6 ms·

I suspect, but cannot prove, that if an adult who already speaks one language then replicated the child language-learning process by spending a decade utterly i

I suspect, but cannot prove, that if an adult who already speaks one language then replicated the child language-learning process by spending a decade utterly immersed in that new language, surrounded by people who wanted very much to communicate with that adult, and were willing to spend 16 hours a day in that adult's company talking to that adult and trying to communicate... Well, I'd expect that adult to be fluent a lot faster than children manage, and to demonstrate language-learning efforts significantly better than children seem to do. Adults who already speak a language fluently should in many ways be better at learning a language than a child.

foldr 7y ago
A counterexample to this claim is the experience of families moving internationally. It's always the children who pick up the local language faster.
- anbende 7y ago
  Right, but this doesn’t necessarily negate the point as the adults are not immersed to the sane degree as the children. Speaking to each other in their native language. Reading and watching media in their native language etcetera.
  - foldr 7y ago
    I'm not sure why the adults would be "less immersed" in general.
    - EliRivers 7y ago
      I would hazard they deliberately seek out situations in which they can continue to use their native tongue, in which they are already fluent; particulary in terms of employment and social activities. betaby above, an immigrant, suggests this to be the case.
    - ken 7y ago
      Language learning is often frustrating. Adults generally have resources, and can use those resources to avoid exposure. Kids don't, and are forced to learn language to accomplish anything at all.
    - imhoguy 7y ago
      I think adults tend to naturally use past knowledge and experiences to build family comfort zones to preserve native culture. They can stay in touch with past or culturally compatible relationships from native environment (digital nimads). Kids naturally are still developing their worldview and learning how to make relationships thus new culture and language is just an another step in that process.
    - Mikeb85 7y ago
      Because if they're hired for a job despite not knowing a language, that language obviously isn't essential to the job, and they won't be expected to use it.
- EliRivers 7y ago
  I disagree that that is a counter-example, but my disagreement is based entirely on supposition. I would hazard that in those cases, the adults still operate in their own languages as much as they can. The children spend many hours a day in situations where they cannot do so, or where the consequences of language inability are not short-term catastrophic. Schooling, for example. I suspect that in those situations, the adults find ways to continue to operate in their own language, out of necessity; they don't have the luxury of spending several hours a day fumbling their way through basic grammar. Those adults need to work, so they will work where they can continue to use their own language, or at least get by with hand-signals and a hundred words. Often, people moving internationally group together with other immigrants, continuing to operate in their own language and culture. They simply avoid learning.
  - foldr 7y ago
    >Often, people moving internationally group together with other immigrants, continuing to operate in their own language and culture. They simply avoid learning. This certainly does happen. But equally, the adults are often making a much greater conscious effort to learn the local language than the children are, and yet are almost always less successful. I doubt that it is universally the case that the adults are "less immersed" than the children, but it does seem to be almost universally the case that the children acquire the language faster.
    - EliRivers 7y ago
      I cannot disagree with that; what I would suggest is that if the adults spent as much time as the children immersed in the language and the necessity of speaking it, I suspect they would do as well if not better. A few hours a week fumbling with a basic grammar guide is certainly better than a few hours a week immersed and desperate to communicate, but fifty hours a week immersed and desperate to communicate is what the children get and that will always do better than a few conscious hours a week with a basic grammar. When I say "immersed", I don't just mean "surrounded". I mean it's coming at you, deliberately, and it's your only option for communication that you are desperate to engage in, mind spinning and whirring, latching onto constructs and experimenting with them, every human social fibre in your being that demands you communicate and connect with the people around you (and that is a very strong part of being human) driving the desperate urge to learn the fucking language, on the order of 10 to 16 hours a day.
- Mikeb85 7y ago
  Typically because the school they go to is in the local language, and they're motivated to make friends with kids who speak the local language. Often international business is done in English, so there's less incentive to learn.
- garmaine 7y ago
  A counter example to this counter example is the children of diplomats and stationed secret service bodyguards, some of whom I know. The parents pick up the language faster, with greater fluency and less accent.
refurb 7y ago
Exactly. People seem amazed at how fast children pick up language but seem to ignore the fact most kids can’t speak fluently until they are 5+ years old and they spend a lot of time with poor pronunciation and grammar. I would assume an adult who is dedicated to learning a language could get to the same level in 5 years with enough motivation.
sjy 7y ago
Your suspicion is essentially that the critical period hypothesis is false. Linguists have been examining this confounding hypothesis for decades. As usual, most of the research is paywalled, but here's [1] a decent summary of some of the research and evidence as of 1999. [1] https://web.stanford.edu/~hakuta/www/research/publications/(1999)%20-%20CONFOUNDED%20AGE%20LINGUISTIC%20AND%20COGNITIVE%20FACTORS%20IN%20.pdf https://web.stanford.edu/~hakuta/www/research/publications/(...

foldr 7y ago

A counterexample to this claim is the experience of families moving internationally. It's always the children who pick up the local language faster.

anbende 7y ago
Right, but this doesn’t necessarily negate the point as the adults are not immersed to the sane degree as the children. Speaking to each other in their native language. Reading and watching media in their native language etcetera.
- foldr 7y ago
  I'm not sure why the adults would be "less immersed" in general.
  - EliRivers 7y ago
    I would hazard they deliberately seek out situations in which they can continue to use their native tongue, in which they are already fluent; particulary in terms of employment and social activities. betaby above, an immigrant, suggests this to be the case.
  - ken 7y ago
    Language learning is often frustrating. Adults generally have resources, and can use those resources to avoid exposure. Kids don't, and are forced to learn language to accomplish anything at all.
  - imhoguy 7y ago
    I think adults tend to naturally use past knowledge and experiences to build family comfort zones to preserve native culture. They can stay in touch with past or culturally compatible relationships from native environment (digital nimads). Kids naturally are still developing their worldview and learning how to make relationships thus new culture and language is just an another step in that process.
  - Mikeb85 7y ago
    Because if they're hired for a job despite not knowing a language, that language obviously isn't essential to the job, and they won't be expected to use it.
EliRivers 7y ago
I disagree that that is a counter-example, but my disagreement is based entirely on supposition. I would hazard that in those cases, the adults still operate in their own languages as much as they can. The children spend many hours a day in situations where they cannot do so, or where the consequences of language inability are not short-term catastrophic. Schooling, for example. I suspect that in those situations, the adults find ways to continue to operate in their own language, out of necessity; they don't have the luxury of spending several hours a day fumbling their way through basic grammar. Those adults need to work, so they will work where they can continue to use their own language, or at least get by with hand-signals and a hundred words. Often, people moving internationally group together with other immigrants, continuing to operate in their own language and culture. They simply avoid learning.
- foldr 7y ago
  >Often, people moving internationally group together with other immigrants, continuing to operate in their own language and culture. They simply avoid learning. This certainly does happen. But equally, the adults are often making a much greater conscious effort to learn the local language than the children are, and yet are almost always less successful. I doubt that it is universally the case that the adults are "less immersed" than the children, but it does seem to be almost universally the case that the children acquire the language faster.
  - EliRivers 7y ago
    I cannot disagree with that; what I would suggest is that if the adults spent as much time as the children immersed in the language and the necessity of speaking it, I suspect they would do as well if not better. A few hours a week fumbling with a basic grammar guide is certainly better than a few hours a week immersed and desperate to communicate, but fifty hours a week immersed and desperate to communicate is what the children get and that will always do better than a few conscious hours a week with a basic grammar. When I say "immersed", I don't just mean "surrounded". I mean it's coming at you, deliberately, and it's your only option for communication that you are desperate to engage in, mind spinning and whirring, latching onto constructs and experimenting with them, every human social fibre in your being that demands you communicate and connect with the people around you (and that is a very strong part of being human) driving the desperate urge to learn the fucking language, on the order of 10 to 16 hours a day.
Mikeb85 7y ago
Typically because the school they go to is in the local language, and they're motivated to make friends with kids who speak the local language. Often international business is done in English, so there's less incentive to learn.
garmaine 7y ago
A counter example to this counter example is the children of diplomats and stationed secret service bodyguards, some of whom I know. The parents pick up the language faster, with greater fluency and less accent.

refurb 7y ago

Exactly. People seem amazed at how fast children pick up language but seem to ignore the fact most kids can’t speak fluently until they are 5+ years old and they spend a lot of time with poor pronunciation and grammar. I would assume an adult who is dedicated to learning a language could get to the same level in 5 years with enough motivation.

sjy 7y ago

Your suspicion is essentially that the critical period hypothesis is false. Linguists have been examining this confounding hypothesis for decades. As usual, most of the research is paywalled, but here's [1] a decent summary of some of the research and evidence as of 1999. [1] https://web.stanford.edu/~hakuta/www/research/publications/(1999)%20-%20CONFOUNDED%20AGE%20LINGUISTIC%20AND%20COGNITIVE%20FACTORS%20IN%20.pdf https://web.stanford.edu/~hakuta/www/research/publications/(...