"A critical period for second language acquisition"

[yong321]

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 7718300994

"This allows us to provide the first direct estimate of how grammar-learning ability changes with age, finding that it is preserved almost to the crux of adulthood (17.4 years old) and then declines steadily. ... the age of offset is much later than previously speculated"

That was the main point of the research. Quite interesting. But I'm equally interested in this:

Section "4.1.4. The effect of the first language"
"By looking at ultimate attainment, we can assess whether speakers of different languages have greater or lesser success in learning English, equating for years of experience. In fact, the differences across language groups were small and generally not reliable... among learners who began at age 0, the best-performing language group was Romance, for learners beginning at 1–5 years old, it was West Germanic, and for learners who began at 6–10 years old, it was Chinese"

I know the authors acknowledge that the above finding is "not relieable". But I'm still curious about any explanation, which they didn't offer.

[Neurotip]

Really interesting paper! Thanks. The method itself is interesting, in effect crowdsourcing the data - problematic of course, since they rely on self-report of age and linguistic background. Also they analyse, not the raw data, not the log-odds, but the 'empirical logit' of accuracy, which appears to be r+0.5 / (n - r+0.5); this is also problematic, partly because it can introduce bias and partly because it puts undue weight on highly uncertain estimates of accuracy near ceiling and floor. Still, well worth reading.

I know the authors acknowledge that the above finding is "not relieable". But I'm still curious about any explanation, which they didn't offer.

If a finding isn't reliable, it doesn't need explaining.

[reineke]

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010027718300994

"This allows us to provide the first direct estimate of how grammar-learning ability changes with age, finding that it is preserved almost to the crux of adulthood (17.4 years old) and then declines steadily. ... the age of offset is much later than previously speculated"

That was the main point of the research. Quite interesting. But I'm equally interested in this:

Section "4.1.4. The effect of the first language"
"By looking at ultimate attainment, we can assess whether speakers of different languages have greater or lesser success in learning English, equating for years of experience. In fact, the differences across language groups were small and generally not reliable... among learners who began at age 0, the best-performing language group was Romance, for learners beginning at 1–5 years old, it was West Germanic, and for learners who began at 6–10 years old, it was Chinese"

I know the authors acknowledge that the above finding is "not relieable". But I'm still curious about any explanation, which they didn't offer.

Romance - when compared with other languages the first thing comes to mind when comparing the languages is numerous cognates. However a quick look at the map included in the study tells me that the majority of this group likely consists of US bili nguals and they have a considerable advantage over people living in other countries.
West Germanic - basic grammar structure. They also start English early in these countries and have better resources. It's not a secret why the "Romance" group has fallen behind as this group will likely include a larger proportion of children who learned the language in their respective countries.
Chinese - I don't know if you've seen small Chinese kids playing violins and other instruments. The parents drive them really hard from an early age. Also, after English the most common native languages other than English were Finnish (N = 39,962), Turkish (N = 36,239), German (N = 24,995), Russian (N = 22,834), and Hungarian. The native Chinese speakers may predominantly be from overseas communities (USA, Australia). If they're from China and they found the online test on Facebook that's not exactly representative of native Chinese online behavior. Note also that Finns didn't make the first place. Finland's English proficiency index is very high:

EF EPI score 65.34
Position in Europe #5/33
#7 of 100 countries/regions

This tells me that the age of onset and country immersion do matter and that the critical period does have some early cutoff points.

[mentecuerpo]

Merry Christmas!

This journal article brings me good and bad news; I start with the bad news for me.

Bad news:
I am above 50-yo, so that puts me at the lower right end of the curve, considering that after 17 is downhill.

Good news:
I am postponing the visit of the German professor, Dr. Alzheimer.

Question:
Can a 50 yo native Spanish speaker guy reach B1 on a European language (German) from scratch?
I think yes, related to vocabulary learning, even higher probably, vocabulary C2.
But from this study, Grammar probably at A2 at the most.

I started learning Italian probably 5-6 years ago, and now I have a reliable A2 or a weak B1. I understand a lot of spoken and written Italian, I speak it but with grammatical errors. I am making progress day by day.

German is an experiment, a personal challenge. I like the German language a lot. (Now I don't have to listen to public radio while I drive my car, I put my German MP3s).

[reineke]

Question:
Can a 50 yo native Spanish speaker guy reach B1 on a European language (German) from scratch?
I think yes, related to vocabulary learning, even higher probably, vocabulary C2.
But from this study, Grammar probably at A2 at the most.

You can do it, mente. You worry too much. A C2-level vocab cannot exist in your head divorced
from grammar.

[mentecuerpo]

Question:
Can a 50 yo native Spanish speaker guy reach B1 on a European language (German) from scratch?
I think yes, related to vocabulary learning, even higher probably, vocabulary C2.
But from this study, Grammar probably at A2 at the most.

You can do it, mente. You worry too much. A C2-level vocab cannot exist in your head divorced
from grammar.

That is a good point you make here.