8 ms·

Learning a second language once you're past 20 is hard. I don't buy this, at least in terms of kids "learn faster". Adults have the benefit of both motivation

by kirse 10y ago

Learning a second language once you're past 20 is hard. I don't buy this, at least in terms of kids "learn faster". Adults have the benefit of both motivation and 20 (or more) years of communication experience, same as how a senior programmer with 20 years under their belt wouldn't find it hard to add another ML-dialect to their tool-belt vs a high-school grad who is learning their first functional language. If anything is "hard" about learning a language as an adult it's the time and priority shift required for immersion. Now soccer, yea I'll give you that one. Or Piano, or whatever other skill where the compound benefit of repeated fine-motor skill practice often pays off.

jessriedel 10y ago
Are you really disputing the overwhelming evidence that second-language acquisition is faster and reaches higher levels of fluency for younger learners? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-language_acquisition#Age https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-language_acquisition#Ag... Researchers fight over the age of the transition (roughly 12) and how sharp it is (~3 years), but the effect is undeniably large.
- coldtea 10y ago
  >Are you really disputing the overwhelming evidence that second-language acquisition is faster and reaches higher levels of fluency for younger learners? Yes, I am disputing it. So? Sorry, but I don't like the "research spoken, everybody shut up" tone. Especially since research is not that conclusive at all. From the very lemma you've posted: "This strict version has since been rejected for second-language acquisition, as some adult learners have been observed who reach native-like levels of pronunciation and general fluency. However, in general, adult learners of a second-language rarely achieve the native-like fluency that children display, despite often progressing faster in the initial stages. This has led to speculation that age is indirectly related to other, more central factors that affect language learning." Or, from another lemma: B. Harley (1986)[24] compared attainment of French learners in early and late immersion programs. She reports that after 1000 exposure hours, late learners had better control of French verb systems and syntax. However, comparing early immersion students (average age 6.917 years) with age-matched native speakers identified common problem areas, including third person plurals and polite ‘vous’ forms. This suggests grammar (in L1 or L2) is generally acquired later, possibly because it requires abstract cognition and reasoning. Also showing different strengths in different areas of learning between kids and adults: They found that native-English speakers who learned German as adults were disadvantaged on certain grammatical tasks but performed at near-native levels on lexical tasks. These findings are consistent with work by Hahne (2001, cited in Scherag et al., 2004).
  - jessriedel 10y ago
    Someone's anecdotal experience and laymen theorizing is next to useless compared to data. Likewise for cherry picking studies out of a large body of literature. > This strict version has since been rejected for second-language acquisition, as some adult learners have been observed who reach native-like levels of pronunciation and general fluency. Huh? This doesn't make the research any less conclusive, or support the GP's point. It's like saying the existence of players like Muggsy Bogues makes the thesis "height is extremely important for profession baseketball" less conclusive.
    - 2109302 10y ago
      You don't cite any data, you are just waving a degree that anyone can obtain. But the "unruly hackers" here are always on the side of the status quo ...
    - coldtea 10y ago
      >Someone's anecdotal experience and laymen theorizing is next to useless compared to data. Data are next to useless without proper interpretation of what they mean. And even before that, we must assume that the data are correctly collected and relevant. And something like 80% of research papers have been found in meta-studies to be non reproducible, to the extend that scientists speak of a "reproducibility crisis". So, unless we're talking about hard core sciences, like physics and the like, where things are testable with actual experimental apparatus and hard numbers (and even there, I wouldn't go into speculative stuff like String theory), I'd take any society/psychology/physiology related study with lots of grains of salt. Up until the 80s it was "scientific fact" that being gay was a abnormal mental condition -- supported by scientific papers and literature. Or take the dietary (the official scientific dietary advice) over various decades, and how it made a u-turn regarding fat, etc. Computer Scientists that are driven to science should not take into much account pseudo-sciences and half-sciences which much of cognitive studies, psychology, sociology etc are.
- 129232372 10y ago
  Indeed, I'm disputing it. If you put an adult under the same conditions as a child (immersed; nothing else to do apart from learning the language; everyone falls over themselves to explain things to you), I bet almost anyone would learn faster than the child. I've learned languages in less than two years after moving to other countries. Just watching TV with subtitles helps a lot for the mundane vocabulary. I find it a complete myth that children learn very fast. Objectively, they are quite slow learners.
  - jessriedel 10y ago
    So your evidence is your anecdotal experience?
    - hgmeyers 10y ago
      And your evidence is what? A proper study would require at least the following: 1) Take 40 random adults, give them a 5 year paid vacation with a job guarantee after the experiment. 2) Give each of those adults a nanny who is available 14 hours a day and is thrilled to repeat words 50 times any time you ask. 3) Give the adults a teacher who praises them profusely just for being able to repeat a goddamn alphabet after 4 weeks or longer. This is obvious to anyone who is not dependent on the academic industrial complex. But go ahead trying to impress people with "studies". Hint: Go through all papers published in the 20th century and see what percentage is relevant, especially in sociology and behavioral psychology. Most papers are useless.
      - hgmeyers 10y ago
        EDIT: And the thread sinks quite rapidly, which is the usual response after an unpleasant term like "academic industrial complex" is mentioned.
  - dang 10y ago
    Please don't create many obscure throwaway accounts; we ban those. HN is a community. Anonymity is fine, but users should have some consistent identity that other users can relate to. Otherwise we may as well have no usernames and no community, and that would be an entirely different forum.
- sn9 10y ago
  That kids can learn languages quickly with not much more than consistent exposure during their critical periods is pretty clear. That adults can learn languages more quickly is a different question than that of critical periods. Adults don't have that critical period to lean on, but there are efficient ways to learn languages for people who have long been outside of that critical period that can allow adults, with their own cognitive strengths, to quickly master a language to a given level of fluency at a quicker pace than children. There are entire online communities of polyglots that regularly practice these techniques and many of them didn't learn their first second language until well into adulthood.

by kirse 10y ago

jessriedel 10y ago

Are you really disputing the overwhelming evidence that second-language acquisition is faster and reaches higher levels of fluency for younger learners? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-language_acquisition#Age https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-language_acquisition#Ag... Researchers fight over the age of the transition (roughly 12) and how sharp it is (~3 years), but the effect is undeniably large.

coldtea 10y ago
>Are you really disputing the overwhelming evidence that second-language acquisition is faster and reaches higher levels of fluency for younger learners? Yes, I am disputing it. So? Sorry, but I don't like the "research spoken, everybody shut up" tone. Especially since research is not that conclusive at all. From the very lemma you've posted: "This strict version has since been rejected for second-language acquisition, as some adult learners have been observed who reach native-like levels of pronunciation and general fluency. However, in general, adult learners of a second-language rarely achieve the native-like fluency that children display, despite often progressing faster in the initial stages. This has led to speculation that age is indirectly related to other, more central factors that affect language learning." Or, from another lemma: B. Harley (1986)[24] compared attainment of French learners in early and late immersion programs. She reports that after 1000 exposure hours, late learners had better control of French verb systems and syntax. However, comparing early immersion students (average age 6.917 years) with age-matched native speakers identified common problem areas, including third person plurals and polite ‘vous’ forms. This suggests grammar (in L1 or L2) is generally acquired later, possibly because it requires abstract cognition and reasoning. Also showing different strengths in different areas of learning between kids and adults: They found that native-English speakers who learned German as adults were disadvantaged on certain grammatical tasks but performed at near-native levels on lexical tasks. These findings are consistent with work by Hahne (2001, cited in Scherag et al., 2004).
- jessriedel 10y ago
  Someone's anecdotal experience and laymen theorizing is next to useless compared to data. Likewise for cherry picking studies out of a large body of literature. > This strict version has since been rejected for second-language acquisition, as some adult learners have been observed who reach native-like levels of pronunciation and general fluency. Huh? This doesn't make the research any less conclusive, or support the GP's point. It's like saying the existence of players like Muggsy Bogues makes the thesis "height is extremely important for profession baseketball" less conclusive.
  - 2109302 10y ago
    You don't cite any data, you are just waving a degree that anyone can obtain. But the "unruly hackers" here are always on the side of the status quo ...
  - coldtea 10y ago
    >Someone's anecdotal experience and laymen theorizing is next to useless compared to data. Data are next to useless without proper interpretation of what they mean. And even before that, we must assume that the data are correctly collected and relevant. And something like 80% of research papers have been found in meta-studies to be non reproducible, to the extend that scientists speak of a "reproducibility crisis". So, unless we're talking about hard core sciences, like physics and the like, where things are testable with actual experimental apparatus and hard numbers (and even there, I wouldn't go into speculative stuff like String theory), I'd take any society/psychology/physiology related study with lots of grains of salt. Up until the 80s it was "scientific fact" that being gay was a abnormal mental condition -- supported by scientific papers and literature. Or take the dietary (the official scientific dietary advice) over various decades, and how it made a u-turn regarding fat, etc. Computer Scientists that are driven to science should not take into much account pseudo-sciences and half-sciences which much of cognitive studies, psychology, sociology etc are.
129232372 10y ago
Indeed, I'm disputing it. If you put an adult under the same conditions as a child (immersed; nothing else to do apart from learning the language; everyone falls over themselves to explain things to you), I bet almost anyone would learn faster than the child. I've learned languages in less than two years after moving to other countries. Just watching TV with subtitles helps a lot for the mundane vocabulary. I find it a complete myth that children learn very fast. Objectively, they are quite slow learners.
- jessriedel 10y ago
  So your evidence is your anecdotal experience?
  - hgmeyers 10y ago
    And your evidence is what? A proper study would require at least the following: 1) Take 40 random adults, give them a 5 year paid vacation with a job guarantee after the experiment. 2) Give each of those adults a nanny who is available 14 hours a day and is thrilled to repeat words 50 times any time you ask. 3) Give the adults a teacher who praises them profusely just for being able to repeat a goddamn alphabet after 4 weeks or longer. This is obvious to anyone who is not dependent on the academic industrial complex. But go ahead trying to impress people with "studies". Hint: Go through all papers published in the 20th century and see what percentage is relevant, especially in sociology and behavioral psychology. Most papers are useless.
    - hgmeyers 10y ago
      EDIT: And the thread sinks quite rapidly, which is the usual response after an unpleasant term like "academic industrial complex" is mentioned.
- dang 10y ago
  Please don't create many obscure throwaway accounts; we ban those. HN is a community. Anonymity is fine, but users should have some consistent identity that other users can relate to. Otherwise we may as well have no usernames and no community, and that would be an entirely different forum.
sn9 10y ago
That kids can learn languages quickly with not much more than consistent exposure during their critical periods is pretty clear. That adults can learn languages more quickly is a different question than that of critical periods. Adults don't have that critical period to lean on, but there are efficient ways to learn languages for people who have long been outside of that critical period that can allow adults, with their own cognitive strengths, to quickly master a language to a given level of fluency at a quicker pace than children. There are entire online communities of polyglots that regularly practice these techniques and many of them didn't learn their first second language until well into adulthood.