Scott Woods states that 'The idea that most adults lose the ability to learn how to produce and use language by natural unconscious analogy seems problematic'
He then provides two paragraphs of examples supposedly intended to prove his point.
The problem is, however, that the examples he provides are of pre-puberty learners (not post-puberty) but, more importantly, are examples neither of natural unconscious acquisition nor of analogical learning.
The other point to be made is that the context of his original post was FLA (first language acquisition) and not SLA. Most linguists and applied linguists assume that children have acquired the grammar of their L1s before the critical period. There is, therefore, very limited need post-puberty for unconscious analogical learning. If Scott disagrees with this, perhaps he can provide examples to support his argument but it's worth noting that the examples he gives are not examples of natual unconscious language acquisition.
All this said, it is clear that post-puberty second language acquirers do use analogical learning. There is, however, a crucial difference between the acquisition of L1s by pre-puberty acquirers and the learning of L2s by post-puberty learners. The former is always successful; the latter if left to develop naturally (ie no instruction of any sort) is always unsuccessful in terms, that is, of reaching native-like accuracy.
Ron Sheen
----- Original Message -----
From: Scott Woods
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 10:40 AM
Subject: Re: Pre-critical period learning was : Inductive - Deductive:was New discussion intelligence and grammar learning
The programs Language for Learning and Language for Thinking, by Siegfried Engelmann, et al. teach language to young children largely through an inductive approach. As an example (from memory, several years after having seen the programs in action), the teacher will extend his arm straight out to the side and say something like "Watch. This is getting steeper." (Raises his arm.) (Repeats procedure.) "This is not getting steeper." (Lowers arm.) "This is getting steeper." (Raises arm.) "This is not getting steeper." (Does not move arm.) "This is getting steeper." (Raises arm.) "This is not getting steeper." (Lowers arm.) "Is this getting steeper?" (Raises arm.)(Students answer as a group, on a signal, "Yes" or "No.") "Is this getting steeper?" (Lowers arm.) "Is this getting steeper?" (Does not move arm.) (Students respond on signal.) And so forth. No definitions or explanations are given. The language is matched to the changes in reality. (And, yes, there are many school-age children who need to learn "getting steeper.")
Another example of induction is in the presentation of prepositional phrases. An object is placed on the table. The teacher says, "The pencil is on the table." (Moves the pencil to another place on the table.) "The pencil is on the table." (Picks up the pencil.) "The pencil is not on the table." (Teacher continues moving the pencil to various places, juxtaposing on the table with not on the table. ) Teacher asks, "Is the pencil on the table?" when the pencil is in various locations either on or not on the table. (Students answer on signal.) (There are many school-age children who cannot understand prepositional phrases. For instance, when told to put the pencil on the table, they will do so. But when told to put the pencil near, behind, under, beside, or in front of the table, they will put the pencil on the table.)
These exercises work quickly and well with young children. I have seen similar exercises recommended for teaching adult learners of languages. While it seems reasonable that we not infer how the adult learns language from how the child learns, yet if procedures requiring inference and extension work with adults as with children, would that not show that adults continue to have the the ability to learn by natural unconscious analogy? Isn't this induction?
Scott Woods
Ronald Sheen <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Scott Woods's son is, I imagine, about four or five. That's usually the age that children make irregular verbs regular by analogy. Whatever age he is, he has certainly not reached the critical period before which natural unconscious learning by analogy is considered one of the features of what used to be called the LAD (language acquisition device). However, after the critical period, this ability is supposed to atrophy. It is for this reason that we cannot use the way young children acquire language as evidence of how post-puberty learners might do so.***
Ron Sheen
***But see Selinker's 1972 Interlanguage article for the argument that some people do retain that ability and are considered to be gifted learners.
----- Original Message -----
From: Scott Woods
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 7:18 AM
Subject: Re: Inductive - Deductive:was New discussion intelligence and grammar learning
Don't we induce most grammar rules? My son recently used the word "sitted" instead of the standard "sat." This seems to be a generalization of the rule for making past tense applied to a word which doesn't make its past tense that way. He has rarely, if ever, heard the word "sitted," and often heard the word "sat," yet the generalization from the maybe tens of thousands of instances of how the past tense should be made seems to be stronger than the probably hundreds of examples of how the past tense of "sit" should be made.
Scott Woods
Johanna Rubba <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
We learn most of what we know about the world from induction, if that
is defined as extracting generalizations (rules) from experience. A
prime example is how vocabulary is learned: the vast majority of
words a child learns are learned inductively by observing the context
of use. But we learn so many things this way: I recently learned by
trial and error the "rule" of how many minutes it takes to ruin a raw
egg in the microwave. A child learns that a tower of blocks can go
only so high because very high ones keep toppling over.
But I have to admit the terminology confuses me. Sherlock Holmes
"deduced" many of his conclusions regarding crimes by extracting
information from evidence. Is this a different use of "deduce", or am
I just hopelessly confused about the whole issue?
Dr. Johanna Rubba, Associate Professor, Linguistics
Linguistics Minor Advisor
English Department
California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
Tel.: 805.756.2184
Dept. Ofc. Tel.: 805.756.2596
Dept. Fax: 805.756.6374
URL: http://www.cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news, photos & more. To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Catch up on fall's hot new shows on Yahoo! TV. Watch previews, get listings, and more! To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/