6 ms·

I would probably say if you are going to go to learning a third language than you would probably have been better off studying linguistics instead of that secon

I would probably say if you are going to go to learning a third language than you would probably have been better off studying linguistics instead of that second language which will make all language acquisition easier. But hindsight, how many learn a second language with the intent of learning a third or forth? and once you learn that third you probably are going to have a decent intuitive grasp on linguistics even if you can not maintain a discussion with a linguistics major.

eru 4y ago
How is studying linguistics supposed to make language acquisition easier? Linguistics is the academic study of languages. My toddler is learning three languages growing up (English, Mandarin, German). She picks them up just fine, because she hears them spoken around her; I don't think she'd benefit from learning linguistics instead.
- ofalkaed 4y ago
  The same way in that a CS PHD is going to be able to pickup programming languages better and more quickly than someone who has learned C++ and python, they understand the underlying mechanics of language, what makes it work. But a toddler is something different, they primarily mimic and play with the language gauging function on result, how do people react to what I say. Learning languages from a young age is why the OP study shows no cognitive advantage and why people with only a single language tend not to have a good understanding of their language, it is a part of them. But I was mostly speaking of peers, the sort who would be posting on HN, don't think we have many toddlers on the site. Learning multiple languages from a very early age seems to result in the languages being a single language from the perspective of the speaker, they have different situations in which they speak in different ways much like the average monolingual will speak more formally in a job interview compared to when they are out at the bar. Second and third, and etc languages are very different things between those that learned them from the start and those that learn them later in life.
  - version_five 4y ago
    > The same way in that a CS PHD is going to be able to pickup programming languages better and more quickly than someone who has learned C++ and python Huh? This is about as convincing to me as the claim that learning linguistics makes it easier to learn a human language. It's also sort of a non-sequitor. Someone who understands python and C++ would be trivially able to understand a massive swath of modern programming languages. I see little that having some deeper theoretical background would help. And in human languages, even more so than programming, theory is almost irrelevant to regular practice. As the upstream comment says, we learn by practice, not by memorizing and applying rules.
    - ofalkaed 4y ago
      >Someone who understands python and C++ would be trivially able to understand a massive swath of modern programming languages. I see little that having some deeper theoretical background would help. Yes, they will be able to quickly pickup related languages with relative ease just as someone who knows a romance language will be able to pickup other romance languages without much difficulty. But that person who knows C++ and Pynthon with nothing of the underlying workings will have a more difficult time learning assembly, Forth or Lisp than a related language just as the person who knows a romance language will have a more difficult time learning Swahili than another romance language. Not a non-sequitor at all. When you look at CS or linguistics and how they relate to the languages they deal with what they really are are the study of what those languages have in common and understanding that will decrease what you need to learn when learning new languages. Understanding a language and using a language are very different things and this is why toddlers can pickup languages with more ease than others, they do not care so much about understanding, and this is the primary limitation of our first language(s) and why being bilingual offers little cognitive advantage for most people.
  - kelnos 4y ago
    I don't really know much about linguistics or linguists (though I would certainly believe that linguists find picking up new languages easier), but I don't think the analogy holds for a CS graduate. PhD graduates don't have magic in-depth knowledge about programming languages. PhD graduates (in any field, really, not just CS), choose to dive very deeply into a very specific topic in their field. They do not just "go to more CS classes". They spend time becoming an expert on a very narrow topic. And for a CS PhD, that very likely would not be "general principles of programming language design". I would not expect your average CS PhD to be any better at picking up new programming languages than a CS undergraduate. Also, you asserted downthread: > Understanding a language and using a language are very different things and this is why toddlers can pickup languages with more ease than others No, toddlers pick up languages faster than adults because their level of brain development is more receptive to language acquisition. As people age, their brain's change to optimizes learning skills for other tasks, and language acquisition skills usually suffer.
- jacquesm 4y ago
  That's a cool combination.
  - eru 4y ago
    German comes from my side, the rest comes from Singapore.
    - jacquesm 4y ago
      Seeing young kids fluently switch between a bunch of unrelated languages never ceases to amaze me.
jacquesm 4y ago
Where I grew up, a small EU country just knowing the local language would be super limiting. Here we learn Dutch, English, German and French in high school, and I picked up some Polish while living there. I'm not exceptional at all here and I'm nowhere near where someone who studies linguistics is.
- ofalkaed 4y ago
  Sure, and if you learned linguistics you would have been able to pick up those languages more quickly with a better understanding. But like I already said, most should learn languages for pragmatic reasons, what it offers them, not for some vague reasons. I guess my point was that there would be advantage to having people study linguistics in high school instead of a second (or third or whatever) language, give the students the ability to understand language instead of a language that many just forget after highschool. This changes with where you are in the world, some like yourself need more than one language just to get by but I do not think that rules out the utility of learning language in a more foundational/fundamental way.
  - jacquesm 4y ago
    You may well have a point. But: I know several people with a degree in linguistics and while it may help them to have a better idea of the structure and deeper understanding of languages in general it doesn't seem to help them at all in day to day communications with people in other languages. They tend to get hung up at the details of grammar and the finer points of sentence structure whereas what matters is to keep up the flow of information. Function over form any day. You see the same with music: people that know a ton of music theory can be very good musicians. But there are plenty of musicians who have a fairly shallow understanding of the theory but they pick up an instrument and start making music rather than to wonder about the theory behind it. Language and music have a lot in common in that respect, it's perfectly possible to be proficient at either without having a very deep understanding of the theory as long as you are willing to put in the hours, and having that deep understanding is - as far as I've been able to discern - absolutely no guarantee for being good at making music or communicating with other people. It may help some but I doubt that it is the kind of thing that works for everybody in the way that you assert. It's hard enough to get kids to learn a new language, even if it has some direct applicability. Getting them to learn an abstract science which lays a foundation that they then may be able to apply to learning another language may well be one demand too many. Still, for whoever it works it may be worth the extra investment in time and effort.

eru 4y ago

How is studying linguistics supposed to make language acquisition easier? Linguistics is the academic study of languages. My toddler is learning three languages growing up (English, Mandarin, German). She picks them up just fine, because she hears them spoken around her; I don't think she'd benefit from learning linguistics instead.

ofalkaed 4y ago
The same way in that a CS PHD is going to be able to pickup programming languages better and more quickly than someone who has learned C++ and python, they understand the underlying mechanics of language, what makes it work. But a toddler is something different, they primarily mimic and play with the language gauging function on result, how do people react to what I say. Learning languages from a young age is why the OP study shows no cognitive advantage and why people with only a single language tend not to have a good understanding of their language, it is a part of them. But I was mostly speaking of peers, the sort who would be posting on HN, don't think we have many toddlers on the site. Learning multiple languages from a very early age seems to result in the languages being a single language from the perspective of the speaker, they have different situations in which they speak in different ways much like the average monolingual will speak more formally in a job interview compared to when they are out at the bar. Second and third, and etc languages are very different things between those that learned them from the start and those that learn them later in life.
- version_five 4y ago
  > The same way in that a CS PHD is going to be able to pickup programming languages better and more quickly than someone who has learned C++ and python Huh? This is about as convincing to me as the claim that learning linguistics makes it easier to learn a human language. It's also sort of a non-sequitor. Someone who understands python and C++ would be trivially able to understand a massive swath of modern programming languages. I see little that having some deeper theoretical background would help. And in human languages, even more so than programming, theory is almost irrelevant to regular practice. As the upstream comment says, we learn by practice, not by memorizing and applying rules.
  - ofalkaed 4y ago
    >Someone who understands python and C++ would be trivially able to understand a massive swath of modern programming languages. I see little that having some deeper theoretical background would help. Yes, they will be able to quickly pickup related languages with relative ease just as someone who knows a romance language will be able to pickup other romance languages without much difficulty. But that person who knows C++ and Pynthon with nothing of the underlying workings will have a more difficult time learning assembly, Forth or Lisp than a related language just as the person who knows a romance language will have a more difficult time learning Swahili than another romance language. Not a non-sequitor at all. When you look at CS or linguistics and how they relate to the languages they deal with what they really are are the study of what those languages have in common and understanding that will decrease what you need to learn when learning new languages. Understanding a language and using a language are very different things and this is why toddlers can pickup languages with more ease than others, they do not care so much about understanding, and this is the primary limitation of our first language(s) and why being bilingual offers little cognitive advantage for most people.
- kelnos 4y ago
  I don't really know much about linguistics or linguists (though I would certainly believe that linguists find picking up new languages easier), but I don't think the analogy holds for a CS graduate. PhD graduates don't have magic in-depth knowledge about programming languages. PhD graduates (in any field, really, not just CS), choose to dive very deeply into a very specific topic in their field. They do not just "go to more CS classes". They spend time becoming an expert on a very narrow topic. And for a CS PhD, that very likely would not be "general principles of programming language design". I would not expect your average CS PhD to be any better at picking up new programming languages than a CS undergraduate. Also, you asserted downthread: > Understanding a language and using a language are very different things and this is why toddlers can pickup languages with more ease than others No, toddlers pick up languages faster than adults because their level of brain development is more receptive to language acquisition. As people age, their brain's change to optimizes learning skills for other tasks, and language acquisition skills usually suffer.
jacquesm 4y ago
That's a cool combination.
- eru 4y ago
  German comes from my side, the rest comes from Singapore.
  - jacquesm 4y ago
    Seeing young kids fluently switch between a bunch of unrelated languages never ceases to amaze me.

jacquesm 4y ago

Where I grew up, a small EU country just knowing the local language would be super limiting. Here we learn Dutch, English, German and French in high school, and I picked up some Polish while living there. I'm not exceptional at all here and I'm nowhere near where someone who studies linguistics is.

ofalkaed 4y ago
Sure, and if you learned linguistics you would have been able to pick up those languages more quickly with a better understanding. But like I already said, most should learn languages for pragmatic reasons, what it offers them, not for some vague reasons. I guess my point was that there would be advantage to having people study linguistics in high school instead of a second (or third or whatever) language, give the students the ability to understand language instead of a language that many just forget after highschool. This changes with where you are in the world, some like yourself need more than one language just to get by but I do not think that rules out the utility of learning language in a more foundational/fundamental way.
- jacquesm 4y ago
  You may well have a point. But: I know several people with a degree in linguistics and while it may help them to have a better idea of the structure and deeper understanding of languages in general it doesn't seem to help them at all in day to day communications with people in other languages. They tend to get hung up at the details of grammar and the finer points of sentence structure whereas what matters is to keep up the flow of information. Function over form any day. You see the same with music: people that know a ton of music theory can be very good musicians. But there are plenty of musicians who have a fairly shallow understanding of the theory but they pick up an instrument and start making music rather than to wonder about the theory behind it. Language and music have a lot in common in that respect, it's perfectly possible to be proficient at either without having a very deep understanding of the theory as long as you are willing to put in the hours, and having that deep understanding is - as far as I've been able to discern - absolutely no guarantee for being good at making music or communicating with other people. It may help some but I doubt that it is the kind of thing that works for everybody in the way that you assert. It's hard enough to get kids to learn a new language, even if it has some direct applicability. Getting them to learn an abstract science which lays a foundation that they then may be able to apply to learning another language may well be one demand too many. Still, for whoever it works it may be worth the extra investment in time and effort.