Re[4]: [tied] Glen, regarding...

At 2:06:29 PM on Saturday, October 11, 2003, Patrick C. Ryan
wrote:

> From: "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...>

>> At 3:25:45 PM on Friday, October 10, 2003, Patrick C.
>> Ryan wrote:

[...]

>>> [PCR] The effort is expended by the correcters.

>> To very little effect; that simply isn't how children learn
>> language. This is both well-known and readily observable.

> <PCR>Whether peers or parents do the correcting, that
> is how children attain correct replication.

I said nothing about peers doing any correcting.

> Your premise is not "well-known" or "readily observable".

On the contrary, it is both.

> What would be the incentive for the child to correct his
> replication if not disapproval and ridicule?

You really can't think of any? How sad. Let's see:

* A desire to be understood.
* A desire to fit in, to belong.
* Pleasure in a sense of competence. (The child
frequently knows perfectly well that its pronunciation
isn't right; look up the _fis_ phenomenon.)

(And why would you, of all people, expect disapproval and
ridicule to be particularly effective?!)

>>> In the imperfectly replicating population, obviously, by
>>> definition, newborn infants will not be regularly
>>> corrected, and no great effort will be necessary.

>> In fact young kids make all sorts of mistakes even if
>> their parents are fluent native speakers. They may say
>> 'cimmanon' for 'cinnamon', or 'pasketti' for 'spaghetti';
>> they may say 'singed' for 'sang'; they may substitute
>> /t-/ for /f-/ (e.g., 'tunny' for 'funny'). I've
>> personally encountered all of these, and the first is
>> actually fairly common. Very often their parents and
>> other adults waste a great deal of time and energy trying
>> to correct these mistakes. Why 'waste'? Because it's a
>> futile exercise: the child will correct the error in his
>> own good time irrespective of the effort expended.

> <PCR>I do not believe that for one minute.

I'm sure that the facts will take appropriate account of
your beliefs.