native level

[realmayo]

renzhe, surely you see, your point about visual stimuli is exactly my point! if you deprive a child of language when it's growing up, it won't be able to learn any language properly as an adult. It's during its early years that it needs to learn this stuff.

Fair enough, you don't like imagining or speculating about stuff we can't prove. But aren't you depriving yourself of a lot of current thinking on a vast range of topics, not just linguistics. Gravity is still only a theory....

[renzhe]

1) almost never make mistakes when it comes to tones. If they do, it is usually because they don't know the correct tone. So even they mispronounce some character, you will notice the consistency.

It is quite possible that tonal representation is something that needs to be learned early. Again, no idea, but people who come from tonal languages tend to have an easier time mastering tones when adults.

But I've met people coming from tonal languages (Vietnamese, in this case), get the hang of Mandarin tones very quickly, so you can certainly learn new tonal languages as an adult provided you have an ear for tones. I've also noticed that musicians tend to do better with tones. Julien Gaudfrey, for example.

Generally, I tend to think that the wider your exposure to languages and different language features as a child, the better you will do learning languages as an adult. There are several possible reasons:

- better tuning of the auditory system for a wider range of phonemes (and tones!)

- wider range of produced sounds (muscle memory)

- wider range of grammar constructs you are exposed to

- ability to code switch. This is much more difficult for people who grow up monolingual as they often think in terms of words instead of concepts, and end up translating in their heads

- fewer habits to drop

I have yet to see a person who grew up trilingually have trouble picking up languages as an adult. A friend of mine can converse in 8 (but I was disappointed with her Portuguese recently ) Most of my bilingual (from childhood) friends pick up languages very easily. A Mongolian friend speaks close to perfect German and works as a postdoctoral researcher in a big company -- he grew up in Mongolia, Russia and China, and started learning German at 25. Another friend grew up with English, Greek (native) and German (starting with elementary school), later learned French. He picked up Portuguese in months.

So yes, I do believe that development of the brain during childhood is extremely important. Early learning tends to shape some parts of our brains (though I'd still like to know which parts -- knowledge is always good). Just like with vision -- depriving our brians of necessary stimuli during formative years can lead to problems with certain cognitive functions later in life. Still, no, I don't believe that adults necessarily learn languages more poorly. There are simply so many exceptions out there that a comparison with the human reproductive system is certifiably way out of place.

[renzhe]

renzhe, surely you see, your point about visual stimuli is exactly my point! if you deprive a child of language when it's growing up, it won't be able to learn any language properly as an adult. It's during its early years that it needs to learn this stuff.

Yet, we are not talking about children who were deprived of language while growing up (at least I am not).

We are talking about children who are fluent native speakers in one or two languages and have gone through a regular high-school education, and later try to learn a language as an adult. We expand our native language every day of our lives. New vocabulary, new grammatical patterns, even new accents and pronunciations. It works exactly the same way for new languages. Daofeishi used the word fingerspitzengefühl, which is originally German, and he also knows thousands of advanced scientific words, all learned as an adult. So adults can learn new words just fine.

You can argue that it happens more slowly than it does for a child, and that's fine. But we're not talking about Mowgli being raised by the wolves trying to teach himself Mandarin at the age of 20 with a copy of NPCR and a ChinesePod subscription. ;)

Fair enough, you don't like imagining or speculating about stuff we can't prove. But aren't you depriving yourself of a lot of current thinking on a vast range of topics, not just linguistics. Gravity is still only a theory....

I generally like your posts on here, but this has been slowly getting out of line. I know perfectly well how science works, thank you. No need to chuck me in with creationists.

[anonymoose]

Generally, I tend to think that the wider your exposure to languages and different language features as a child, the better you will do learning languages as an adult.

So what you're essentially saying is that children are able to learn things that adults can't. If the window of opportunity is missed, then that's it. The reason why "the better you will do learning languages as an adult" is because essentially you are relying on skills learnt as a child.

[renzhe]

So what you're essentially saying is that children are able to learn things that adults can't. If the window of opportunity is missed, then that's it.

Not necessarily. It could have other reasons -- such as acquired habits. An adult might be able to learn the same thing, but need to unlearn 20 years of training first, which makes it more difficult, but not impossible.

Still, there is a difference between what you wrote and the popular theory that "adults are worse at learning languages than children", because it would mean that some adults are actually really good at learning languages, and that age is not the main factor, but education and exposure during childhood.

[realmayo]

Well you just seemed surprisingly unwilling to engage with a hypothesis, instead waiting on the brain scans, and you did say "I'd rather not have to imagine", which I (probably mis)took to mean you weren't interested unless there was proof either way. And I had understood that gravity really is just a theory, even after all this time.

You can argue that it happens more slowly than it does for a child

Yes! That's pretty much all I'm saying. I can't really see why it's so contentious. Young children pick up language "naturally", they can't help but learn at least one language. It's much more difficult for adults. The Pinker theory is one explanation for this which I find convincing.

I certainly don't think that this means adults can't learn foreign languages to native-level fluency -- I'm sure they can. There are lots of obvious reasons why more people don't manage that but there's nothing to make it impossible. I just think that comparing the learning process of a two-year old with that of an adult is silly, because in the child the language part of the brain is going through profound structural changes of a nature which simply aren't taking place in the brain of an adult.

But I stress -- I'm never saying that all adults will be crap at learning foreign languages.

[xiaocai]

I do feel that it could easier for a speaker of a tonal language to notice the subtle difference among different tones of another tonal language.

The other thing, I think, is that (well I'm just speculating from what I have observed, so the sample size is actually too small make my observation an evidence) it is relative easier to learn advanced words with very specific meanings than picking up simple words with diverse meanings and use them appropriately in a casual setting. It is kind of like studying classical Chinese, you can reach a very high level of knowledge of it as an adult learner if you study hard enough. However, when two similar poems are presented in front of you, can you instantly tell which one is better written? Or maybe I can stretch it even further, say, for someone has had no previous exposure to certain type of music, and only starts to learn to appreciate it at an adult age, how long is it going to take him/her to be able to identify between two pieces of music of this type, which one is better? Will this person's intuition about this particular type of music eventually reach the same level as someone who has been taught about it since very young?

[anonymoose]

Still, there is a difference between what you wrote and the popular theory that "adults are worse at learning languages than children", because it would mean that some adults are actually really good at learning languages, and that age is not the main factor, but education and exposure during childhood.

Isn't that what you were arguing?

[renzhe]

Yes, I have been arguing that some adults are actually really good at learning languages, and that age is not the main factor in adults' ability to learn new languages.

[jkhsu]

There are literally millions of people out there who can speak English at this level. They are often not given the credit due to their accent...

If you attend a research conference in any field, you will meet plenty. Many foreign-born lecturers at UK universities fit the description.

While English is easiier to learn than Chinese, I think that assuming native level conversational fluency is somehow a given just because someone can give lectures and knows a lot of vocab is flawed. Remember, I was referring to adult learners of English who (1) had no previous exposure to the language and (2) came from a language background that is unrelated to English.

More than half of my college professors and teacher's assistants (grad students) came from outside of the USA and spoke with an accent. While I can understand their lectures and can communicate with them, I could definitely tell the difference when compared to talking with my English language professors who are natives of English speaking countries (yes, we still have to take English in college here).

Is it common for someone who learned English as an adult to get by perfectly fine in an English speaking country? Yes. Look at Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Is it common for someone, who learned English as an adult with no previous exposure to English and with no knowledge of any other language close to English, to achieve the exact native level conversational fluency as a native who spent their entire life speaking English? No. (I am not sure when Arnold Schwarzenegger started learning English but I think his native language is closer to English than Chinese? Plus, I still wouldn't put him in the same category as a native English speaker. I don't think it would be fair to native English speakers.)

1) almost never make mistakes when it comes to tones. If they do, it is usually because they don't know the correct tone. So even they mispronounce some character, you will notice the consistency.

Your parents are Chinese? I've met old folks from rural areas in China who spoke Mandarin with a heavy accent but their tones are perfect. I'm guessing it's because they learned Mandarin by speaking and listening. I don't think they ever learned a new word and had to remember whether it was tone 1, 2, 3, 4. This is actually true for heritage Chinese speakers in the USA as well; assuming that they learned the language through speech with parents and not using pinyin in school.

I know that Koreans may have a very small advantage over westerners but still it's motivating.

I am not sure that's a "small" advantage though, especially if we're talking about character recognition. At the very least, they'll be ahead in that category so they can spend more time practicing speech.

[renzhe]

Somebody is fluent at a native level if they can discuss the same topics using the same grammar and the same vocabulary as a native speaker, with an effort comparable to the effort they have when doing the same in their native language.

There are enough people out there who can do this, perhaps you just haven't met them.

[jkhsu]

Somebody is fluent at a native level if they can discuss the same topics using the same grammar and the same vocabulary as a native speaker, with an effort comparable to the effort they have when doing the same in their native language.

This I agree with.

There are enough people out there who can do this, perhaps you just haven't met them.

Perhaps. But are you using the same criteria that I mentioned: An adult who learned English with (1) no previous exposure to the language and (2) who came from a language background that is unrelated to English.

I happen to be in the USA and in an area where there are a lot of immigrants (mostly from Mexico, China and India). I've met plenty of native level English speakers but most (if not all) learned English as kids or were at least exposed to English as kids. I took Spanish as a second language when I was younger and it was very easy compared to Chinese, especially if you already know English. Even the pronunciations were not a problem. While personally, I have not met a Mexican immigrant who came to the US as an adult with native level English, I would not be surprised if many are at the same level of fluency as native speakers here just because of the similarities between English and Spanish. Also, the people from India that I've met were already fluent in English; although their accents were hard to understand, I never counted that against them. Some had better grammar and knowledge of vocab than native US speakers. This is why I end up comparing adult immigrants from China; they fit the criteria I described. I've met many during college, work, etc. and so far I haven't met any who I would consider is at the same conversational level as a native English speaker here. I am sure there are but it's definitely not common.

[Silent]

This is one thing I think interesting. You may have realised that many Chinese people do NOT speak Mandarin as their first language. Even linguistically majority of northern Chinese dialects are classified as members of the Mandarin family, but any of you who has been to China will notice the difference of them between the standard Mandarin you hear on TV or Chinese learning material.

Hence my example of the African countries. Jkhsu insists he knows the difference between native level and an accent. He however is unable to tell what that difference is. He just chats with them and knows they're not native level. They have an accent and the 'feel' is different. I'm convinced that a huge number of those people that jkhsu disqualifies as native level make less grammatical mistakes, have just as large a vocabulary and possibly even have a pronunciation closer to the standard than many native speaker. Those Africans learn English from a very young age, as such are native speakers, however there language is hugely different from the generally accepted standards of English. Jkhsu doesn't answer the question. I think he just want to stick to his simple definition 'If I notice (s)he is not native the level is below native'. A definition that imho dismisses the entire discussion as completely pointless. It would mean that even a native stuttering idiot has a higher level than an eloquent non native professor with a little accent.

For Chinese in some extent the same is true. Nearly everywhere the language is taught from a very young age. Yet huge differences exist. Doesn't this just dismiss the hypothesis that children pick up a language really easy/without any real effort? Isn't this a proof that learning from a young age is not the sole key to succes in learning a language? Yes, children have some advantages over adults. Yes in the long run motivated children will reach a better level than motivated adults. Fact is however that most people are not really that motivated. Most children think language classes are boring. There are not that many people that actively study their native language after graduation. As a consequence a motivated student, independent of age, can fairly easy reach average native level. At least when measured by 'objective' criteria such as number of grammatical errors, size of vocabulary, closeness to standard pronunciation etc. I guess jkhsu however will consider the level subpar as they will be recognizable as non-natives.

[jbradfor]

@jkhsu, I think what you are describing is whether a non-native speaker, learning English as an adult only, is able to become indistinguishable from a native speaker. To me, this seems like such a high bar as to be almost meaningless.

[jkhsu]

@Silent: I think you're taking this too personally. Do you not believe a native Mandarin speaker when they say that someone they are talking to is not at the native level of Chinese they are used to?

[Silent]

Perhaps. But are you using the same criteria that I mentioned: An adult who learned English with (1) no previous exposure to the language and (2) who came from a language background that is unrelated to English.

Sorry, but these are completely ridiculous criteria. Show me 1 person on this planet that meets the criteria! Ok, you can find a few, but in this globalised world people that have had no exposure to English are extremely rare. I'm not aware of any language that has not at least a couple of English loan words. virtually worldwide they teach English in ordinary schools. Even in a country like north Korea Children learn English in school!

[jkhsu]

@jbradfor: Yes, that's what I am saying minus the pronunciation part. I've only described what I've encountered. What has been your experience?

[Silent]

@Silent: I think you're taking this too personally. Do you not believe a native Mandarin speaker when they say that someone they are talking to is not at the native level of Chinese they are used to?

I don't know what you mean by this. I don't see what the statements of a mandarin speaker have to do with this discussion. I don't take it personally. I just think you're making completely ridiculous statements. As jbradfor very well formulates, you seem to equal native level to indistinguishable. To me these are completely different things.

[jkhsu]

I don't know what you mean by this

If I were a native Mandarin speaker from China and I told you that the person I just spoke to is not at the native level of Mandarin as native Mandarin speakers I've met, do you not believe me?

[Silent]

What's the point about this question? I don't know that mandarin speaker, I don't know the person he spoke to. I've no reason to believe or disbelieve the statement.

One native speaker speaking about just one person is a completely different story from someone claiming there are no non native speakers at the native level or saying he never spoke to a non native of native level. Depending on the situation the claim about the group would most likely meet my scepsis and/or tell more about the person making the statement than about the language skills of the non natives. Nevertheless I would be more likely to believe such a claim from the Mandarin speaker than your claim about English speakers. Some of the main reasons are:

- There are a huge number (I've seen believable estimates of about a billion) non native speakers of English compared to Chinese. Consequently the peak level of the non-natives is most likely higher for English.

- Virtually everywhere one goes there's at least some exposure to English, for Chinese this is far less the case. So it's easier to pick up English.

- I know a bit of English myself, so I'm better able to judge for myself the level of English people use

- I've spoken and mailed with thousands of native and non native speakers (private and for work) and seen how poor the English of many natives is and how excellent the English of some non natives is. In some exceptional cases, I think twice, I've spoken to native speakers that I would have confused for non-natives if I hadn't had proof saying otherwise.

- I've seen several times that non-natives were confused for Americans by non-native and native English speakers alike.

- I've seen and had myself many language debates between natives and non-natives where the non-native turned out to be right and the native speaker was wrong.