Mark_Friedenbach comments on [Link] Valproic acid, a drug for brain plasticity - Less Wrong

11 [deleted] 05 January 2014 07:41AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (34)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Douglas_Knight 05 January 2014 08:34:13PM -1 points [-]

Maybe for first languages, but it's hard to do that experiment. It's widely held false belief that children are good at learning second languages. wikipedia has the hilarious quote:

Certainly, older learners of a second language rarely achieve the native-like fluency that younger learners display, despite often progressing faster than children in the initial stages. This is generally accepted as evidence supporting the [critical period hypothesis].

Comment author: [deleted] 05 January 2014 11:57:24PM 2 points [-]

Why is that hilarious? It is in line with the studies I've read. I'm on my phone so it is a little hard to find cites. With focused study and the proper learning environment adults achieve fluency faster, but it us rare that they ever achieve a native like accent. Children with exposure under the age of 11 typically have no trouble in the other hand

Comment author: komponisto 07 January 2014 05:15:30AM 1 point [-]

Children with exposure under the age of 11 typically have no trouble [achieving a native-like accent] in the other hand

I started learning French at 10, and Spanish and Italian at 12, so this seems to predict I would have a native-like accent in French but not in Spanish or Italian. As a matter of fact, I do think my accent is slightly better in French, but I don't think the difference is large enough to count as "native-like" versus "non-native-like", and furthermore I suspect it has more to do with patterns of study and practice well after the ages in question (e.g. some systematic training in French phonetics at age 16) than with anything that went on in my brain during the first year.

Comment author: [deleted] 07 January 2014 06:41:32PM *  2 points [-]

1) Anecdotal evidence doesn't really mean anything. Everyone develops slightly differently - 11 years isn't a hard wired rule. These are rough averages. I expect that in the data there were some nine year olds that had difficulty assimilating, and some 13 year olds that had no trouble.

2) What the early exposure does is for example train your brain on distinguishing and producing phonemes which would otherwise literally be imperceptible otherwise.

3) French, Spanish, and Italian are very similar languages, in structure, idioms, and phonetics. It is not uncommon for adult learners of these languages coming from related backgrounds to develop a near-native accent within a realistic study regimen. This is because there are not that many perceptual hurdles between these European languages - if you've learnt one of these languages as a child, you have most of the mental machinery necessary to handle a native accent in one of the others. IIRC these studies are often more about Vietnamese or Chinese kids learning English or vice versa, where the problems are much, much greater and the prior of adult success very low.

Comment author: Douglas_Knight 06 January 2014 01:17:40AM 0 points [-]

The quote is about fluency, not accent. The first sentence is correct. The second sentence is the hilarious part; I read it as "linguists are generally idiots." It is harder for me to survey linguists than the literature, but in my limited attempt, it appears correct.