3 ms·

> People who learn a language past the age of ~13 never achieve native-like phonological competence. You're just making up tautologies. You'll find that peopl

> People who learn a language past the age of ~13 never achieve native-like phonological competence. You're just making up tautologies. You'll find that people over the age of "~13" are not forced by their surroundings to commit 100% to learning a language. You'll also find differences between individuals. > It's also pretty absurd to suggest that people ought to invest large amounts of time attempting to switch from one English accent to another Never said ought, please stop putting words in my mouth. > No need to apologize, I was just pointing out that it's offensive Note that I wasn't apologizing for offending you, rather I was feeling sorry for you that you find offense in a statement which had no judgment in it.

foldr 16y ago
>You'll find that people over the age of "~13" are not forced by their surroundings to commit 100% to learning a language. No, this is a well-established fact about language learning. There is a so-called "critical period" for language acquisition which ends around the onset of puberty (in fact, probably somewhat earlier for phonology). It is essentially impossible for someone over this age to learn to speak a language exactly as a native speaker does. You can search google scholar for academic studies on this. e.g. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=critical+period+phonology&btnG=Search&as_sdt=20000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0 http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=critical+perio... I'm not sure what you find to be "tautological" about the critical period claim. It's an empirical hypothesis that could in principle be true or false (and there is in fact a lot of evidence for its being true). >rather I was feeling sorry for you that you find offense in a statement which had no judgment in it. You have to bear in mind that your posts are being read by people. If you say that someone's accent sounds like a speech impediment, it's hard to read that as anything other than an insult. If you're confused by the fact that people tend to interpret things in this way, then I feel sorry for you.
- georgieporgie 16y ago
  > No, this is a well-established fact about language learning. What exactly is your point, anyway? I think you need to review. I said a person can lose or change their accent, that it's no different than learning a language. You insist, "no! It's nothing like learning a language." But now you seem to be trying to use "it's just like a language" to support your claim that people can't change their accent, because you supposedly can't learn a language properly after the age of 13. So which is it? Is changing your accent like learning a language, or isn't it? If it isn't, why are you talking about studies regarding language learning? Anyway, as for this age of 13 business, I've met a number of people who came to the US as late teenagers to early 20's and learned to speak West-coast American English flawlessly. The only indication they might not be native would be communication issues around metaphors. You can rely on a tautology to excuse yourself from mastering languages and accents if you choose to, but I don't. > If you say that someone's accent sounds like a speech impediment There you go again, I said I can't tell if it's an accent or a speech impediment. You're reading judgment into my words again. > If you're confused by the fact that people tend to interpret things in this way, then I feel sorry for you. The only things here that confuse me are 1) why you insist on misconstruing my statements repeatedly and 2) why you want to randomly start arguing about language learning after you said it's irrelevant to accents.
  - foldr 16y ago
    Yes, changing your accent is like learning a language with respect to the critical period (although much would depend on the extent to which the new accent differed from the old accent). >You insist, "no! It's nothing like learning a language." Ah, this is just a misunderstanding. When I said "No, that's false" a few posts back, I was denying the clause following the "--", not your statement that learning an accent is like learning a language (which I agree with). My point was that complete mastery of a non-native accent is impossible for the same reason that complete mastery of a non-native language is impossible (past age ~13). >You can rely on a tautology What is the tautologous statement supposed to be? As I said before, the claim that there is a critical period for language acquisition is an empirical claim, not a tautology. >Anyway, as for this age of 13 business, I've met a number of people who came to the US as late teenagers to early 20's and learned to speak West-coast American English flawlessly. Perhaps. I know many people who moved to the US before they reached their teens, and all still have detectable non-native accents (though their English is indeed "flawless" in the sense that there is no difficulty in communicating with them). Many of these people are highly educated and would have had every motivation to loose their accent. There may be a few exceptional individuals who can pass for native in ordinary conversation, but they are extremely rare. (I know, for example, a German who might pass for native if you only heard a few sentences.) >There you go again, I said I can't tell if it's an accent or a speech impediment. You're reading judgment into my words again. That's superbly disingenuous. I can't tell if you're being deliberately perverse or if you're just an idiot (no judgment implied).

foldr 16y ago

>You'll find that people over the age of "~13" are not forced by their surroundings to commit 100% to learning a language. No, this is a well-established fact about language learning. There is a so-called "critical period" for language acquisition which ends around the onset of puberty (in fact, probably somewhat earlier for phonology). It is essentially impossible for someone over this age to learn to speak a language exactly as a native speaker does. You can search google scholar for academic studies on this. e.g. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=critical+period+phonology&btnG=Search&as_sdt=20000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0 http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=critical+perio... I'm not sure what you find to be "tautological" about the critical period claim. It's an empirical hypothesis that could in principle be true or false (and there is in fact a lot of evidence for its being true). >rather I was feeling sorry for you that you find offense in a statement which had no judgment in it. You have to bear in mind that your posts are being read by people. If you say that someone's accent sounds like a speech impediment, it's hard to read that as anything other than an insult. If you're confused by the fact that people tend to interpret things in this way, then I feel sorry for you.

georgieporgie 16y ago
> No, this is a well-established fact about language learning. What exactly is your point, anyway? I think you need to review. I said a person can lose or change their accent, that it's no different than learning a language. You insist, "no! It's nothing like learning a language." But now you seem to be trying to use "it's just like a language" to support your claim that people can't change their accent, because you supposedly can't learn a language properly after the age of 13. So which is it? Is changing your accent like learning a language, or isn't it? If it isn't, why are you talking about studies regarding language learning? Anyway, as for this age of 13 business, I've met a number of people who came to the US as late teenagers to early 20's and learned to speak West-coast American English flawlessly. The only indication they might not be native would be communication issues around metaphors. You can rely on a tautology to excuse yourself from mastering languages and accents if you choose to, but I don't. > If you say that someone's accent sounds like a speech impediment There you go again, I said I can't tell if it's an accent or a speech impediment. You're reading judgment into my words again. > If you're confused by the fact that people tend to interpret things in this way, then I feel sorry for you. The only things here that confuse me are 1) why you insist on misconstruing my statements repeatedly and 2) why you want to randomly start arguing about language learning after you said it's irrelevant to accents.
- foldr 16y ago
  Yes, changing your accent is like learning a language with respect to the critical period (although much would depend on the extent to which the new accent differed from the old accent). >You insist, "no! It's nothing like learning a language." Ah, this is just a misunderstanding. When I said "No, that's false" a few posts back, I was denying the clause following the "--", not your statement that learning an accent is like learning a language (which I agree with). My point was that complete mastery of a non-native accent is impossible for the same reason that complete mastery of a non-native language is impossible (past age ~13). >You can rely on a tautology What is the tautologous statement supposed to be? As I said before, the claim that there is a critical period for language acquisition is an empirical claim, not a tautology. >Anyway, as for this age of 13 business, I've met a number of people who came to the US as late teenagers to early 20's and learned to speak West-coast American English flawlessly. Perhaps. I know many people who moved to the US before they reached their teens, and all still have detectable non-native accents (though their English is indeed "flawless" in the sense that there is no difficulty in communicating with them). Many of these people are highly educated and would have had every motivation to loose their accent. There may be a few exceptional individuals who can pass for native in ordinary conversation, but they are extremely rare. (I know, for example, a German who might pass for native if you only heard a few sentences.) >There you go again, I said I can't tell if it's an accent or a speech impediment. You're reading judgment into my words again. That's superbly disingenuous. I can't tell if you're being deliberately perverse or if you're just an idiot (no judgment implied).