The View From Carnegie 210

Language acquisition in general is very much a topic in constant flux, like most other aspects of psychology, second language acquisition is even more so up for debate. Popular beliefs and techniques tend to follow fads especially in the teaching of a second language because it is quickly becoming a very profitable industry. Some of these fads range from the mild to the eccentric, such a Total Physical Response, or TPR.
Total physical response operates in a similar way to that which a first language is approached in childhood. Listening, watching, and following cues are used to figure out and learn the words of a new language and how they are used. TPR relies heavily on tactile learning and differs from other basic classroom settings by not requiring student production until the student feels confident enough to participate. This style of teaching has been shown to be a great jump start into a language, but can never hope to achieve anything close to proficiency. TPR is an entirely auditory way of teaching which will certainly create deficits in both writing and pronunciation later in second language development.

1972 Promotional Video

Most linguists have now abandoned this method of second language teaching, but there are still some supporters. Why do you think this concept has survived so long? Are there positive attributes to this method of teaching, and what are the negatives?

Dr. Asher has since taken his rather unorthadox method of teaching language into other subjects, including math and science. While it can be agreed TPR is a relatively insane idea even in regards to language teaching, how is at all applicable to math and sciences? Check out the website to read testimonials and applicable articles. (please keep in mind the source of the material) As we become an increasingly global society where several languages are required, and the desire to learn a second or third language increases, we are sure to see more and more of these questionable theories hitting the marketplace.

Dr. Asher's original 1969 article regarding TPR.

Posted by Vincent Donofrio at 8:49 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

If you've ever talked to a young child, chances are you've been encountered a "what's that?" question. The most natural response, from an adult perspective, may be to give the name of the object in question. For example, "what's that?" might result in the response "that's a pencil." One could argue that this simply reflects the question-answer ritual necessary for children to acquire their lexical vocabulary. However, is this what children are after? Have we satisfied their curiosity by giving this name-based information?

A few years ago, Nelson et al. (2004) examined this issue by showing children a number of unfamiliar objects and carefully considering the questions children asked about the objects. For example, children may ask a name-based question (e.g., what's this called? what's its name?), a function-based question (e.g., how does this work? what's it for?), or an ambiguous question (e.g., what's this? what is that?). As Figure 1 shows, across all age ranges (2, 3, and 4 years old), the most frequent question type was ambiguous, followed by function questions. Very few name-based questions were asked.

In addition to keeping track of the kinds of questions children asked, however, the researchers also varied the responses they gave children to these questions. The researchers reasoned that if children were satisfied with the information they were given, they wouldn't ask any follow-up questions. On the other hand, if the answer didn't satisfy the children, they would ask more questions. To that end, when asked an ambiguous question, the researcher would respond with either function information or name information. They recorded the number of follow-up questions the children asked after receiving one of these two answers. As Figure 2 shows, children asked significantly more follow-up questions when they initially received name-based answers. When the researcher gave them function-based answers to their initial question, children seemed to be satisfied with this response.

So...what do we take from these findings? One interesting implication of the results is that children may initially be developing concepts for novel objects that are based on function, rather than name, information. Other evidence for this possibility may be seen in the overgeneralization errors children make when they utilize the name of an object they know for a new object that seems to have similar function (e.g., using ball for all toys).

The study has some methodological challenges regarding the kinds of objects that were used and the procedure that was utilized to have children "model" the process of asking questions. However, it seems important to pursue the role of function during the initial stages of language acquisition.

Read more for a reference list of related studies...

Reading List

Casler, K., & Kelemen, D. (2005). Young children's rapid learning about artifacts. Developmental Science, 8, 472-480.

Greif, M. L., Nelson, D. G. K., Keil, F. C., & Gutierrez, F. (2006). What do children want to know about animals and artifacts? Domain-specific requests for information. Psychological Science, 17, 455-459.

Nelson, D. G. K., Egan, L. C., & Holt, M. B. (2004). When children ask, "What is it?" what do they want to know about artifacts? Psychological Science, 15, 384-389.

Nelson, D. G. K., & O'Neil, K. (2005). How do parents respond to children's questions about the identity of artifacts? Developmental Science, 8, 519-524.

Posted by Aimee Knupsky at 2:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

At the last meeting of the Cognitive Group, we reviewed a fairly recent article by Nelson & Simmons (2007) who present some shocking new information regarding the name-letter effect. The name-letter effect highlights correlations that we see between the letters in someone's name and his/her choices and preferences. For example, someone named Paul may be more likely to live in Pennsylvania, study psychology, drink Pepsi, own a poodle, and date a woman named Penny.

Historically, data on the name-letter effect has derived from correlational studies that demonstrate these interesting relations in various archives of demographic information. The first few experiments in the Nelson & Simmons study follow this trend. For example, they find that batters whose names began with the letter K have higher strike out rates. In fact, using a data set that spanned 90 years, they found that, "...K was both the first initial and the last initial associated with the highest strikeout rate" (p. 1107).

Closer to our academic setting, the study also showed that students whose names began with C or D had lower GPAs than students whose names began with A or B. It is important to point out that this tendency depended upon whether or not the students liked the letters in their name. Specifically, students whose names began with C or D only had significantly lower GPAs if they reported liking the initials of their first or last name.

Our Cognitive Group members were quick to point out that, so far, this data is correlational and, as we all learn in Psych 206 and 207, correlation does not equal causation! However, Nelson & Simmons also report the results of an experimental study that demonstrated that people completed significantly fewer anagrams if their initials matched the name of a consolation prize. Hmm...now what?

Overall, the group discussed that there are still issues to consider before we stop using all C and D names for children. For example, it seemed that there was the potential for participant bias in the experimental study...would participants catch on that the consolation prize had their initial? Naming the consolation prize, "Prize K" would seem kind of odd. Also, if students whose name began with C or D received a lot of C and D's in school...wouldn't they come to dislike those letters and, if so, shouldn't that experience mitigate the finding of lower GPAs? Remember, the effect only holds if students like the initials of their names. Speaking of which...how do we determine if participants like the initials of their names and what factors do they consider in those "liking" ratings? How often do we share with one another our "favorite letter"? All great points brought up in our discussion.

Needless to say, the study has raised some controversy and discussion in the field as well. For example, you can find interesting summaries of the data (and the history of the name-letter effect) by reading the Cognitive Daily and Mixing Memory blog entries discussing the study.

Leif D. Nelson, Joseph P. Simmons (2007). Moniker Maladies: When Names Sabotage Success Psychological Science, 18 (12), 1106-1112 DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.02032.x

Posted by Aimee Knupsky at 6:47 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (1)

Before reading this section, I had the intuitive impression that our brain encodes lexical entries in a way that is more or less similar to a dictionary. It now turned out that we activate all possible words compatible with the acoustic input till the process of recognition determines which of these possibilities is the right one. The author points out to Zwitserlood findings in her cross-modal priming task: how a word can prime another word, e.g. Captain - ship, that we tend to respond faster to more common words than to less common ones (pp. 72-73). Here, I faced some difficulty understanding what he means by the "priming effect." Does it imply that a word would activate other related ones? Ex. "father" would activate "son", "daughter", ... etc. Or Is it just that a prime word (pilot) is proved to be activated based on the fact that the person would choose its target (airplane)?!

Posted by Hussein Bani Khalid at 5:04 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I wanted to discuss the section of chapter 5 called "Different languages, different codes?" because I'm interested in the structure and comprehension of different languages. Altmann says that when we want to retrieve words from our lexicon, we try to retrieve them the same way we would from a dictionary- letter-by-letter. However, since infants organize what they hear in terms of syllables, it's possible that adults also break down what they hear into syllables. What I was really interested in in this section was the structures of different languages. On page 57 Altmann states that the syllable has a more distinctive role in the rhythmic properties of language in French than in English; in French the syllable is a rhythmic unit, and in English, the rhythmic unit is formed by a sequence of syllables. I'm kind of confused about this because at the beginning of the chapter, the author said that there is a big difference between French and English in terms of how words are retrieved from the lexicon, and how the syllables are structured. However, Altmann goes on to say that in French and English, it's possible that adults break down what they hear into syllables. Regardless, I still have a question about the languages that were discussed in this section. English was compared to French in terms of the access code and the syllable structure, which is relevant. But how would other languages, such as Spanish, compare? Would there be a difference in the way words are retrieved from the lexicon?

Posted by Wendy Paddock at 2:15 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I had the most trouble comprehending the large section in chapter 5 of Babel pertaining to co-articulation. The basic definition was simple enough--some letters influence the pronunciation of the letters around them. But I had to reread just about every sentence in the entire section about 4 times, underline, and sometimes draw small diagrams to really understand the specific examples. Perhaps this phenomenon is so un-salient to me as a speaker, that I had trouble wrapping my mind around it. And once I finally did limp away from that section of reading, I was greeted with "well, maybe co-articulation happens sometimes...and maybe it doesn't really matter." Is it really possible to get at the fundamentals of language by hacking it to tiny bits (i.e. the sum will always be greater than its (possibly meaningless) parts)? What can we even concretely say about syllables?

Posted by Tamara Belden at 12:19 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Many times people will remark how fast I talk. Ironically, one of my friends used to write a personal blog. When he quoted me, he would put everything I said into one word. However, according to Altmann, because of co-articulation, everyone actually blends their sentences into one word, like â??hameethathimbooâ??. Evidently we do have a tolerance for mismatching, and we can use contexts to understand each other. But, what about talking fast in general? It seems to me that talking faster would decrease the articulation even more, and perhaps decrease recognition. On the flip side, talking slower isnâ??t necessarily the solution. When I have visited southern states, I have a difficult time understanding what people are saying because it is so much slower than what I am used to. Maybe we are adapting to a speech style, and in this way we can easily recognize and understand speech. Does this mean our proper pronunciations are dying? Furthermore, what can, or what should we do with this information? Should we try to be more articulate and annunciate each word?

Posted by Rachel Learned at 10:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Personal Dictionary
The concept of how a speaker is able to filter through their mental lexicon and find the exact word they are looking for, and at an amazing speed can be difficult to comprehend and even harder to prove. Examples of studies in The Ascent of Babel beginning on page 68, brought about many explanations for how the mental lexicon operates, but provided no concrete example upon which I could rely. This is why I have decided to take the concept of the mental lexicon from the reading and present visual diagrams that make a difficult to understand concept, mildly more tangible. It is then easier to work backwards, in my opinion, and apply examples to a more rigid set of concepts.
While the mental lexicon is often compared to a dictionary, such as the OED, they are not at all used in the same way, even if they produce the same output. Dictionaries can be searched according to meaning, pronunciation, spelling, rhyme, length, etcâ?¦ as can the mental lexicon. However, the dictionary is viewed exactly for the word that you are in search of where as the mental lexicon examines all the other words around the target word, at an amazing speed, in the attempt to find the appropriate word. This becomes very obvious, at least for me when I am writing a paper and I have an idea of the word that I wish to use but cannot put my finger on it. I can go about searching for the word in my mental lexicon several different ways. I can examine words that have the same meaning as the concept I am trying to convey, I can think of words that begin with the same first letter as my target word, or do a similar search based on any concept that can be used to search a physical dictionary. However, while searching my mental lexicon I must give some thought to other words that may qualify regardless of how far off base or sometimes and even ridiculous they might be. This seems most evident to me when a word is used, particularly in speech and then a pause follows where you establish the word you chose was not the correct choice at all, or as I have been known to do in class presentations, replace it with a non-standard less than formal choice, like crap.
Native speakers can recognize a word in 200ms or less and reject a non-word in less than half a second. According to Seashore & Erickson, 1940, the average educated adult has approximately 150,000 words in their lexicon and is able to use 90% of them. With all these masses of words to choose from, like stated above, there are several opportunities to make errors. The available models of understanding how a lexical choice is made, or a word is activated only do a partial job of explaining the phenomena.

Stepping Stone Model

[A stepping-stone model model]. 1/27/2008, from: http://pages.slc.edu/~ebj/IM_97/Lecture12/L12.html

â?¢ Semantic Slips â?? words that belong to the same category or family can easily be mistaken, such as otter for beaver.
â?¢ Sound Errors â?? explains errors made based on sound similarity such as beaker and beaver.
â?¢ Does not explain a word choice that is both incorrect in sound and semantic.

Water Fall Model

[A waterfall model]. 1/27/2008, from: http://pages.slc.edu/~ebj/IM_97/Lecture12/L12.html

â?¢ Meaning is considered while the sound is decided, creating a narrowing of word choices. Such as a badger / beaver error, simple because they are small animals.
â?¢ However, waterfall effect does not explain the reverse phenomena. Such as, if asked to name woodland animals several may come to mind, but more will surface when letters are suggested.

Interaction Activation Model

[An interaction activation model]. 1/27/2008, from: http://pages.slc.edu/~ebj/IM_97/Lecture12/L12.html

â?¢ Sounds can activate meaning, meaning can activate sounds, this model allows for flow in both directions.
â?¢ Activation travels back and forth between meaning and sound, making the correct choice stronger and the wrong choice weaker. Errors are made when attention is not being paid and the wrong choice is selected.

In what ways do you think you use your mental lexicon on the daily basis?
Considering all three of these models contain flaws, what proof is there that this is how we understand and access words in our lexicon? How do the research examples in The Ascent of Babel (68-73) support of refute these models?

Posted by Rachel Learned at 1:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Since Vince test ran the blog, I figured I'd test run the first from the class entry. Hopefully it comes close to the expectations:
I am interested in the whole concept of morphemes (Ascent page 66) because they are like the phonemes of meaning. Rather than dealing with acoustics, they seem like the smallest units of meaning, although Altmann defines them as "word 'units'" (66). Probably everyone first thought of prefixes and suffixes because they're so prevalent, and they make sense logically--add something on the beginning or end of a word to modify it a little. Putting something in the middle would seem to change the word by breaking up its core, so the idea of infixes was a little strange at first. The examples used in the chapters are "bloody" and "fuckin." They're both more slang terms used for emphasis, and I couldn't think of any serious infixes (besides modifying a vowel to change the tense, if that counts). Whether because we aren't used to infixes or because they do break up the stem of a word, I think that adding infixes would be more difficult to follow if it happened often. For instance, I remember the first time I heard one and realized it--someone said abso-bloody-lutely--and it was so novel that I missed the rest of the sentence. I had to process what just happened and couldn't believe that my friend had just put one word into another. I've never heard an infix that didn't involve two fully, free-standing words. Altmann writes that languages like Hebrew change stem vowels to modify tenses often, but do any languages use infixes regularly, and what types of words can be used for each part? Because of my experiences, I see them as creative uses of exclamations or profanity, but I think--and hope--they could be used more often because they catch my attention and could create a whole new string of phrases. This may seem too lighthearted for class, but I was wondering what kinds of words can be used as infixes and can be infixed by other words. Obviously the infixed words have to have multiple syllables to give the infix space, but what else goes into the formation of infixes? And who first realized that the rules of English would allow one word to splice into another without changing the general meaning of either? Ribloodydiculous works. What about Ex-totally-citing or In-extra-quisitive? Perhaps if any of these were used enough they would sound better. Then again, what's the difference between puting those infixes into the words and just putting them before, like totally exciting?

Posted by Jen Wilmore at 3:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

In 1983, Professor Harvey Daniels summarized the research on language to nine key points, his Nine Ideas About Language. A common theme throughout these nine ideas, however, is the idea of equality among languages. Daniels emphasizes that the rules of language are arbitrary and, therefore, differences among languages should not be considered as 'mistakes' but should be seen as equally valid, structured choices. In other words, just because Standard American English (SAE) uses a structure that places an adjective before a noun that doesn't mean this is the 'correct' word order that should be used by all languages. Similarly, there isn't anything inherently more 'right' about using the word dog to describe a furry, four-legged animal than chien or perro. These are simply the sound-object pairings for these particular languages.

I think most people would find these cross-language ideas reasonable--the difficulty, I believe, is to get people to appreciate that these same ideas apply to dialects as well. For example, if 'my car needs washed' is correct word order for Pittsburghese, then this phrase should not be perceived as "bad grammar" but as the reflection of a structured, well-ordered alternative system to SAE. Just as different languages select different combinations of words and rules, dialects do the same. However, the perception of one, inherently 'correct' dialect is a pervasive idea throughout our culture.

Sadly, the selection of a 'standard' dialect means that people who do not speak this dialect will face discrimination in school, in the work place, and in our society at large. And, yet, who stops to think about why the 'standard' dialect is the one that has been selected as 'standard.' People often refer to the idea that this is the dialect that is used on TV...well...why is it the dialect chosen for TV? The real answer to this question is one that makes us all uncomfortable...the 'standard' dialect is the dialect spoken by those in power, those who represent the majority in a culture.

"Well..." some people respond, "that's just the way it is and if you want to succeed in our society, you need to learn to speak without an accent and to use good grammar." First, everyone has an accent--the standard dialect is simply the accent that has been chosen as the default for a culture. Second, "good grammar" is a direct consequence of which dialect has been selected as standard. As Daniels points out, "the need for mastery [of the approved pattern of speech] arises only out of the prejudices of the dominant speech community and not from any intrinsic shortcomings of nonstandard American dialects."

In the end, I think Einar Haugen summarizes the importance of this issue best..."Any scorn for the languages of others is scorn for those who use it, and as such is a form of social discrimination."

What role does such discrimination play in our classrooms and on our campus? How can the negative consequences of speaking a "nonstandard" dialect be addressed? Can a culture develop that recognizes the equality of all dialects?

Posted by Aimee Knupsky at 5:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Agnes, from the wonderfully weird mind of Tony Cochran.

Posted by Aimee Knupsky at 2:57 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

A common complaint from students in many classes pertains to the amount of busywork assigned. This mantra inspires an interesting conundrum for teachers...to assign or not to assign those quizzes, supplemental readings, practice problems, writing exercises? On the one hand, we understand the value of students working with information being presented in as many different (appropriate) ways as possible. On the other hand, we risk having students "drop-out" when faced with a steady stream of work that can seem repetitive and oppressive.

Recently, there has been a surge of research in cognitive psychology on the process of learning in the classroom. I think this line of research shows promise for helping educators navigate the pedagogical dilemma of busywork. Studies have shown that practice with material that is distributed over the long run (e.g., over the semester) leads to much longer retention than does mass practice (commonly known as 'cramming'). Research has also found that being repeatedly tested on a topic leads to better performance than does study alone. Futhermore, new data now suggests that (despite the principle of encoding specificity) practice tests do not need to share an identical format with the actual test. Instead, what seems to be of primary importance is the effort required on the part of the learner during the practice measures and that feedback is given by teachers on them.

The short story, from my perspective, is that we seem to have a semantics problem here. Busywork has come to mean something we are asked to do that simply fills the time, but that has no inherent value. Given what we know about the distributed practice of material and the importance of repeated testing to learning, however, busywork should not be abandoned. Instead, I suggest a new interpretation of the word. Busywork should be reconceived as structured, focused work that keeps students busy (read engaged here) with the material to be learned.

Of primary importance will be getting students to see the value of that work so that their motivation to continue remains high. I believe the challenge is for educators to "take-back" this concept and make sure to have conversations with their students regarding its importance to their learning. Perhaps the next research question should be how to ensure that our new busywork achieves these goals.

For a reading list of cognitive research on learning in the class room, read more:

READING LIST

Butler, A. C., & Roediger, H. L., III. (2007). Testing improves long-term retention in a simulated
classroom setting. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 19, 514-527.

Kang, S. H. K., McDermott, K. B., & Roediger, H. L., III. (2007). Test format and corrective
feedback modify the effect of testing on long-term retention. European Journal of
Cognitive Psychology, 19, 528-558.

Karpicke, J. D., & Roediger, H. L., III. (2007). Repeated retrieval during learning is the key to
long-term retention. Journal of Memory and Language, 57, 151-162. Access Abstract Here

McDaniel, M. A., Roediger, H. L., III, & McDermott, K. B. (2007). Generalizing test-enhanced
learning from the laboratory to the classroom. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,
14, 200-206.

Roediger, H. L., III, & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). The power of testing memory: Basic research and
implications for educational practice. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1,
181-210. Access Abstract Here

Szpunar, K. K., McDermott, K. B., & Roediger, H. L., III. (2007). Expectation of a final
cumulative test enhances long-term retention. Memory & Cognition, 35,
1007-1013.

Posted by Aimee Knupsky at 11:54 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Image Credit: Dave Sandford/Getty Images

I saw my first hockey game more than 15 years ago--it was an Olympic pre-game at the Igloo...Sweden vs USA. I fell in love with the game...and have watched every year since that day. Although my fervor has waxed and waned, I always pull out the old baby-blue Penguins jersey my dad bought me for Christmas, and watch as many games as they put on TV. But yesterday, I fell in love with the game all over again while watching the Winter Classic. It was beautiful to see a game played in its natural setting and you could feel the pure joy of the game on the ice, in the stands, and on your couch. I have no idea how anyone who loves sports could have wasted their time watching college football bowl games that have no real meaning when a true event was taking place. I don't think this game was meant to "save hockey." Those of us who love hockey don't think it needs "saved." I think the NFL could take a page out of the NHL's book and play a Super Bowl outside, in the snow...it's about time the loyalty of fans was considered over the pleasures of the corporate world.

In other news, the Pens are just behind the Devils in the Atlantic Division of the Eastern Conference...Let's Go Pens! Follow the Race for the Cup.

Posted by Aimee Knupsky at 9:10 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Dr. Aimee Knupsky is an Assistant Professor of Psychology at Allegheny College, a private, liberal arts school in Northwestern Pennsylvania. She obtained her PhD. in Experimental Psychology (major emphasis, Cognitive; minor area, Linguistics) from the University of New Mexico in 2005. Her Masters and Dissertation worked examined the process of language production in bilinguals.

At Allegheny, Prof Knupsky teaches a variety of courses including Research Design & Statistics, Cognitive Psychology, and two upper level (junior seminar) courses in Language and Memory. She also takes part in the sequence of writing and speaking courses at Allegheny.

In addition to teaching, Prof Knupsky encourages students to work in the lab on projects from the fields of psycholinguistics, sociolinguistics, and second language acquisition. She has regular interns during the school year, offers independent studies, and hosts summer research assistants. In 2007-2008, she advised 12 senior comprehensive projects on a variety of Cognitive Psych topics and plans to advise 11 more in the 08-09 school year.

In what little free time she has, Aimee loves to find new on-line distractions like the BrainPaint Gallery, Wordle, and Pandora. She is relatively new to the world of blogging, and is interested in how to best apply that technology for classroom purposes. Her Australian Shepard, Beorn, misses her during the day and loves to take walks in the woods. Aimee is a fanatic Pittsburgh sports fan, has a respectable Tolkien calendar collection, and has been working on the same cross-stitch quilt for the last ten years. Her idea of bliss is an extending vacation in Jemez, New Mexico.

Posted by Aimee Knupsky at 2:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)