Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!think!ames!hao!boulder!sunybcs!rutgers!iuvax!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uxc.cso.uiuc.edu!osiris.cso.uiuc.edu!goldfain From: goldfain@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu Newsgroups: comp.ai Subject: Re: Language Learning (anecdotes) Message-ID: <8300015@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu> Date: Tue, 1-Dec-87 14:23:00 EST Article-I.D.: osiris.8300015 Posted: Tue Dec 1 14:23:00 1987 Date-Received: Sun, 6-Dec-87 02:24:46 EST References: <1117@uhccux.UUCP> Lines: 55 Nf-ID: #R:uhccux.UUCP:-111700:osiris.cso.uiuc.edu:8300015:000:3519 Nf-From: osiris.cso.uiuc.edu!goldfain Dec 1 13:23:00 1987 I think the "crystallization hypothesis" in language acquisition is an hypothesis which by its very nature will snag people into a debate. I think a review of the overall nature of this hypothesis and debate are instructive as to something which should be avoided whenever possible in science. 1) We have an observable phenomenon at a very high level of complexity: It concerns fine distinctions in natural language behavior. 2) The observations of the phenomenon are not well pinned down: Researchers mention something about "mastery" of the language, then sometimes back off and only simply make claims about phonetic categorial perception, then shift back to discussing scores on grammar tests among people who have been in a culture for 10-20 years, immigrating at different times in their lives, etc. ************************************************************************** * I am not saying the phenomenon isn't real! There are observable and * * interesting phenomena here. I am just qualifying that. * ************************************************************************** 3) The phenomena *suggests* that *possibly* there is a physiological basis for such trends and differences as are observed. To make a really concrete claim, it *suggests* that perhaps some maturation process in the normal human brain occurs at about mid teenage years. 4) There are lots of other mechanisms that are consistent with the observed phenomena: a wide range of psychological "lower-level" factors have been listed in the current debate in this note file. 5) If one really steps back and looks at this objectively, we can tell that the "experiments" ("studies" is actually a better word) thus far performed and currently underway will never help distinguish whether this phenomenon has a physiological basis or merely a psychological basis, or a combination of both (don't forget that possibility!) 6) There is a large set of anecdotal rumor floating around that is only going to keep the issue cloudy. It may keep us from the wrong conclusion, but it is not going to settle us down on whatever the correct answer is. I think the only way to settle the matter will have to wait on tighter experimentation (if it is ever judged that this issue is worth the experiments it would take to settle it.) It will require a great deal of progress in neurophysiology, or some volunteers for some outrageous psychology experiments. (Find me 100 open-minded adults who will set aside all other interests for at least 5 years of their lives ... ) In other words, I think the moral of this issue is that you cannot expect to settle an issue that is several layers of abstraction below the level of your observational apparatus. (In this case it might be more than "several".) In a sense I'm saying: "Go back to the lab and let's look for other things we can get a better grip on - this issue will have to wait until another day." Mark Goldfain arpa: goldfain@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu US Mail: Mark Goldfain (A lowly student at)--> Department of Computer Science University of Illinois at U-C 1304 West Springfield Avenue Urbana, Illinois 61801