You're viewing a single thread.
Hard disagree. I am not a linguist, but did study language acquisition a bit in the context of childhood development and unless the science on the topic has changed dramatically in the last decade, it seems pretty clear that there are physiological differences between child and adult brains that dramatically impacts language learning.
For example, there is a critical age period for being able to distinguish different sounds, something that if not learned during this period may be impossible to ever pick up. This age period is shockingly young; I don't remember exactly but iirc it's less than one year old.
The most well-known example is that in Japanese, R and L are the same letter (their R/L letter sounds like a cross between the two, with a bit of D thrown in). Thus Japanese people have difficulty distinguishing between R and L in English; I personally verified this with a bunch of my Japanese friends (including a number who spoke English very well) and they could not distinguish between "election" and "erection," no matter how clearly I enunciated. However this is far from the only example out there; native English speakers similarly struggle differentiating various sounds in languages from countries like India and China that are clear as day to those speakers. This is not a matter of will or attention or even practice, it's a brain issue.
Given this, I find it highly unlikely that there aren't other elements of language learning that are harder (or even impossible) to properly learn outside the critical window.
This should be taken with a grain of salt, just as yours and op, but neuroplasticity makes arguments like yours shaky (well well well if this isn't gonna turn out to be our old friend dialectics). If children just had a special environment, you'd find the physiological countepart. So unless it's controlled for otherwise, you can't make a one directional proof out of it
Random addition to your post...
There's early/limited studies suggesting the drug valproate, which is used for bipolar and epilepsy sometimes, can re-open the perfect pitch acquisition capabilities of the human brain even if the individual is no longer an infant and has aged past the language acquisition stage of childhood development.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3848041/
Different use of it in an 8 year old girl with language regression: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11230735/
God if I could take a pill and immediately identify jazz chords instead of using my smooth brain I would be the goat of piano. But seriously though it takes so much effort to transcribe advanced chords
This age period is shockingly young; I don't remember exactly but iirc it's less than one year old.
Anecdotally, that sounds hard to believe to me, because I moved from South Korea (which has the same sound ambiguity) to the US at the age of 11 and have no problem at all distinguishing between the two sounds. All of my Korean friends that I had back in middle school also had no issues, even though none of them were born in the US. On the contrary, I've been told at times that I speak Korean with an obvious western accent.
I think the age was around 9 months where some where the majority of neurons get discarded since they're not useful and babies can use them to identify different lemurs for example.
I still think this is not the whole picture. People in their 60s learn languages faster than teenagers because they have more "surface area for knowledge to stick to" if you know where I'm going.
Not to take anything away from babies learning languages. They have to learn to use their tongue, vocal chords and identify sounds at the same time so them being able to use grammar at 2y with vocabulary is as insane feet. Babies also have dedicated regions of the brain for speech but then again, so do adults.
I feel the post makes a valid point. It's harder for the baby to learn a language since they don't know any. An adult in the same situation would most likely be faster because majority of the skills needed to speak a language are already there.
About the accuracy of sounds it'll take some very careful training of the adult like people do with babies. On top of that, I wouldn't underestimate the brain, over a long time such as a year of full immersion the brain is capable of picking up on a lot of things as long as the adult pays attention.
but can't adults learn a second language much faster than a child learns its first? I assume with dedication an adult can reach a fluency of a 10 year old in just a couple of years - where it took the child... ...10 years.
You'd have to be somewhat intensely studying and immersing yourself for two years to speak like a native 10-year old.
I'm not saying if you moved to another country with good motivation to learn the language that it couldn't be done, but I do think you would need to at least immerse yourself in an environment which has the language. Doing duolingo for a couple of years will not net someone the fluency of a native 10-year old.
My parents said I was already speaking when I was one. Not well, but I was. Much sooner than my siblings. So by the age of two-three I could've had some rudimentary conversations, had that language proficiency not been in the underdeveloped mind of my toddler-aged self. I think that's more like the language skill you'd get with two years of not-super-intense studying.
I just did a Google- depending on language, student and other factors, between 600-2500 hours.
That's a very subjective window.
I know a guy who's lived in my country for more than 12 years, and still can't really speak but the most basic sentences, however, it is understandable, because his native language is English, and people like having the chance to practice their English. So despite being immersed and even needing the language, he just hasn't really gotten around to learning it.
That's the difference between language acquisition and learning one as an adult; motivation.
If you don't have any, you're not gonna learn. Kids can lack it totally, and they'll still learn to speak, just as much as they'll learn to walk.
I mean children under 10 can be shockingly fluent. I think their utter lack of life experience can mask their otherwise surprisingly developed language skills.
When you teach a child what a dinosaur is, you have to do a lot more explaining than when you try and teach an adult what a dinosaur is in french - the child isn't just learning a language for those 10 years.
It really amazed me to learn that Spanish uses "b" and "v" somewhat interchangeably.
Personally, I find myself struggling with the difference between the g and ğ sounds, even after somebody with a native language that has both explained it to me.It really amazed me to learn that Spanish uses "b" and "v" somewhat interchangeably.
I'm not sure that's the same scenario, they just have very soft 'b' sounds that aren't plosive like they are in English.
I don't think native Spanish speakers can generally differentiate between them either except by context.
I can't imagine this could possibly generalize enough to significantly counter the original post's claim. Take one little slice out of it, sure, but not much else.
This is easily one of the most interesting comments I have run across on Lemmy. Got any other interesting bits of info for those of us who only speak one language?
Off the top of my head: being multilingual appears to have various benefits for the brain, such as delaying the onset of dementia.
Barely related fun fact about DharmaCurious: there are dozens of videos of my family members holding me up to mirrors as a baby and saying "what's that?" And me replying "that's my erection!" Because I couldn't distinguish l/r as a kid. I couldn't do rs well in general. Took speech therapy classes
Fascinating, i wonder how this affects music arrangement and instrument expression between cultures
If I'm remembering correctly there is an age (younger) where we are more receptive to patterns in regards to LA, but we don't differentiate the language received. "All" input in this stage is valid input that kid brain associates meaning to, which slowly gets weeded out (lost) if you don't use it into adulthood. However, we are all generally speaking, on an even playing field developmentally as we age after that point in regards to learning a new language. Adults just tend to have less free time to devote to learning a new language as a young adult, etc.