How Infants Crack the Speech Code 506
scupper writes "Infants learn language with remarkable speed, but how they do it remains a mystery. New data shows that infants use computational strategies to detect patterns in language, according to UW's Dr. Patricia K. Kuhl in the Nature article "Early Language Acquisition: Cracking the Speech Code" [PMID: 15496861]
Interesting excerpt from the article: 'There is evidence that infants analyse the statistical distributions of sounds that they hear in ambient language, and use this information to form phonemic categories. They also learn phonotactic rules -- language-specific rules that govern the sequences of phonemes that can be used to compose words.'"
Analyse ambient sounds? (Score:4, Insightful)
Or to simplify the vocabulary a little, "copy what they hear the most of".
Cheers,
Ian
The article states that babies learn the same way (Score:5, Insightful)
The question becomes now, can we take this data and apply it to teaching languages?
Not that difficult... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Analyse ambient sounds? (Score:5, Insightful)
Babies are like sponges (Score:3, Insightful)
My point is, I don't think it's for simply learning a language. A baby is like an incredibly sponge of information. Of course they are...they have nothing else to do but just soak in their surroundings and learn. And learn. And learn some more.
In addition to being a bit more receptive to learning (and having nothing better to do), I think the younger mind also learns at a higher rate because they don't have to UNLEARN so much, or go around all the rules they've been taught for the past decade or two. Just soak it in, and you're done.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't believe it... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I think babies learn everything better than adu (Score:5, Insightful)
The conclusion: we should be focusing education during the younger years on areas where youth is an advantage. Children should be brought up multilingual rather than spending years learning it poorly in high school and college. We should care more about art, music and exploration in younger years, even if it means that math and others are pushed back a few years.
Re:Not all infants (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:I think babies learn everything better than adu (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe that a greater focus on language skills earlier in the educational process will yields better results later on because it will provide a better foundation for learning. In other words, science would be much easier to learn with a greater demand of the language.
As far as being multilingual, who decides what the student's second language should be?
Re:Not all infants (Score:5, Insightful)
The one exception I can think of is that the way he pronounces "Abu Gharib" may be a more accurate rendition of the actual Arabic than English-speaking non-phonologists can usually manage. It would indicate a failure to learn English phonology if he was unable to mangle Arabic like everyone else does. (Phonologists, of course, train themselves to say all sorts of things that are unavailable in their native language)
In fact, Bush's main speech issues are that when he pauses, he tends to pause for a long time, and he tends to paraphrase himself to fill up time. It's not hard to understand what he's trying to say because he doesn't speak English well, but rather because he doesn't know what he's trying to say.
Re:I think babies learn everything better than adu (Score:4, Insightful)
Keep in mind your brain is still growing when you are a child. Once you hit the late teens, your brain's done growing, and it has to live with just rewiring its existing neurons to adapt to things quickly.
Children, honestly, are far smarter than adults are - it's too bad that our most brilliant years are wasted due to having extremely limited information. It's also important for parents to realize that their kids are far more capable than they think they are - lack of knowledge should never be construed as lack of intelligence. Parents often tell children "you wouldn't understand" when, in truth, the children probably would understand, possibly even better than the parents.
With these new findings, maybe a super computer can be built with these analytical and statistical skills, then this computer can learn to speak like HAL.
I'm really interested in the idea that children classify things via phoneme classification and statistical analysis. This sounds remarkably like a "universal translator" from Star Trek. I think a lot of work should be done in this area - it could be exceptionally useful in understanding the way communication works, and also the ability of computers to understand human speech.
Re:Doesn't explain (Score:4, Insightful)
Human interaction (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not all infants (Score:3, Insightful)
I just don't understand why making fun of George W. Bush makes you a liberal, a hater of America, a hater in general, a friend of terrorists, or a treasonist bastach.
The guy once said "I know how hard is for you to put food on your family", case dismissed.
Re:I think babies learn everything better than adu (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Doesn't explain (Score:4, Insightful)
Neurosmith Babbler (Score:5, Insightful)
One of the problems in USA is that we tend to push english only. One of the toys that I have found to help defeat the language barriers is Neurosmith's Babbler. Basically, it plays phenomes from several other languages that we lack in English. These are from Spanish, French, and Japanese. It makes a lot of sense.
As to the multiple languages, just ask any coder who knows multiple languages in multiple paradigms. Once you get several languages down esp. with differing paradigms, then it is trivial to pick up more languages. Doing natural languages is no different.
Re:Not all infants (Score:3, Insightful)
I guess the new rule for presidential candidates is no malapropisms, no dyslexia, no gaffes, no speech disorders or impediments of any kind.
Re:The article states that babies learn the same w (Score:4, Insightful)
If you're gonna throw stuff like THAT into the equation, I can point to my 3.5 year old nephew who calls all chihuahua dogs "kitty", and say that it takes 3.5 years for babies to learn. Really, most language learning comes from pure exposure, not explaination. The US Army spent a year teaching me Russian, and we spent less than 20% of our time having the language mechanics explained to us in English. Most of our time was spent reading and conversing.
Essentially, it does take babies longer to learn language than adults because they have no frame of reference to build from. What's amazing is not their ability to learn a language itself, but the apparent ability to "bootstrap" themselves up from nothing via phonetic analysis. Learning a language isn't so impressive as learning what language is.
Re:Don't believe it... (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, native speakers mess up their phonology frequently enough (due to having their mouths full, singing, or something) that people will still understand you perfectly well. But you'll get things consistantly wrong that people who learned as infants only mess up on occasion.
Re:Neurosmith Babbler (Score:5, Insightful)
Back when I was in my rate 20's, one of my roommates was a japanese. He came to CSU to learn engrish and to get a bacheror. For about 3 months, we ate runch. Needress to say, that after 8 years of engrish, he could read at a rever that wourd enabre him to get by. But he courd not understand what was being said. It took more than 3 months of talking day and night before he understood that english has l's. Finally, he could pass his toful tests
Basically, if you can not hear the difference in syllables, then you can not learn.
It is no different than an english speaker learning spanish, japenese, french, German, Russian, arabic, etc.
Re:Not all infants (Score:3, Insightful)
Where from ShieldWolf's comment did you get that notion? All the man was saying was "Bush has a problem communicating." Can't you agree with that statement? We could easily go back and forth on whether Bush has other positive factors that make up for this, or even whether it is important that the president be a great communicator.
Likewise, we can agree that Kerry's sad, droopy face makes him rather uncharismatic. Is that important? Does Kerry have other positive factors to make up for it? That's where reasonable people can disagree. Let's not be so blinded by partisanism that we can't acknowledge self evident deficiencies.
Re:Neurosmith Babbler (Score:5, Insightful)
So since the world is extreamly multilingual, its better for people to be multilingual.
Re:How about children with two native languages? (Score:3, Insightful)
You wont believe how often I had to explain to people, why such a notion is principally not possible.
May I point out, that Scientology, is one of the purpotraitors, that spread this LIE....well what else is one to be expected, from such an organization!