Babies learn the way they learn because they have the ultimate willpower to understand the people who care so much for them.

Somehow, some of us lose this desire in the way to adult life (more like taken with brute force by our present society). But clearly this is not your case (nor mine) so you should learn faster than any baby, who has not even developed its cognitive process.

alyks Wrote:

CaLeDee Wrote:I can't say I can go along with the baby comparison though. Babies brains are like sponges and absorb everything in a very natural way. This changes as the brain matures and new connections become harder to form.

Source?

I've read it and heard it quite a few times. I thought it was obvious. Here is what I can find right now though.

"Babies are like a sponge, they are ready to absorb whatever information they can - and boy - they can't grasp it fast enough!
A lot of new research points to the first three years of life as being critical to a baby's developing brain. It is a known fact that during this period, not only does the brain triple in weight but it also establishes thousands of billions of nerve connections. Astonishingly, at the age of three, a young child has twice as many nerve connections as many adults. Therefore, in your role as a parent, or primary care giver, it is of paramount importance that you recognize this and understand just how much development is taking place inside your young baby's brain from birth until the age of three.

At birth, children have most of the neurons (brain cells) they need for a lifetime however, these brain cells are not yet linked (or "wired") together to form the complex networks that are required for mature thought processes to take place. And what happens is that in the early years, young children's brain cells form these connections, or synapses as they are commonly called, very very rapidly.
One of the crucial ingredients to aiding these connections to form, is experience, and repetition. In a word, the more times you repeat something new, like showing a baby how to scrunch up a ball, the quicker these connections are formed. Therefore, it naturally follows that the more positive interaction you give an infant or toddler, the more you are helping to stimulate young brains. This stimulation causes new connections to form neural pathways and strengthens existing ones. Playing with activity gyms, with all the bells and whistles that they offer or reading to a child, anything which allows a child to have positive, interactive processes, will aid your child's brain development. "

That took only a few seconds in google.. I'm sure there are a lot of studies on it. Especially with regard to language acquisition.

Google for vampires and you'll find vampires. Google for aliens and you'll find aliens.

mentat_kgs Wrote:Google for vampires and you'll find vampires. Google for aliens and you'll find aliens.

Google for the colour red and you'll find the colour red. Whats your point? If you have something that says a babies brain works in the same way as an adults then please show it. I've never heard anything of the likes of that. It also sounds ridiculous.

Ah, about your girlfriend:

English is not my first language either. You problaby already noticed it, with so many mistakes I often make.

But in my work, I use allmost only english. For a long time, I read much, much more english than I read portuguese. I just don't have the chance to speak it and I end up only writing it here in RevTK forums.

So what? Well, this month I had to translate some stuff to portuguese - and I couldn't! Try to imagine my position: It was easier for me to write english, than to write portuguese, my own language, just because I was dealing with specific terminology.

Let's make a distinction between language acquisition and language learning:

Acquisition is a process by which children unconsciously acquire their native language

Learning is a conscious knowledge of a second language, knowing the rules, being aware of them, and being able to talk about them.

AJATT mimics the first, while textbooks and schooling follow the second. We know it's possible to have success mimicking acquisition. So I want to see something that specifically says Adults cannot acquire a language at the same efficiency as a baby, take out the variables (parents, forced learning, immersion).

CaLeDee Wrote:

mentat_kgs Wrote:Google for vampires and you'll find vampires. Google for aliens and you'll find aliens.

Google for the colour red and you'll find the colour red. Whats your point? If you have something that says a babies brain works in the same way as an adults then please show it. I've never heard anything of the likes of that. It also sounds ridiculous.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200...215316.htm

I wouldn't say that it's correct to say that babies' brains work the same way as adults' brains, though. Adults have a lot more high-function capabilities to work with. They're probably way better than babies, all told.

No one said the brain works tha same at all ages. I believe it probably works better when you are an adult.

This is the reference you should have posted when you said that babies were better than adults:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_c...evelopment

"According to Piaget, the Pre-Operational stage of development follows the Sensorimotor stage and occurs between 2?7 years of age. In this stage, children develop their language skills."

That's true. Some do earlier, some do later, but Piaget ignores second language acquisition, nor says that one's ability to learn a language is compromized after this stage. Actualy he says the oposite:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_Period_Hypothesis

"Piaget (1926) is one psychologist reluctant to ascribe specific innate linguistic abilities to children: he considers the brain a homogeneous computational system, with language acquisition being one part of general learning."

This is the second one you should have posted:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vygotsky#Th...d_Language

"Perhaps Vygotsky's most important contribution concerns the inter-relationship of language development and thought. This concept, explored in Vygotsky's book Thought and Language, (alternative translation: Thinking and Speaking ) establishes the explicit and profound connection between speech (both silent inner speech and oral language), and the development of mental concepts and cognitive awareness."

There is another passage on wikipedia that I find specialy interesting:

"Although Vygotsky believed inner speech to develop from external speech via a gradual process of internalization, with younger children only really able to "think out loud," he claimed that in its mature form it would be unintelligible to anyone except the thinker and would not resemble spoken language as we know it (in particular, being greatly compressed)."

So english is an extra skill, separated from thought, tought deeply linked.

But even with that, somehow, some people came up with something called the "critical period hypothesis"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_Period_Hypothesis

"The Critical Period Hypothesis refers to a long-standing debate in linguistics and language acquisition over the extent to which the ability to acquire language is biologically linked to age. The hypothesis claims that there is an ideal 'window' of time to acquire language in a linguistically rich environment, after which this is no longer possible."

Notite the word _debate_ because there is no one ever proved it. It is stil an _hypothesis_.
For instance, I find the next passage pretty interesting:

"David Singleton (1995) states that in learning a second language, "younger = better in the long run," but points out that there are many exceptions, noting that five percent of adult bilinguals master a second language even though they begin learning it when they are well into adulthood ? long after any critical period has presumably come to a close."

Finaly the stone in the shoe of the critical period hyphotesis!

I'll finish this post here and let you read and reach your own conclusions.

What my conclusion is, is that there has never been an adult or teenager who has learned a language by simply listening to it, which is exactly what babies do. We have to study it and read it and understand at least the basics of it in our native language. Babies don't do this, which is what meant. There are people that can pick up languages and start using it when they are surrounded by it, without having to read anything. However they will take much longer than any baby would and forced output makes them make many mistakes.

Also I never said there was a window for learning a language or that adults can't learn them. I simply said a babies brain is much more suited to it. If I thought this then I wouldn't even be studying Japanese! :/

Wrong.

http://www.sdkrashen.com/articles/what_d...e/all.html

Btw, I never had english classes, nor studied it actively. Actualy it is a coomon practice in my country. Many of my friends learned english by playing videogames, listening heavy metal and watching friends.

English and Portuguese are a lot closer than English and Japanese. I could believe a Korean can learn Japanese this way but it would be much more difficult for others. Your friends learn by listening to heavy metal? I can't even understand heavy metal never mind learn from it. You could watch 1000's of hours of Japanese and you won't learn it. There's always something that is backing up just listening and watching.

Your post is about someone living in the country and being surrounded by people talking to him all day long. We are talking about sitting in our room in our own country and learning, no? 2 completely different things.

And exactly how long does it take for a a child to 'pick up' a language? And do children NOT make many mistakes because of forced output?

Children have an incredibly difficult time learning languages. I liked this on it: http://www.zompist.com/whylang.html (move down to the bit about children, but it's all interesting).

You're pulling out the 'But Japanese is so different' defense? Come on. Nobody was even talking about Japanese up until now, just language in general.

Wait, by admitting the English-Portuguese and Korean-Japanese thing, haven't you countered your earlier position?

Yup, not only my friends. Me too. Half of the english I heard was sung by Lucca Turulli and Hansi Kursch, maybe that's why I sound like a pirate when talking english. But hey! At least I dont have the peculiar "latino" accent!

And I was puzzled why I could not learn japanese the way I did with english. But Katz had the key: I was not reading it nor listening properly (I only watched anime with subtitles). Reading is probably the main advantage and adult has over a baby.

QuackingShoe Wrote:And exactly how long does it take for a a child to 'pick up' a language? And do children NOT make many mistakes because of forced output?

Children have an incredibly difficult time learning languages. I liked this on it: http://www.zompist.com/whylang.html (move down to the bit about children, but it's all interesting).

You're pulling out the 'But Japanese is so different' defense? Come on. Nobody was even talking about Japanese up until now, just language in general.

So a second language being completely unlike your native language makes no difference? Ridiculous. It would be much much easier for an English speaker to learn Italian or German than it would be for Japanese. Given that the same time and effort is put into both. Isn't this obvious?

I don't believe it makes a difference, but that isn't the point. The whole time you've been talking about how babies can learn language through listening only but adults can't because they're wired differently or whatever. If you admit that these cases of adults learning languages through exposure only exist, you've admitted your hypothesis is wrong, haven't you?
You can still argue about Japanese though, I guess.

Edit: Mentat, I so want to hear you talk like a pirate.

I watched all 3 videos and my favorite part was when they were talking about English textbooks made for foreigners in Part 3.

Here's the bit that made my day:

Tokyo Sam(or whatever his name) : "...They say 'Did you enjoy?'"

Khatz: "They actually say that?!" (with genuine surprise)

Tokyo Sam : "Yeah, instead of 'Did you have fun?'"

Being an English teacher here in Japan, I can 100% back that statement up(both students and adults say this).

What's even better was Khatz was so surprised I think it shows he hasn't spoken much English with Japanese people.

CaLeDee: You have to have base language grammar instruction. Babies are magical and special.
Everybody: No they ain't.
CaLeDee: Ok... but you still can't learn language without learning the rules.
Stephen Krashen, zompist.com, AJATT guy, Mentat, me, everybody else: Yes you can.
CaLeDee: But... Japanese is hard.
Everybody: Big deal.

QuackingShoe Wrote:I don't believe it makes a difference, but that isn't the point. The whole time you've been talking about how babies can learn language through listening only but adults can't because they're wired differently or whatever. If you admit that these cases of adults learning languages through exposure only exist, you've admitted your hypothesis is wrong, haven't you?
You can still argue about Japanese though, I guess.

I don't have an hypothesis, I just think it's only normal that babies have a much easier time picking up a language than adults do. But I don't even know why it came to this because this is talking about a first language vs. second/3rd/4th~~ which is very different.

alyks Wrote:CaLeDee: You have to have base language grammar instruction. Babies are magical and special.
Everybody: No they ain't.
CaLeDee: Ok... but you still can't learn language without learning the rules.
Stephen Krashen, zompist.com, AJATT guy, Mentat, me, everybody else: Yes you can.
CaLeDee: But... Japanese is hard.
Everybody: Big deal.

What? Have I ever said Japanese is hard? I said it's harder for some than others, which it is. How can you say it's just as easy for an English person to learn Japanese, as it is for a Korean. HOW? it's just illogical and belief or confidence will get you nowhere when someone has the shortcut of being familiar with almost all the grammar before even starting. Also just because I don't have the same stance as you doesn't mean I don't think language can't be learned to a great degree in a short time. I am sure of myself that I will become fluent long before you do, using your method. That's my confidence in what I'm doing.

About the rules.

Yours = I will just bumble about and make mistakes until I get used to it and hear it enough.
Mine = I will read how it works and use it correctly from the beginning, and stop wasting time.

Almost 2am here -.-zzZZ nn

CaLeDee Wrote:Yours = I will just bumble about and make mistakes until I get used to it and hear it enough.
Mine = I will read how it works and use it correctly from the beginning, and stop wasting time.

Actually it is the oposite.

Doing only input prevent mistakes.

CaLeDee Wrote:I don't have an hypothesis, I just think it's only normal that babies have a much easier time picking up a language than adults do. But I don't even know why it came to this because this is talking about a first language vs. second/3rd/4th~~ which is very different.

Actually, babies learn languages for the sole purpose of being able to complain about what a pain in the arse it is. Unfortunately for them, by the time they're eloquent enough to express themselves, they've passed through the childhood amnesia stage and no longer remember exactly what it was that seemed so important before.

mentat_kgs Wrote:

CaLeDee Wrote:Yours = I will just bumble about and make mistakes until I get used to it and hear it enough.
Mine = I will read how it works and use it correctly from the beginning, and stop wasting time.

Actually it is the oposite.

Doing only input prevent mistakes.

But doing only input also means you only know input, and unlike this talk about babies and all those various theories on immersion etc, this is a clear fact which I think most people have some experience with.

It's like saying "Not driving prevents being in a car crash", it's true but it doesn't really mean anything, you still need to drive if you need to drive.

As for learning a language like a baby, who knows. If you were placed in another country and, hypothetically, there were no way of using your mothertongue in any way, you would eventually learn the language just like a baby. But it would take a lot of time and a lot of very confusing situations. Fact is, you could probably learn basic japanese from just watching japanese shows without subs for ages, but it would probably take you over a thousand hours of watching and your output would be hilariously bad. It's simply not very effective as an adult when we can use mnemonics and other techniques to learn more quickly.

Tobberoth Wrote:As for learning a language like a baby, who knows. If you were placed in another country and, hypothetically, there were no way of using your mothertongue in any way, you would eventually learn the language just like a baby. But it would take a lot of time and a lot of very confusing situations.

Actually, that's not true, either. You'd have to also give the person a complete mind wipe, since the advanced concepts would all be there to start with, as well as the ability to make sounds. Also, you'd have to assign them someone that cared enough to spend 24 hrs/day with them for their first 3 years.

My point is that there is no way to 'learn like a baby' even if you wanted to spend 6 years and still not be fluent, but only speak toddler-speak.

Immersion is proven to be one of the best language learning techniques. Combined with other techniques (structured learning of some kind, especially), it provides the fastest, best way to learn another language.

Having said that, I couldn't deal with Japanese 24/7 yet. It would drive me insane and definitely -not- help me learn faster. Anime with subs is still better for me than anime without. Once I can understand 2/3 of the content, I expect that to change. Maybe even as little as half. Beyond that and there's no enough context to pick up new words. I couldn't do it in English, and there's no way I could do it in Japanese.

wccrawford Wrote:Actually, that's not true, either. You'd have to also give the person a complete mind wipe, since the advanced concepts would all be there to start with, as well as the ability to make sounds. Also, you'd have to assign them someone that cared enough to spend 24 hrs/day with them for their first 3 years.

And then if you got abducted by aliens and they injected this serum into your brain that...
Wait, what the hell are we talking about at this point?

alyks Wrote:

CaLeDee Wrote:I can't say I can go along with the baby comparison though. Babies brains are like sponges and absorb everything in a very natural way. This changes as the brain matures and new connections become harder to form.

Source?

'Science,' by Scientists.

Unfortunately, I believe science more than Khatz. Khatz pulls a lot out of his proverbial. Of course what he writes about babies is very motivational and funny, but come on, babies are different from adults in so many ways, physically, mentally and environmentally.

I wish I had someone who spoke to me in a level appropriate fashion, on call 24/7, for an example.

Mentat, you learned English through listening, but you make mistakes and have bad output by your own admission. Babies, however, are fluent in the end. Also that anecdote by Krashen is just an anecdote, a one off, and he is not fluent like natives are fluent. He only has the appearance of fluency.

Theasianpleaser, I can imagine someone naturally saying "Did you enjoy it?". Perhaps Khatz has been in America too long. The same for "How do you do?". Maybe it's only old people who say that, but people say it so it's natural. It's stupid to think because something doesn't sound natural to you that it's completely unnatural. I think "What's up?" sounds totally unnatural, like a bad TV movie, but I accept that someone somewhere in the Anglosphere probably says it without irony. I mean, TokyoSam probably says it. A lot.