Thanks all for such a great discussion!

Yes, I should have been more specific on what I mean by "study grammar." I suppose I mean paying special attention to it separately from anything else, as in studying bullet-point rules. As people pointed out though, it's hard to really completely separate it 100% from organic study (or vice-versa), nor should anyone want to and that wasn't really the point of my question.

I don't agree that children and adults learn in the same way. I do see the value of using grammar as a shortcut, which is something children learning a language aren't capable of but adults can use to their advantage. Why not take advantage? At the same time though, I tend to agree with nadiatims about exposure really being what cements it in, rather than the initial studying of a rule.

Sound reasoning, I think.

As for me, I don't like devoting free time to trying to drill grammar rules, so I don't do it mostly for that simple reason. But making references to, or reviewing grammar guides and charts when needed - just enough so that I can understand a particular point for the time being - is the same kind of shortcut as looking up words. I don't categorize that as "studying grammar", but in any case it is taking advantage of them.

slimmjim Wrote:I don't agree that children and adults learn in the same way.

Do you mean with language, or in general? Because other than their brains not being as developed, I don't think children have any particular edge over adults other than their heads being mostly empty.

LivingNexus Wrote:

slimmjim Wrote:I don't agree that children and adults learn in the same way.

Do you mean with language, or in general? Because other than their brains not being as developed, I don't think children have any particular edge over adults other than their heads being mostly empty.

That's a pretty big advantage though, no? Empty head, all waking hours free to spend soaking up the language around you, a need to assign meaning to things to communicate and progress since you don't have anything else to fall back on? No 'translations' getting tangled up in your head since you're directly associating words to objects and sentences to experiences and actions?

Adults have bills, responsibilities, thoughts about the future and past, work, people to deal with in their native language and a million other things cluttering up their minds and taking up their time.

The amount of overlap in how adults and kids learn is huge, but it's definitely not exactly the same thing. Programs like Rosetta Stone pride themselves on "learning a language the same way you learned your first," which is good as a general rule, but probably stupid to also ignore shortcuts since you're not in the same situation as you were when you were a kid.

LivingNexus Wrote:

Tzadeck Wrote:Haha, whenever I read a Khatz article I still get so angry...his poor writing skills...

Er, how do you mean? I found his writing to be rather entertaining.

Whether his writing is entertaining is a matter of opinion--obviously, since you find it entertaining and it makes me so frustrated. The main thing I dislike about his writing is that he sounds so certain of himself, I guess. Then he sort of throws in self-depracating humor as if to show that he doesn't take himself that seriously, but the humor feels hollow because it's obvious that he does, in fact, take himself that seriously.

We have no straightforward answer to the best way of learning a language, so any writing about it should reflect that fact. That's how I feel.

(Note that I'm not exactly anti-AJATT so much as I'm anti-how-it's-presented. If he rephrased a lot of things more fairly I wouldn't have any problems with the site.)

LivingNexus Wrote:

slimmjim Wrote:I don't agree that children and adults learn in the same way.

Do you mean with language, or in general? Because other than their brains not being as developed, I don't think children have any particular edge over adults other than their heads being mostly empty.

Most linguists would disagree, and even the casual evidence would suggest otherwise -- 100% of non-deaf/non-disabled children learn the language they are exposed to with no effort and regardless of their intelligence or anything else. That doesn't happen with adults.

I think it's usually a bad idea to get caught in the trap of thinking that native kids learn a language in such and such a way so adults should too. The way children learn the language is a complete package involving constant exposure and regular correction by adults and teachers. You can't just take one element out of this package and hope to achieve the same results. I'm sure if an adult were put in the same position as a young child (i.e. being completely surrounded by the language and not being allowed to use their own native language) then they would progress pretty quickly too. They would also probably go crazy. The closest I can really imagine an adult getting would be to stay with a Japanese host family while attending a language school where none of the other pupils spoke that person's native language.

It is also mis-leading to say that native speakers don't learn grammar. Maybe they don't learn it in terms of learning a grammar point first and then looking at material using it, but they do have good grammar reinforced through correction by their parents and teachers. Elementary school 国語 books seem to have plenty of exercises reinforcing the correct uses of the particles, word order and so on. The junior high school books I saw had verb tables and some pretty long grammar explanations at the back of them. Maybe the point is that they were at the back of the book.

Tzadeck Wrote:The main thing I dislike about his writing is that he sounds so certain of himself, I guess.

That's fair, I suppose. I didn't notice it as much, but I can see how it could come across that way.

slimmjim Wrote:The amount of overlap in how adults and kids learn is huge, but it's definitely not exactly the same thing.

Mechanically I don't think it's any different, but you're right about where you are in your life having a lot to do with it. It's pretty impractical to take an adult and put him or her in the same kind of conditions as a child just to prove a point about how learning occurs.

I think adults still have some significant advantages over children when it comes to learning a language, though. Children learn to speak as a matter of survival, and because they have nothing better to do. Adults can take a self-directed approach and use tools like textbooks and flashcards. I think if someone takes it seriously enough and puts in enough hours, it can make up the difference between himself and a child who is only learning language as a matter of course. But like you say, most people don't do this because they have other concerns.

mutley Wrote:I think it's usually a bad idea to get caught in the trap of thinking that native kids learn a language in such and such a way so adults should too. The way children learn the language is a complete package involving constant exposure and regular correction by adults and teachers. You can't just take one element out of this package and hope to achieve the same results. I'm sure if an adult were put in the same position as a young child (i.e. being completely surrounded by the language and not being allowed to use their own native language) then they would progress pretty quickly too. They would also probably go crazy. The closest I can really imagine an adult getting would be to stay with a Japanese host family while attending a language school where none of the other pupils spoke that person's native language.

It is also mis-leading to say that native speakers don't learn grammar. Maybe they don't learn it in terms of learning a grammar point first and then looking at material using it, but they do have good grammar reinforced through correction by their parents and teachers. Elementary school 国語 books seem to have plenty of exercises reinforcing the correct uses of the particles, word order and so on. The junior high school books I saw had verb tables and some pretty long grammar explanations at the back of them. Maybe the point is that they were at the back of the book.

There are adults living in environments of constant exposure and they still fall short of "native level." Also research has shown that correcting a kid does little to actually affect the mistake. You may get them to say something the right way but they'll revert back to saying it the wrong way just a bit later.

And adult might gain a fluidity in the language similar to native speakers and operate at a level that is native-like, but there will still always be little things they can't do that even someone like a 13 year old could do.

I'll refer back to this example:

Fillanzea Wrote:For example: movement of wh-clauses in English is incredibly complicated. Why is it that I can say "Whom does Carl believe that Bob knows that Mary likes?" but I can't say "What did you go home because you needed to do?" I don't know one native English speaker who was taught this explicitly without taking a college-level linguistics course, but I don't know one native English speaker who would get it wrong.

(As kind of side question for those that are familiar with SLA research, can adults ever acquire passive understanding of a language, such that they can't help but understand what they hear? I assume most L2 learners have the ability to turn off their understanding of a language, meaning that language comprehension in your L2+ is an active process. I however suspect that most people can a passively understand their L1 without having to think about it any. Has there been any research on this? And how do they define this topic in SLA research?)

TwoMoreCharacters Wrote:

Fillanzea Wrote:Yes, but grammar lessons in school are mainly focused on things that are part of
-written language
-formal language
-the language of the middle and upper classes.

So, you learn where to put the comma, you learn not to write run-on sentences and sentence fragments, you learn not to say "ain't" or end a sentence with a preposition (which, by the way, linguists generally agree is a pretty silly rule.) It's important to learn that kind of thing, especially if you want to go to university or get a white-collar job, but it's not fundamental to the grammar of the language.

Reading!

You'll have to watch a few minutes in, his conclusion comes at around 14.50.

http://sdkrashen.com/index.php?cat=2

I agree that, for the most part, reading will teach advanced grammar. However, certain parts of grammar are virtually impossible to learn without formal instruction. For example, properly using who/whom or avoiding split infinitives. However, most people happily ignore these rules and only grammarians or editors really care about them...

vix86 Wrote:As kind of side question for those that are familiar with SLA research, can adults ever acquire passive understanding of a language, such that they can't help but understand what they hear? I assume most L2 learners have the ability to turn off their understanding of a language, meaning that language comprehension in your L2+ is an active process. I however suspect that most people can a passively understand their L1 without having to think about it any. Has there been any research on this? And how do they define this topic in SLA research?

I'm not aware of any of such research but English is my L2. If I can hear conversation in English, it is hard for me to "turn off" this part of my brain that understands what's being said (unless you speak like Jeff Bridges in "True Gritt", that is).

Inny Jan Wrote:I'm not aware of any of such research but English is my L2. If I can hear conversation in English, it is hard for me to "turn off" this part of my brain that understands what's being said (unless you speak like Jeff Bridges in "True Gritt", that is).

When did you start learning English?

I find that interesting though because I can turn my Japanese off like its nothing. I can still catch portions of conversations though that make me tune in though; same thing if my name is mentioned katakanized. But my brain won't process and comprehend unless I focus in. It is possible that it is because I still think primarily in English and not in Japanese, maybe if I was thinking in Japanese it would be harder to shut it out.

I've definitely wanted to block out Japanese in my head but I couldn't. I was on a bus in Sapporo two weeks ago and there were three Japanese high school guys having the worst conversation ever, and I so desperately wanted them to shut the ***** up (as did all the other Japanese people on the bus).

So yeah, there's a point where you get fluent enough that you can understand most conversations without concentration. If I have the news on or something I block out most of it if I don't concentrate, but daily conversations are easy enough that my mind processes them automatically. So it seems to just be a matter of fluency level.

(Edit 1: This forum still blocks *****? Testing: Cunt faggot nigger.)
(Edit 2: There ya go people, apparently ***** is worse than cunt faggot or nigger.)

I can sometimes 'turn off' understanding English, and English is my L1. It's quite rare, though, and I have to focus on turning it off, but I like doing it (maybe that's why I can; I've practised) because I find it entertaining to hear my language like a foreigner might hear it.

vix86 Wrote:(As kind of side question for those that are familiar with SLA research, can adults ever acquire passive understanding of a language, such that they can't help but understand what they hear?)

I don't know about research, but Japanese is now that way for me -- probably never will be to the extent English is, but I can't block out Japanese the way I can other languages I don't know at all.

yudantaiteki Wrote:Most linguists would disagree, and even the casual evidence would suggest otherwise -- 100% of non-deaf/non-disabled children learn the language they are exposed to with no effort and regardless of their intelligence or anything else. That doesn't happen with adults.

But kids have parent talking to them all the time, and are 100% in the language... have there been experiments with adults in this situation who don't learn?

vix86 Wrote:When did you start learning English?

The moment you start learning seems of lesser importance than actual time and amount of exposure (as others seem to indicate as well). In my case it's been more than 10 years of living in Australia.

caivano Wrote:

yudantaiteki Wrote:Most linguists would disagree, and even the casual evidence would suggest otherwise -- 100% of non-deaf/non-disabled children learn the language they are exposed to with no effort and regardless of their intelligence or anything else. That doesn't happen with adults.

But kids have parent talking to them all the time

Not necessarily. There are cultures where parents don't talk directly to their kids until they start speaking, and those children learn speech fine. The problem with a lot of these casual arguments people make against child language learning theories is that they don't account for the 100% language learning rate of children (aside from deaf/mental disabilities).

vix86 Wrote:There are adults living in environments of constant exposure and they still fall short of "native level." Also research has shown that correcting a kid does little to actually affect the mistake. You may get them to say something the right way but they'll revert back to saying it the wrong way just a bit later.

And adult might gain a fluidity in the language similar to native speakers and operate at a level that is native-like, but there will still always be little things they can't do that even someone like a 13 year old could do.

Are those adults though really in the same situation as children who have to depend 100% on that language to comunicate? I'm not denying that young children may have some physiological advantage over adults when it comes to learning language (especially their first one), I just wanted to comment that:
1. If an adult was put in the same position as a native child (i.e. over 10 years of schooling using that language while living in an environment where they depended 100% on that language), then I feel that they would learn the language to a similar level to that of a native speaker.
2. However, the above sitution is a pretty unrealistic one to put an adult in.
3. Designing your study methods around something because 'that's how native children learn' is not necessarily the best idea, especially when you are just taking a small bit of how native children learn and not the whole method.

I dont know why people make the comparison of child vs adult learners.
Its not even a fair argument.

About 100% of all children learn their mother language, then again, these children all are given about 4 to 6 years to produce grammatically correct sentences. Im sure if an adult was driven enough to not produce or think in their mother language, they would have impressive results as well, after 4 to 6 years. A child cant read native books after a year or two but an adult sure can.

Adults have the luxury of being able to navigate society without speaking L2 by using L1 in conjunction with common sense and world knowledge / experience. Stuck in an L2 environment, you often dont even need to use it. This is probably the only reason adults often fail at language learning.

Give an adult a 6 year paid vacation to the L2 country with the only objective being to acquire the language, and you can be sure they will do well.

Language acquisition is a scientific field; you can't just sit around and say "well, this makes sense to me" any more than you can just start spouting off about biology or chemistry if you haven't studied it. There are a lot of good introductory linguistics books that would cover language acquisition; I recommend you pick up one of those if you want to learn more about it.

Arguments that adults would learn like children were they in a similar situation are wrong, even if the argument admits that creating the situation is impossible.

Children really do learn language differently than adults. Finding scientists in the field who argue otherwise is like finding biologists that don't believe in evolution--there are a couple, but nobody takes them seriously.

(Just as an example, babies at 6-8 months can recognize and distinguish between sounds in ANY language with about the same accuracy. This is tested by a head-turn test where the babies are taught to turn there head when a sound changes. In the next 2-4 months babies stop being able to do this. They get about 15 percent better at distinguishing between similar sounds in their own language, and 15 percent worse at distinguishing between sounds that are not in their language.

Adults can't mimic this at all. As an adult you don't have some magic period where you can distinguish between all sounds with 65% accuracy [the value from one of the studies], and then gradually get better at the important ones and worse at the others. Instead you can distinguish between sounds in your language with a very very high degree of accuracy, and you completely suck as distinguishing between sounds not in your language.

Deal with it, you suck at learning language after you're seven. That's the truth.)

Where are the studies where an adult has been placed in a foreign language environment, completely isolated from their l1, dependent on the l2 for all and any communication, and having a special person(s) assigned to them giving them comprehensible input almost all waking hours of the day (to simulate family & classmates) for several years and they didn't achieve a high level of fluency? If you can't show those studies, why assume that adult language acquisition somehow cannot follow the natural acquisition process that works for children?

edit: just saw your post Tzadeck. Re: that head turn test, a) link please (I find most language acquisition related studies that get posted woefully inadequate and short-term). b) Maybe that just means it takes adults slightly longer to develop an good ear for and accent in the language, not necessarily for other aspects of the language. At any rate, I know plenty of people who have developed perfect accents in English as a second language (both my parents being examples).

I think the incident of the 'feral child' Genie is relevant to this discussion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genie_(feral_child)

I think that shows that children do have differing ability when it comes to raw language acquisition. Although Genie did acquire some language, she acquired it at a much slower rate, but was still able to express herself through other means.

You can't do that study because you can't fund it and you can't find people willing to invest that much time in it. It's an impractical study, and the suggestion of it just makes it sound like you don't know much about science and the history of science.

The way science generally works is not by creating those kinds of perfect studies. Perfect studies are almost always impossible. So what we have to do is make studies that are indirect but are clever and can nevertheless get to the heart of what we are trying to figure out. There are plenty of such studies that suggest that children learn languages different from adults.

An example of one experiment in another field is this: to determine the charge of an electron we had to determine the charge of oil droplets in mechanical equilibrium tons and tons and tons of times and then we determined that the charges were multiples of a fundamental value. We then assumed that the fundamental value was the charge of an electron. A very round about way of doing it, but as we did more and more studies and relied on that number more and more it became obvious that yes, that number was in fact correct even though the original study was done in a rather complicated roundabout way. The results of that study were ridiculously accurate, though we have refined the number a bit over the years.

It's not like we made some machine that could just measure the charge of an electron, even to this day. And there weren't scientists going, "Yeah, but did you make a machine that could measure the charge! No! So you're totally wrong! Where's the machine!? This study isn't perfect so it doesn't prove anything!"