FUNKNET Digest, Vol 89, Issue 8
s.t. bischoff
bischoff.st at gmail.com
Thu Feb 10 18:23:06 UTC 2011
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, <funknet-request at mailman.rice.edu> 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" <amnfn at well.com>
> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Roseta Stone: Redux
> To: john at research.haifa.ac.il
> Cc: Tom Givon <tgivon at uoregon.edu>, funknet at mailman.rice.edu
> Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.64.1102091002090.18192 at well.com>
> 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" <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
> >
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 10:10:14 -0800 (PST)
> From: "A. Katz" <amnfn at well.com>
> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Roseta Stone: Redux
> To: Tom Givon <tgivon at uoregon.edu>
> Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu, john at research.haifa.ac.il
> Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.64.1102091004440.18192 at well.com>
> 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"<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
> >
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 13:26:34 -0500
> From: Daniel Everett <dan at daneverett.org>
> Subject: [FUNKNET] Survival International Interview
> To: Funknet Funknet <funknet at mailman.rice.edu>
> 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 <tgivon at uoregon.edu>
> Subject: [FUNKNET] forward from Vic Golla
> To: Funknet <funknet at mailman.rice.edu>, 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 <fjn at u.washington.edu>
> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Roseta Stone: Redux
> 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>
> Message-ID:
> <alpine.LRH.2.01.1102091027250.17990 at hymn34.u.washington.edu>
> 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"<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
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2011 11:34:01 -0700
> From: Tom Givon <tgivon at uoregon.edu>
> 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"<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
> >>
> >>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 12:34:07 -0600
> From: Marc Ettlinger <marc at northwestern.edu>
> Subject: [FUNKNET] Non-fluent native speakers of Navajo
> To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu
> Message-ID:
> <AANLkTikQ0vXZ0dqO+aryU0_tg3+57goZagWekzteLWS4 at mail.gmail.com>
> 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 <tgivon at uoregon.edu>
> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Roseta Stone: Redux
> To: john at research.haifa.ac.il
> Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu, "A. Katz" <amnfn at well.com>
> 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" <amnfn at well.com>
> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Roseta Stone: Redux
> To: Frederick J Newmeyer <fjn at u.washington.edu>
> Cc: Tom Givon <tgivon at uoregon.edu>, Funknet
> <funknet at mailman.rice.edu>, john at research.haifa.ac.il
> Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.64.1102091035390.26962 at well.com>
> 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"<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
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 10:41:32 -0800 (PST)
> From: "A. Katz" <amnfn at well.com>
> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Roseta Stone: Redux
> To: Tom Givon <tgivon at uoregon.edu>
> Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu
> Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.64.1102091037270.27840 at well.com>
> 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"<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
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 14:04:17 -0500
> From: Brian MacWhinney <macw at cmu.edu>
> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Roseta Stone: Redux
> To: Funknet <funknet at mailman.rice.edu>
> 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"<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
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 11
> Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2011 12:12:50 -0700
> From: Tom Givon <tgivon at uoregon.edu>
> 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"<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
> >>
> >
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 12
> Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2011 14:40:56 -0500
> From: Craig Hancock <hancock at albany.edu>
> 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"<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
> >>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 13
> Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 14:57:26 -0500 (EST)
> From: Geoffrey Steven Nathan <geoffnathan at wayne.edu>
> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Roseta Stone: Redux
> To: Frederick J Newmeyer <fjn at u.washington.edu>,
> 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" <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
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 14
> Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 12:50:16 -0800 (PST)
> From: "A. Katz" <amnfn at well.com>
> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Roseta Stone: Redux
> To: Craig Hancock <hancock at albany.edu>
> Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu
> Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.64.1102091247070.783 at well.com>
> 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"<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
> >>>
> >
> >
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 15
> Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 14:15:12 -0800
> From: Alex Walker <deseretian at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Roseta Stone: Redux
> To: "Geoffrey S. Nathan" <geoffnathan at wayne.edu>
> Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu, Frederick J Newmeyer
> <fjn at u.washington.edu>
> Message-ID:
> <AANLkTik=pt_CV_nudrhNUfuHTSayLJcb1=FNbduSAyWa at mail.gmail.com>
> 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" <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
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 16
> Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 16:00:53 -0700
> From: Lise Menn <lise.menn at Colorado.EDU>
> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Roseta Stone: Redux
> To: "A. Katz" <amnfn at well.com>, 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"<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
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
> 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" <reng at rice.edu>
> Subject: [FUNKNET] 1-year lecturer position in lab phonetics/phonology
> at Rice U
> To: <funknet at mailman.rice.edu>
> Message-ID: <AA189D14A4AA4529B6DDB244F6AFC383 at alatpenghitung>
> 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" <slobin at berkeley.edu>
> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Roseta Stone: Redux
> To: Lise Menn <lise.menn at Colorado.EDU>,"A. Katz" <amnfn at well.com>,
> 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"<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
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >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 <wilcox at unm.edu>
> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Roseta Stone: Redux
> To: "Dan I. Slobin" <slobin at berkeley.edu>
> Cc: Lise Menn <lise.menn at Colorado.EDU>, funknet at mailman.rice.edu,
> "A.
> Katz" <amnfn at well.com>
> 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 <lieven at eva.mpg.de>
> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Roseta Stone: Redux
> To: "Dan I. Slobin" <slobin at berkeley.edu>
> Cc: Lise Menn <lise.menn at Colorado.EDU>, funknet at mailman.rice.edu,
> "A.
> Katz" <amnfn at well.com>
> 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"<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
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> >> 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 <lieven at eva.mpg.de>
> Cc: Lise Menn <lise.menn at Colorado.EDU>, "A. Katz" <amnfn at well.com>,
> "Dan I. Slobin" <slobin at berkeley.edu>, 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 <lieven at eva.mpg.de>:
>
> > 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"<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
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>
> > >> 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 <hartmut at ruc.dk>
> 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<lieven at eva.mpg.de>:
> >
> >> 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"<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
> >>>>>>
> >>>> 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 <hartmut at ruc.dk>
> 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 <hartmut at ruc.dk>:
>
> > 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<lieven at eva.mpg.de>:
> > >
> > >> 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"<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
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>> 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 <hancock at albany.edu>
> 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"<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
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>> 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 <dan at daneverett.org>
> Subject: [FUNKNET] New work by Steve Piantadosi
> To: Funknet Funknet <funknet at mailman.rice.edu>
> Message-ID: <FFD1D27A-3C39-49BF-B9EA-041DBE082A63 at daneverett.org>
> 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 <hartmut at ruc.dk>
> 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 <hartmut at ruc.dk>:
>
> > 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<lieven at eva.mpg.de>:
> > >
> > >> 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"<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
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>> 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 <hancock at albany.edu>
> 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 <wilcox at unm.edu>
> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Roseta Stone: Redux
> To: Craig Hancock <hancock at albany.edu>
> 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
> **************************************
>
More information about the Funknet
mailing list