Talk:Difficulty of learning languages

I am intrigued by the "genetic disposition" part: combining the results of Scherag et al. (2004) with Ross and Bever (2004), you might conclude that "right-handed familials" do better in German, and "left-handed familials" do better in English. The natural follow-up question would be, are there, in fact, more left-handed people in (medieval) England than in (medieval) Germany?

• I. McManus, A. Hartigan, Declining left-handedness in Victorian England seen in the films of Mitchell and Kenyon. Current Biology, Volume 17, Issue 18, Pages R793-R794[1]
• Research in the U.K. showed a decline in left-handedness in the older population compared to the younger generation. [2] "the prevalence of left-handedness is 11.2% at age 15, and falls to 4.4% at age 70."
• "Statistiken geben den Anteil der Linkshänder in Deutschland mit rund 15 Prozent an" [3]

if this is true, there are actually more left-handed people in Germany than in the UK. dab (𒁳) 09:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

someone claims that korean is hardest and that he saw a chart showing korean above chinese and japnes

The FSL courses grew out of the US army's need to rapidly develop translators for various "exotic" langauges for the first time ever around the period of WWII.... they at some point developed a chart of difficulty of languages based on the number of hours it took for American GI's to master them....At any rate, Korean was listed in the very highest level of difficulty, a notch above both Japanese and Chinese in fact.

Everyone I have ever met who has learned both Korean and Japanese agrees that their grammars are almost as similar as those of any two Romance languages, but that that of Japanese has been streamlined, while Korean remains comparatively much more complex.

I have made good progress in a number of other "difficult" or exotic languages such as Russian and Arabic. Compared to Korean, both of these languages are much easier, i.e., if you apply yourself well, consistently, and intelligently every day for a number of years, after a single handful you will be rather advanced. However, with Korean you will still be in a fog. I have studied scores of languages, and Korean is unquestionably the most difficult one I have ever encountered.

Laws dr (talk) 02:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

We can't use this, because we can't source it to a reliable source. I really doubt you'd be still in a fog after a couple of years, though. BTW, "streamlined" is meaningless. --Kjoonlee 03:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, you could make the reverse case that English is even harder, because in Korea it takes more than 6 years of school to get reasonably good at reading English short stories. --Kjoonlee 03:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

In addition, Korean written language (hangul) uses an alphabetized system which makes it quite easy to learn and read. After being unable to read at all, I was taught by my grandfather to read Korean in two weeks (albeit without understanding all that was being read).72.80.172.205 (talk) 20:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

from someone in the navy on about.com

In the Navy of the Defense Language Institute, Korean is seen as the hardest of the Category IV languages, which are Arabic, Chinese, and Korean. A US Military guide of About.com wrote: "Right now only 8 Languages are being taught (for Navy). Cat IV: Arabic, Chinese, Korean. Cat III: Persian-Farsi, Serb-Croatian, Hebrew, Russian. Cat I: Spanish. ...Korean is the hardest language here [Navy], apparently it is 75 weeks long now, and they are trying to make it a Cat V language."

If you don't mind, I think this should go in. There's no reason why somebody writing about US Military at About.com would lie about this.

Laws dr (talk) 04:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Hard languages for English speakers

Talk:Korean language#Hardest Language to master? --Kjoonlee 19:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

all a question of WP:CITE. Unfortunately, I couldn't find a decent source even for the purported British Foreign Office survey. dab (𒁳) 11:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is a PDF link from the GAO (part of the Department of State of the US) that I've mentioned there. --Kjoonlee 12:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I've added a reference to the "Foreign Service Institute (FSI) of the US Department of State", which claims that Korean is one of the 5 most-difficult, but Japanese is even harder. Alas, the reference I've added is second-hand. Does the "Foreign Service Institute" have their own web site we could cite? Please replace that reference to the actual FSI web site, if you can find it.

I wouldn't be surprised if learning to fluently Korean takes longer than Japanese, even if that reference is correct that learning to speak *and* write Japanese takes longer than Korean. --72.198.67.13 (talk) 21:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

it is interesting that Korean also pops up as a language that is very difficult to acquire as a first language. So perhaps Korean is, in fact, the most difficult language... dab (𒁳) 20:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I can assure you that Korean, as a first language, is just as easy (or just as difficult) as English. :p --Kjoonlee 21:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

well, you may say that, but then you are probably older than five years. Native speakers of Korean older than five will be just as proficient as native speakers of English older than five. The differences appear when you start polling three or four year olds. And there, as we state in the article, you will find that Korean toddlers take longer to come to terms with their grammar than English toddlers. dab (𒁳) 11:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be extrapolating from one data point. --Kjoonlee 12:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

true. In the spirit that one point is better than none. I would obviously welcome the addition of more data points, and I certainly don't want to jump to conclusions, least of all in the article text. dab (𒁳) 13:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

But it was a single data point in more ways than one. Not to mention logically invalid. --Kjoonlee 22:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

we seem to have a misunderstanding here: your edit is unjustified. Nowhere do we claim that "language is just structure". We merely say that long-distance relations take longest to acquire and may in this sense be considered the most difficult part (they take longest to learn). We have two data points: (a) Korean children take exceptionally long to acquire Korean grammar. (b) the US Department of State notes that Korean is exceptionally difficult for English speakers. That's two data points. We cannot conclude from this that "Korean is the hardest language" in any absolute sense, but we certainly can and should mention these points for what they are worth. --dab (𒁳) 11:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Grammar, in a wider sense, encompasses more than just syntax. Knowledge of grammar (including semantics, idioms, pragmatics, and so on) is what constitutes fluency. Unrelated criteria cannot be clumped into two data points. You seem to be confused. --Kjoonlee 18:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

the non sequitur is all yours. the point is that the long distance relations are acquired last, after all other aspects had been acquired, earlier. the acquisition of syntax thus concludes language acquisition. You are, at this point, edit warring. I will revert your deletion once more and recommend you try Wikipedia:Dispute resolution from here. I do not spend time researching an obscure topic just to see the result blanked on flimsy or no grounds. If you want to add material, you are most welcome to develop this article further. dab (𒁳) 09:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

And I'm telling you that syntax is not all there is to grammar. --Kjoonlee 10:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's say I teach you Korean syntax. Do you think that would let you conclude your acquisition of Korean? Do you think language acquisition stops at 5? --Kjoonlee 10:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

the statement concerns L1, not L2. your hypothetical teaching me Korean is a complete non-sequitur. Language acquisition never stops, that's a truism. Yes, L1 acquisition stops at around 5: you cannot acquire L1 once you're past that age. Can we now please be reasonable? You appear to object to the statement for some reason, but you are not willing to let me know why, proffering unrelated comments instead. I don't see why it should disturb you that Korean is labelled "difficult" in the actual references we cite. Your involvement seems to be somehow related to your own proficiency in Korean (according to your user page). It beats me why that should be so. If I was a speaker of Korean, I would be proud of the fact rather than trying to edit-war about it. Also, can you please stop telling me "that syntax is not all there is to grammar"? It's a truism, I obviously agree, I've said so twice already, and it has nothing to do with the statement you keep removing. dab (𒁳) 10:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Sources for all your claims, please. --Kjoonlee 12:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

what claim do you want me to source? the statement you keep removing without rhyme or reason is completely sourced to an academic study,

K. Wexler, 'On Unparsable Input in Language Acquisition', in: Lyn Frazier, Jill G. De Villiers (eds.), Language Processing and Language Acquisition (1990), ISBN 0792306600. (which you left standing in the "References" section, you just removed all mention of it in the article body)

Since you are obviously not following what I am saying, I do not intend to invest more time talking in your general direction. Well done, we have now run into 3RR. If anyone else is watching this, now would be a good time to comment. Otherwise, unless Kjoon decides to switch on his brain and actually make a coherent statement of what he wants, this'll just be a slow revert war. Not wikilike, not sensible, not even rational. I enjoy debates and intelligent controversy, but this is just dull. dab (𒁳) 12:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[4] - well done. I realize you are just trolling, for reasons best known to yourself. Sorry I took you serioius for a minute there. --dab (𒁳) 12:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

---

I'm bilingual in English and Korean. English was second, and I acquired it after I was 5. Now, where does that leave your claims? --Kjoonlee 12:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

References that you are genuinely "bilingual" rather than merely fluent in both Korean and English? If you acquired English past the age of 5, you are a native speaker of Korean, and have acquired English as your second language, even if you have near-native fluency. What makes your native language your native language is the acquisition of phonology before the age of 1. There is no way you can make up for this later. You are interested in secondary language acquisition and age? go read the article.

Steven Pinker, in his book The Language Instinct, states that “acquisition of a normal language is guaranteed for children up to the age of six, is steadily compromised from then until shortly after puberty, and is rare thereafter” (Pinker 1994, p. 293).

so, there is room for debate on "L1" for ages 6-12. If you begin to acquire a language after you are 6, or even after you are 1, for that reason, you may still reach near-native fluency, but your acquisition process will diverge significantly from that of your first language. You want references? You want to learn about this (as opposed to idly bickering about it)? Read the article and the references linked. You want to discuss this, intelligently and presenting sources? Go to Talk:Critical Period Hypothesis, but stop pestering this article. --dab (𒁳) 12:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the topics, and I say you've been very misled. --Kjoonlee 17:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum. WP:NOT. I don't ask you to become an expert (and of course there's WP:NOR), but I think you need to become more familiar with the linguist's definition of grammar. --Kjoonlee 17:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOT to you too. The article cites its sources. End of story. I reciprocate your doubts regarding "expertise". We could start comparing our academic degrees (I am a linguist), but that would fall under WP:NOT too. Come back once you've found some source you want to cite. dab (𒁳) 19:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOT is totally irrelevant and you do not understand WP:NOR either. From your comments here it looks like you don't understand grammar, nor logic. --Kjoonlee 13:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

uh-huh. after 100,000 edits on Wikipedia, we find I do not in fact understand basic policy at all. So we are to take your word that you are "familiar with the topic", that I do not in fact understand logic, or grammar. Wikipedia doesn't work just based on bare assertion. Come back once you have something of substance you would like to say. Until then, I recommend you just drop this. dab (𒁳) 17:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's true. This article is so full of OR that I had been hesitant to bring it up, but now the cat's out of the bag. Whether you are Jimmy Wales's grandfather or the world's leading authority on linguistics does not matter, or whether you are familiar with editing Wikipedia. You do nothing to build consensus, ignore valid statements, and offer no hard facts to back up your claims, on critical topics that have been brought up. You *are* unfamiliar with how Wikipedia really works. --Kjoonlee 18:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

dab (or should I call you Dbachmann?), if you are a linguist by trade, then you must have access to a lot more journals (or sources) than I do. Do you have sources where people discuss the criteria for deciding what makes a language hard? Do the people tend to agree? --Kjoonlee 18:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOR says you shouldn't be citing sources just to advance your own conclusions. If you write any statements in articles, they must all be paraphrases from the sources. --Kjoonlee 19:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I am citing a source to state what it states. If you don't like the way I phrased it, suggest a better phrasing. Stop this childish revert warring. Yes, this article could be expanded further. If you send me a cheque of say USD 300, I'll sit down with it for a day, do a literature search and turn out a more comprehensive article. dab (𒁳) 07:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I have suggested a better phrasing: it's off topic and illogical so it should be expanded (and justified) or deleted. You haven't expanded it, so I have deleted it. You keep reverting without good reasons, so I revert it back. --Kjoonlee 08:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, I'll take your refusal as admittance that you can't find sources. You haven't answered my question about sources for criteria. That's the basic foundation of this article. --Kjoonlee 08:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

An unhelpful list?

Should there be a list included in this article? As it's clear that languages from different language families are generally harder to learn the list should include many, in no specific order. ... Some widely known candidates might be (reasons) :

• Polish (genders)
• Portuguese (verb inflection)
• Icelandish (far from other indoeuropeans)
• Hungarian (many cases)
• Turkish (many suffixes)
• Vietnamese (many tones)
• Korean (grammar)
• Chinese (writing)
• Japanese (counting system, among other things)
• Cherokee (morphology (linguistics))
• Khoisan (click consonants)
• Welsh (spelling)
• Sentinelese language —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.195.46.112 (talk) 09:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
• Add here (explaining why)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.153.61.69 (talk) 16:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The Most Difficult 2L

It is my oppinion that the American Native Tribe of the Navajo, is the most difficult second language to learn by anyone, no matter what their primary language might be. Hence, it was the language of choice chosen by the Americans to be used my the now famous Code Talkers durring World War Two. Craig Warn, Gallup NM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.134.36.140 (talk) 16:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

You show profound ignorance of both the specific and the general subject matter. Navajo was chosen simply because it had few speakers, and all of them resided within the United States. The choice had nothing whatsoever to do with any qualities inherent to the Navajo language. --76.71.46.198 (talk) 17:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Murge to language learning aptitude

This page is

1. not at this point useful as a disambig article;
2. unexpandable beyond anything more than a start-stub given its coverage and subject matter;
3. duplicating scope from the more broadly balanced and existing article, language learning aptitude; and
4. sporting a cheerfully POV title.

Please merge the useful information, purge this page, and keep the crystalballing to pubs and the Language Desk. Or I can do it. ~ Jafet • business • pleasure • voicemail 09:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

a "pov title", yes? As in oldest tree, or oldest city? How is it "OR" to report original research? It's what Wikipedia is about. Except for Mr. Kjoonlee being a little difficult above, this article is fine. That's not a statement against merging, though, if done properly a merge may be perfectly arguable. --dab (𒁳) 09:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

"Oldest" is objective, in the sense that we can measure absolute ages of things and they can be compared. "Hardest" is also objective if we're talking about, say, the Mohs scale, but in the context of this page I find it's like using "Smartest people" as the title for an article on IQ. ~ Jafet • business • pleasure • voicemail 06:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Japanese harder than Chinese?

This doesn't make any sense to me. Between the frustrating tonal part of the language to the even more complicated writing system, Chinese has always seemed harder than Japanese in every aspect to me. Are there any references to why Japanese would be considered more difficult?--Remurmur (talk) 07:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)