Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!amdahl!pacbell!att!homxb!pgp
From: pgp@homxb.ATT.COM (P.PALMER)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: foreign language requirements f
Summary: theory that adults don't learn language well is probably bunk.
Message-ID: <3298@homxb.ATT.COM>
Date: 10 Apr 89 14:15:14 GMT
References: <161@landru.UUCP> <93900021@hcx1> <755@m3.mfci.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T BL Holmdel NJ USA
Lines: 23

RE: learning of language

it's true, this discussion doesn't belong here--but i couldn't resist
protesting what i feel is a prejudicial and poorly demonstrated theory.
it is often used as an excuse for not learning--by adults.

The theory that people inherently lose facility in learning languages
after a certain age is just that...a theory.  There are numerous
examples to disprove it.  Also, it's just as likely that people
become lazy and resistant with age, rather than that they actually
are incapable of learning.  Speech therapists and linguists are able
to help people learn to distinguish (and produce) sounds which at first
they were unable to distinguish/produce.  

Personally--having studied linguistics and learned more than one language
as an adult (and i think fairly well)--i've never believed that theory
about the restriction.  i also get annoyed at all the talk about "what
a miracle infant linguistic acquisition is."  children and infants don't
have anything else to do in life but acquire language, eat and sleep and
play...also, people tend to sit around with kids repeating "nose, ear, red
orange yellow..." etc.  even children among themselves keep their use of
language on a simple level...give those same conditions to adults--well,
most would acquire language quickly also, in my opinion.