Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

5slipsandagully t1_j4gagiu wrote

It's risky to compare language acquisition to other kinds of knowledge or learning, because strictly speaking you don't "learn" your native language the same way you might learn a second language later in life.

From what we know about it, first language acquisition is automatic, begins in infancy, and occurs even with a paucity of stimulus. That is to say, your knowledge of your native language exceeds the sum of the language you've heard. Your capacity to acquire a language also diminishes over time. By the time you've reached adulthood, the critical period for acquiring a language has passed and you're stuck with what you've got*.

There's also a whole lot we don't know, such as why it's almost impossible to learn a second langauge with native-like proficiency later in life given first language acquisition is effortless. Second language learners can reach a point in learning where no amount of effort or immersion in the target culture will help fix the errors that remain in their understanding of the second language, and we don't know why this happens.

Language acquisition probably has more in common with learning to walk than it does with learning to ride a bike, that is to say it's innate and somehow you know when you're ready to do it, even before you're old enough to know how to not shit your pants. So, discussions of what it means to "know" a language need to differentiate between the processes of language acquisition and language learning, and be clear-eyed about how bad we are at the latter even though we're miraculously talented at the former.

*To clarify this point, because a lot of people took issue with it, I don't mean you can never learn another language, only that the process of learning a language in adulthood will be different to the process of acquiring a language (or multiple languages) in early childhood. This is an important consideration if you're going to talk about what it means to "know" a language

111

virtutesromanae t1_j4gcnnn wrote

>By the time you've reached adulthood, the critical period for acquiring a language has passed and you're stuck with what you've got.

I agree with everything you stated, except for this. While it is certainly more difficult to learn another language in adulthood, you are not "stuck with what you've got." The learning process for another language is different than for one's native language, and the way adults learn most things is often different than the way children learn, but it can be done. The trick is to find the best way to learn at whatever stage one finds oneself - and that may vary from person to person. Also, continually working on foreign languages throughout life helps one more easily acquire new languages. If that particular muscle is allowed to atrophy, it doubtlessly becomes a much more difficult task.

124

percautio t1_j4hcxm3 wrote

In general I think this is true, it largely comes down to learning styles, effort you put in, and willingness to practice even if you're afraid of making a mistake.

One notable exception - children are born able to discern differences between many sounds, even the most subtly different. We lose the ability to make any of those discernments that don't help us in whatever language(s) we are exposed to in the first few years of life. I don't think it's possible to relearn those, which can present an obstacle in mastering another language that needs them, particularly in terms of pronunciation.

13

SinnPacked t1_j4htlll wrote

We lose the ability to naturally discern subtle differences in consonant and vowel sounds beyond an age, but it is totally incorrect to suggest you can't "learn" them later.

If you're simply trying to discern the sounds in a language you can become arbitrarily good at the task (as in, your ability to discern the sounds used in a language scale with time spent invested practicing it, up until well after you exceed the capacity of a typical native).

The issue is that most foreign language learners never spend that amount of time and often learn to speak before they learn to listen/understand. This causes them to permanently ingrain their incorrect pronunciation. What everyone else is left with is the illusion that complete 2nd language acquisition is impossible, but this is just wrong.

12

virtutesromanae t1_j4hi67n wrote

Agreed on all points. That loss of abilities that you mention is a definite challenge. That just means that a person has to work harder and smarter to learn new languages later. But, as you pointed out, it is far less likely that they can gain native fluency and pronunciation - at least in a language with sounds that are not found in one's own language.

And regarding making mistakes... I have found that the most embarrassing mistakes I've made in other languages have cemented in my mind the correct way of saying things far more efficiently than any other method. In other words, if any of you are hesitant to make a mistake in another language, fear not - let the mistakes fly and the blushing commence.

6

percautio t1_j4hkgou wrote

Good point, I don't think I'll ever forget the time a French man told me my pronunciation of "thank you very much" sounded more like "thank you, beautiful neck" 🥲

8

--Ty-- t1_j4iosdt wrote

Beaucoup:

If pronounced Boh-kew or Boh-koo, with a slight pause in between them, sounds like the word is being split into Beau Cou, which means beautiful neck.

If pronounced Bohkou, quickly, with no gap, comes across as Beaucoup. I gotta admit tho, I had to really think about that one, it's a very subtle difference.

(don't mean to sound condescending, I'm sure you know how to pronounce it now, you just got me interested with your comment :P)

7

namom256 t1_j4j4gzh wrote

This might be generally true, but is not always true. I, for one, have a condition where I cannot filter sounds. I cannot focus on any particular sound unless it is significantly louder than all surrounding sounds. No matter how hard I try, if you speak to me as a train goes by, I will not be able to understand what you are saying if my life depended on it. I have been through many tests and have been told it is an issue with the way my brain processes sound, not my ears themselves. As such I absolutely need subtitles to understand most movies.

As a side effect, I am easily able to differentiate even the most subtle differences in language. Although I am aware that most people cannot. It has given me an edge in language learning and have learned 3 languages as an adult. 2 of which I speak at near native level fluency and am constantly mistaken as a native speaker due to my near perfect accent. Still working on the 3rd. It takes practice and time, but I can imitate the exact pronunciation unlike many other language learners.

I'm sure there's plenty of other people like me out there who can also tell the subtle nuanced differences between similar sounds, even long into their adulthood.

2

magifool t1_j4k5ebn wrote

It's true that we stop discerning differences between sounds that don't carry meaning in our native languages, as you said, but I think it's possible to regain the ability later in life if you become very accustomed to the language and you find those differences mattering in your every day linguistic environment.

I gradually became fluent in Japanese over the 6 years I lived in Japan, and just last year I realized the way I had been pronouncing ん "n" in some contexts was wrong, but I only realized because I first noticed the way a native speaker was saying 千円 "sen-en" (the way I'd been saying it) was something more like se-yen (which maybe explains why in English we call it yen instead of 円 "en").

There were other pronunciation things I realized over time like this. So it takes a long time, but in my experience you can re-learn to make differentiation like that, and you really do start hearing things you couldn't before.

2

WeReAllMadHereAlice t1_j4hta63 wrote

They're not talking about a critical period for learning second language, but for a first language.

We have a few case studies of extreme neglect where children were kept alive but never spoken to or around by their caregivers. These children do not learn any language, and after a certain point (the critical period) they don't seem to be able to ever truly learn a language anymore. "Genie" being one of the most well-studied cases. She was kept restricted on a potty chair for 13 years, in a dark bedroom away from the rest of her family. She was fed, but that was about it. She was eventually rescued, but was never able to master English grammar. She knew some words, and could somewhat use them to communicate, but was never able to convey more complex ideas.

What you are talking about is a so called "sensitive period." It is easier to learn a second language earlier in life, but not impossible to do so later.

5

Ebolamunkey t1_j4hm6i5 wrote

This is ridiculous. Learning languages is just a grind and it's a skill in itself. You are right that the more languages you learn the faster you get at acquiring new one.

It's super fun though, and i think it's a critical part about learning and understanding other cultures.

2

muriouskind t1_j4jcc6p wrote

Unfortunately it requires a lot of unlearning. While this is more of an observation through experience - there is no ONE way to make a sound or even a specific phoneme, it is a spectrum. In very much the same way your ‘walk’ is uniquely formed from more or less a blank slate, so is the way you use your voice, mouth, etc.

So to properly process and form phonemes that your native language doesn’t have is an additional challenge and if it requires unlearning bad habits you have exponentially more work to do. That says nothing about the other mechanics of the mind-body connection

1

5slipsandagully t1_j4gd6hi wrote

That's all true, but at that point you're not using the same cognitive mechanism that you used in childhood to acquire a first language

−8

denisoshea13 t1_j4ggs57 wrote

Children can differentiate between two different languages from before birth. Children can grow up learning two or more languages, which makes it much easier for them to learn languages later in life. Learning a second language impacts the first. A childhood native language can fall out of use in adulthood and a non-native language can become dominant. You do not have to be native level speaker to be entirely proficient In a language. (Think of people from the Netherlands speaking English) This critical period you reference, as well as this “cognitive mechanism that you used to acquire language”, is heavily contested and has more to do with the effects of language on cognition than linguistic ability or competence .It seems like you are devaluing language that is learnt at a later stage in life, this upholds an out of date view on a commonly misunderstood process that is not actually true and can be harmful.

20

CiciMcGee45 t1_j4ijugd wrote

I used to work at a daycare and I had a lot of bilingual kids, especially English/Chinese and some of their parents were concerned that speaking Chinese would delay their English and I was always telling them no, the kids know there’s a difference and they rarely use words from one language while using the other. It’s amazing. Some of the toddlers couldn’t tell you that they spoke two, like if you asked them what’s this in Chinese they couldn’t but by the time they were four or five they knew they understood two separate languages. It was so amazing to see them just switch when they’re parents picked them up.

2

virtutesromanae t1_j4hk1bu wrote

I don't think he/she is devaluing language learned later in life. I think he/she is just stating that the approach and mechanism of learning changes over time. I agree with that point. I know that I learn nearly everything (language or otherwise) differently now than I did when I was a child.

1

5slipsandagully t1_j4iunes wrote

OP's article was about what it means to "know" a language, not what it means to be competent in a language, so of course my comment was about the effects of language on cognition. The only point my original comment made is that childhood language acquisition (no matter how many languages that may involve) and language learning later in life are qualitatively different. I'm not sure why that's controversial or harmful

1

denisoshea13 t1_j4qfzsg wrote

But where you say “you’re stuck with what you got” is controversial and (can be ) harmful

1

BrakumOne t1_j4ggrd5 wrote

That's not true. It depends how you learn it. I would say that i learned english after 18 the same way i learned portuguese as a child. It was solely through exposure. I didnt have any classes and i made no effort to actively 'learn' it.

8

eliminate1337 t1_j4gi8vk wrote

> it's almost impossible to learn a second langauge with native-like proficiency later in life

The gap between an advanced learner and native speaker is more in accent, idioms, and other cultural specificities than in functional proficiency. Past the critical period, you won’t be mistaken for a native speaker.

There are plenty of people on /r/languagelearning who pass the C2 exams (basically native proficiency). Look up the C2 English exam, it’s effortful even for a native English speaker.

23

IHeartCannabis t1_j4ibhz3 wrote

I'm bilingual but I see myself as more of a francophone and I can still ace the English C2 tests 9/10. Education is a prime factor, speaking and writing are essentially two different skills.

3

IAmTriscuit t1_j4gv3wz wrote

Man is it painful to be a sociolinguist and read this thread. People really like to throw the critical period hypothesis around without really thinking about how absurd it would be if it was definitively true that someone just can't learn a language after a certain age.

23

5slipsandagully t1_j4iwpn2 wrote

My understanding is that you can obviously learn a language after a certain age, but that learning happens differently later in life than in early childhood

3

IAmTriscuit t1_j4ixe85 wrote

Yeah, absolutely it does. A huge part of additional language teaching is learning exactly how those differences manifest and what teachers can do to best navigate those challenges and differences. But it is undoubtedly, 100 percent possible for someone to learn a language well past the "critical period".

5

marenicolor t1_j4kf9lp wrote

But not for first language acquisition. This has been shown in studies of children who experienced extreme neglect. Perhaps the original commenter was mixing up information they've heard and applied it to learning additional languages. I agree this thread has been painful to read because nearly everyone is making the incorrect assumption that first language acquisition = learning a second, foreign language.

0

Daflehrer1 t1_j4gmxa1 wrote

Your lack of knowledge, language acquisition, and imagination is glaring.

12

Snuffleton t1_j4gp4vh wrote

I personally am under the impression that a lot of that has to do with social knowledge rather than actual knowledge about the language in question, though.

When I say something 'wrong' (f.ex. grammar-wise) in my native language, I do so with confidence. I know what I just said, and you gotta deal with that, full stop. And people will mostly just accept it, shrug their shoulders, and go:

'huh, guess that's one more way of saying it..? Sure, why not? He seems pretty stubborn about it, so I must be the stupid one'.

And when enough people start imitating the word, expression or manner in which you just said something, it will be considered 'in line' or within the range of the acceptable, respectively - others will think 'that guy definitely probably knew what he did there (maybe?), so he must be.. uhhh.. fluent'.

The same is not true for a second language, though. Going by my own experiences: as long as people don't see you and thereby aren't able to judge your nationality, ethnicity etc.; given that you speak their language well enough, they will simply assume you to come from a remote enough region that their assessment of themselves being in the wrong (or 'not in the know', rather) will somehow still hold true. When they do see you, however, they won't accept nothing they'd deem 'non-standard', because they will immediately assume that you just don't speak the language well enough.

I've found myself in this very situation several times, one of which even cost me a job interview, because the lady on the phone simply refused to believe me when I told her that I'm German and therefore didn't have to jump through some of their hoops regarding providing proof of language proficiency. That might sound like anecdotal evidence, but I'm fairly certain I am onto something with my observations so far

7

hairam t1_j4hproe wrote

To your point, but different:

In my experience, I think it's a little less "huh, must be a thing where they're from!" and usually a little more "they know better, so it's a waste of time to correct" (unless the error is egregious or a popular annoyance like "alot" - see: reddit "grammar nazis"). This applies to the internet in particular, which is rife with mistyping and lazy typing for non-formal discussion, and in an age where autocorrect can actually make something you've said incorrect or nonsensical.

Eg: I'd assume "they won't accept nothing" is an editing error, and that you typed something out ("they'll accept nothing" or "they won't accept anything") but went back to edit your phrasing and forgot to correct agreement in the process. As quirks or little things like that increase, I'd assume you're not a native speaker whether or not I see your face.

Alternate example: I should have typed out that "Eg:" above as "E.g.," but people aren't going to take the time to correct that. They pooosssibly would if I had typed E.G.

Also in my experience, in person, native speakers will correct each other until they hear someone say that it's a peculiarity from their childhood or hometown. E.g. ^((maybe I'll try to write it correctly when I use it, now...)^) I have a friend who pronounces something oddly and uniquely. This friend has been corrected, but they have said it was always like that for them growing up. Now it has become accepted that "it's just how it is" for them with that particular pronunciation.

I think you're absolutely right about the impact of social knowledge and vernacular language on whether or not someone's considered native level. That speaks to the "personal knowledge" point in the linked article

3

Snuffleton t1_j4kbvds wrote

I don't know what your native language is or where you are from, but I still want to add that I feel like the problem regarding the written language that you mentioned was something I didn't think of. I was talking about the spoken word specifically. So, I guess what you are saying is true, but - correct me if I'm mistaken with this assumption - together with your second point about native speakers correcting each other, I will still argue, that both of those phenomenons definitely happen more regularly when the language in question is English.

Maybe due to it being an internationalized language, so you never really know who you are talking to, unless you are seated square in front of them; or maybe due to English not being coherent regarding its own pronounciation, so people are more prone to point out what they consider to be 'faulty'..? Anyways, I have observed native English speakers doing that to each other quite a few times, while I can come up with exactly zero occurences of this in my own native language, which is German. This leads me to conclude that this happens with differing frequencies, depending on the language.

2

hairam t1_j4rqmxm wrote

English is my native language and I'm from the US, for context!

Ah, I didn't know you were specifically talking about spoken language.

I would like to clarify, I agree with your initial point. If a native speaker makes a grammatical mistake (online through text, or offline/spoken), I've also experienced people just shrugging it off (that's kind of where "it's assumed they know better" came from in my first reply).

To elaborate on my comparative experience with pronunciation differences:
Pronunciation is more likely to be perceived as "faulty" if both speakers are from the same area, but pronounce something differently. E.g., I'd never correct accented English pronunciation from a native speaker (be they from England, New Zealand, or just another part of the US, etc), nor from a non native speaker (so long as the non-native speaker's pronunciation wasn't interfering with understanding, and they weren't trying to "improve" their pronunciation). My example comes from friends who have grown up in the same city but pronounce something differently.

Very interesting conclusion in your last sentence!

Also, I wanted to say - I used your own wording as an example of a small mistake. I hope that didn't come across as me speaking down to you! I was wondering at the time if doing that would come across as rude, but I wasn't sure it would, because it was such an understandable mistake to make... I've enjoyed your thoughts and this conversation, so I just wanted to make sure I didn't come across as having engaged impolitely with you.

2

Snuffleton t1_j4tauvd wrote

No worries, I'm no part of the 'toxic assclown' faction on Reddit and always assume commenters to have the best in mind when they answer. It's always nice to come across someone who puts some thought in their words

2

slickback9001 t1_j4hktfo wrote

Sounds like you’re confusing your own personal experience with fact. It’s not that hard to keep learning a language as an adult. People do it all the time every day

6

purplestgiraffe t1_j4icrw4 wrote

Agreed. My father began studying Russian when he was in his early 50s, and got conversational (to the point his Russian friends and tutors kept insisting he was fluent, despite him not being confident enough in it to feel like he was) in just a few years. It’s ludicrous to suggest there comes an age where your brain just shuts off language acquisition forever.

1

Zlec3 t1_j4i5bs5 wrote

You’re not stuck with what you got in adulthood. I learned how to speak Spanish & Portuguese between the ages of 25-30

6

cbessette t1_j4ksuie wrote

I started Spanish at 29, was conversationally fluent within two years. As an adult it comes down to desire and usefulness of a language to really learn it.

1

agentchuck t1_j4javnn wrote

It's worth noting also that people always underestimate how much active work a child goes through in learning a language. They are under constant tutelage for years by family members who correct their pronunciation and language usage. They go to school where they have to dedicate hours on spelling, grammar, etc. And they have to use the language constantly in service of learning other things. Proficiency doesn't just appear from exposure.

As an adult learning a second language you generally won't have anywhere close to the same level of language exposure or learning support.

6

IHeartCannabis t1_j4iauga wrote

What about people who learn more than one language at once in infancy? And I call BS on not being able to learn a new language once you're adult (that sounds like some american redneck mentality) I was raised on English and French (speak both with no foreign accent) and i've been learning spanish for almost 3 years now (I'm 27) and am now an intermediate speaker. I've traveled with it and have been able to have long discussions about alot of different things even though it wasn't perfect.

1

[deleted] t1_j4g1y8h wrote

[removed]

97

[deleted] t1_j4g2sqv wrote

[removed]

17

[deleted] t1_j4g5iwe wrote

[removed]

52

[deleted] t1_j4g63q9 wrote

[removed]

15

[deleted] t1_j4ggbho wrote

[removed]

−11

[deleted] t1_j4ghkfo wrote

[removed]

7

[deleted] t1_j4ghvbp wrote

[removed]

−4

[deleted] t1_j4gl95d wrote

[removed]

2

[deleted] t1_j4glfok wrote

[removed]

−1

[deleted] t1_j4gljr1 wrote

[removed]

4

BernardJOrtcutt t1_j4h3ia6 wrote

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Read the Post Before You Reply

>Read/watch/listen the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.


This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

−9

kevinzvilt t1_j4hftrr wrote

As a native Arabic speaker, I find that the sound and shape of Arabic words make the meanings they describe incredibly vivid. There is an element of iconicity in this relationship that I don't experience with other languages like English, French, or Spanish.

92

Willing-Emu-8247 t1_j4ii3la wrote

You're making it sound so fun to learn. Sadly, It would probably take me twice my lifetime to even get close lol. Can you provide an example? I'm interested

32

Realinternetpoints t1_j4ikvea wrote

Are you saying there is a kiki/boba effect in Arabic? Like, the shape of the sounds hold a meaning that is greater than the definition of the word itself?

30

MoDaSilva t1_j4qqiw1 wrote

Yes, exactly. Negative words 'sound' negative and vice versa. For example, wrong is a very strong: خطأ \khtta'a\ while right is a very soft: صح \sah\. The word for strong itself is strong: قوي \qawi\ while soft is: ناعم na'im.

Now try to guess for yourself which word is 'ugly' and which is 'beautiful':

/jameel/ جميل vs. /qabih/ قبيح

4

platoprime t1_j4j24jg wrote

That sounds like nonsense given you can attribute any meaning onto a word; it's just a symbol. It's one thing to say a language is beautiful or evocative but the idea that a sound can gain special meaning a word cannot seems silly.

−49

jmc20kop t1_j4j69i6 wrote

Look it up, studies have been done to show that English speakers find the word kiki to be a sharper object and boba to be more rounded objects

31

WeeabooHunter69 t1_j4l59i6 wrote

I'm pretty sure that it was a lot more than just English speakers, right?

3

platoprime t1_j4j85wx wrote

Yes because we associate the sharp abrupt sounds in kiki to a sharp object because we use words like sharp and flat to describe sounds. That isn't "the shape of the sounds hold[ing] a meaning that is greater than the definition of the word itself?".

That's just recognizing there are different sounds.

−2

Realinternetpoints t1_j4jait9 wrote

It’s more than English. Other languages have similar associations with Kiki and boba. It sounds like this person is saying that there are sound associations in Arabic that only make sense to Arabic speakers

12

platoprime t1_j4jb6i6 wrote

> there are sound associations in Arabic that only make sense to Arabic speakers

Like words and their connotations? Yeah, I wouldn't describe those as something special and "greater" than the meaning of a word.

−11

ididntunderstandyou t1_j4kjy3y wrote

Tell me you speak no other language without telling me you speak no other language.

6

CheesyPizzaDood t1_j4jxwin wrote

Boba tea bubbles are rounded objects, but I do get your point with kiki.

−2

TsarKashmere t1_j4j85in wrote

Synesthesia.

−4

Getjac t1_j4jibgi wrote

Failing to recognize the sensuous quality of words is a failure of perception on your part pal

16

platoprime t1_j4j8i21 wrote

It isn't synesthesia; we just use words like sharp and flat to describe sounds so it's only natural to project that meaning onto a word that sounds sharp or flat.

13

cesiumatom t1_j4je804 wrote

I am both a native English and native Arabic speaker. Having known both languages since early childhood, and having become proficient in the use of both, I would say that, along with other major differences, Arabic is more of an onomatopeic language than English. A simple example is "Maazah", or sheep. Maa is the sound sheep make, while sheep has nothing to do with with the actual characteristics of that particular animal species. "Sheep", however is phonetically similar to the word "shear", which is the act of cutting the wool away from sheep. I gave this example because it illustrates a difference between newer Western (Old English c. 550AD) and older Eastern (Arabic c. 500CE) languages. In newer languages, words tend to be born of relative object descriptors and functions (this is especially true in Germanic languages), whereas words from older languages tend to be born of feelings, expressions, and heard sounds. This illustrates a key divide in frame of reference between speakers of old and new languages. As the English language pervades much of the East today, these subtleties of native languages are being lost, though it is indeed debatable whether what is lost is the beauty without the loss of meaning. Many Eastern traditions view sounds as sacred objects in and of themselves, for example Mantras, which are thought to contain energy and information separate from yet entangled with the meaning of the words. In other words, a word is not just a symbol. Ancient theological texts from many cultures claim that the "word" predates creation, a fascinating proposition, even if you don't believe the stories and myths. If anything, it shows that words can indeed have special meaning to many people, meaning that extends beyond the boundaries of language.

25

WeeabooHunter69 t1_j4l6aib wrote

It's interesting seeing languages mingle almost in realtime, and Japanese is a perfect example. They have a whole script primarily for loan words or foreign names and historically have a lot of words adapted from Portuguese, but have been taking more and more from English as the digital age goes on to the point that younger people can use a lot of English words without even being conscious of it. To make things even more complicated, English ends up taking a lot of words that were already loans from english, especially from video games, HP, ring out, level up, etc. Are all words that went from English to Japanese and back and we don't even think about it.

2

platoprime t1_j4jp4ob wrote

>If anything, it shows that words can indeed have special meaning to many people, meaning that extends beyond the boundaries of language.

The meanings of words does not extend beyond the boundaries of language.

−7

NorthernAvo t1_j4j7lik wrote

I've always thought Arabic sounded beautiful. English is a very matter-of-fact language, just like German (and they're both Germanic) but you can see their reflection on the more stoic and serious, sometimes cynical and sarcastic, tones of English and German speakers.

The romantic languages all have a fun, bubbly, and colorful bounciness to them.

And then Arabic is just so elegant and, like you said, vivid-sounding. There's also a wisdom and warmth to it. I don't know a lick of it, really, but maybe one day.

10

Razkawebos t1_j4iz0un wrote

You mean speaking with enthusiasm? Unfortunately even if I knew any Arabic languages I’d still sound monotonous.

2

Apprehensive_Joke_73 t1_j4k385x wrote

I'm even more interested in learning Arabic after this, do you reckon if knowing Urdu (vocabulary mainly but i can read a bit) will help learning Arabic?

1

CiciMcGee45 t1_j4igkx9 wrote

Signed languages aren’t using gestures. They’re complete languages with all the requirements. There’s a general lack of knowledge about signed languages, as a lot of people think it’s simple gestures or coded English (or whatever language is natively spoken in the region) which isn’t the case. I don’t know of a single sign language that perfectly maps onto a spoken language. I know this isn’t like, the point of your essay, which overall I thought was interesting, I just studied ASL and thought maybe it was interesting to tell people that.

30

rmadsen93 t1_j4jg7re wrote

Yes, ASL and other sign languages are full-fledged languages in their own right. I took an ASL class once and I don’t remember much but I do remember that it has different grammar from English.

8

kRkthOr t1_j4k1lbg wrote

This isn't entirely related to what we're talking about but...

> Yes, ASL and other sign languages are full-fledged languages in their own right.

I don't have any mute/deaf friends so my only exposure to SL was random clips in movies/tv shows and signing in like the news or whatever. But the impression that those gave me was that SL is essentially a way to "say" words by signing them, little more than subtitles.

But I watched the latest season of The Circle and there's a deaf girl there and hooooooly shit is there a lot of emotion and mannerisms that can be delivered through SL. It's legit fascinating to see someone like her communicate that way. She has an interpreter with her that not only understands the words she's saying but also the way she's saying them and it's amazing but also kinda obvious like I don't know how I didn't realize this before? Of course a language that relies on hand gestures can be extremely animated.

4

WeeabooHunter69 t1_j4l4rh7 wrote

Unfortunately deaf or hard of hearing or mute characters haven't gotten much attention for a very very long time, though that's been changing lately. Just the last couple years we had eternals and Hawkeye, which had at least one of each between them. A silent voice(koe no katachi) is a great movie with a deaf woman as the female lead and shows pretty great JSL.

2

thenousman OP t1_j4lcqzd wrote

Yeah, I agree. That’s why I said non-verbal languages and didn’t specifically refer to Sign languages like ASL. I gave hand gestures as a kind of non-verbal language, which I think it is, and mostly for comedic effect with reference to G.E. Moore’s use of hand gestures in his argument against external world skepticism.

2

[deleted] t1_j4g9d9b wrote

[removed]

11

BernardJOrtcutt t1_j4h3aip wrote

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Read the Post Before You Reply

>Read/watch/listen the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.


This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

1

styblemartinov t1_j4in09e wrote

I think it’s problematic to draw a distinct line as there are so many different levels of proficiency in language, even between native speakers. When someone says “language” it includes so much, grammar, writing, spelling, prononciation, clarity, etc. One might be good at any number of these and bad at some too. Proficiency in ones native tongue is not set too. As an adult I’ve improved my writing and even my pronunciation. I mention that as I don’t think there is a great divide between a language learned as a child and as an adult. The difference is a child can learn it all for free. We don’t have that now and must put in the work. In most cases it’s not worth perfecting a second language, it’s an accent, it’s understandable. But native proficiency is still possible, an accent’s not ok for a spy, but I don’t have 9-5 to learn a language so I will have an accent.

If you were to draw a line in the sand for knowing languages I think it have to be based on how successfully one can communicate as otherwise it’s just too subjective. I’d say use the CEFR scale and consider c1/c2 “knowing the language”

10

IAmTriscuit t1_j4keh32 wrote

You've hit the nail on the head here. This is more or less the exact criteria and understanding we have of "fluency" in sociolinguistics and it is disappointing that so many others in this thread are trying so hard to come up with some neat little box they can package "language" and "fluency" together in. It reeks of 60's understandings of language and psychology (thanks Chomsky).

I'm especially happy that you brought up the idea that even native speakers are still growing in their own language. People don't realize that despite being fluent, they still have huge gaping holes in their knowledge of "their own" language. Show any common person a "lawyer-ese" document and their eyes will glaze over.

3

cbessette t1_j4ksdby wrote

>People don't realize that despite being fluent, they still have huge gaping holes in their knowledge of "their own" language.

Yeah, my native language is English, but I've used Spanish extensively for my work in a technical field for 20+ years and I know all kinds of technical words and concepts in Spanish that the average native Spanish speaker doesn't know.

2

[deleted] t1_j4g8iva wrote

[removed]

8

BernardJOrtcutt t1_j4h3at2 wrote

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Read the Post Before You Reply

>Read/watch/listen the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.


This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

2

yosoysimulacra t1_j4gnr3h wrote

When the image or 'form' of the 'thing' in your mind associates with the word in a new language rather than having to actually process the translation from your original language to the new one - that's when you 'know' a language, IME. And its when more than 80% of the words coming out of someone's mouth have that image association in your head despite accent, speed, age, colloquialisms, etc.

I became fluent in Fijian (for the most part, its a non-written language) in the 90's when I lived there, and learning a language by experience (vs study/books) really reinforces my point above. The sound associates with the image in your brain--that's when you 'know' a language.

6

saltysalim t1_j4gs26t wrote

I think it's quite dangerous how we can place ourself in pitfalls solely because the decision is in the eye of the beholder. If language acquisition (like another commenter rightfully said) were remotely the same as other processes, maybe the comparisons would be more apt. However, what exactly is wrong with making errors in the target language? Consider conversely this, is there actually a need for someone to arguably overlearn a language to a point (like many of us here) that we not only take for granted, but possibly entrap ourselves within a sociolinguistic framework?

The idea that we cannot learn a second language past 2x can be disproven, if there is evidence for it - there is no law here. More importantly, as that is not an interesting question - why might it be the case that we can't? To be frank, it might just be because you are telling yourself the lie that you couldn't, because of the investment you've made in your native language.

"Errors" in a second language are arguably not always such a bad thing - yes, communication is important but does overlearning one language prevent us from making more progress in others? Also, if we stop considering errors to be a bad thing, then we face the potential reality that novelty is present everywhere in second-language learning, but when speaking your native language the experience of novelty (in relation to the language) is nigh inexperienced. Except, in many cases, when someone speaks "improperly" or wrongly.

We cannot as a culture distinguish ourselves from the desire for everyone to be like us, and/or for ourselves to be like everyone. Of course someone will come along and disagree, but my point on that note is that perhaps the significance of the errors we attach related to language is simply code for our disdain for something else.

6

IHeartCannabis t1_j4icd43 wrote

Man I want the 2 minutes it took me to read this back. A bunch of nothingness spreaded over 4 paragraphs...

Philosophy major? Even then your language/meaning ratio is way off.

−2

Loodyeyes t1_j4ikrsn wrote

So is yours. Everything about what you are is way off.

3

saltysalim t1_j4jm9vf wrote

Actually, experimental psychology and neuroscience - you're quite funny. I'm getting my PhD currently, and I can tell someone has an insecurity problem since you feel the need to disparage me behind your keyboard. I also research linguistics fyi, so I'd really like a single opinion from you on this topic matter. Where exactly is the "nothingness"? Have you yourself actually considered there are a great deal of linguistic uncertainties to be hashed out between monolinguals and bilinguals? If you actually think what I wrote is just filler then you can't even see the point and that's just rich. Maybe don't disparage someone for the way they speak, I approached this topic raising a different and new perspective and it's people like you who make earnest discussion impossible.

1

BernardJOrtcutt t1_j4h3e2p wrote

Please keep in mind our first commenting rule:

> Read the Post Before You Reply

> Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.


This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

5

thismightbsatire t1_j4haiun wrote

A strong understanding of syntax, semantics, and rhetoric to start.

2

Apprehensive-Fix1202 t1_j4ikmdp wrote

Conveniently I commented on a YT Video about it today since people wanted to educate a deaf person about their language:

I find there are even few people who can speak their own mother tongue fluently. I am bilingual (english) growing up with the german school system and the internet. However, I often come across a word in both languages that has been lost in the modern world and I therefore didn't know it. I hardly know people who don't have an accent reminiscent of their mother tongue while trying to communicate in another one. Fluent means 100%. You usually only need one language to communicate with those close to you; with whom you speak on a daily basis. However, there are always exceptions as you could see in someones example. (Someone said their mom was fluent since the love of her life was deaf and that's how they communicate therefore she's fluent/"knows" it.)

Even teachers/professors who teach language every day openly admit that they do not know everything about the topic and that their not necessarily 'fluent' in any of them/ ''know'' them. As a native speaker, one simply perceives the language differently. But even as a native speaker, you don't know everything. A lot of our language got lost in history. We're losing some of the fundamentals.

Sorry for the ''rant'' - I'm stoned af and a sensitive being, but I can clearly see that I'm not alone.

To know a language starts with learning it, but I don't think humans can reach the full wisdom, no matter what they want to master. But that's the amazing thing about learning - it never stops and it never gets boring if you're fascinated by it.

2

thewimsey t1_j4j0bk4 wrote

>I find there are even few people who can speak their own mother tongue fluently

Then you don't know what "fluently" means.

2

SparklesMcSpeedstar t1_j4kfsl2 wrote

Depends on your definition of fluent. My mother tongue, Indonesian, is not spoken fluently by most Indonesians because most would rather speak in their own regional dialect e.g Javanese Sundanese etc. and pepper their speech with it. Sure most people understand it but few can write or speak it at a grammatically accurate level, even fewer at an academic level

3

IAmTriscuit t1_j4kepx2 wrote

If most people aren't meeting the criteria for "fluency" under the definition you have given to it, what use is that terminology? Surely it would be more logical to adjust your criteria for "fluency" than to have it be a mostly useless term.

That's why in sociolinguisutics fluency has much more to do with whether or not all of your needs are able to be met and accomplished with the linguistic repertoire you possess. It actually is able to function as a useful term through that lens.

2

Apprehensive-Fix1202 t1_j4lc7y1 wrote

You have a good point.

This is also not my personal definition of ''fluency'', but as I have understood it from society and native speakers of different languages. Perhaps my comment was not 100% appropriate to the thread. I just noticed over the years: I could say I'm fluent in english though a native speaker could say they do not agree with that statement. I was commenting under a video in which a deaf person was talking about how people with hearing cannot speak sign language fluently because it is not the language in which they need to communicate their needs 24/7. If that's their definition of ''fluency'' - I get it. And if that's your definition of ''fluency'' - I get it. You seem to have more knowledge of the term so thank you for clearing that up for me.

1

[deleted] t1_j4gxli8 wrote

[removed]

1

BernardJOrtcutt t1_j4h36as wrote

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Argue your Position

>Opinions are not valuable here, arguments are! Comments that solely express musings, opinions, beliefs, or assertions without argument may be removed.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.


This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

1

BernardJOrtcutt t1_j5fmzgf wrote

Please keep in mind our first commenting rule:

> Read the Post Before You Reply

> Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.


This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

1

[deleted] t1_j4ghzej wrote

[removed]

0

BernardJOrtcutt t1_j4h3a2e wrote

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Read the Post Before You Reply

>Read/watch/listen the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.


This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

3

[deleted] t1_j4gilfy wrote

[removed]

0

BernardJOrtcutt t1_j4h39uv wrote

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Read the Post Before You Reply

>Read/watch/listen the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.


This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

3

[deleted] t1_j4gnnqz wrote

[removed]

0

BernardJOrtcutt t1_j4h36h6 wrote

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Read the Post Before You Reply

>Read/watch/listen the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.


This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

3

dudedough t1_j4jedxg wrote

Some english speaking natives will newer understand how some other language can enrich human expression.

−1

IAmTriscuit t1_j4ketq0 wrote

Not sure why you are singling out English speakers when every monolingual would be "guilty" of this. Your comment just comes off as an attempt at using language to get some unnecessary slight at specifically English speakers

2

joblojoblo t1_j4hlt8i wrote

I think it means to speak, understand, read, AND write. OR WAIT, it could by a very simple definition mean just to 'understand' it...

−5

phfan t1_j4ih1ct wrote

In United States: you can say 'yes/no', 'please', and 'I don't understand'.

​

In the rest of the world: fluency

−7

thewimsey t1_j4j07ti wrote

Pretending that Americans are rubes and the rest of the world sophisticated doesn't make you look like a discerning sophisticate.

It make you look like a rube.

6