Learning A Language

[Oakes]

I've taken three college-level Japanese courses, but after taking my first Linguistics course, I've felt that it is hopeless for an adult to truly learn a new language. In Ling 100, we learned that you are born with an "instinct" or universal grammar, allowing you to pick up on your parents' language easily. But after a while, through non-usage, you lose this instinct, making it extremely difficult to learn languages and almost impossible to lose your native accent.

I really want to learn Japanese, and I may even want to start a third language like Russian or perhaps a European one. This leads me to my first question: Is this wishful thinking? I really don't care if I have an accent (being an American is nothing to hide), but can I ever learn to fluently speak languages if I start so late?

If I can, my second question is: Are there any strategies for learning languages that I am not aware of? Or should I stick to the textbooks and flashcards and rote memorization that seems to be emphasized in the classroom?

Finally, if any of you learned a second language as an adult and would like to share your experiences, please do so.

[Godless Capitalist]

In Ling 100, we learned that you are born with an "instinct" or universal grammar, allowing you to pick up on your parents' language easily. But after a while, through non-usage, you lose this instinct, making it extremely difficult to learn languages and almost impossible to lose your native accent.

This is at best an oversimplification and at worst completely wrong.

It does seem as if it is easier to learn language as a child, though, and much easier for some adults than others. It's certainly not hopeless, though, lots of adults do it all the time.

[GoodOrigamiMan]

If I can, my second question is: Are there any strategies for learning languages that I am not aware of? Or should I stick to the textbooks and flashcards and rote memorization that seems to be emphasized in the classroom?

You should invest in some good anime turn off the subtitles. You will find that the Japanese you are taught in college will be very formal as compared to the language you will pick up from the anime but listening really helps you get used to the sounds. Andrew and I study Japanese at Drexel; last quarter we would watch a couple episodes of whatever series we were on every night. Also… find some Japanese friends. The Japanese exchange students are always well tempered and enthusiastic about anyone attempting to learn their language, of course they will want you to help them with their English as well.

Rurouni Kenshin is a good anime, it is historic (Meji era) so the language tends to be a lot more formal (which is nice because it matches up with what you are learning in class). The OVA might be the most beautiful anime I have ever seen. Movies are great too, but it is nice to have half an hour episodes to fit into a school schedule.

The best way to learn is to immerse your-self and stay focused.

[DavidOdden]

I've taken three college-level Japanese courses, but after taking my first Linguistics course, I've felt that it is hopeless for an adult to truly learn a new language.

Mimi sikubali, lakini inaweza kuwa ukweli kwa wewe. More importantly, the view that your instructor is pushing is a "perspective" and not a fact. Before I go any further, I presume that you will take personal responsibility for your conduct and grade in that class, and will critically evaluate all claims that are presented to you. That said, the whole "language instinct" approach is controversial (whether or not your instructor says anything about the nature of the controversy). The two fundamental questions that are generally begged by the standard generative accounts of language are (1) whether this mental "stuff" we are speaking about has to do specifically with language or is more general, for example having to do with problem solving abilities and (2) whether this constitutes an "instinct". Chomsky and Pinker have widely pushed a particular viewpoint where people are claimed to have "knowledge" and "instincts" regarding language, which simply don't measure up to what "knowledge" and "instinct" actually mean ouside of that particular part of Cambridge (and related fiefdoms).

In Ling 100, we learned that you are born with an "instinct" or universal grammar, allowing you to pick up on your parents' language easily. But after a while, through non-usage, you lose this instinct, making it extremely difficult to learn languages and almost impossible to lose your native accent.

This is relatable to something true: that no normal children fail to learn the ambient language, but many (indeed most) normal adults fails to learn the ambient language, once you're older than something like 12. Why adults are less able to learn things well is a puzzle.

I really want to learn Japanese, and I may even want to start a third language like Russian or perhaps a European one. This leads me to my first question: Is this wishful thinking? I really don't care if I have an accent (being an American is nothing to hide), but can I ever learn to fluently speak languages if I start so late?

Especially if you are willing to give on the accent issue, it's pretty common for motivated adults to be able to learn second and tenth languages quite well. However, that really depends on you: some people can, some can't. Danged if I know how to predict.

If I can, my second question is: Are there any strategies for learning languages that I am not aware of? Or should I stick to the textbooks and flashcards and rote memorization that seems to be emphasized in the classroom?

Many strategies, but the question is what works for you. One of the main bits of stupidity in language education is the belief that there is One Single Way that works universally. In the older days, explicit teaching and memorization were the main techniques, but now people tend to follow more "communicative" techniques like immersion techniques where you simply speak the language work best. My opinion is that they abandoned the explicit instruction approach primarily because the instructors were generally ignorant of the rules of the language that actually work.

Finally, if any of you learned a second language as an adult and would like to share your experiences, please do so.

I personally find a small smidgen of analysis to be needed, so that I have a conceptual basis for thinking about the language, is the most important. Specifically, "what should I pay attention to?". Lots of actual usage then helps me to implement the generalizations that I've abstracted. But my analytic technique for learning e.g. kasu ~ kashitai ~ kashita vs. katsu ~ kachitai ~ katta might be too contorted for you.

[Oakes]

You should invest in some good anime turn off the subtitles.

Actually I've got a pretty sizable collection to do just what you've suggested. They speak far too quickly for me to understand right now, but it may help to listen to them anyway for the reason you gave (to get used to the sounds).

The Japanese exchange students are always well tempered and enthusiastic about anyone attempting to learn their language, of course they will want you to help them with their English as well.

I've been reluctant to do this because I'm extremely socially inept, but I may eventually decide to do this.

Before I go any further, I presume that you will take personal responsibility for your conduct and grade in that class, and will critically evaluate all claims that are presented to you.

It's very hard to do this because I have very little background in linguistics (well, none, actually). We read Pinker, and the main defense I remember for his theory was the amazing ability of children to parse the gibberish of their parents' language into sentences and words with rules. He pointed out how they sometimes mistakenly say "eated" instead of "ate", showing that they actually pick out rules rather than learn each word individually (the "wug" test also showed this). Presented with that kind of argument, I have nothing to critique the theory by.

That said, the whole "language instinct" approach is controversial (whether or not your instructor says anything about the nature of the controversy).

My instructor said that it is much like the evolution theory: There are some dissenters, but most linguists accept it.

This is relatable to something true: that no normal children fail to learn the ambient language, but many (indeed most) normal adults fails to learn the ambient language, once you're older than something like 12. Why adults are less able to learn things well is a puzzle.

This is something I'd be very interested in knowing. I remember our instructor telling us the unfortunate story of a child who was raised without being spoken to, and as an adult she was incapable to learning language (I'm leaving out a lot of details), so I don't think it has anything to do with learning your first language. You seem to have something as a child that you lose as an adult.

Especially if you are willing to give on the accent issue, it's pretty common for motivated adults to be able to learn second and tenth languages quite well. However, that really depends on you: some people can, some can't. Danged if I know how to predict.

Tenth?? I've always wondered how anyone could manage to remain fluent in more than a few languages, because if you don't continuously use it, you'll become rusty. That's why I've severely restricted my choices to only a few languages that I can put my heart into learning.

As for the "some people can, some can't", do you mean that some have more motivation, or are genetically predisposed to learn languages better? I can take care of the former, but the latter is beyond my control.

[AwakeAndFree]

One of my best teachers spoke 27 different languages. When asked how he did it, he said something that I'm sure will encourage you all:

"Oh, it gets much easier after the 20th language!"

Good premises.

[stephen_speicher]

My instructor said that it is much like the evolution theory: There are some dissenters, but most linguists accept it.

Your instructor is, at best, being disingenuous. Objections to evolution are primarily anti-intellectual, faith-based, non-scientific in nature, whereas there are many respectable scientists, using a rational scientific method, who object to nativism. There is no question that, since Chomsky, nativism remains the prevalent view, but it is somewhat obscene to liken dissenters to nativism to the religionists who object to evolution. If you search through respectable journals in the field, such as, for this issue of opposition to language nativism, the Journal of Neurolinguistics, Behavioral and Brain Sciences, Second Language Research, etc., you will find intelligent scientific criticism, not religious objections. I can give you specific references if you are interested.

[PirateF]

I learned to speak Flemish (Dutch) fluently at the age of 18 by studying abroad in Antwerp, Belgium for one year. It wasn't easy, especially since everyone there was anxious to practice their English with me! I had to force people to speak to me only in Dutch so that I could learn. The combination of being immersed in it every day together with studying a dictionary at night, looking up any new words I had heard and/or preparing vocabulary for things I needed to do/say the following day worked very well for me. Oh, and watching Britcoms on the BBC with Dutch subtitles! My AFS year was 14 years ago but I am still well-versed in the language. Although I do have a very strong American accent, I'm told.

There is no question that adults have to make a conscious effort to learn a language while young children can acquire it effortlessly. But you are highly motivated and I'm sure you'll do well. I would suggest finding an outlet where you can practice speaking Japanese with native speakers. If not an extended trip to Japan (where you preferably stay with a family), then perhaps a "Japanese club" of some sort? Where you go out for dinner and speak only Japanese? I know at my university there were clubs like this for all sorts of languages, even Dutch (although there were only three of us in it, LOL).

Good luck!

[BurgessLau]

...

I really want to learn Japanese, and I may even want to start a third language like Russian or perhaps a European one. This leads me to my first question: Is this wishful thinking? I really don't care if I have an accent (being an American is nothing to hide), but can I ever learn to fluently speak languages if I start so late?

...

It might help to tell us your purpose in wanting to master additional languages. In other words, for what payoff? Is it a crucial link in achieving your central purpose in life? (If so, what is the latter?)

Knowing this context might help others make suggestions. For example, if your purpose is important enough in your hierarchy of values, you might consider moving to Japan and totally immersing yourself in the language.

[the tortured one]

konnichiwa! (thats one of the only words I know )

A child picking up it's parent's language is in my mind simply because the child is getting extensive hands on experience with that language.

I had a Spanish professor who knew people who had an advanced major in spanish, but still could not speak it fluently.

and on that note, he had told us that once he was trapped in a log cabin after an avalanche, and he happened to be with a person that could only speak French. He said he learned how to speak French better in those few days of being trapped then he did when he took 4 years of collegic level French language classes.

Learning a language I think has more to do with actually being able to apply it rather then simply learning it from a book. That's where I think most adults go wrong.

[AndrewSternberg]

Why do children learn language easier than adults?

I think it is generally true that children learn most things quicker than adults, for instance computers, sports, video games, etc.

Well, what is difference between the mind of a child and that of an adult? As a child's mind is developing, it is making an enormous number of identifications and integrations. It is also automatizing a vast number of behaviors. Essentially the child is forming his subconscious, as the 'blank slate' that they start with is quickly done away with.

Contrast this to an adult with an already established subconscious. In order for an adult to learn new things, to automatize new identifications/integrations, it is often the case that they first have to deautomatize parts of their subconscious. People often observe that it is difficult to alternate between similar sports such as tenis and badminton. Or to learn how to drive a tiny sports car when you are used to driving an SUV.

It is generally always easier to start from scratch than to renovate your knowledge. This gives the child an edge with regard to automatization.

An adult needs to dedicate more time and energy than a child because of the additional obstacles that confront the mind of an adult. However, as long as the adult is willing to spend that time and energy, he can accomplish the same things that are so easy to a child.

PS:

Andrew and I study Japanese at Drexel

I am the Andrew referenced here. Alex, don't assume they know who your talking about. How could they?

[GoodOrigamiMan]

I am the Andrew referenced here.  Alex, don't assume they know who your talking about.  How could they?

They might now because of other references in other threads. You are also the only person with “Andrew” built into you member name. It’s not that hard.

[DavidOdden]

We read Pinker, and the main defense I remember for his theory was the amazing ability of children to parse the gibberish of their parents' language into sentences and words with rules. He pointed out how they sometimes mistakenly say "eated" instead of "ate", showing that they actually pick out rules rather than learn each word individually (the "wug" test also showed this). Presented with that kind of argument, I have nothing to critique the theory by.

These facts are evidence that children have cognitive abilities well beyond what are expected by standard 50's behaviorist models of learning. Chomsky's nativist approach to language is a reaction to the idiocy of Skinner, where there was no such thing as a "mind" and children learned the same way that dogs do, only faster. I don't think anybody believes that theory anymore.

What the aforementioned facts indicate is that children do not just spit back what they hear, i.e. they generalize and can even distinguish mistakes from correct sentences. This is entirely consistent with the view that humans have a special ability to generalize and abstract (i.e. we have a conceptual faculty), and that we can hold some fairly complicated concepts or rules or whatever you want to call them in our heads. But none of this constitutes knowledge; rather, it is an ability. Chomsky gets away with his "innate knowledge" shpiel mainly by redefining knowledge. Hence having the faculty of reason is, for him, a kind of "innate knowledge". Redefining terms is the sure sign of a bad theory. (Also, incidentally, his quirky view of "knowledge" and its relation to grammar has been an unmitigated disaster for the actual conduct of linguistics, though don't quote me on that).

Your instructor would like to believe that the majority of linguists accept Chomsky's nativism, but in fact that is an untested claim. He comes from a grad program that is an MIT clone, so he was not exposed to much opposition to Chomsky. No survey of the field has been taken to determine what "the majority of linguists" believe, and I would be unsurprised to discover that the majority of linguists find nativism to be an "interesting but unproven" hypothesis. The majority of linguists at MIT, UCLA and USC accept Chomsky's nativism. My guess is that few people in my department accept the theory (of course we haven't conducted any polls, so I might be wrong). Nativism is simply taken to be axiomatically true by most people, meaning that they don't really believe the theory, they just operate as if it were true (thus making their lives simpler). Quite a number of linguists challenge the theory (ranging from having doubts, to flatly rejecting it). The most responsible claim regarding assumed universal characteristics of human language would that there may be some human reasoning abilities that pertain to mental representations and concepts whose nature we cannot explain (e.g. the propensity for subjects to precede objects). Saying "Aha! Therefore it's in Universal Grammar" is too facile a response.

This is something I'd be very interested in knowing. I remember our instructor telling us the unfortunate story of a child who was raised without being spoken to, and as an adult she was incapable to learning language (I'm leaving out a lot of details), so I don't think it has anything to do with learning your first language. You seem to have something as a child that you lose as an adult.

There are almost no such "normal" cases, actually only one that I know of (Eliza, I think was her name). Genie-type cases have a major problem, that she may have suffered brain damage and definitely did suffer general psychological damage. What this tells us is that children have special learning abilities that adults don't have, which is an interesting fact that I can't really explain satisfactorily (other than to issue platitudes like "Children have more plastic brains"). Again, it does not provide any exidence that people come knowing facts in advance of experience, or that we have "instincts" (given a proper understanding of "instint" -- walking is not learned)

As for the "some people can, some can't", do you mean that some have more motivation, or are genetically predisposed to learn languages better? I can take care of the former, but the latter is beyond my control.

I definitely mean the first. I don't believe that anybody is genetically predisposed to learn languages any better than anyone else, and yet two highly motivated people can differ greatly in their ability to learn languages. I don't know why: great research topic. I suspect it has something to do with learning in general, i.e. some people are generally better learners. Why? I dunno, I suppose because mom and dad made the child play the violin at age 8, or had lots of books lying around the house that the child could read.

[AndrewSternberg]

What this tells us is that children have special learning abilities that adults don't have, which is an interesting fact that I can't really explain satisfactorily (other than to issue platitudes like "Children have more plastic brains").

Are you calling me a platitute issuer?

[DavidOdden]

Are you calling me a platitute issuer?   

Sorry, no, that wasn't supposed to be aimed at you. I can't honestly say such a thing because my saying so would imply that I have knowedge which I don't actually have (and I'm quite aware that I don't know the answer). I can honestly say "I don't know why children have a superior learning skills for certain things". If I actually understood the causal mechanisms, e.g. if I could reduce it to myelin or potassium or a hormone, then I could answer the question.

[Oakes]

Thanks to everyone who replied -- this thread has helped me a lot. I'm sure I will look into criticisms of Chomsky eventually, because out of every field I find that cognitive science is the one I will invest the most of my time studying. I discovered, to my amazement, that this interdisciplinary field integrated all of my favorite subjects, including linguistics.

My gut reaction was that the book-learning vs. immersion strategies seemed to fit the DIM hypothesis but after further thought I am not so sure. At any rate I think I should do both.

I'll admit that I've been pretty lazy lately because I haven't had Japanese classes for a good while now, but I think I can be highly motivated. The payoff will be in the realm of international business. Since I'm also interested in working for the government (maybe NSA), Arabic is another possibility. Then, of course, there are the Euros (French/German/Spanish) and Russian, which are extremely intimidating but ultimately rewarding in almost anything you do. Some might suggest I learn Chinese because I've already memorized so many Kanji, but I'm scared to death of the tones.

[DavidOdden]

I'm scared to death of the tones.

That's my area. I dunno if I can break you of your fears, but it's not anything to fear. Lemme know if you want a tutorial: it's free (seriously). But before you commit to an arduous bus trip, you should sort out Burgess's question, about why you care. The most important question, as always, is "what are your primaries?".

[Free Capitalist]

Cognitive science... yuck. I spent over a year studying it because I too thought it was a valuable new developing science. Boy was I wrong. It's worse than psychology. And people who do cognitive science may generally be said to do nothing at all, except sound self-important by participating in the Academia via dense and boring papers, and meaningless conferences.

That's been my experience.

[DavidOdden]

Cognitive science... yuck.

I didn't focus on that part of Oakes' answer; so let me say that I agree with this. Cognitive science is a junk discipline. There are perfectly legitimate disciplines, like, I dunno, linguistics, or even psychology, or computer science, but clog sigh is not a real area (even if you can do a degree in it). If you care about the mechanisms of cognition, best you do psychology (cough). Cog sci is a way of people getting together on a weekly basis to chat about not much, where obnoxious people can hold forth. There is no harm in taking a couple of these undisciplinary classes just so you can get a clue how these people think, just as there is relatively little harm in taking a course in English literature. Real progress in understanding the nature of the mind does not come from centers of "cognitive science".

[Oakes]

That's my area. I dunno if I can break you of your fears, but it's not anything to fear. Lemme know if you want a tutorial: it's free (seriously).

Do you mean a tutorial on Chinese, or tones? All I can say is that being forced to make a distinction I'm not used to making is really tough. The Japanese have problems with "r" and "l" for this reason, and the articles throw them off too.

But before you commit to an arduous bus trip, you should sort out Burgess's question, about why you care. The most important question, as always, is "what are your primaries?".

I answered Burgess' question while listing the possible languages I wanted to learn.

Cognitive science... yuck.

I didn't focus on that part of Oakes' answer; so let me say that I agree with this.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but your descriptions sound like they could apply to any "pure" science you aren't interested in. Is it a problem with those heading the field, or is there an inherent problem with integrating subjects dealing with the mind? It's the integration I'm really interested in. Anyway, you guys have probably saved me many hours of frustration already

[Oakes]

I just found a great site listing all the different ways of learning a new language:

http://www.omniglot.com/language/how.htm#os

In their section on "Computer-aided learning", one software caught my eye: Rosetta Stone. They claim to have the best method, because it involves full immersion. This left me skeptical because of everything said in this thread, but has anybody had any success with this?

[Philo]

Quote:

"The two fundamental questions that are generally begged by the standard generative accounts of language are (1) whether this mental "stuff" we are speaking about has to do specifically with language or is more general, for example having to do with problem solving abilities and (2) whether this constitutes an "instinct".

Regarding (1):

What would be the alternative explanation of the facts that

(a) Many cognitive disabilibilities, whether congenital or resulting from brain damage, are often domain-specific--eg., certain types of aphasia leave the functioning of general short and longterm memory as well real-time cognitive processing intact, despite impairing the subject's ability to communicate. As I understand it, the reverse case can also arise in a form of retardation (whose name unfortunately escapes me)--eg., well-formed but cognitively meaningless utterances are produced by those suffering from it.

( Children exposed to non-syntactic pidgins will automatically transform the language into a regularly structured creole.

Regarding (2):

The debate may boil down to the semantics of "instinct," but there is obviously a difference between the way children spontaneously acquire spoken language versus the degree of difficulty required for mastering written language.

[DavidOdden]

Regarding (1):

What would be the alternative explanation of the facts that

(a) Many cognitive disabilibilities, whether congenital or resulting from brain damage, are often domain-specific--eg., certain types of aphasia leave the functioning of general short and longterm memory as well real-time cognitive processing intact, despite impairing  the subject's ability to communicate.  As I understand it, the reverse case can also arise in a form of retardation (whose name unfortunately escapes me)--eg., well-formed but cognitively meaningless utterances are produced by those suffering from it.

These facts indicate that language is in the brain (no surprise there), usually on the left side (only minimal surprise, I suppose). The best that the nativist argument can do is say that the distribution of cognitive functions in the brain is not random (also no shock). The alternative explanation is simply that the relevant forms of brain damage affect some part of your cognitive ability, which may include your language abilities but then again it may not. Memory loss may or may not be paired with aphasia, and aphasia may or may not be paired with other cognitive disfunctions. Also note that not all exemplars of Broca's aphasia are the same, so you don't totally lose the ability to get stuff out; nor is Wernicke's (the gibberish-aphasia) aphasia monolithic. The basis rule is, whack a brain hard enough and something bad happens, some of which may be linguisitcs and some of which may be non-linguistic.

The reason why aphasias are suppose to be of some interest is that if language is in some sense innate, as the nativists claim, then you'd expect to find a specific anatomical structure for it. Well, there it is on the left side of the brain. But this actually just indicates that the left side is where language goes, not where it is, innately pre-installed. One fact whose importance is often ignored by the nativists is that if you whack a baby on the brain, they get over it (if they live). For an adult, removing the left hemisphere is pretty serious business for their language ability, but for infants it is not so serious. This shows that language ends up being put on the left side (usually), and that is is not already there.

(   Children exposed to non-syntactic pidgins will automatically transform the language into a regularly structured creole.

Which indicates that children can generalize beyond what they have observed, in many domains. BTW the documentary evidence on creolization and the unstructured nature of pidgins is rather thin.

Here's the ideal situation, based on creolization, that would somewhat support the nativist POV. Suppose you observed dozens of pidgins with structurally diverse substrata, and they all miraculously converged on exactly the same structure, differing only in vocabulary. Then you might have evidence for the claim that there is a pre-wired universal structural preference (Chomsky's UG). But this convergence hasn't been observed, so even though I might come up with an explanation for it that doesn't require this universalist theory of language, I don't need to because there isn't even that bit of basic evidence for the theory.

The debate may boil down to the semantics of "instinct," but there is obviously a difference between the way children spontaneously acquire spoken language versus the degree of difficulty required for mastering written language.

No doubt: Chomsky uses "knowledge" to mean pretty much anything about what the brain does. Here's an experiment we could conduct. Take a couple dozen families and ship them off to some remote isolated tropical island, or perhaps the Pine Barrens. Then start breeding, and only communicate by written language. My hypothesis is that children will learn to read and write as naturally as they learn to talk.