Posted: Nov 29, 2010 11:01 pm
Mr.Samsa wrote:katja z wrote:That would be about right. In fact, I'd argue that after you've learned the basics of one language, this helps you with any other language, because you are already able to "do language". So you're able to learn a completely different language even without a mediator (or else where did Cortes' interpreters come from?), starting from the scratch of nonlinguistic clues all over again like a baby, something feral children seem unable to do.
True, to a degree, I think. On one hand, being able to use language effectively would be useful in learning a second language, but I also think it would make some aspects more difficult just as a result of having to forget old rules that don't apply to the new language and learn new ones. So I would probably think that it's easier to pick up a language from scratch, or your first language, than it is to pick up a second language.
With the caveat that you shouldn't wait too long with your first one, or you might never learn any !
Although in the light of your remark about "use it or lose it", this critical period might be more about reserving a portion of your brain (metaphorically speaking)for tasks connected with language rather than about developing any positive linguistic skills as such.
katja z wrote:
Yeah I've noticed the "ear for languages" thing too, and it's certainly interesting. I wonder if it's a result of a loosely formed concept class for their own language's phonemes (so phonemes from other languages can slip in easily), or whether they have exposure to other languages at a young age and so have the basic skills needed to pick it up..
Do you mean that this remarkable ability could be a consequence of a failure to streamline your neural connections? But, with all that we can learn, I'd be surprised if we couldn't (re)train the ear to hear new distinctions (again), just like painters get very good with colours, or oenologists with taste, etc - I don't think we need to assume early exposure to other languages as the determining factor.
katja z wrote:ETA: Just a thought, what about the critical period for sign language in deaf people? Has any work been done on that? I'll do some googling tomorrow, here in Mitteleuropa it's so late that it's already early ...
I'm sure that it is the case: http://www.unisci.com/stories/20021/0104026.htm
Thanks! Interesting stuff. Of course, all of this is a bit indirect, but I imagine it would be difficult to get funding for a serious experiment on growing up wholly without language, with a reasonable sample size and everything. A modest proposal: Maybe there is a way to get test subjects. If more evil atheists went vegetarian ...
I've found this bit especially interesting:
The new study shows consistent activation of the right angular gyrus among native signers and some, but not consistent, activation of that brain region among late signers.
So some late signers do manage to use precisely the same brain areas as native signers; the article doesn't say it explicitly, but presumably this is connected with reaching native-like fluency.
The basic rule of neuroscience is use it or lose it. If you don't use the areas of the brain set up for language use then it gets reappropriated by another function or deteriorates. (And obviously sign language uses the same brain structures as verbal language).
Well, except for the sensory apparatus, and that's quite a big "except", even though it "only" involves the usual material basis for language. But otherwise sign language has the same properties as verbal language, down to the duality of patterning, so it isn't suprising that it involves the same brain structures.