Why Ain't Nobody Discussing This?

<<
<<There is not such double negative rule in English, it's a false application of logic. Double negatives are used for emphasis.>>

That'll be a shock to the makers of Sara Lee, and their slogan "Nobody doesn't like Sara Lee!" >>



For goodness sake people, just because it works in some cases doesn't mean it works in every case. Languages don't follow strict logic, what makes sense in one phrase doesn't in another. A double negative with "ain't" is different to a double negative without "ain't"

<<Would it not help you become accustomed to listening to the sounds of the language?>>

What sounds? If you don't know them, you can't hear them (unless you are a child, or you are skilled and could be a good impersonator or voice actor). Most people listen to English music all day long, and none of them have learned English just because of that. Unless they have learned about English in some other way, they'll keep not understanding a single word of what they hear, and won't even know the basic sounds (that is what happens in my country, for example). I don't know of a single adult who has learned a language exactly like a baby: who moved to China and learned Chinese just by "staying" there? (no dictionaries allowed, no possibility to use your native language, no artificial methods a child wouldn't use).
The more you think of it, the you realize learning a language like a baby is probably the stupidest claim someone could ever make. It'd even be inefficient, and funny too. "Learn English effortlessly, exactly like a baby! You will be able to use English like a 10-year-old kid in only 10 years! Reach kindergarten-level English in only 6 years! All this just by doing nothing all day, just playing, sleeping, and learning English 24/7! You must not use your native language meanwhile, and you won't be allowed to have a job. Cuz kids don't know nothing bout dat!" Wow, that method seems so stupid, ROTFL.

Adults can't learn languages EXACTLY like babies, and that should be obvious. The best methods seem to be based on learning "similarly" to babies (learn sounds, meanwhile you can start to listen to lots of input, then learn to connect the sounds, then learn basic words and sentences, then learn the basic grammar either implicitly or explicitly, etc.). That is similar to what babies do, but not the same, because the learning process is explicit for an adult. Plus, adults are biased.

<<The more you think of it, the you realize learning a language like a baby is probably the stupidest claim someone could ever make. It'd even be inefficient, and funny too. "Learn English effortlessly, exactly like a baby! You will be able to use English like a 10-year-old kid in only 10 years! Reach kindergarten-level English in only 6 years! All this just by doing nothing all day, just playing, sleeping, and learning English 24/7! You must not use your native language meanwhile, and you won't be allowed to have a job. Cuz kids don't know nothing bout dat!" Wow, that method seems so stupid, ROTFL.>>

I was wondering when someone else might bring this sort of thing up. What you mentioned is why babies do well when listening in the country of their language, but it also shows why adults don't do as well: It's because an adult usually must put it to immediate use. But what if we can pay a 20-something to be just like a baby in the country of the language they are learning? (We can probably find volunteers. :D)

<<What sounds? If you don't know them, you can't hear them (unless you are a child, or you are skilled and could be a good impersonator or voice actor). Most people listen to English music all day long, and none of them have learned English just because of that. Unless they have learned about English in some other way, they'll keep not understanding a single word of what they hear, and won't even know the basic sounds (that is what happens in my country, for example). I don't know of a single adult who has learned a language exactly like a baby: who moved to China and learned Chinese just by "staying" there? (no dictionaries allowed, no possibility to use your native language, no artificial methods a child wouldn't use). >>

I think though that the English music helps them become more accustomed to the sounds, but it is only that they cannot attach those sounds to anything in experience. If all your exposure to a language is just listening to songs or radio programs where nothing ever gets attached to your experience, then no matter how much listening you get, even as you may become more accustomed to the sounds of that language, you're not going to pick up much, because you cannot attach the sounds to your experience in any meaningful way.

<<Adults can't learn languages EXACTLY like babies, and that should be obvious. The best methods seem to be based on learning "similarly" to babies (learn sounds, meanwhile you can start to listen to lots of input, then learn to connect the sounds, then learn basic words and sentences, then learn the basic grammar either implicitly or explicitly, etc.). That is similar to what babies do, but not the same, because the learning process is explicit for an adult. Plus, adults are biased. >>

Yes, adults have different experiences, different lives they live, but if, say, above we can pay a 20-something to just be a baby for us we can test the _nature_ aspect of the limitations of adults acquiring languages.

<<But what if we can pay a 20-something to be just like a baby in the country of the language they are learning? (We can probably find volunteers. :D) >>

I am willing to try that. I'll be a baby. But I want lots of babysitters to play with :D
As you see, you can never be like a baby again, you are an adult, your way of thinking is definitely different. To tell you the truth, I don't really know how or what a baby actually thinks. You have already a lot of knowledge in your head (in your native language), and that affects and will affect everything you do.
I still believe the best way to learn a language for an adult must necessarily be different from the "natural" way, although very similar because based on the same basic steps. So I believe there is an age when the "natural" way starts to become unfeasible and the "adult" approach gradually becomes necessary.

<<I think though that the English music helps them become more accustomed to the sounds, but it is only that they cannot attach those sounds to anything in experience.>>

It's more like this: you say /lɪv/, and someone repeats /lib/, because that's how they interpret your sounds. Only "talented" adults can pick up new sounds automatically, all the others need to be taught explicitly what sounds are in the set of phonemes of the language, and then it gets easier for them to "hear" how the spoken language works. Every person who has a thick foreign accent doesn't even know the basic sounds and features of English, believe it or not (minimal pairs, assimilation, etc.)

Johnny,

Thank you for your thoughtful responses.

<<I am willing to try that. I'll be a baby. But I want lots of babysitters to play with :D
As you see, you can never be like a baby again, you are an adult, your way of thinking is definitely different. To tell you the truth, I don't really know how or what a baby actually thinks. You have already a lot of knowledge in your head (in your native language), and that affects and will affect everything you do.
I still believe the best way to learn a language for an adult must necessarily be different from the "natural" way, although very similar because based on the same basic steps. So I believe there is an age when the "natural" way starts to become unfeasible and the "adult" approach gradually becomes necessary. >>

I sort of agree on this actually; still, I think the important point that a baby has compared to an adult is that an adult is usually expected to produce, while a baby isn't. If an adult listens intently in the new language and ties what he hears to his experience, I think that it is still possible. (See story below.)

<<It's more like this: you say /lɪv/, and someone repeats /lib/, because that's how they interpret your sounds. Only "talented" adults can pick up new sounds automatically, all the others need to be taught explicitly what sounds are in the set of phonemes of the language, and then it gets easier for them to "hear" how the spoken language works. Every person who has a thick foreign accent doesn't even know the basic sounds and features of English, believe it or not (minimal pairs, assimilation, etc.) >>

I knew an adult who came to the United States at age 19 and got little or no explicit instruction in English, but who after a period of years of being exposed to the language, while not having to produce because she was married to an English speaker, gradually came to understand it after a while. As for output, she said at first she didn't want to speak because she thought she would be laughed at if she said something funny, and she said she had always wanted to make sure she could say it right before she spoke it--after a while she was able to produce.

Nowadays, she has a very slight accent that makes you think she just grew up speaking English in a region with that accent, and she doesn't make mistakes; in addition, she was able to take a job as an English-language relay operator, where she relays calls between the deaf and the hearing, and it is a very language intensive job, requiring the operator to translate between text and voice almost exclusively.

Because of that, I'm not sure what is known about adults that listen for long periods of time, but I do wonder if it is not neurologically possible for them to become more accustomed to the language after hearing it a while.

I don't like no double negatives nomore. They ain't got none in my English books so I figure they is way bad or somethin or nuttin.