Roseta Stone: Redux

Thu Feb 10 22:42:32 UTC 2011

Georgian is not comparable to Athabascan languages in words of morphological
complexity, it isn't even close. It's initially counter-intuitive, but
once you get the idea it isn't really bad. I wouldn't put it at the level of
difficulty which would prove to be just too much for almost all non-natives (I
would put at least Athabascan, Iroquoian, Salishan, and Inuit in this
category).
John

Quoting Alex Walker <deseretian at gmail.com>:

> 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
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University