3 ms·

> 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 ch

> 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

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).