4 ms·

Due to past research it has become accepted fact that children learn languages faster. However there has been a lot of research lately that has shown this to b

by aik 15y ago

Due to past research it has become accepted fact that children learn languages faster. However there has been a lot of research lately that has shown this to be false. So sorry I don't believe this is simply a motivational tool (however even so, belief that you innately don't have a particular ability often leads to self-limiting behavior). I agree though that a language learned at childhood more easily sticks with you than one learned later in life. This makes sense for a number of reasons. However this is a completely different topic than one's ability learn a language. Just curious -- how many years did you spend immersed in Greek? In addition, speaking Greek 5-6 times a year is great. If you changed that to 0 times a year, I can assure you that your ability to speak it would dissipate. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128224.000-age-no-excuse-for-failing-to-learn-a-new-language.html http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128224.000-age-no-ex... http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/06/050615060545.htm http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/06/050615060545.ht...

david927 15y ago
That research hasn't yet made the grade. You'll constantly find articles that state "some linguists" are doubting the Critical Period Hypothesis [1], just as you'll find doubts for many hypothesis, but it's quite well accepted within the linguistic field. And if you talk to people that have been deeply exposed to language acquisition, like "drzaiusapelord" above (and ignore the spirited Redditors who went to Japanese class a couple times), you'll find that it holds. Language is fascinating and with immersion and other techniques can get to 99%. But if you didn't hear it and speak it at 6, you'll never get it like a native speaker. Here's a great example: I worked in Berlin for a Jewish woman who moved to America when she was 5. She didn't speak any English, only German, at the time. When she came back to Germany at 15, she had to learn German from scratch (completely from scratch). She was 50 when I worked for her and her German was flawless, but my German friends said that she occasionally made the tiniest of mistakes which made it clear she wasn't a mother-tongue speaker. She didn't make such mistakes in English. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_Period_Hypothesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_Period_Hypothesis

by aik 15y ago

david927 15y ago

That research hasn't yet made the grade. You'll constantly find articles that state "some linguists" are doubting the Critical Period Hypothesis [1], just as you'll find doubts for many hypothesis, but it's quite well accepted within the linguistic field. And if you talk to people that have been deeply exposed to language acquisition, like "drzaiusapelord" above (and ignore the spirited Redditors who went to Japanese class a couple times), you'll find that it holds. Language is fascinating and with immersion and other techniques can get to 99%. But if you didn't hear it and speak it at 6, you'll never get it like a native speaker. Here's a great example: I worked in Berlin for a Jewish woman who moved to America when she was 5. She didn't speak any English, only German, at the time. When she came back to Germany at 15, she had to learn German from scratch (completely from scratch). She was 50 when I worked for her and her German was flawless, but my German friends said that she occasionally made the tiniest of mistakes which made it clear she wasn't a mother-tongue speaker. She didn't make such mistakes in English. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_Period_Hypothesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_Period_Hypothesis