native level

[Silent]

despite often having less exposure to Chinese

I don't think just exposure is a useful key. At least not for beginners. The key is comprehensive input.

Take two absolute beginners of a language. Give them the same amount of exposure. Expose one to conversation of a kindergarten and one to lectures of a university. I'm pretty sure that after the same amount of time, say 1000 hours, the one listening in on the kindergarten conversation will have a far better understanding of the language than the one listening in at the university lectures. Simply because the level of the kindergarten conversations contain far more comprehensive input for the absolute beginner. This is where children have a huge benefit over adults in immersion environments. Children are naturally approached at a different language level that is better suited for learning.

I think the only way to measure difference in learning rate properly is to take children and adults and you let them study a new language for the same amount of time. It's been a while since I watched it, but as I've understood from a very old BBC documentary in such circumstances adults learn faster. Yes, at some aspects (pronunciation) children have a clear benefit consequently comparing language skills is subjective. If you weigh pronunciation as a deciding factor children learn faster. If you take a more balanced approach and consider pronunciation, understanding, vocabulary, grammar etc it's not that clear cut.

[renzhe]

My own experience: arriving at a Chinese university at the same time as some under-10s who spoke no Chinese: ask any of the security guards, the children learned quicker than the adult students, despite often having less exposure to Chinese.

The under-10 does virtually nothing except learn the language and hone sensory-motor skills. Nothing. That's all he does, 24-hours a day, even while sleeping. His life is tailored for this by everybody he meets, starting with the parents and ending with the security guard.

This means two things: the kid spends 100% of its time learning the language and motor skills, and the kid spends 100% of its mental capacity learning these skills. A motivated and dilligent adult learner spends 10-20% of his/her time on these things. When the adult learner gets to language learning, his/her brain is already fatigued and distracted by many other things.

This alone makes any comparison between the language learning ability difficult. It is very clear that both of these factors play a huge role in learning, and that adults will always be at a disadvantage as a result.

[Guest realmayo]

Sorry, I should have been clearer: the under-10s I was talking about in the previous post were from the Middle East and Europe, they spoke their respective native languages most of the time, but Chinese in school and sometimes with their friends. Their language abilities were the envy of all the foreign adult learners!

[Silent]

Without any doubt there are kids that learn a language with relatively little effort. This however is not the rule. I work in a school focused at vocative education, what we call MBO. When it comes to education level the students are about average. That means, about 40% of the children follow higher education than what we offer. Most of our qualifications require English at CEF b1 level. (In theory equal to new hsk 3) Many of them struggle to get this level. This despite at least 10 years of language classes starting at primary school! In contrary to many other countries in the Netherlands TV is in the original language with subtitles. So these children also have a fair amount of exposure to English outside of the classroom!

If children really picked up languages so easily as some people suggest why do I see so few multilingual children? Especially in the poorer neighborhoods it's a melting pot of languages. I live in such a neighborhood and hear at least Turkish, Berber, Arab and Polish spoken on a daily basis and a bunch of other languages quite regularly. I see however no children that seem to have a command of more than Dutch and their heritage language. Why?

[Olle Linge]

Another factor worth taking into consideration is that requirements for children learning a second language are usually a lot lower. If the security cards say the children learn faster, that's no proof that they are actually learning fast. Children are required to use the language in a more limited way talking about a narrow set of topics, usually relating to their immediate reality. That's not true for adults. It takes much more to be perceived as a fast learner as an adult compared to as a child, simply because the standards usually aren't the same.

[tooironic]

Yes, indeed, the standard between the two are so different, it's almost like comparing apples and pears. I don't necessarily think adult learners are at a disadvantage compared to children; children, rather, merely have one kind of advantage. In this way, it really comes down to how you conceptualise the issue. This topic has become so long and convoluted because the criteria for "fluent", "educated" and "native" are highly subjective.

[wedge]

Before I'd always thought that kids learn faster but this thread is starting to convince me otherwise. Perhaps someone should come up with a 1-year intensive course where an adult learner is placed in a kindergarten class and then is moved up a grade every 2 months.

[anonymoose]

I think only considering speed of learning is too restrictive in the sense that one's resulting language abilities depend not just on speed, but also upon accuracy and general naturalness. I think an adult could learn a language faster than a child if the criterion for testing is, for example, being able to read and understand a newspaper.

However, I think most 10-year old Chinese children could speak better Chinese than most western learners after 10 years, if we consider other aspects as well, such as correct and appropriate grammar, fluency and naturalness (and also pronunciation, which I think should be included).

And furthermore, I think over the following, say, 5 year period, it would be much easier for the 10-year old child to make up for his deficit compared with the foreign adult than the other way round.

Of course, learning environment also plays a big part in this. But experience shows that children are able to learn by osmosis (as most do learning their native language), whereas adults usually have to put some (or a lot) of conscious effort into learning to make any progress.

My comments above are particularly with western learners of Chinese in mind. On the other hand, I think if you are learning a language similar to your native language, or another that you are already familiar with, then the situation is different.

[rezaf]

However, I think most 10-year old Chinese children could speak better Chinese than most western learners after 10 years, if we consider other aspects as well, such as correct and appropriate grammar, fluency and naturalness(and also pronunciation, which I think should be included).

Putting conscious effort is actually our advantage. With the right methods in 10 years one can even get better than any average native speaker let alone a 10 year-old.

[xiaocai]

I thought the title of this thread is "well-educated native level in two years"?

Anyway, I think it is kind of pointless to say whether one can achieve a better level than an average speaker of the language when we can barely agree up on the definition of "better" and "average". How do you measure one is better than another? How do you determine the average? Statements are easy to make, but no one will believe unless you can give some solid evidence to support them.

[anonymoose]

Putting conscious effort is actually our advantage. With the right methods in 10 years one can even get better than any average native speaker let alone a 10 year-old.

If you can't do it for English, what makes you think you can do it for Chinese?

[rezaf]

I have never studied English seriously. Everything I know about English comes from a few TV series that I have watched online, a month in London(which was mostly party), Harry Potter books and of course writing on this forum.

[anonymoose]

Yes, and most kids don't study their native language seriously either. They just pick it up naturally.

[jbradfor]

Really? I recall spending a lot of time in school practicing handwriting, learning vocabulary, tested on spelling, reading books and having to write reports on them (i.e. reading comprehension practice), writing exercises (i.e. learning to write), studying for the SAT and GRE, having my research papers edited (i.e. destroyed) by my advisor in grad school, etc.

If you mean listening comprehension, and to a lesser extent speaking, then I agree. And this is one area that I think kids excel over adults. But all other language skills took practice.

[renzhe]

Yes, and most kids don't study their native language seriously either. They just pick it up naturally.

Kids who have never gone to any school (and thus never received classroom instruction on their mother tongue) tend to have terrible grammar, a tiny vocabulary, and are functionally illiterate.

The only thing they DO pick up properly like that is pronunciation.

[rezaf]

I don’t know which part of my opinion you are disagreeing with. If you read my previous posts you’d see that I said what you mentioned about children having better unconscious abilities several times in my poor English, but I also said that adults (with a good education background) have better conscious abilities which means that if they use their brains and put enough effort they might be able to learn faster than children but if they don’t do that they won’t. Secondly I think there is a problem in how you compare my ability in picking up English words to a child. As I said I have spent a very limited time of my life on learning English but a child from UK or America spends all his time in an English speaking environment, watches many hours of cartoons, speaks many hours of nonsense and has his family around him to patiently listen to him and correct him then after going to school he has to memorize and use lots of biology, math, history, literature, etc. in form of language. I don’t know why you think the process of learning is easy or not serious for a child.

[anonymoose]

I acknowledge your point, but not every kid in the world has the opportunity to "spend a lot of time in school practicing", and the result of that practicing is the refining of the skills. However, even those kids who don't have that luxury end up being native speakers (albeit not highly educate ones). And, in my opinion, it is difficult for a foreigner to reach the level of fluency and naturalness of a native speaker, even an uneducated one, even if the useage and level of their communication is higher. I guess Dashan comes close, but then his Mandarin wasn't learned over just a couple of years either.

[rezaf]

Even those who don't go to school have a lot of other opportunities for learning just because of living with native speakers and the needs of their environment. I remember spending a lot of time teaching the correct pronunciation of words to my two-year old cousin. The main difference is that children are cute and adults automatically want to spend time with them and teach them but they wouldn't do that for an ugly adult like me except for a good price.

[anonymoose]

@rezaf

Firstly, I'm not criticising your English. I think it's exceptionally good for a foreign learner, but nevertheless, still readily distinguishable from a native speaker.

What I disagree with is this statement:

Putting conscious effort is actually our advantage. With the right methods in 10 years one can even get better than any average native speaker let alone a 10 year-old.

Well, technically, I guess it is correct, if one interprets the "can" literally. I mean, pigs can fly too, if you chuck them out of an aeroplane.

But I think at best you are describing an extreme case. Probably the most successful foreign learner of Chinese (that we know about) is Dashan, and he has been learning for well over 10 years. Is he better than "any average native speaker"? I don't think so. Is he better than a 10-year old? Well, as I acknowledged in a previous post, his vocabulary may be larger, and his experience of life broader, which would enable him to speak about a greater range of topics, but from purely a linguistic point of view, is his pronunciation better, his rhythm more fluent, his feel more natural? Again, I don't think so.

[renzhe]

Yeah, but non-native speakers with amazing English, French and German are a dime a dozen. Some are so close to native speakers that they are difficult to identify as foreigners in short conversations.

Don't forget that when Da Shan was starting, learning Chinese was about as popular as chucking pigs out of aeroplanes. I expect many more people will have excellent Chinese 20 years from now.

but from purely a linguistic point of view, is his pronunciation better, his rhythm more fluent, his feel more natural?

Depends. In crosstalk, his pronunciation and rhythm are better than most native speakers.