|
Quote:
Also, they learn by hearing the same words over and over again - parents don't have full blown conversations with them to help them learn... again, that may depend if you are from another planet or not. There is a reason most English-native kids say 'mama' or 'dada' as their first words - it's all they hear for the first few months! |
Quote:
"Mama" and "dada" are natural mouth and tongue movements, which have very little to do with what the baby hears. It is completely independent of the native language of the parents. Even when a baby isn`t exposed to language of any sort, it will make those sounds. Babies who lack hearing also make them. Parents who consider those to be first words before they are used in context are, well, sweet but naive. All babies babble the same sounds. Just trust me on this - The definition of "fluent" is different at the age of 3 than it is at the age of 20. A different standard is applied to a child - that doesn`t however mean that the child has any less to learn. A child at that age, when they follow the average developmental path, is both fluent in language and culture. They have the ability to know what is expected of them and how to put that into words and actions.... However, at 3, the child doesn`t have the *other* mental capacities to use those skills in an adult way. But that isn`t what we`re talking about. We`re talking about language fluency, and yes, most children reach fluency in their 3rd year. They reach it by listening to *model* conversations. Direct use of those patterns is necessary for gaining certain interactive skills. The majority of acquisition comes about when the child hears proper use in his environment. This is why children will often know words parents would never actually teach to the child - the child picks them up from surroundings, and is able to learn proper usage with just a few models to go by. If children only learned words from their parents baby-talk, they would NEVER reach fluency. (Note; I am a linguist, and did several research projects on childhood language acquisition. I know what I`m talking about.) |
Quote:
If the definition of fluent is different at the age iof 3, then how can you use that term at all then? By that logic I could say that Gandhi was an evil person, although the definition of evil is different compared to Hitler. Fluent implies: "able to speak or write smoothly, easily, or readily" Even at a basic level, most 3 year old kids can't always achieve that Anyway, back to the topic - I'm just going from experience, I tried watching a LOT of Japanese tv when I first arrived to pick things up but, even after 6months, could barely understand 1 word in 10 because of the way a native blends words and uses slang etc. It was only after extensive lessons and the use of a translator that I eventually began to SLOWLY comprehend things. Now I have a VERY good memory, always have, but without lessons, I honestly believe that there isn't a chance in hell I would understand anything because, in a conversation, it is impossible to predict the context if you don't understand any of the words (body language aside) |
Quote:
I would hope, however, that with a masters, you would be able to grasp the concept behind something mathematical even if you didn`t actually know it to begin with. Quote:
To put it in easier to understand terms - you wouldn`t consider someone with a low IQ, who was able to speak, "not fluent" because their cognitive abilities were low. They`re still fluent, but just may be lacking the ability to understand the meaning behind things that are explained to them. A 3 year old child is fluent. They just do not have the higher mental capacity of an adult, so their language usage is simplistic. In peer situations, they do not have problems related to fluency, and are usually able to understand far more advanced language... Even if they aren`t yet able to use it themselves. I`m going to guess that you`re not around too many 3 year olds. You`re giving them too little credit. 3 year olds can do some serious talking. Especially girls. They do so smoothly and readily. When I invited you to visit a preschool classroom, I was serious about it. 3 year olds are not babies, and are capable of speaking an incredible amount. It`s the 2 year olds that are iffy. |
nyoronin i agree with you completely.. from my experience with 3 years olds i can hold very good conversations with them and they understand what i'm talking about with them as long as i don't get into anything technical etc.
also i remember being in Japan around children 3 and 4 years old and my level of japanese at that time didn't have a hope in hell at keeping up with them haha. i would hope that isn't the case for me now. |
a helpful way i use is surrounding yourself in the language. when im drawing or just surfing i watch japanese shows and movies. when i started to study every once in a while it felt easier to understand. also learn the Particle Uses first, it helps. i usually watch a show called SHINDOI which i get from VEOH.COM.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Hmm, last time I was around 3 year old kids was probably when I was that age lol. I just find it hard to believe they could be fluent but I guess that's how it goes... |
What's Shindoi about? Sounds like an adjective form of the word Shinto XD .
|
if there are no schools that offer japanese, order a japanese text book online, get the basics down,such as sentence structure and learning to conjugate verbs and adjectives. The text book should walk you through it for the most part. Anyway you look at it learning a new language by yourself is very difficult and requires loads of dedication and time. So if you have that dedication go for it, otherwise you should do a google search for japanese lessons in your town/city or a town/city that is near by, you might be able to find something. you could probably even take online lessons
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 12:31 AM. |