > context of > >>>>>> people who have no experience with languages of a similar typology. > >>>>>> To make this a universal statement about the difficulty of Navajo > without > >>>>>> qualification is to suggest that some languages are "easy" and > others are > >>>>>> "impossible". Not only is this not true from an objective > standpoint, it > >>>>>> also perpetuates the prejudice that English (or IE) is a "normal" > language > >>>>>> and that every language should be measured against this norm. > >>>>>> Best, > >>>>>> --Aya > >>>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: > >>>>>>> Before you actually tried to learn an Athabaskan language, or at > the very > >>>>>>> least worked on one, maybe you had better refrain from asserting > that "a > >>>>>>> language that is not for amateurs is not for people". TG > >>>>>>> ========= > >>>>>>> On 2/8/2011 6:33 AM, A. Katz wrote: > >>>>>>>> A language that is not for amateurs is not for people. > >>>>>>>> This has nothing to do with RS or computer language teaching. As > others > >>>>>>>> have stated, the technologically based systems are not a panacea. > >>>>>>>> But a language that ordinary people can't pick by talking to their > parents > >>>>>>>> in childhood is either dead already or not a human language. > >>>>>>>> --Aya > >>>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > >>>>>>>>> I would be amazed if a single person actually learns to speak > Navajo > >>>>>>>>> using Rosetta Stone. This is not a language for amateurs. > >>>>>>>>> John > >>>>>>>>> Quoting "s.t. bischoff": > >>>>>>>>>> Hi all, > >>>>>>>>>> Over the last week I was involved with an event at the American > Indian > >>>>>>>>>> Language Development Institute and the folks that created the > Navajo > >>>>>>>>>> Rosetta > >>>>>>>>>> Stone gave a short talk about the software. What follows is my > >>>>>>>>>> understanding > >>>>>>>>>> of how it came to be. > >>>>>>>>>> The Navajo Rosetta Stones was created in collaboration with > Rosetta > >>>>>> Stone > >>>>>>>>>> and the non-profit Navajo Language Renaissance (NLR). NLR is a > >>>>>> non-profit > >>>>>>>>>> organization that is NOT affiliated with the tribal council or > >>>>>> government > >>>>>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>>>> any way, for obvious reasons I think (e.g. getting council > approval for > >>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>> project). However, it has been endorsed by the school leadership > and NLR > >>>>>>>>>> is > >>>>>>>>>> actively trying to get the school district to adopt the > software. You > >>>>>> can > >>>>>>>>>> view the NLR website here > http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ A > >>>>>>>>>> non-community member started NLR after using Rosetta Stone to > learn > >>>>>>>>>> Russian. > >>>>>>>>>> She thought it would be good if Rosetta Stone created a Navajo > version. > >>>>>>>>>> She > >>>>>>>>>> contacted Rosetta Stone (RS), and they told her they would > provide here > >>>>>>>>>> with > >>>>>>>>>> the software to develop the lessons, a photographer, and > technical > >>>>>>>>>> assistants (limited on the ground, mostly by phone) to develop > the > >>>>>>>>>> program > >>>>>>>>>> for $300,000. Another option would be for her to apply for a > grant from > >>>>>>>>>> RS > >>>>>>>>>> to cover most of the costs. So the NLR was created, a > partnership > >>>>>> between > >>>>>>>>>> community members and one non-community member, as a non-profit > >>>>>>>>>> organization and applied. RS gave two grants the year they > applied, one > >>>>>>>>>> went > >>>>>>>>>> to NLR. The grant covered all but $27,000 of the $300,000. So > NLR had to > >>>>>>>>>> pay > >>>>>>>>>> RS $27,000 to have access to the software to create the Navajo > Rosetta > >>>>>>>>>> Stone. This means they had to create the lessons and pay > speakers and > >>>>>>>>>> informants themselves. RS provided the software, a photographer, > and > >>>>>>>>>> technical support for the $27,000. NLR now is the only group > that can > >>>>>>>>>> sell > >>>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone, which they do for $150 per license and > $200 for a > >>>>>>>>>> personal box set. It is not clear if they have to pay RS a > percentage of > >>>>>>>>>> those revenues or not. When I asked a clear answer wasn't given. > NLR > >>>>>> also > >>>>>>>>>> has a "training" session for administrators and teachers which > costs > >>>>>>>>>> $1500 a > >>>>>>>>>> day and $400 per 3 hours. Needless to say, it is not > un-controversial in > >>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>> community for many of the usual reasons. Ironically, the speaker > after > >>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>> Rosetta Stone folks gave a talk that demonstrated how to create > nearly > >>>>>>>>>> identical language lessons as Rosetta Stone's simply using power > point. > >>>>>> I > >>>>>>>>>> was encouraged to let folks know that they should contact the > NLR if > >>>>>> they > >>>>>>>>>> have any questions at mbittinger at rosettastone.com. You can try > a free > >>>>>>>>>> introductory lesson here > http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ The > >>>>>>>>>> folks > >>>>>>>>>> at NLR praised RS for their efforts and felt they had really > done them a > >>>>>>>>>> service. In short, they were very happy with the arrangement and > how it > >>>>>>>>>> was > >>>>>>>>>> working out. They were also upset by the controversies > surrounding the > >>>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone and felt they were really the result of a > >>>>>>>>>> misunderstanding and misguided assumptions. One finally thing, > they did > >>>>>>>>>> seem > >>>>>>>>>> to think that it was not a pancea, but rather another useful > tool in > >>>>>>>>>> language revitalization efforts. > >>>>>>>>>> Cheers, > >>>>>>>>>> Shannon > >>>>>>>>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > University > >>>>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > University > >> > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 13 > Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 14:57:26 -0500 (EST) > From: Geoffrey Steven Nathan > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Roseta Stone: Redux > To: Frederick J Newmeyer , > funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Message-ID: > <705420958.576965.1297281446751.JavaMail.root at starship.merit.edu> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > Yes, there's lots of research on relative complexity of grammatical systems > as related to first language acquisition, and, of course, more complex, > idiosyncratic, irregular morphological systems are harder to learn and > acquired later than simpler, more regular ones expressing roughly the same > notion. > Dan Slobin (are you on this list, Dan?) did much research in the 70's on > this topic, comparing, IIRC, Serbo-Croatian (which existed then) and > Turkish, and maybe some other languages. > Here's an abstract from one of those papers: > > > The ability of children between the ages of 2; 0 and 4; 8 to produce > locative pre- or postpositions was investigated in English, Italian, > Serbo-Croatian, and Turkish. Across languages, there was a general order of > development: (1) ?in?, ?on?, ?under?, and ?beside?, (2) ?between?, ?back? > and ?front? with featured objects, (3) ?back? and ?front? with non-featured > objects. This order of development is discussed in terms of nonlinguistic > growth in conceptual ability. Language-specific differences in the general > pattern of development are discussed in terms of a number of linguistic > factors which may facilitate or retard the child's discovery of the > linguistic means for encoding concepts. > > > ? Journal of Child Language (1979), 6: 529-545 > > > Geoff > > Geoffrey S. Nathan > Faculty Liaison, C&IT > and Professor, Linguistics Program > http://blogs.wayne.edu/proftech/ > +1 (313) 577-1259 (C&IT) > +1 (313) 577-8621 (English/Linguistics) > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Frederick J Newmeyer" > To: "A. Katz" > Cc: "Tom Givon" , john at research.haifa.ac.il, "Funknet" > > Sent: Wednesday, February 9, 2011 1:27:25 PM > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Roseta Stone: Redux > > A propos, are there any published studies out there that point to > measurable difference in rate of completion of first-language acquisition by > speakers of one language compared to another? Or even of mastery of one > aspect of L1 acquisition (phonology, morphology, etc.) by speakers of one > language compared to another? > > --fritz > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > University > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, A. Katz wrote: > > > Tom, > > > > If the language is dying, then the advice not to listen to somebody under > > forty because they don't know how to speak may be sound, but not for the > > reason that you suggest. It could be there are no fluent speakers under > > forty. It seems very unlikely that one would have to arrive at age forty > > before acquiring fluency, especially in a hunter gatherer culture where > death > > before forty might be quite common. > > > > But if you have evidence to the contrary that fully immersed, monolingual > > young speakers of a language cannot speak it with communicative effect > until > > age forty, then this is a big discovery that ought to be published and > shared > > with the scientific community. > > > > --Aya > > > > > > On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: > > > >> > >> > >> > >> Right on, John. And one could make a prediction--hopefully someday to be > >> tested by acquisition studies--that Navajo kids will not master the > fully > >> complexcity of the Athabaskan verb by age 10, or 15, or 20. I once > reviewed > >> a grammar in Papua New Guniea of a language that had comparable > complexity > >> on the verb (three positions, 6-8 categoriers each, massive zeroing & > >> morphonemic). I had to ask Carle Whitehead--is this guy for real? He > said, > >> yes, he's been in the island for 20 years, really knows his stuff. So I > >> asked the guy--at what age are kids considered fuill-fledged speakers? > He > >> said-- the old people say, don't listen to anybody under forty, they > don't > >> know how to speak. In my work with the Utes, one exchange has stuck out, > >> an elder (ka-para'ni-wa-t, he's not walking about any more) who was > pointed > >> to me as the best orator in the tribe. I told him that, and he said: > "Oh, I > >> am nothing. You should have heard the Old Ones; when they spoke, you > could > >> see it all in front of your eyes". Part of it is due to the complex Ute > >> deictic system, which invades NPs, ADVs & the verb. The combinations, > and > >> the subtle choices of when to combine the deictic particle with other > >> categories, are a whole wond(e)rous world. Cheers, TG > >> > >> ========== > >> > >> > >> > >> On 2/9/2011 10:13 AM, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > >>> Aya, > >>> I think I was the one who said first that Navajo is not a language for > >>> amateurs. I'll second what Tom said--you should learn something > >>> about Navajo (or some other Athabaskan language) before making > >>> statements like this. Some languages are just plain objectively harder > >>> than > >>> others, regardless of typological similarly to one's native language. > If > >>> you > >>> don't believe this, do an experiment in which you take speakers of > >>> English, > >>> Turkish, Georgian, Chinese, whatever you want, try to teach them > Navajo, > >>> Hopi, > >>> and Cree (for example), and see which one gives them the most trouble. > >>> I guarantee it will be Navajo. And there is an objective reason for > it-- > >>> the morphophonemics are just unbelievably complex. > >>> John > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Quoting "A. Katz": > >>> > >>>> Tom, > >>>> > >>>> I don't think that is a valid viewpoint with regard to Athabaskan or > any > >>>> other language family. > >>>> > >>>> Victor Golla earlier had a much better phrasing when he wrote: > >>>> > >>>> "Let that read: "A language that is not for amateurs is not for > >>>> ADULT people."" > >>>> > >>>> But in fact no language is easy for adults to learn who have not > already > >>>> learned a language with a similar typology. If your native language > works > >>>> similarly to the one you are learning, then you have an enormous > >>>> advantage > >>>> as an adult second language learner. > >>>> > >>>> The remark about how Navajo is not for amateurs was made in the > context > >>>> of > >>>> people who have no experience with languages of a similar typology. > >>>> To make this a universal statement about the difficulty of Navajo > without > >>>> qualification is to suggest that some languages are "easy" and others > are > >>>> "impossible". Not only is this not true from an objective standpoint, > it > >>>> also perpetuates the prejudice that English (or IE) is a "normal" > >>>> language > >>>> and that every language should be measured against this norm. > >>>> > >>>> Best, > >>>> > >>>> --Aya > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Before you actually tried to learn an Athabaskan language, or at the > >>>>> very > >>>>> least worked on one, maybe you had better refrain from asserting that > "a > >>>>> language that is not for amateurs is not for people". TG > >>>>> > >>>>> ========= > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On 2/8/2011 6:33 AM, A. Katz wrote: > >>>>>> A language that is not for amateurs is not for people. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> This has nothing to do with RS or computer language teaching. As > others > >>>>>> have stated, the technologically based systems are not a panacea. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> But a language that ordinary people can't pick by talking to their > >>>>>> parents > >>>>>> in childhood is either dead already or not a human language. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> --Aya > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> I would be amazed if a single person actually learns to speak > Navajo > >>>>>>> using Rosetta Stone. This is not a language for amateurs. > >>>>>>> John > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Quoting "s.t. bischoff": > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Hi all, > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Over the last week I was involved with an event at the American > >>>>>>>> Indian > >>>>>>>> Language Development Institute and the folks that created the > Navajo > >>>>>>>> Rosetta > >>>>>>>> Stone gave a short talk about the software. What follows is my > >>>>>>>> understanding > >>>>>>>> of how it came to be. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> The Navajo Rosetta Stones was created in collaboration with > Rosetta > >>>> Stone > >>>>>>>> and the non-profit Navajo Language Renaissance (NLR). NLR is a > >>>> non-profit > >>>>>>>> organization that is NOT affiliated with the tribal council or > >>>> government > >>>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>> any way, for obvious reasons I think (e.g. getting council > approval > >>>>>>>> for > >>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>> project). However, it has been endorsed by the school leadership > and > >>>>>>>> NLR > >>>>>>>> is > >>>>>>>> actively trying to get the school district to adopt the software. > You > >>>> can > >>>>>>>> view the NLR website here http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/A > >>>>>>>> non-community member started NLR after using Rosetta Stone to > learn > >>>>>>>> Russian. > >>>>>>>> She thought it would be good if Rosetta Stone created a Navajo > >>>>>>>> version. > >>>>>>>> She > >>>>>>>> contacted Rosetta Stone (RS), and they told her they would provide > >>>>>>>> here > >>>>>>>> with > >>>>>>>> the software to develop the lessons, a photographer, and technical > >>>>>>>> assistants (limited on the ground, mostly by phone) to develop the > >>>>>>>> program > >>>>>>>> for $300,000. Another option would be for her to apply for a grant > >>>>>>>> from > >>>>>>>> RS > >>>>>>>> to cover most of the costs. So the NLR was created, a partnership > >>>> between > >>>>>>>> community members and one non-community member, as a non-profit > >>>>>>>> organization and applied. RS gave two grants the year they > applied, > >>>>>>>> one > >>>>>>>> went > >>>>>>>> to NLR. The grant covered all but $27,000 of the $300,000. So NLR > had > >>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>> pay > >>>>>>>> RS $27,000 to have access to the software to create the Navajo > >>>>>>>> Rosetta > >>>>>>>> Stone. This means they had to create the lessons and pay speakers > and > >>>>>>>> informants themselves. RS provided the software, a photographer, > and > >>>>>>>> technical support for the $27,000. NLR now is the only group that > can > >>>>>>>> sell > >>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone, which they do for $150 per license and $200 > for > >>>>>>>> a > >>>>>>>> personal box set. It is not clear if they have to pay RS a > percentage > >>>>>>>> of > >>>>>>>> those revenues or not. When I asked a clear answer wasn't given. > NLR > >>>> also > >>>>>>>> has a "training" session for administrators and teachers which > costs > >>>>>>>> $1500 a > >>>>>>>> day and $400 per 3 hours. Needless to say, it is not > un-controversial > >>>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>> community for many of the usual reasons. Ironically, the speaker > >>>>>>>> after > >>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>> Rosetta Stone folks gave a talk that demonstrated how to create > >>>>>>>> nearly > >>>>>>>> identical language lessons as Rosetta Stone's simply using power > >>>>>>>> point. > >>>> I > >>>>>>>> was encouraged to let folks know that they should contact the NLR > if > >>>> they > >>>>>>>> have any questions at mbittinger at rosettastone.com. You can try a > free > >>>>>>>> introductory lesson here http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/The > >>>>>>>> folks > >>>>>>>> at NLR praised RS for their efforts and felt they had really done > >>>>>>>> them a > >>>>>>>> service. In short, they were very happy with the arrangement and > how > >>>>>>>> it > >>>>>>>> was > >>>>>>>> working out. They were also upset by the controversies surrounding > >>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone and felt they were really the result of a > >>>>>>>> misunderstanding and misguided assumptions. One finally thing, > they > >>>>>>>> did > >>>>>>>> seem > >>>>>>>> to think that it was not a pancea, but rather another useful tool > in > >>>>>>>> language revitalization efforts. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Cheers, > >>>>>>>> Shannon > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > >>>>>>> University > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > University > >> > >> > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 14 > Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 12:50:16 -0800 (PST) > From: "A. Katz" > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Roseta Stone: Redux > To: Craig Hancock > Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; Format="flowed" > > I seem to recall that in "The Evolution of Language Out of Pre-Language" > Dan Slobin had a sort of dissenting article at the end in which he > mentioned that Turkish children use grammatical morphology at the one word > level, so that they are never actually speaking a pidgin Turkish > at any point in their language development. > > --Aya > > On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Craig Hancock wrote: > > > Brian, > > This strikes as a bit like Lake Woebegone (Where all the children are > > above average). > > > > normal Danish children all learn good Danish and become fluent readers > > > > Is acquiring a language totally separate from the uses of that > language? > > Are we just acquiring the forms and then differing in our ability to put > them > > to use or are the uses themselves a major part of what we are acquiring? > Are > > lexicon and syntax wholly separate, or do we go on acquiring the > > lexico-grammar as we enter more deeply into adult worlds of discourse? > > Anyone in literacy education knows that too many American children > fail > > to reach high levels of fluency as readers and writers. Doesn't that > somehow > > mean they have failed to acquire the language? > > > > Craig > > > > On 2/9/2011 2:04 PM, Brian MacWhinney wrote: > >> Fritz, > >> > >> There are studies in places like the Journal of Child Language by Dorthe > >> Bleses, Hans Basb?l, and colleagues at Southern Denmark University on > the > >> delay of the acquisition of Danish phonology in comparison to other > >> European languages, mostly attributed to the complexities of the vowel > >> system and the various assimilatory processes. There is a corresponding > >> delay in the acquisition of reading by Danish children that was observed > in > >> the cross-European PISA project. All of this is well documented in the > >> literature, but it is rather marginal and transitory. Eventually, > normal > >> Danish children all learn good Danish and become fluent readers. > >> > >> -- Brian MacWhinney > >> > >> On Feb 9, 2011, at 1:27 PM, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > >> > >>> A propos, are there any published studies out there that point to > >>> measurable difference in rate of completion of first-language > acquisition > >>> by speakers of one language compared to another? Or even of mastery of > one > >>> aspect of L1 acquisition (phonology, morphology, etc.) by speakers of > one > >>> language compared to another? > >>> > >>> --fritz > >>> > >>> Frederick J. Newmeyer > >>> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > >>> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > >>> University > >>> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > >>> > >>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, A. Katz wrote: > >>> > >>>> Tom, > >>>> > >>>> If the language is dying, then the advice not to listen to somebody > under > >>>> forty because they don't know how to speak may be sound, but not for > the > >>>> reason that you suggest. It could be there are no fluent speakers > under > >>>> forty. It seems very unlikely that one would have to arrive at age > forty > >>>> before acquiring fluency, especially in a hunter gatherer culture > where > >>>> death before forty might be quite common. > >>>> > >>>> But if you have evidence to the contrary that fully immersed, > monolingual > >>>> young speakers of a language cannot speak it with communicative effect > >>>> until age forty, then this is a big discovery that ought to be > published > >>>> and shared with the scientific community. > >>>> > >>>> --Aya > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Right on, John. And one could make a prediction--hopefully someday to > be > >>>>> tested by acquisition studies--that Navajo kids will not master the > >>>>> fully complexcity of the Athabaskan verb by age 10, or 15, or 20. I > once > >>>>> reviewed a grammar in Papua New Guniea of a language that had > comparable > >>>>> complexity on the verb (three positions, 6-8 categoriers each, > massive > >>>>> zeroing& morphonemic). I had to ask Carle Whitehead--is this guy for > >>>>> real? He said, yes, he's been in the island for 20 years, really > knows > >>>>> his stuff. So I asked the guy--at what age are kids considered > >>>>> fuill-fledged speakers? He said-- the old people say, don't listen to > >>>>> anybody under forty, they don't know how to speak. In my work with > the > >>>>> Utes, one exchange has stuck out, an elder (ka-para'ni-wa-t, he's not > >>>>> walking about any more) who was pointed to me as the best orator in > the > >>>>> tribe. I told him that, and he said: "Oh, I am nothing. You should > have > >>>>> heard the Old Ones; when they spoke, you could see it all in front of > >>>>> your eyes". Part of it is due to the complex Ute deictic system, > which > >>>>> invades NPs, ADVs& the verb. The combinations, and the subtle > choices > >>>>> of when to combine the deictic particle with other categories, are a > >>>>> whole wond(e)rous world. Cheers, TG > >>>>> ========== > >>>>> On 2/9/2011 10:13 AM, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > >>>>>> Aya, > >>>>>> I think I was the one who said first that Navajo is not a language > for > >>>>>> amateurs. I'll second what Tom said--you should learn something > >>>>>> about Navajo (or some other Athabaskan language) before making > >>>>>> statements like this. Some languages are just plain objectively > harder > >>>>>> than > >>>>>> others, regardless of typological similarly to one's native > language. > >>>>>> If you > >>>>>> don't believe this, do an experiment in which you take speakers of > >>>>>> English, > >>>>>> Turkish, Georgian, Chinese, whatever you want, try to teach them > >>>>>> Navajo, Hopi, > >>>>>> and Cree (for example), and see which one gives them the most > trouble. > >>>>>> I guarantee it will be Navajo. And there is an objective reason for > >>>>>> it-- > >>>>>> the morphophonemics are just unbelievably complex. > >>>>>> John > >>>>>> Quoting "A. Katz": > >>>>>>> Tom, > >>>>>>> I don't think that is a valid viewpoint with regard to Athabaskan > or > >>>>>>> any > >>>>>>> other language family. > >>>>>>> Victor Golla earlier had a much better phrasing when he wrote: > >>>>>>> "Let that read: "A language that is not for amateurs is not for > >>>>>>> ADULT people."" > >>>>>>> But in fact no language is easy for adults to learn who have not > >>>>>>> already > >>>>>>> learned a language with a similar typology. If your native language > >>>>>>> works > >>>>>>> similarly to the one you are learning, then you have an enormous > >>>>>>> advantage > >>>>>>> as an adult second language learner. > >>>>>>> The remark about how Navajo is not for amateurs was made in the > >>>>>>> context of > >>>>>>> people who have no experience with languages of a similar typology. > >>>>>>> To make this a universal statement about the difficulty of Navajo > >>>>>>> without > >>>>>>> qualification is to suggest that some languages are "easy" and > others > >>>>>>> are > >>>>>>> "impossible". Not only is this not true from an objective > standpoint, > >>>>>>> it > >>>>>>> also perpetuates the prejudice that English (or IE) is a "normal" > >>>>>>> language > >>>>>>> and that every language should be measured against this norm. > >>>>>>> Best, > >>>>>>> --Aya > >>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: > >>>>>>>> Before you actually tried to learn an Athabaskan language, or at > the > >>>>>>>> very > >>>>>>>> least worked on one, maybe you had better refrain from asserting > that > >>>>>>>> "a > >>>>>>>> language that is not for amateurs is not for people". TG > >>>>>>>> ========= > >>>>>>>> On 2/8/2011 6:33 AM, A. Katz wrote: > >>>>>>>>> A language that is not for amateurs is not for people. > >>>>>>>>> This has nothing to do with RS or computer language teaching. As > >>>>>>>>> others > >>>>>>>>> have stated, the technologically based systems are not a panacea. > >>>>>>>>> But a language that ordinary people can't pick by talking to > their > >>>>>>>>> parents > >>>>>>>>> in childhood is either dead already or not a human language. > >>>>>>>>> --Aya > >>>>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> I would be amazed if a single person actually learns to speak > >>>>>>>>>> Navajo > >>>>>>>>>> using Rosetta Stone. This is not a language for amateurs. > >>>>>>>>>> John > >>>>>>>>>> Quoting "s.t. bischoff": > >>>>>>>>>>> Hi all, > >>>>>>>>>>> Over the last week I was involved with an event at the American > >>>>>>>>>>> Indian > >>>>>>>>>>> Language Development Institute and the folks that created the > >>>>>>>>>>> Navajo > >>>>>>>>>>> Rosetta > >>>>>>>>>>> Stone gave a short talk about the software. What follows is my > >>>>>>>>>>> understanding > >>>>>>>>>>> of how it came to be. > >>>>>>>>>>> The Navajo Rosetta Stones was created in collaboration with > >>>>>>>>>>> Rosetta > >>>>>>> Stone > >>>>>>>>>>> and the non-profit Navajo Language Renaissance (NLR). NLR is a > >>>>>>> non-profit > >>>>>>>>>>> organization that is NOT affiliated with the tribal council or > >>>>>>> government > >>>>>>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>>>>> any way, for obvious reasons I think (e.g. getting council > >>>>>>>>>>> approval for > >>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>> project). However, it has been endorsed by the school > leadership > >>>>>>>>>>> and NLR > >>>>>>>>>>> is > >>>>>>>>>>> actively trying to get the school district to adopt the > software. > >>>>>>>>>>> You > >>>>>>> can > >>>>>>>>>>> view the NLR website here > http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ > >>>>>>>>>>> A > >>>>>>>>>>> non-community member started NLR after using Rosetta Stone to > >>>>>>>>>>> learn > >>>>>>>>>>> Russian. > >>>>>>>>>>> She thought it would be good if Rosetta Stone created a Navajo > >>>>>>>>>>> version. > >>>>>>>>>>> She > >>>>>>>>>>> contacted Rosetta Stone (RS), and they told her they would > provide > >>>>>>>>>>> here > >>>>>>>>>>> with > >>>>>>>>>>> the software to develop the lessons, a photographer, and > >>>>>>>>>>> technical > >>>>>>>>>>> assistants (limited on the ground, mostly by phone) to develop > the > >>>>>>>>>>> program > >>>>>>>>>>> for $300,000. Another option would be for her to apply for a > grant > >>>>>>>>>>> from > >>>>>>>>>>> RS > >>>>>>>>>>> to cover most of the costs. So the NLR was created, a > partnership > >>>>>>> between > >>>>>>>>>>> community members and one non-community member, as a > non-profit > >>>>>>>>>>> organization and applied. RS gave two grants the year they > >>>>>>>>>>> applied, one > >>>>>>>>>>> went > >>>>>>>>>>> to NLR. The grant covered all but $27,000 of the $300,000. So > NLR > >>>>>>>>>>> had to > >>>>>>>>>>> pay > >>>>>>>>>>> RS $27,000 to have access to the software to create the Navajo > >>>>>>>>>>> Rosetta > >>>>>>>>>>> Stone. This means they had to create the lessons and pay > speakers > >>>>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>>> informants themselves. RS provided the software, a > photographer, > >>>>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>>> technical support for the $27,000. NLR now is the only group > that > >>>>>>>>>>> can > >>>>>>>>>>> sell > >>>>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone, which they do for $150 per license and > $200 > >>>>>>>>>>> for a > >>>>>>>>>>> personal box set. It is not clear if they have to pay RS a > >>>>>>>>>>> percentage of > >>>>>>>>>>> those revenues or not. When I asked a clear answer wasn't > given. > >>>>>>>>>>> NLR > >>>>>>> also > >>>>>>>>>>> has a "training" session for administrators and teachers which > >>>>>>>>>>> costs > >>>>>>>>>>> $1500 a > >>>>>>>>>>> day and $400 per 3 hours. Needless to say, it is not > >>>>>>>>>>> un-controversial in > >>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>> community for many of the usual reasons. Ironically, the > speaker > >>>>>>>>>>> after > >>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>> Rosetta Stone folks gave a talk that demonstrated how to create > >>>>>>>>>>> nearly > >>>>>>>>>>> identical language lessons as Rosetta Stone's simply using > power > >>>>>>>>>>> point. > >>>>>>> I > >>>>>>>>>>> was encouraged to let folks know that they should contact the > NLR > >>>>>>>>>>> if > >>>>>>> they > >>>>>>>>>>> have any questions at mbittinger at rosettastone.com. You can try > a > >>>>>>>>>>> free > >>>>>>>>>>> introductory lesson here > http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ > >>>>>>>>>>> The > >>>>>>>>>>> folks > >>>>>>>>>>> at NLR praised RS for their efforts and felt they had really > done > >>>>>>>>>>> them a > >>>>>>>>>>> service. In short, they were very happy with the arrangement > and > >>>>>>>>>>> how it > >>>>>>>>>>> was > >>>>>>>>>>> working out. They were also upset by the controversies > surrounding > >>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone and felt they were really the result of a > >>>>>>>>>>> misunderstanding and misguided assumptions. One finally thing, > >>>>>>>>>>> they did > >>>>>>>>>>> seem > >>>>>>>>>>> to think that it was not a pancea, but rather another useful > tool > >>>>>>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>>>>> language revitalization efforts. > >>>>>>>>>>> Cheers, > >>>>>>>>>>> Shannon > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>>>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > >>>>>>>>>> University > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > >>>>>> University > >>> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 15 > Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 14:15:12 -0800 > From: Alex Walker > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Roseta Stone: Redux > To: "Geoffrey S. Nathan" > Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu, Frederick J Newmeyer > > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 > > Has anyone done acquisition studies of children in monolingual Georgian > homes? Georgian is the only national language I've encountered with > morphological complexity comparable to that seen in many American Indian > languages, and it's also in no danger of dying any time soon. I would very > much like to know whether anyone has worked with Georgian data to answer > some of the questions raised in this thread. > > On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 11:57 AM, Geoffrey Steven Nathan < > geoffnathan at wayne.edu> wrote: > > > Yes, there's lots of research on relative complexity of grammatical > systems > > as related to first language acquisition, and, of course, more complex, > > idiosyncratic, irregular morphological systems are harder to learn and > > acquired later than simpler, more regular ones expressing roughly the > same > > notion. > > Dan Slobin (are you on this list, Dan?) did much research in the 70's on > > this topic, comparing, IIRC, Serbo-Croatian (which existed then) and > > Turkish, and maybe some other languages. > > Here's an abstract from one of those papers: > > > > > > The ability of children between the ages of 2; 0 and 4; 8 to produce > > locative pre- or postpositions was investigated in English, Italian, > > Serbo-Croatian, and Turkish. Across languages, there was a general order > of > > development: (1) ?in?, ?on?, ?under?, and ?beside?, (2) ?between?, ?back? > > and ?front? with featured objects, (3) ?back? and ?front? with > non-featured > > objects. This order of development is discussed in terms of nonlinguistic > > growth in conceptual ability. Language-specific differences in the > general > > pattern of development are discussed in terms of a number of linguistic > > factors which may facilitate or retard the child's discovery of the > > linguistic means for encoding concepts. > > > > > > ? Journal of Child Language (1979), 6: 529-545 > > > > > > Geoff > > > > Geoffrey S. Nathan > > Faculty Liaison, C&IT > > and Professor, Linguistics Program > > http://blogs.wayne.edu/proftech/ > > +1 (313) 577-1259 (C&IT) > > +1 (313) 577-8621 (English/Linguistics) > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > > From: "Frederick J Newmeyer" > > To: "A. Katz" > > Cc: "Tom Givon" , john at research.haifa.ac.il, > "Funknet" > > > > Sent: Wednesday, February 9, 2011 1:27:25 PM > > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Roseta Stone: Redux > > > > A propos, are there any published studies out there that point to > > measurable difference in rate of completion of first-language acquisition > by > > speakers of one language compared to another? Or even of mastery of one > > aspect of L1 acquisition (phonology, morphology, etc.) by speakers of one > > language compared to another? > > > > --fritz > > > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > > University > > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > > > On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, A. Katz wrote: > > > > > Tom, > > > > > > If the language is dying, then the advice not to listen to somebody > under > > > forty because they don't know how to speak may be sound, but not for > the > > > reason that you suggest. It could be there are no fluent speakers under > > > forty. It seems very unlikely that one would have to arrive at age > forty > > > before acquiring fluency, especially in a hunter gatherer culture where > > death > > > before forty might be quite common. > > > > > > But if you have evidence to the contrary that fully immersed, > monolingual > > > young speakers of a language cannot speak it with communicative effect > > until > > > age forty, then this is a big discovery that ought to be published and > > shared > > > with the scientific community. > > > > > > --Aya > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Right on, John. And one could make a prediction--hopefully someday to > be > > >> tested by acquisition studies--that Navajo kids will not master the > > fully > > >> complexcity of the Athabaskan verb by age 10, or 15, or 20. I once > > reviewed > > >> a grammar in Papua New Guniea of a language that had comparable > > complexity > > >> on the verb (three positions, 6-8 categoriers each, massive zeroing & > > >> morphonemic). I had to ask Carle Whitehead--is this guy for real? He > > said, > > >> yes, he's been in the island for 20 years, really knows his stuff. So > I > > >> asked the guy--at what age are kids considered fuill-fledged speakers? > > He > > >> said-- the old people say, don't listen to anybody under forty, they > > don't > > >> know how to speak. In my work with the Utes, one exchange has stuck > out, > > >> an elder (ka-para'ni-wa-t, he's not walking about any more) who was > > pointed > > >> to me as the best orator in the tribe. I told him that, and he said: > > "Oh, I > > >> am nothing. You should have heard the Old Ones; when they spoke, you > > could > > >> see it all in front of your eyes". Part of it is due to the complex > Ute > > >> deictic system, which invades NPs, ADVs & the verb. The combinations, > > and > > >> the subtle choices of when to combine the deictic particle with other > > >> categories, are a whole wond(e)rous world. Cheers, TG > > >> > > >> ========== > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> On 2/9/2011 10:13 AM, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > > >>> Aya, > > >>> I think I was the one who said first that Navajo is not a language > for > > >>> amateurs. I'll second what Tom said--you should learn something > > >>> about Navajo (or some other Athabaskan language) before making > > >>> statements like this. Some languages are just plain objectively > harder > > >>> than > > >>> others, regardless of typological similarly to one's native language. > > If > > >>> you > > >>> don't believe this, do an experiment in which you take speakers of > > >>> English, > > >>> Turkish, Georgian, Chinese, whatever you want, try to teach them > > Navajo, > > >>> Hopi, > > >>> and Cree (for example), and see which one gives them the most > trouble. > > >>> I guarantee it will be Navajo. And there is an objective reason for > > it-- > > >>> the morphophonemics are just unbelievably complex. > > >>> John > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Quoting "A. Katz": > > >>> > > >>>> Tom, > > >>>> > > >>>> I don't think that is a valid viewpoint with regard to Athabaskan or > > any > > >>>> other language family. > > >>>> > > >>>> Victor Golla earlier had a much better phrasing when he wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> "Let that read: "A language that is not for amateurs is not for > > >>>> ADULT people."" > > >>>> > > >>>> But in fact no language is easy for adults to learn who have not > > already > > >>>> learned a language with a similar typology. If your native language > > works > > >>>> similarly to the one you are learning, then you have an enormous > > >>>> advantage > > >>>> as an adult second language learner. > > >>>> > > >>>> The remark about how Navajo is not for amateurs was made in the > > context > > >>>> of > > >>>> people who have no experience with languages of a similar typology. > > >>>> To make this a universal statement about the difficulty of Navajo > > without > > >>>> qualification is to suggest that some languages are "easy" and > others > > are > > >>>> "impossible". Not only is this not true from an objective > standpoint, > > it > > >>>> also perpetuates the prejudice that English (or IE) is a "normal" > > >>>> language > > >>>> and that every language should be measured against this norm. > > >>>> > > >>>> Best, > > >>>> > > >>>> --Aya > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Before you actually tried to learn an Athabaskan language, or at > the > > >>>>> very > > >>>>> least worked on one, maybe you had better refrain from asserting > that > > "a > > >>>>> language that is not for amateurs is not for people". TG > > >>>>> > > >>>>> ========= > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> On 2/8/2011 6:33 AM, A. Katz wrote: > > >>>>>> A language that is not for amateurs is not for people. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> This has nothing to do with RS or computer language teaching. As > > others > > >>>>>> have stated, the technologically based systems are not a panacea. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> But a language that ordinary people can't pick by talking to their > > >>>>>> parents > > >>>>>> in childhood is either dead already or not a human language. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> --Aya > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> I would be amazed if a single person actually learns to speak > > Navajo > > >>>>>>> using Rosetta Stone. This is not a language for amateurs. > > >>>>>>> John > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Quoting "s.t. bischoff": > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Hi all, > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Over the last week I was involved with an event at the American > > >>>>>>>> Indian > > >>>>>>>> Language Development Institute and the folks that created the > > Navajo > > >>>>>>>> Rosetta > > >>>>>>>> Stone gave a short talk about the software. What follows is my > > >>>>>>>> understanding > > >>>>>>>> of how it came to be. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> The Navajo Rosetta Stones was created in collaboration with > > Rosetta > > >>>> Stone > > >>>>>>>> and the non-profit Navajo Language Renaissance (NLR). NLR is a > > >>>> non-profit > > >>>>>>>> organization that is NOT affiliated with the tribal council or > > >>>> government > > >>>>>>>> in > > >>>>>>>> any way, for obvious reasons I think (e.g. getting council > > approval > > >>>>>>>> for > > >>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>> project). However, it has been endorsed by the school leadership > > and > > >>>>>>>> NLR > > >>>>>>>> is > > >>>>>>>> actively trying to get the school district to adopt the > software. > > You > > >>>> can > > >>>>>>>> view the NLR website here > http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/A > > >>>>>>>> non-community member started NLR after using Rosetta Stone to > > learn > > >>>>>>>> Russian. > > >>>>>>>> She thought it would be good if Rosetta Stone created a Navajo > > >>>>>>>> version. > > >>>>>>>> She > > >>>>>>>> contacted Rosetta Stone (RS), and they told her they would > provide > > >>>>>>>> here > > >>>>>>>> with > > >>>>>>>> the software to develop the lessons, a photographer, and > technical > > >>>>>>>> assistants (limited on the ground, mostly by phone) to develop > the > > >>>>>>>> program > > >>>>>>>> for $300,000. Another option would be for her to apply for a > grant > > >>>>>>>> from > > >>>>>>>> RS > > >>>>>>>> to cover most of the costs. So the NLR was created, a > partnership > > >>>> between > > >>>>>>>> community members and one non-community member, as a non-profit > > >>>>>>>> organization and applied. RS gave two grants the year they > > applied, > > >>>>>>>> one > > >>>>>>>> went > > >>>>>>>> to NLR. The grant covered all but $27,000 of the $300,000. So > NLR > > had > > >>>>>>>> to > > >>>>>>>> pay > > >>>>>>>> RS $27,000 to have access to the software to create the Navajo > > >>>>>>>> Rosetta > > >>>>>>>> Stone. This means they had to create the lessons and pay > speakers > > and > > >>>>>>>> informants themselves. RS provided the software, a photographer, > > and > > >>>>>>>> technical support for the $27,000. NLR now is the only group > that > > can > > >>>>>>>> sell > > >>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone, which they do for $150 per license and > $200 > > for > > >>>>>>>> a > > >>>>>>>> personal box set. It is not clear if they have to pay RS a > > percentage > > >>>>>>>> of > > >>>>>>>> those revenues or not. When I asked a clear answer wasn't given. > > NLR > > >>>> also > > >>>>>>>> has a "training" session for administrators and teachers which > > costs > > >>>>>>>> $1500 a > > >>>>>>>> day and $400 per 3 hours. Needless to say, it is not > > un-controversial > > >>>>>>>> in > > >>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>> community for many of the usual reasons. Ironically, the speaker > > >>>>>>>> after > > >>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>> Rosetta Stone folks gave a talk that demonstrated how to create > > >>>>>>>> nearly > > >>>>>>>> identical language lessons as Rosetta Stone's simply using power > > >>>>>>>> point. > > >>>> I > > >>>>>>>> was encouraged to let folks know that they should contact the > NLR > > if > > >>>> they > > >>>>>>>> have any questions at mbittinger at rosettastone.com. You can try > a > > free > > >>>>>>>> introductory lesson here > http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/The > > >>>>>>>> folks > > >>>>>>>> at NLR praised RS for their efforts and felt they had really > done > > >>>>>>>> them a > > >>>>>>>> service. In short, they were very happy with the arrangement and > > how > > >>>>>>>> it > > >>>>>>>> was > > >>>>>>>> working out. They were also upset by the controversies > surrounding > > >>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone and felt they were really the result of a > > >>>>>>>> misunderstanding and misguided assumptions. One finally thing, > > they > > >>>>>>>> did > > >>>>>>>> seem > > >>>>>>>> to think that it was not a pancea, but rather another useful > tool > > in > > >>>>>>>> language revitalization efforts. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Cheers, > > >>>>>>>> Shannon > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > >>>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > > >>>>>>> University > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > >>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > > University > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 16 > Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 16:00:53 -0700 > From: Lise Menn > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Roseta Stone: Redux > To: "A. Katz" , funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Message-ID: <074FF6EE-E63C-412A-A422-A224A6F97673 at colorado.edu> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed; > delsp=yes > > that's right. And child language and pidgin aren't the same, in any > case, for any language I know about, any more than any of them are > telegrams. But there are arcane reaches of languages that most people > don't learn, confounding the definition of what 'acquire' means: > Japanese honorifics and noun classifiers have elegant refinements, > crafts and professions have jargons... > > On Feb 9, 2011, at 1:50 PM, A. Katz wrote: > > > I seem to recall that in "The Evolution of Language Out of Pre- > > Language" Dan Slobin had a sort of dissenting article at the end in > > which he mentioned that Turkish children use grammatical morphology > > at the one word level, so that they are never actually speaking a > > pidgin Turkish at any point in their language development. > > > > --Aya > > > > On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Craig Hancock wrote: > > > >> Brian, > >> This strikes as a bit like Lake Woebegone (Where all the children > >> are above average). > >> > >> normal Danish children all learn good Danish and become fluent > >> readers > >> > >> Is acquiring a language totally separate from the uses of that > >> language? Are we just acquiring the forms and then differing in our > >> ability to put them to use or are the uses themselves a major part > >> of what we are acquiring? Are lexicon and syntax wholly separate, > >> or do we go on acquiring the lexico-grammar as we enter more deeply > >> into adult worlds of discourse? > >> Anyone in literacy education knows that too many American > >> children fail to reach high levels of fluency as readers and > >> writers. Doesn't that somehow mean they have failed to acquire the > >> language? > >> > >> Craig > >> > >> On 2/9/2011 2:04 PM, Brian MacWhinney wrote: > >>> Fritz, > >>> There are studies in places like the Journal of Child Language by > >>> Dorthe Bleses, Hans Basb?l, and colleagues at Southern Denmark > >>> University on the delay of the acquisition of Danish phonology in > >>> comparison to other European languages, mostly attributed to the > >>> complexities of the vowel system and the various assimilatory > >>> processes. There is a corresponding delay in the acquisition of > >>> reading by Danish children that was observed in the cross-European > >>> PISA project. All of this is well documented in the literature, > >>> but it is rather marginal and transitory. Eventually, normal > >>> Danish children all learn good Danish and become fluent readers. > >>> -- Brian MacWhinney > >>> On Feb 9, 2011, at 1:27 PM, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > >>>> A propos, are there any published studies out there that point to > >>>> measurable difference in rate of completion of first-language > >>>> acquisition by speakers of one language compared to another? Or > >>>> even of mastery of one aspect of L1 acquisition (phonology, > >>>> morphology, etc.) by speakers of one language compared to another? > >>>> --fritz > >>>> Frederick J. Newmeyer > >>>> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > >>>> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon > >>>> Fraser University > >>>> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > >>>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, A. Katz wrote: > >>>>> Tom, > >>>>> If the language is dying, then the advice not to listen to > >>>>> somebody under forty because they don't know how to speak may be > >>>>> sound, but not for the reason that you suggest. It could be > >>>>> there are no fluent speakers under forty. It seems very unlikely > >>>>> that one would have to arrive at age forty before acquiring > >>>>> fluency, especially in a hunter gatherer culture where death > >>>>> before forty might be quite common. > >>>>> But if you have evidence to the contrary that fully immersed, > >>>>> monolingual young speakers of a language cannot speak it with > >>>>> communicative effect until age forty, then this is a big > >>>>> discovery that ought to be published and shared with the > >>>>> scientific community. > >>>>> > >>>>> --Aya > >>>>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: > >>>>>> Right on, John. And one could make a prediction--hopefully > >>>>>> someday to be tested by acquisition studies--that Navajo kids > >>>>>> will not master the fully complexcity of the Athabaskan verb by > >>>>>> age 10, or 15, or 20. I once reviewed a grammar in Papua New > >>>>>> Guniea of a language that had comparable complexity on the verb > >>>>>> (three positions, 6-8 categoriers each, massive zeroing& > >>>>>> morphonemic). I had to ask Carle Whitehead--is this guy for > >>>>>> real? He said, yes, he's been in the island for 20 years, > >>>>>> really knows his stuff. So I asked the guy--at what age are > >>>>>> kids considered fuill-fledged speakers? He said-- the old > >>>>>> people say, don't listen to anybody under forty, they don't > >>>>>> know how to speak. In my work with the Utes, one exchange has > >>>>>> stuck out, an elder (ka-para'ni-wa-t, he's not walking about > >>>>>> any more) who was pointed to me as the best orator in the > >>>>>> tribe. I told him that, and he said: "Oh, I am nothing. You > >>>>>> should have heard the Old Ones; when they spoke, you could see > >>>>>> it all in front of your eyes". Part of it is due to the complex > >>>>>> Ute deictic system, which invades NPs, ADVs& the verb. The > >>>>>> combinations, and the subtle choices of when to combine the > >>>>>> deictic particle with other categories, are a whole wond(e)rous > >>>>>> world. Cheers, TG > >>>>>> ========== > >>>>>> On 2/9/2011 10:13 AM, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > >>>>>>> Aya, > >>>>>>> I think I was the one who said first that Navajo is not a > >>>>>>> language for > >>>>>>> amateurs. I'll second what Tom said--you should learn something > >>>>>>> about Navajo (or some other Athabaskan language) before making > >>>>>>> statements like this. Some languages are just plain > >>>>>>> objectively harder than > >>>>>>> others, regardless of typological similarly to one's native > >>>>>>> language. If you > >>>>>>> don't believe this, do an experiment in which you take > >>>>>>> speakers of English, > >>>>>>> Turkish, Georgian, Chinese, whatever you want, try to teach > >>>>>>> them Navajo, Hopi, > >>>>>>> and Cree (for example), and see which one gives them the most > >>>>>>> trouble. > >>>>>>> I guarantee it will be Navajo. And there is an objective > >>>>>>> reason for it-- > >>>>>>> the morphophonemics are just unbelievably complex. > >>>>>>> John > >>>>>>> Quoting "A. Katz": > >>>>>>>> Tom, > >>>>>>>> I don't think that is a valid viewpoint with regard to > >>>>>>>> Athabaskan or any > >>>>>>>> other language family. > >>>>>>>> Victor Golla earlier had a much better phrasing when he wrote: > >>>>>>>> "Let that read: "A language that is not for amateurs is not for > >>>>>>>> ADULT people."" > >>>>>>>> But in fact no language is easy for adults to learn who have > >>>>>>>> not already > >>>>>>>> learned a language with a similar typology. If your native > >>>>>>>> language works > >>>>>>>> similarly to the one you are learning, then you have an > >>>>>>>> enormous advantage > >>>>>>>> as an adult second language learner. > >>>>>>>> The remark about how Navajo is not for amateurs was made in > >>>>>>>> the context of > >>>>>>>> people who have no experience with languages of a similar > >>>>>>>> typology. > >>>>>>>> To make this a universal statement about the difficulty of > >>>>>>>> Navajo without > >>>>>>>> qualification is to suggest that some languages are "easy" > >>>>>>>> and others are > >>>>>>>> "impossible". Not only is this not true from an objective > >>>>>>>> standpoint, it > >>>>>>>> also perpetuates the prejudice that English (or IE) is a > >>>>>>>> "normal" language > >>>>>>>> and that every language should be measured against this norm. > >>>>>>>> Best, > >>>>>>>> --Aya > >>>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: > >>>>>>>>> Before you actually tried to learn an Athabaskan language, > >>>>>>>>> or at the very > >>>>>>>>> least worked on one, maybe you had better refrain from > >>>>>>>>> asserting that "a > >>>>>>>>> language that is not for amateurs is not for people". TG > >>>>>>>>> ========= > >>>>>>>>> On 2/8/2011 6:33 AM, A. Katz wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> A language that is not for amateurs is not for people. > >>>>>>>>>> This has nothing to do with RS or computer language > >>>>>>>>>> teaching. As others > >>>>>>>>>> have stated, the technologically based systems are not a > >>>>>>>>>> panacea. > >>>>>>>>>> But a language that ordinary people can't pick by talking > >>>>>>>>>> to their parents > >>>>>>>>>> in childhood is either dead already or not a human language. > >>>>>>>>>> --Aya > >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> I would be amazed if a single person actually learns to > >>>>>>>>>>> speak Navajo > >>>>>>>>>>> using Rosetta Stone. This is not a language for amateurs. > >>>>>>>>>>> John > >>>>>>>>>>> Quoting "s.t. bischoff": > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all, > >>>>>>>>>>>> Over the last week I was involved with an event at the > >>>>>>>>>>>> American Indian > >>>>>>>>>>>> Language Development Institute and the folks that created > >>>>>>>>>>>> the Navajo > >>>>>>>>>>>> Rosetta > >>>>>>>>>>>> Stone gave a short talk about the software. What follows > >>>>>>>>>>>> is my > >>>>>>>>>>>> understanding > >>>>>>>>>>>> of how it came to be. > >>>>>>>>>>>> The Navajo Rosetta Stones was created in collaboration > >>>>>>>>>>>> with Rosetta > >>>>>>>> Stone > >>>>>>>>>>>> and the non-profit Navajo Language Renaissance (NLR). NLR > >>>>>>>>>>>> is a > >>>>>>>> non-profit > >>>>>>>>>>>> organization that is NOT affiliated with the tribal > >>>>>>>>>>>> council or > >>>>>>>> government > >>>>>>>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>>>>>> any way, for obvious reasons I think (e.g. getting > >>>>>>>>>>>> council approval for > >>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>> project). However, it has been endorsed by the school > >>>>>>>>>>>> leadership and NLR > >>>>>>>>>>>> is > >>>>>>>>>>>> actively trying to get the school district to adopt the > >>>>>>>>>>>> software. You > >>>>>>>> can > >>>>>>>>>>>> view the NLR website here > http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ > >>>>>>>>>>>> A > >>>>>>>>>>>> non-community member started NLR after using Rosetta > >>>>>>>>>>>> Stone to learn > >>>>>>>>>>>> Russian. > >>>>>>>>>>>> She thought it would be good if Rosetta Stone created a > >>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo version. > >>>>>>>>>>>> She > >>>>>>>>>>>> contacted Rosetta Stone (RS), and they told her they > >>>>>>>>>>>> would provide here > >>>>>>>>>>>> with > >>>>>>>>>>>> the software to develop the lessons, a photographer, and > >>>>>>>>>>>> technical > >>>>>>>>>>>> assistants (limited on the ground, mostly by phone) to > >>>>>>>>>>>> develop the > >>>>>>>>>>>> program > >>>>>>>>>>>> for $300,000. Another option would be for her to apply > >>>>>>>>>>>> for a grant from > >>>>>>>>>>>> RS > >>>>>>>>>>>> to cover most of the costs. So the NLR was created, a > >>>>>>>>>>>> partnership > >>>>>>>> between > >>>>>>>>>>>> community members and one non-community member, as a non- > >>>>>>>>>>>> profit > >>>>>>>>>>>> organization and applied. RS gave two grants the year > >>>>>>>>>>>> they applied, one > >>>>>>>>>>>> went > >>>>>>>>>>>> to NLR. The grant covered all but $27,000 of the > >>>>>>>>>>>> $300,000. So NLR had to > >>>>>>>>>>>> pay > >>>>>>>>>>>> RS $27,000 to have access to the software to create the > >>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta > >>>>>>>>>>>> Stone. This means they had to create the lessons and pay > >>>>>>>>>>>> speakers and > >>>>>>>>>>>> informants themselves. RS provided the software, a > >>>>>>>>>>>> photographer, and > >>>>>>>>>>>> technical support for the $27,000. NLR now is the only > >>>>>>>>>>>> group that can > >>>>>>>>>>>> sell > >>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone, which they do for $150 per license > >>>>>>>>>>>> and $200 for a > >>>>>>>>>>>> personal box set. It is not clear if they have to pay RS > >>>>>>>>>>>> a percentage of > >>>>>>>>>>>> those revenues or not. When I asked a clear answer wasn't > >>>>>>>>>>>> given. NLR > >>>>>>>> also > >>>>>>>>>>>> has a "training" session for administrators and teachers > >>>>>>>>>>>> which costs > >>>>>>>>>>>> $1500 a > >>>>>>>>>>>> day and $400 per 3 hours. Needless to say, it is not un- > >>>>>>>>>>>> controversial in > >>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>> community for many of the usual reasons. Ironically, the > >>>>>>>>>>>> speaker after > >>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>> Rosetta Stone folks gave a talk that demonstrated how to > >>>>>>>>>>>> create nearly > >>>>>>>>>>>> identical language lessons as Rosetta Stone's simply > >>>>>>>>>>>> using power point. > >>>>>>>> I > >>>>>>>>>>>> was encouraged to let folks know that they should contact > >>>>>>>>>>>> the NLR if > >>>>>>>> they > >>>>>>>>>>>> have any questions at mbittinger at rosettastone.com. You > >>>>>>>>>>>> can try a free > >>>>>>>>>>>> introductory lesson here > http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ > >>>>>>>>>>>> The > >>>>>>>>>>>> folks > >>>>>>>>>>>> at NLR praised RS for their efforts and felt they had > >>>>>>>>>>>> really done them a > >>>>>>>>>>>> service. In short, they were very happy with the > >>>>>>>>>>>> arrangement and how it > >>>>>>>>>>>> was > >>>>>>>>>>>> working out. They were also upset by the controversies > >>>>>>>>>>>> surrounding the > >>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone and felt they were really the result > >>>>>>>>>>>> of a > >>>>>>>>>>>> misunderstanding and misguided assumptions. One finally > >>>>>>>>>>>> thing, they did > >>>>>>>>>>>> seem > >>>>>>>>>>>> to think that it was not a pancea, but rather another > >>>>>>>>>>>> useful tool in > >>>>>>>>>>>> language revitalization efforts. > >>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers, > >>>>>>>>>>>> Shannon > >>>>>>>>>>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>>>>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of > >>>>>>>>>>> Haifa University > >>>>>>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > >>>>>>> University > >> > >> > >> > > Lise Menn Home Office: 303-444-4274 > 1625 Mariposa Ave Fax: 303-413-0017 > Boulder CO 80302 > home page: http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/ > > Professor Emerita of Linguistics > Fellow, Institute of Cognitive Science > University of Colorado > > Secretary, AAAS Section Z [Linguistics] > Fellow, Linguistic Society of America > > Campus Mail Address: > UCB 594, Institute for Cognitive Science > > Campus Physical Address: > CINC 234 > 1777 Exposition Ave, Boulder > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 17 > Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 17:33:56 -0600 > From: "Robert Englebretson" > Subject: [FUNKNET] 1-year lecturer position in lab phonetics/phonology > at Rice U > To: > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; > reply-type=original > > The Department of Linguistics at Rice University is now accepting > applications for a lecturer position in laboratory phonetics and phonology. > The successful applicant will be asked to teach courses in both of these > areas, an introductory linguistics course, and may teach additional courses > in his or her subject area. This is a one-year appointment, and the course > load is four courses for that year. Deadline for receipt of applications > is > March 25, 2011. Ph.D. is required by time of appointment; position start > date is July 1, 2011. > > We especially welcome applications from researchers who share the > department's interest in approaching language from a usage-based > perspective > with solid empirical grounding in primary data, especially approaches of a > cognitive, social-interactional, and/or functional nature. See also our > departmental web site at http://ling.rice.edu. > > Application materials include: cover letter, CV, teaching statement, sample > of written work, and names and contact information for three references. > Past teaching evaluations and/or information about course topics the > applicant could teach are also welcome but not required at this time. > > Rice University is committed to affirmative action and equal opportunity in > education and employment. Rice does not discriminate on the basis of race, > color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national or ethnic origin, age, > disability or veteran status. Rice University is an Equal > Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer. > > Address for Applications: > Search Committee > Department of Linguistics, MS-23 > Rice University > 6100 Main Street > Houston, TX 77005 > USA > > > ****************************************************************** > Dr. Robert Englebretson *Associate Professor and Graduate Advisor* > Dept. of Linguistics, MS23 > Rice University > 6100 Main St. > Houston, TX 77005-1892 > Phone: 713 348-4776 > E-mail: reng at rice.edu > http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~reng > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 18 > Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2011 19:53:18 -0800 > From: "Dan I. Slobin" > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Roseta Stone: Redux > To: Lise Menn ,"A. Katz" , > funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20110209192906.01240e48 at berkeley.edu> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed > > A few responses to previous postings: > > Yes, languages with transparent and consistent > agglutinative morphology, in the verbal or > nominal systems, allow for rapid acquisition, > with some productive inflections at the one-word > stage. Turkish morphology, having virtually no > irregular patterns, is quite securely mastered by > age 3 at the latest, and often much > earlier. And, in general, complex morphology, of > various types, presents no serious problems with > regard to acquisition of the basic grammar of the > relevant constructions. For details of > successful early acquistion of morphology in a > number of such "complex"languages see volumes of > my crosslinguistic series: Vol. 1 (Hebrew, > Polish, Turkish), Vol. 2 (Hungarian), Vol. 3 > (Georgian, West Greenlandic, K'iche' Maya, > Warlpiri, Sesotho), Vol. 4 (Estonian, Finnish, > Korean). Comparable findings are available for > the acquisition of Inuktitut, Tzeltal, > Tzotzil,Yucatec Maya, Hindi, Tamil, and > others. What children find difficult--as do > inguists--are multiply-determined and/or > unpredictable morphophonological patterns. > > So it depends on what you want to credit as > "total acquisition" or "completion of > acquisition." An English-speaking 10-year-old > can fluently produce a range of syntactic > structures, in various genres and registers, > without having mastered all of the irregular verb > forms and a number of subordinate syntactic > constructions. Furthermore, remember that a > bility to produce a pattern in some contexts is > far from commanding its full range of semantic > and pragmatic functions. And when all of you > Funknetters became undergraduate and graduate > students, and later professionals, you were still > acquiring many aspects of English grammar, > vocabulary, and style. Indeed, it goes on > throughout the lifespan of an engaged individual. > > There are no established criteria for full > mastery, but there are numerous studies, in all > five of the crosslinguistic volumes and > elsewhere, of prolonged acquisition of various parts of a linguistic > system. > > As noted, I've written about the error of > expecting early child language to mirror pidgins. > > Best, > > Dan (with references following, many of mine > available for download at > http://psychology.berkeley.edu/faculty/profiles/dslobin.html > Slobin, D. I. (1985, 1992, 1997). The > crosslinguistic study of language acquisition. > Vol. 1: The Data (1985); Vol. 2: Theoretical > issues (1985); Vol. 3 (1992); Vol. 4 (1997); Vol. > 5: Expanding the contexts (1997). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. > Slobin, D. I. (2004). From ontogenesis to > phylogenesis: What can child language tell us > about language evolution? In J. Langer, S. T. > Parker, & C. Milbrath (Eds.), Biology and > Knowledge revisited: From neurogenesis to > psychogenesis (pp. 255-285). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. > > > At 03:00 PM 2/9/2011, Lise Menn wrote: > >that's right. And child language and pidgin aren't the same, in any > >case, for any language I know about, any more than any of them are > >telegrams. But there are arcane reaches of languages that most people > >don't learn, confounding the definition of what 'acquire' means: > >Japanese honorifics and noun classifiers have elegant refinements, > >crafts and professions have jargons... > > > >On Feb 9, 2011, at 1:50 PM, A. Katz wrote: > > > >>I seem to recall that in "The Evolution of > >>Language Out of Pre- Language" Dan Slobin had a > >>sort of dissenting article at the end in > >>which he mentioned that Turkish children use grammatical morphology > >>at the one word level, so that they are never actually speaking a > >>pidgin Turkish at any point in their language development. > >> > >> --Aya > >> > >>On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Craig Hancock wrote: > >> > >>>Brian, > >>> This strikes as a bit like Lake Woebegone (Where all the children > >>>are above average). > >>> > >>>normal Danish children all learn good Danish and become fluent > >>>readers > >>> > >>> Is acquiring a language totally separate from the uses of that > >>>language? Are we just acquiring the forms and then differing in our > >>>ability to put them to use or are the uses themselves a major part > >>>of what we are acquiring? Are lexicon and syntax wholly separate, > >>>or do we go on acquiring the lexico-grammar as we enter more deeply > >>>into adult worlds of discourse? > >>> Anyone in literacy education knows that too many American > >>>children fail to reach high levels of fluency as readers and > >>>writers. Doesn't that somehow mean they have failed to acquire the > >>>language? > >>> > >>>Craig > >>> > >>>On 2/9/2011 2:04 PM, Brian MacWhinney wrote: > >>>>Fritz, > >>>>There are studies in places like the Journal of Child Language by > >>>>Dorthe Bleses, Hans Basb?l, and colleagues at Southern Denmark > >>>>University on the delay of the acquisition of Danish phonology in > >>>>comparison to other European languages, mostly attributed to the > >>>>complexities of the vowel system and the various assimilatory > >>>>processes. There is a corresponding delay in the acquisition of > >>>>reading by Danish children that was observed in the cross-European > >>>>PISA project. All of this is well documented in the literature, > >>>>but it is rather marginal and transitory. Eventually, normal > >>>>Danish children all learn good Danish and become fluent readers. > >>>>-- Brian MacWhinney > >>>>On Feb 9, 2011, at 1:27 PM, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > >>>>>A propos, are there any published studies out there that point to > >>>>>measurable difference in rate of completion of first-language > >>>>>acquisition by speakers of one language compared to another? Or > >>>>>even of mastery of one aspect of L1 acquisition (phonology, > >>>>>morphology, etc.) by speakers of one language compared to another? > >>>>>--fritz > >>>>>Frederick J. Newmeyer > >>>>>Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > >>>>>Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon > >>>>>Fraser University > >>>>>[for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > >>>>>On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, A. Katz wrote: > >>>>>>Tom, > >>>>>>If the language is dying, then the advice not to listen to > >>>>>>somebody under forty because they don't know how to speak may be > >>>>>>sound, but not for the reason that you suggest. It could be > >>>>>>there are no fluent speakers under forty. It seems very unlikely > >>>>>>that one would have to arrive at age forty before acquiring > >>>>>>fluency, especially in a hunter gatherer culture where death > >>>>>>before forty might be quite common. > >>>>>>But if you have evidence to the contrary that fully immersed, > >>>>>>monolingual young speakers of a language cannot speak it with > >>>>>>communicative effect until age forty, then this is a big > >>>>>>discovery that ought to be published and shared with the > >>>>>>scientific community. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> --Aya > >>>>>>On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: > >>>>>>>Right on, John. And one could make a prediction--hopefully > >>>>>>>someday to be tested by acquisition studies--that Navajo kids > >>>>>>>will not master the fully complexcity of the Athabaskan verb by > >>>>>>>age 10, or 15, or 20. I once reviewed a grammar in Papua New > >>>>>>>Guniea of a language that had comparable complexity on the verb > >>>>>>>(three positions, 6-8 categoriers each, massive zeroing& > >>>>>>>morphonemic). I had to ask Carle Whitehead--is this guy for > >>>>>>>real? He said, yes, he's been in the island for 20 years, > >>>>>>>really knows his stuff. So I asked the guy--at what age are > >>>>>>>kids considered fuill-fledged speakers? He said-- the old > >>>>>>>people say, don't listen to anybody under forty, they don't > >>>>>>>know how to speak. In my work with the Utes, one exchange has > >>>>>>>stuck out, an elder (ka-para'ni-wa-t, he's not walking about > >>>>>>>any more) who was pointed to me as the best orator in the > >>>>>>>tribe. I told him that, and he said: "Oh, I am nothing. You > >>>>>>>should have heard the Old Ones; when they spoke, you could see > >>>>>>>it all in front of your eyes". Part of it is due to the complex > >>>>>>>Ute deictic system, which invades NPs, ADVs& the verb. The > >>>>>>>combinations, and the subtle choices of when to combine the > >>>>>>>deictic particle with other categories, are a whole wond(e)rous > >>>>>>>world. Cheers, TG > >>>>>>>========== > >>>>>>>On 2/9/2011 10:13 AM, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > >>>>>>>>Aya, > >>>>>>>>I think I was the one who said first that Navajo is not a > >>>>>>>>language for > >>>>>>>>amateurs. I'll second what Tom said--you should learn something > >>>>>>>>about Navajo (or some other Athabaskan language) before making > >>>>>>>>statements like this. Some languages are just plain > >>>>>>>>objectively harder than > >>>>>>>>others, regardless of typological similarly to one's native > >>>>>>>>language. If you > >>>>>>>>don't believe this, do an experiment in which you take > >>>>>>>>speakers of English, > >>>>>>>>Turkish, Georgian, Chinese, whatever you want, try to teach > >>>>>>>>them Navajo, Hopi, > >>>>>>>>and Cree (for example), and see which one gives them the most > >>>>>>>>trouble. > >>>>>>>>I guarantee it will be Navajo. And there is an objective > >>>>>>>>reason for it-- > >>>>>>>>the morphophonemics are just unbelievably complex. > >>>>>>>>John > >>>>>>>>Quoting "A. Katz": > >>>>>>>>>Tom, > >>>>>>>>>I don't think that is a valid viewpoint with regard to > >>>>>>>>>Athabaskan or any > >>>>>>>>>other language family. > >>>>>>>>>Victor Golla earlier had a much better phrasing when he wrote: > >>>>>>>>>"Let that read: "A language that is not for amateurs is not for > >>>>>>>>>ADULT people."" > >>>>>>>>>But in fact no language is easy for adults to learn who have > >>>>>>>>>not already > >>>>>>>>>learned a language with a similar typology. If your native > >>>>>>>>>language works > >>>>>>>>>similarly to the one you are learning, then you have an > >>>>>>>>>enormous advantage > >>>>>>>>>as an adult second language learner. > >>>>>>>>>The remark about how Navajo is not for amateurs was made in > >>>>>>>>>the context of > >>>>>>>>>people who have no experience with languages of a similar > >>>>>>>>>typology. > >>>>>>>>>To make this a universal statement about the difficulty of > >>>>>>>>>Navajo without > >>>>>>>>>qualification is to suggest that some languages are "easy" > >>>>>>>>>and others are > >>>>>>>>>"impossible". Not only is this not true from an objective > >>>>>>>>>standpoint, it > >>>>>>>>>also perpetuates the prejudice that English (or IE) is a > >>>>>>>>>"normal" language > >>>>>>>>>and that every language should be measured against this norm. > >>>>>>>>>Best, > >>>>>>>>> --Aya > >>>>>>>>>On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>Before you actually tried to learn an Athabaskan language, > >>>>>>>>>>or at the very > >>>>>>>>>>least worked on one, maybe you had better refrain from > >>>>>>>>>>asserting that "a > >>>>>>>>>>language that is not for amateurs is not for people". TG > >>>>>>>>>>========= > >>>>>>>>>>On 2/8/2011 6:33 AM, A. Katz wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>A language that is not for amateurs is not for people. > >>>>>>>>>>>This has nothing to do with RS or computer language > >>>>>>>>>>>teaching. As others > >>>>>>>>>>>have stated, the technologically based systems are not a > >>>>>>>>>>>panacea. > >>>>>>>>>>>But a language that ordinary people can't pick by talking > >>>>>>>>>>>to their parents > >>>>>>>>>>>in childhood is either dead already or not a human language. > >>>>>>>>>>> --Aya > >>>>>>>>>>>On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>I would be amazed if a single person actually learns to > >>>>>>>>>>>>speak Navajo > >>>>>>>>>>>>using Rosetta Stone. This is not a language for amateurs. > >>>>>>>>>>>>John > >>>>>>>>>>>>Quoting "s.t. bischoff": > >>>>>>>>>>>>>Hi all, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>Over the last week I was involved with an event at the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>American Indian > >>>>>>>>>>>>>Language Development Institute and the folks that created > >>>>>>>>>>>>>the Navajo > >>>>>>>>>>>>>Rosetta > >>>>>>>>>>>>>Stone gave a short talk about the software. What follows > >>>>>>>>>>>>>is my > >>>>>>>>>>>>>understanding > >>>>>>>>>>>>>of how it came to be. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>The Navajo Rosetta Stones was created in collaboration > >>>>>>>>>>>>>with Rosetta > >>>>>>>>>Stone > >>>>>>>>>>>>>and the non-profit Navajo Language Renaissance (NLR). NLR > >>>>>>>>>>>>>is a > >>>>>>>>>non-profit > >>>>>>>>>>>>>organization that is NOT affiliated with the tribal > >>>>>>>>>>>>>council or > >>>>>>>>>government > >>>>>>>>>>>>>in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>any way, for obvious reasons I think (e.g. getting > >>>>>>>>>>>>>council approval for > >>>>>>>>>>>>>the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>project). However, it has been endorsed by the school > >>>>>>>>>>>>>leadership and NLR > >>>>>>>>>>>>>is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>actively trying to get the school district to adopt the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>software. You > >>>>>>>>>can > >>>>>>>>>>>>>view the NLR website here > >>>>>>>>>>>>>http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ A > >>>>>>>>>>>>>non-community member started NLR after using Rosetta > >>>>>>>>>>>>>Stone to learn > >>>>>>>>>>>>>Russian. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>She thought it would be good if Rosetta Stone created a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>Navajo version. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>She > >>>>>>>>>>>>>contacted Rosetta Stone (RS), and they told her they > >>>>>>>>>>>>>would provide here > >>>>>>>>>>>>>with > >>>>>>>>>>>>>the software to develop the lessons, a photographer, and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>technical > >>>>>>>>>>>>>assistants (limited on the ground, mostly by phone) to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>develop the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>program > >>>>>>>>>>>>>for $300,000. Another option would be for her to apply > >>>>>>>>>>>>>for a grant from > >>>>>>>>>>>>>RS > >>>>>>>>>>>>>to cover most of the costs. So the NLR was created, a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>partnership > >>>>>>>>>between > >>>>>>>>>>>>>community members and one non-community member, as a non- > profit > >>>>>>>>>>>>>organization and applied. RS gave two grants the year > >>>>>>>>>>>>>they applied, one > >>>>>>>>>>>>>went > >>>>>>>>>>>>>to NLR. The grant covered all but $27,000 of the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>$300,000. So NLR had to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>pay > >>>>>>>>>>>>>RS $27,000 to have access to the software to create the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>Navajo Rosetta > >>>>>>>>>>>>>Stone. This means they had to create the lessons and pay > >>>>>>>>>>>>>speakers and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>informants themselves. RS provided the software, a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>photographer, and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>technical support for the $27,000. NLR now is the only > >>>>>>>>>>>>>group that can > >>>>>>>>>>>>>sell > >>>>>>>>>>>>>Navajo Rosetta Stone, which they do for $150 per license > >>>>>>>>>>>>>and $200 for a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>personal box set. It is not clear if they have to pay RS > >>>>>>>>>>>>>a percentage of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>those revenues or not. When I asked a clear answer wasn't > >>>>>>>>>>>>>given. NLR > >>>>>>>>>also > >>>>>>>>>>>>>has a "training" session for administrators and teachers > >>>>>>>>>>>>>which costs > >>>>>>>>>>>>>$1500 a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>day and $400 per 3 hours. Needless > >>>>>>>>>>>>>to say, it is not un- controversial in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>community for many of the usual reasons. Ironically, the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>speaker after > >>>>>>>>>>>>>the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>Rosetta Stone folks gave a talk that demonstrated how to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>create nearly > >>>>>>>>>>>>>identical language lessons as Rosetta Stone's simply > >>>>>>>>>>>>>using power point. > >>>>>>>>>I > >>>>>>>>>>>>>was encouraged to let folks know that they should contact > >>>>>>>>>>>>>the NLR if > >>>>>>>>>they > >>>>>>>>>>>>>have any questions at mbittinger at rosettastone.com. You > >>>>>>>>>>>>>can try a free > >>>>>>>>>>>>>introductory lesson here > >>>>>>>>>>>>>http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ The > >>>>>>>>>>>>>folks > >>>>>>>>>>>>>at NLR praised RS for their efforts and felt they had > >>>>>>>>>>>>>really done them a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>service. In short, they were very happy with the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>arrangement and how it > >>>>>>>>>>>>>was > >>>>>>>>>>>>>working out. They were also upset by the controversies > >>>>>>>>>>>>>surrounding the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>Navajo Rosetta Stone and felt they were really the result > >>>>>>>>>>>>>of a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>misunderstanding and misguided assumptions. One finally > >>>>>>>>>>>>>thing, they did > >>>>>>>>>>>>>seem > >>>>>>>>>>>>>to think that it was not a pancea, but rather another > >>>>>>>>>>>>>useful tool in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>language revitalization efforts. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>Cheers, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>Shannon > > >>>>>>>>>>>>------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>>>>>>>>>This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of > >>>>>>>>>>>>Haifa University > > >>>>>>>>------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>>>>>This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > >>>>>>>>University > >>> > >>> > > > >Lise Menn Home Office: 303-444-4274 > >1625 Mariposa Ave Fax: 303-413-0017 > >Boulder CO 80302 > >home page: http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/ > > > >Professor Emerita of Linguistics > >Fellow, Institute of Cognitive Science > >University of Colorado > > > >Secretary, AAAS Section Z [Linguistics] > >Fellow, Linguistic Society of America > > > >Campus Mail Address: > >UCB 594, Institute for Cognitive Science > > > >Campus Physical Address: > >CINC 234 > >1777 Exposition Ave, Boulder > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Dan I. Slobin > Professor Emeritus of Psychology and Linguistics > > Department of Psychology email: slobin at berkeley.edu > 3210 Tolman #1650 phone (Dept): 1-510-642-5292 > University of California phone (home): 1-510-848-1769 > Berkeley, CA 94720-1650, USA fax: 1-510-642-5293 > http://psychology.berkeley.edu/faculty/profiles/dslobin.html > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 19 > Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 21:15:09 -0700 > From: Sherman Wilcox > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Roseta Stone: Redux > To: "Dan I. Slobin" > Cc: Lise Menn , funknet at mailman.rice.edu, > "A. > Katz" > Message-ID: <9B8BABED-AAD9-45D5-A503-0F9BEF0FA04D at unm.edu> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > On Feb 9, 2011, at 8:53 PM, Dan I. Slobin wrote: > > > And when all of you Funknetters became undergraduate and graduate > students, and later professionals, you were still acquiring many aspects of > English grammar, vocabulary, and style. Indeed, it goes on throughout the > lifespan of an engaged individual. > > > Okay, so writing isn't the same as speaking. Nevertheless, I think this > interview with Ernest Hemingway is relevant: > > Interviewer: How much rewriting do you do? > > Hemingway: It depends. I rewrote the ending of "Farewell to Arms," the last > page of it, 39 times before I was satisfied. > > Interviewer: Was there some technical problem there? What was it that had > stumped you? > > Hemingway: Getting the words right. > > > -- > Sherman Wilcox, Ph.D. > Professor > Department of Linguistics > University of New Mexico > Albuquerque, NM 87131 > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 20 > Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 07:15:36 +0000 > From: Elena Lieven > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Roseta Stone: Redux > To: "Dan I. Slobin" > Cc: Lise Menn , funknet at mailman.rice.edu, > "A. > Katz" > Message-ID: <4D539098.6040105 at eva.mpg.de> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > Dan is right. Of course it depends what is meant by 'acquiring a > language'. The skills of highly educated people or public speakers and > great story tellers in oral cultures will not necessarily be acquired by > all members of a community. Ewa Dabrowska has shown this for some > aspects of case morphology in Polish and for passives and quantifer > scope in English - both studies of adult native speakers > elena lieven > > Dan I. Slobin wrote: > > A few responses to previous postings: > > > > Yes, languages with transparent and consistent agglutinative > > morphology, in the verbal or nominal systems, allow for rapid > > acquisition, with some productive inflections at the one-word stage. > > Turkish morphology, having virtually no irregular patterns, is quite > > securely mastered by age 3 at the latest, and often much earlier. > > And, in general, complex morphology, of various types, presents no > > serious problems with regard to acquisition of the basic grammar of > > the relevant constructions. For details of successful early > > acquistion of morphology in a number of such "complex"languages see > > volumes of my crosslinguistic series: Vol. 1 (Hebrew, Polish, > > Turkish), Vol. 2 (Hungarian), Vol. 3 (Georgian, West Greenlandic, > > K'iche' Maya, Warlpiri, Sesotho), Vol. 4 (Estonian, Finnish, Korean). > > Comparable findings are available for the acquisition of Inuktitut, > > Tzeltal, Tzotzil,Yucatec Maya, Hindi, Tamil, and others. What > > children find difficult--as do inguists--are multiply-determined > > and/or unpredictable morphophonological patterns. > > > > So it depends on what you want to credit as "total acquisition" or > > "completion of acquisition." An English-speaking 10-year-old can > > fluently produce a range of syntactic structures, in various genres > > and registers, without having mastered all of the irregular verb forms > > and a number of subordinate syntactic constructions. Furthermore, > > remember that a bility to produce a pattern in some contexts is far > > from commanding its full range of semantic and pragmatic functions. > > And when all of you Funknetters became undergraduate and graduate > > students, and later professionals, you were still acquiring many > > aspects of English grammar, vocabulary, and style. Indeed, it goes on > > throughout the lifespan of an engaged individual. > > > > There are no established criteria for full mastery, but there are > > numerous studies, in all five of the crosslinguistic volumes and > > elsewhere, of prolonged acquisition of various parts of a linguistic > > system. > > > > As noted, I've written about the error of expecting early child > > language to mirror pidgins. > > > > Best, > > > > Dan (with references following, many of mine available for download at > > http://psychology.berkeley.edu/faculty/profiles/dslobin.html > > Slobin, D. I. (1985, 1992, 1997). The crosslinguistic study of > > language acquisition. Vol. 1: The Data (1985); Vol. 2: Theoretical > > issues (1985); Vol. 3 (1992); Vol. 4 (1997); Vol. 5: Expanding the > > contexts (1997). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. > > Slobin, D. I. (2004). From ontogenesis to phylogenesis: What can > > child language tell us about language evolution? In J. Langer, S. T. > > Parker, & C. Milbrath (Eds.), Biology and Knowledge revisited: From > > neurogenesis to psychogenesis (pp. 255-285). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence > > Erlbaum Associates. > > > > > > At 03:00 PM 2/9/2011, Lise Menn wrote: > >> that's right. And child language and pidgin aren't the same, in any > >> case, for any language I know about, any more than any of them are > >> telegrams. But there are arcane reaches of languages that most people > >> don't learn, confounding the definition of what 'acquire' means: > >> Japanese honorifics and noun classifiers have elegant refinements, > >> crafts and professions have jargons... > >> > >> On Feb 9, 2011, at 1:50 PM, A. Katz wrote: > >> > >>> I seem to recall that in "The Evolution of Language Out of Pre- > >>> Language" Dan Slobin had a sort of dissenting article at the end in > >>> which he mentioned that Turkish children use grammatical morphology > >>> at the one word level, so that they are never actually speaking a > >>> pidgin Turkish at any point in their language development. > >>> > >>> --Aya > >>> > >>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Craig Hancock wrote: > >>> > >>>> Brian, > >>>> This strikes as a bit like Lake Woebegone (Where all the children > >>>> are above average). > >>>> > >>>> normal Danish children all learn good Danish and become fluent > >>>> readers > >>>> > >>>> Is acquiring a language totally separate from the uses of that > >>>> language? Are we just acquiring the forms and then differing in our > >>>> ability to put them to use or are the uses themselves a major part > >>>> of what we are acquiring? Are lexicon and syntax wholly separate, > >>>> or do we go on acquiring the lexico-grammar as we enter more deeply > >>>> into adult worlds of discourse? > >>>> Anyone in literacy education knows that too many American > >>>> children fail to reach high levels of fluency as readers and > >>>> writers. Doesn't that somehow mean they have failed to acquire the > >>>> language? > >>>> > >>>> Craig > >>>> > >>>> On 2/9/2011 2:04 PM, Brian MacWhinney wrote: > >>>>> Fritz, > >>>>> There are studies in places like the Journal of Child Language by > >>>>> Dorthe Bleses, Hans Basb?l, and colleagues at Southern Denmark > >>>>> University on the delay of the acquisition of Danish phonology in > >>>>> comparison to other European languages, mostly attributed to the > >>>>> complexities of the vowel system and the various assimilatory > >>>>> processes. There is a corresponding delay in the acquisition of > >>>>> reading by Danish children that was observed in the cross-European > >>>>> PISA project. All of this is well documented in the literature, > >>>>> but it is rather marginal and transitory. Eventually, normal > >>>>> Danish children all learn good Danish and become fluent readers. > >>>>> -- Brian MacWhinney > >>>>> On Feb 9, 2011, at 1:27 PM, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > >>>>>> A propos, are there any published studies out there that point to > >>>>>> measurable difference in rate of completion of first-language > >>>>>> acquisition by speakers of one language compared to another? Or > >>>>>> even of mastery of one aspect of L1 acquisition (phonology, > >>>>>> morphology, etc.) by speakers of one language compared to another? > >>>>>> --fritz > >>>>>> Frederick J. Newmeyer > >>>>>> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > >>>>>> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon > >>>>>> Fraser University > >>>>>> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > >>>>>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, A. Katz wrote: > >>>>>>> Tom, > >>>>>>> If the language is dying, then the advice not to listen to > >>>>>>> somebody under forty because they don't know how to speak may be > >>>>>>> sound, but not for the reason that you suggest. It could be > >>>>>>> there are no fluent speakers under forty. It seems very unlikely > >>>>>>> that one would have to arrive at age forty before acquiring > >>>>>>> fluency, especially in a hunter gatherer culture where death > >>>>>>> before forty might be quite common. > >>>>>>> But if you have evidence to the contrary that fully immersed, > >>>>>>> monolingual young speakers of a language cannot speak it with > >>>>>>> communicative effect until age forty, then this is a big > >>>>>>> discovery that ought to be published and shared with the > >>>>>>> scientific community. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> --Aya > >>>>>>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: > >>>>>>>> Right on, John. And one could make a prediction--hopefully > >>>>>>>> someday to be tested by acquisition studies--that Navajo kids > >>>>>>>> will not master the fully complexcity of the Athabaskan verb by > >>>>>>>> age 10, or 15, or 20. I once reviewed a grammar in Papua New > >>>>>>>> Guniea of a language that had comparable complexity on the verb > >>>>>>>> (three positions, 6-8 categoriers each, massive zeroing& > >>>>>>>> morphonemic). I had to ask Carle Whitehead--is this guy for > >>>>>>>> real? He said, yes, he's been in the island for 20 years, > >>>>>>>> really knows his stuff. So I asked the guy--at what age are > >>>>>>>> kids considered fuill-fledged speakers? He said-- the old > >>>>>>>> people say, don't listen to anybody under forty, they don't > >>>>>>>> know how to speak. In my work with the Utes, one exchange has > >>>>>>>> stuck out, an elder (ka-para'ni-wa-t, he's not walking about > >>>>>>>> any more) who was pointed to me as the best orator in the > >>>>>>>> tribe. I told him that, and he said: "Oh, I am nothing. You > >>>>>>>> should have heard the Old Ones; when they spoke, you could see > >>>>>>>> it all in front of your eyes". Part of it is due to the complex > >>>>>>>> Ute deictic system, which invades NPs, ADVs& the verb. The > >>>>>>>> combinations, and the subtle choices of when to combine the > >>>>>>>> deictic particle with other categories, are a whole wond(e)rous > >>>>>>>> world. Cheers, TG > >>>>>>>> ========== > >>>>>>>> On 2/9/2011 10:13 AM, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > >>>>>>>>> Aya, > >>>>>>>>> I think I was the one who said first that Navajo is not a > >>>>>>>>> language for > >>>>>>>>> amateurs. I'll second what Tom said--you should learn something > >>>>>>>>> about Navajo (or some other Athabaskan language) before making > >>>>>>>>> statements like this. Some languages are just plain > >>>>>>>>> objectively harder than > >>>>>>>>> others, regardless of typological similarly to one's native > >>>>>>>>> language. If you > >>>>>>>>> don't believe this, do an experiment in which you take > >>>>>>>>> speakers of English, > >>>>>>>>> Turkish, Georgian, Chinese, whatever you want, try to teach > >>>>>>>>> them Navajo, Hopi, > >>>>>>>>> and Cree (for example), and see which one gives them the most > >>>>>>>>> trouble. > >>>>>>>>> I guarantee it will be Navajo. And there is an objective > >>>>>>>>> reason for it-- > >>>>>>>>> the morphophonemics are just unbelievably complex. > >>>>>>>>> John > >>>>>>>>> Quoting "A. Katz": > >>>>>>>>>> Tom, > >>>>>>>>>> I don't think that is a valid viewpoint with regard to > >>>>>>>>>> Athabaskan or any > >>>>>>>>>> other language family. > >>>>>>>>>> Victor Golla earlier had a much better phrasing when he wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> "Let that read: "A language that is not for amateurs is not for > >>>>>>>>>> ADULT people."" > >>>>>>>>>> But in fact no language is easy for adults to learn who have > >>>>>>>>>> not already > >>>>>>>>>> learned a language with a similar typology. If your native > >>>>>>>>>> language works > >>>>>>>>>> similarly to the one you are learning, then you have an > >>>>>>>>>> enormous advantage > >>>>>>>>>> as an adult second language learner. > >>>>>>>>>> The remark about how Navajo is not for amateurs was made in > >>>>>>>>>> the context of > >>>>>>>>>> people who have no experience with languages of a similar > >>>>>>>>>> typology. > >>>>>>>>>> To make this a universal statement about the difficulty of > >>>>>>>>>> Navajo without > >>>>>>>>>> qualification is to suggest that some languages are "easy" > >>>>>>>>>> and others are > >>>>>>>>>> "impossible". Not only is this not true from an objective > >>>>>>>>>> standpoint, it > >>>>>>>>>> also perpetuates the prejudice that English (or IE) is a > >>>>>>>>>> "normal" language > >>>>>>>>>> and that every language should be measured against this norm. > >>>>>>>>>> Best, > >>>>>>>>>> --Aya > >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> Before you actually tried to learn an Athabaskan language, > >>>>>>>>>>> or at the very > >>>>>>>>>>> least worked on one, maybe you had better refrain from > >>>>>>>>>>> asserting that "a > >>>>>>>>>>> language that is not for amateurs is not for people". TG > >>>>>>>>>>> ========= > >>>>>>>>>>> On 2/8/2011 6:33 AM, A. Katz wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> A language that is not for amateurs is not for people. > >>>>>>>>>>>> This has nothing to do with RS or computer language > >>>>>>>>>>>> teaching. As others > >>>>>>>>>>>> have stated, the technologically based systems are not a > >>>>>>>>>>>> panacea. > >>>>>>>>>>>> But a language that ordinary people can't pick by talking > >>>>>>>>>>>> to their parents > >>>>>>>>>>>> in childhood is either dead already or not a human language. > >>>>>>>>>>>> --Aya > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I would be amazed if a single person actually learns to > >>>>>>>>>>>>> speak Navajo > >>>>>>>>>>>>> using Rosetta Stone. This is not a language for amateurs. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> John > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Quoting "s.t. bischoff": > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Over the last week I was involved with an event at the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> American Indian > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Language Development Institute and the folks that created > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Navajo > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rosetta > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stone gave a short talk about the software. What follows > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is my > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of how it came to be. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Navajo Rosetta Stones was created in collaboration > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> with Rosetta > >>>>>>>>>> Stone > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the non-profit Navajo Language Renaissance (NLR). NLR > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a > >>>>>>>>>> non-profit > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> organization that is NOT affiliated with the tribal > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> council or > >>>>>>>>>> government > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> any way, for obvious reasons I think (e.g. getting > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> council approval for > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> project). However, it has been endorsed by the school > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> leadership and NLR > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> actively trying to get the school district to adopt the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> software. You > >>>>>>>>>> can > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> view the NLR website here > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ A > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-community member started NLR after using Rosetta > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stone to learn > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Russian. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> She thought it would be good if Rosetta Stone created a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo version. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> She > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> contacted Rosetta Stone (RS), and they told her they > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> would provide here > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> with > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the software to develop the lessons, a photographer, and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> technical > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> assistants (limited on the ground, mostly by phone) to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> develop the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> program > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> for $300,000. Another option would be for her to apply > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> for a grant from > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> RS > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to cover most of the costs. So the NLR was created, a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> partnership > >>>>>>>>>> between > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> community members and one non-community member, as a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> non- profit > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> organization and applied. RS gave two grants the year > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> they applied, one > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> went > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to NLR. The grant covered all but $27,000 of the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> $300,000. So NLR had to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> pay > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> RS $27,000 to have access to the software to create the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stone. This means they had to create the lessons and pay > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> speakers and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> informants themselves. RS provided the software, a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> photographer, and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> technical support for the $27,000. NLR now is the only > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> group that can > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> sell > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone, which they do for $150 per license > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and $200 for a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> personal box set. It is not clear if they have to pay RS > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a percentage of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> those revenues or not. When I asked a clear answer wasn't > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> given. NLR > >>>>>>>>>> also > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> has a "training" session for administrators and teachers > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> which costs > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> $1500 a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> day and $400 per 3 hours. Needless to say, it is not un- > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> controversial in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> community for many of the usual reasons. Ironically, the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> speaker after > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rosetta Stone folks gave a talk that demonstrated how to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> create nearly > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> identical language lessons as Rosetta Stone's simply > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> using power point. > >>>>>>>>>> I > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> was encouraged to let folks know that they should contact > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the NLR if > >>>>>>>>>> they > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> have any questions at mbittinger at rosettastone.com. You > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> can try a free > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> introductory lesson here > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ The > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> folks > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> at NLR praised RS for their efforts and felt they had > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> really done them a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> service. In short, they were very happy with the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> arrangement and how it > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> was > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> working out. They were also upset by the controversies > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> surrounding the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone and felt they were really the result > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> misunderstanding and misguided assumptions. One finally > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> thing, they did > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> seem > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to think that it was not a pancea, but rather another > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> useful tool in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> language revitalization efforts. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shannon > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Haifa University > >>>>>>>>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > >>>>>>>>> University > >>>> > >>>> > >> > >> Lise Menn Home Office: 303-444-4274 > >> 1625 Mariposa Ave Fax: 303-413-0017 > >> Boulder CO 80302 > >> home page: http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/ > >> > >> Professor Emerita of Linguistics > >> Fellow, Institute of Cognitive Science > >> University of Colorado > >> > >> Secretary, AAAS Section Z [Linguistics] > >> Fellow, Linguistic Society of America > >> > >> Campus Mail Address: > >> UCB 594, Institute for Cognitive Science > >> > >> Campus Physical Address: > >> CINC 234 > >> 1777 Exposition Ave, Boulder > >> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > Dan I. Slobin > > Professor Emeritus of Psychology and Linguistics > > > > Department of Psychology email: slobin at berkeley.edu > > 3210 Tolman #1650 phone (Dept): 1-510-642-5292 > > University of California phone (home): 1-510-848-1769 > > Berkeley, CA 94720-1650, USA fax: 1-510-642-5293 > > http://psychology.berkeley.edu/faculty/profiles/dslobin.html > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > -- > Elena Lieven > Department of Developmental and Comparative Psychology > Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology > Deutscher Platz 6 > D-04103 Leipzig > Germany > > Tel.+49-(0)341-3550 404 > +49-(0)341-3550 400 (Department Coordinator: Henriette Zeidler) > Fax.+49-(0)341-3550 444 > > and > > Max Planck Child Study Centre > School of Psychological Sciences > University of Manchester > Manchester M13 9PL > UK > > Tel.+44-(0)161-275 2580 > +44-(0)161-275 2444 (Research Secretary: Mickie Glover) > Fax.+44-(0)161-275 8587 > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 21 > Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 10:19:23 +0200 > From: john at research.haifa.ac.il > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Roseta Stone: Redux > To: Elena Lieven > Cc: Lise Menn , "A. Katz" , > "Dan I. Slobin" , funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Message-ID: <1297325963.4d539f8b3ce1a at webmail.haifa.ac.il> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1255 > > Delays in the acquisition of SPOKEN Danish would presumably be due not to > the > vowels (which are similar to other Scandinavian languages and much less > typologically peculiar than e.g. Dutch and some southern USA dialects) but > to > the rampant glottalization processe which really are typologically bizarre > and > which is the main source of complex allophony. It's the same idea as the > American pronunciation of 'button' or 'mountain' (with no vowel in the > second > syllable but rather a syllabic n with a glottal stop before) except that it > occurs not just with alveolar+alveolar but with all combinations and the > nasal > isn't syllabic but combined with the preceding consonant in one or another > way. > The Danish pronunciation of 'Copenhagen' in natural speech sounds to me > like > it's just two syllables long. When I was working on Circassian (the dialect > here has about 60 phonemes, mostly due to double and triple articulations) > I > got the same feeling that somewhere along the way native speakers had > decided > that it was normal to take neighboring consonantal articulations, even in > the > next syllable, and just say them all at the same time. Delays in the > acquisition of WRITTEN Danish, on the other hand, are undoubtedly due to > the > antiquated spelling system, which has essentially never been updated. This > is > conceptually a separate problem, although they are related in the sense > that > many of the counterintuitive spellings are the product of the same > historical > process which produced the glottalization processes. > There is no question that the greater difficulty of learning some languages > is a > serious problem for some language revival programs. I see much more hope > for > reviving Algonquian languages than for reviving Athabascan languages (and > Polynesian languages would be a comparative cinch). I suppose that members > of > the groups might recognize this and 'dumb down' the languages in one way or > another (making the morphophonemics simpler, eliminating phonemic contrasts > when one of the sounds is really hard to pronounce, etc.), but obviously > this > is their decision. > John > > Quoting Elena Lieven : > > > Dan is right. Of course it depends what is meant by 'acquiring a > > language'. The skills of highly educated people or public speakers and > > great story tellers in oral cultures will not necessarily be acquired by > > all members of a community. Ewa Dabrowska has shown this for some > > aspects of case morphology in Polish and for passives and quantifer > > scope in English - both studies of adult native speakers > > elena lieven > > > > Dan I. Slobin wrote: > > > A few responses to previous postings: > > > > > > Yes, languages with transparent and consistent agglutinative > > > morphology, in the verbal or nominal systems, allow for rapid > > > acquisition, with some productive inflections at the one-word stage. > > > Turkish morphology, having virtually no irregular patterns, is quite > > > securely mastered by age 3 at the latest, and often much earlier. > > > And, in general, complex morphology, of various types, presents no > > > serious problems with regard to acquisition of the basic grammar of > > > the relevant constructions. For details of successful early > > > acquistion of morphology in a number of such "complex"languages see > > > volumes of my crosslinguistic series: Vol. 1 (Hebrew, Polish, > > > Turkish), Vol. 2 (Hungarian), Vol. 3 (Georgian, West Greenlandic, > > > K'iche' Maya, Warlpiri, Sesotho), Vol. 4 (Estonian, Finnish, Korean). > > > Comparable findings are available for the acquisition of Inuktitut, > > > Tzeltal, Tzotzil,Yucatec Maya, Hindi, Tamil, and others. What > > > children find difficult--as do inguists--are multiply-determined > > > and/or unpredictable morphophonological patterns. > > > > > > So it depends on what you want to credit as "total acquisition" or > > > "completion of acquisition." An English-speaking 10-year-old can > > > fluently produce a range of syntactic structures, in various genres > > > and registers, without having mastered all of the irregular verb forms > > > and a number of subordinate syntactic constructions. Furthermore, > > > remember that a bility to produce a pattern in some contexts is far > > > from commanding its full range of semantic and pragmatic functions. > > > And when all of you Funknetters became undergraduate and graduate > > > students, and later professionals, you were still acquiring many > > > aspects of English grammar, vocabulary, and style. Indeed, it goes on > > > throughout the lifespan of an engaged individual. > > > > > > There are no established criteria for full mastery, but there are > > > numerous studies, in all five of the crosslinguistic volumes and > > > elsewhere, of prolonged acquisition of various parts of a linguistic > > > system. > > > > > > As noted, I've written about the error of expecting early child > > > language to mirror pidgins. > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > Dan (with references following, many of mine available for download at > > > http://psychology.berkeley.edu/faculty/profiles/dslobin.html > > > Slobin, D. I. (1985, 1992, 1997). The crosslinguistic study of > > > language acquisition. Vol. 1: The Data (1985); Vol. 2: Theoretical > > > issues (1985); Vol. 3 (1992); Vol. 4 (1997); Vol. 5: Expanding the > > > contexts (1997). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. > > > Slobin, D. I. (2004). From ontogenesis to phylogenesis: What can > > > child language tell us about language evolution? In J. Langer, S. T. > > > Parker, & C. Milbrath (Eds.), Biology and Knowledge revisited: From > > > neurogenesis to psychogenesis (pp. 255-285). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence > > > Erlbaum Associates. > > > > > > > > > At 03:00 PM 2/9/2011, Lise Menn wrote: > > >> that's right. And child language and pidgin aren't the same, in any > > >> case, for any language I know about, any more than any of them are > > >> telegrams. But there are arcane reaches of languages that most people > > >> don't learn, confounding the definition of what 'acquire' means: > > >> Japanese honorifics and noun classifiers have elegant refinements, > > >> crafts and professions have jargons... > > >> > > >> On Feb 9, 2011, at 1:50 PM, A. Katz wrote: > > >> > > >>> I seem to recall that in "The Evolution of Language Out of Pre- > > >>> Language" Dan Slobin had a sort of dissenting article at the end in > > >>> which he mentioned that Turkish children use grammatical morphology > > >>> at the one word level, so that they are never actually speaking a > > >>> pidgin Turkish at any point in their language development. > > >>> > > >>> --Aya > > >>> > > >>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Craig Hancock wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> Brian, > > >>>> This strikes as a bit like Lake Woebegone (Where all the children > > >>>> are above average). > > >>>> > > >>>> normal Danish children all learn good Danish and become fluent > > >>>> readers > > >>>> > > >>>> Is acquiring a language totally separate from the uses of that > > >>>> language? Are we just acquiring the forms and then differing in our > > >>>> ability to put them to use or are the uses themselves a major part > > >>>> of what we are acquiring? Are lexicon and syntax wholly separate, > > >>>> or do we go on acquiring the lexico-grammar as we enter more deeply > > >>>> into adult worlds of discourse? > > >>>> Anyone in literacy education knows that too many American > > >>>> children fail to reach high levels of fluency as readers and > > >>>> writers. Doesn't that somehow mean they have failed to acquire the > > >>>> language? > > >>>> > > >>>> Craig > > >>>> > > >>>> On 2/9/2011 2:04 PM, Brian MacWhinney wrote: > > >>>>> Fritz, > > >>>>> There are studies in places like the Journal of Child Language by > > >>>>> Dorthe Bleses, Hans Basb?l, and colleagues at Southern Denmark > > >>>>> University on the delay of the acquisition of Danish phonology in > > >>>>> comparison to other European languages, mostly attributed to the > > >>>>> complexities of the vowel system and the various assimilatory > > >>>>> processes. There is a corresponding delay in the acquisition of > > >>>>> reading by Danish children that was observed in the cross-European > > >>>>> PISA project. All of this is well documented in the literature, > > >>>>> but it is rather marginal and transitory. Eventually, normal > > >>>>> Danish children all learn good Danish and become fluent readers. > > >>>>> -- Brian MacWhinney > > >>>>> On Feb 9, 2011, at 1:27 PM, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > > >>>>>> A propos, are there any published studies out there that point to > > >>>>>> measurable difference in rate of completion of first-language > > >>>>>> acquisition by speakers of one language compared to another? Or > > >>>>>> even of mastery of one aspect of L1 acquisition (phonology, > > >>>>>> morphology, etc.) by speakers of one language compared to another? > > >>>>>> --fritz > > >>>>>> Frederick J. Newmeyer > > >>>>>> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > > >>>>>> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon > > >>>>>> Fraser University > > >>>>>> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > >>>>>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, A. Katz wrote: > > >>>>>>> Tom, > > >>>>>>> If the language is dying, then the advice not to listen to > > >>>>>>> somebody under forty because they don't know how to speak may be > > >>>>>>> sound, but not for the reason that you suggest. It could be > > >>>>>>> there are no fluent speakers under forty. It seems very unlikely > > >>>>>>> that one would have to arrive at age forty before acquiring > > >>>>>>> fluency, especially in a hunter gatherer culture where death > > >>>>>>> before forty might be quite common. > > >>>>>>> But if you have evidence to the contrary that fully immersed, > > >>>>>>> monolingual young speakers of a language cannot speak it with > > >>>>>>> communicative effect until age forty, then this is a big > > >>>>>>> discovery that ought to be published and shared with the > > >>>>>>> scientific community. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> --Aya > > >>>>>>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: > > >>>>>>>> Right on, John. And one could make a prediction--hopefully > > >>>>>>>> someday to be tested by acquisition studies--that Navajo kids > > >>>>>>>> will not master the fully complexcity of the Athabaskan verb by > > >>>>>>>> age 10, or 15, or 20. I once reviewed a grammar in Papua New > > >>>>>>>> Guniea of a language that had comparable complexity on the verb > > >>>>>>>> (three positions, 6-8 categoriers each, massive zeroing& > > >>>>>>>> morphonemic). I had to ask Carle Whitehead--is this guy for > > >>>>>>>> real? He said, yes, he's been in the island for 20 years, > > >>>>>>>> really knows his stuff. So I asked the guy--at what age are > > >>>>>>>> kids considered fuill-fledged speakers? He said-- the old > > >>>>>>>> people say, don't listen to anybody under forty, they don't > > >>>>>>>> know how to speak. In my work with the Utes, one exchange has > > >>>>>>>> stuck out, an elder (ka-para'ni-wa-t, he's not walking about > > >>>>>>>> any more) who was pointed to me as the best orator in the > > >>>>>>>> tribe. I told him that, and he said: "Oh, I am nothing. You > > >>>>>>>> should have heard the Old Ones; when they spoke, you could see > > >>>>>>>> it all in front of your eyes". Part of it is due to the complex > > >>>>>>>> Ute deictic system, which invades NPs, ADVs& the verb. The > > >>>>>>>> combinations, and the subtle choices of when to combine the > > >>>>>>>> deictic particle with other categories, are a whole wond(e)rous > > >>>>>>>> world. Cheers, TG > > >>>>>>>> ========== > > >>>>>>>> On 2/9/2011 10:13 AM, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> Aya, > > >>>>>>>>> I think I was the one who said first that Navajo is not a > > >>>>>>>>> language for > > >>>>>>>>> amateurs. I'll second what Tom said--you should learn something > > >>>>>>>>> about Navajo (or some other Athabaskan language) before making > > >>>>>>>>> statements like this. Some languages are just plain > > >>>>>>>>> objectively harder than > > >>>>>>>>> others, regardless of typological similarly to one's native > > >>>>>>>>> language. If you > > >>>>>>>>> don't believe this, do an experiment in which you take > > >>>>>>>>> speakers of English, > > >>>>>>>>> Turkish, Georgian, Chinese, whatever you want, try to teach > > >>>>>>>>> them Navajo, Hopi, > > >>>>>>>>> and Cree (for example), and see which one gives them the most > > >>>>>>>>> trouble. > > >>>>>>>>> I guarantee it will be Navajo. And there is an objective > > >>>>>>>>> reason for it-- > > >>>>>>>>> the morphophonemics are just unbelievably complex. > > >>>>>>>>> John > > >>>>>>>>> Quoting "A. Katz": > > >>>>>>>>>> Tom, > > >>>>>>>>>> I don't think that is a valid viewpoint with regard to > > >>>>>>>>>> Athabaskan or any > > >>>>>>>>>> other language family. > > >>>>>>>>>> Victor Golla earlier had a much better phrasing when he wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>> "Let that read: "A language that is not for amateurs is not > for > > >>>>>>>>>> ADULT people."" > > >>>>>>>>>> But in fact no language is easy for adults to learn who have > > >>>>>>>>>> not already > > >>>>>>>>>> learned a language with a similar typology. If your native > > >>>>>>>>>> language works > > >>>>>>>>>> similarly to the one you are learning, then you have an > > >>>>>>>>>> enormous advantage > > >>>>>>>>>> as an adult second language learner. > > >>>>>>>>>> The remark about how Navajo is not for amateurs was made in > > >>>>>>>>>> the context of > > >>>>>>>>>> people who have no experience with languages of a similar > > >>>>>>>>>> typology. > > >>>>>>>>>> To make this a universal statement about the difficulty of > > >>>>>>>>>> Navajo without > > >>>>>>>>>> qualification is to suggest that some languages are "easy" > > >>>>>>>>>> and others are > > >>>>>>>>>> "impossible". Not only is this not true from an objective > > >>>>>>>>>> standpoint, it > > >>>>>>>>>> also perpetuates the prejudice that English (or IE) is a > > >>>>>>>>>> "normal" language > > >>>>>>>>>> and that every language should be measured against this norm. > > >>>>>>>>>> Best, > > >>>>>>>>>> --Aya > > >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>> Before you actually tried to learn an Athabaskan language, > > >>>>>>>>>>> or at the very > > >>>>>>>>>>> least worked on one, maybe you had better refrain from > > >>>>>>>>>>> asserting that "a > > >>>>>>>>>>> language that is not for amateurs is not for people". TG > > >>>>>>>>>>> ========= > > >>>>>>>>>>> On 2/8/2011 6:33 AM, A. Katz wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>> A language that is not for amateurs is not for people. > > >>>>>>>>>>>> This has nothing to do with RS or computer language > > >>>>>>>>>>>> teaching. As others > > >>>>>>>>>>>> have stated, the technologically based systems are not a > > >>>>>>>>>>>> panacea. > > >>>>>>>>>>>> But a language that ordinary people can't pick by talking > > >>>>>>>>>>>> to their parents > > >>>>>>>>>>>> in childhood is either dead already or not a human language. > > >>>>>>>>>>>> --Aya > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I would be amazed if a single person actually learns to > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> speak Navajo > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> using Rosetta Stone. This is not a language for amateurs. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> John > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Quoting "s.t. bischoff": > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Over the last week I was involved with an event at the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> American Indian > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Language Development Institute and the folks that created > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Navajo > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rosetta > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stone gave a short talk about the software. What follows > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is my > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of how it came to be. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Navajo Rosetta Stones was created in collaboration > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> with Rosetta > > >>>>>>>>>> Stone > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the non-profit Navajo Language Renaissance (NLR). NLR > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a > > >>>>>>>>>> non-profit > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> organization that is NOT affiliated with the tribal > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> council or > > >>>>>>>>>> government > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> any way, for obvious reasons I think (e.g. getting > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> council approval for > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> project). However, it has been endorsed by the school > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> leadership and NLR > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> actively trying to get the school district to adopt the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> software. You > > >>>>>>>>>> can > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> view the NLR website here > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ A > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-community member started NLR after using Rosetta > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stone to learn > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Russian. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> She thought it would be good if Rosetta Stone created a > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo version. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> She > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> contacted Rosetta Stone (RS), and they told her they > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> would provide here > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> with > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the software to develop the lessons, a photographer, and > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> technical > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> assistants (limited on the ground, mostly by phone) to > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> develop the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> program > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> for $300,000. Another option would be for her to apply > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> for a grant from > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> RS > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to cover most of the costs. So the NLR was created, a > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> partnership > > >>>>>>>>>> between > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> community members and one non-community member, as a > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> non- profit > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> organization and applied. RS gave two grants the year > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> they applied, one > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> went > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to NLR. The grant covered all but $27,000 of the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> $300,000. So NLR had to > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> pay > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> RS $27,000 to have access to the software to create the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stone. This means they had to create the lessons and pay > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> speakers and > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> informants themselves. RS provided the software, a > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> photographer, and > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> technical support for the $27,000. NLR now is the only > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> group that can > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> sell > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone, which they do for $150 per license > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and $200 for a > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> personal box set. It is not clear if they have to pay RS > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a percentage of > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> those revenues or not. When I asked a clear answer wasn't > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> given. NLR > > >>>>>>>>>> also > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> has a "training" session for administrators and teachers > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> which costs > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> $1500 a > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> day and $400 per 3 hours. Needless to say, it is not un- > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> controversial in > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> community for many of the usual reasons. Ironically, the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> speaker after > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rosetta Stone folks gave a talk that demonstrated how to > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> create nearly > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> identical language lessons as Rosetta Stone's simply > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> using power point. > > >>>>>>>>>> I > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> was encouraged to let folks know that they should contact > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the NLR if > > >>>>>>>>>> they > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> have any questions at mbittinger at rosettastone.com. You > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> can try a free > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> introductory lesson here > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ The > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> folks > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> at NLR praised RS for their efforts and felt they had > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> really done them a > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> service. In short, they were very happy with the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> arrangement and how it > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> was > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> working out. They were also upset by the controversies > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> surrounding the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone and felt they were really the result > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> misunderstanding and misguided assumptions. One finally > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> thing, they did > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> seem > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to think that it was not a pancea, but rather another > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> useful tool in > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> language revitalization efforts. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shannon > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Haifa University > > >>>>>>>>> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > > >>>>>>>>> University > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >> > > >> Lise Menn Home Office: 303-444-4274 > > >> 1625 Mariposa Ave Fax: 303-413-0017 > > >> Boulder CO 80302 > > >> home page: http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/ > > >> > > >> Professor Emerita of Linguistics > > >> Fellow, Institute of Cognitive Science > > >> University of Colorado > > >> > > >> Secretary, AAAS Section Z [Linguistics] > > >> Fellow, Linguistic Society of America > > >> > > >> Campus Mail Address: > > >> UCB 594, Institute for Cognitive Science > > >> > > >> Campus Physical Address: > > >> CINC 234 > > >> 1777 Exposition Ave, Boulder > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > Dan I. Slobin > > > Professor Emeritus of Psychology and Linguistics > > > > > > Department of Psychology email: slobin at berkeley.edu > > > 3210 Tolman #1650 phone (Dept): 1-510-642-5292 > > > University of California phone (home): 1-510-848-1769 > > > Berkeley, CA 94720-1650, USA fax: 1-510-642-5293 > > > http://psychology.berkeley.edu/faculty/profiles/dslobin.html > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Elena Lieven > > Department of Developmental and Comparative Psychology > > Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology > > Deutscher Platz 6 > > D-04103 Leipzig > > Germany > > > > Tel.+49-(0)341-3550 404 > > +49-(0)341-3550 400 (Department Coordinator: Henriette Zeidler) > > Fax.+49-(0)341-3550 444 > > > > and > > > > Max Planck Child Study Centre > > School of Psychological Sciences > > University of Manchester > > Manchester M13 9PL > > UK > > > > Tel.+44-(0)161-275 2580 > > +44-(0)161-275 2444 (Research Secretary: Mickie Glover) > > Fax.+44-(0)161-275 8587 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 22 > Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 11:06:50 +0100 > From: Hartmut Haberland > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Roseta Stone: Redux > To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Cc: john at research.haifa.ac.il > Message-ID: <4D53B8BA.6040309 at ruc.dk> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1255; format=flowed > > The occurrence of /st?d/ (it is not quite clear how to describe it > phonetically) in Danish has given rise to much mystification, but it is > certainly not the source of any allophony and, besides, its functional > load is close to zero. Many Danish speakers don't have it and it never > gives rise to serious ambiguities (the standard example is /mor/ > 'mother' vs. /mord/ 'murder', the second one with /st?d/, usually > disambiguated in context - except in puns, of course). On the other > hand, the Danish vowel system is rather complex with 25 phonemes in > stressed syllables plus two shwa phonemes. On top of that there are 19 > 'short' and 19 'long' diphthongs. And some allophonic variation, plus > frequent full assimilation of shwa to adjacent sonorants. > > K?benhavn in relaxed everyday speech has still three syllables, but the > second one is a syllabic [m]. > > As to the Danish spelling system, it may be "antiquated", but still > much less so than the English one. While it is very difficult to read an > English text aloud (in a comprehensible way) without having undstood the > content, this is not nearly as difficult with a Danish text. Of course, > Danish spelling is not nearly as systematic visa`-vis the sounds as, > e.g. Czech or Finnish (or even German), and there are a few irritating > homographs which are not homophones (steg 'roast (of meat)' almost > sounds like English 'sty', and steg 'climbed' almost like English > 'stay'), but it is much less antiquated as English spelling. (English > almosts sides with Arabic and Hebrew, although I admit that there are > vowel letters in English. But they contain pretty little information > about vowel quality and mark mostly /where/ the vowel phonemes are, not > /what/ vowels they represent.) Children with English as their first > langauge should have much more problems learning to read and write than > Danish ones. > > Hartmut Haberland > (not a native speaker of Danish, but still learning after almost 40 years) > > Den 10-02-2011 09:19, john at research.haifa.ac.il skrev: > > Delays in the acquisition of SPOKEN Danish would presumably be due not to > the > > vowels (which are similar to other Scandinavian languages and much less > > typologically peculiar than e.g. Dutch and some southern USA dialects) > but to > > the rampant glottalization processe which really are typologically > bizarre and > > which is the main source of complex allophony. It's the same idea as the > > American pronunciation of 'button' or 'mountain' (with no vowel in the > second > > syllable but rather a syllabic n with a glottal stop before) except that > it > > occurs not just with alveolar+alveolar but with all combinations and the > nasal > > isn't syllabic but combined with the preceding consonant in one or > another way. > > The Danish pronunciation of 'Copenhagen' in natural speech sounds to me > like > > it's just two syllables long. When I was working on Circassian (the > dialect > > here has about 60 phonemes, mostly due to double and triple > articulations) I > > got the same feeling that somewhere along the way native speakers had > decided > > that it was normal to take neighboring consonantal articulations, even in > the > > next syllable, and just say them all at the same time. Delays in the > > acquisition of WRITTEN Danish, on the other hand, are undoubtedly due to > the > > antiquated spelling system, which has essentially never been updated. > This is > > conceptually a separate problem, although they are related in the sense > that > > many of the counterintuitive spellings are the product of the same > historical > > process which produced the glottalization processes. > > There is no question that the greater difficulty of learning some > languages is a > > serious problem for some language revival programs. I see much more hope > for > > reviving Algonquian languages than for reviving Athabascan languages (and > > Polynesian languages would be a comparative cinch). I suppose that > members of > > the groups might recognize this and 'dumb down' the languages in one way > or > > another (making the morphophonemics simpler, eliminating phonemic > contrasts > > when one of the sounds is really hard to pronounce, etc.), but obviously > this > > is their decision. > > John > > > > Quoting Elena Lieven: > > > >> Dan is right. Of course it depends what is meant by 'acquiring a > >> language'. The skills of highly educated people or public speakers and > >> great story tellers in oral cultures will not necessarily be acquired by > >> all members of a community. Ewa Dabrowska has shown this for some > >> aspects of case morphology in Polish and for passives and quantifer > >> scope in English - both studies of adult native speakers > >> elena lieven > >> > >> Dan I. Slobin wrote: > >>> A few responses to previous postings: > >>> > >>> Yes, languages with transparent and consistent agglutinative > >>> morphology, in the verbal or nominal systems, allow for rapid > >>> acquisition, with some productive inflections at the one-word stage. > >>> Turkish morphology, having virtually no irregular patterns, is quite > >>> securely mastered by age 3 at the latest, and often much earlier. > >>> And, in general, complex morphology, of various types, presents no > >>> serious problems with regard to acquisition of the basic grammar of > >>> the relevant constructions. For details of successful early > >>> acquistion of morphology in a number of such "complex"languages see > >>> volumes of my crosslinguistic series: Vol. 1 (Hebrew, Polish, > >>> Turkish), Vol. 2 (Hungarian), Vol. 3 (Georgian, West Greenlandic, > >>> K'iche' Maya, Warlpiri, Sesotho), Vol. 4 (Estonian, Finnish, Korean). > >>> Comparable findings are available for the acquisition of Inuktitut, > >>> Tzeltal, Tzotzil,Yucatec Maya, Hindi, Tamil, and others. What > >>> children find difficult--as do inguists--are multiply-determined > >>> and/or unpredictable morphophonological patterns. > >>> > >>> So it depends on what you want to credit as "total acquisition" or > >>> "completion of acquisition." An English-speaking 10-year-old can > >>> fluently produce a range of syntactic structures, in various genres > >>> and registers, without having mastered all of the irregular verb forms > >>> and a number of subordinate syntactic constructions. Furthermore, > >>> remember that a bility to produce a pattern in some contexts is far > >>> from commanding its full range of semantic and pragmatic functions. > >>> And when all of you Funknetters became undergraduate and graduate > >>> students, and later professionals, you were still acquiring many > >>> aspects of English grammar, vocabulary, and style. Indeed, it goes on > >>> throughout the lifespan of an engaged individual. > >>> > >>> There are no established criteria for full mastery, but there are > >>> numerous studies, in all five of the crosslinguistic volumes and > >>> elsewhere, of prolonged acquisition of various parts of a linguistic > >>> system. > >>> > >>> As noted, I've written about the error of expecting early child > >>> language to mirror pidgins. > >>> > >>> Best, > >>> > >>> Dan (with references following, many of mine available for download at > >>> http://psychology.berkeley.edu/faculty/profiles/dslobin.html > >>> Slobin, D. I. (1985, 1992, 1997). The crosslinguistic study of > >>> language acquisition. Vol. 1: The Data (1985); Vol. 2: Theoretical > >>> issues (1985); Vol. 3 (1992); Vol. 4 (1997); Vol. 5: Expanding the > >>> contexts (1997). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. > >>> Slobin, D. I. (2004). From ontogenesis to phylogenesis: What can > >>> child language tell us about language evolution? In J. Langer, S. T. > >>> Parker,& C. Milbrath (Eds.), Biology and Knowledge revisited: From > >>> neurogenesis to psychogenesis (pp. 255-285). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence > >>> Erlbaum Associates. > >>> > >>> > >>> At 03:00 PM 2/9/2011, Lise Menn wrote: > >>>> that's right. And child language and pidgin aren't the same, in any > >>>> case, for any language I know about, any more than any of them are > >>>> telegrams. But there are arcane reaches of languages that most people > >>>> don't learn, confounding the definition of what 'acquire' means: > >>>> Japanese honorifics and noun classifiers have elegant refinements, > >>>> crafts and professions have jargons... > >>>> > >>>> On Feb 9, 2011, at 1:50 PM, A. Katz wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> I seem to recall that in "The Evolution of Language Out of Pre- > >>>>> Language" Dan Slobin had a sort of dissenting article at the end in > >>>>> which he mentioned that Turkish children use grammatical morphology > >>>>> at the one word level, so that they are never actually speaking a > >>>>> pidgin Turkish at any point in their language development. > >>>>> > >>>>> --Aya > >>>>> > >>>>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Craig Hancock wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Brian, > >>>>>> This strikes as a bit like Lake Woebegone (Where all the children > >>>>>> are above average). > >>>>>> > >>>>>> normal Danish children all learn good Danish and become fluent > >>>>>> readers > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Is acquiring a language totally separate from the uses of that > >>>>>> language? Are we just acquiring the forms and then differing in our > >>>>>> ability to put them to use or are the uses themselves a major part > >>>>>> of what we are acquiring? Are lexicon and syntax wholly separate, > >>>>>> or do we go on acquiring the lexico-grammar as we enter more deeply > >>>>>> into adult worlds of discourse? > >>>>>> Anyone in literacy education knows that too many American > >>>>>> children fail to reach high levels of fluency as readers and > >>>>>> writers. Doesn't that somehow mean they have failed to acquire the > >>>>>> language? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Craig > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On 2/9/2011 2:04 PM, Brian MacWhinney wrote: > >>>>>>> Fritz, > >>>>>>> There are studies in places like the Journal of Child Language by > >>>>>>> Dorthe Bleses, Hans Basb?l, and colleagues at Southern Denmark > >>>>>>> University on the delay of the acquisition of Danish phonology in > >>>>>>> comparison to other European languages, mostly attributed to the > >>>>>>> complexities of the vowel system and the various assimilatory > >>>>>>> processes. There is a corresponding delay in the acquisition of > >>>>>>> reading by Danish children that was observed in the cross-European > >>>>>>> PISA project. All of this is well documented in the literature, > >>>>>>> but it is rather marginal and transitory. Eventually, normal > >>>>>>> Danish children all learn good Danish and become fluent readers. > >>>>>>> -- Brian MacWhinney > >>>>>>> On Feb 9, 2011, at 1:27 PM, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > >>>>>>>> A propos, are there any published studies out there that point to > >>>>>>>> measurable difference in rate of completion of first-language > >>>>>>>> acquisition by speakers of one language compared to another? Or > >>>>>>>> even of mastery of one aspect of L1 acquisition (phonology, > >>>>>>>> morphology, etc.) by speakers of one language compared to another? > >>>>>>>> --fritz > >>>>>>>> Frederick J. Newmeyer > >>>>>>>> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > >>>>>>>> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon > >>>>>>>> Fraser University > >>>>>>>> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > >>>>>>>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, A. Katz wrote: > >>>>>>>>> Tom, > >>>>>>>>> If the language is dying, then the advice not to listen to > >>>>>>>>> somebody under forty because they don't know how to speak may be > >>>>>>>>> sound, but not for the reason that you suggest. It could be > >>>>>>>>> there are no fluent speakers under forty. It seems very unlikely > >>>>>>>>> that one would have to arrive at age forty before acquiring > >>>>>>>>> fluency, especially in a hunter gatherer culture where death > >>>>>>>>> before forty might be quite common. > >>>>>>>>> But if you have evidence to the contrary that fully immersed, > >>>>>>>>> monolingual young speakers of a language cannot speak it with > >>>>>>>>> communicative effect until age forty, then this is a big > >>>>>>>>> discovery that ought to be published and shared with the > >>>>>>>>> scientific community. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> --Aya > >>>>>>>>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> Right on, John. And one could make a prediction--hopefully > >>>>>>>>>> someday to be tested by acquisition studies--that Navajo kids > >>>>>>>>>> will not master the fully complexcity of the Athabaskan verb by > >>>>>>>>>> age 10, or 15, or 20. I once reviewed a grammar in Papua New > >>>>>>>>>> Guniea of a language that had comparable complexity on the verb > >>>>>>>>>> (three positions, 6-8 categoriers each, massive zeroing& > >>>>>>>>>> morphonemic). I had to ask Carle Whitehead--is this guy for > >>>>>>>>>> real? He said, yes, he's been in the island for 20 years, > >>>>>>>>>> really knows his stuff. So I asked the guy--at what age are > >>>>>>>>>> kids considered fuill-fledged speakers? He said-- the old > >>>>>>>>>> people say, don't listen to anybody under forty, they don't > >>>>>>>>>> know how to speak. In my work with the Utes, one exchange has > >>>>>>>>>> stuck out, an elder (ka-para'ni-wa-t, he's not walking about > >>>>>>>>>> any more) who was pointed to me as the best orator in the > >>>>>>>>>> tribe. I told him that, and he said: "Oh, I am nothing. You > >>>>>>>>>> should have heard the Old Ones; when they spoke, you could see > >>>>>>>>>> it all in front of your eyes". Part of it is due to the complex > >>>>>>>>>> Ute deictic system, which invades NPs, ADVs& the verb. The > >>>>>>>>>> combinations, and the subtle choices of when to combine the > >>>>>>>>>> deictic particle with other categories, are a whole wond(e)rous > >>>>>>>>>> world. Cheers, TG > >>>>>>>>>> ========== > >>>>>>>>>> On 2/9/2011 10:13 AM, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> Aya, > >>>>>>>>>>> I think I was the one who said first that Navajo is not a > >>>>>>>>>>> language for > >>>>>>>>>>> amateurs. I'll second what Tom said--you should learn something > >>>>>>>>>>> about Navajo (or some other Athabaskan language) before making > >>>>>>>>>>> statements like this. Some languages are just plain > >>>>>>>>>>> objectively harder than > >>>>>>>>>>> others, regardless of typological similarly to one's native > >>>>>>>>>>> language. If you > >>>>>>>>>>> don't believe this, do an experiment in which you take > >>>>>>>>>>> speakers of English, > >>>>>>>>>>> Turkish, Georgian, Chinese, whatever you want, try to teach > >>>>>>>>>>> them Navajo, Hopi, > >>>>>>>>>>> and Cree (for example), and see which one gives them the most > >>>>>>>>>>> trouble. > >>>>>>>>>>> I guarantee it will be Navajo. And there is an objective > >>>>>>>>>>> reason for it-- > >>>>>>>>>>> the morphophonemics are just unbelievably complex. > >>>>>>>>>>> John > >>>>>>>>>>> Quoting "A. Katz": > >>>>>>>>>>>> Tom, > >>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think that is a valid viewpoint with regard to > >>>>>>>>>>>> Athabaskan or any > >>>>>>>>>>>> other language family. > >>>>>>>>>>>> Victor Golla earlier had a much better phrasing when he wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> "Let that read: "A language that is not for amateurs is not > for > >>>>>>>>>>>> ADULT people."" > >>>>>>>>>>>> But in fact no language is easy for adults to learn who have > >>>>>>>>>>>> not already > >>>>>>>>>>>> learned a language with a similar typology. If your native > >>>>>>>>>>>> language works > >>>>>>>>>>>> similarly to the one you are learning, then you have an > >>>>>>>>>>>> enormous advantage > >>>>>>>>>>>> as an adult second language learner. > >>>>>>>>>>>> The remark about how Navajo is not for amateurs was made in > >>>>>>>>>>>> the context of > >>>>>>>>>>>> people who have no experience with languages of a similar > >>>>>>>>>>>> typology. > >>>>>>>>>>>> To make this a universal statement about the difficulty of > >>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo without > >>>>>>>>>>>> qualification is to suggest that some languages are "easy" > >>>>>>>>>>>> and others are > >>>>>>>>>>>> "impossible". Not only is this not true from an objective > >>>>>>>>>>>> standpoint, it > >>>>>>>>>>>> also perpetuates the prejudice that English (or IE) is a > >>>>>>>>>>>> "normal" language > >>>>>>>>>>>> and that every language should be measured against this norm. > >>>>>>>>>>>> Best, > >>>>>>>>>>>> --Aya > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Before you actually tried to learn an Athabaskan language, > >>>>>>>>>>>>> or at the very > >>>>>>>>>>>>> least worked on one, maybe you had better refrain from > >>>>>>>>>>>>> asserting that "a > >>>>>>>>>>>>> language that is not for amateurs is not for people". TG > >>>>>>>>>>>>> ========= > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/8/2011 6:33 AM, A. Katz wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> A language that is not for amateurs is not for people. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> This has nothing to do with RS or computer language > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> teaching. As others > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> have stated, the technologically based systems are not a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> panacea. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> But a language that ordinary people can't pick by talking > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to their parents > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in childhood is either dead already or not a human language. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> --Aya > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would be amazed if a single person actually learns to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speak Navajo > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using Rosetta Stone. This is not a language for amateurs. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> John > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Quoting "s.t. bischoff": > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Over the last week I was involved with an event at the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> American Indian > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Language Development Institute and the folks that created > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Navajo > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rosetta > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stone gave a short talk about the software. What follows > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is my > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of how it came to be. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Navajo Rosetta Stones was created in collaboration > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with Rosetta > >>>>>>>>>>>> Stone > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the non-profit Navajo Language Renaissance (NLR). NLR > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a > >>>>>>>>>>>> non-profit > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> organization that is NOT affiliated with the tribal > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> council or > >>>>>>>>>>>> government > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any way, for obvious reasons I think (e.g. getting > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> council approval for > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> project). However, it has been endorsed by the school > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> leadership and NLR > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actively trying to get the school district to adopt the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> software. You > >>>>>>>>>>>> can > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> view the NLR website here > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ A > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-community member started NLR after using Rosetta > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stone to learn > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Russian. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> She thought it would be good if Rosetta Stone created a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo version. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> She > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contacted Rosetta Stone (RS), and they told her they > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would provide here > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the software to develop the lessons, a photographer, and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> technical > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assistants (limited on the ground, mostly by phone) to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> develop the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> program > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for $300,000. Another option would be for her to apply > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for a grant from > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RS > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to cover most of the costs. So the NLR was created, a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> partnership > >>>>>>>>>>>> between > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community members and one non-community member, as a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non- profit > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> organization and applied. RS gave two grants the year > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they applied, one > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> went > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to NLR. The grant covered all but $27,000 of the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> $300,000. So NLR had to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pay > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RS $27,000 to have access to the software to create the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stone. This means they had to create the lessons and pay > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speakers and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> informants themselves. RS provided the software, a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> photographer, and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> technical support for the $27,000. NLR now is the only > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> group that can > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sell > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone, which they do for $150 per license > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and $200 for a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> personal box set. It is not clear if they have to pay RS > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a percentage of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those revenues or not. When I asked a clear answer wasn't > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> given. NLR > >>>>>>>>>>>> also > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has a "training" session for administrators and teachers > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which costs > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> $1500 a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> day and $400 per 3 hours. Needless to say, it is not un- > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> controversial in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community for many of the usual reasons. Ironically, the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speaker after > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rosetta Stone folks gave a talk that demonstrated how to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> create nearly > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> identical language lessons as Rosetta Stone's simply > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using power point. > >>>>>>>>>>>> I > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was encouraged to let folks know that they should contact > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the NLR if > >>>>>>>>>>>> they > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have any questions at mbittinger at rosettastone.com. You > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can try a free > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introductory lesson here > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ The > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> folks > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at NLR praised RS for their efforts and felt they had > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really done them a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> service. In short, they were very happy with the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arrangement and how it > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> working out. They were also upset by the controversies > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> surrounding the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone and felt they were really the result > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> misunderstanding and misguided assumptions. One finally > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thing, they did > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seem > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to think that it was not a pancea, but rather another > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> useful tool in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language revitalization efforts. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shannon > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Haifa University > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>>>>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > >>>>>>>>>>> University > >>>>>> > >>>> Lise Menn Home Office: 303-444-4274 > >>>> 1625 Mariposa Ave Fax: 303-413-0017 > >>>> Boulder CO 80302 > >>>> home page: http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/ > >>>> > >>>> Professor Emerita of Linguistics > >>>> Fellow, Institute of Cognitive Science > >>>> University of Colorado > >>>> > >>>> Secretary, AAAS Section Z [Linguistics] > >>>> Fellow, Linguistic Society of America > >>>> > >>>> Campus Mail Address: > >>>> UCB 594, Institute for Cognitive Science > >>>> > >>>> Campus Physical Address: > >>>> CINC 234 > >>>> 1777 Exposition Ave, Boulder > >>>> > >>>> > >>> Dan I. Slobin > >>> Professor Emeritus of Psychology and Linguistics > >>> > >>> Department of Psychology email: slobin at berkeley.edu > >>> 3210 Tolman #1650 phone (Dept): 1-510-642-5292 > >>> University of California phone (home): 1-510-848-1769 > >>> Berkeley, CA 94720-1650, USA fax: 1-510-642-5293 > >>> http://psychology.berkeley.edu/faculty/profiles/dslobin.html > >>> > >>> > >> -- > >> Elena Lieven > >> Department of Developmental and Comparative Psychology > >> Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology > >> Deutscher Platz 6 > >> D-04103 Leipzig > >> Germany > >> > >> Tel.+49-(0)341-3550 404 > >> +49-(0)341-3550 400 (Department Coordinator: Henriette Zeidler) > >> Fax.+49-(0)341-3550 444 > >> > >> and > >> > >> Max Planck Child Study Centre > >> School of Psychological Sciences > >> University of Manchester > >> Manchester M13 9PL > >> UK > >> > >> Tel.+44-(0)161-275 2580 > >> +44-(0)161-275 2444 (Research Secretary: Mickie Glover) > >> Fax.+44-(0)161-275 8587 > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 23 > Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 13:35:13 +0200 > From: john at research.haifa.ac.il > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Roseta Stone: Redux > To: Hartmut Haberland > Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Message-ID: <1297337713.4d53cd71afa19 at webmail.haifa.ac.il> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1255 > > The reason that I suspected stod (sorry my computer can't type the slash) > as producing particular problems rather than the vowel system is that as > far as I know (which isn't much...) the vowel system of Danish isn't so > different from that of other Scandinavian languages, at least not in a way > so as to cause particular difficulties, whereas there's nothing > intimidating > like stod in other Scandinavian languages (or, for me at least, in European > languages at all). The question isn't whether it causes ambiguities, the > question is how hard it is to say accurately. I thought I had read that it > is associated with some changes in the preceding vowel (lengthening or > shortening?), but maybe I got this confused with something else. I believe > that > Danes perceive the first nasal in their pronunciation of > Copenhagen as a syllabic nasal, but to a second language learner its > duration in normal speech can be so brief that it's hard to hear as a > separate > syllable (I remember attempting to pronounce it like the second syllable of > English 'something' when pronounced like 'sumpm' with a syllabic m and a > Dane > telling me they would only say it like that when speaking carefully). > In fact English spelling is indeed antiquated and reading researchers have > read that Danish and English are the two most difficult European languages > to learn to read at a basic level. > John > > > > > > Quoting Hartmut Haberland : > > > The occurrence of /st?d/ (it is not quite clear how to describe it > > phonetically) in Danish has given rise to much mystification, but it is > > certainly not the source of any allophony and, besides, its functional > > load is close to zero. Many Danish speakers don't have it and it never > > gives rise to serious ambiguities (the standard example is /mor/ > > 'mother' vs. /mord/ 'murder', the second one with /st?d/, usually > > disambiguated in context - except in puns, of course). On the other > > hand, the Danish vowel system is rather complex with 25 phonemes in > > stressed syllables plus two shwa phonemes. On top of that there are 19 > > 'short' and 19 'long' diphthongs. And some allophonic variation, plus > > frequent full assimilation of shwa to adjacent sonorants. > > > > K?benhavn in relaxed everyday speech has still three syllables, but the > > second one is a syllabic [m]. > > > > As to the Danish spelling system, it may be "antiquated", but still > > much less so than the English one. While it is very difficult to read an > > English text aloud (in a comprehensible way) without having undstood the > > content, this is not nearly as difficult with a Danish text. Of course, > > Danish spelling is not nearly as systematic visa`-vis the sounds as, > > e.g. Czech or Finnish (or even German), and there are a few irritating > > homographs which are not homophones (steg 'roast (of meat)' almost > > sounds like English 'sty', and steg 'climbed' almost like English > > 'stay'), but it is much less antiquated as English spelling. (English > > almosts sides with Arabic and Hebrew, although I admit that there are > > vowel letters in English. But they contain pretty little information > > about vowel quality and mark mostly /where/ the vowel phonemes are, not > > /what/ vowels they represent.) Children with English as their first > > langauge should have much more problems learning to read and write than > > Danish ones. > > > > Hartmut Haberland > > (not a native speaker of Danish, but still learning after almost 40 > years) > > > > Den 10-02-2011 09:19, john at research.haifa.ac.il skrev: > > > Delays in the acquisition of SPOKEN Danish would presumably be due not > to > > the > > > vowels (which are similar to other Scandinavian languages and much less > > > typologically peculiar than e.g. Dutch and some southern USA dialects) > but > > to > > > the rampant glottalization processe which really are typologically > bizarre > > and > > > which is the main source of complex allophony. It's the same idea as > the > > > American pronunciation of 'button' or 'mountain' (with no vowel in the > > second > > > syllable but rather a syllabic n with a glottal stop before) except > that it > > > occurs not just with alveolar+alveolar but with all combinations and > the > > nasal > > > isn't syllabic but combined with the preceding consonant in one or > another > > way. > > > The Danish pronunciation of 'Copenhagen' in natural speech sounds to me > > like > > > it's just two syllables long. When I was working on Circassian (the > dialect > > > here has about 60 phonemes, mostly due to double and triple > articulations) > > I > > > got the same feeling that somewhere along the way native speakers had > > decided > > > that it was normal to take neighboring consonantal articulations, even > in > > the > > > next syllable, and just say them all at the same time. Delays in the > > > acquisition of WRITTEN Danish, on the other hand, are undoubtedly due > to > > the > > > antiquated spelling system, which has essentially never been updated. > This > > is > > > conceptually a separate problem, although they are related in the sense > > that > > > many of the counterintuitive spellings are the product of the same > > historical > > > process which produced the glottalization processes. > > > There is no question that the greater difficulty of learning some > languages > > is a > > > serious problem for some language revival programs. I see much more > hope > > for > > > reviving Algonquian languages than for reviving Athabascan languages > (and > > > Polynesian languages would be a comparative cinch). I suppose that > members > > of > > > the groups might recognize this and 'dumb down' the languages in one > way or > > > another (making the morphophonemics simpler, eliminating phonemic > contrasts > > > when one of the sounds is really hard to pronounce, etc.), but > obviously > > this > > > is their decision. > > > John > > > > > > Quoting Elena Lieven: > > > > > >> Dan is right. Of course it depends what is meant by 'acquiring a > > >> language'. The skills of highly educated people or public speakers > and > > >> great story tellers in oral cultures will not necessarily be acquired > by > > >> all members of a community. Ewa Dabrowska has shown this for some > > >> aspects of case morphology in Polish and for passives and quantifer > > >> scope in English - both studies of adult native speakers > > >> elena lieven > > >> > > >> Dan I. Slobin wrote: > > >>> A few responses to previous postings: > > >>> > > >>> Yes, languages with transparent and consistent agglutinative > > >>> morphology, in the verbal or nominal systems, allow for rapid > > >>> acquisition, with some productive inflections at the one-word stage. > > >>> Turkish morphology, having virtually no irregular patterns, is quite > > >>> securely mastered by age 3 at the latest, and often much earlier. > > >>> And, in general, complex morphology, of various types, presents no > > >>> serious problems with regard to acquisition of the basic grammar of > > >>> the relevant constructions. For details of successful early > > >>> acquistion of morphology in a number of such "complex"languages see > > >>> volumes of my crosslinguistic series: Vol. 1 (Hebrew, Polish, > > >>> Turkish), Vol. 2 (Hungarian), Vol. 3 (Georgian, West Greenlandic, > > >>> K'iche' Maya, Warlpiri, Sesotho), Vol. 4 (Estonian, Finnish, Korean). > > >>> Comparable findings are available for the acquisition of Inuktitut, > > >>> Tzeltal, Tzotzil,Yucatec Maya, Hindi, Tamil, and others. What > > >>> children find difficult--as do inguists--are multiply-determined > > >>> and/or unpredictable morphophonological patterns. > > >>> > > >>> So it depends on what you want to credit as "total acquisition" or > > >>> "completion of acquisition." An English-speaking 10-year-old can > > >>> fluently produce a range of syntactic structures, in various genres > > >>> and registers, without having mastered all of the irregular verb > forms > > >>> and a number of subordinate syntactic constructions. Furthermore, > > >>> remember that a bility to produce a pattern in some contexts is far > > >>> from commanding its full range of semantic and pragmatic functions. > > >>> And when all of you Funknetters became undergraduate and graduate > > >>> students, and later professionals, you were still acquiring many > > >>> aspects of English grammar, vocabulary, and style. Indeed, it goes > on > > >>> throughout the lifespan of an engaged individual. > > >>> > > >>> There are no established criteria for full mastery, but there are > > >>> numerous studies, in all five of the crosslinguistic volumes and > > >>> elsewhere, of prolonged acquisition of various parts of a linguistic > > >>> system. > > >>> > > >>> As noted, I've written about the error of expecting early child > > >>> language to mirror pidgins. > > >>> > > >>> Best, > > >>> > > >>> Dan (with references following, many of mine available for download > at > > >>> http://psychology.berkeley.edu/faculty/profiles/dslobin.html > > >>> Slobin, D. I. (1985, 1992, 1997). The crosslinguistic study of > > >>> language acquisition. Vol. 1: The Data (1985); Vol. 2: Theoretical > > >>> issues (1985); Vol. 3 (1992); Vol. 4 (1997); Vol. 5: Expanding the > > >>> contexts (1997). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. > > >>> Slobin, D. I. (2004). From ontogenesis to phylogenesis: What can > > >>> child language tell us about language evolution? In J. Langer, S. T. > > >>> Parker,& C. Milbrath (Eds.), Biology and Knowledge revisited: From > > >>> neurogenesis to psychogenesis (pp. 255-285). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence > > >>> Erlbaum Associates. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> At 03:00 PM 2/9/2011, Lise Menn wrote: > > >>>> that's right. And child language and pidgin aren't the same, in any > > >>>> case, for any language I know about, any more than any of them are > > >>>> telegrams. But there are arcane reaches of languages that most > people > > >>>> don't learn, confounding the definition of what 'acquire' means: > > >>>> Japanese honorifics and noun classifiers have elegant refinements, > > >>>> crafts and professions have jargons... > > >>>> > > >>>> On Feb 9, 2011, at 1:50 PM, A. Katz wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>> I seem to recall that in "The Evolution of Language Out of Pre- > > >>>>> Language" Dan Slobin had a sort of dissenting article at the end in > > >>>>> which he mentioned that Turkish children use grammatical morphology > > >>>>> at the one word level, so that they are never actually speaking a > > >>>>> pidgin Turkish at any point in their language development. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> --Aya > > >>>>> > > >>>>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Craig Hancock wrote: > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> Brian, > > >>>>>> This strikes as a bit like Lake Woebegone (Where all the > children > > >>>>>> are above average). > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> normal Danish children all learn good Danish and become fluent > > >>>>>> readers > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Is acquiring a language totally separate from the uses of that > > >>>>>> language? Are we just acquiring the forms and then differing in > our > > >>>>>> ability to put them to use or are the uses themselves a major part > > >>>>>> of what we are acquiring? Are lexicon and syntax wholly separate, > > >>>>>> or do we go on acquiring the lexico-grammar as we enter more > deeply > > >>>>>> into adult worlds of discourse? > > >>>>>> Anyone in literacy education knows that too many American > > >>>>>> children fail to reach high levels of fluency as readers and > > >>>>>> writers. Doesn't that somehow mean they have failed to acquire the > > >>>>>> language? > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Craig > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> On 2/9/2011 2:04 PM, Brian MacWhinney wrote: > > >>>>>>> Fritz, > > >>>>>>> There are studies in places like the Journal of Child Language by > > >>>>>>> Dorthe Bleses, Hans Basb?l, and colleagues at Southern Denmark > > >>>>>>> University on the delay of the acquisition of Danish phonology in > > >>>>>>> comparison to other European languages, mostly attributed to the > > >>>>>>> complexities of the vowel system and the various assimilatory > > >>>>>>> processes. There is a corresponding delay in the acquisition of > > >>>>>>> reading by Danish children that was observed in the > cross-European > > >>>>>>> PISA project. All of this is well documented in the literature, > > >>>>>>> but it is rather marginal and transitory. Eventually, normal > > >>>>>>> Danish children all learn good Danish and become fluent readers. > > >>>>>>> -- Brian MacWhinney > > >>>>>>> On Feb 9, 2011, at 1:27 PM, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > > >>>>>>>> A propos, are there any published studies out there that point > to > > >>>>>>>> measurable difference in rate of completion of first-language > > >>>>>>>> acquisition by speakers of one language compared to another? Or > > >>>>>>>> even of mastery of one aspect of L1 acquisition (phonology, > > >>>>>>>> morphology, etc.) by speakers of one language compared to > another? > > >>>>>>>> --fritz > > >>>>>>>> Frederick J. Newmeyer > > >>>>>>>> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > > >>>>>>>> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon > > >>>>>>>> Fraser University > > >>>>>>>> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > >>>>>>>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, A. Katz wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> Tom, > > >>>>>>>>> If the language is dying, then the advice not to listen to > > >>>>>>>>> somebody under forty because they don't know how to speak may > be > > >>>>>>>>> sound, but not for the reason that you suggest. It could be > > >>>>>>>>> there are no fluent speakers under forty. It seems very > unlikely > > >>>>>>>>> that one would have to arrive at age forty before acquiring > > >>>>>>>>> fluency, especially in a hunter gatherer culture where death > > >>>>>>>>> before forty might be quite common. > > >>>>>>>>> But if you have evidence to the contrary that fully immersed, > > >>>>>>>>> monolingual young speakers of a language cannot speak it with > > >>>>>>>>> communicative effect until age forty, then this is a big > > >>>>>>>>> discovery that ought to be published and shared with the > > >>>>>>>>> scientific community. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> --Aya > > >>>>>>>>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>> Right on, John. And one could make a prediction--hopefully > > >>>>>>>>>> someday to be tested by acquisition studies--that Navajo kids > > >>>>>>>>>> will not master the fully complexcity of the Athabaskan verb > by > > >>>>>>>>>> age 10, or 15, or 20. I once reviewed a grammar in Papua New > > >>>>>>>>>> Guniea of a language that had comparable complexity on the > verb > > >>>>>>>>>> (three positions, 6-8 categoriers each, massive zeroing& > > >>>>>>>>>> morphonemic). I had to ask Carle Whitehead--is this guy for > > >>>>>>>>>> real? He said, yes, he's been in the island for 20 years, > > >>>>>>>>>> really knows his stuff. So I asked the guy--at what age are > > >>>>>>>>>> kids considered fuill-fledged speakers? He said-- the old > > >>>>>>>>>> people say, don't listen to anybody under forty, they don't > > >>>>>>>>>> know how to speak. In my work with the Utes, one exchange has > > >>>>>>>>>> stuck out, an elder (ka-para'ni-wa-t, he's not walking about > > >>>>>>>>>> any more) who was pointed to me as the best orator in the > > >>>>>>>>>> tribe. I told him that, and he said: "Oh, I am nothing. You > > >>>>>>>>>> should have heard the Old Ones; when they spoke, you could see > > >>>>>>>>>> it all in front of your eyes". Part of it is due to the > complex > > >>>>>>>>>> Ute deictic system, which invades NPs, ADVs& the verb. The > > >>>>>>>>>> combinations, and the subtle choices of when to combine the > > >>>>>>>>>> deictic particle with other categories, are a whole > wond(e)rous > > >>>>>>>>>> world. Cheers, TG > > >>>>>>>>>> ========== > > >>>>>>>>>> On 2/9/2011 10:13 AM, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>> Aya, > > >>>>>>>>>>> I think I was the one who said first that Navajo is not a > > >>>>>>>>>>> language for > > >>>>>>>>>>> amateurs. I'll second what Tom said--you should learn > something > > >>>>>>>>>>> about Navajo (or some other Athabaskan language) before > making > > >>>>>>>>>>> statements like this. Some languages are just plain > > >>>>>>>>>>> objectively harder than > > >>>>>>>>>>> others, regardless of typological similarly to one's native > > >>>>>>>>>>> language. If you > > >>>>>>>>>>> don't believe this, do an experiment in which you take > > >>>>>>>>>>> speakers of English, > > >>>>>>>>>>> Turkish, Georgian, Chinese, whatever you want, try to teach > > >>>>>>>>>>> them Navajo, Hopi, > > >>>>>>>>>>> and Cree (for example), and see which one gives them the most > > >>>>>>>>>>> trouble. > > >>>>>>>>>>> I guarantee it will be Navajo. And there is an objective > > >>>>>>>>>>> reason for it-- > > >>>>>>>>>>> the morphophonemics are just unbelievably complex. > > >>>>>>>>>>> John > > >>>>>>>>>>> Quoting "A. Katz": > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Tom, > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think that is a valid viewpoint with regard to > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Athabaskan or any > > >>>>>>>>>>>> other language family. > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Victor Golla earlier had a much better phrasing when he > wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>> "Let that read: "A language that is not for amateurs is not > for > > >>>>>>>>>>>> ADULT people."" > > >>>>>>>>>>>> But in fact no language is easy for adults to learn who have > > >>>>>>>>>>>> not already > > >>>>>>>>>>>> learned a language with a similar typology. If your native > > >>>>>>>>>>>> language works > > >>>>>>>>>>>> similarly to the one you are learning, then you have an > > >>>>>>>>>>>> enormous advantage > > >>>>>>>>>>>> as an adult second language learner. > > >>>>>>>>>>>> The remark about how Navajo is not for amateurs was made in > > >>>>>>>>>>>> the context of > > >>>>>>>>>>>> people who have no experience with languages of a similar > > >>>>>>>>>>>> typology. > > >>>>>>>>>>>> To make this a universal statement about the difficulty of > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo without > > >>>>>>>>>>>> qualification is to suggest that some languages are "easy" > > >>>>>>>>>>>> and others are > > >>>>>>>>>>>> "impossible". Not only is this not true from an objective > > >>>>>>>>>>>> standpoint, it > > >>>>>>>>>>>> also perpetuates the prejudice that English (or IE) is a > > >>>>>>>>>>>> "normal" language > > >>>>>>>>>>>> and that every language should be measured against this > norm. > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Best, > > >>>>>>>>>>>> --Aya > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Before you actually tried to learn an Athabaskan language, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> or at the very > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> least worked on one, maybe you had better refrain from > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> asserting that "a > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> language that is not for amateurs is not for people". TG > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> ========= > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/8/2011 6:33 AM, A. Katz wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> A language that is not for amateurs is not for people. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> This has nothing to do with RS or computer language > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> teaching. As others > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> have stated, the technologically based systems are not a > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> panacea. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> But a language that ordinary people can't pick by talking > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to their parents > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in childhood is either dead already or not a human > language. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> --Aya > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would be amazed if a single person actually learns to > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speak Navajo > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using Rosetta Stone. This is not a language for amateurs. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> John > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Quoting "s.t. bischoff": > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Over the last week I was involved with an event at the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> American Indian > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Language Development Institute and the folks that > created > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Navajo > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rosetta > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stone gave a short talk about the software. What follows > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is my > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of how it came to be. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Navajo Rosetta Stones was created in collaboration > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with Rosetta > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Stone > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the non-profit Navajo Language Renaissance (NLR). > NLR > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a > > >>>>>>>>>>>> non-profit > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> organization that is NOT affiliated with the tribal > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> council or > > >>>>>>>>>>>> government > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any way, for obvious reasons I think (e.g. getting > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> council approval for > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> project). However, it has been endorsed by the school > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> leadership and NLR > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actively trying to get the school district to adopt the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> software. You > > >>>>>>>>>>>> can > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> view the NLR website here > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ A > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-community member started NLR after using Rosetta > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stone to learn > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Russian. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> She thought it would be good if Rosetta Stone created a > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo version. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> She > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contacted Rosetta Stone (RS), and they told her they > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would provide here > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the software to develop the lessons, a photographer, > and > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> technical > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assistants (limited on the ground, mostly by phone) to > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> develop the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> program > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for $300,000. Another option would be for her to apply > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for a grant from > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RS > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to cover most of the costs. So the NLR was created, a > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> partnership > > >>>>>>>>>>>> between > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community members and one non-community member, as a > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non- profit > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> organization and applied. RS gave two grants the year > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they applied, one > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> went > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to NLR. The grant covered all but $27,000 of the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> $300,000. So NLR had to > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pay > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RS $27,000 to have access to the software to create the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stone. This means they had to create the lessons and pay > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speakers and > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> informants themselves. RS provided the software, a > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> photographer, and > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> technical support for the $27,000. NLR now is the only > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> group that can > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sell > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone, which they do for $150 per license > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and $200 for a > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> personal box set. It is not clear if they have to pay RS > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a percentage of > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those revenues or not. When I asked a clear answer > wasn't > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> given. NLR > > >>>>>>>>>>>> also > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has a "training" session for administrators and teachers > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which costs > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> $1500 a > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> day and $400 per 3 hours. Needless to say, it is not un- > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> controversial in > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community for many of the usual reasons. Ironically, the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speaker after > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rosetta Stone folks gave a talk that demonstrated how to > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> create nearly > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> identical language lessons as Rosetta Stone's simply > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using power point. > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was encouraged to let folks know that they should > contact > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the NLR if > > >>>>>>>>>>>> they > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have any questions at mbittinger at rosettastone.com. You > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can try a free > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introductory lesson here > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ The > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> folks > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at NLR praised RS for their efforts and felt they had > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really done them a > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> service. In short, they were very happy with the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arrangement and how it > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> working out. They were also upset by the controversies > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> surrounding the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone and felt they were really the > result > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> misunderstanding and misguided assumptions. One finally > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thing, they did > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seem > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to think that it was not a pancea, but rather another > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> useful tool in > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language revitalization efforts. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shannon > > >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Haifa University > > >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > >>>>>>>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > > >>>>>>>>>>> University > > >>>>>> > > >>>> Lise Menn Home Office: 303-444-4274 > > >>>> 1625 Mariposa Ave Fax: 303-413-0017 > > >>>> Boulder CO 80302 > > >>>> home page: http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/ > > >>>> > > >>>> Professor Emerita of Linguistics > > >>>> Fellow, Institute of Cognitive Science > > >>>> University of Colorado > > >>>> > > >>>> Secretary, AAAS Section Z [Linguistics] > > >>>> Fellow, Linguistic Society of America > > >>>> > > >>>> Campus Mail Address: > > >>>> UCB 594, Institute for Cognitive Science > > >>>> > > >>>> Campus Physical Address: > > >>>> CINC 234 > > >>>> 1777 Exposition Ave, Boulder > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>> Dan I. Slobin > > >>> Professor Emeritus of Psychology and Linguistics > > >>> > > >>> Department of Psychology email: slobin at berkeley.edu > > >>> 3210 Tolman #1650 phone (Dept): 1-510-642-5292 > > >>> University of California phone (home): 1-510-848-1769 > > >>> Berkeley, CA 94720-1650, USA fax: 1-510-642-5293 > > >>> http://psychology.berkeley.edu/faculty/profiles/dslobin.html > > >>> > > >>> > > >> -- > > >> Elena Lieven > > >> Department of Developmental and Comparative Psychology > > >> Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology > > >> Deutscher Platz 6 > > >> D-04103 Leipzig > > >> Germany > > >> > > >> Tel.+49-(0)341-3550 404 > > >> +49-(0)341-3550 400 (Department Coordinator: Henriette Zeidler) > > >> Fax.+49-(0)341-3550 444 > > >> > > >> and > > >> > > >> Max Planck Child Study Centre > > >> School of Psychological Sciences > > >> University of Manchester > > >> Manchester M13 9PL > > >> UK > > >> > > >> Tel.+44-(0)161-275 2580 > > >> +44-(0)161-275 2444 (Research Secretary: Mickie Glover) > > >> Fax.+44-(0)161-275 8587 > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > University > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 24 > Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 09:14:13 -0500 > From: Craig Hancock > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Roseta Stone: Redux > To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Message-ID: <4D53F2B5.4020202 at albany.edu> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > What is the current status of the competence performance > distinction from the functional side? > > Craig > > > On 2/10/2011 2:15 AM, Elena Lieven wrote: > > Dan is right. Of course it depends what is meant by 'acquiring a > > language'. The skills of highly educated people or public speakers > > and great story tellers in oral cultures will not necessarily be > > acquired by all members of a community. Ewa Dabrowska has shown this > > for some aspects of case morphology in Polish and for passives and > > quantifer scope in English - both studies of adult native speakers > > elena lieven > > > > Dan I. Slobin wrote: > >> A few responses to previous postings: > >> > >> Yes, languages with transparent and consistent agglutinative > >> morphology, in the verbal or nominal systems, allow for rapid > >> acquisition, with some productive inflections at the one-word stage. > >> Turkish morphology, having virtually no irregular patterns, is quite > >> securely mastered by age 3 at the latest, and often much earlier. > >> And, in general, complex morphology, of various types, presents no > >> serious problems with regard to acquisition of the basic grammar of > >> the relevant constructions. For details of successful early > >> acquistion of morphology in a number of such "complex"languages see > >> volumes of my crosslinguistic series: Vol. 1 (Hebrew, Polish, > >> Turkish), Vol. 2 (Hungarian), Vol. 3 (Georgian, West Greenlandic, > >> K'iche' Maya, Warlpiri, Sesotho), Vol. 4 (Estonian, Finnish, > >> Korean). Comparable findings are available for the acquisition of > >> Inuktitut, Tzeltal, Tzotzil,Yucatec Maya, Hindi, Tamil, and others. > >> What children find difficult--as do inguists--are multiply-determined > >> and/or unpredictable morphophonological patterns. > >> > >> So it depends on what you want to credit as "total acquisition" or > >> "completion of acquisition." An English-speaking 10-year-old can > >> fluently produce a range of syntactic structures, in various genres > >> and registers, without having mastered all of the irregular verb > >> forms and a number of subordinate syntactic constructions. > >> Furthermore, remember that a bility to produce a pattern in some > >> contexts is far from commanding its full range of semantic and > >> pragmatic functions. And when all of you Funknetters became > >> undergraduate and graduate students, and later professionals, you > >> were still acquiring many aspects of English grammar, vocabulary, and > >> style. Indeed, it goes on throughout the lifespan of an engaged > >> individual. > >> > >> There are no established criteria for full mastery, but there are > >> numerous studies, in all five of the crosslinguistic volumes and > >> elsewhere, of prolonged acquisition of various parts of a linguistic > >> system. > >> > >> As noted, I've written about the error of expecting early child > >> language to mirror pidgins. > >> > >> Best, > >> > >> Dan (with references following, many of mine available for download > >> at http://psychology.berkeley.edu/faculty/profiles/dslobin.html > >> Slobin, D. I. (1985, 1992, 1997). The crosslinguistic study of > >> language acquisition. Vol. 1: The Data (1985); Vol. 2: Theoretical > >> issues (1985); Vol. 3 (1992); Vol. 4 (1997); Vol. 5: Expanding the > >> contexts (1997). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. > >> Slobin, D. I. (2004). From ontogenesis to phylogenesis: What can > >> child language tell us about language evolution? In J. Langer, S. T. > >> Parker, & C. Milbrath (Eds.), Biology and Knowledge revisited: From > >> neurogenesis to psychogenesis (pp. 255-285). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence > >> Erlbaum Associates. > >> > >> > >> At 03:00 PM 2/9/2011, Lise Menn wrote: > >>> that's right. And child language and pidgin aren't the same, in any > >>> case, for any language I know about, any more than any of them are > >>> telegrams. But there are arcane reaches of languages that most people > >>> don't learn, confounding the definition of what 'acquire' means: > >>> Japanese honorifics and noun classifiers have elegant refinements, > >>> crafts and professions have jargons... > >>> > >>> On Feb 9, 2011, at 1:50 PM, A. Katz wrote: > >>> > >>>> I seem to recall that in "The Evolution of Language Out of Pre- > >>>> Language" Dan Slobin had a sort of dissenting article at the end in > >>>> which he mentioned that Turkish children use grammatical morphology > >>>> at the one word level, so that they are never actually speaking a > >>>> pidgin Turkish at any point in their language development. > >>>> > >>>> --Aya > >>>> > >>>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Craig Hancock wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Brian, > >>>>> This strikes as a bit like Lake Woebegone (Where all the children > >>>>> are above average). > >>>>> > >>>>> normal Danish children all learn good Danish and become fluent > >>>>> readers > >>>>> > >>>>> Is acquiring a language totally separate from the uses of that > >>>>> language? Are we just acquiring the forms and then differing in our > >>>>> ability to put them to use or are the uses themselves a major part > >>>>> of what we are acquiring? Are lexicon and syntax wholly separate, > >>>>> or do we go on acquiring the lexico-grammar as we enter more deeply > >>>>> into adult worlds of discourse? > >>>>> Anyone in literacy education knows that too many American > >>>>> children fail to reach high levels of fluency as readers and > >>>>> writers. Doesn't that somehow mean they have failed to acquire the > >>>>> language? > >>>>> > >>>>> Craig > >>>>> > >>>>> On 2/9/2011 2:04 PM, Brian MacWhinney wrote: > >>>>>> Fritz, > >>>>>> There are studies in places like the Journal of Child Language by > >>>>>> Dorthe Bleses, Hans Basb?l, and colleagues at Southern Denmark > >>>>>> University on the delay of the acquisition of Danish phonology in > >>>>>> comparison to other European languages, mostly attributed to the > >>>>>> complexities of the vowel system and the various assimilatory > >>>>>> processes. There is a corresponding delay in the acquisition of > >>>>>> reading by Danish children that was observed in the cross-European > >>>>>> PISA project. All of this is well documented in the literature, > >>>>>> but it is rather marginal and transitory. Eventually, normal > >>>>>> Danish children all learn good Danish and become fluent readers. > >>>>>> -- Brian MacWhinney > >>>>>> On Feb 9, 2011, at 1:27 PM, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > >>>>>>> A propos, are there any published studies out there that point to > >>>>>>> measurable difference in rate of completion of first-language > >>>>>>> acquisition by speakers of one language compared to another? Or > >>>>>>> even of mastery of one aspect of L1 acquisition (phonology, > >>>>>>> morphology, etc.) by speakers of one language compared to another? > >>>>>>> --fritz > >>>>>>> Frederick J. Newmeyer > >>>>>>> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > >>>>>>> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon > >>>>>>> Fraser University > >>>>>>> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > >>>>>>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, A. Katz wrote: > >>>>>>>> Tom, > >>>>>>>> If the language is dying, then the advice not to listen to > >>>>>>>> somebody under forty because they don't know how to speak may be > >>>>>>>> sound, but not for the reason that you suggest. It could be > >>>>>>>> there are no fluent speakers under forty. It seems very unlikely > >>>>>>>> that one would have to arrive at age forty before acquiring > >>>>>>>> fluency, especially in a hunter gatherer culture where death > >>>>>>>> before forty might be quite common. > >>>>>>>> But if you have evidence to the contrary that fully immersed, > >>>>>>>> monolingual young speakers of a language cannot speak it with > >>>>>>>> communicative effect until age forty, then this is a big > >>>>>>>> discovery that ought to be published and shared with the > >>>>>>>> scientific community. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> --Aya > >>>>>>>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: > >>>>>>>>> Right on, John. And one could make a prediction--hopefully > >>>>>>>>> someday to be tested by acquisition studies--that Navajo kids > >>>>>>>>> will not master the fully complexcity of the Athabaskan verb by > >>>>>>>>> age 10, or 15, or 20. I once reviewed a grammar in Papua New > >>>>>>>>> Guniea of a language that had comparable complexity on the verb > >>>>>>>>> (three positions, 6-8 categoriers each, massive zeroing& > >>>>>>>>> morphonemic). I had to ask Carle Whitehead--is this guy for > >>>>>>>>> real? He said, yes, he's been in the island for 20 years, > >>>>>>>>> really knows his stuff. So I asked the guy--at what age are > >>>>>>>>> kids considered fuill-fledged speakers? He said-- the old > >>>>>>>>> people say, don't listen to anybody under forty, they don't > >>>>>>>>> know how to speak. In my work with the Utes, one exchange has > >>>>>>>>> stuck out, an elder (ka-para'ni-wa-t, he's not walking about > >>>>>>>>> any more) who was pointed to me as the best orator in the > >>>>>>>>> tribe. I told him that, and he said: "Oh, I am nothing. You > >>>>>>>>> should have heard the Old Ones; when they spoke, you could see > >>>>>>>>> it all in front of your eyes". Part of it is due to the complex > >>>>>>>>> Ute deictic system, which invades NPs, ADVs& the verb. The > >>>>>>>>> combinations, and the subtle choices of when to combine the > >>>>>>>>> deictic particle with other categories, are a whole wond(e)rous > >>>>>>>>> world. Cheers, TG > >>>>>>>>> ========== > >>>>>>>>> On 2/9/2011 10:13 AM, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> Aya, > >>>>>>>>>> I think I was the one who said first that Navajo is not a > >>>>>>>>>> language for > >>>>>>>>>> amateurs. I'll second what Tom said--you should learn something > >>>>>>>>>> about Navajo (or some other Athabaskan language) before making > >>>>>>>>>> statements like this. Some languages are just plain > >>>>>>>>>> objectively harder than > >>>>>>>>>> others, regardless of typological similarly to one's native > >>>>>>>>>> language. If you > >>>>>>>>>> don't believe this, do an experiment in which you take > >>>>>>>>>> speakers of English, > >>>>>>>>>> Turkish, Georgian, Chinese, whatever you want, try to teach > >>>>>>>>>> them Navajo, Hopi, > >>>>>>>>>> and Cree (for example), and see which one gives them the most > >>>>>>>>>> trouble. > >>>>>>>>>> I guarantee it will be Navajo. And there is an objective > >>>>>>>>>> reason for it-- > >>>>>>>>>> the morphophonemics are just unbelievably complex. > >>>>>>>>>> John > >>>>>>>>>> Quoting "A. Katz": > >>>>>>>>>>> Tom, > >>>>>>>>>>> I don't think that is a valid viewpoint with regard to > >>>>>>>>>>> Athabaskan or any > >>>>>>>>>>> other language family. > >>>>>>>>>>> Victor Golla earlier had a much better phrasing when he wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> "Let that read: "A language that is not for amateurs is not for > >>>>>>>>>>> ADULT people."" > >>>>>>>>>>> But in fact no language is easy for adults to learn who have > >>>>>>>>>>> not already > >>>>>>>>>>> learned a language with a similar typology. If your native > >>>>>>>>>>> language works > >>>>>>>>>>> similarly to the one you are learning, then you have an > >>>>>>>>>>> enormous advantage > >>>>>>>>>>> as an adult second language learner. > >>>>>>>>>>> The remark about how Navajo is not for amateurs was made in > >>>>>>>>>>> the context of > >>>>>>>>>>> people who have no experience with languages of a similar > >>>>>>>>>>> typology. > >>>>>>>>>>> To make this a universal statement about the difficulty of > >>>>>>>>>>> Navajo without > >>>>>>>>>>> qualification is to suggest that some languages are "easy" > >>>>>>>>>>> and others are > >>>>>>>>>>> "impossible". Not only is this not true from an objective > >>>>>>>>>>> standpoint, it > >>>>>>>>>>> also perpetuates the prejudice that English (or IE) is a > >>>>>>>>>>> "normal" language > >>>>>>>>>>> and that every language should be measured against this norm. > >>>>>>>>>>> Best, > >>>>>>>>>>> --Aya > >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> Before you actually tried to learn an Athabaskan language, > >>>>>>>>>>>> or at the very > >>>>>>>>>>>> least worked on one, maybe you had better refrain from > >>>>>>>>>>>> asserting that "a > >>>>>>>>>>>> language that is not for amateurs is not for people". TG > >>>>>>>>>>>> ========= > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/8/2011 6:33 AM, A. Katz wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> A language that is not for amateurs is not for people. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> This has nothing to do with RS or computer language > >>>>>>>>>>>>> teaching. As others > >>>>>>>>>>>>> have stated, the technologically based systems are not a > >>>>>>>>>>>>> panacea. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> But a language that ordinary people can't pick by talking > >>>>>>>>>>>>> to their parents > >>>>>>>>>>>>> in childhood is either dead already or not a human language. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> --Aya > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would be amazed if a single person actually learns to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> speak Navajo > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> using Rosetta Stone. This is not a language for amateurs. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> John > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Quoting "s.t. bischoff": > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Over the last week I was involved with an event at the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> American Indian > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Language Development Institute and the folks that created > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Navajo > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rosetta > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stone gave a short talk about the software. What follows > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is my > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of how it came to be. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Navajo Rosetta Stones was created in collaboration > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with Rosetta > >>>>>>>>>>> Stone > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the non-profit Navajo Language Renaissance (NLR). NLR > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a > >>>>>>>>>>> non-profit > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> organization that is NOT affiliated with the tribal > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> council or > >>>>>>>>>>> government > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any way, for obvious reasons I think (e.g. getting > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> council approval for > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> project). However, it has been endorsed by the school > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> leadership and NLR > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actively trying to get the school district to adopt the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> software. You > >>>>>>>>>>> can > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> view the NLR website here > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ A > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-community member started NLR after using Rosetta > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stone to learn > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Russian. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> She thought it would be good if Rosetta Stone created a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo version. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> She > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contacted Rosetta Stone (RS), and they told her they > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would provide here > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the software to develop the lessons, a photographer, and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> technical > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assistants (limited on the ground, mostly by phone) to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> develop the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> program > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for $300,000. Another option would be for her to apply > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for a grant from > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RS > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to cover most of the costs. So the NLR was created, a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> partnership > >>>>>>>>>>> between > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community members and one non-community member, as a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non- profit > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> organization and applied. RS gave two grants the year > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they applied, one > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> went > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to NLR. The grant covered all but $27,000 of the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> $300,000. So NLR had to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pay > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RS $27,000 to have access to the software to create the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stone. This means they had to create the lessons and pay > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speakers and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> informants themselves. RS provided the software, a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> photographer, and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> technical support for the $27,000. NLR now is the only > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> group that can > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sell > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone, which they do for $150 per license > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and $200 for a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> personal box set. It is not clear if they have to pay RS > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a percentage of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those revenues or not. When I asked a clear answer wasn't > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> given. NLR > >>>>>>>>>>> also > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has a "training" session for administrators and teachers > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which costs > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> $1500 a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> day and $400 per 3 hours. Needless to say, it is not un- > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> controversial in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community for many of the usual reasons. Ironically, the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speaker after > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rosetta Stone folks gave a talk that demonstrated how to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> create nearly > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> identical language lessons as Rosetta Stone's simply > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using power point. > >>>>>>>>>>> I > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was encouraged to let folks know that they should contact > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the NLR if > >>>>>>>>>>> they > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have any questions at mbittinger at rosettastone.com. You > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can try a free > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introductory lesson here > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ The > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> folks > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at NLR praised RS for their efforts and felt they had > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really done them a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> service. In short, they were very happy with the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arrangement and how it > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> working out. They were also upset by the controversies > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> surrounding the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone and felt they were really the result > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> misunderstanding and misguided assumptions. One finally > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thing, they did > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seem > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to think that it was not a pancea, but rather another > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> useful tool in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language revitalization efforts. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shannon > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Haifa University > >>>>>>>>>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > >>>>>>>>>> University > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>> > >>> Lise Menn Home Office: 303-444-4274 > >>> 1625 Mariposa Ave Fax: 303-413-0017 > >>> Boulder CO 80302 > >>> home page: http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/ > >>> > >>> Professor Emerita of Linguistics > >>> Fellow, Institute of Cognitive Science > >>> University of Colorado > >>> > >>> Secretary, AAAS Section Z [Linguistics] > >>> Fellow, Linguistic Society of America > >>> > >>> Campus Mail Address: > >>> UCB 594, Institute for Cognitive Science > >>> > >>> Campus Physical Address: > >>> CINC 234 > >>> 1777 Exposition Ave, Boulder > >>> > >>> > >> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> Dan I. Slobin > >> Professor Emeritus of Psychology and Linguistics > >> > >> Department of Psychology email: slobin at berkeley.edu > >> 3210 Tolman #1650 phone (Dept): 1-510-642-5292 > >> University of California phone (home): 1-510-848-1769 > >> Berkeley, CA 94720-1650, USA fax: 1-510-642-5293 > >> http://psychology.berkeley.edu/faculty/profiles/dslobin.html > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 25 > Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 10:14:27 -0500 > From: Daniel Everett > Subject: [FUNKNET] New work by Steve Piantadosi > To: Funknet Funknet > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > Steve Piantadosi is part of the team now beginning work on Piraha. I think > that this work is exciting and it certainly seems relevant to the readers of > this list. > > Dan > > > http://web.mit.edu/ > http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2011/words-count-0210.html > > There is also an article in Nature News on this work: > > http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110124/full/news.2011.40.html > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 26 > Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 17:22:35 +0200 > From: john at research.haifa.ac.il > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Roseta Stone: Redux > To: Hartmut Haberland > Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Message-ID: <1297351355.4d5402bbc0b6c at webmail.haifa.ac.il> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1255 > > Actually, Hartmut, if you're a linguist who's been studying Danish for > almost 40 years and you can't even figure out how to DESCRIBE stod > phonetically, don't you think this is pretty good evidence that it > would be a significant problem for language learners? > Best wishes, > John > > > > Quoting Hartmut Haberland : > > > The occurrence of /st?d/ (it is not quite clear how to describe it > > phonetically) in Danish has given rise to much mystification, but it is > > certainly not the source of any allophony and, besides, its functional > > load is close to zero. Many Danish speakers don't have it and it never > > gives rise to serious ambiguities (the standard example is /mor/ > > 'mother' vs. /mord/ 'murder', the second one with /st?d/, usually > > disambiguated in context - except in puns, of course). On the other > > hand, the Danish vowel system is rather complex with 25 phonemes in > > stressed syllables plus two shwa phonemes. On top of that there are 19 > > 'short' and 19 'long' diphthongs. And some allophonic variation, plus > > frequent full assimilation of shwa to adjacent sonorants. > > > > K?benhavn in relaxed everyday speech has still three syllables, but the > > second one is a syllabic [m]. > > > > As to the Danish spelling system, it may be "antiquated", but still > > much less so than the English one. While it is very difficult to read an > > English text aloud (in a comprehensible way) without having undstood the > > content, this is not nearly as difficult with a Danish text. Of course, > > Danish spelling is not nearly as systematic visa`-vis the sounds as, > > e.g. Czech or Finnish (or even German), and there are a few irritating > > homographs which are not homophones (steg 'roast (of meat)' almost > > sounds like English 'sty', and steg 'climbed' almost like English > > 'stay'), but it is much less antiquated as English spelling. (English > > almosts sides with Arabic and Hebrew, although I admit that there are > > vowel letters in English. But they contain pretty little information > > about vowel quality and mark mostly /where/ the vowel phonemes are, not > > /what/ vowels they represent.) Children with English as their first > > langauge should have much more problems learning to read and write than > > Danish ones. > > > > Hartmut Haberland > > (not a native speaker of Danish, but still learning after almost 40 > years) > > > > Den 10-02-2011 09:19, john at research.haifa.ac.il skrev: > > > Delays in the acquisition of SPOKEN Danish would presumably be due not > to > > the > > > vowels (which are similar to other Scandinavian languages and much less > > > typologically peculiar than e.g. Dutch and some southern USA dialects) > but > > to > > > the rampant glottalization processe which really are typologically > bizarre > > and > > > which is the main source of complex allophony. It's the same idea as > the > > > American pronunciation of 'button' or 'mountain' (with no vowel in the > > second > > > syllable but rather a syllabic n with a glottal stop before) except > that it > > > occurs not just with alveolar+alveolar but with all combinations and > the > > nasal > > > isn't syllabic but combined with the preceding consonant in one or > another > > way. > > > The Danish pronunciation of 'Copenhagen' in natural speech sounds to me > > like > > > it's just two syllables long. When I was working on Circassian (the > dialect > > > here has about 60 phonemes, mostly due to double and triple > articulations) > > I > > > got the same feeling that somewhere along the way native speakers had > > decided > > > that it was normal to take neighboring consonantal articulations, even > in > > the > > > next syllable, and just say them all at the same time. Delays in the > > > acquisition of WRITTEN Danish, on the other hand, are undoubtedly due > to > > the > > > antiquated spelling system, which has essentially never been updated. > This > > is > > > conceptually a separate problem, although they are related in the sense > > that > > > many of the counterintuitive spellings are the product of the same > > historical > > > process which produced the glottalization processes. > > > There is no question that the greater difficulty of learning some > languages > > is a > > > serious problem for some language revival programs. I see much more > hope > > for > > > reviving Algonquian languages than for reviving Athabascan languages > (and > > > Polynesian languages would be a comparative cinch). I suppose that > members > > of > > > the groups might recognize this and 'dumb down' the languages in one > way or > > > another (making the morphophonemics simpler, eliminating phonemic > contrasts > > > when one of the sounds is really hard to pronounce, etc.), but > obviously > > this > > > is their decision. > > > John > > > > > > Quoting Elena Lieven: > > > > > >> Dan is right. Of course it depends what is meant by 'acquiring a > > >> language'. The skills of highly educated people or public speakers > and > > >> great story tellers in oral cultures will not necessarily be acquired > by > > >> all members of a community. Ewa Dabrowska has shown this for some > > >> aspects of case morphology in Polish and for passives and quantifer > > >> scope in English - both studies of adult native speakers > > >> elena lieven > > >> > > >> Dan I. Slobin wrote: > > >>> A few responses to previous postings: > > >>> > > >>> Yes, languages with transparent and consistent agglutinative > > >>> morphology, in the verbal or nominal systems, allow for rapid > > >>> acquisition, with some productive inflections at the one-word stage. > > >>> Turkish morphology, having virtually no irregular patterns, is quite > > >>> securely mastered by age 3 at the latest, and often much earlier. > > >>> And, in general, complex morphology, of various types, presents no > > >>> serious problems with regard to acquisition of the basic grammar of > > >>> the relevant constructions. For details of successful early > > >>> acquistion of morphology in a number of such "complex"languages see > > >>> volumes of my crosslinguistic series: Vol. 1 (Hebrew, Polish, > > >>> Turkish), Vol. 2 (Hungarian), Vol. 3 (Georgian, West Greenlandic, > > >>> K'iche' Maya, Warlpiri, Sesotho), Vol. 4 (Estonian, Finnish, Korean). > > >>> Comparable findings are available for the acquisition of Inuktitut, > > >>> Tzeltal, Tzotzil,Yucatec Maya, Hindi, Tamil, and others. What > > >>> children find difficult--as do inguists--are multiply-determined > > >>> and/or unpredictable morphophonological patterns. > > >>> > > >>> So it depends on what you want to credit as "total acquisition" or > > >>> "completion of acquisition." An English-speaking 10-year-old can > > >>> fluently produce a range of syntactic structures, in various genres > > >>> and registers, without having mastered all of the irregular verb > forms > > >>> and a number of subordinate syntactic constructions. Furthermore, > > >>> remember that a bility to produce a pattern in some contexts is far > > >>> from commanding its full range of semantic and pragmatic functions. > > >>> And when all of you Funknetters became undergraduate and graduate > > >>> students, and later professionals, you were still acquiring many > > >>> aspects of English grammar, vocabulary, and style. Indeed, it goes > on > > >>> throughout the lifespan of an engaged individual. > > >>> > > >>> There are no established criteria for full mastery, but there are > > >>> numerous studies, in all five of the crosslinguistic volumes and > > >>> elsewhere, of prolonged acquisition of various parts of a linguistic > > >>> system. > > >>> > > >>> As noted, I've written about the error of expecting early child > > >>> language to mirror pidgins. > > >>> > > >>> Best, > > >>> > > >>> Dan (with references following, many of mine available for download > at > > >>> http://psychology.berkeley.edu/faculty/profiles/dslobin.html > > >>> Slobin, D. I. (1985, 1992, 1997). The crosslinguistic study of > > >>> language acquisition. Vol. 1: The Data (1985); Vol. 2: Theoretical > > >>> issues (1985); Vol. 3 (1992); Vol. 4 (1997); Vol. 5: Expanding the > > >>> contexts (1997). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. > > >>> Slobin, D. I. (2004). From ontogenesis to phylogenesis: What can > > >>> child language tell us about language evolution? In J. Langer, S. T. > > >>> Parker,& C. Milbrath (Eds.), Biology and Knowledge revisited: From > > >>> neurogenesis to psychogenesis (pp. 255-285). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence > > >>> Erlbaum Associates. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> At 03:00 PM 2/9/2011, Lise Menn wrote: > > >>>> that's right. And child language and pidgin aren't the same, in any > > >>>> case, for any language I know about, any more than any of them are > > >>>> telegrams. But there are arcane reaches of languages that most > people > > >>>> don't learn, confounding the definition of what 'acquire' means: > > >>>> Japanese honorifics and noun classifiers have elegant refinements, > > >>>> crafts and professions have jargons... > > >>>> > > >>>> On Feb 9, 2011, at 1:50 PM, A. Katz wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>> I seem to recall that in "The Evolution of Language Out of Pre- > > >>>>> Language" Dan Slobin had a sort of dissenting article at the end in > > >>>>> which he mentioned that Turkish children use grammatical morphology > > >>>>> at the one word level, so that they are never actually speaking a > > >>>>> pidgin Turkish at any point in their language development. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> --Aya > > >>>>> > > >>>>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Craig Hancock wrote: > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> Brian, > > >>>>>> This strikes as a bit like Lake Woebegone (Where all the > children > > >>>>>> are above average). > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> normal Danish children all learn good Danish and become fluent > > >>>>>> readers > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Is acquiring a language totally separate from the uses of that > > >>>>>> language? Are we just acquiring the forms and then differing in > our > > >>>>>> ability to put them to use or are the uses themselves a major part > > >>>>>> of what we are acquiring? Are lexicon and syntax wholly separate, > > >>>>>> or do we go on acquiring the lexico-grammar as we enter more > deeply > > >>>>>> into adult worlds of discourse? > > >>>>>> Anyone in literacy education knows that too many American > > >>>>>> children fail to reach high levels of fluency as readers and > > >>>>>> writers. Doesn't that somehow mean they have failed to acquire the > > >>>>>> language? > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Craig > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> On 2/9/2011 2:04 PM, Brian MacWhinney wrote: > > >>>>>>> Fritz, > > >>>>>>> There are studies in places like the Journal of Child Language by > > >>>>>>> Dorthe Bleses, Hans Basb?l, and colleagues at Southern Denmark > > >>>>>>> University on the delay of the acquisition of Danish phonology in > > >>>>>>> comparison to other European languages, mostly attributed to the > > >>>>>>> complexities of the vowel system and the various assimilatory > > >>>>>>> processes. There is a corresponding delay in the acquisition of > > >>>>>>> reading by Danish children that was observed in the > cross-European > > >>>>>>> PISA project. All of this is well documented in the literature, > > >>>>>>> but it is rather marginal and transitory. Eventually, normal > > >>>>>>> Danish children all learn good Danish and become fluent readers. > > >>>>>>> -- Brian MacWhinney > > >>>>>>> On Feb 9, 2011, at 1:27 PM, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > > >>>>>>>> A propos, are there any published studies out there that point > to > > >>>>>>>> measurable difference in rate of completion of first-language > > >>>>>>>> acquisition by speakers of one language compared to another? Or > > >>>>>>>> even of mastery of one aspect of L1 acquisition (phonology, > > >>>>>>>> morphology, etc.) by speakers of one language compared to > another? > > >>>>>>>> --fritz > > >>>>>>>> Frederick J. Newmeyer > > >>>>>>>> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > > >>>>>>>> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon > > >>>>>>>> Fraser University > > >>>>>>>> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > >>>>>>>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, A. Katz wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> Tom, > > >>>>>>>>> If the language is dying, then the advice not to listen to > > >>>>>>>>> somebody under forty because they don't know how to speak may > be > > >>>>>>>>> sound, but not for the reason that you suggest. It could be > > >>>>>>>>> there are no fluent speakers under forty. It seems very > unlikely > > >>>>>>>>> that one would have to arrive at age forty before acquiring > > >>>>>>>>> fluency, especially in a hunter gatherer culture where death > > >>>>>>>>> before forty might be quite common. > > >>>>>>>>> But if you have evidence to the contrary that fully immersed, > > >>>>>>>>> monolingual young speakers of a language cannot speak it with > > >>>>>>>>> communicative effect until age forty, then this is a big > > >>>>>>>>> discovery that ought to be published and shared with the > > >>>>>>>>> scientific community. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> --Aya > > >>>>>>>>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>> Right on, John. And one could make a prediction--hopefully > > >>>>>>>>>> someday to be tested by acquisition studies--that Navajo kids > > >>>>>>>>>> will not master the fully complexcity of the Athabaskan verb > by > > >>>>>>>>>> age 10, or 15, or 20. I once reviewed a grammar in Papua New > > >>>>>>>>>> Guniea of a language that had comparable complexity on the > verb > > >>>>>>>>>> (three positions, 6-8 categoriers each, massive zeroing& > > >>>>>>>>>> morphonemic). I had to ask Carle Whitehead--is this guy for > > >>>>>>>>>> real? He said, yes, he's been in the island for 20 years, > > >>>>>>>>>> really knows his stuff. So I asked the guy--at what age are > > >>>>>>>>>> kids considered fuill-fledged speakers? He said-- the old > > >>>>>>>>>> people say, don't listen to anybody under forty, they don't > > >>>>>>>>>> know how to speak. In my work with the Utes, one exchange has > > >>>>>>>>>> stuck out, an elder (ka-para'ni-wa-t, he's not walking about > > >>>>>>>>>> any more) who was pointed to me as the best orator in the > > >>>>>>>>>> tribe. I told him that, and he said: "Oh, I am nothing. You > > >>>>>>>>>> should have heard the Old Ones; when they spoke, you could see > > >>>>>>>>>> it all in front of your eyes". Part of it is due to the > complex > > >>>>>>>>>> Ute deictic system, which invades NPs, ADVs& the verb. The > > >>>>>>>>>> combinations, and the subtle choices of when to combine the > > >>>>>>>>>> deictic particle with other categories, are a whole > wond(e)rous > > >>>>>>>>>> world. Cheers, TG > > >>>>>>>>>> ========== > > >>>>>>>>>> On 2/9/2011 10:13 AM, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>> Aya, > > >>>>>>>>>>> I think I was the one who said first that Navajo is not a > > >>>>>>>>>>> language for > > >>>>>>>>>>> amateurs. I'll second what Tom said--you should learn > something > > >>>>>>>>>>> about Navajo (or some other Athabaskan language) before > making > > >>>>>>>>>>> statements like this. Some languages are just plain > > >>>>>>>>>>> objectively harder than > > >>>>>>>>>>> others, regardless of typological similarly to one's native > > >>>>>>>>>>> language. If you > > >>>>>>>>>>> don't believe this, do an experiment in which you take > > >>>>>>>>>>> speakers of English, > > >>>>>>>>>>> Turkish, Georgian, Chinese, whatever you want, try to teach > > >>>>>>>>>>> them Navajo, Hopi, > > >>>>>>>>>>> and Cree (for example), and see which one gives them the most > > >>>>>>>>>>> trouble. > > >>>>>>>>>>> I guarantee it will be Navajo. And there is an objective > > >>>>>>>>>>> reason for it-- > > >>>>>>>>>>> the morphophonemics are just unbelievably complex. > > >>>>>>>>>>> John > > >>>>>>>>>>> Quoting "A. Katz": > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Tom, > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think that is a valid viewpoint with regard to > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Athabaskan or any > > >>>>>>>>>>>> other language family. > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Victor Golla earlier had a much better phrasing when he > wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>> "Let that read: "A language that is not for amateurs is not > for > > >>>>>>>>>>>> ADULT people."" > > >>>>>>>>>>>> But in fact no language is easy for adults to learn who have > > >>>>>>>>>>>> not already > > >>>>>>>>>>>> learned a language with a similar typology. If your native > > >>>>>>>>>>>> language works > > >>>>>>>>>>>> similarly to the one you are learning, then you have an > > >>>>>>>>>>>> enormous advantage > > >>>>>>>>>>>> as an adult second language learner. > > >>>>>>>>>>>> The remark about how Navajo is not for amateurs was made in > > >>>>>>>>>>>> the context of > > >>>>>>>>>>>> people who have no experience with languages of a similar > > >>>>>>>>>>>> typology. > > >>>>>>>>>>>> To make this a universal statement about the difficulty of > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo without > > >>>>>>>>>>>> qualification is to suggest that some languages are "easy" > > >>>>>>>>>>>> and others are > > >>>>>>>>>>>> "impossible". Not only is this not true from an objective > > >>>>>>>>>>>> standpoint, it > > >>>>>>>>>>>> also perpetuates the prejudice that English (or IE) is a > > >>>>>>>>>>>> "normal" language > > >>>>>>>>>>>> and that every language should be measured against this > norm. > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Best, > > >>>>>>>>>>>> --Aya > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Before you actually tried to learn an Athabaskan language, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> or at the very > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> least worked on one, maybe you had better refrain from > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> asserting that "a > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> language that is not for amateurs is not for people". TG > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> ========= > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/8/2011 6:33 AM, A. Katz wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> A language that is not for amateurs is not for people. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> This has nothing to do with RS or computer language > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> teaching. As others > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> have stated, the technologically based systems are not a > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> panacea. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> But a language that ordinary people can't pick by talking > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to their parents > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in childhood is either dead already or not a human > language. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> --Aya > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would be amazed if a single person actually learns to > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speak Navajo > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using Rosetta Stone. This is not a language for amateurs. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> John > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Quoting "s.t. bischoff": > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Over the last week I was involved with an event at the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> American Indian > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Language Development Institute and the folks that > created > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Navajo > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rosetta > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stone gave a short talk about the software. What follows > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is my > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of how it came to be. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Navajo Rosetta Stones was created in collaboration > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with Rosetta > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Stone > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the non-profit Navajo Language Renaissance (NLR). > NLR > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a > > >>>>>>>>>>>> non-profit > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> organization that is NOT affiliated with the tribal > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> council or > > >>>>>>>>>>>> government > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any way, for obvious reasons I think (e.g. getting > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> council approval for > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> project). However, it has been endorsed by the school > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> leadership and NLR > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actively trying to get the school district to adopt the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> software. You > > >>>>>>>>>>>> can > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> view the NLR website here > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ A > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-community member started NLR after using Rosetta > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stone to learn > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Russian. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> She thought it would be good if Rosetta Stone created a > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo version. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> She > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contacted Rosetta Stone (RS), and they told her they > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would provide here > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the software to develop the lessons, a photographer, > and > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> technical > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assistants (limited on the ground, mostly by phone) to > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> develop the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> program > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for $300,000. Another option would be for her to apply > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for a grant from > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RS > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to cover most of the costs. So the NLR was created, a > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> partnership > > >>>>>>>>>>>> between > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community members and one non-community member, as a > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non- profit > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> organization and applied. RS gave two grants the year > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they applied, one > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> went > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to NLR. The grant covered all but $27,000 of the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> $300,000. So NLR had to > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pay > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RS $27,000 to have access to the software to create the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stone. This means they had to create the lessons and pay > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speakers and > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> informants themselves. RS provided the software, a > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> photographer, and > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> technical support for the $27,000. NLR now is the only > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> group that can > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sell > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone, which they do for $150 per license > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and $200 for a > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> personal box set. It is not clear if they have to pay RS > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a percentage of > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those revenues or not. When I asked a clear answer > wasn't > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> given. NLR > > >>>>>>>>>>>> also > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has a "training" session for administrators and teachers > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which costs > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> $1500 a > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> day and $400 per 3 hours. Needless to say, it is not un- > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> controversial in > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community for many of the usual reasons. Ironically, the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speaker after > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rosetta Stone folks gave a talk that demonstrated how to > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> create nearly > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> identical language lessons as Rosetta Stone's simply > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using power point. > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was encouraged to let folks know that they should > contact > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the NLR if > > >>>>>>>>>>>> they > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have any questions at mbittinger at rosettastone.com. You > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can try a free > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introductory lesson here > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/ The > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> folks > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at NLR praised RS for their efforts and felt they had > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really done them a > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> service. In short, they were very happy with the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arrangement and how it > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> working out. They were also upset by the controversies > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> surrounding the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone and felt they were really the > result > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> misunderstanding and misguided assumptions. One finally > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thing, they did > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seem > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to think that it was not a pancea, but rather another > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> useful tool in > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language revitalization efforts. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shannon > > >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Haifa University > > >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > >>>>>>>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > > >>>>>>>>>>> University > > >>>>>> > > >>>> Lise Menn Home Office: 303-444-4274 > > >>>> 1625 Mariposa Ave Fax: 303-413-0017 > > >>>> Boulder CO 80302 > > >>>> home page: http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/ > > >>>> > > >>>> Professor Emerita of Linguistics > > >>>> Fellow, Institute of Cognitive Science > > >>>> University of Colorado > > >>>> > > >>>> Secretary, AAAS Section Z [Linguistics] > > >>>> Fellow, Linguistic Society of America > > >>>> > > >>>> Campus Mail Address: > > >>>> UCB 594, Institute for Cognitive Science > > >>>> > > >>>> Campus Physical Address: > > >>>> CINC 234 > > >>>> 1777 Exposition Ave, Boulder > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>> Dan I. Slobin > > >>> Professor Emeritus of Psychology and Linguistics > > >>> > > >>> Department of Psychology email: slobin at berkeley.edu > > >>> 3210 Tolman #1650 phone (Dept): 1-510-642-5292 > > >>> University of California phone (home): 1-510-848-1769 > > >>> Berkeley, CA 94720-1650, USA fax: 1-510-642-5293 > > >>> http://psychology.berkeley.edu/faculty/profiles/dslobin.html > > >>> > > >>> > > >> -- > > >> Elena Lieven > > >> Department of Developmental and Comparative Psychology > > >> Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology > > >> Deutscher Platz 6 > > >> D-04103 Leipzig > > >> Germany > > >> > > >> Tel.+49-(0)341-3550 404 > > >> +49-(0)341-3550 400 (Department Coordinator: Henriette Zeidler) > > >> Fax.+49-(0)341-3550 444 > > >> > > >> and > > >> > > >> Max Planck Child Study Centre > > >> School of Psychological Sciences > > >> University of Manchester > > >> Manchester M13 9PL > > >> UK > > >> > > >> Tel.+44-(0)161-275 2580 > > >> +44-(0)161-275 2444 (Research Secretary: Mickie Glover) > > >> Fax.+44-(0)161-275 8587 > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > University > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 27 > Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 10:35:39 -0500 > From: Craig Hancock > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Roseta Stone: Redux > To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Message-ID: <4D5405CB.4030603 at albany.edu> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > On 2/9/2011 11:15 PM, Sherman Wilcox wrote: > Sherman, > I think Hemingway was being a bit disingenuous with "getting the > words right," a bit like a cook saying he wanted to "get the ingredients > right" in a recipe. It's a flip answer, for whatever reasons. The words > have everything to do with each other and with the functional pressure > of the whole novel at that critical, concluding point. He had to pay > attention to plot resolution (or resistance to that), point-of-view (a > constant attention in fiction), to staying within character (though > characters are often dynamic), to getting the conversation right > (character speaking the way characters speak), and so on. > Fiction may draw on elements of language very common to speech, but > it puts them to work in very careful ways. Some of the patterns are > obvious: past tense verbs, perfect aspect verbs, present participle > clauses, personal pronouns (1st and/or 3rd person, depending on the > narration), synthetic negation, public verbs (speech act verbs). Both > present tense verbs and "attributive adjectives" correlate negatively > (see Biber, Dimensions of Register Variation, 1995). The lack of > adjectives is probably driven by less complex nominalization, especially > in comparison to news writing and academic writing, which are both > heavily nominalized. > The work of the story pressures an appropriate language. In this > case, fluency means responding appropriately to that pressure, > developing one's craft over considerable time. > > Craig > > > > On Feb 9, 2011, at 8:53 PM, Dan I. Slobin wrote: > > > >> And when all of you Funknetters became undergraduate and graduate > students, and later professionals, you were still acquiring many aspects of > English grammar, vocabulary, and style. Indeed, it goes on throughout the > lifespan of an engaged individual. > > > > Okay, so writing isn't the same as speaking. Nevertheless, I think this > interview with Ernest Hemingway is relevant: > > > > Interviewer: How much rewriting do you do? > > > > Hemingway: It depends. I rewrote the ending of "Farewell to Arms," the > last page of it, 39 times before I was satisfied. > > > > Interviewer: Was there some technical problem there? What was it that had > stumped you? > > > > Hemingway: Getting the words right. > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 28 > Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 09:55:59 -0700 > From: Sherman Wilcox > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Roseta Stone: Redux > To: Craig Hancock > Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Message-ID: <51C30422-F8D9-41F8-B80C-DE42A5DC63BB at unm.edu> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > On Feb 10, 2011, at 8:35 AM, Craig Hancock wrote: > > > I think Hemingway was being a bit disingenuous with "getting the words > right," > > I don't know if he was being disingenuous. Mostly, I just thought it was a > nice quote that reinforced, in a slightly different way, the point Dan was > making. Here's another one that I love about the craft of writing: > > "If it sounds like writing, I rewrite it." (Elmore Leonard, Newsweek, April > 22, 1985) > > -- > Sherman > > > > > > End of FUNKNET Digest, Vol 89, Issue 8 > ************************************** > From mark at polymathix.com Thu Feb 10 19:55:32 2011 From: mark at polymathix.com (Mark P. Line) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 13:55:32 -0600 Subject: stochastic learning In-Reply-To: Message-ID: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic_gradient_descent -- Mark s.t. bischoff wrote: > Can anyone provide me with a concise and clear definition of "stochastic > learning"? I find I am having difficulty getting the idea across to my > students...which suggests I haven't quite got it right myself. > > Cheers, > Shannon > > From john at research.haifa.ac.il Thu Feb 10 22:42:32 2011 From: john at research.haifa.ac.il (john at research.haifa.ac.il) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2011 00:42:32 +0200 Subject: Roseta Stone: Redux In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Georgian is not comparable to Athabascan languages in words of morphological complexity, it isn't even close. It's initially counter-intuitive, but once you get the idea it isn't really bad. I wouldn't put it at the level of difficulty which would prove to be just too much for almost all non-natives (I would put at least Athabascan, Iroquoian, Salishan, and Inuit in this category). John Quoting Alex Walker : > Has anyone done acquisition studies of children in monolingual Georgian > homes? Georgian is the only national language I've encountered with > morphological complexity comparable to that seen in many American Indian > languages, and it's also in no danger of dying any time soon. I would very > much like to know whether anyone has worked with Georgian data to answer > some of the questions raised in this thread. > > On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 11:57 AM, Geoffrey Steven Nathan < > geoffnathan at wayne.edu> wrote: > > > Yes, there's lots of research on relative complexity of grammatical systems > > as related to first language acquisition, and, of course, more complex, > > idiosyncratic, irregular morphological systems are harder to learn and > > acquired later than simpler, more regular ones expressing roughly the same > > notion. > > Dan Slobin (are you on this list, Dan?) did much research in the 70's on > > this topic, comparing, IIRC, Serbo-Croatian (which existed then) and > > Turkish, and maybe some other languages. > > Here's an abstract from one of those papers: > > > > > > The ability of children between the ages of 2; 0 and 4; 8 to produce > > locative pre- or postpositions was investigated in English, Italian, > > Serbo-Croatian, and Turkish. Across languages, there was a general order of > > development: (1) ?in?, ?on?, ?under?, and ?beside?, (2) ?between?, ?back? > > and ?front? with featured objects, (3) ?back? and ?front? with non-featured > > objects. This order of development is discussed in terms of nonlinguistic > > growth in conceptual ability. Language-specific differences in the general > > pattern of development are discussed in terms of a number of linguistic > > factors which may facilitate or retard the child's discovery of the > > linguistic means for encoding concepts. > > > > > > ? Journal of Child Language (1979), 6: 529-545 > > > > > > Geoff > > > > Geoffrey S. Nathan > > Faculty Liaison, C&IT > > and Professor, Linguistics Program > > http://blogs.wayne.edu/proftech/ > > +1 (313) 577-1259 (C&IT) > > +1 (313) 577-8621 (English/Linguistics) > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > > From: "Frederick J Newmeyer" > > To: "A. Katz" > > Cc: "Tom Givon" , john at research.haifa.ac.il, "Funknet" > > > > Sent: Wednesday, February 9, 2011 1:27:25 PM > > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Roseta Stone: Redux > > > > A propos, are there any published studies out there that point to > > measurable difference in rate of completion of first-language acquisition > by > > speakers of one language compared to another? Or even of mastery of one > > aspect of L1 acquisition (phonology, morphology, etc.) by speakers of one > > language compared to another? > > > > --fritz > > > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > > University > > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > > > On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, A. Katz wrote: > > > > > Tom, > > > > > > If the language is dying, then the advice not to listen to somebody under > > > forty because they don't know how to speak may be sound, but not for the > > > reason that you suggest. It could be there are no fluent speakers under > > > forty. It seems very unlikely that one would have to arrive at age forty > > > before acquiring fluency, especially in a hunter gatherer culture where > > death > > > before forty might be quite common. > > > > > > But if you have evidence to the contrary that fully immersed, monolingual > > > young speakers of a language cannot speak it with communicative effect > > until > > > age forty, then this is a big discovery that ought to be published and > > shared > > > with the scientific community. > > > > > > --Aya > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Right on, John. And one could make a prediction--hopefully someday to be > > >> tested by acquisition studies--that Navajo kids will not master the > > fully > > >> complexcity of the Athabaskan verb by age 10, or 15, or 20. I once > > reviewed > > >> a grammar in Papua New Guniea of a language that had comparable > > complexity > > >> on the verb (three positions, 6-8 categoriers each, massive zeroing & > > >> morphonemic). I had to ask Carle Whitehead--is this guy for real? He > > said, > > >> yes, he's been in the island for 20 years, really knows his stuff. So I > > >> asked the guy--at what age are kids considered fuill-fledged speakers? > > He > > >> said-- the old people say, don't listen to anybody under forty, they > > don't > > >> know how to speak. In my work with the Utes, one exchange has stuck out, > > >> an elder (ka-para'ni-wa-t, he's not walking about any more) who was > > pointed > > >> to me as the best orator in the tribe. I told him that, and he said: > > "Oh, I > > >> am nothing. You should have heard the Old Ones; when they spoke, you > > could > > >> see it all in front of your eyes". Part of it is due to the complex Ute > > >> deictic system, which invades NPs, ADVs & the verb. The combinations, > > and > > >> the subtle choices of when to combine the deictic particle with other > > >> categories, are a whole wond(e)rous world. Cheers, TG > > >> > > >> ========== > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> On 2/9/2011 10:13 AM, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > > >>> Aya, > > >>> I think I was the one who said first that Navajo is not a language for > > >>> amateurs. I'll second what Tom said--you should learn something > > >>> about Navajo (or some other Athabaskan language) before making > > >>> statements like this. Some languages are just plain objectively harder > > >>> than > > >>> others, regardless of typological similarly to one's native language. > > If > > >>> you > > >>> don't believe this, do an experiment in which you take speakers of > > >>> English, > > >>> Turkish, Georgian, Chinese, whatever you want, try to teach them > > Navajo, > > >>> Hopi, > > >>> and Cree (for example), and see which one gives them the most trouble. > > >>> I guarantee it will be Navajo. And there is an objective reason for > > it-- > > >>> the morphophonemics are just unbelievably complex. > > >>> John > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Quoting "A. Katz": > > >>> > > >>>> Tom, > > >>>> > > >>>> I don't think that is a valid viewpoint with regard to Athabaskan or > > any > > >>>> other language family. > > >>>> > > >>>> Victor Golla earlier had a much better phrasing when he wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> "Let that read: "A language that is not for amateurs is not for > > >>>> ADULT people."" > > >>>> > > >>>> But in fact no language is easy for adults to learn who have not > > already > > >>>> learned a language with a similar typology. If your native language > > works > > >>>> similarly to the one you are learning, then you have an enormous > > >>>> advantage > > >>>> as an adult second language learner. > > >>>> > > >>>> The remark about how Navajo is not for amateurs was made in the > > context > > >>>> of > > >>>> people who have no experience with languages of a similar typology. > > >>>> To make this a universal statement about the difficulty of Navajo > > without > > >>>> qualification is to suggest that some languages are "easy" and others > > are > > >>>> "impossible". Not only is this not true from an objective standpoint, > > it > > >>>> also perpetuates the prejudice that English (or IE) is a "normal" > > >>>> language > > >>>> and that every language should be measured against this norm. > > >>>> > > >>>> Best, > > >>>> > > >>>> --Aya > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Before you actually tried to learn an Athabaskan language, or at the > > >>>>> very > > >>>>> least worked on one, maybe you had better refrain from asserting that > > "a > > >>>>> language that is not for amateurs is not for people". TG > > >>>>> > > >>>>> ========= > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> On 2/8/2011 6:33 AM, A. Katz wrote: > > >>>>>> A language that is not for amateurs is not for people. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> This has nothing to do with RS or computer language teaching. As > > others > > >>>>>> have stated, the technologically based systems are not a panacea. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> But a language that ordinary people can't pick by talking to their > > >>>>>> parents > > >>>>>> in childhood is either dead already or not a human language. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> --Aya > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> I would be amazed if a single person actually learns to speak > > Navajo > > >>>>>>> using Rosetta Stone. This is not a language for amateurs. > > >>>>>>> John > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Quoting "s.t. bischoff": > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Hi all, > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Over the last week I was involved with an event at the American > > >>>>>>>> Indian > > >>>>>>>> Language Development Institute and the folks that created the > > Navajo > > >>>>>>>> Rosetta > > >>>>>>>> Stone gave a short talk about the software. What follows is my > > >>>>>>>> understanding > > >>>>>>>> of how it came to be. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> The Navajo Rosetta Stones was created in collaboration with > > Rosetta > > >>>> Stone > > >>>>>>>> and the non-profit Navajo Language Renaissance (NLR). NLR is a > > >>>> non-profit > > >>>>>>>> organization that is NOT affiliated with the tribal council or > > >>>> government > > >>>>>>>> in > > >>>>>>>> any way, for obvious reasons I think (e.g. getting council > > approval > > >>>>>>>> for > > >>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>> project). However, it has been endorsed by the school leadership > > and > > >>>>>>>> NLR > > >>>>>>>> is > > >>>>>>>> actively trying to get the school district to adopt the software. > > You > > >>>> can > > >>>>>>>> view the NLR website here http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/A > > >>>>>>>> non-community member started NLR after using Rosetta Stone to > > learn > > >>>>>>>> Russian. > > >>>>>>>> She thought it would be good if Rosetta Stone created a Navajo > > >>>>>>>> version. > > >>>>>>>> She > > >>>>>>>> contacted Rosetta Stone (RS), and they told her they would provide > > >>>>>>>> here > > >>>>>>>> with > > >>>>>>>> the software to develop the lessons, a photographer, and technical > > >>>>>>>> assistants (limited on the ground, mostly by phone) to develop the > > >>>>>>>> program > > >>>>>>>> for $300,000. Another option would be for her to apply for a grant > > >>>>>>>> from > > >>>>>>>> RS > > >>>>>>>> to cover most of the costs. So the NLR was created, a partnership > > >>>> between > > >>>>>>>> community members and one non-community member, as a non-profit > > >>>>>>>> organization and applied. RS gave two grants the year they > > applied, > > >>>>>>>> one > > >>>>>>>> went > > >>>>>>>> to NLR. The grant covered all but $27,000 of the $300,000. So NLR > > had > > >>>>>>>> to > > >>>>>>>> pay > > >>>>>>>> RS $27,000 to have access to the software to create the Navajo > > >>>>>>>> Rosetta > > >>>>>>>> Stone. This means they had to create the lessons and pay speakers > > and > > >>>>>>>> informants themselves. RS provided the software, a photographer, > > and > > >>>>>>>> technical support for the $27,000. NLR now is the only group that > > can > > >>>>>>>> sell > > >>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone, which they do for $150 per license and $200 > > for > > >>>>>>>> a > > >>>>>>>> personal box set. It is not clear if they have to pay RS a > > percentage > > >>>>>>>> of > > >>>>>>>> those revenues or not. When I asked a clear answer wasn't given. > > NLR > > >>>> also > > >>>>>>>> has a "training" session for administrators and teachers which > > costs > > >>>>>>>> $1500 a > > >>>>>>>> day and $400 per 3 hours. Needless to say, it is not > > un-controversial > > >>>>>>>> in > > >>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>> community for many of the usual reasons. Ironically, the speaker > > >>>>>>>> after > > >>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>> Rosetta Stone folks gave a talk that demonstrated how to create > > >>>>>>>> nearly > > >>>>>>>> identical language lessons as Rosetta Stone's simply using power > > >>>>>>>> point. > > >>>> I > > >>>>>>>> was encouraged to let folks know that they should contact the NLR > > if > > >>>> they > > >>>>>>>> have any questions at mbittinger at rosettastone.com. You can try a > > free > > >>>>>>>> introductory lesson here > http://navajorenaissance.angelfire.com/The > > >>>>>>>> folks > > >>>>>>>> at NLR praised RS for their efforts and felt they had really done > > >>>>>>>> them a > > >>>>>>>> service. In short, they were very happy with the arrangement and > > how > > >>>>>>>> it > > >>>>>>>> was > > >>>>>>>> working out. They were also upset by the controversies surrounding > > >>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>> Navajo Rosetta Stone and felt they were really the result of a > > >>>>>>>> misunderstanding and misguided assumptions. One finally thing, > > they > > >>>>>>>> did > > >>>>>>>> seem > > >>>>>>>> to think that it was not a pancea, but rather another useful tool > > in > > >>>>>>>> language revitalization efforts. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Cheers, > > >>>>>>>> Shannon > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > >>>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > > >>>>>>> University > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > >>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > > University > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University From sepkit at utu.fi Sun Feb 13 14:26:10 2011 From: sepkit at utu.fi (=?iso-8859-1?B?IlNlcHBvIEtpdHRpbOQi?=) Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2011 16:26:10 +0200 Subject: Final call for papers: Variation and typology (Helsinki, 25.-27.8.2011) Message-ID: (apologies for multiple postings) Variation and Typology: New trends in Syntactic Research Helsinki, August 25?27, 2011 In recent years, theoretical discussion around syntactic issues has been characterized by a growing interest towards variation, both dialectal and cross-linguistic. Typological considerations have proven to be essential even for research on individual languages. On the other hand, detailed studies of variation within languages (e.g. studies of dialectical variation) and variation across closely related languages have attracted more interest among typologists. One consequence of this has been that the focus in dialect research has shifted from phonological and morphological towards syntactic questions. Whether this will turn out to be a mere adjustment in attention or a major paradigm shift, a broadened perspective is welcome and also necessary. In order for new approaches to emerge, old ones need to be combined in novel ways. This symposium offers a forum for scholars interested in syntactic questions within typology and variation (and combinations thereof) and willing to contribute to this collective shift of focus. The goal of the symposium is to approach the concept of variation from a broader perspective for gaining new insights into what variation (in its different forms) can reveal about language. Basically, variation can be seen both language-internal (e.g. dialects, sociolects etc.) and cross-linguistic (typological variation).There are numerous studies of both of these, but only quite recently has there been real effort to combine these two aspects of variation (e.g. Kortmann 2004, Nevalainen et al. 2006, Barbiers et al. 2008). Special attention will be given to the oft-neglected areas which fall between the foci of linguistic typology and variation studies within syntax when these are seen as separate fields of study. The question we would like to be addressed is briefly: what do we gai n by studying variation both within and across languages. Put another way, what are the implications of variation studies and language typology to one another? We heartily welcome papers related to the overall enterprise. Possible topics for talks include, but, as usual, are not restricted to, the following: ? dialect syntax vs. syntactic typology: what is the relation between cross-linguistic variation and dialectal variation? ? accounting for variation in syntactic theory: rigid rules, fuzzy templates, or something else? ? implications of language variation to typological data selection & research: what is the ?best variant? of a language to be presented in reference grammars? What are the consequences of relying on standard language data in cross-linguistic research? And what is the significance of having vs. not having variation data available to the grammarian? ? how to take into account variation in typological research in syntax? - case studies of variation within and across languages (e.g. clause combining, use of reflexive pronouns, possessive constructions, argument marking, word order variations, etc. etc. within and across languages) - methodological contributions to variation: to what extent do we need different machinery for dealing with different types of variation, and to what extent are we dealing with ?just variation?? - variation and marginal constructions: do we need a distinction between core and periphery in grammar? Does this involve a distinction between common and dialectal variants? Are certain constructions marginal both in dialects and across languages? - borderline between dialectal and typological variation: e.g. issues of dealing with closely related languages, distinguishing between dialects vs. languages, spontaneous vs. contact-induced variation, etc. - qualitative methods in typology and dialect studies For more information please visit the webpage of the symposium at: http://www.linguistics.fi/variation Invited speakers: Balthasar Bickel (University of Leipzig) Joan Bresnan (Stanford University) Marja-Liisa Helasvuo (University of Turku) Scientific committee Sjef Barbiers (University of Amsterdam) Hans Boas (University of Texas, Austin) Hannele Forsberg (University of Eastern Finland) Bernd Kortmann (University of Freiburg) Ekkehard K?nig (Freie Universit?t Berlin) Michel Launey (University of Paris 7) Silvia Luraghi (University of Pavia) Jan-Ola ?stman (University of Helsinki) Cecilia Poletto (University of Padova) St?phane Robert (CNRS) Anna Siewierska (University of Lancaster) Jussi Ylikoski (University of Helsinki) Organizing committee Seppo Kittil? (University of Helsinki) Aki Kyr?l?inen (University of Turku) Meri Larjavaara (?bo Akademi University) Jaakko Leino (Research Institute for the Languages of Finland) Alexandre Nikolaev (University of Eastern Finland) Maria Vilkuna (Research Institute for the Languages of Finland) Abstract submission Please send your abstract to typ-variation /at/ helsinki.fi no later than March 1, 2011. The length of abstracts should not exceed 500 words (excluding data and references). Abstracts will be evaluated by the members of the scientific committee and also by the organizing committee. Letters of acceptance will be sent by March 31, 2011. The abstracts themselves must be anonymous, but the body of the message should include the following information: Name of the participant Title of presentation Affiliation E-mail address Whether the paper is meant as a section paper, a poster, or a workshop Workshops The symposium will include a workshop on Finnish and Finnic dialect syntax. Proposals for all workshops should be submitted no later than February 11, 2011. Notification of acceptance will be given by March 7, 2011. These one-day workshops will run in parallel sessions with the main conference program. Alternatively, the first day of the symposium may be dedicated to workshops. The symposium organizers will provide the lecture rooms and other facilities, but the workshop organizers will be responsible for the organization of their workshops (choosing the speakers etc.). Key dates: ? Deadline for abstract submission: March 1, 2011 ? Notification of acceptance: March 31, 2011 ? Proposals for workshops: February 11, 2011 ? Notification of acceptance of workshops: March 7, 2011 Activities: ? Presentations by the invited speakers ? Presentations by other participants ? Posters ? Workshops Registration The registration deadline is August 5, 2011. An on-line registration form to the symposium will appear on the webpage of the symposium after the evaluation of abstracts. Registration fees General: 100 Euro Members of the association: 80 Euro Undergraduate students: 50 Euro Finnish participants are requested to pay the registration fee to the SKY bank account when they register for the conference (bank account number 174530-71243 (Nordea)). Participants from abroad are likewise requested to pay in advance by bank transfer, if at all possible, to the SKY bank account in Finland (Bank: Nordea; IBAN: FI76 1745 3000 0712 43, BIC: NDEAFIHH). However, we may also accept payment IN CASH (only in Euros; moreover, we CANNOT accept credit cards of any sort) upon arrival in case bank transfer is not possible. If you have paid via bank transfer from abroad, we would kindly ask you to bring a COPY of the original transaction receipt with you and present it upon registration. References Barbiers, Sjef & Olaf Koeneman & Marika Lekakou & Margreet van der Ham (eds.) 2008. Microvariation in syntactic doubling. Syntax and Semantics, volume 36. Bingley: Emerald. Kortmann, Bernd (ed.) 2004. Dialectology meets typology: dialect grammar from a cross-linguistic perspective. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Nevalainen, Terttu & Juhani Klemola & Mikko Laitinen (eds.) 2006. Types of variation: diachronic, dialectical and typological interfaces. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. From sclancy at UCHICAGO.EDU Mon Feb 14 13:02:47 2011 From: sclancy at UCHICAGO.EDU (Steven Clancy) Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 07:02:47 -0600 Subject: Call for papers - SCLC 2011 Message-ID: American University (Washington, DC, USA) and the Slavic Cognitive Linguistics Association present THE ELEVENTH ANNUAL CONFERENCE OF THE SLAVIC COGNITIVE LINGUISTICS ASSOCIATION (SCLC-2011) October 14-16, 2011 American University (Washington, DC, USA) The Slavic Cognitive Linguistics Association (SCLA) announces the Call for Papers for the 2011 annual conference. The conference will be held on the campus of American University (Washington, DC, USA) on Friday, October 14 through Sunday, October 16, 2011. Keynote speakers will be announced soon. CALL FOR PAPERS Abstracts are invited for presentations addressing issues of significance for cognitive linguistics with some bearing on data from the Slavic languages. As long as there is a cognitive orientation, papers may be on synchronic or diachronic topics in any of the traditional areas of phonetics, phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, discourse analysis, or sociolinguistics. In addition to the Slavic Languages, relevant papers on other languages of Central and Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union are also acceptable. Abstracts may be submitted up until the deadline of April 8, 2011 to sclcAbstracts at gmail.com. Abstracts should be approximately 500 words, but strict word limits are not required. Notification of acceptance will be provided by May 31, 2011. The abstract should be submitted as a word or pdf file as an attachment to an email message with ?SCLC abstract submission? in the subject headline. Abstracts should be anonymous, but the author?s name, affiliation and contact information should be included in the email message. Most presentations at SCLC are given in English, but may be in the native (Slavic) language of the presenter. However, if the presentation is not to be made in English we ask that you provide an abstract in English in addition to an abstract in any other SCLA language. Each presentation will be given 20 minutes and will be followed by a 10-minute discussion period. FURTHER INFORMATION Information on transportation, accommodations, and the conference venue will be forthcoming. Please see the conference website for further information. http://languages.uchicago.edu/scla We hope you will be able to join us for SCLC-2011. Please forward this call for papers to your colleagues and graduate students who may be interested in presenting or attending. Sincerely, Tore Nesset Dagmar Divjak Alina Israeli President, SCLA Vice-President, SCLA Conference Organizer and Host, American University on behalf of the SCLA officers and the 2011 SCLA organizing committee From tgivon at uoregon.edu Wed Feb 16 03:13:23 2011 From: tgivon at uoregon.edu (Tom Givon) Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 20:13:23 -0700 Subject: child language Message-ID: Dead FUNK people, In 2002 I accepted for publication, in a TSL volume I edited, an article by my good friend Dan Slobin. I disagreed strongly with what he had to say, but felt that one might as well have a vigorous discussion. In that article, Dan challenged the meaningfulness of a whole research programme, that of seeking similarities between early child language (1-2 yrs) and other developmental ('emergent') processes such as language diachrony, SLA-pidginization and language evolution. A week or so ago, Dan cited that article, once again implying that it was the last word on the subject, and thus that the discussion should be closed. In 2009 I published a whole book ("The Genesis of Syntactic Complexity", Amsterdam: Benjamins) suggesting, and trying to show, that the discussion was far from closed, and that seeking similarities between the four developmental trends of language is both theoretically sound and empirically feasible. At the time, somewhat tongue-in-cheek, I said I was sorely tempted to dedicate the book to my old teacher Noam Chomsky, given his infuriating treatment of the subject in a 2002 article (Hauser et al. 2002). In retrospect, I see that I should have dedicated the book to Dan Slobin, since both he and Chomsky were the proximate catalysts for writing the book; and unlike Chomsky Dan is still my good friend. In his recent FUNK contribution, Dan leveled his guns most specifically at the pernicious suggestion (Givon 1979; Bickerton 1981) that the similarities between early child language and SLA pidgin could be legitimate and revealing. I would like to briefly sketch out the beginning of an answer, and also give a promisory note for a more extensive, quantified, text-based study that will back up my claims--tho of course I don't intend to close the discussion once and for all even then. My investigation of this topic started in 1979, in ch. 5, 7 of "On Understanding Grammar" ( NY:Academic Press). I set up there a comparison between some of the main structural and communicative properties of pre-gram,matical vs. grammatical communication. After 30 years of tinkering, that comparison may be summarized as follows: FUNCTIONAL/COMMUNICATIVE PROPERTIES: 1. *Lexicon over grammar*: Pre-grammatical communication relies maximally on the lexicon, leaving communicative intent largely un-coded and thus heavily dependent on contextual inferences. In contrast, grammatical communication codes much more of the communicative intent via grammar. 2. *Coherence scope*: The thematic and/or topical coherence units of pre-grammatical communication are much shorter. In early child language, for example (ca. Lois Bloom's 1970/1973 1-word stage, ca. 1 yr old), it approximates 1-clause, thus "mono-propositional coherence". It gradually gets longer, and is clearly multi-propositional by the so-called 2-word stage (Bowerman 1973, ca. 2-yr). 3. *Dependence on care-taker turns*: In early child language (Ochs et al. 1979) the one-word contributions of the child are complemented/supplemented, both syntactically and communicatively, by the adult interlocutor's contributions. 4. *Context dependency*: Early child communication is, therefore, much more heavily context-dependent. 6. *Speech acts*: The ratio of manipulative vs. informative (declarative, question) speech acts will be highest in early child language, and will decrease over acquisition. STRUCTURALLY PROPERTIES: 6.*Noun/verb coding ratio*: The ration of N/V in early child comminication (e.g. Lois Blooms 1970/1973 transcipts) is highest, and decreases during acquisition. 7. *Grammatical morphology*: The use of productive (as against frozen) grammatical morphology is minimal in early child language, and increases during acquisition. 8. *Grammatical constructions*: In early child language, in part due the 7. above, syntactic constructions (speech acts, voice, subordination, etc.) show low differentiation. They emerge and differentiate gradually during acquisition. 9. *Syntactic complexity*: Overall, early child language shows minimal syntactic complexity, which then increases gradually during acquisition. PROMISSORY NOTE: All these properties can be studied empirically in a quantified manner--in transcripts of natural oral communication. The relevant comparison with the adult grammatical register should obviously involve informal oral communication. None of these properties are absolute either/or; rather, they are all a matter of degree. They must be studied language by language, and one would predict that in languages with more-regular morphology the acquisition of productive (as against frozen) morphology would come earlier. But one would still predict the gradient suggested in 7 above. Further, one could predict that in languages where the adult input of verbs obligatorily comes with some morphology (Hebrew, Spanish, Navajo), lexical verbs will be acquired initially with some frozen morphology; but that morphology would not be productive at the earliest stages. Likewise, one could predict that in languages where the adult input of nouns obligatorily comes with some morphology (Bantu), nouns will be acquired early with frozen morphology; but that the richness of Bantu nominal-class morphology, and in particular its extensive ramifications into the grammar of both NPs and VPs, will be acquired later and gradually. So, I hereby promise to find the time to do this kind of quantified comparative study, and present the result for y'all to inspect & decide. I promise to include at least 4 languages (Hebrew, Spanish, English, Swahili), as well as English-based SLA-pidgin. While this is obviously an impoverished typological sample, it does include some of the major relevant typological parameters. And one needs to know the languages in order to do the study (the CHILDES transcripts, alas, come without inter-lineal glosses). I can only hope that other people may want to pick up the gauntlet and extend this study to other languages. As in other sciences, theoretical arguments can only be resolved by well-design empirical investigation. The worst thing one would want to see in child language studies is a premature closure. Best, TG From macw at cmu.edu Wed Feb 16 21:49:33 2011 From: macw at cmu.edu (Brian MacWhinney) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 16:49:33 -0500 Subject: child language In-Reply-To: <4D5B40D3.1020508@uoregon.edu> Message-ID: Folks, This examination promises to be better than the Super Bowl. And, unlike the Super Bowl, where my home team lost, I don't have strong bets on either side. Seriously, this is an important issue and the more we can articulate the relevant factors involved, the better for theoretical development. I am happy to see no reference here to Broca's aphasia, with the focus instead on comparing diachrony, SLA, and child language. My understanding of Dan's earlier emphasis is that he denied the link or correspondences (?) between diachrony and child language. Perhaps he can clarify his position vis a vis SLA. In regards to SLA, it is important to nominate corpora concretely. One classic corpus, which is available in TalkBank on the web, is the Klein-Perdue ESF corpus. But maybe Tom has something else in mind. Within the ESF, there are lots of subtypes. The most revealing would be those that involve learning of a Indo-European language from speakers who have non-Indo-European sources (such as Turkish-German or Arabic-French). Regarding child language corpora, I assume we can dispense with interlinear glosses for English. For Hebrew, we should soon have a full morphemic line courtesy Shuly Wintner and Bracha Nir. Instead of Swahili, I would recommend the Demuth Sesotho corpus. For Spanish, nearly all of the corpora have already been morphemicized. There is also a grammatical relations tier for the syntactic structure. On the substantive front, it seems to me that some of these predicted parallels amount to foregone conclusions. One can take as a general developmental principle for both biology and mind the fact that simple things precede complex things, or that combinations do not arise before their components. Manfred Pienemann's Processibility Theory or Kim Oller's phonological development theory are cases in point. One hardly needs more than natural compositionality to predict some of these parallels. However, some of these predicted parallels cannot be so simply reduced. More importantly, do these parallels also work in the same way vis a vis diachrony, where the starting point is already complex? Good luck in this analysis, -- Brian MacWhinney, On Feb 15, 2011, at 10:13 PM, Tom Givon wrote: > > > Dead FUNK people, > > In 2002 I accepted for publication, in a TSL volume I edited, an article by my good friend Dan Slobin. I disagreed strongly with what he had to say, but felt that one might as well have a vigorous discussion. In that article, Dan challenged the meaningfulness of a whole research programme, that of seeking similarities between early child language (1-2 yrs) and other developmental ('emergent') processes such as language diachrony, SLA-pidginization and language evolution. A week or so ago, Dan cited that article, once again implying that it was the last word on the subject, and thus that the discussion should be closed. > > In 2009 I published a whole book ("The Genesis of Syntactic Complexity", Amsterdam: Benjamins) suggesting, and trying to show, that the discussion was far from closed, and that seeking similarities between the four developmental trends of language is both theoretically sound and empirically feasible. At the time, somewhat tongue-in-cheek, I said I was sorely tempted to dedicate the book to my old teacher Noam Chomsky, given his infuriating treatment of the subject in a 2002 article (Hauser et al. 2002). In retrospect, I see that I should have dedicated the book to Dan Slobin, since both he and Chomsky were the proximate catalysts for writing the book; and unlike Chomsky Dan is still my good friend. > > In his recent FUNK contribution, Dan leveled his guns most specifically at the pernicious suggestion (Givon 1979; Bickerton 1981) that the similarities between early child language and SLA pidgin could be legitimate and revealing. I would like to briefly sketch out the beginning of an answer, and also give a promisory note for a more extensive, quantified, text-based study that will back up my claims--tho of course I don't intend to close the discussion once and for all even then. My investigation of this topic started in 1979, in ch. 5, 7 of "On Understanding Grammar" ( NY:Academic Press). I set up there a comparison between some of the main structural and communicative properties of pre-gram,matical vs. grammatical communication. After 30 years of tinkering, that comparison may be summarized as follows: > > FUNCTIONAL/COMMUNICATIVE PROPERTIES: > 1. Lexicon over grammar: Pre-grammatical communication relies maximally on the lexicon, leaving communicative intent largely un-coded and thus heavily dependent on contextual inferences. In contrast, grammatical communication codes much more of the communicative intent via grammar. > 2. Coherence scope: The thematic and/or topical coherence units of pre-grammatical communication are much shorter. In early child language, for example (ca. Lois Bloom's 1970/1973 1-word stage, ca. 1 yr old), it approximates 1-clause, thus "mono-propositional coherence". It gradually gets longer, and is clearly multi-propositional by the so-called 2-word stage (Bowerman 1973, ca. 2-yr). > 3. Dependence on care-taker turns: In early child language (Ochs et al. 1979) the one-word contributions of the child are complemented/supplemented, both syntactically and communicatively, by the adult interlocutor's contributions. > 4. Context dependency: Early child communication is, therefore, much more heavily context-dependent. > 6. Speech acts: The ratio of manipulative vs. informative (declarative, question) speech acts will be highest in early child language, and will decrease over acquisition. > > STRUCTURALLY PROPERTIES: > 6. Noun/verb coding ratio: The ration of N/V in early child comminication (e.g. Lois Blooms 1970/1973 transcipts) is highest, and decreases during acquisition. > 7. Grammatical morphology: The use of productive (as against frozen) grammatical morphology is minimal in early child language, and increases during acquisition. > 8. Grammatical constructions: In early child language, in part due the 7. above, syntactic constructions (speech acts, voice, subordination, etc.) show low differentiation. They emerge and differentiate gradually during acquisition. > 9. Syntactic complexity: Overall, early child language shows minimal syntactic complexity, which then increases gradually during acquisition. > > PROMISSORY NOTE: > All these properties can be studied empirically in a quantified manner--in transcripts of natural oral communication. The relevant comparison with the adult grammatical register should obviously involve informal oral communication. None of these properties are absolute either/or; rather, they are all a matter of degree. They must be studied language by language, and one would predict that in languages with more-regular morphology the acquisition of productive (as against frozen) morphology would come earlier. But one would still predict the gradient suggested in 7 above. Further, one could predict that in languages where the adult input of verbs obligatorily comes with some morphology (Hebrew, Spanish, Navajo), lexical verbs will be acquired initially with some frozen morphology; but that morphology would not be productive at the earliest stages. Likewise, one could predict that in languages where the adult input of nouns obligatorily comes with some morphology (Bantu), nouns will be acquired early with frozen morphology; but that the richness of Bantu nominal-class morphology, and in particular its extensive ramifications into the grammar of both NPs and VPs, will be acquired later and gradually. > > So, I hereby promise to find the time to do this kind of quantified comparative study, and present the result for y'all to inspect & decide. I promise to include at least 4 languages (Hebrew, Spanish, English, Swahili), as well as English-based SLA-pidgin. While this is obviously an impoverished typological sample, it does include some of the major relevant typological parameters. And one needs to know the languages in order to do the study (the CHILDES transcripts, alas, come without inter-lineal glosses). I can only hope that other people may want to pick up the gauntlet and extend this study to other languages. As in other sciences, theoretical arguments can only be resolved by well-design empirical investigation. The worst thing one would want to see in child language studies is a premature closure. > > Best, TG > > > From amnfn at well.com Fri Feb 18 19:35:29 2011 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 11:35:29 -0800 Subject: child language In-Reply-To: <4D5B40D3.1020508@uoregon.edu> Message-ID: Tom, This seems like a very worthwhile undertaking. I do have some methodological and theoretical questions about your future study. Reading your "Functional/communicative properties", I found they made so much sense that I wondered how anyone could disagree with them. This had me wondering further whether they could be falsifiable --or might they be tautologies. Take the first one: "Pre-grammatical communication relies maximally on the lexicon, leaving communicative intent largely un-coded and thus heavily dependent on contextual inferences. In contrast, grammatical communication codes much more of the communicative intent via grammar." How could that NOT be true? What would an alternative hypothesis be? Isn't this completely dependent on the idea that language normally consists of grammar plus lexicon, and that when you take away the grammar, all you have left is the lexicon -- and context? Could communicative intent theoretically be coded by the lexicon? Is that an alternative hypothesis? How would we test for this? A similar issue comes up with coherence: "In early child language, for example (ca. Lois Bloom's 1970/1973 1-word stage, ca. 1 yr old), it approximates 1-clause, thus "mono-propositional coherence". It gradually gets longer, and is clearly multi-propositional by the so-called 2-word stage" How would you test for multipropositional coherence at the one word stage? What would the child have to do to demonstrate mutlipropositionsl coherence, short of using more than one word per proposition? A similar issue troubles me when it comes to the structural properties that you listed: " The ration of N/V in early child comminication (e.g. Lois Blooms 1970/1973 transcipts) is highest, and decreases during acquisition." How do you do determine what is a noun or a verb, at the one word stage, for instance, when a single word stands for a proposition? It seems to me that nouns and verbs are categories that apply only in a contrastive way, within a grammatically differentiated sentence. Suppose an English speaking infant pointed to a fly buzzing over the crib and said "Fly!" How would you know whether it was a noun or a verb? Even if the child were using a language that had grammatical morphology to mark nouns and verbs, it might not be appropriate to count it that way, if the morphology is not productive for that speaker. This is a problem that crops up with pidgins as well as child language: that linguists should not decide the grammatical category of the word used by a pidgin speaker based on the grammatical category that the word has for a speaker of the standard language. For instance, in an English based Pidgin where the word "him" is being used as a generalized marker of transitivity, you're not going to count it as a third person masculine singular accusative pronoun, are you? So one of my questions about the methodology of your study on child language is: how are you going to determine grammatical category in a child's developing use of a language in the process of acquisition? This requires not only that you be fluent in the standard language, but also that you acquire fluency in the idiolanguage used by the subject. I think it would be hard to do using a corpus. You might need to interact with some of these children in order to get their context. --Aya On Tue, 15 Feb 2011, Tom Givon wrote: > > > Dead FUNK people, > > In 2002 I accepted for publication, in a TSL volume I edited, an article by > my good friend Dan Slobin. I disagreed strongly with what he had to say, but > felt that one might as well have a vigorous discussion. In that article, Dan > challenged the meaningfulness of a whole research programme, that of seeking > similarities between early child language (1-2 yrs) and other developmental > ('emergent') processes such as language diachrony, SLA-pidginization and > language evolution. A week or so ago, Dan cited that article, once again > implying that it was the last word on the subject, and thus that the > discussion should be closed. > > In 2009 I published a whole book ("The Genesis of Syntactic Complexity", > Amsterdam: Benjamins) suggesting, and trying to show, that the discussion was > far from closed, and that seeking similarities between the four developmental > trends of language is both theoretically sound and empirically feasible. At > the time, somewhat tongue-in-cheek, I said I was sorely tempted to dedicate > the book to my old teacher Noam Chomsky, given his infuriating treatment of > the subject in a 2002 article (Hauser et al. 2002). In retrospect, I see that > I should have dedicated the book to Dan Slobin, since both he and Chomsky > were the proximate catalysts for writing the book; and unlike Chomsky Dan is > still my good friend. > > In his recent FUNK contribution, Dan leveled his guns most specifically at > the pernicious suggestion (Givon 1979; Bickerton 1981) that the similarities > between early child language and SLA pidgin could be legitimate and > revealing. I would like to briefly sketch out the beginning of an answer, and > also give a promisory note for a more extensive, quantified, text-based study > that will back up my claims--tho of course I don't intend to close the > discussion once and for all even then. My investigation of this topic started > in 1979, in ch. 5, 7 of "On Understanding Grammar" ( NY:Academic Press). I > set up there a comparison between some of the main structural and > communicative properties of pre-gram,matical vs. grammatical communication. > After 30 years of tinkering, that comparison may be summarized as follows: > > FUNCTIONAL/COMMUNICATIVE PROPERTIES: > 1. *Lexicon over grammar*: Pre-grammatical communication relies maximally on > the lexicon, leaving communicative intent largely un-coded and thus heavily > dependent on contextual inferences. In contrast, grammatical communication > codes much more of the communicative intent via grammar. > 2. *CoherencPre-grammatical communication relies maximally on > the lexicon, leaving communicative intent largely un-coded and thus heavily > dependent on contextual inferences. In contrast, grammat The ration of N/V in early child comminication > (e.g. Lois Blooms 1970/1973 transcipts) is highest, and decreases during > acquisition. ical communication > codes much more of the communicative intent via grammar.e scope*: The thematic and/or topical coherence units of > pre-grammatical communication are much shorter. In early child language, for > example (ca. Lois BlIn early child language, for > example (ca. Lois Bloom's 1970/1973 1-word stage, ca. 1 yr old), it > approximates 1-clause, thus "mono-propositional coherence". It graoom's 1970/1973 1-word stage, ca. 1 yr old), it > approximates 1-clause, thus "mono-propositional coherence". It gradually gets > longer, and is clearly multi-propositional by the so-called 2-word stage > (Bowerman 1973, ca. 2-yr). > 3. *Dependence on care-taker turns*: In early child language (Ochs et al. > 1979) the one-word contributions of the child are complemented/supplemented, > both syntactically and communicatively, by the adult interlocutor's > contributions. > 4. *Context dependency*: Early child communication is, therefore, much more > heavily context-dependent. > 6. *Speech acts*: The ratio of manipulative vs. informative (declarative, > question) speech acts will be highest in early child language, and will > decrease over acquisition. > > STRUCTURALLY PROPERTIES: > 6.*Noun/verb coding ratio*: The ration of N/V in early child comminication > (e.g. Lois Blooms 1970/1973 transcipts) is highest, and decreases during > acquisition. > 7. *Grammatical morphology*: The use of productive (as against frozen) > grammatical morphology is minimal in early child language, and increases > during acquisition. > 8. *Grammatical constructions*: In early child language, in part due the 7. > above, syntactic constructions (speech acts, voice, subordination, etc.) show > low differentiation. They emerge and differentiate gradually during > acquisition. > 9. *Syntactic complexity*: Overall, early child language shows minimal > syntactic complexity, which then increases gradually during acquisition. > > PROMISSORY NOTE: > All these properties can be studied empirically in a quantified manner--in > transcripts of natural oral communication. The relevant comparison with the > adult grammatical register should obviously involve informal oral > communication. None of these properties are absolute either/or; rather, they > are all a matter of degree. They must be studied language by language, and > one would predict that in languages with more-regular morphology the > acquisition of productive (as against frozen) morphology would come earlier. > But one would still predict the gradient suggested in 7 above. Further, one > could predict that in languages where the adult input of verbs obligatorily > comes with some morphology (Hebrew, Spanish, Navajo), lexical verbs will be > acquired initially with some frozen morphology; but that morphology would not > be productive at the earliest stages. Likewise, one could predict that in > languages where the adult input of nouns obligatorily comes with some > morphology (Bantu), nouns will be acquired early with frozen morphology; but > that the richness of Bantu nominal-class morphology, and in particular its > extensive ramifications into the grammar of both NPs and VPs, will be > acquired later and gradually. > > So, I hereby promise to find the time to do this kind of quantified > comparative study, and present the result for y'all to inspect & decide. I > promise to include at least 4 languages (Hebrew, Spanish, English, Swahili), > as well as English-based SLA-pidgin. While this is obviously an impoverished > typological sample, it does include some of the major relevant typological > parameters. And one needs to know the languages in order to do the study (the > CHILDES transcripts, alas, come without inter-lineal glosses). I can only > hope that other people may want to pick up the gauntlet and extend this study > to other languages. As in other sciences, theoretical arguments can only be > resolved by well-design empirical investigation. The worst thing one would > want to see in child language studies is a premature closure. > > Best, TG > > > > From tgivon at uoregon.edu Sat Feb 19 07:45:57 2011 From: tgivon at uoregon.edu (Tom Givon) Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2011 00:45:57 -0700 Subject: 2 languages make your brain buff =?windows-1252?Q?=96_?=The Chart - CNN.com Blogs Message-ID: Cheer up, y'guys, it's never too late. Just when you thought linguistics may be useless. Just disregard the hustle links at the end. TG ================== http://pagingdrgupta.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/18/foreign-language-learning-good-for-your-brain/?hpt=C2 From haspelmath at eva.mpg.de Sat Feb 19 17:42:20 2011 From: haspelmath at eva.mpg.de (Martin Haspelmath) Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2011 18:42:20 +0100 Subject: doctoral fellowship in linguistics, MPI-EVA Leipzig Message-ID: *Doctoral fellowship in linguistics* The Department of Linguistics of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology (Leipzig) seeks candidates for a three-year doctoral fellowship in linguistics. The candidates should be able to make contributions to the department's areas of research. The Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology studies human diversity and human origins in a multidisciplinary perspective. The contribution of linguistics to this goal lies in the study of the history and prehistory of languages (and peoples) around the world (especially non-European languages), as well as the current diversity of human languages (linguistic fieldwork on little-described and endangered languages and language typology). The Department of Linguistics collaborates with the Department of Evolutionary Genetics and the Max Planck Research Group on Comparative Population Linguistics to compare the evidence from linguistics and genetics for the prehistory of human populations. The largest recent collaborative projects of the Department of Linguistics are the World Atlas of Language Structures (http://wals.info/) and Loanword Typology (http://wold.livingsources.org/). More information on these and other projects is available on the institute's website (see below). Doctoral fellows should already have an MA in Linguistics or an equivalent qualification, and be either registered or qualified to register in a recognized doctoral program at a university or equivalent degree-awarding institution. Doctoral fellows have the possibility of obtaining their doctoral degree through the University of Leipzig (http:/www.uni-leipzig.de). Regular participation in the department's talks, seminars and workshops is expected. Except for approved absences (e.g. fieldwork, conferences, vacation), the place of work is Leipzig. The fellowship is available from 01 October 2011, but a later starting date may be negotiated, no later, however, than 01 January 2012. There are no teaching obligations, but the opportunity for teaching in the linguistics program of the University of Leipzig exists. Good knowledge of English is required. Applicants are requested to send a C.V., statement of research interests, and a sample of written work on a relevant topic to: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology Prof. Dr. Bernard Comrie - Doctoral fellow position Deutscher Platz 6 D-04103 Leipzig, Germany or by e-mail to: comrie at eva.mpg.de (in which case supplementary materials available only in hard copy should be sent to the above mailing address). e-mail:comrie at eva.mpg.de fax: +49 341 35 50 333 institute web site: http://www.eva.mpg.de Deadline for receipt of applications: 04 April 2011 From language at sprynet.com Sun Feb 20 22:27:40 2011 From: language at sprynet.com (alex gross) Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2011 17:27:40 -0500 Subject: "Being bilingual may delay Alzheimer's and boost brain power..." Message-ID: Here's some pleasant news from The Guardian, at least for those of us fortunate enough to be bi- or multi-lingual...assuming it doesn't get contradicted by another set of texts next month... http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/feb/18/bilingual-alzheimers-brain-power-multitasking All the best to everyone! alex From lise.menn at colorado.edu Mon Feb 21 02:45:09 2011 From: lise.menn at colorado.edu (Lise Menn) Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2011 21:45:09 -0500 Subject: "Being bilingual may delay Alzheimer's and boost brain power..." In-Reply-To: <03781104F74F499FBE98B807198EF1A7@aa82807a474cf4> Message-ID: AAAS Section Z: Linguistics and Language Sciences are proud to have sponsored this symposium, with presentations by organizer Judith Kroll and by Janet Werker, Karen Emmorey, Teresa Bajo, Sonja Kotz, and Ellen Bialystok. The evidence presented was very impressive. Thanks for posting the link, Alex. Lise Menn, Secretary, Section Z On Feb 20, 2011, at 5:27 PM, alex gross wrote: > Here's some pleasant news from The Guardian, at least for those of > us fortunate enough to be bi- or multi-lingual...assuming it doesn't > get contradicted by another set of texts next month... > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/feb/18/bilingual-alzheimers-brain-power-multitasking > > All the best to everyone! > > alex Lise Menn Home Office: 303-444-4274 1625 Mariposa Ave Fax: 303-413-0017 Boulder CO 80302 home page: http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/ Professor Emerita of Linguistics Fellow, Institute of Cognitive Science University of Colorado Secretary, AAAS Section Z [Linguistics] Fellow, Linguistic Society of America Campus Mail Address: UCB 594, Institute for Cognitive Science Campus Physical Address: CINC 234 1777 Exposition Ave, Boulder From Anju.Saxena at lingfil.uu.se Mon Feb 21 05:11:07 2011 From: Anju.Saxena at lingfil.uu.se (Anju Saxena) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 06:11:07 +0100 Subject: Workshop on Comparing Approaches to Measuring Linguistic Differences Message-ID: Workshop on Comparing Approaches to Measuring Linguistic Differences 24-25 October 2011 University of Gothenburg Web Site: Invited Speakers (confirmed so far): - Michael Cysouw (Ludwig-Maximilians-Universit?t M?nchen) - John Nerbonne (University of Groningen) - S?ren Wichmann (MPI Leipzig) Call for Papers: We invite researchers to submit proposals for presentations at the workshop, including but not limited to topics such as: - Explicit comparison/evaluation of different methods using the same data - What do the methods measure? - linguistically informed evaluation of automatic approaches to measuring linguistic differences - Beyond lexicostatistics: quantification of grammatical and semantic differences, in an automatic or non-automatic framework - Methodological challenges for historical-comparative linguistics - Quantitative aspects of traditional methods in historical linguistics - New data sources for measuring linguistic differences and their methodological challenges - Case studies on individual languages, language families or linguistic areas Abstracts should be one (A4 or letter) page long, with 25 mm/one inch margins and the text in a 12 point Roman font. A second page may be included for references and/or data. Abstracts -- in pdf format only -- should be sent to: (change the parenthesized expressions into the appropriate characters). Important Dates: - 15 April 2011: Submission deadline - 15 May 2011: Acceptance notification - 24-25 October 2011: Workshop For more details, visit the workshop homepage: -- Anju Saxena Professor of Linguistics Dept. of Linguistics & Philology Uppsala University Sweden http://www2.lingfil.uu.se/personal/anjusaxena/ From macw at cmu.edu Mon Feb 21 20:50:11 2011 From: macw at cmu.edu (Brian MacWhinney) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 15:50:11 -0500 Subject: "Being bilingual may delay Alzheimer's and boost brain power..." In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Colleagues, Does this work control for SES? In the old days of research on IQ and bilingualism, the target populations were lower-SES Welsh miners (as in the depictions in "How Green Was My Valley") and the results showed that their bilingualism was "subtractive". In this age of globalization, on the other hand, the bililngual groups being studied often have certain educational and social advantages and now we find that bilingualism is "additive" and "protective". Of course, these advantaged groups have better access to health care, better diets, better working conditions, and so on (as in the Belsky model of SES effects). Don't we need comparisons that contrast these various social configurations, before we can conclude that bilingualism per se has these positive effects. But perhaps the symposium or some of the research papers produced by this illustrious group of researchers has already tackled this issue? I would love pointers to papers clarifying this issue. -- Brian MacWhinney On Feb 20, 2011, at 9:45 PM, Lise Menn wrote: > AAAS Section Z: Linguistics and Language Sciences are proud to have sponsored this symposium, with presentations by organizer Judith Kroll and by Janet Werker, Karen Emmorey, Teresa Bajo, Sonja Kotz, and Ellen Bialystok. The evidence presented was very impressive. > Thanks for posting the link, Alex. > Lise Menn, Secretary, Section Z > > On Feb 20, 2011, at 5:27 PM, alex gross wrote: > >> Here's some pleasant news from The Guardian, at least for those of us fortunate enough to be bi- or multi-lingual...assuming it doesn't get contradicted by another set of texts next month... >> >> http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/feb/18/bilingual-alzheimers-brain-power-multitasking >> >> All the best to everyone! >> >> alex > > Lise Menn Home Office: 303-444-4274 > 1625 Mariposa Ave Fax: 303-413-0017 > Boulder CO 80302 > home page: http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/ > > Professor Emerita of Linguistics > Fellow, Institute of Cognitive Science > University of Colorado > > Secretary, AAAS Section Z [Linguistics] > Fellow, Linguistic Society of America > > Campus Mail Address: > UCB 594, Institute for Cognitive Science > > Campus Physical Address: > CINC 234 > 1777 Exposition Ave, Boulder > > > > From tgivon at uoregon.edu Mon Feb 21 22:08:19 2011 From: tgivon at uoregon.edu (Tom Givon) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 15:08:19 -0700 Subject: "Being bilingual may delay Alzheimer's and boost brain power..." In-Reply-To: <5107B5EB-627B-42CB-B120-07785DFE7F9D@cmu.edu> Message-ID: Dear Brian-- Of course, tho I really don't know for sure, I suppose for lack of an adequate sample? Fr. Matteo Ricci, SJ (1552-1610), who opened China for the Jesuits & became a revered Sinologist, dies at 58 (see J. Spence's "The Memory Palace of Matteo Ricci", NY: Viking, 1984). And he was a noted Menemonist too, plenty of hippocampus exercises, using the old medieval system of planting texts along complex locations (like Luria's patient in "The Mind of the Mnemonist"). My late friend & benefactor Jon Verhaar, SJ, certainly a fluent Dutch-German-English-Indonesian-Latin speaker, died at the age of ca. 75 (tho his mother lived to be 98; I don't think she was multilingual, tho). My Jesuit friend Augustino Gianto, SJ in the Vatican, a terrific multilingual Semitic scholar, is only in his 50s, I think, and thus not yet a proper data point for Jesuits. Finally, just to skew the sample a bit, my mother will be 100 in October & still got a mind like a steel trap, can remind you of your most trivial sins going back to antiquity, still thinks she rules the Universe. And bingo, she used to be fluent in Spanish, Bulgarian, Russian, French, Italian and Hebrew. So she seems ti beat all the Jesuits I know & admire. You reckon. Cheers, TG =============== On 2/21/2011 2:35 PM, Brian MacWhinney wrote: > So, does the Jesuit priest who learned 80 languages get to live to 130? > > -- Brian From feist at louisiana.edu Mon Feb 21 22:08:40 2011 From: feist at louisiana.edu (Michele Feist) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 16:08:40 -0600 Subject: 2nd CFP: EMCL 5.2 - Chicago Message-ID: apologies for multiple postings The Center for the Study of Languages at the University of Chicago together with The Center for East European and Russian/Eurasian Studies (CEERES) present Empirical Methods in Cognitive Linguistics 5.2 (EMCL-5.2) ? Chicago The Integration of Corpus and Experimental Methods 13 ? 18 June 2011 http://languages.uchicago.edu/emcl5-2 Call for Participation We invite applications to the next workshop on Empirical Methods in Cognitive Linguistics ? EMCL 5.2 ? to be held at the University of Chicago (Chicago, IL), 13 ? 18 June 2011. The EMCL workshop series aims to encourage dialogue between language researchers who routinely employ different methodologies. This dialogue is initiated within an environment where novices and specialists combine their skills to develop a research project together. For EMCL 5.2, we will focus on the integration of corpus and experimental methods in language research. Intended audience: Early career language researchers (i.e., graduate students, postdocs, junior faculty, etc.) grounded in theoretical issues surrounding cognitive linguistics, cognitive science, embodiment, and/or situated cognition. No prior training with corpus or experimental methods is necessary. Format: Selected students (maximum 8 per group, for a total of 24) will be invited to join one of the 3 hands-on mini-labs at the workshop. Each group will be led by two researchers who will work cooperatively ? one specializing in corpus methods, and one in experimental methods. As a group, each mini-lab will walk through the process of deciding on a research question; developing empirically testable hypotheses and designing the means to test those hypotheses; collecting, analyzing, and interpreting the data; and presenting their findings before an audience. The workshop will end with a mini-conference in which each group will have the opportunity to present their study and participate in a general discussion. Workshop faculty: Group 1: Michele Feist University of Louisiana at Lafayette Research interests: lexical semantics; spatial and motion language; acquisition of semantics; linguistic typology; language and thought www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~mif8232 Steven Clancy University of Chicago Research interests: cognitive linguistics; case semantics and verbal semantics; grammaticalization; historical linguistics; quantitative methods and corpus methods home.uchicago.edu/~sclancy Group 2: Dagmar Divjak University of Sheffield Research interests: lexical semantics, usage-based cognitive linguistics, the role of frequency, corpus methods, grammar-lexis interface, near-synonyms, aspect and modality, language acquisition www.sheffield.ac.uk/russian/staff/profiles/divjakd.html Ben Bergen University of California San Diego Research interests: lexical and constructional meaning processing; figurative language comprehension; embodiment in models of language use www.cogsci.ucsd.edu/~bkbergen Group 3: Laura Carlson University of Notre Dame Research interests: spatial language; spatial reference frames; how we remember and use landmarks; why we get lost www.nd.edu/~lcarlson Mark Davies Brigham Young University Research interests: corpus design, creation, and use; historical change (especially syntax); genre-based variation (especially syntax), frequency and collocational data; English, Spanish, and Portuguese http://davies-linguistics.byu.edu/ Accommodations Accommodations are available within easy walking distance of the university; prices range from $60+ per night for a single, or $80+ per night for a double. Further information will be given to accepted participants after notification of acceptance to the workshop. Participation fee: $300.00 Fees will cover the costs of organization and faculty travel and accommodations and will also cover most meals for participants during the workshop. Application To apply, please send the following: 1. A letter of application, maximum of two pages, describing a. Your background and research interests b. Your reasons for wanting to participate in EMCL 5.2 c. The research group you would like to work in and why 2. A copy of your curriculum vitae. Please submit all materials electronically to emcl5.2.chicago at gmail.com. The application deadline is 15 March 2011. Accepted applicants will be notified on or before 1 May 2011. **Please note: Participation is strictly limited to accepted applicants so as to preserve the pedagogical integrity of the workshop atmosphere. * * * We thank the following organizations for their generous support of EMCL 5.2 The Center for the Study of Languages The Center for East European and Russian/Eurasian Studies (CEERES) -- EMCL 5.2 Organizing Committee: Michele I. Feist, University of Louisiana at Lafayette Steven Clancy, University of Chicago From macw at cmu.edu Tue Feb 22 02:17:35 2011 From: macw at cmu.edu (Brian MacWhinney) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 21:17:35 -0500 Subject: "Being bilingual may delay Alzheimer's and boost brain power..." In-Reply-To: <1298323634.13735.15.camel@predicate> Message-ID: Dear Elissa, Monica, Ellen, Tom, and Colleagues, Yes, I was thinking of the Hakuta and Diaz article and others that raised similar issues at that time, when expressing worries about the role of SES. Hakuta and Diaz found strong relations between amount of bilingualism and IQ in kids, as measured by Raven's matrices and picture vocabulary. When SES was partialled out, the correlation decreased to a level that was still significant, but just barely. One question is whether including further attitudinal and class-based measures may have removed further variance. But the issue in this symposium and posting was not about kid's IQ, but protection against Alzheimer's Disease (AD). On that front, the results of the Craik, Bialystok, and Freedman paper (Neurology 2010) are quite impressive, much like the results for nuns who keep a diary. http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2009/03/24/nuns_alzheimers_study/ In this study of AD and bilingualism, the bilinguals entered Toronto's Baycrest clinic at an average age of 75.5, whereas the monolinguals entered at the age of 71.4. Moreover, as Ellen Bialystok noted in an email to me (she can't post to FunkNet), they did indeed control for SES. They also note that the bilingual groups differed from the monolingual group in two regards. First, the bilinguals were far more likely to be immigrants than the monolinguals. Second, the monolinguals had more schooling, which makes the result even more impressive, although the authors note that this may have been a result of disorder in Europe during World War II. One interesting issue here is whether the four years of protection against the onset of AD that appears in the bilingual group is a result of bilingualism or immigrant status. I might offer a third possibility, which is that protection against a rapid onset of AD arises not from bilingualism, but from the overall cognitive and perceptual challenges presented by biculturalism. I batted this idea around with a couple of my connectionist colleagues this afternoon and they said that they interpret these protection results as applying to any system that manages to construct "deep attractors". The idea is that years spent paying attention to fine details will give one at least a few years to be able to overcome the initial effect of AD deterioration, before control is no longer possible. The Toronto study is very persuasive and informative regarding AD. But, I am still concerned about the broader issue of general advantages accruing from bilingualism throughout the lifespan. There are certainly advantages in areas such as task switching and attention, but I would like to see these studies of bilingualism in high-SES communities such as Canada matched by studies of the effects of bilingualism in more diverse social and cultural configurations. -- Brian MacWhinney On Feb 21, 2011, at 4:27 PM, Elissa Asp wrote: > It is standard practice to control for potential demographic confounds > such as education, occupational history (and in this case immigration > history and fluency) and so on in this type of study. This paper was not > an exception to that practice. You can read it in the journal > "Neurology". (There's a link to the abstract and the journal in the BBC > article.) Regards, Elissa > On Mon, 2011-02-21 at 15:50 -0500, Brian MacWhinney wrote: >> Dear Colleagues, >> >> Does this work control for SES? In the old days of research on IQ and bilingualism, the target populations were lower-SES Welsh miners (as in the depictions in "How Green Was My Valley") and the results showed that their bilingualism was "subtractive". In this age of globalization, on the other hand, the bililngual groups being studied often have certain educational and social advantages and now we find that bilingualism is "additive" and "protective". Of course, these advantaged groups have better access to health care, better diets, better working conditions, and so on (as in the Belsky model of SES effects). Don't we need comparisons that contrast these various social configurations, before we can conclude that bilingualism per se has these positive effects. But perhaps the symposium or some of the research papers produced by this illustrious group of researchers has already tackled this issue? I would love pointers to papers clarifying this issue. >> >> -- Brian MacWhinney >> >> On Feb 20, 2011, at 9:45 PM, Lise Menn wrote: >> >>> AAAS Section Z: Linguistics and Language Sciences are proud to have sponsored this symposium, with presentations by organizer Judith Kroll and by Janet Werker, Karen Emmorey, Teresa Bajo, Sonja Kotz, and Ellen Bialystok. The evidence presented was very impressive. >>> Thanks for posting the link, Alex. >>> Lise Menn, Secretary, Section Z >>> >>> On Feb 20, 2011, at 5:27 PM, alex gross wrote: >>> >>>> Here's some pleasant news from The Guardian, at least for those of us fortunate enough to be bi- or multi-lingual...assuming it doesn't get contradicted by another set of texts next month... >>>> >>>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/feb/18/bilingual-alzheimers-brain-power-multitasking >>>> >>>> All the best to everyone! >>>> >>>> alex >>> >>> Lise Menn Home Office: 303-444-4274 >>> 1625 Mariposa Ave Fax: 303-413-0017 >>> Boulder CO 80302 >>> home page: http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/ >>> >>> Professor Emerita of Linguistics >>> Fellow, Institute of Cognitive Science >>> University of Colorado >>> >>> Secretary, AAAS Section Z [Linguistics] >>> Fellow, Linguistic Society of America >>> >>> Campus Mail Address: >>> UCB 594, Institute for Cognitive Science >>> >>> Campus Physical Address: >>> CINC 234 >>> 1777 Exposition Ave, Boulder >>> >>> >>> >>> >> > > > From lise.menn at Colorado.EDU Tue Feb 22 21:20:33 2011 From: lise.menn at Colorado.EDU (Lise Menn) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2011 14:20:33 -0700 Subject: bilingualism is good for the brain - Chronicle picks up our story Message-ID: Here's the link to a very good summary of the Section Z bilingualism symposium, from the Chronicle of Higher Education, including necessary cautions in interpretation; it also notes the section on foreign language training that Amy Weinberg organized for us. Thanks to Joan Maling for the link, which she got via the Federal Register. We're all over! http://chronicle.com/article/Being-Bilingual-Beneficial/126462/?sid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en Regards, Lise Lise Menn Home Office: 303-444-4274 1625 Mariposa Ave Fax: 303-413-0017 Boulder CO 80302 http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/index.html Professor Emerita of Linguistics Fellow, Institute of Cognitive Science University of Colorado Secretary, AAAS Section Z [Linguistics] Fellow, Linguistic Society of America Campus Mail Address: UCB 594, Institute for Cognitive Science Campus Physical Address: CINC 234 1777 Exposition Ave, Boulder From oesten.dahl at ling.su.se Tue Feb 22 22:08:07 2011 From: oesten.dahl at ling.su.se (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=D6sten_Dahl?=) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2011 23:08:07 +0100 Subject: "Being bilingual may delay Alzheimer's and boost brain power..." In-Reply-To: <03781104F74F499FBE98B807198EF1A7@aa82807a474cf4> Message-ID: So what does "bilingual" mean in this context? It seems to me that it is being used in a rather vague way, possibly conflating quite different situations. Is a bilingual person someone who has grown up speaking more than one language, or is it anyone who has some knowledge of a second language? And it is using the second language, or knowing it, that is crucial? -- Having to speak a non-native language daily may be like solving cross-words, which is supposed to be good for keeping your cognitive abilities intact. But if you know the language from an early age, it might not take any special effort to speak it, and thus there may be no positive effect. So generalizing about "bilingual people" would be rather misleading. But maybe there are other things going on. - ?sten -----Ursprungligt meddelande----- Fr?n: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] F?r alex gross Skickat: den 20 februari 2011 23:28 Till: funknet at mailman.rice.edu ?mne: [FUNKNET] "Being bilingual may delay Alzheimer's and boost brain power..." Here's some pleasant news from The Guardian, at least for those of us fortunate enough to be bi- or multi-lingual...assuming it doesn't get contradicted by another set of texts next month... http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/feb/18/bilingual-alzheimers-brain-power-multitasking All the best to everyone! alex From lise.menn at Colorado.EDU Tue Feb 22 22:34:51 2011 From: lise.menn at Colorado.EDU (Lise Menn) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2011 15:34:51 -0700 Subject: "Being bilingual may delay Alzheimer's and boost brain power..." In-Reply-To: Message-ID: go look at the original publication - the link is posted, in the Guardian article, and here it is, also: http://www.neurology.org/content/75/19/1726.abstract?sid=63045016-6a3b-4c35-86d2-ea93215d4fde Lise On Feb 22, 2011, at 3:08 PM, ?sten Dahl wrote: > So what does "bilingual" mean in this context? It seems to me that > it is being used in a rather vague way, possibly conflating quite > different situations. Is a bilingual person someone who has grown up > speaking more than one language, or is it anyone who has some > knowledge of a second language? And it is using the second language, > or knowing it, that is crucial? -- Having to speak a non-native > language daily may be like solving cross-words, which is supposed to > be good for keeping your cognitive abilities intact. But if you know > the language from an early age, it might not take any special effort > to speak it, and thus there may be no positive effect. So > generalizing about "bilingual people" would be rather misleading. > But maybe there are other things going on. > - ?sten > > > -----Ursprungligt meddelande----- > Fr?n: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu > ] F?r alex gross > Skickat: den 20 februari 2011 23:28 > Till: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > ?mne: [FUNKNET] "Being bilingual may delay Alzheimer's and boost > brain power..." > > Here's some pleasant news from The Guardian, at least for those of > us fortunate enough to be bi- or multi-lingual...assuming it doesn't > get contradicted by another set of texts next month... > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/feb/18/bilingual-alzheimers-brain-power-multitasking > > All the best to everyone! > > alex > Lise Menn Home Office: 303-444-4274 1625 Mariposa Ave Fax: 303-413-0017 Boulder CO 80302 http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/index.html Professor Emerita of Linguistics Fellow, Institute of Cognitive Science University of Colorado Secretary, AAAS Section Z [Linguistics] Fellow, Linguistic Society of America Campus Mail Address: UCB 594, Institute for Cognitive Science Campus Physical Address: CINC 234 1777 Exposition Ave, Boulder From tgivon at uoregon.edu Tue Feb 22 23:51:43 2011 From: tgivon at uoregon.edu (Tom Givon) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2011 16:51:43 -0700 Subject: "Being bilingual may delay Alzheimer's and boost brain power..." In-Reply-To: <59B1D596-3541-4A52-A37D-81473564AE81@colorado.edu> Message-ID: Thanks, Lise. Still, there was only an abstract there, and it does not answer Osten's very apt question: Are all types & degrees of bilingualism equally effective as to the reported effect? I think of most interest, from my perspective, is this question: Is there a difference here between early (childhood) SLA vs. late (post-pubert) SLA? I keep going back to the studies by my colleague Helen Neville & her cohorts (early 1990s), showing a strong neurological difference between the two types of (fluent) bilingualism. My interpretation of her findings is that fluent late bilinguals work their (covert) R-cortex attentional system much harder to achieve their fluency, presumable to compensate for a much lower activation of the L-cortex IFG. If I could venture a guess, the subjects of the Canadian report were all immigrants & late-bilinguals. If true, this could mean that accelerated attentional work rather than bilingualism per se is behind the phenomenon. Apropos, it would be nice to do some comparison between high-performance musicians vs. non-musicians. My guess would be that musicians who are good at running several melody lines (voices) simultaneously (say conductors? Pianists? Singers-guitarists? Singers-pianists? Good double-string fiddlers?) probably have accelerated attentional activation too. And assuming that music is just another language (to some of us this is sorta obvious), could fluent musicians be studied as another bilingual sample? Cheers, TG ============== On 2/22/2011 3:34 PM, Lise Menn wrote: > go look at the original publication - the link is posted, in the > Guardian article, and here it is, also: > http://www.neurology.org/content/75/19/1726.abstract?sid=63045016-6a3b-4c35-86d2-ea93215d4fde > > Lise > > On Feb 22, 2011, at 3:08 PM, ?sten Dahl wrote: > >> So what does "bilingual" mean in this context? It seems to me that it >> is being used in a rather vague way, possibly conflating quite >> different situations. Is a bilingual person someone who has grown up >> speaking more than one language, or is it anyone who has some >> knowledge of a second language? And it is using the second language, >> or knowing it, that is crucial? -- Having to speak a non-native >> language daily may be like solving cross-words, which is supposed to >> be good for keeping your cognitive abilities intact. But if you know >> the language from an early age, it might not take any special effort >> to speak it, and thus there may be no positive effect. So >> generalizing about "bilingual people" would be rather misleading. But >> maybe there are other things going on. >> - ?sten >> >> >> -----Ursprungligt meddelande----- >> Fr?n: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu >> [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] F?r alex gross >> Skickat: den 20 februari 2011 23:28 >> Till: funknet at mailman.rice.edu >> ?mne: [FUNKNET] "Being bilingual may delay Alzheimer's and boost >> brain power..." >> >> Here's some pleasant news from The Guardian, at least for those of us >> fortunate enough to be bi- or multi-lingual...assuming it doesn't get >> contradicted by another set of texts next month... >> >> http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/feb/18/bilingual-alzheimers-brain-power-multitasking >> >> >> All the best to everyone! >> >> alex >> > > Lise Menn Home Office: 303-444-4274 > 1625 Mariposa Ave Fax: 303-413-0017 > Boulder CO 80302 > http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/index.html > > Professor Emerita of Linguistics > Fellow, Institute of Cognitive Science > University of Colorado > > Secretary, AAAS Section Z [Linguistics] > Fellow, Linguistic Society of America > > Campus Mail Address: > UCB 594, Institute for Cognitive Science > > Campus Physical Address: > CINC 234 > 1777 Exposition Ave, Boulder > > > > From vanvalin at buffalo.edu Wed Feb 23 08:43:04 2011 From: vanvalin at buffalo.edu (Robert Van Valin Jr) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 09:43:04 +0100 Subject: 2011 Role and Reference Grammar Conference--Second call Message-ID: The biannual International Course and Conference on Role and Reference Grammar (RRG) ?Functional Linguistics: Grammar, Communication & Cognition? will be hosted by the Facultad de Letras, at the Pontificia Universidad Cat?lica de Chile, in Santiago de Chile, August 11th ? 13th, 2011. The international Conference will be preceded by two-day workshops: an introductory course and a workshop in Computational Linguistics based on the FunGramKB framework. The Conference will stage papers and plenary sessions. Our keynote speakers will be Robert D. Van Valin, Jr. (Heinrich-Heine-University D?sseldorf), Francisco Cort?s Rodr?guez (Universidad de La Laguna) and Rolf Kailuweit (Albert-Ludwigs-Universit?t Freiburg). The 2011 Conference will deal with issues in Functional Linguistics in all its pertinent topics. Papers dealing with further elaboration of RRG in areas like morphology, syntax, semantics, information structure, as well as language processing are encouraged. Abstracts must be received electronically by March 15th, 2011 at 2011RRG at gmail.com. Abstracts should be no longer than two pages, including data and references, and must be submitted as Word documents (a PDF version is also required if special characters are included). The abstracts should be anonymous. The email message must include the following information: author?s name, affiliation, email address, and title of the abstract. There is a limit of one single-authored presentation and one co-authored presentation per participant. The selection of papers for presentation will be communicated by May 1st, 2011. The talks will last twenty minutes, followed by another ten minutes for discussion. For further information, please check our website: http://rrg2011.weebly.com From kobin at umail.ucsb.edu Wed Feb 23 12:03:23 2011 From: kobin at umail.ucsb.edu (Kobin Kendrick) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 13:03:23 +0100 Subject: Postdoctoral Research Positions at MPI for Psycholinguistics Message-ID: Postdoctoral Research Positions: Interactional Foundations of Language In connection with the ERC Advanced Grant to Stephen Levinson, three postdoctoral staff positions are expected to be available from June 1st2011, in the general field of the study of human communication interaction. The research will have two foci: (i) interactional timing and synchronization, and (ii) the process of action and speech act recognition. We are now looking for researchers who can address either or both of these foci from at least one of the following methodologies: (a) interactional analysis of a non-IndoEuropean language (or any sign language) using corpus methods and statistics (b) developmental studies of interaction with pre-linguistic infants and/or children to the age of seven using experimental techniques (c) studies of online processing during interactive language use with e.g. EEG or eye-tracking The positions will be for one or two years in the first instance, renewable for up to five years. Pure research positions, with access to all the requisite lab facilities (cognitive neuroimaging, reaction time, baby-lab, etc.), they offer excellent opportunities to learn new techniques and build a vita. The Max Planck Society is an equal opportunity employer. The business of the institute is conducted in English and candidates should have excellent written and spoken command of this language. Applicants are advised to explore the MPI for Psycholinguistics website (e.g. http://www.mpi.nl/research/research-projects/interactional-foundations-of-language), http://www.mpi.nl/news/levinson-awarded-prestigious-erc-advance-grant ). Applications should include a vita, a clear statement of personal research goals, a description of special research skills, attached sample publications, and the names of three referees. Applications will be considered on an on-going basis until the positions are filled. Please send applications (in English) electronically to: Edith Sjoerdsma (secretary to Prof. S.C. Levinson ) e-mail: Edith.Sjoerdsma at mpi.nl From lise.menn at Colorado.EDU Thu Feb 24 02:33:34 2011 From: lise.menn at Colorado.EDU (Lise Menn) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 19:33:34 -0700 Subject: "Being bilingual may delay Alzheimer's and boost brain power..." In-Reply-To: <4D644C0F.2010508@uoregon.edu> Message-ID: Interesting ideas, but assembling the data is a huge job. BTW, if you follow the link to the Neurology abstract, you can find a link to the pdf of the full article for download. Lise On Feb 22, 2011, at 4:51 PM, Tom Givon wrote: > > > Thanks, Lise. Still, there was only an abstract there, and it does > not answer Osten's very apt question: Are all types & degrees of > bilingualism equally effective as to the reported effect? I think > of most interest, from my perspective, is this question: Is there a > difference here between early (childhood) SLA vs. late (post-pubert) > SLA? I keep going back to the studies by my colleague Helen Neville > & her cohorts (early 1990s), showing a strong neurological > difference between the two types of (fluent) bilingualism. My > interpretation of her findings is that fluent late bilinguals work > their (covert) R-cortex attentional system much harder to achieve > their fluency, presumable to compensate for a much lower activation > of the L-cortex IFG. If I could venture a guess, the subjects of the > Canadian report were all immigrants & late-bilinguals. If true, this > could mean that accelerated attentional work rather than > bilingualism per se is behind the phenomenon. > > Apropos, it would be nice to do some comparison between high- > performance musicians vs. non-musicians. My guess would be that > musicians who are good at running several melody lines (voices) > simultaneously (say conductors? Pianists? Singers-guitarists? > Singers-pianists? Good double-string fiddlers?) probably have > accelerated attentional activation too. And assuming that music is > just another language (to some of us this is sorta obvious), could > fluent musicians be studied as another bilingual sample? > > Cheers, TG > > ============== > > > On 2/22/2011 3:34 PM, Lise Menn wrote: >> go look at the original publication - the link is posted, in the >> Guardian article, and here it is, also: >> http://www.neurology.org/content/75/19/1726.abstract?sid=63045016-6a3b-4c35-86d2-ea93215d4fde >> Lise >> >> On Feb 22, 2011, at 3:08 PM, ?sten Dahl wrote: >> >>> So what does "bilingual" mean in this context? It seems to me that >>> it is being used in a rather vague way, possibly conflating quite >>> different situations. Is a bilingual person someone who has grown >>> up speaking more than one language, or is it anyone who has some >>> knowledge of a second language? And it is using the second >>> language, or knowing it, that is crucial? -- Having to speak a non- >>> native language daily may be like solving cross-words, which is >>> supposed to be good for keeping your cognitive abilities intact. >>> But if you know the language from an early age, it might not take >>> any special effort to speak it, and thus there may be no positive >>> effect. So generalizing about "bilingual people" would be rather >>> misleading. But maybe there are other things going on. >>> - ?sten >>> >>> >>> -----Ursprungligt meddelande----- >>> Fr?n: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu >>> ] F?r alex gross >>> Skickat: den 20 februari 2011 23:28 >>> Till: funknet at mailman.rice.edu >>> ?mne: [FUNKNET] "Being bilingual may delay Alzheimer's and boost >>> brain power..." >>> >>> Here's some pleasant news from The Guardian, at least for those of >>> us fortunate enough to be bi- or multi-lingual...assuming it >>> doesn't get contradicted by another set of texts next month... >>> >>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/feb/18/bilingual-alzheimers-brain-power-multitasking >>> >>> All the best to everyone! >>> >>> alex >>> >> >> Lise Menn Home Office: 303-444-4274 >> 1625 Mariposa Ave Fax: 303-413-0017 >> Boulder CO 80302 >> http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/index.html >> >> Professor Emerita of Linguistics >> Fellow, Institute of Cognitive Science >> University of Colorado >> >> Secretary, AAAS Section Z [Linguistics] >> Fellow, Linguistic Society of America >> >> Campus Mail Address: >> UCB 594, Institute for Cognitive Science >> >> Campus Physical Address: >> CINC 234 >> 1777 Exposition Ave, Boulder >> >> >> >> > Lise Menn Home Office: 303-444-4274 1625 Mariposa Ave Fax: 303-413-0017 Boulder CO 80302 http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/index.html Professor Emerita of Linguistics Fellow, Institute of Cognitive Science University of Colorado Secretary, AAAS Section Z [Linguistics] Fellow, Linguistic Society of America Campus Mail Address: UCB 594, Institute for Cognitive Science Campus Physical Address: CINC 234 1777 Exposition Ave, Boulder From sclancy at uchicago.edu Thu Feb 24 17:11:55 2011 From: sclancy at uchicago.edu (Steven Clancy) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 11:11:55 -0600 Subject: 2nd CFP: EMCL-5.2 - Chicago Message-ID: The Center for the Study of Languages at the University of Chicago together with The Center for East European and Russian/Eurasian Studies (CEERES) and The Center for Latin American Studies (CLAS) present Empirical Methods in Cognitive Linguistics 5.2 (EMCL-5.2) ? Chicago The Integration of Corpus and Experimental Methods 13 ? 18 June 2011 http://languages.uchicago.edu/emcl5-2 Call for Participation We invite applications to the next workshop on Empirical Methods in Cognitive Linguistics ? EMCL 5.2 ? to be held at the University of Chicago (Chicago, IL), 13 ? 18 June 2011. The EMCL workshop series aims to encourage dialogue between language researchers who routinely employ different methodologies. This dialogue is initiated within an environment where novices and specialists combine their skills to develop a research project together. For EMCL 5.2, we will focus on the integration of corpus and experimental methods in language research. Intended audience: Early career language researchers (i.e., graduate students, postdocs, junior faculty, etc.) grounded in theoretical issues surrounding cognitive linguistics, cognitive science, embodiment, and/or situated cognition. No prior training with corpus or experimental methods is necessary. Format: Selected students (maximum 8 per group, for a total of 24) will be invited to join one of the 3 hands-on mini-labs at the workshop. Each group will be led by two researchers who will work cooperatively ? one specializing in corpus methods, and one in experimental methods. As a group, each mini-lab will walk through the process of deciding on a research question; developing empirically testable hypotheses and designing the means to test those hypotheses; collecting, analyzing, and interpreting the data; and presenting their findings before an audience. The workshop will end with a mini-conference in which each group will have the opportunity to present their study and participate in a general discussion. Workshop faculty: Group 1: Michele Feist University of Louisiana at Lafayette Research interests: lexical semantics; spatial and motion language; acquisition of semantics; linguistic typology; language and thought www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~mif8232 Steven Clancy University of Chicago Research interests: cognitive linguistics; case semantics and verbal semantics; grammaticalization; historical linguistics; quantitative methods and corpus methods home.uchicago.edu/~sclancy Group 2: Dagmar Divjak University of Sheffield Research interests: lexical semantics, usage-based cognitive linguistics, the role of frequency, corpus methods, grammar-lexis interface, near-synonyms, aspect and modality, language acquisition www.sheffield.ac.uk/russian/staff/profiles/divjakd.html Ben Bergen University of California San Diego Research interests: lexical and constructional meaning processing; figurative language comprehension; embodiment in models of language use www.cogsci.ucsd.edu/~bkbergen Group 3: Laura Carlson University of Notre Dame Research interests: spatial language; spatial reference frames; how we remember and use landmarks; why we get lost www.nd.edu/~lcarlson Mark Davies Brigham Young University Research interests: corpus design, creation, and use; historical change (especially syntax); genre-based variation (especially syntax), frequency and collocational data; English, Spanish, and Portuguese http://davies-linguistics.byu.edu/ Accommodations Accommodations are available within easy walking distance of the university; prices range from $60+ per night for a single, or $80+ per night for a double. Further information will be given to accepted participants after notification of acceptance to the workshop. Participation fee: $300.00 Fees will cover the costs of organization and faculty travel and accommodations and will also cover most meals for participants during the workshop. Application To apply, please send the following: 1. A letter of application, maximum of two pages, describing a. Your background and research interests b. Your reasons for wanting to participate in EMCL 5.2 c. The research group you would like to work in and why 2. A copy of your curriculum vitae. Please submit all materials electronically to emcl5.2.chicago at gmail.com. The application deadline is 15 March 2011. Accepted applicants will be notified on or before 1 May 2011. **Please note: Participation is strictly limited to accepted applicants so as to preserve the pedagogical integrity of the workshop atmosphere. * * * We thank the following organizations for their generous support of EMCL 5.2 The Center for the Study of Languages The Center for East European and Russian/Eurasian Studies (CEERES) The Center for Latin American Studies (CLAS) -- EMCL 5.2 Organizing Committee: Michele I. Feist, University of Louisiana at Lafayette Steven Clancy, University of Chicago From language at sprynet.com Thu Feb 24 18:03:25 2011 From: language at sprynet.com (alex gross) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 13:03:25 -0500 Subject: "Being bilingual may delay Alzheimer's and boost brain power..." Message-ID: Sorry for the delay in getting back to you, Lise, I've been busy welcoming my great half-nephew (who like many in the family is tri-lingual) during his visit from England. I believe you and your colleagues deserve to be congratulated for your hard work in demonstrating the link between bilingualism and AD, and I don't think you should take reservations voiced by others here too seriously. Tom, it's quite obvious to anyone familiar with this field that my neighbor who runs the fruit stand down the street & speaks Arabic, Spanish, & English for business purposes isn't quite in the same category as people who are truly challenged to reflect on complex realities in language A and then try to express them in language B. Though even his brain might be just a bit more stimulated than that of mere monoglots... The various categories of bilinguals were long ago pretty well delineated by Francois Grosjean in his 1982 "Life with Two Languages: An Introduction to Bilingualism" (Harvard U. Press) and no doubt by other works since then, and I don't quite see the point of bringing these categories up again simply to cast doubt on Lise's study. I was nonetheless quite happy to find your reference to "The Memory Palace of Matteo Ricci," a book that meant a great deal to me when I first read it during my Chinese period in the mid Eighties (& when I also heard Spence lecture). It describes some remarkable instances of Ricci's culture blindness, for instance (based on memory...) Ricci's certainty when he showed the Chinese his painted, naturalistic, blood-dripping wooden crucifix that he was clearly demonstrating to them the true glory of Christ, though the Chinese merely interpreted it as evidence that he must be a devil worshipper. Or the conclusion they reached, after Ricci ranted on and on about the sheer & total oneness of god, that he could only be some kind of Muslim. Such instances of culture blindness are almost as blatant as those regularly displayed by some mainstream linguists. I also don't think that the people whom I most respect as genuine professional linguists--my old translator friends at the UN--would find much to doubt in the study by Lise and her colleagues. I further believe there's a great deal to celebrate in Lise's study, since it links language and linguistics with medical studies and with at least some standards of scientific proof, something linguistics today severely lacks. I mentioned a few months ago that instead of harping on the limitations of so-called mainstream linguistics (an easy task), I would try this year to present some positive beginnings for a new study of language. So let me start now--even if it may take a bit of time to put it all together (though nowhere near so long as the mainstreamers have taken to come up with almost nothing). One reason I am highly impressed with Lise's study (and also why I was happy to learn that Anne Marie is a speech therapist) is that I have become ever more certain over the years that the real center of language study lies not in grammar at all but in language physiology and the sheer physicality of language. This is a point I already started making in several of my papers and articles during the Nineties, and I want to stress it even more forcefully now. Based on what I believe can be easily demonstrated as the true center of language, I will even go so far as to insist that all of those who have held up grammar as the definitive guide and centering point for language--from Panini and his commentators, to Dionysos Thrax, to Ibn Abi Ishaq, to Varro and Priscian, to the Modistae and the Port Royal School, to the German Junggrammatiker, to the Saussureans, and finally even to the unfortunate Chomskians--that all of them have been demonstrably mistaken. There was of course a very good reason why these doubtless worthy scholars all centered in on grammar. It sounded so dry and clean, so abstract and intellectual, it gave the illusion of being a major organizing principle, it held out the promise that something truly important had been discovered. Which of course added to the pride and self-esteem of the scholars who detected it. It little mattered that each discoverer in each culture had usually confronted a very different grammar, since it was then just one quick leap into the even more fascinating--but quite untenable--belief that all grammars in all languages everywhere must be remarkably similar. Or if they failed to be similar, then they were obviously deviant and inferior grammars, and those who employed them were deviant and inferior peoples. But language is only incidentally dry and clean or abstract and intellectual. It springs from the very wellspring of life itself, language belongs in the same class as those three moist, messy, and clammy life concoctions that so many people most fear and least want to talk about. We all know what those three are: birth, sex, and death--and language is definitely the fourth among them. And that is why laymen and scholars alike have so desperately sought out clean, dry, and abstract formulations about them. I have discussed these moist, clammy origins of language in several published and/or presented papers and articles, how language most probably evolved from the scent markings and spray markings of more primitive animals & turned into sound markings, how it is related to chemical excrescences of unicellular organisms or the territorial sprayings of mammals and other animals. URLS for two of those publications are found towards the end. Language is the fourth of those three wells of moistness, and its physiological locus is not installed in some never-never "language organ" but of course right inside our nervous and muscular systems. It exists primarily as a network for self-preservation and self-defense and a means of distinguishing family from strangers, friends from foes, clan members from outsiders. And it plays this role even in the highest echelons of our societies, including scientists and scholars. It is not sufficiently recognized that learning to speak a language requires not merely learning grammar, vocabulary, idioms, and cultural usages, it also urgently demands that we embed all of these into the network of our nerves and muscles if we are ever truly to speak any language, including our own. As such, learning a language is more similar to learning how to box or play tennis or throw and catch a ball than it is to memorizing a series of dates or names or sales figures or drawing creative diagrams to show how grammar supposedly works. This is where Rosetta Stone falls down when it supposes that if you want to know the time, asking "?Que hora es?" or "Che ore sono" in Spanish or Italian will necessarily help you to understand the answer, which might be not the expected one at all but "My wife borrowed the good watch, and this one doesn't work." And this is also where our academic linguists fall down just as badly when they suppose that language inevitably follows structured, innate principles. We must not only pronounce our questions correctly in a foreign language, we must fully understand the answer and be ready with a follow-up question or comment. This requires not only good hearing and nerve endings but well-timed muscular coordination. The muscles employed are far smaller than those we use in boxing or tennis, but their use and timing must be exquisitely sensitive. Language can perhaps best be seen from a variety of perspectives: as a protective covering that envelops all of us in varying degrees according to our age, our accomplishments, and our place in society. Or as a series of parries and thrusts in an extended fencing match. Or as a set of evasions and strikes in ninjutsu. Or as a set of probes aimed at determining proper bounds, also requiring proper advances or retreats. And all of these comparisons are by no means limited to advanced or "witty" stages of repartee--they are just as common among five-year olds moving from one parent to another to gain advantage. I can go a great deal further along the lines I have laid out here and with your permission hope to do so later on. I am simply afraid that what I have said so far is perhaps already more than strange enough for some of you, and that you might be tempted to react with brief, contemptuous putdowns or at best the usual sort of semi-learned obscurantism that appears here more often than it should. Or to question or ridicule my supposed academic achievements, as one of you did a few years ago. If any of this is your intent, may I ask you, if you possibly can, to please refrain. This would be especially true for grad students, who might be tempted to earn brownie points from their advisors by launching a mega-attack against ideas contrary to what they have been taught. In any case, after fifty years of failed mentalism, it's scarcely surprising that we would find resistance to a combined body-mind approach to language. Those of you who have bothered to visit my website ought to have discovered by now that my publications include not only contributions to linguistics, including invited & peer-reviewed papers in our field, but also in translation studies and MT, in Chinese medicine, in endocrinology, in sexual education, and in Elizabethan, Ancient Greek, and modern German theatre. My more informal articles and reviews delve even more deeply in all these fields. >>From this perspective, I sometimes find myself both shocked and disturbed by the narrowness of education displayed by a few who contribute to this group, along with the doctrinal and dogmatic points of view such narrowness encourages. I truly hope there can be room here for a broader perspective on language. With only the very best to all of you! alex URLS for my language-spray pieces: http://language.home.sprynet.com/lingdex/ariadne.htm#totop http://languag2.home.sprynet.com/f/evidence.htm#top ************************************************************** The principal purpose of language is not communication but to persuade ourselves that we know what we are talking about, when quite often we do not. ************************************************************** From lise.menn at Colorado.EDU Thu Feb 24 19:22:39 2011 From: lise.menn at Colorado.EDU (Lise Menn) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 12:22:39 -0700 Subject: "Being bilingual may delay Alzheimer's and boost brain power..." In-Reply-To: <05BFE4D971B2421DBC9FD9AE6D42C346@aa82807a474cf4> Message-ID: whoo, wait, Alex - it's NOT my study - though I wish it were! This and the related papers come from the symposium organized by Judith Kroll, and the particular study on AD is by Ellen Bialystok and colleagues! Lise On Feb 24, 2011, at 11:03 AM, alex gross wrote: > Sorry for the delay in getting back to you, Lise, I've been busy > welcoming my great half-nephew (who like many in the family is tri- > lingual) during his visit from England. > > I believe you and your colleagues deserve to be congratulated for > your hard work in demonstrating the link between bilingualism and > AD, and I don't think you should take reservations voiced by others > here too seriously. Tom, it's quite obvious to anyone familiar with > this field that my neighbor who runs the fruit stand down the street > & speaks Arabic, Spanish, & English for business purposes isn't > quite in the same category as people who are truly challenged to > reflect on complex realities in language A and then try to express > them in language B. Though even his brain might be just a bit more > stimulated than that of mere monoglots... > > The various categories of bilinguals were long ago pretty well > delineated by Francois Grosjean in his 1982 "Life with Two > Languages: An Introduction to Bilingualism" (Harvard U. Press) and > no doubt by other works since then, and I don't quite see the point > of bringing these categories up again simply to cast doubt on Lise's > study. > > I was nonetheless quite happy to find your reference to "The Memory > Palace of Matteo Ricci," a book that meant a great deal to me when I > first read it during my Chinese period in the mid Eighties (& when I > also heard Spence lecture). It describes some remarkable instances > of Ricci's culture blindness, for instance (based on memory...) > Ricci's certainty when he showed the Chinese his painted, > naturalistic, blood-dripping wooden crucifix that he was clearly > demonstrating to them the true glory of Christ, though the Chinese > merely interpreted it as evidence that he must be a devil > worshipper. Or the conclusion they reached, after Ricci ranted on > and on about the sheer & total oneness of god, that he could only be > some kind of Muslim. Such instances of culture blindness are almost > as blatant as those regularly displayed by some mainstream linguists. > > I also don't think that the people whom I most respect as genuine > professional linguists--my old translator friends at the UN--would > find much to doubt in the study by Lise and her colleagues. > > I further believe there's a great deal to celebrate in Lise's > study, since it links language and linguistics with medical studies > and with at least some standards of scientific proof, something > linguistics today severely lacks. > > I mentioned a few months ago that instead of harping on the > limitations of so-called mainstream linguistics (an easy task), I > would try this year to present some positive beginnings for a new > study of language. So let me start now--even if it may take a bit > of time to put it all together (though nowhere near so long as the > mainstreamers have taken to come up with almost nothing). > > One reason I am highly impressed with Lise's study (and also why I > was happy to learn that Anne Marie is a speech therapist) is that I > have become ever more certain over the years that the real center of > language study lies not in grammar at all but in language physiology > and the sheer physicality of language. This is a point I already > started making in several of my papers and articles during the > Nineties, and I want to stress it even more forcefully now. > > Based on what I believe can be easily demonstrated as the true > center of language, I will even go so far as to insist that all of > those who have held up grammar as the definitive guide and centering > point for language--from Panini and his commentators, to Dionysos > Thrax, to Ibn Abi Ishaq, to Varro and Priscian, to the Modistae and > the Port Royal School, to the German Junggrammatiker, to the > Saussureans, and finally even to the unfortunate Chomskians--that > all of them have been demonstrably mistaken. > > There was of course a very good reason why these doubtless worthy > scholars all centered in on grammar. It sounded so dry and clean, so > abstract and intellectual, it gave the illusion of being a major > organizing principle, it held out the promise that something truly > important had been discovered. Which of course added to the pride > and self-esteem of the scholars who detected it. It little mattered > that each discoverer in each culture had usually confronted a very > different grammar, since it was then just one quick leap into the > even more fascinating--but quite untenable--belief that all grammars > in all languages everywhere must be remarkably similar. Or if they > failed to be similar, then they were obviously deviant and inferior > grammars, and those who employed them were deviant and inferior > peoples. > > But language is only incidentally dry and clean or abstract and > intellectual. It springs from the very wellspring of life itself, > language belongs in the same class as those three moist, messy, and > clammy life concoctions that so many people most fear and least want > to talk about. > > We all know what those three are: birth, sex, and death--and > language is definitely the fourth among them. And that is why > laymen and scholars alike have so desperately sought out clean, dry, > and abstract formulations about them. > > I have discussed these moist, clammy origins of language in several > published and/or presented papers and articles, how language most > probably evolved from the scent markings and spray markings of more > primitive animals & turned into sound markings, how it is related to > chemical excrescences of unicellular organisms or the territorial > sprayings of mammals and other animals. URLS for two of those > publications are found towards the end. > > Language is the fourth of those three wells of moistness, and its > physiological locus is not installed in some never-never "language > organ" but of course right inside our nervous and muscular systems. > It exists primarily as a network for self-preservation and self- > defense and a means of distinguishing family from strangers, friends > from foes, clan members from outsiders. And it plays this role even > in the highest echelons of our societies, including scientists and > scholars. > > It is not sufficiently recognized that learning to speak a language > requires not merely learning grammar, vocabulary, idioms, and > cultural usages, it also urgently demands that we embed all of these > into the network of our nerves and muscles if we are ever truly to > speak any language, including our own. As such, learning a language > is more similar to learning how to box or play tennis or throw and > catch a ball than it is to memorizing a series of dates or names or > sales figures or drawing creative diagrams to show how grammar > supposedly works. > > This is where Rosetta Stone falls down when it supposes that if you > want to know the time, asking "?Que hora es?" or "Che ore sono" in > Spanish or Italian will necessarily help you to understand the > answer, which might be not the expected one at all but "My wife > borrowed the good watch, and this one doesn't work." And this is > also where our academic linguists fall down just as badly when they > suppose that language inevitably follows structured, innate > principles. > > We must not only pronounce our questions correctly in a foreign > language, we must fully understand the answer and be ready with a > follow-up question or comment. This requires not only good hearing > and nerve endings but well-timed muscular coordination. The muscles > employed are far smaller than those we use in boxing or tennis, but > their use and timing must be exquisitely sensitive. > > Language can perhaps best be seen from a variety of perspectives: as > a protective covering that envelops all of us in varying degrees > according to our age, our accomplishments, and our place in > society. Or as a series of parries and thrusts in an extended > fencing match. Or as a set of evasions and strikes in ninjutsu. > Or as a set of probes aimed at determining proper bounds, also > requiring proper advances or retreats. And all of these comparisons > are by no means limited to advanced or "witty" stages of repartee-- > they are just as common among five-year olds moving from one parent > to another to gain advantage. > > I can go a great deal further along the lines I have laid out here > and with your permission hope to do so later on. I am simply afraid > that what I have said so far is perhaps already more than strange > enough for some of you, and that you might be tempted to react with > brief, contemptuous putdowns or at best the usual sort of semi- > learned obscurantism that appears here more often than it should. > Or to question or ridicule my supposed academic achievements, as one > of you did a few years ago. > > If any of this is your intent, may I ask you, if you possibly can, > to please refrain. This would be especially true for grad students, > who might be tempted to earn brownie points from their advisors by > launching a mega-attack against ideas contrary to what they have > been taught. In any case, after fifty years of failed mentalism, > it's scarcely surprising that we would find resistance to a combined > body-mind approach to language. > > Those of you who have bothered to visit my website ought to have > discovered by now that my publications include not only > contributions to linguistics, including invited & peer-reviewed > papers in our field, but also in translation studies and MT, in > Chinese medicine, in endocrinology, in sexual education, and in > Elizabethan, Ancient Greek, and modern German theatre. My more > informal articles and reviews delve even more deeply in all these > fields. > >> From this perspective, I sometimes find myself both shocked and >> disturbed by > the narrowness of education displayed by a few who contribute to > this group, along with the doctrinal and dogmatic points of view > such narrowness encourages. I truly hope there can be room here for > a broader perspective on language. > > With only the very best to all of you! > > alex > > URLS for my language-spray pieces: > > http://language.home.sprynet.com/lingdex/ariadne.htm#totop > > http://languag2.home.sprynet.com/f/evidence.htm#top > > ************************************************************** > The principal purpose of language is not communication but to > persuade ourselves > that we know what we are talking about, when quite often we do not. > > ************************************************************** Lise Menn Home Office: 303-444-4274 1625 Mariposa Ave Fax: 303-413-0017 Boulder CO 80302 home page: http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/ Professor Emerita of Linguistics Fellow, Institute of Cognitive Science University of Colorado Secretary, AAAS Section Z [Linguistics] Fellow, Linguistic Society of America Campus Mail Address: UCB 594, Institute for Cognitive Science Campus Physical Address: CINC 234 1777 Exposition Ave, Boulder From grvsmth at panix.com Thu Feb 24 19:42:43 2011 From: grvsmth at panix.com (Angus B. Grieve-Smith) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 14:42:43 -0500 Subject: "Being bilingual may delay Alzheimer's and boost brain power..." In-Reply-To: <05BFE4D971B2421DBC9FD9AE6D42C346@aa82807a474cf4> Message-ID: On Thu, February 24, 2011 1:03 pm, alex gross wrote: > One reason I am highly impressed with Lise's study (and also why I was > happy to learn that Anne Marie is a speech therapist) is that I have become > ever more certain over the years that the real center of language study lies > not in grammar at all but in language physiology and the sheer physicality of > language. Shouldn't it be up to individual scholars what the real center of their studies is? I didn't like it when Chomsky told me that grammar was the real center, and I don't like it when you tell me that physiology is the real center. I don't see any evidence that there's an objective center to language study independent of our perspectives. To paraphrase Bertrand Russell (and include one of Chomsky's favorite insults): my subfield is the real center of language, yours is peripheral, and hers is uninteresting. For me personally, I'm not even sure that language study has a center; maybe it's polycentric. -- -Angus B. Grieve-Smith Saint John's University grvsmth at panix.com From language at sprynet.com Thu Feb 24 20:11:32 2011 From: language at sprynet.com (alex gross) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 15:11:32 -0500 Subject: "Being bilingual may delay Alzheimer's and boost brain power..." Message-ID: Actually, I agree with you, Angus, in fact extremely well put. But I also agree with what I have written. Let's say that maybe it's time to look a good deal more closely at a perspective that has been largely ignored, and for the reasons which I have suggested. Very best! alex ----- Original Message ----- From: "Angus B. Grieve-Smith" To: "Funknet" Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2011 2:42 PM Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] "Being bilingual may delay Alzheimer's and boost brain power..." > On Thu, February 24, 2011 1:03 pm, alex gross wrote: > >> One reason I am highly impressed with Lise's study (and also why I was >> happy to learn that Anne Marie is a speech therapist) is that I have > become > ever more certain over the years that the real center of > language study lies >> not in grammar at all but in language physiology and the sheer > physicality of >> language. > > Shouldn't it be up to individual scholars what the real center of their > studies is? I didn't like it when Chomsky told me that grammar was the > real center, and I don't like it when you tell me that physiology is the > real center. I don't see any evidence that there's an objective center to > language study independent of our perspectives. > > To paraphrase Bertrand Russell (and include one of Chomsky's favorite > insults): my subfield is the real center of language, yours is peripheral, > and hers is uninteresting. > > For me personally, I'm not even sure that language study has a center; > maybe it's polycentric. > > -- > -Angus B. Grieve-Smith > Saint John's University > grvsmth at panix.com > > > From language at sprynet.com Thu Feb 24 20:14:58 2011 From: language at sprynet.com (alex gross) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 15:14:58 -0500 Subject: "Being bilingual may delay Alzheimer's and boost brain power..." Message-ID: Yes, of course, Lise! I said "you and your colleagues" the first time around, but it just gets a bit prolix to repeat it every time. Maybe Hungarian has a solution for this, as I understand it has a solution for continually having to repeat "each other" in some English usages. All the best! alex ----- Original Message ----- From: Lise Menn To: alex gross Cc: Funknet ; chomsky at mit.edu ; Frederick J Newmeyer Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2011 2:22 PM Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] "Being bilingual may delay Alzheimer's and boost brain power..." whoo, wait, Alex - it's NOT my study - though I wish it were! This and the related papers come from the symposium organized by Judith Kroll, and the particular study on AD is by Ellen Bialystok and colleagues! Lise On Feb 24, 2011, at 11:03 AM, alex gross wrote: Sorry for the delay in getting back to you, Lise, I've been busy welcoming my great half-nephew (who like many in the family is tri-lingual) during his visit from England. I believe you and your colleagues deserve to be congratulated for your hard work in demonstrating the link between bilingualism and AD, and I don't think you should take reservations voiced by others here too seriously. Tom, it's quite obvious to anyone familiar with this field that my neighbor who runs the fruit stand down the street & speaks Arabic, Spanish, & English for business purposes isn't quite in the same category as people who are truly challenged to reflect on complex realities in language A and then try to express them in language B. Though even his brain might be just a bit more stimulated than that of mere monoglots... The various categories of bilinguals were long ago pretty well delineated by Francois Grosjean in his 1982 "Life with Two Languages: An Introduction to Bilingualism" (Harvard U. Press) and no doubt by other works since then, and I don't quite see the point of bringing these categories up again simply to cast doubt on Lise's study. I was nonetheless quite happy to find your reference to "The Memory Palace of Matteo Ricci," a book that meant a great deal to me when I first read it during my Chinese period in the mid Eighties (& when I also heard Spence lecture). It describes some remarkable instances of Ricci's culture blindness, for instance (based on memory...) Ricci's certainty when he showed the Chinese his painted, naturalistic, blood-dripping wooden crucifix that he was clearly demonstrating to them the true glory of Christ, though the Chinese merely interpreted it as evidence that he must be a devil worshipper. Or the conclusion they reached, after Ricci ranted on and on about the sheer & total oneness of god, that he could only be some kind of Muslim. Such instances of culture blindness are almost as blatant as those regularly displayed by some mainstream linguists. I also don't think that the people whom I most respect as genuine professional linguists--my old translator friends at the UN--would find much to doubt in the study by Lise and her colleagues. I further believe there's a great deal to celebrate in Lise's study, since it links language and linguistics with medical studies and with at least some standards of scientific proof, something linguistics today severely lacks. I mentioned a few months ago that instead of harping on the limitations of so-called mainstream linguistics (an easy task), I would try this year to present some positive beginnings for a new study of language. So let me start now--even if it may take a bit of time to put it all together (though nowhere near so long as the mainstreamers have taken to come up with almost nothing). One reason I am highly impressed with Lise's study (and also why I was happy to learn that Anne Marie is a speech therapist) is that I have become ever more certain over the years that the real center of language study lies not in grammar at all but in language physiology and the sheer physicality of language. This is a point I already started making in several of my papers and articles during the Nineties, and I want to stress it even more forcefully now. Based on what I believe can be easily demonstrated as the true center of language, I will even go so far as to insist that all of those who have held up grammar as the definitive guide and centering point for language--from Panini and his commentators, to Dionysos Thrax, to Ibn Abi Ishaq, to Varro and Priscian, to the Modistae and the Port Royal School, to the German Junggrammatiker, to the Saussureans, and finally even to the unfortunate Chomskians--that all of them have been demonstrably mistaken. There was of course a very good reason why these doubtless worthy scholars all centered in on grammar. It sounded so dry and clean, so abstract and intellectual, it gave the illusion of being a major organizing principle, it held out the promise that something truly important had been discovered. Which of course added to the pride and self-esteem of the scholars who detected it. It little mattered that each discoverer in each culture had usually confronted a very different grammar, since it was then just one quick leap into the even more fascinating--but quite untenable--belief that all grammars in all languages everywhere must be remarkably similar. Or if they failed to be similar, then they were obviously deviant and inferior grammars, and those who employed them were deviant and inferior peoples. But language is only incidentally dry and clean or abstract and intellectual. It springs from the very wellspring of life itself, language belongs in the same class as those three moist, messy, and clammy life concoctions that so many people most fear and least want to talk about. We all know what those three are: birth, sex, and death--and language is definitely the fourth among them. And that is why laymen and scholars alike have so desperately sought out clean, dry, and abstract formulations about them. I have discussed these moist, clammy origins of language in several published and/or presented papers and articles, how language most probably evolved from the scent markings and spray markings of more primitive animals & turned into sound markings, how it is related to chemical excrescences of unicellular organisms or the territorial sprayings of mammals and other animals. URLS for two of those publications are found towards the end. Language is the fourth of those three wells of moistness, and its physiological locus is not installed in some never-never "language organ" but of course right inside our nervous and muscular systems. It exists primarily as a network for self-preservation and self-defense and a means of distinguishing family from strangers, friends from foes, clan members from outsiders. And it plays this role even in the highest echelons of our societies, including scientists and scholars. It is not sufficiently recognized that learning to speak a language requires not merely learning grammar, vocabulary, idioms, and cultural usages, it also urgently demands that we embed all of these into the network of our nerves and muscles if we are ever truly to speak any language, including our own. As such, learning a language is more similar to learning how to box or play tennis or throw and catch a ball than it is to memorizing a series of dates or names or sales figures or drawing creative diagrams to show how grammar supposedly works. This is where Rosetta Stone falls down when it supposes that if you want to know the time, asking "?Que hora es?" or "Che ore sono" in Spanish or Italian will necessarily help you to understand the answer, which might be not the expected one at all but "My wife borrowed the good watch, and this one doesn't work." And this is also where our academic linguists fall down just as badly when they suppose that language inevitably follows structured, innate principles. We must not only pronounce our questions correctly in a foreign language, we must fully understand the answer and be ready with a follow-up question or comment. This requires not only good hearing and nerve endings but well-timed muscular coordination. The muscles employed are far smaller than those we use in boxing or tennis, but their use and timing must be exquisitely sensitive. Language can perhaps best be seen from a variety of perspectives: as a protective covering that envelops all of us in varying degrees according to our age, our accomplishments, and our place in society. Or as a series of parries and thrusts in an extended fencing match. Or as a set of evasions and strikes in ninjutsu. Or as a set of probes aimed at determining proper bounds, also requiring proper advances or retreats. And all of these comparisons are by no means limited to advanced or "witty" stages of repartee--they are just as common among five-year olds moving from one parent to another to gain advantage. I can go a great deal further along the lines I have laid out here and with your permission hope to do so later on. I am simply afraid that what I have said so far is perhaps already more than strange enough for some of you, and that you might be tempted to react with brief, contemptuous putdowns or at best the usual sort of semi-learned obscurantism that appears here more often than it should. Or to question or ridicule my supposed academic achievements, as one of you did a few years ago. If any of this is your intent, may I ask you, if you possibly can, to please refrain. This would be especially true for grad students, who might be tempted to earn brownie points from their advisors by launching a mega-attack against ideas contrary to what they have been taught. In any case, after fifty years of failed mentalism, it's scarcely surprising that we would find resistance to a combined body-mind approach to language. Those of you who have bothered to visit my website ought to have discovered by now that my publications include not only contributions to linguistics, including invited & peer-reviewed papers in our field, but also in translation studies and MT, in Chinese medicine, in endocrinology, in sexual education, and in Elizabethan, Ancient Greek, and modern German theatre. My more informal articles and reviews delve even more deeply in all these fields. From this perspective, I sometimes find myself both shocked and disturbed by the narrowness of education displayed by a few who contribute to this group, along with the doctrinal and dogmatic points of view such narrowness encourages. I truly hope there can be room here for a broader perspective on language. With only the very best to all of you! alex URLS for my language-spray pieces: http://language.home.sprynet.com/lingdex/ariadne.htm#totop http://languag2.home.sprynet.com/f/evidence.htm#top ************************************************************** The principal purpose of language is not communication but to persuade ourselves that we know what we are talking about, when quite often we do not. ************************************************************** Lise Menn Home Office: 303-444-4274 1625 Mariposa Ave Fax: 303-413-0017 Boulder CO 80302 home page: http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/ Professor Emerita of Linguistics Fellow, Institute of Cognitive Science University of Colorado Secretary, AAAS Section Z [Linguistics] Fellow, Linguistic Society of America Campus Mail Address: UCB 594, Institute for Cognitive Science Campus Physical Address: CINC 234 1777 Exposition Ave, Boulder From oesten.dahl at ling.su.se Thu Feb 24 22:21:52 2011 From: oesten.dahl at ling.su.se (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=D6sten_Dahl?=) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 23:21:52 +0100 Subject: "Being bilingual may delay Alzheimer's and boost brain power..." In-Reply-To: Message-ID: For those who like me cannot access the link Lise Menn provided, here is one that does not require a subscription to the journal: http://intraspec.ca/CraikBialystokFreedman2010.pdf The authors give a fairly clear definition of what they mean by "bilingual": "The criterion for classification as bilingual was having spent the majority of life, at least from early adulthood, regularly using at least 2 languages." In other words, it is regular use rather than knowledge that is criterial, and the authors treat bilingualism that originates in childhood and early adulthood alike. Yet, the abstract, rather misleadingly in my opinion, uses the term "lifelong bilingualism". Another study reports slightly different results (Chertkow et al., Multilingualism (But Not Always Bilingualism) Delays the Onset of Alzheimer Disease: Evidence From a Bilingual Community; Alzheimer Disease & Associated Disorders, 24:118-125; doi: 10.1097/WAD.0b013e3181ca1221). In this case, I have regrettably only been able to access the abstract. Chertkow et al. found that the protective effect showed up in a group of "multilingual immigrants to Canada" but not among nonimmigrants "raised in both official languages of Canada-French and English". To judge from the title of the paper, the authors seem to want to attribute their result to differences in the number of languages known. The obvious alternative is an explanation in terms of the age when the second language is learnt -- which is compatible with the idea that it is the extra effort involved in using a non-native language that is responsible for the protective effect. However, Chertkow et al. also report that there was a tendency for "nonimmigrants whose first language was French" to behave somewhat like the immigrants, apparently meaning that there was some protective effect there. I am not sure how this is to be interpreted; maybe someone who has access to the full paper can give more information here. In any case, I think their paper shows that it is not irrelevant how bilingualism is defined. - ?sten From v.evans at bangor.ac.uk Fri Feb 25 22:50:34 2011 From: v.evans at bangor.ac.uk (Vyv Evans) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 22:50:34 +0000 Subject: FIRST CALL FOR PAPERS - 4th UK Cognitive Linguistics Conference Message-ID: FIRST CALL FOR PAPERS 4^th UK Cognitive Linguistics Conference (UK-CLC4) The UK Cognitive Linguistics Association is pleased to announce the 4^th UK Cognitive Linguistics Conference (UK-CLC4), to be held at King's College London on July 10-12, 2012. For more information, please visit the conference website at http://www.kcl.ac.uk/schools/sspp/education/events/ukclc4/ Confirmed keynote speakers: ? Professor Stephen Levinson (Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics) ? Professor George Lakoff (University of California - Berkely) ? Professor Gilles Fauconnier (University of California - San Diego) ? Professor Elena Lieven (Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology) ? Professor Martin Pickering (University of Edinburgh) ? Professor Lawrence Barsalou (Emory University) Abstracts: We invite the submission of abstracts (for talks or poster presentations) addressing all aspects of Cognitive Linguistics. These include, but are by no means limited to: ? Domains and frame semantics ? Categorisation, prototypes and polysemy ? Metaphor and metonymy ? Mental spaces and conceptual blending ? Cognitive and construction grammar ? Embodiment and linguistic relativity ? Language acquisition and language impairment ? Language evolution and language change ? Language use Cognitive Linguistics is an inherently interdisciplinary enterprise which is broadly concerned with the connection between language and cognition in relation to body, culture and contexts of use. We therefore invite interdisciplinary research that combines theories and methods from across the cognitive, biological and social sciences. These include, but are not limited to: ? Linguistics ? Psycholinguistics ? Anthropology ? Evolution ? Paleoanthropology ? Primatology ? Neuroscience ? Cognitive and developmental psychology ? Discourse and Communication studies Talks will be allocated 20 minutes, plus 10 minutes for question. Posters will stay up for a day and be allocated to dedicated, timetabled sessions. The language of the conference is English. Submission: Abstracts of no more than 300 words (excluding references) should be submitted online via the conference website: http://www.kcl.ac.uk/schools/sspp/education/events/ukclc4/ All abstracts will be subject to double-blind peer review by an international Scientific Committee. The deadline for abstract submission is 15 December, 2011. Notification of acceptance decisions will be communicated by 15 February 2012. Important dates: * Abstract submission deadline: 15 December 2011 * Notification of authors: 15 February 2012 * 'Early bird' registration deadline: 1 March 2012 * Registration deadline: 1 May 2012 * Conference: 10-12 July 2012 -- Prof. Vyv Evans Professor of Linguistics www.vyvevans.net Head of School School of Linguistics & English Language Bangor University www.bangor.ac.uk/linguistics General Editor of 'Language & Cognition' A Mouton de Gruyter journal www.languageandcognition.net -- Gall y neges e-bost hon, ac unrhyw atodiadau a anfonwyd gyda hi, gynnwys deunydd cyfrinachol ac wedi eu bwriadu i'w defnyddio'n unig gan y sawl y cawsant eu cyfeirio ato (atynt). Os ydych wedi derbyn y neges e-bost hon trwy gamgymeriad, rhowch wybod i'r anfonwr ar unwaith a dil?wch y neges. Os na fwriadwyd anfon y neges atoch chi, rhaid i chi beidio ? defnyddio, cadw neu ddatgelu unrhyw wybodaeth a gynhwysir ynddi. Mae unrhyw farn neu safbwynt yn eiddo i'r sawl a'i hanfonodd yn unig ac nid yw o anghenraid yn cynrychioli barn Prifysgol Bangor. Nid yw Prifysgol Bangor yn gwarantu bod y neges e-bost hon neu unrhyw atodiadau yn rhydd rhag firysau neu 100% yn ddiogel. Oni bai fod hyn wedi ei ddatgan yn uniongyrchol yn nhestun yr e-bost, nid bwriad y neges e-bost hon yw ffurfio contract rhwymol - mae rhestr o lofnodwyr awdurdodedig ar gael o Swyddfa Cyllid Prifysgol Bangor. www.bangor.ac.uk This email and any attachments may contain confidential material and is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this email. If you are not the intended recipient(s), you must not use, retain or disclose any information contained in this email. Any views or opinions are solely those of the sender and do not necessarily represent those of the Bangor University. Bangor University does not guarantee that this email or any attachments are free from viruses or 100% secure. Unless expressly stated in the body of the text of the email, this email is not intended to form a binding contract - a list of authorised signatories is available from the Bangor University Finance Office. www.bangor.ac.uk From language at sprynet.com Mon Feb 28 02:06:17 2011 From: language at sprynet.com (alex gross) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 21:06:17 -0500 Subject: Test Message-ID: Test From tgivon at uoregon.edu Mon Feb 28 02:26:34 2011 From: tgivon at uoregon.edu (Tom Givon) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 19:26:34 -0700 Subject: Test In-Reply-To: <823229DC8F6B400788847E160A9F00DC@aa82807a474cf4> Message-ID: Hey, you finally broke a FUNKNET record. Care to guess which one? TG =============================== On 2/27/2011 7:06 PM, alex gross wrote: > Test > From c.cleirigh at gmail.com Mon Feb 28 02:34:40 2011 From: c.cleirigh at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?ChRIS_CL=C9iRIGh?=) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 13:34:40 +1100 Subject: Test In-Reply-To: <4D6B07DA.7090506@uoregon.edu> Message-ID: I'll have a go: The most number of unanswered postings? ChRIS On 28 February 2011 13:26, Tom Givon wrote: > > > Hey, you finally broke a FUNKNET record. Care to guess which one? TG > > =============================== > > On 2/27/2011 7:06 PM, alex gross wrote: > >> Test >> >> > -- ==================================== Three Ways Language Is Related To Our Material Being Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 602): Language is able to create meaning because it is related to our material being (ourselves, and our environment) in three distinct and complementary ways. ? it is a *part of* the material world ? it is a *theory about* the material world ? it is a *metaphor for* the material world ? http://cleirigh.wordpress.com/ http://thinkingoutsidetheagora.blogspot. co m / http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/sys-fun/ ==================================== From language at sprynet.com Mon Feb 28 06:59:02 2011 From: language at sprynet.com (alex gross) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 01:59:02 -0500 Subject: FOR TOM & CHRIS---Fw: Mail delivery failed: returning message to sender Message-ID: No, Tom & Chris, you've got it wrong. I did not post my test for want of responses (of which there have been a few private & encouraging ones) but in response to the following message. It suggested that I was unable to post here, which is clearly untrue. Anyway, it has to be mistaken, since the message it mentions was posted over a month ago, and I expect it is either a system glitch or a poorly executed prank. All the best! alex ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mail Delivery System" To: Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2011 11:21 AM Subject: Mail delivery failed: returning message to sender > This message was created automatically by mail delivery software. > > A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its > recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed: > > fjn at u.washington.edu > funknet at mailman.rice.edu > keithjohnson at berkeley.edu > > ------ This is a copy of the message, including all the headers. ------ > > Return-path: > Received: from [66.215.121.104] (helo=[192.168.1.141]) > by elasmtp-junco.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) > (envelope-from ) > id 1PtMte-0008TQ-At; Sat, 26 Feb 2011 11:21:30 -0500 > Received: from przmmt01.its.calpoly.edu (LHLO przmmt01.its.calpoly.edu) > (129.65.64.27) by przmms03.its.calpoly.edu with LMTP; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 > 15:14:08 -0800 (PST) > Received: from gabriel.its.calpoly.edu (prod-loopback.its.calpoly.edu > [129.65.64.9]) by przmmt01.its.calpoly.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id > 8EC989D0051 for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 > 15:14:08 -0800 (PST) > Received: from mailman.rice.edu ([128.42.201.6]) by > gabriel.its.calpoly.edu with ESMTP; 24 Jan 2011 15:14:08 -0800 > Received: from mailman.rice.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by > mailman.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15B5E3C1C2; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 > 17:14:05 -0600 (CST) > Received: from mailman.rice.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by > mailman.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D91E3C1A2 for > ; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 17:14:04 -0600 (CST) > Received: from mailman.rice.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by mailman.rice.edu > (mailman.rice.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id > SNfwpiVKj3Ib for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 > 17:14:04 -0600 (CST) > Received: from elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net > (elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.66]) by mailman.rice.edu > (Postfix) with ESMTP id 329893C1A1 for ; Mon, 24 > Jan 2011 17:14:00 -0600 (CST) > Received: from [24.215.229.249] (helo=aa82807a474cf4) by > elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) > (envelope-from ) id 1PhVbj-00083t-Ig; Mon, 24 Jan > 2011 18:13:59 -0500 > Received: from przmmt01.its.calpoly.edu (LHLO przmmt01.its.calpoly.edu) > (129.65.64.27) by przmms03.its.calpoly.edu with LMTP; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 > 15:14:08 -0800 (PST) > Received: from gabriel.its.calpoly.edu (prod-loopback.its.calpoly.edu > [129.65.64.9]) by przmmt01.its.calpoly.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id > 8EC989D0051 for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 > 15:14:08 -0800 (PST) > Received: from mailman.rice.edu ([128.42.201.6]) by > gabriel.its.calpoly.edu with ESMTP; 24 Jan 2011 15:14:08 -0800 > Received: from mailman.rice.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by > mailman.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15B5E3C1C2; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 > 17:14:05 -0600 (CST) > Received: from mailman.rice.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by > mailman.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D91E3C1A2 for > ; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 17:14:04 -0600 (CST) > Received: from mailman.rice.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by mailman.rice.edu > (mailman.rice.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id > SNfwpiVKj3Ib for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 > 17:14:04 -0600 (CST) > Received: from elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net > (elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.66]) by mailman.rice.edu > (Postfix) with ESMTP id 329893C1A1 for ; Mon, 24 > Jan 2011 17:14:00 -0600 (CST) > Received: from [24.215.229.249] (helo=aa82807a474cf4) by > elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) > (envelope-from ) id 1PhVbj-00083t-Ig; Mon, 24 Jan > 2011 18:13:59 -0500 > X-Ironport-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true > X-Ironport-Anti-Spam-Result: > AnUAAEuWPU2AKskGlGdsb2JhbACJZZsHFQEBAgkLCAkRBR+tZI1vBIVQhHSJVYga > X-Ironport-Av: E=Sophos;i="4.60,372,1291622400"; > d="scan'208";a="66542514" > X-Originating-Ip-Address: 128.42.201.6 > Received: from przmmt01.its.calpoly.edu (LHLO przmmt01.its.calpoly.edu) > (129.65.64.27) by przmms03.its.calpoly.edu with LMTP; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 > 15:14:08 -0800 (PST) > Received: from gabriel.its.calpoly.edu (prod-loopback.its.calpoly.edu > [129.65.64.9]) by przmmt01.its.calpoly.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id > 8EC989D0051 for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 > 15:14:08 -0800 (PST) > Received: from mailman.rice.edu ([128.42.201.6]) by > gabriel.its.calpoly.edu with ESMTP; 24 Jan 2011 15:14:08 -0800 > Received: from mailman.rice.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by > mailman.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15B5E3C1C2; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 > 17:14:05 -0600 (CST) > Received: from mailman.rice.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by > mailman.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D91E3C1A2 for > ; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 17:14:04 -0600 (CST) > Received: from mailman.rice.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by mailman.rice.edu > (mailman.rice.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id > SNfwpiVKj3Ib for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 > 17:14:04 -0600 (CST) > Received: from elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net > (elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.66]) by mailman.rice.edu > (Postfix) with ESMTP id 329893C1A1 for ; Mon, 24 > Jan 2011 17:14:00 -0600 (CST) > Received: from [24.215.229.249] (helo=aa82807a474cf4) by > elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) > (envelope-from ) id 1PhVbj-00083t-Ig; Mon, 24 Jan > 2011 18:13:59 -0500 > Received: from przmmt01.its.calpoly.edu (LHLO przmmt01.its.calpoly.edu) > (129.65.64.27) by przmms03.its.calpoly.edu with LMTP; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 > 15:14:08 -0800 (PST) > Received: from gabriel.its.calpoly.edu (prod-loopback.its.calpoly.edu > [129.65.64.9]) by przmmt01.its.calpoly.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id > 8EC989D0051 for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 > 15:14:08 -0800 (PST) > Received: from mailman.rice.edu ([128.42.201.6]) by > gabriel.its.calpoly.edu with ESMTP; 24 Jan 2011 15:14:08 -0800 > Received: from mailman.rice.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by > mailman.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15B5E3C1C2; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 > 17:14:05 -0600 (CST) > Received: from mailman.rice.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by > mailman.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D91E3C1A2 for > ; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 17:14:04 -0600 (CST) > Received: from mailman.rice.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by mailman.rice.edu > (mailman.rice.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id > SNfwpiVKj3Ib for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 > 17:14:04 -0600 (CST) > Received: from elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net > (elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.66]) by mailman.rice.edu > (Postfix) with ESMTP id 329893C1A1 for ; Mon, 24 > Jan 2011 17:14:00 -0600 (CST) > Received: from [24.215.229.249] (helo=aa82807a474cf4) by > elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) > (envelope-from ) id 1PhVbj-00083t-Ig; Mon, 24 Jan > 2011 18:13:59 -0500 > X-Original-To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Delivered-To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Received: from przmmt01.its.calpoly.edu (LHLO przmmt01.its.calpoly.edu) > (129.65.64.27) by przmms03.its.calpoly.edu with LMTP; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 > 15:14:08 -0800 (PST) > Received: from gabriel.its.calpoly.edu (prod-loopback.its.calpoly.edu > [129.65.64.9]) by przmmt01.its.calpoly.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id > 8EC989D0051 for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 > 15:14:08 -0800 (PST) > Received: from mailman.rice.edu ([128.42.201.6]) by > gabriel.its.calpoly.edu with ESMTP; 24 Jan 2011 15:14:08 -0800 > Received: from mailman.rice.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by > mailman.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15B5E3C1C2; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 > 17:14:05 -0600 (CST) > Received: from mailman.rice.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by > mailman.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D91E3C1A2 for > ; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 17:14:04 -0600 (CST) > Received: from mailman.rice.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by mailman.rice.edu > (mailman.rice.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id > SNfwpiVKj3Ib for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 > 17:14:04 -0600 (CST) > Received: from elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net > (elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.66]) by mailman.rice.edu > (Postfix) with ESMTP id 329893C1A1 for ; Mon, 24 > Jan 2011 17:14:00 -0600 (CST) > Received: from [24.215.229.249] (helo=aa82807a474cf4) by > elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) > (envelope-from ) id 1PhVbj-00083t-Ig; Mon, 24 Jan > 2011 18:13:59 -0500 > X-Virus-Scanned: by amavis-2.6.0 at mailman.rice.edu > Authentication-Results: mailman.rice.edu (amavis); domainkeys=pass > header.from=language at sprynet.com > Received: from przmmt01.its.calpoly.edu (LHLO przmmt01.its.calpoly.edu) > (129.65.64.27) by przmms03.its.calpoly.edu with LMTP; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 > 15:14:08 -0800 (PST) > Received: from gabriel.its.calpoly.edu (prod-loopback.its.calpoly.edu > [129.65.64.9]) by przmmt01.its.calpoly.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id > 8EC989D0051 for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 > 15:14:08 -0800 (PST) > Received: from mailman.rice.edu ([128.42.201.6]) by > gabriel.its.calpoly.edu with ESMTP; 24 Jan 2011 15:14:08 -0800 > Received: from mailman.rice.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by > mailman.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15B5E3C1C2; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 > 17:14:05 -0600 (CST) > Received: from mailman.rice.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by > mailman.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D91E3C1A2 for > ; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 17:14:04 -0600 (CST) > Received: from mailman.rice.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by mailman.rice.edu > (mailman.rice.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id > SNfwpiVKj3Ib for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 > 17:14:04 -0600 (CST) > Received: from elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net > (elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.66]) by mailman.rice.edu > (Postfix) with ESMTP id 329893C1A1 for ; Mon, 24 > Jan 2011 17:14:00 -0600 (CST) > Received: from [24.215.229.249] (helo=aa82807a474cf4) by > elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) > (envelope-from ) id 1PhVbj-00083t-Ig; Mon, 24 Jan > 2011 18:13:59 -0500 > X-Policyd-Weight: NOT_IN_SBL_XBL_SPAMHAUS=-1.5 NOT_IN_SPAMCOP=-1.5 > NOT_IN_BL_NJABL=-1.5 CL_IP_EQ_HELO_IP=-2 (check from: .sprynet. - helo: > .elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink. - helo-domain: .earthlink.) > FROM/MX_MATCHES_NOT_HELO(DOMAIN)=1; rate: -5.5 > Received: from przmmt01.its.calpoly.edu (LHLO przmmt01.its.calpoly.edu) > (129.65.64.27) by przmms03.its.calpoly.edu with LMTP; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 > 15:14:08 -0800 (PST) > Received: from gabriel.its.calpoly.edu (prod-loopback.its.calpoly.edu > [129.65.64.9]) by przmmt01.its.calpoly.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id > 8EC989D0051 for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 > 15:14:08 -0800 (PST) > Received: from mailman.rice.edu ([128.42.201.6]) by > gabriel.its.calpoly.edu with ESMTP; 24 Jan 2011 15:14:08 -0800 > Received: from mailman.rice.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by > mailman.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15B5E3C1C2; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 > 17:14:05 -0600 (CST) > Received: from mailman.rice.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by > mailman.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D91E3C1A2 for > ; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 17:14:04 -0600 (CST) > Received: from mailman.rice.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by mailman.rice.edu > (mailman.rice.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id > SNfwpiVKj3Ib for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 > 17:14:04 -0600 (CST) > Received: from elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net > (elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.66]) by mailman.rice.edu > (Postfix) with ESMTP id 329893C1A1 for ; Mon, 24 > Jan 2011 17:14:00 -0600 (CST) > Received: from [24.215.229.249] (helo=aa82807a474cf4) by > elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) > (envelope-from ) id 1PhVbj-00083t-Ig; Mon, 24 Jan > 2011 18:13:59 -0500 > Domainkey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; > d=sprynet.com; > b=VFu/EaEZhddoy9nZirKftqabYW1YG1/Li4217O4SPOBl77SimBJMIhCZhF5IB1cB; > h=Received:Message-ID:From:To:Cc:References:Subject:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Priority:X-MSMail-Priority:X-Mailer:X-MIMEOLE:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP; > Received: from przmmt01.its.calpoly.edu (LHLO przmmt01.its.calpoly.edu) > (129.65.64.27) by przmms03.its.calpoly.edu with LMTP; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 > 15:14:08 -0800 (PST) > Received: from gabriel.its.calpoly.edu (prod-loopback.its.calpoly.edu > [129.65.64.9]) by przmmt01.its.calpoly.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id > 8EC989D0051 for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 > 15:14:08 -0800 (PST) > Received: from mailman.rice.edu ([128.42.201.6]) by > gabriel.its.calpoly.edu with ESMTP; 24 Jan 2011 15:14:08 -0800 > Received: from mailman.rice.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by > mailman.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15B5E3C1C2; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 > 17:14:05 -0600 (CST) > Received: from mailman.rice.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by > mailman.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D91E3C1A2 for > ; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 17:14:04 -0600 (CST) > Received: from mailman.rice.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by mailman.rice.edu > (mailman.rice.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id > SNfwpiVKj3Ib for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 > 17:14:04 -0600 (CST) > Received: from elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net > (elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.66]) by mailman.rice.edu > (Postfix) with ESMTP id 329893C1A1 for ; Mon, 24 > Jan 2011 17:14:00 -0600 (CST) > Received: from [24.215.229.249] (helo=aa82807a474cf4) by > elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) > (envelope-from ) id 1PhVbj-00083t-Ig; Mon, 24 Jan > 2011 18:13:59 -0500 > Message-Id: > From: "alex gross" > To: "Keith Johnson" , > > References: > Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 18:14:01 -0500 > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; > reply-type=response > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > X-Priority: 3 > X-Msmail-Priority: Normal > X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931 > X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5994 > X-Elnk-Trace: > 44454ca3654da6d05741bb2dafe82705d26d9b9edb73dbfba6ee534ac1dd9ed8ebdbdc9cd1e04aeb350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c > X-Originating-Ip: 24.215.229.249 > Cc: Frederick J Newmeyer > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Rosetta Stone acquires the rights to endangered > languages > X-Beenthere: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 > Precedence: list > List-Id: FUNKNET -- Discussion of issues in Functional Linguistics > > List-Unsubscribe: , > > List-Archive: > List-Post: > List-Help: > List-Subscribe: , > > Sender: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu > Errors-To: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu > > Of course the main problem concerning Rosetta Stone has not > been remotely addressed here, nor did I expect it to be. > > Had linguists continued on the intersecting paths of Whorf, > Sapir, Bloomfield, and Hayakawa during the Sixties, the > entire Rosetta Stone encroachment would have never come > about. Descriptivist linguists showed sensitivity to Native > American languages and regarded them as views of reality > in many ways as valid as our own, creating a close unity > between Native American speakers and the scholars who > studied them. Our profession would then have been in a > position to explain to them why Rosetta Stone could not truly > help them. And the aim of the Semanticist movement was > to create an ongoing and far-reaching critique of American > trends in politics, advertising, and religion, which could > have led to a heightened consciousness of the many ways > language can lead us astray and why simplistic tools like > Rosetta Stone are of limited use. > > But instead the profession has squandered the enormous > prestige enjoyed by linguistics 50 years ago in pompous > and demonstrably false proclamations about universal grammar, > deep structure, and hard wiring, not to mention endless > feuding between angry factions over the details of this > monumental failure. > > As I pointed out in an earlier post: > > So-called "mainstream linguistics" ends up being on > about the same level of credibility as all those TV ads > for "Rosetta Stone." Just as they claim you can "learn a > language," without bothering to mention whether by > "learn" they mean read, speak, understand what is > spoken back to you, translate in either direction, > or simply pick up the general sense, so "mainstream > linguistics" stakes out vast fields of competence but > never comes remotely near actually achieving them. > > Yes, Rosetta Stone has engaged in outrageously false > claims on behalf of its so-called method for a number > of years now. But many mainstream linguists have > engaged in equally noxious rhetoric about the alleged > triumph of their supposed breakthroughs or about the > imminent advent of MT and automatic language systems > they have championed. And they have continued to do > so despite ample evidence to the contrary over at least > the last four decades. And yet other linguists , who have > been perfectly aware that these claims were overstated, > have chosen to remain silent. > > It is not the slightest bit surprising that the guiding > force of so-called mainstream linguistics stems from > the same era that also handed us the notion that man can > "conquer" the planet, that highways can "conquer" the > wilderness, that cities can "conquer" landscape, that > modernity can "conquer" traditional ways. Indeed, > the main thrust of language study today is still centered > on the eminently falsifiable doctrine that language > itself can be conquered and open the way to some > ill-defined realm where deep knowledge of "grammar" > can give rise to deep knowledge of reality. > > All the best to every one! > > alex > > ************************************************************** > The principal purpose of language is not communication but to persuade > ourselves > that we know what we are talking about, when quite often we do not. > > ************************************************************** > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Keith Johnson" > To: > Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2011 11:50 AM > Subject: [FUNKNET] Rosetta Stone acquires the rights to endangered > languages > > >> Hi Funksters, >> >> My subject heading is intentionally provocative, but this article raises >> a couple of >> issues. Is it a good thing for Rosetta Stone to have an endangered >> languages >> unit? >> >> Keith Johnson >> >> http://www.adn.com/2011/01/19/1657429/alaska-natives-team-up-with-rosetta.html >> >> >> > > From bischoff.st at gmail.com Mon Feb 28 13:53:22 2011 From: bischoff.st at gmail.com (s.t. bischoff) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 08:53:22 -0500 Subject: SLA Message-ID: Hi all, A student of mine is an elementary school ESL instructor. She has noticed that if a child arrives to the school without a cohort of speakers of the same L1 (say Igbo), the student seems to pick up English much quicker than those students that arrive with a cohort of speakers of the same L1 (e.g. all Spanish speakers). Intuitively this make sense. However, I was wondering if anyone was familiar with research in this area? I tried a number of different search terms but have had difficulty finding anything. Thanks, Shannon From anne_mariedevlin at hotmail.com Mon Feb 28 15:07:49 2011 From: anne_mariedevlin at hotmail.com (anne marie devlin) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 15:07:49 +0000 Subject: SLA In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 08:53:22 -0500 > From: bischoff.st at gmail.com > To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Subject: [FUNKNET] SLA > > Hi all, > > A student of mine is an elementary school ESL instructor. She has noticed > that if a child arrives to the school without a cohort of speakers of the > same L1 (say Igbo), the student seems to pick up English much quicker than > those students that arrive with a cohort of speakers of the same L1 (e.g. > all Spanish speakers). Intuitively this make sense. However, I was > wondering if anyone was familiar with research in this area? I tried a > number of different search terms but have had difficulty finding anything. > > Thanks, > Shannon From mark at polymathix.com Mon Feb 28 15:11:19 2011 From: mark at polymathix.com (Mark P. Line) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 09:11:19 -0600 Subject: FOR TOM & CHRIS---Fw: Mail delivery failed: returning message to sender In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Since delivery failed for three apparently unrelated addresses, it doesn't really indicate much of anything about Funknet and your ability to post to it. There was probably trouble either in your outgoing mail server or in a hub that was common to all three addresses. It's been a while since I've had to debug email, but I'm betting the servers at calpoly.edu were unable to forward your message. -- Mark Mark P. Line Bartlesville, OK alex gross wrote: > No, Tom & Chris, you've got it wrong. I did not post my test for want of > responses (of which there have been a few private & encouraging ones) but > in > response to the following message. It suggested that I was unable to post > here, which is clearly untrue. Anyway, it has to be mistaken, since the > message it mentions was posted over a month ago, and I expect it is either > a > system glitch or a poorly executed prank. > > All the best! > > alex > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Mail Delivery System" > > To: > Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2011 11:21 AM > Subject: Mail delivery failed: returning message to sender > > >> This message was created automatically by mail delivery software. >> >> A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its >> recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed: >> >> fjn at u.washington.edu >> funknet at mailman.rice.edu >> keithjohnson at berkeley.edu >> >> ------ This is a copy of the message, including all the headers. ------ >> >> Return-path: >> Received: from [66.215.121.104] (helo=[192.168.1.141]) >> by elasmtp-junco.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) >> (envelope-from ) >> id 1PtMte-0008TQ-At; Sat, 26 Feb 2011 11:21:30 -0500 >> Received: from przmmt01.its.calpoly.edu (LHLO przmmt01.its.calpoly.edu) >> (129.65.64.27) by przmms03.its.calpoly.edu with LMTP; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 >> 15:14:08 -0800 (PST) >> Received: from gabriel.its.calpoly.edu (prod-loopback.its.calpoly.edu >> [129.65.64.9]) by przmmt01.its.calpoly.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id >> 8EC989D0051 for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 >> 15:14:08 -0800 (PST) >> Received: from mailman.rice.edu ([128.42.201.6]) by >> gabriel.its.calpoly.edu with ESMTP; 24 Jan 2011 15:14:08 -0800 >> Received: from mailman.rice.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by >> mailman.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15B5E3C1C2; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 >> 17:14:05 -0600 (CST) >> Received: from mailman.rice.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by >> mailman.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D91E3C1A2 for >> ; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 17:14:04 -0600 (CST) >> Received: from mailman.rice.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by mailman.rice.edu >> (mailman.rice.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id >> SNfwpiVKj3Ib for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 >> 17:14:04 -0600 (CST) >> Received: from elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net >> (elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.66]) by >> mailman.rice.edu >> (Postfix) with ESMTP id 329893C1A1 for ; Mon, >> 24 >> Jan 2011 17:14:00 -0600 (CST) >> Received: from [24.215.229.249] (helo=aa82807a474cf4) by >> elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) >> (envelope-from ) id 1PhVbj-00083t-Ig; Mon, 24 Jan >> 2011 18:13:59 -0500 >> Received: from przmmt01.its.calpoly.edu (LHLO przmmt01.its.calpoly.edu) >> (129.65.64.27) by przmms03.its.calpoly.edu with LMTP; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 >> 15:14:08 -0800 (PST) >> Received: from gabriel.its.calpoly.edu (prod-loopback.its.calpoly.edu >> [129.65.64.9]) by przmmt01.its.calpoly.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id >> 8EC989D0051 for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 >> 15:14:08 -0800 (PST) >> Received: from mailman.rice.edu ([128.42.201.6]) by >> gabriel.its.calpoly.edu with ESMTP; 24 Jan 2011 15:14:08 -0800 >> Received: from mailman.rice.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by >> mailman.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15B5E3C1C2; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 >> 17:14:05 -0600 (CST) >> Received: from mailman.rice.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by >> mailman.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D91E3C1A2 for >> ; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 17:14:04 -0600 (CST) >> Received: from mailman.rice.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by mailman.rice.edu >> (mailman.rice.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id >> SNfwpiVKj3Ib for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 >> 17:14:04 -0600 (CST) >> Received: from elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net >> (elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.66]) by >> mailman.rice.edu >> (Postfix) with ESMTP id 329893C1A1 for ; Mon, >> 24 >> Jan 2011 17:14:00 -0600 (CST) >> Received: from [24.215.229.249] (helo=aa82807a474cf4) by >> elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) >> (envelope-from ) id 1PhVbj-00083t-Ig; Mon, 24 Jan >> 2011 18:13:59 -0500 >> X-Ironport-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true >> X-Ironport-Anti-Spam-Result: >> AnUAAEuWPU2AKskGlGdsb2JhbACJZZsHFQEBAgkLCAkRBR+tZI1vBIVQhHSJVYga >> X-Ironport-Av: E=Sophos;i="4.60,372,1291622400"; >> d="scan'208";a="66542514" >> X-Originating-Ip-Address: 128.42.201.6 >> Received: from przmmt01.its.calpoly.edu (LHLO przmmt01.its.calpoly.edu) >> (129.65.64.27) by przmms03.its.calpoly.edu with LMTP; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 >> 15:14:08 -0800 (PST) >> Received: from gabriel.its.calpoly.edu (prod-loopback.its.calpoly.edu >> [129.65.64.9]) by przmmt01.its.calpoly.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id >> 8EC989D0051 for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 >> 15:14:08 -0800 (PST) >> Received: from mailman.rice.edu ([128.42.201.6]) by >> gabriel.its.calpoly.edu with ESMTP; 24 Jan 2011 15:14:08 -0800 >> Received: from mailman.rice.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by >> mailman.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15B5E3C1C2; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 >> 17:14:05 -0600 (CST) >> Received: from mailman.rice.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by >> mailman.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D91E3C1A2 for >> ; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 17:14:04 -0600 (CST) >> Received: from mailman.rice.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by mailman.rice.edu >> (mailman.rice.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id >> SNfwpiVKj3Ib for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 >> 17:14:04 -0600 (CST) >> Received: from elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net >> (elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.66]) by >> mailman.rice.edu >> (Postfix) with ESMTP id 329893C1A1 for ; Mon, >> 24 >> Jan 2011 17:14:00 -0600 (CST) >> Received: from [24.215.229.249] (helo=aa82807a474cf4) by >> elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) >> (envelope-from ) id 1PhVbj-00083t-Ig; Mon, 24 Jan >> 2011 18:13:59 -0500 >> Received: from przmmt01.its.calpoly.edu (LHLO przmmt01.its.calpoly.edu) >> (129.65.64.27) by przmms03.its.calpoly.edu with LMTP; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 >> 15:14:08 -0800 (PST) >> Received: from gabriel.its.calpoly.edu (prod-loopback.its.calpoly.edu >> [129.65.64.9]) by przmmt01.its.calpoly.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id >> 8EC989D0051 for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 >> 15:14:08 -0800 (PST) >> Received: from mailman.rice.edu ([128.42.201.6]) by >> gabriel.its.calpoly.edu with ESMTP; 24 Jan 2011 15:14:08 -0800 >> Received: from mailman.rice.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by >> mailman.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15B5E3C1C2; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 >> 17:14:05 -0600 (CST) >> Received: from mailman.rice.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by >> mailman.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D91E3C1A2 for >> ; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 17:14:04 -0600 (CST) >> Received: from mailman.rice.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by mailman.rice.edu >> (mailman.rice.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id >> SNfwpiVKj3Ib for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 >> 17:14:04 -0600 (CST) >> Received: from elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net >> (elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.66]) by >> mailman.rice.edu >> (Postfix) with ESMTP id 329893C1A1 for ; Mon, >> 24 >> Jan 2011 17:14:00 -0600 (CST) >> Received: from [24.215.229.249] (helo=aa82807a474cf4) by >> elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) >> (envelope-from ) id 1PhVbj-00083t-Ig; Mon, 24 Jan >> 2011 18:13:59 -0500 >> X-Original-To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu >> Delivered-To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu >> Received: from przmmt01.its.calpoly.edu (LHLO przmmt01.its.calpoly.edu) >> (129.65.64.27) by przmms03.its.calpoly.edu with LMTP; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 >> 15:14:08 -0800 (PST) >> Received: from gabriel.its.calpoly.edu (prod-loopback.its.calpoly.edu >> [129.65.64.9]) by przmmt01.its.calpoly.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id >> 8EC989D0051 for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 >> 15:14:08 -0800 (PST) >> Received: from mailman.rice.edu ([128.42.201.6]) by >> gabriel.its.calpoly.edu with ESMTP; 24 Jan 2011 15:14:08 -0800 >> Received: from mailman.rice.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by >> mailman.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15B5E3C1C2; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 >> 17:14:05 -0600 (CST) >> Received: from mailman.rice.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by >> mailman.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D91E3C1A2 for >> ; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 17:14:04 -0600 (CST) >> Received: from mailman.rice.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by mailman.rice.edu >> (mailman.rice.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id >> SNfwpiVKj3Ib for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 >> 17:14:04 -0600 (CST) >> Received: from elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net >> (elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.66]) by >> mailman.rice.edu >> (Postfix) with ESMTP id 329893C1A1 for ; Mon, >> 24 >> Jan 2011 17:14:00 -0600 (CST) >> Received: from [24.215.229.249] (helo=aa82807a474cf4) by >> elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) >> (envelope-from ) id 1PhVbj-00083t-Ig; Mon, 24 Jan >> 2011 18:13:59 -0500 >> X-Virus-Scanned: by amavis-2.6.0 at mailman.rice.edu >> Authentication-Results: mailman.rice.edu (amavis); domainkeys=pass >> header.from=language at sprynet.com >> Received: from przmmt01.its.calpoly.edu (LHLO przmmt01.its.calpoly.edu) >> (129.65.64.27) by przmms03.its.calpoly.edu with LMTP; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 >> 15:14:08 -0800 (PST) >> Received: from gabriel.its.calpoly.edu (prod-loopback.its.calpoly.edu >> [129.65.64.9]) by przmmt01.its.calpoly.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id >> 8EC989D0051 for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 >> 15:14:08 -0800 (PST) >> Received: from mailman.rice.edu ([128.42.201.6]) by >> gabriel.its.calpoly.edu with ESMTP; 24 Jan 2011 15:14:08 -0800 >> Received: from mailman.rice.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by >> mailman.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15B5E3C1C2; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 >> 17:14:05 -0600 (CST) >> Received: from mailman.rice.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by >> mailman.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D91E3C1A2 for >> ; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 17:14:04 -0600 (CST) >> Received: from mailman.rice.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by mailman.rice.edu >> (mailman.rice.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id >> SNfwpiVKj3Ib for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 >> 17:14:04 -0600 (CST) >> Received: from elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net >> (elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.66]) by >> mailman.rice.edu >> (Postfix) with ESMTP id 329893C1A1 for ; Mon, >> 24 >> Jan 2011 17:14:00 -0600 (CST) >> Received: from [24.215.229.249] (helo=aa82807a474cf4) by >> elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) >> (envelope-from ) id 1PhVbj-00083t-Ig; Mon, 24 Jan >> 2011 18:13:59 -0500 >> X-Policyd-Weight: NOT_IN_SBL_XBL_SPAMHAUS=-1.5 NOT_IN_SPAMCOP=-1.5 >> NOT_IN_BL_NJABL=-1.5 CL_IP_EQ_HELO_IP=-2 (check from: .sprynet. - helo: >> .elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink. - helo-domain: .earthlink.) >> FROM/MX_MATCHES_NOT_HELO(DOMAIN)=1; rate: -5.5 >> Received: from przmmt01.its.calpoly.edu (LHLO przmmt01.its.calpoly.edu) >> (129.65.64.27) by przmms03.its.calpoly.edu with LMTP; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 >> 15:14:08 -0800 (PST) >> Received: from gabriel.its.calpoly.edu (prod-loopback.its.calpoly.edu >> [129.65.64.9]) by przmmt01.its.calpoly.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id >> 8EC989D0051 for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 >> 15:14:08 -0800 (PST) >> Received: from mailman.rice.edu ([128.42.201.6]) by >> gabriel.its.calpoly.edu with ESMTP; 24 Jan 2011 15:14:08 -0800 >> Received: from mailman.rice.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by >> mailman.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15B5E3C1C2; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 >> 17:14:05 -0600 (CST) >> Received: from mailman.rice.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by >> mailman.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D91E3C1A2 for >> ; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 17:14:04 -0600 (CST) >> Received: from mailman.rice.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by mailman.rice.edu >> (mailman.rice.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id >> SNfwpiVKj3Ib for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 >> 17:14:04 -0600 (CST) >> Received: from elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net >> (elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.66]) by >> mailman.rice.edu >> (Postfix) with ESMTP id 329893C1A1 for ; Mon, >> 24 >> Jan 2011 17:14:00 -0600 (CST) >> Received: from [24.215.229.249] (helo=aa82807a474cf4) by >> elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) >> (envelope-from ) id 1PhVbj-00083t-Ig; Mon, 24 Jan >> 2011 18:13:59 -0500 >> Domainkey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; >> d=sprynet.com; >> b=VFu/EaEZhddoy9nZirKftqabYW1YG1/Li4217O4SPOBl77SimBJMIhCZhF5IB1cB; >> h=Received:Message-ID:From:To:Cc:References:Subject:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Priority:X-MSMail-Priority:X-Mailer:X-MIMEOLE:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP; >> Received: from przmmt01.its.calpoly.edu (LHLO przmmt01.its.calpoly.edu) >> (129.65.64.27) by przmms03.its.calpoly.edu with LMTP; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 >> 15:14:08 -0800 (PST) >> Received: from gabriel.its.calpoly.edu (prod-loopback.its.calpoly.edu >> [129.65.64.9]) by przmmt01.its.calpoly.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id >> 8EC989D0051 for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 >> 15:14:08 -0800 (PST) >> Received: from mailman.rice.edu ([128.42.201.6]) by >> gabriel.its.calpoly.edu with ESMTP; 24 Jan 2011 15:14:08 -0800 >> Received: from mailman.rice.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by >> mailman.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15B5E3C1C2; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 >> 17:14:05 -0600 (CST) >> Received: from mailman.rice.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by >> mailman.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D91E3C1A2 for >> ; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 17:14:04 -0600 (CST) >> Received: from mailman.rice.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by mailman.rice.edu >> (mailman.rice.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id >> SNfwpiVKj3Ib for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 >> 17:14:04 -0600 (CST) >> Received: from elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net >> (elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.66]) by >> mailman.rice.edu >> (Postfix) with ESMTP id 329893C1A1 for ; Mon, >> 24 >> Jan 2011 17:14:00 -0600 (CST) >> Received: from [24.215.229.249] (helo=aa82807a474cf4) by >> elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) >> (envelope-from ) id 1PhVbj-00083t-Ig; Mon, 24 Jan >> 2011 18:13:59 -0500 >> Message-Id: >> From: "alex gross" >> To: "Keith Johnson" , >> >> References: >> Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 18:14:01 -0500 >> Mime-Version: 1.0 >> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; >> reply-type=response >> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >> X-Priority: 3 >> X-Msmail-Priority: Normal >> X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931 >> X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5994 >> X-Elnk-Trace: >> 44454ca3654da6d05741bb2dafe82705d26d9b9edb73dbfba6ee534ac1dd9ed8ebdbdc9cd1e04aeb350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c >> X-Originating-Ip: 24.215.229.249 >> Cc: Frederick J Newmeyer >> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Rosetta Stone acquires the rights to endangered >> languages >> X-Beenthere: funknet at mailman.rice.edu >> X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 >> Precedence: list >> List-Id: FUNKNET -- Discussion of issues in Functional Linguistics >> >> List-Unsubscribe: , >> >> List-Archive: >> List-Post: >> List-Help: >> List-Subscribe: , >> >> Sender: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu >> Errors-To: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu >> >> Of course the main problem concerning Rosetta Stone has not >> been remotely addressed here, nor did I expect it to be. >> >> Had linguists continued on the intersecting paths of Whorf, >> Sapir, Bloomfield, and Hayakawa during the Sixties, the >> entire Rosetta Stone encroachment would have never come >> about. Descriptivist linguists showed sensitivity to Native >> American languages and regarded them as views of reality >> in many ways as valid as our own, creating a close unity >> between Native American speakers and the scholars who >> studied them. Our profession would then have been in a >> position to explain to them why Rosetta Stone could not truly >> help them. And the aim of the Semanticist movement was >> to create an ongoing and far-reaching critique of American >> trends in politics, advertising, and religion, which could >> have led to a heightened consciousness of the many ways >> language can lead us astray and why simplistic tools like >> Rosetta Stone are of limited use. >> >> But instead the profession has squandered the enormous >> prestige enjoyed by linguistics 50 years ago in pompous >> and demonstrably false proclamations about universal grammar, >> deep structure, and hard wiring, not to mention endless >> feuding between angry factions over the details of this >> monumental failure. >> >> As I pointed out in an earlier post: >> >> So-called "mainstream linguistics" ends up being on >> about the same level of credibility as all those TV ads >> for "Rosetta Stone." Just as they claim you can "learn a >> language," without bothering to mention whether by >> "learn" they mean read, speak, understand what is >> spoken back to you, translate in either direction, >> or simply pick up the general sense, so "mainstream >> linguistics" stakes out vast fields of competence but >> never comes remotely near actually achieving them. >> >> Yes, Rosetta Stone has engaged in outrageously false >> claims on behalf of its so-called method for a number >> of years now. But many mainstream linguists have >> engaged in equally noxious rhetoric about the alleged >> triumph of their supposed breakthroughs or about the >> imminent advent of MT and automatic language systems >> they have championed. And they have continued to do >> so despite ample evidence to the contrary over at least >> the last four decades. And yet other linguists , who have >> been perfectly aware that these claims were overstated, >> have chosen to remain silent. >> >> It is not the slightest bit surprising that the guiding >> force of so-called mainstream linguistics stems from >> the same era that also handed us the notion that man can >> "conquer" the planet, that highways can "conquer" the >> wilderness, that cities can "conquer" landscape, that >> modernity can "conquer" traditional ways. Indeed, >> the main thrust of language study today is still centered >> on the eminently falsifiable doctrine that language >> itself can be conquered and open the way to some >> ill-defined realm where deep knowledge of "grammar" >> can give rise to deep knowledge of reality. >> >> All the best to every one! >> >> alex >> >> ************************************************************** >> The principal purpose of language is not communication but to persuade >> ourselves >> that we know what we are talking about, when quite often we do not. >> >> ************************************************************** >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Keith Johnson" >> To: >> Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2011 11:50 AM >> Subject: [FUNKNET] Rosetta Stone acquires the rights to endangered >> languages >> >> >>> Hi Funksters, >>> >>> My subject heading is intentionally provocative, but this article >>> raises >>> a couple of >>> issues. Is it a good thing for Rosetta Stone to have an endangered >>> languages >>> unit? >>> >>> Keith Johnson >>> >>> http://www.adn.com/2011/01/19/1657429/alaska-natives-team-up-with-rosetta.html >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > > -- Mark Mark P. Line Bartlesville, OK From anne_mariedevlin at hotmail.com Mon Feb 28 15:20:54 2011 From: anne_mariedevlin at hotmail.com (anne marie devlin) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 15:20:54 +0000 Subject: SLA In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi Shannon, There is actually some research out there at the moment which suggests that if a student has a close friend with the same L1, then the acquisition process happens much faster. It seems to be connected with 'courage' for want of a better word. When the learner has a bit of support s/he is more likely to make contact with native speakers. This work is being carried out as part of the Barcelona Age project (BAF). In general, one factor in successful SLA seems to be intensity of contact with the language and it has been well documented (look at Barbara Freed's work). for children and ESL success or lack of, try Jennifer Miller. She conducted some wonderful research into children and esl in Australia. I'm not sure if she looked precisely at the point you mentioned, but her work is certainly worth looking at. Hope that helps AM > Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 08:53:22 -0500 > From: bischoff.st at gmail.com > To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Subject: [FUNKNET] SLA > > Hi all, > > A student of mine is an elementary school ESL instructor. She has noticed > that if a child arrives to the school without a cohort of speakers of the > same L1 (say Igbo), the student seems to pick up English much quicker than > those students that arrive with a cohort of speakers of the same L1 (e.g. > all Spanish speakers). Intuitively this make sense. However, I was > wondering if anyone was familiar with research in this area? I tried a > number of different search terms but have had difficulty finding anything. > > Thanks, > Shannon From reng at rice.edu Mon Feb 28 15:27:32 2011 From: reng at rice.edu (Robert Englebretson) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 20:57:32 +0530 Subject: Funknet list admin and netiquette Message-ID: Dear List Members, Given some questions I have received recently in my role as Funknet's list admin, I thought it was time to send out a reminder about the administration of this list, as well as a few points of netiquette common to e-mail lists more generally. First, here are the e-mail addresses and web URL you need to interact with Funknet. To post a message to Funknet, i.e. to send an e-mail to all 1,070+ people subscribed to the list: funknet at mailman.rice.edu The address to contact me, the list admin: funknet-owner at mailman.rice.edu The address to use for Mailman commands (e.g. 'subscribe', 'unsubscribe', etc.): funknet-request at mailman.rice.edu To access Funknet's web administrative interface, visit: https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/funknet Among other things, this page allows you to subscribe or unsubscribe from the list, to update your e-mail address, to change your subscription options (such as 'vacation mode' or 'digest mode'), to reset or retrieve your Mailman password, to view list archives, and to find the addresses for posting to the list or for contacting the admin. IF you ever need the above information in the future, remember that it also can be found in the message header of each e-mail you receive from Funknet--but you will have to view 'full headers' or the 'message source' to see it. Please remember that Funknet is an unmoderated list. This means that no one reads or filters or approves your posts before the Mailman software processes them and sends them along to all 1070+ list members. Mailman does catch spam and junkmail from non-subscribers, as well as the occasional admin request that a subscriber may accidentally send to the list. Funknet list admin is strictly a volunteer position in the midst of the usual busy academic work schedule, and I simply don't have time to run Funknet as a moderated list. We trust Funknet members to 'moderate' their own posts, and to observe basic netiquette. - Do not 'flame' other list members - Refrain from posting off-topic messages. The purpose of this list is to discuss issues in functional linguistics (broadly construed) - do not reply to off-topic messages on the list (what you write to someone off-list is your own business of course!) - Don't send 'test' messages or other 'administrivia' to the list - Keep the subject line relevant to the message topic (especially important if you're replying to a message in 'digest mode') While this is not a moderated list, I do have the ability to put individual members on moderated status (meaning I have to manually approve anything they send to Funknet)--and I have done so for people who repeatedly violate any of the above basic netiquette. Fortunately in the last decade of running the list, I've only had to resort to this on two occasions. If you ever do have any questions, or run into problems with the list or your subscription, please don't hesitate to e-mail me! I make a point of responding to e-mails within 24 hours (although if I'm traveling, it may be slightly longer). Just FYI, here are the two most common scenarios that people tend to e-mail me about: (1) "I just got this automated e-mail from funknet-bounces saying my posting has been rejected, and that I'm not allowed to post to the list. But I'm receiving messages just fine, and I've been subscribed for 20 years, so I don't understand why I can't post!" I typically get several such messages each month--unfortunately sometimes not nearly as polite as the above scenario. Invariably, if you receive an automated message saying that you're not allowed to post, the reason is that you are trying to send from an address that is different from your subscription address. Usually this happens because (1) you're sending from an alias rather than your actual e-mail address, or (2) your university changed the format of your e-mail address (e.g. no longer includes the hostname in the address), but you did not update this for the address on file with the Mailman server. If this ever happens to you, either visit the Funknet web interface and fix it yourself, or e-mail me to do it for you. (2) "I'm sending a bunch of pictures and PDF files to Funknet, but my message keeps being rejected with an error saying something about an 'invalid part'." Funknet is set so as to disallow messages with attachments. There are at least two good reasons for this: (1) this is to prevent subscribers whose e-mail account has been hacked from inadvertently e-mailing a virus to everyone on the list; the 'no attachments' policy has prevented this from happening at least three times during the past decade. (2) A number of Funknet subscribers are on slower connections, or in places where they have to pay for their e-mail by the kilobyte; disallowing attachments is a basic courtesy for such subscribers. If you feel you need to share a PDF or other large file with the list, it's best to put it on a web site and send the URL to the list instead of sending the attachment. In general, the Funknet admin policy is to be as hands-off as possible! But the list does in fact have an admin, and you're welcome to contact me at funknet-owner at mailman.rice.edu if you ever have any questions or need assistance with the list. Best, --Robert Englebretson From reng at rice.edu Mon Feb 28 15:41:37 2011 From: reng at rice.edu (Robert Englebretson) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 21:11:37 +0530 Subject: FOR TOM & CHRIS---Fw: Mail delivery failed: returning message to sender In-Reply-To: <5fce3edb83cd7190a0243b26c2a4e09e.squirrel@sm.webmail.pair.com> Message-ID: Plese do not post any further messages on this thread! The original message and all subsequent replies have not been related to the topic of this mailing list (discussion of issues in functional linguistics), the delivery failure is unrelated to Funknet, and messages intended for only two people are best sent to those individuals directly, rather than cluttering up the inboxes of all 1070 subscribers. --Robert Englebretson, Funknet list admin From phonosemantics at earthlink.net Mon Feb 28 21:48:41 2011 From: phonosemantics at earthlink.net (jess tauber) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 16:48:41 -0500 Subject: Not seeing what you mean.... Message-ID: http://www.livescience.com/13003-blindness-brain-language-110228.html Visual cortex refunctionalized for language processing in people with early blindness. Jess Tauber phonosemantics at earthlink.net