5 ms·
> Difficult is subjective. You're not responding to the evidence presented in this thread that there is evidence that some aspects of language learning is obje
by jcranmer 5y ago
> Difficult is subjective.
You're not responding to the evidence presented in this thread that there is evidence that some aspects of language learning is objectively harder. Specifically:
* There's pretty strong evidence (comparison between literacy rates of children with different native languages) that some languages have writing systems that are harder to learn than others. (I feel obliged to point out that writing is the least important part of language acquisition--after all, writing dates to only ~6,000 years ago, whereas spoken language dates at least 100,000 years ago, possibly earlier. Of course, for most major modern languages, a language learner is equally expected to read/write in it as they are to listen/speak in it)
* There is some evidence, albeit more controversial, that there is a critical age range in which it is far easier to acquire pronunciation of phonemes than learning subsequently.
* Again, there is evidence that some phonemes are physically easier to pronounce than others, discovered in part by the order in which toddlers acquire various speech sounds. If you've got a toddler learning to speak, listen to the sounds he/she can pronounce and also the ones that aren't properly pronounced. I wouldn't attempt to chart out a full objective scale on which phoneme is harder than the other one, but I would be moderately confident in asserting that an Arabic ayin is objectively more difficult to pronounce than an `m' sound.
* I also mentioned evidence that some grammatical features may be more complicated: the developments of lingua francas, or additionally creoles, does suggest that languages used heavily as second language acquisition tend to drop several grammatical features.
(Now I should also addend that just because something is objectively more difficult doesn't necessarily mean that is specifically "hard." It is clearly objectively more difficult to lift a box 2 meters than to do so 1 meter... but that doesn't mean that it's hard to do so.)
- dheera 5y ago> comparison between literacy rates of children I would even go so far as to say that I feel like comparing things like literacy rates (which have very arbitrary definitions) and phoneme acquisition are a very "western" way to analyze a language, and by doing so, Japanese and Chinese seem hard. If they are not analyzed with that kind of logical mindset and rather just "Do people function in society", "can the workings of a complex machine be articulated well" and "Are people able to communicate needs and emotions" I think a very different answer would be seen.
- cehrlich 5y agoAre you seriously trying to argue that literacy is not a requirement for functioning in society?
- pessimizer 5y agoThat's simply a fact that doesn't need to be argued. Lots of English speakers can't read or write well, because English orthography is bad and hard, or because of dyslexia or blindness. They function in society. They can't do everything, but people who aren't plumbers, programmers, or are terrible at math can't do everything either. They work around it. edit: I think the functional illiteracy number in the US is something like 1 out of 6. R. Kelly famously can't read.
- dheera 5y agoNo, I never said that. I said that literacy has a very arbitrary definition. Rather, the act of drawing a hard line between literate and non-literate is a very Western way of analyzing language learning and doesn't scale well past a certain set of languages. By drawing such a hard line you end up with ridiculous conclusions such as that a child needs 12 years to be literate in Japanese. Sure, if you go by your arbitrary definition. You can say that the average kid in an English speaking country needs 18 years before they know what "erudite" and "ostentation" mean if you draw the line there.