Roseta Stone: Redux

Wed Feb 9 22:15:12 UTC 2011

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" <fjn at u.washington.edu>
> To: "A. Katz" <amnfn at well.com>
> Cc: "Tom Givon" <tgivon at uoregon.edu>, john at research.haifa.ac.il, "Funknet"
> <funknet at mailman.rice.edu>
> 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"<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
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
>