4 ms·

That doesn't change the fact that during the critical period people are muuuuch better at acquiring language than after. Moreover, while people are fairly equal

That doesn't change the fact that during the critical period people are muuuuch better at acquiring language than after. Moreover, while people are fairly equal in their ability to acquire a language during the critical period, there is _much_ more variance in ability, all else being equal, after the critical period. The science isn't still out on that.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
recuter 6y ago
Maybe they are just much better at not being so easily discouraged. And as for the study: By the end of the training, those participants were 13% better on average.. There's a general feeling that people can't learn the sound patterns of a new language in adulthood, but our work historically has shown that's not true for everyone," Chandrasekaran said. "In this study, we are seeing that tVNS reduces those individual differences more than any other intervention I've seen." "In general, people tend to get discouraged by how hard language learning can be, but if you could give someone 13% to 15% better results after their first session, maybe they'd be more likely to want to continue." Sounds like placebo to me. ROMANES EUNT DOMUS.
- plutonorm 6y ago
  The stimulation is imperceptible
- lgessler 6y ago
  I think it's hard to bring this study to bear on the critical period hypothesis in toto since its scope is narrow in both time and grammatical breadth (just sound production, and no other parts of comprehension or production), so we should maybe leave that aside. You're right that the critical period hypothesis is still not settled, but let's go back to your proposal, that anyone who's immersed and motivated enough will be able to acquire nativelike proficiency. While we're in the realm of anecdotes (since you make reference to your own experience), I witnessed several peers of mine in a months-long language immersion program fall behind others in the program by quite a margin, with (IMO) little hope of nativelike proficiency even with months more of intensive classes, despite apparent motivation (sometimes much more than the better performers) and 24/7 immersion in the target language. Going beyond anecdotes now, let's consider results from the literature against the assumption that if only adults could not be so easily discouraged they would be able to attain more nativelike proficiency. In that case, we'd expect at least a few places in time and space to have second language learners who do a phenomenal job of acquiring the target language, yet as far as I know that's never been found in the literature. Birdsong[0] reports that the range of attested rates of nativelike proficiency in L2 learners is between 5% and 25%. Moreover, there's a wealth of literature that documents in detail the specific ways in which language acquisition mechanisms falter beginning around age 6[1], which is in line with the suggestion that nativelike proficiency becomes progressively harder with age. Neither of these results pushes your suggestion beyond plausibility, of course, but it does seem to me like the preponderance of evidence is on one side. If you know of any studies with findings that support the idea that motivation can be a decisive factor in acquiring nativelike proficiency in a second language I'd be really interested to see them. [0]: 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/(... [1]: https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/44488300.pdf?casa_token=YS2OKj08pwUAAAAA:2lw0ukUSquDhgXDK1nwsNKgpr8iKG3wYlGc4Noj-JuTEx8asUfPrsGA1aitlrALTGaplVv7Uvh2xACytBdIf48CTqvb7pqlmnPBp6ELe3kdHzQdCTlc https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/44488300.pdf?casa_token=YS2...
  - recuter 6y ago
    > In that case, we'd expect at least a few places in time and space to have second language learners who do a phenomenal job of acquiring the target language, yet as far as I know that's never been found in the literature. Respectfully, your literature is gobbledygook. :) If the preponderance of evidence is on one side perhaps the academic researches need to get out more and collect better evidence. I suggest as a start going to touristy places in developing countries (SEA, Peru, 'etc) where the guides are economically incentivised to speak half a dozen languages. I've encountered this sort of person over and over. They simply had to learn, as adults, and so they did. Bet you'd learn French too if you worked for tips and your kid was hungry tout de suite! And as for literature, try cracking a few books open from previous centuries that involved extensive travel for the author.
    - bynormous 6y ago
      I was intrigued in your experience as a polygot and was buying your arguments until I read your suggestion to listen to guides then that completely reversed it because almost all the many many guides I've had are definitely not fluent in their non-native language in the same way children gain fluency. Most have broken language in the same way older immigrants have broken language despite the fact that are forced to navigate in their adopted language full-time.
      - recuter 6y ago
        Have to start your search somewhere. Watch out for an older distinguished-looking gentleman giving proper tours, not the fellows that accost you at the exit of the bus/train station with a few simple sentences. If I was a researcher with no travel budget I'd try cross referencing a list of medium-small touristy towns (like Cusco) with decades that had upticks in tourism and a very bad local economy. Narrow it down to above-average income college grads and start asking them if they are or know of a polyglot. Can probably get pretty far with nothing but Facebook. Just a guess, maybe I'm wrong about this pattern. Let me know what you find out. ;) Edit: I was also intrigued by your comment until I read "in the same way older immigrants have broken language" - this is indeed the common but rather narrow experience. I don't think I'll be able to convince you of anything. Best assume you are corresponding with the Loch ness monster.
strogonoff 6y ago
Variance in language-learning ability after the so-called “critical period” can be to large extent explained by increase in its optionality. As a child you really have no option but to learn your first language. The entire environment around you screams “learn the language” every hour of every day. People around you are incessantly encouraging you to learn it. When you’re an adult, it’s very optional for obvious reasons. In fact, certain social dynamics might actively discourage one from learning a new language. (Bear in mind the difference between first- and higher-order volition. The former does not readily lend itself to conscious control and is probably impossible to measure—merely spending large amounts of time on learning a language is not a reliable indicator.)
ordu 6y ago
> That doesn't change the fact that during the critical period people are muuuuch better at acquiring language than after. I don't know about direct comparison of abilities of an adult and a child. The trouble is: child does nothing but learning, not just language, but he/she has a lot of daily practice. At the same time adult learning a language could spend a few hours per week learning, forgetting about the language at all other times. This difference itself might explain differences in outcome, there is no need to invent one more reason like "critical period" for the explanation. To learn language child needs ~3 years. Give me 3 years of learning language for 5 hours per day, I'll learn it no worse than a child or even better.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

recuter 6y ago

Maybe they are just much better at not being so easily discouraged. And as for the study: By the end of the training, those participants were 13% better on average.. There's a general feeling that people can't learn the sound patterns of a new language in adulthood, but our work historically has shown that's not true for everyone," Chandrasekaran said. "In this study, we are seeing that tVNS reduces those individual differences more than any other intervention I've seen." "In general, people tend to get discouraged by how hard language learning can be, but if you could give someone 13% to 15% better results after their first session, maybe they'd be more likely to want to continue." Sounds like placebo to me. ROMANES EUNT DOMUS.

plutonorm 6y ago
The stimulation is imperceptible
lgessler 6y ago
I think it's hard to bring this study to bear on the critical period hypothesis in toto since its scope is narrow in both time and grammatical breadth (just sound production, and no other parts of comprehension or production), so we should maybe leave that aside. You're right that the critical period hypothesis is still not settled, but let's go back to your proposal, that anyone who's immersed and motivated enough will be able to acquire nativelike proficiency. While we're in the realm of anecdotes (since you make reference to your own experience), I witnessed several peers of mine in a months-long language immersion program fall behind others in the program by quite a margin, with (IMO) little hope of nativelike proficiency even with months more of intensive classes, despite apparent motivation (sometimes much more than the better performers) and 24/7 immersion in the target language. Going beyond anecdotes now, let's consider results from the literature against the assumption that if only adults could not be so easily discouraged they would be able to attain more nativelike proficiency. In that case, we'd expect at least a few places in time and space to have second language learners who do a phenomenal job of acquiring the target language, yet as far as I know that's never been found in the literature. Birdsong[0] reports that the range of attested rates of nativelike proficiency in L2 learners is between 5% and 25%. Moreover, there's a wealth of literature that documents in detail the specific ways in which language acquisition mechanisms falter beginning around age 6[1], which is in line with the suggestion that nativelike proficiency becomes progressively harder with age. Neither of these results pushes your suggestion beyond plausibility, of course, but it does seem to me like the preponderance of evidence is on one side. If you know of any studies with findings that support the idea that motivation can be a decisive factor in acquiring nativelike proficiency in a second language I'd be really interested to see them. [0]: 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/(... [1]: https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/44488300.pdf?casa_token=YS2OKj08pwUAAAAA:2lw0ukUSquDhgXDK1nwsNKgpr8iKG3wYlGc4Noj-JuTEx8asUfPrsGA1aitlrALTGaplVv7Uvh2xACytBdIf48CTqvb7pqlmnPBp6ELe3kdHzQdCTlc https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/44488300.pdf?casa_token=YS2...
- recuter 6y ago
  > In that case, we'd expect at least a few places in time and space to have second language learners who do a phenomenal job of acquiring the target language, yet as far as I know that's never been found in the literature. Respectfully, your literature is gobbledygook. :) If the preponderance of evidence is on one side perhaps the academic researches need to get out more and collect better evidence. I suggest as a start going to touristy places in developing countries (SEA, Peru, 'etc) where the guides are economically incentivised to speak half a dozen languages. I've encountered this sort of person over and over. They simply had to learn, as adults, and so they did. Bet you'd learn French too if you worked for tips and your kid was hungry tout de suite! And as for literature, try cracking a few books open from previous centuries that involved extensive travel for the author.
  - bynormous 6y ago
    I was intrigued in your experience as a polygot and was buying your arguments until I read your suggestion to listen to guides then that completely reversed it because almost all the many many guides I've had are definitely not fluent in their non-native language in the same way children gain fluency. Most have broken language in the same way older immigrants have broken language despite the fact that are forced to navigate in their adopted language full-time.
    - recuter 6y ago
      Have to start your search somewhere. Watch out for an older distinguished-looking gentleman giving proper tours, not the fellows that accost you at the exit of the bus/train station with a few simple sentences. If I was a researcher with no travel budget I'd try cross referencing a list of medium-small touristy towns (like Cusco) with decades that had upticks in tourism and a very bad local economy. Narrow it down to above-average income college grads and start asking them if they are or know of a polyglot. Can probably get pretty far with nothing but Facebook. Just a guess, maybe I'm wrong about this pattern. Let me know what you find out. ;) Edit: I was also intrigued by your comment until I read "in the same way older immigrants have broken language" - this is indeed the common but rather narrow experience. I don't think I'll be able to convince you of anything. Best assume you are corresponding with the Loch ness monster.

strogonoff 6y ago

Variance in language-learning ability after the so-called “critical period” can be to large extent explained by increase in its optionality. As a child you really have no option but to learn your first language. The entire environment around you screams “learn the language” every hour of every day. People around you are incessantly encouraging you to learn it. When you’re an adult, it’s very optional for obvious reasons. In fact, certain social dynamics might actively discourage one from learning a new language. (Bear in mind the difference between first- and higher-order volition. The former does not readily lend itself to conscious control and is probably impossible to measure—merely spending large amounts of time on learning a language is not a reliable indicator.)

ordu 6y ago

> That doesn't change the fact that during the critical period people are muuuuch better at acquiring language than after. I don't know about direct comparison of abilities of an adult and a child. The trouble is: child does nothing but learning, not just language, but he/she has a lot of daily practice. At the same time adult learning a language could spend a few hours per week learning, forgetting about the language at all other times. This difference itself might explain differences in outcome, there is no need to invent one more reason like "critical period" for the explanation. To learn language child needs ~3 years. Give me 3 years of learning language for 5 hours per day, I'll learn it no worse than a child or even better.