native level

[daofeishi]

What's more, children certainly do not learn language faster than adults. That's just absurd.

Only if you insist on comparing yourself with toddlers whose brains are still undergoing massive neurological development. Try a 3 year old kid instead. According to Elisabeth Spelke, children enter a vocabulary spurt between ages 3 and 6 where they learn around 5-7 new words a day, and 6 and 12 where they learn on average 10-12 new words per day. That is more than adult learners can consistently achieve in second language acquisition studies, even when the language exposure levels have been higher than for the children. I got these figures from taking a class with Spelke, but they are referred to elsewhere in the literature as well. Steven Pinker, in his book "the Language Instinct", also presents evidence that second language acquisition as an adolescent/grown up is far slower and less receptive than language acquisition in toddlers and young children. I know it is fashionable among many people who study languages to claim that "the claim that children are better learners than adults is a myth", but if you actually look at the data it seems to be true.

[imron]

That is more than adult learners can consistently achieve in second language acquisition studies,

5-10 words a day is typically the level at which I've found I can productively learn new words over a sustained period of time (and it's a number I've recommended to other people in more than one post here). It's interesting to see that's quite close to the numbers you provided as I try to structure my learning around a natural approach. I don't think it's too difficult to maintain this level with a small time commitment per day.

[Silent]

I know it is fashionable among many people who study languages to claim that "the claim that children are better learners than adults is a myth", but if you actually look at the data it seems to be true.

Recently I saw an old BBC documentary where exactly this myth was claimed. Essentially the conclusion was that kids have a big benefit when it comes to pronunciation. When it comes to vocabulary the deciding factor is comprehensible input. With equal comprehensible input adults learn faster. In general children get more comprehensible input they've little else to do than learn/play. Adults tend to have all kinds of chores that puts them at a disadvantage.

[rezaf]

I think that documentary would be worth watching I also don't think that it's very scientific to say that children learn languages faster than adults because there are many factors that should be taken into account and it wouldn’t be a scientific comparison without being more specific. I think probably children have better impulsive abilities whereas adults are more analytical. In my experience adults who have strong analytical abilities can learn most aspects of languages much faster than children (Probably all aspects except for pronunciation which is more of a physical ability). On the other hand about what oneeye mentioned I think the relationship between concept and language is not that simple. Even if you know the concept very well, expressing it in another language is not as easy as just learning some vocabulary. My experience is limited about this but I have seen a few people from other countries with backgrounds in biology or medicine who come to my university and when it comes to expressing medical terms in Chinese all their knowledge can just help them to be just a little bit ahead of other students and most of them even choose to relearn some of the important courses in Chinese. All in all I think 2 years is a joke but a smart person who knows efficient learning methods can probably master general Chinese and some basic academic language abilities in around 10 years.

[Olle Linge]

I might have missed things in the thread (I read pages 7-9 rather quickly), but I have two comments:

First, most people who becomes really good at Chinese really fast don't know how to read and write. I would argue that's quite important if you want to be like a well-educated native. I mean, just learning several thousands of characters would subtract a significant amount of time from that available to actually learn how to talk. Then take into consideration that well-educated natives have some grasp of classical Chinese and language specifically used in writing. I have no problems with people becoming close to native-sounding in daily conversations after one or two years, but I refuse to believe it can be done if equal focus in put on writing.

Second, regarding Mormons. I have a friend who constantly brings up Mormons and keep asking me why they learn so fast and other (mere mortals) don't. I think the answer is quite simple: They're a lot more motivated than the rest of us. I think having a strong motivation to learn Chinese and a force that pushes you ever onwards is essential. Some of these missionaries have a real passion and they do nothing but talk to people for twelve hours a day. When they get home, they practise reading religious texts. Well, I did study a lot when I lived in Taiwan (around 70 hours/week, including class, reading, listening et.) and I talked a lot to natives as well, but I'm simply lazy compared to some Mormons. It's not a matter of particular talent or skill (or, at least they are minor factors), it's about being motivated and spending enough time.

[renzhe]

I know it is fashionable among many people who study languages to claim that "the claim that children are better learners than adults is a myth", but if you actually look at the data it seems to be true.

It is probably true in the sense that adult learners can only dedicate a smaller amount of their time and brain capacity to learning language, because their everyday life is far more complex. This is especially true for kids between ages 6 and 12, who have no worries in their lives, whatsoever.

If you took a group of 6-12 year olds, gave them full-time jobs, made them manage the household finances, deal with mortgage payments, household matters, etc. and let them learn a language on top of that, they will not be learning 10 words per day on average, that is guaranteed.

I don't think that children have a higher capacity for learning languages. I think that this is often the case, though, since their learning environment is simply more conducive to language learning.

[mnanon]

I fully agree with OneEye.

I want to become fluent in Chinese, and I want to know enough Chinese to be able to read information at a postgraduate level. With Chinese, in total I will know four languages which I will be able to converse in and have the ability to read 'complex' articles. In addition, I know two other languages which I can have a basic conversion in and fully understand.

I didn't need 12 years to understand 'complex' French legal writing, nor do I need 12 years to understand 'complex' English legal writing. I hope it is the same for Chinese.

[realmayo]

I don't think that children have a higher capacity for learning languages

I was persuaded by Stephen Pinker's book The Language Instinct that children probably do have a much higher capacity for learning languages.

I think it's well-accepted that as humans develop to adults, not only their bodies change but their brains do too.

Pinker gives lots of plausible evidence for the theory that starting at a very young age the ability to learn language suddenly soars (as the brain develops), and then begins later to tail off.

I wonder if the "this-is-all-a-myth" thing isn't wishful thinking, especially from those advocating "immersion" by trying to learn like a child. I'd suggest that wouldn't work unless you can implant the brain of a two year-old into your head.

[mnanon]

Even if children have it easier, it does not mean it is not achievable at a later age.

http://www.forbes.co...avel-study.html

http://www.scienceda...50615060545.htm

http://pandora.cii.w...acquisition.htm

http://www.nsf.gov/n...stics/learn.jsp

[renzhe]

I think it's well-accepted that as humans develop to adults, not only their bodies change but their brains do too.

I agree. But this does not mean that it is well accepted that this development of the brain harms the ability to learn a language. It is commonly accepted that native-like pronunciation is more difficult to acquire as one ages, but this does not say anything about grammar, vocabulary, composition, etc. In fact, every university has a number of non-native speakers of English who produce much higher quality publications in English than many well-educated native university graduates. Most of them learned it as adults or teens, and have some sort of accent.

I think that it's likely that it changes our ability to learn a language. Some things become more difficult, some become easier, and some need a different approach.

I wonder if the "this-is-all-a-myth" thing isn't wishful thinking, especially from those advocating "immersion" by trying to learn like a child.

You could turn that around and say that claiming that children are better at learning languages is wishful thinking by people looking for excuses for failing to meet their own expectations when it comes to language learning ("old people can't learn, so I don't need to try"). I've met a scary number of such people.

I am not aware of any conclusive neurophysiological evidence either way, as much as I respect Pinker's opinion.

At the end of the day, everyone I've met who could display a "well-educated native level" in a foreign language has put just as much time and effort into it as a well-educated native speaker.

[realmayo]

At the end of the day, everyone I've met who could display a "well-educated native level" in a foreign language has put just as much time and effort into it as a well-educated native speaker.

You really mean that? I suppose that makes sense if you say that a child that has simply and easily picked up fluent, French and Russian in the first ten years of its life has in fact been "putting in" the same amount of study time and effort that it would take a 30-year old Chinese person to get to fluency in those languages.

I guess you could say: it's easier for birds to fly than humans. But humans have built planes!

[renzhe]

You really mean that? I suppose that makes sense if you say that a child that has simply and easily picked up fluent, French and Russian in the first ten years of its life has in fact been "putting in" the same amount of study time and effort that it would take a 30-year old Chinese person to get to fluency in those languages.

The level of fluency of a 10-year old?

Sure. Just give them the same resources, same environment and the same time spent learning. Language skills of pre-adolescents are vastly overrated.

Or just take a 30-year old student who came to Germany when she was 20, and then compare her language skills to those of 10 German 10-year olds, by giving them a 4th grade German literature assignment. I expect her to do no worse than middle of the pack. There are things that the kids will do better, but there are things where she will kick their butts.

[realmayo]

Just give them the same resources, same environment and the same time spent learning.

Sure, as long as you are giving me in return a 30-year old who, as well as learning a new language, is also learning how to walk talk eat drink shit sleep interact read etc etc. Come on....

Why this resistance to the notion that kids are language-learning machines?! It doesn't mean there's no hope for adults, just that the learning methods should be different.

[jkhsu]

Or just take a 30-year old student who came to Germany when she was 20, and then compare her language skills to those of 10 German 10-year olds, by giving them a 4th grade German literature assignment. I expect her to do no worse than middle of the pack.

That's probably not a fair comparison. Why don't you compare the 30 year-old student who came to Germany when she was 20 to the language skills of a 17 year old who came to Germany when he was 7 (assuming he started first grade when he got to Germany). Assuming neither the 30 year old nor the 17 year old had any experience in German before they came to Germany. I think the 17 year old most definitely will have better pronunciation than the 30 year old and I wouldn't be surprised if the 17 year old (now a 10th grader in high school) will have a better command of German than the 30 year old period. If you compared a 40 year old who came to Germany when she was 30 with the 17 year old, the difference would probably be even more drastic.

[rezaf]

All of us are just guessing and none of us has done a scientific experiment on people of different ages but since we are all adults I'd say we should go for "adults have the advantage" so let's not waste our time and start studying to beat the children!

[Silent]

I think the 17 year old most definitely will have better pronunciation than the 30 year old and I wouldn't be surprised if the 17 year old (now a 10th grader in high school) will have a better command of German than the 30 year old period.

I think this is still an incorrect comparison. The key is the same amount of language learning. As one will have a job and all kind of chores to do and the other will have (language) learning as a core business. I think it would be better to compare a 10 year old and a 30 year old living in the same area. Give them equal amount of study time, e.g. an hour a day, and compare their language skills after a year, 5 years or 10 years.

I would not be surprised to see that the adult has reached a higher skill level than the kid.

[renzhe]

Why don't you compare the 30 year-old student who came to Germany when she was 20 to the language skills of a 17 year old who came to Germany when he was 7 (assuming he started first grade when he got to Germany).

I don't think that the result would be any different, to be honest, and I have met quite a few people who immigrated to Germany at that age. If the 30-year old student spends as much time socialising with his fellow German students and actively using German language daily as the 17-year old does over the course of 10 years, then I don't expect the younger one to have any significant advantage in terms of language.

But this is hardly a scientific discussion because neither of us has conducted a proper study with clear objective evaluation criteria. Additionally, each person is different, and has a different environment depending on family, social surrounding, economic class, etc. We're exchanging anecdotes, that's all.

Why this resistance to the notion that kids are language-learning machines?

It's not resistance, really, it doesn't change anything for me in the least.

It's just that it is commonly assumed as a law of nature, but I haven't seen convincing evidence that it is, in fact, correct.

[jkhsu]

If the 30-year old student spends as much time socialising with his fellow German students and actively using German language daily as the 17-year old does over the course of 10 years, then I don't expect the younger one to have any significant advantage in terms of language.

I guess it depends on how you define significant. I still think the 17 year old has a better chance to have a near perfect German accent while the 30 year old most likely will not.

Based on my observations of Chinese / Chinese Americans I have met in the USA: I've met many ethnic Chinese who immigrated to the USA around age 5 or so and have near perfect English accents. At the same time, I haven't met any ethnic Chinese who immigrated to the USA during college years or later who have near perfect English accents, no matter how long they have been in the USA. (This would be American English accents I am talking about). I am not saying this is fact; it's just what I've observed. If anyone can show me a youtube video or something that proves otherwise, I'd love to look at it. However, I can only tell differences if someone is trying to speak in an American English accent.

[jkhsu]

Give them equal amount of study time, e.g. an hour a day, and compare their language skills after a year, 5 years or 10 years.

I would not be surprised to see that the adult has reached a higher skill level than the kid.

What makes you so sure about this? Are you talking about reading, speaking (including pronunciation) or just pure knowledge of vocabulary? I think most of you who think adults do just as well as kids are not thinking about the physical mechanics of speaking / pronunciation and how that changes with age.

What do you think about someone learning piano at the age of say 50 vs someone who started at age 6? Given the same amount of time to practice and given the same amount of skill (neither one is more gifted than the other). Do you really think the person who started at age 50 is going to play piano just as well as the 6 year old after say 8 years of learning? I am sure that some will but for most people, there is a physical limitation from brain to finger reflexes / interaction as they age. This is true for speaking as well.

[renzhe]

I still think the 17 year old has a better chance to have a near perfect German accent while the 30 year old most likely will not.

I think so too (on average). There are both developmental and cultural reasons for this.

But that's just the accent. What about vocabulary, reading and listening comprehension (and at which level!), grammar, ability to use different registers of language (colloquial, formal...)? Even most 17-year old native speakers are awful at some of these things.

We are talking about "well-educated native level". Give both of them a copy of Nietzsche, have them write a five page summary, then evaluate the quality of the writing and how well they understood the concepts.

Have them both translate a newspaper article from their mother tongue into German.

You really think that the 17 year old will do significantly better?