Forum: Lojban In General

so, would a person who grows up bi-lingual (say someone who lives somewhere
in Europe where everyone just knows and speaks multiple languages) would
this person be "compound bi-lingual" or "coordinate bi-lingual"?

On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 3:17 PM, Colin Wright <
colin.wright@denbridgemarine.com> wrote:

> Sorry, I don't have the original email(s) on this computer.
> I'm replying from memory.
>
> Someone asked about the difference between coordinate and
> compound bilingualism. There are several references on the
> web found by Google, but this has a clear statement:
>
> http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~haroldfs/540/bilingtl/bilingtl.html<http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/%7Eharoldfs/540/bilingtl/bilingtl.html>
>
> I am not an expert, and I haven't had time to get myself back
> up even to the poor standard I once claimed. However ...
>
> Most would accept that words in one's native langauge often
> carry additional "baggage" beyond the stated definitions.
> What, exactly are the differences between a pamphlet, booklet,
> leaflet, or handout? Each will be defined slightly differently
> by different people, and for similar terms in another language
> there may be no clean and clear matches. Others here will no
> doubt be able to provide better examples, but haven't we all
> heard non-native speakers use a word that is superficially
> right, but not the word a native speaker would choose?
>
> My understanding is that coordinate bilinguals will not even
> try to find matches, they will simply use the correct word
> according to the context. Compound bilinguals, on the other
> hand, will tend to carry the same baggage in each language,
> and have a much tighter match in semantic mappings.
>
> The thesis to which I referred found that there was no real
> measurable shift in personality for compound bilinguals, but
> a clear shift for coordinate bilinguals, which I think is
> what I would have predicted if the SWH is true.
>
>
> I look forward to further discussion, ideas, opinions and
> clarifications.
>
>
> --
> Denbridge Marine Limited may monitor email traffic data and the
> content of email for the purposes of security and staff training.
>
> Denbridge Marine Limited.
> Registered in England and Wales at DSG, 43 Castle St, Liverpool. L2 9TL.
> Registered Number 4850477
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
> with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
> you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.
>
>

>> My understanding is that coordinate bilinguals will
>> not even try to find matches, they will simply use
>> the correct word according to the context. Compound
>> bilinguals, on the other hand, will tend to carry
>> the same baggage in each language,and have a much
>> tighter match in semantic mappings.

> so, would a person who grows up bi-lingual (say someone
> who lives somewhere in Europe where everyone just knows
> and speaks multiple languages) would this person be
> "compound bi-lingual" or "coordinate bi-lingual"?

It depends, they could be either.

Again, I'm not an expert, but I would generally expect that,
in the main, someone growing up exposed to two languages is
more likely to be a coordinate bilingual, and someone who
acquires a second language as an adult is more likely to be
a compound bilingual. In this latter case they are more
likely to have terms defined in their existing language,
and so transfer the baggage and have a single underlying
semantic model.

If anyone knows anything about this subject I'd be pleased
to hear them contribute ...

--
Denbridge Marine Limited may monitor email traffic data and the
content of email for the purposes of security and staff training.

Denbridge Marine Limited.
Registered in England and Wales at DSG, 43 Castle St, Liverpool. L2 9TL.
Registered Number 4850477

To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 22:17, Colin Wright <
colin.wright@denbridgemarine.com> wrote:

> Most would accept that words in one's native langauge often
> carry additional "baggage" beyond the stated definitions.

Well, I would accept that the dictionary definitions are completely
inadequate to describe a word's usage.

> My understanding is that coordinate bilinguals will not even
> try to find matches, they will simply use the correct word
> according to the context. Compound bilinguals, on the other
> hand, will tend to carry the same baggage in each language,
> and have a much tighter match in semantic mappings.
>

Stephen Krashen (http://www.sdkrashen.com) makes a distinction between
'learning' and 'acquisition' (I don't remember whether he originated this
idea). Learning is studying rules and vocabulary; acquisition is getting an
intuitive feel through immersion. It sounds to me that the result of
learning is what you call here compound bilinguals, and the result of
acquisition is coordinate bilinguals.

> The thesis to which I referred found that there was no real
> measurable shift in personality for compound bilinguals, but
> a clear shift for coordinate bilinguals, which I think is
> what I would have predicted if the SWH is true.

Since it seems to me that coodinate bilinguals gain their ability through
immersion, which also almost always includes cultural immersion, that comes
as no surprise, and doesn't require SWH to explain it.

--
Adam Raizen <adam.raizen@gmail.com>
Timendi causa est nescire.

>> Most would accept that words in one's native language often
>> carry additional "baggage" beyond the stated definitions.
>
> Well, I would accept that the dictionary definitions are
> completely inadequate to describe a word's usage.

I didn't say dictionary, but you're right. Words are notoriously
difficult to explain/define/delimit.

>> My understanding is that coordinate bilinguals will not even
>> try to find matches, they will simply use the correct word
>> according to the context. Compound bilinguals, on the other
>> hand, will tend to carry the same baggage in each language,
>> and have a much tighter match in semantic mappings.

> Stephen Krashen (http://www.sdkrashen.com) makes a distinction
> between 'learning' and 'acquisition' (I don't remember whether
> he originated this idea). Learning is studying rules and
> vocabulary; acquisition is getting an intuitive feel through
> immersion. It sounds to me that the result of learning is what
> you call here compound bilinguals, and the result of acquisition
> is coordinate bilinguals.

I find his usage very Humpty Dumpty. He's created definitions
of common words, such definitions being at odds with my natural
usage. I'll use them, but I deplore his usage.

>> The thesis to which I referred found that there was no real
>> measurable shift in personality for compound bilinguals, but
>> a clear shift for coordinate bilinguals, which I think is
>> what I would have predicted if the SWH is true.
>
> Since it seems to me that coodinate bilinguals gain their
> ability through immersion, which also almost always includes
> cultural immersion, that comes as no surprise, and doesn't
> require SWH to explain it.

Forgive me if I misunderstand you, but you appear to be interpreting
as constant and unvarying fact something that is simply a correlation.
Some coordinates gain their ability through what Krashen calls
"learning", and some compounds gain their second language through
acquisition.

Further, I didn't say that these things require SWH to explain
them, I meant that I believe a form of SWH to be true (although
possibly not the form S or W would originally have expounded)
and that the findings I have to hand are what I would've predicted.

cdw.

--
Denbridge Marine Limited may monitor email traffic data and the
content of email for the purposes of security and staff training.

Denbridge Marine Limited.
Registered in England and Wales at DSG, 43 Castle St, Liverpool. L2 9TL.
Registered Number 4850477

To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 23:10, Colin Wright <
colin.wright@denbridgemarine.com> wrote:

> >> Most would accept that words in one's native language often
> >> carry additional "baggage" beyond the stated definitions.
> >
> > Well, I would accept that the dictionary definitions are
> > completely inadequate to describe a word's usage.
>
> I didn't say dictionary, but you're right. Words are notoriously
> difficult to explain/define/delimit.

You can put a definition in something other than a "dictionary" but that
doesn't change it's basic nature.

> >> The thesis to which I referred found that there was no real
> >> measurable shift in personality for compound bilinguals, but
> >> a clear shift for coordinate bilinguals, which I think is
> >> what I would have predicted if the SWH is true.
> >
> > Since it seems to me that coodinate bilinguals gain their
> > ability through immersion, which also almost always includes
> > cultural immersion, that comes as no surprise, and doesn't
> > require SWH to explain it.
>
> Forgive me if I misunderstand you, but you appear to be interpreting
> as constant and unvarying fact something that is simply a correlation.
> Some coordinates gain their ability through what Krashen calls
> "learning", and some compounds gain their second language through
> acquisition.

Well, I disagree with that. As far as I can tell all coordinates get their
ability through acquisition, sometimes in conjunction with varying degrees
of learning. A coodinate bilingual who got their ability solely through
learning is probably non-existent, certainly extremely rare. I'd have to
reread Krashen but I believe the experimental evidence supports this. As far
as compounds and acquisition, there is also a complicating factor of
psychological motivation for learning the language, which seems to have a
very significant effect on what kind of language input gets accepted by the
student for the purpose of acquisition.

> Further, I didn't say that these things require SWH to explain
> them, I meant that I believe a form of SWH to be true (although
> possibly not the form S or W would originally have expounded)
> and that the findings I have to hand are what I would've predicted.
>

But if the evidence can be explained completely adequately without any
recourse to SWH then by Occam's razor we would tend to discount SWH, until
we get some other data that can't be explained in another way.

--
Adam Raizen <adam.raizen@gmail.com>
Timendi causa est nescire.

On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 23:29, Adam Raizen <adam.raizen@gmail.com> wrote:

> Well, I disagree with that. As far as I can tell all coordinates get their
> ability through acquisition, sometimes in conjunction with varying degrees
> of learning. A coodinate bilingual who got their ability solely through
> learning is probably non-existent, certainly extremely rare. I'd have to
> reread Krashen but I believe the experimental evidence supports this. As far
> as compounds and acquisition, there is also a complicating factor of
> psychological motivation for learning the language, which seems to have a
> very significant effect on what kind of language input gets accepted by the
> student for the purpose of acquisition.
>

I should add that Krashen also has a component of his theory called Monitor
theory, which is basically the ability to consciously apply rules (monitor
one's linguistic output). Would you agree that a coordinate bilingual can
necessarily use their ability orally, or would you assert if someone can
pass for a native in writing but speaks non-fluently and with many foreign
language mistakes, they are still a coordinate bilingual? If so we will have
to clarify on our definitions some more.

--
Adam Raizen <adam.raizen@gmail.com>
Timendi causa est nescire.

On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 23:10, Colin Wright <
colin.wright@denbridgemarine.com> wrote:

> I find his usage very Humpty Dumpty. He's created definitions
> of common words, such definitions being at odds with my natural
> usage. I'll use them, but I deplore his usage.
>

Would 'implicit learning' and 'explicit learning' be okay?

--
Adam Raizen <adam.raizen@gmail.com>
Timendi causa est nescire.

It's late for me, I'm tired, and I'm still jet-lagged. Perhaps
that accounts for a lot of this, but I really don't seem to be
able to make sense of much of what you're saying. I'll reply,
but I'm then going to leave this and come back later when I've
more time and less fatigue.

>>>> Most would accept that words in one's native language often
>>>> carry additional "baggage" beyond the stated definitions.
>>>
>>> Well, I would accept that the dictionary definitions are
>>> completely inadequate to describe a word's usage.
>>
>> I didn't say dictionary, but you're right. Words are notoriously
>> difficult to explain/define/delimit.
>
> You can put a definition in something other than a "dictionary"
> but that doesn't change it's basic nature.

I've lost your point. Yes, you can put a definition in something
other than a "dictionary". I simply pointed out that I didn't
mention dictionaries, you did.

>>>> The thesis to which I referred found that there was no real
>>>> measurable shift in personality for compound bilinguals, but
>>>> a clear shift for coordinate bilinguals, which I think is
>>>> what I would have predicted if the SWH is true.
>>>
>>> Since it seems to me that coodinate bilinguals gain their
>>> ability through immersion, which also almost always includes
>>> cultural immersion, that comes as no surprise, and doesn't
>>> require SWH to explain it.
>>
>> Forgive me if I misunderstand you, but you appear to be interpreting
>> as constant and unvarying fact something that is simply a correlation.
>> Some coordinates gain their ability through what Krashen calls
>> "learning", and some compounds gain their second language through
>> acquisition.
>
> Well, I disagree with that. As far as I can tell all coordinates
> get their ability through acquisition, sometimes in conjunction
> with varying degrees of learning. A coodinate bilingual who got
> their ability solely through learning is probably non-existent,
> certainly extremely rare. I'd have to reread Krashen but I believe
> the experimental evidence supports this. As far as compounds and
> acquisition, there is also a complicating factor of psychological
> motivation for learning the language, which seems to have a very
> significant effect on what kind of language input gets accepted by
> the student for the purpose of acquisition.

Well, as I said, I'm not an expert. The thesis I read seems to
suggest pretty clearly that there are coordinates who got their
ability through what Krashen calls learning. I won't argue with
evidence. I have none to present, and to some extent don't really
care. I'm merely passing on what I found. If you have evidence
that no coordinates ever gain their ability through what Krashen
calls learning, then I find that interesting.

>> Further, I didn't say that these things require SWH to
>> explain them, I meant that I believe a form of SWH to be
>> true (although possibly not the form S or W would originally
>> have expounded) and that the findings I have to hand are
>> what I would've predicted.
>
> But if the evidence can be explained completely adequately
> without any recourse to SWH then by Occam's razor we would
> tend to discount SWH, until we get some other data that can't
> be explained in another way.

Just because it isn't required by the current evidence does not
suggest it isn't true. I believe this to be a common misuse of
Occam's razor. That's a philosophical point, though, almost an
article of faith, rather than science. The formal evidence I've
seen is consistent with SWH, and my personal experience in these
things persuades me to believe a form of the SWH, and I haven't
seen any convincing evidence contradicting it, so I will continue
for now to make predictions with it. So far my predictions have
proven to be correct.

All informal, of course. This isn't my field. However, I'm off
to bed to see what the morning brings when my brain is clearer.

--
Denbridge Marine Limited may monitor email traffic data and the
content of email for the purposes of security and staff training.

Denbridge Marine Limited.
Registered in England and Wales at DSG, 43 Castle St, Liverpool. L2 9TL.
Registered Number 4850477

To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 23:51, Colin Wright <
colin.wright@denbridgemarine.com> wrote:

> I've lost your point. Yes, you can put a definition in something
> other than a "dictionary". I simply pointed out that I didn't
> mention dictionaries, you did.

My point is that all definitions are essentially the same as dictionary
definitions (which is why I added that word), and that the word's usage
comes first and the definition afterwards, and even the most deftailed
definition captures only a pale shadow of the word's usage.

> Well, as I said, I'm not an expert.

I am hardly an expert either.

> The thesis I read seems to
> suggest pretty clearly that there are coordinates who got their
> ability through what Krashen calls learning. I won't argue with
> evidence. I have none to present, and to some extent don't really
> care. I'm merely passing on what I found. If you have evidence
> that no coordinates ever gain their ability through what Krashen
> calls learning, then I find that interesting.
>

I will have to look at it more closely. That is what I recall from the last
time I read Krashen.

Just because it isn't required by the current evidence does not
> suggest it isn't true. I believe this to be a common misuse of
> Occam's razor. That's a philosophical point, though, almost an
> article of faith, rather than science.

In some sense, you're right. But in the absence of evidence that needs a
certain hypothesis to be explained, there is not much point in entertaining
the hypothesis.

> The formal evidence I've
> seen is consistent with SWH, and my personal experience in these
> things persuades me to believe a form of the SWH, and I haven't
> seen any convincing evidence contradicting it, so I will continue
> for now to make predictions with it. So far my predictions have
> proven to be correct.

I guess that this makes me realize that my basic problem with SWH is that it
is essentially impossible to learn a language without also learning the
culture that typically uses it (the well known problem of separating the
two), and I also strongly suspect that if there do exist such things as SWH
effects, it is impossible with our current state of linguistic and cognitive
knowledge to deliberately engineer such effects. If there were to develop
from the current nascent Lojban community a speech community whose primary
spoken language is Lojban, any SWH effects that that community's language
would exhibit would be nearly identical to the SWH effects displayed by
English.

I suspect that if SWH effects exist, they are related to the typical
categories and metaphors, etc, that speakers use (a woefully inadequate
half-sentence way of describing it), and not to much that you will find
described in a complete grammar, but at that point it's not clear how much
these effects are "language" and how much they are "culture". I believe, for
example, that almost all "SWH" effects that might exist could be displayed
just as well if the culture in question were to dictionaries, but would
still use the new language in a subtly different way.

--
Adam Raizen <adam.raizen@gmail.com>
Timendi causa est nescire.

In a message dated 8/26/2009 16:12:11 Eastern Daylight Time,
colin.wright@denbridgemarine.com writes:

> I find his usage very Humpty Dumpty. He's created definitions
> of common words, such definitions being at odds with my natural
> usage. I'll use them, but I deplore his usage.
>

What do you mean by "very Humpty Dumpty"? Please paraphrase this in more
literal terms.

stevo

In a message dated 8/26/2009 17:35:15 Eastern Daylight Time,
adam.raizen@gmail.com writes:

> My point is that all definitions are essentially the same as dictionary
> definitions (which is why I added that word), and that the word's usage
> comes first and the definition afterwards, and even the most deftailed
> definition captures only a pale shadow of the word's usage.
>

This is precisely the difficulty that NSM overcomes.

stevo

On Wednesday 26 August 2009 15:17:11 Colin Wright wrote:
> Sorry, I don't have the original email(s) on this computer.
> I'm replying from memory.
>
> Someone asked about the difference between coordinate and
> compound bilingualism. There are several references on the
> web found by Google, but this has a clear statement:
>
> http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~haroldfs/540/bilingtl/bilingtl.html

I guess, reading that explanation, that I'm compound between French and
Spanish and coordinate between English and the other two. Could you give some
examples to help me figure out whether that's true? Could I be partway
between coordinate and compound?

Here's one example I can think of. English has lentils, peanuts, peas,
chickpeas, and beans. French has lentilles, arachides, pois, pois chiches,
haricots, et fèves. I'm not sure I could recognize a fève, though I know that
Vicia faba is a fève ("fève" comes from "faba"). Spanish has lentejas,
cacahuates, maní, guisantes, arvejas (sp?), frijoles, alubias, habas,
habichuelas, gandules, y judías, and I don't know what all the differences
are. I know that an haba is a fève, and a gandul is a pigeon pea (whatever
that is), and "cacahuates" and "maní" are synonyms, but there are several
Spanish terms all covered by "haricot". I recently got an email which called
lima beans frijoles. I thought they were habas, but by the genus name they
are frijoles.

Pierre

To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 05:59, <MorphemeAddict@wmconnect.com> wrote:

> In a message dated 8/26/2009 17:35:15 Eastern Daylight Time,
> adam.raizen@gmail.com writes:
>
> My point is that all definitions are essentially the same as dictionary
> definitions (which is why I added that word), and that the word's usage
> comes first and the definition afterwards, and even the most deftailed
> definition captures only a pale shadow of the word's usage.
>
> This is precisely the difficulty that NSM overcomes.
>

You're kidding, right?

--
Adam Raizen <adam.raizen@gmail.com>
Timendi causa est nescire.

I suppose it means "He makes it up as he goes along" or "He defines things according to what he wants to say, rather than to ordinary usage" (cf. JCB)

From: "MorphemeAddict@wmconnect.com" <MorphemeAddict@wmconnect.com>
To: lojban-list@lojban.org
Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2009 9:55:53 PM
Subject: lojban Re: Compound vs Coordinate Bilinguals

In a message dated 8/26/2009 16:12:11 Eastern Daylight Time, colin.wright@denbridgemarine.com writes:

I find his usage very Humpty Dumpty. He's created definitions
>
>of common words, such definitions being at odds with my natural
>
>usage. I'll use them, but I deplore his usage.
>
>

What do you mean by "very Humpty Dumpty"? Please paraphrase this in more literal terms.

stevo

In a message dated 8/27/2009 00:55:55 Eastern Daylight Time,
adam.raizen@gmail.com writes:

> On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 05:59, <<A HREF="mailto:MorphemeAddict@wmconnect.com">MorphemeAddict@wmconnect.com</A>> wrote:
> >> In a message dated 8/26/2009 17:35:15 Eastern Daylight Time, <A HREF="mailto:adam.raizen@gmail.com">
>> adam.raizen@gmail.com</A> writes:
>> >>> My point is that all definitions are essentially the same as
>>> dictionary definitions (which is why I added that word), and that the word's
>>> usage comes first and the definition afterwards, and even the most deftailed
>>> definition captures only a pale shadow of the word's usage.
>>>
>>
>> This is precisely the difficulty that NSM overcomes.
>>
>
>
> You're kidding, right?
>

No, I'm not kidding.

stevo

On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 18:33, <MorphemeAddict@wmconnect.com> wrote:
>
> No, I'm not kidding.
>

How does limiting the semantic primitives used in definitions even have a
connection to the problem of definitions not being able to capture all the
details of usage of real words in real languages. Have I completely
misunderstood what NSM is?

--
Adam Raizen <adam.raizen@gmail.com>
Timendi causa est nescire.

In a message dated 8/27/2009 14:50:04 Eastern Daylight Time,
adam.raizen@gmail.com writes:

> How does limiting the semantic primitives used in definitions even have a
> connection to the problem of definitions not being able to capture all the
> details of usage of real words in real languages. Have I completely
> misunderstood what NSM is?
>

One of the aims of NSM (and a minor one, I think) is to find the semantic
primitives of language(s).
The main aim is to use those primitives in defining non-primitive terms.
This is done with "explications", or scenario-like quasi-definitions that
give much more information about the real meaning of a word than standard
definitions do. These explications also allow comparison of different words, in
particular, synonyms, to see precisely in what way the words' meanings are
different.

stevo

On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 22:53, <MorphemeAddict@wmconnect.com> wrote:

> One of the aims of NSM (and a minor one, I think) is to find the semantic
> primitives of language(s).
> The main aim is to use those primitives in defining non-primitive terms.
> This is done with "explications", or scenario-like quasi-definitions that
> give much more information about the real meaning of a word than standard
> definitions do. These explications also allow comparison of different
> words, in particular, synonyms, to see precisely in what way the words'
> meanings are different.
>

That's on the level of a more detailed definition. It can still capture only
an approximation all the usage in all possible scenarios that any fluent
speaker knows intuitively.

--
Adam Raizen <adam.raizen@gmail.com>
Timendi causa est nescire.

In a message dated 8/27/2009 16:14:43 Eastern Daylight Time,
adam.raizen@gmail.com writes:

> That's on the level of a more detailed definition. It can still capture
> only an approximation all the usage in all possible scenarios that any
> fluent speaker knows intuitively.
>

Perhaps, but NSM does it very much better than standard definitions, which
in many cases (colors, emotions), can't do it at all.

stevo