Roseta Stone: Redux
A. Katz
amnfn at well.com
Wed Feb 9 20:50:16 UTC 2011
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"<amnfn at well.com>:
>>>>>>> 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"<bischoff.st at gmail.com>:
>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>
>
>
>
More information about the Funknet
mailing list