Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!uwvax!uwmacc!edwards From: edwards@uwmacc.UUCP (mark edwards) Newsgroups: comp.ai Subject: Re: Language Learning Message-ID: <1966@uwmacc.UUCP> Date: Mon, 9-Nov-87 13:58:19 EST Article-I.D.: uwmacc.1966 Posted: Mon Nov 9 13:58:19 1987 Date-Received: Wed, 11-Nov-87 06:22:02 EST References: <8986@shemp.UCLA.EDU> <1125@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> Reply-To: edwards@unix.macc.wisc.edu (mark edwards) Organization: UW-Madison Academic Computer Center Lines: 74 Keywords: Goal Based In article <1125@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> zwicky@dormouse.cis.ohio-state.edu (Elizabeth D. Zwicky) writes: :> Scott R. Turner : :Give me a break here. You CANNOT test hypotheses about whether or not :there is a crystallization period after which language cannot be learned :without dealing with degenerate cases. The case of someone who has been :deprived of all language contact for n years, starting at birth, whether :n is 2, 5, or 12, will always be a degenerate case. Certainly, Genie :is not conclusive evidence, and such cases are (thank God!) rare, and :so the evidence is not conclusive. However, in all known cases, children :deprived of language contact cannstill learn languages normally if they :start before puberty. Why can't you test hypotheses about whether or not there is a crystal- lization period ..... ? It seems that if we can not test it then, we can not test it at all. How would you test it. Use your children? Somebody elses ? :The idea of a crystallization period is supported by the data about :second language learning in normal humans, but the question I was :answering was about learning of *first* languages. : : Elizabeth Zwicky I don't see why second language learning in adults supports the "crystallization period". For one, when a child starts learning to speak they do it naturally, they have plenty of time, words are repeated until they absorb the correct pronunciation. The key words here are plenty of time, they are corrected many times, and it takes them many "years" to progress to fluency. The adult learns a second language in a hurry. There is no time for assimilation. An adult gets frustated if he/she is corrected too often, an adult probably is not as absorbed in the activity. The key words here are lack of time, and fluency is picked up in a very short time. By fluency here I mean only that the intended message is capable of being realized. An adult is busy, he/she has many more important things to worry about. Like were the next paycheck is coming from. The goals of the child are to learn the language inorder to get by. By the time they reach a certain age they have generalized the sound structure of the language. When a child is learning a second language the generalization process is still going on. Thus the child has no problem generalizing the new language. The adult on the other hand has not used these skills in quite a while. And like anything else that hasn't been used the skills decay. Since the learning of the sound system was an unconcious activity it is lost or buried quite deep. A child is also quite content saying "See dogie run.", "See dogie run." Where as the adult may repeat this exercise a couple of times and want to learn more difficult words and grammar combinations. The child has more reinforment. For instance: Child: See dogie run? Mother: Yes the dog is running. Look how fast he goes. An adult cannot usually have the same conversation. The other adult will soon get stone bored. Is second language learning in adults inhibited because of the "c" period? I think more facts must be weighed, more applicable data must be gathered. Clearly the child and adult are in vastly different environments when the process is being learned. mark -- edwards@vms.macc.wisc.edu {allegra, ihnp4, seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!edwards UW-Madison, 1210 West Dayton St., Madison WI 53706