In the TEDTalk “The Linguistic Genius of Babies”, Patricia Kuhl discusses her findings on the significance of human interaction and age in language acquisition. I found Sofia’s blog post on this topic very interesting, because she shares her ideas related to ways of knowing and areas of knowing as she describes the content of the video itself, her personal experience, and her own reflection.

What I loved most about this post was its success in explaining language acquisition as an Area of Knowledge. In the TEDTalk, Kuhl mentions that the ability for babies to learn languages, which is done by “picking up statistics” from human sounds they need to know, has huge implications because understanding this will help us “so that we can keep our own minds open to learning for our entire lives”. (Kuhl 2010) However, Sofia goes further in explaining what the implications of multilingualism actually are. She states that learning to speak multiple languages can bring more opportunities, enable communication, and allow understanding of different cultures. We have moved on to discussing Areas of Knowledge lately in TOK, and one of the questions we asked was why people tried to acquire a particular Area of Knowledge. I think Sofia clearly answered this question through her blog post and proved that language acquisition is relevant to every global citizen.

Sofia also incorporates all four ways of knowing as she reflects on language acquisition. Babies learn to cognitively learn language when the mother (who is the teacher) uses emotion throughout their interaction. A baby perceives the “statistics” he hears through sense perception. Hence, sense perception, logic, and emotion as ways of knowing enables the baby to learn a new language. Sofia uses personal experience as her own way of knowing. Sofia demonstrates that Kuhl’s knowledge claims are accurate by contrasting her ability to learn foreign languages at different ages in her life. For example, she naturally picked up Czech when she was five years old just from being in an Czech environment. With Chinese though, it requires her to study and memorize for long amounts of time, but as a result, she is still not fluent in the language. She proves that human interaction is needed to acquire a language as she contrasts learning Czech from peers whereas she learns Chinese from studying from a book. Although, TOK thinkers often view personal experience through sense perception and emotion to be an unreliable way of thinking, I think in this case, Sofia’s own experience with language allows the reader to relate emotionally to her situation. Since Sofia’s story is believable, the audience is likely to believe in Kuhl’s claims as well.

I really do agree with Sofia’s evaluation on the need for schools to change their foreign language program. I have a strong bias, because I see that many of my friends dislike the foreign language they are taking because they find the course difficult. If learning a second language from a textbook is so ineffective, school systems might as well stop teaching second languages as a whole. If one wants to learn a second language, the most effective way is to study abroad so that one can experience the culture and language through actual human interaction or get a private tutor. Since I find the school system method to be flawed, I looked into other methods that are offered. There is a really strong passion for English learning in China right now, so I tried to find out how Chinese students learn English at a secondary level. One website that I stumbled upon really surprised me. This English program is actually a machine that one can purchase and use on a daily basis. By putting the machine over one’s eyes, the machine activates the right brain while the person is listening to podcasts that are designed for the program. It relies completely on technology and enables cognitive thinking in a completely different way. Although I am doubtful of how effective this tool really is, I think it is interesting to consider different methods that people use.

It seems like almost everyone is trying to learn a new language now, and there are more and more methods that aid people to do so. Through reading Sofia’s post and watching the TEDTalk, I’ve concluded that secondary language acquisition is not realistic anymore since we’ve reached a certain age. Maybe I’m just too biased, but investing more time in other areas of knowledge now seems like the better option.

Kuhl, Patricia. “The Linguistic Genius of Babies.” TEDxRainier. Benaroya Hall, Seattle. Oct. 2010. Lecture.

http://www.yingyuxuexiji.com.cn/

Response to: http://blogs.saschina.org/pudongtok/2012/02/28/are-babies-better-language-learners-than-us

Hi Yuna,

The topic of age versus one’s ability to learn a new language is so interesting. You brought up an interesting perspective. It seems the contextual and deeper-level connection between words and meanings are more easily obtained than teenagers than babies. Whereas the babies, as you mention, “can connect a word and an object better than teenagers”. I think these points you have brought up would allow teenagers to advance further in a given language area, but not necessarily gain the foundations as easily as babies.

From both the TED talk and your post, could it be that babies use their sense perception (sight for mouth movement, hearing for sound) more than teenagers when learning a new language? Most teenagers have been exposed to “thinking” at least several million times in their lives. All the experience teenagers gain over the years may encourage them to be more rigid and structured in belief – less naive, less gullible – by using reasoning (logic), more than sense perception, to learn and know new things – such as language.

What I noticed with many different languages is conflicting grammatical rules, especially in the sentence structure. Take Chinese and English for example. When I used to take Chinese, the teacher frequently draws a double headed arrow, or a lightning bolt sign, to indicate that the sequence of my sentence is wrong – in reverse. It’s hard to learn a new language and get used to it when an old habit – English – is in the way. Perhaps old habits do die hard, and brain researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) aim to show just that. According to Graybiel, one of the MIT researchers, “neurons can change their firing patterns when habits are learned”. Teenagers are likely to know maybe 1 language. Learning a new one means a need to put old habits aside – which is quite hard. At the same time, the increased awareness of reasoning will get in the way. When learning a new language and encountering grammatical rules that conflict with one’s primary language, it is hard to immediately adapt. Babies, on the other hand, have a clean start. They haven’t adapted strong habits from another language, so are able to accept things without touching on the reasoning part of the way-of-knowing as much – since they have little to base the reasoning on. They are likely to use sense perception more effectively and the combination of this two might make it easier for babies to learn a new language.

I’m not exactly sure what you mean by “language learner”, do you mean learning a new language or learning a language in depth?

In terms of learning a language in depth, a teenager might be more effective. Teenagers will have more experience in using different ways of knowing to learn the intricacies of a language. Reasoning and Logic to analyze text and formal stylistic or literary elements, emotions to better understand connotations associated with many words, and language to communicate effectively when learning more advanced material. As for sense perception, it may very well depend on the language (to one’s cultural background) as it would age. We are born with many of our senses and what guides our senses are logic and reasoning, to label and analyze the things we see, hear, touch, smell, or taste. If a person holds up their middle finger, both the baby and teenager might see the same middle finger. However, the baby might not reason that it’s bad because he/she doesn’t know what it means yet. While the teenager might consider it offensive, as emotion and logic comes in play – knowing full well the connotations behind the finger. In terms of sense perception when learning a language in depth, both babies and teenager are able to utilize all the senses.

In terms of learning a whole new language, the topic is more open-ended with many ideas. It also brings in the question of what it means to learn a new language – being able to speak it? Being able to use it on a daily basis? Being able to read and write? Teenagers and babies are better and worst in some of these areas than others. Babies might take years before being able to read and write as they haven’t fully developed some of these skills. Teenagers might be more able to perform writing and reading tasks. At the same time, babies might excel quicker in the area of speaking and daily communication whereas teenagers may struggle greatly with tone and pronunciation.

Catherine Snow of Havard’s Graduate School of Education believes that there is no biological link between ability to learn a new language and age. However, she believes that it depends on the person’s approach to the learning. For example, teenagers and adults are better at intentional learning compared to babies. A lot of the baby’s learning comes unintentionally. Allowing quicker rote-memorization, which may help in some areas of learning a new language. Another thing Bucuvales pointed out is foreign accents, which brings back to the topic of habits. An older person learning a new language has to talk in a different way because two languages can sound quite different. Putting aside old habits might be a problem. On top of that, Snow observed that older people are often ashamed to make errors and mistakes – making them less willing to make unfamiliar sounds. Babies, on the other hand, may scream and shout and not be as aware of the concept of humiliation. This is where emotion comes into play. Maybe emotion limits the scope of older people when learning a new language.

Catherine Snow provides an interesting perspective, but no more valid than the TED talk you cited. Snow’s background is in education and she is a professor of education, so her analysis takes it from a more “how people learn/ways and methods of learning/learning styles” than a psychological/biological perspective.

The topic is still really interesting, and the question is really hard to answer. Does getting older really make it harder to learn a new language?

Works cited
Bucuvalas, Abigail. “Looking Closely at Second Language Learning”. Harvard Graduate School of Education. 1 Oct 2002. Accessed 8 March 2012.

Delude, Cathryn. “Brain Researchers Explain Why Old Habits Die Hard”. Cambridge, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 19 Oct 2005. Accessed 8 March 2012.

I find this post to be very interesting indeed, as it sheds light on the fact that we trust certain aspects of ourselves more than we really should. Also, another interesting point this post, and the case of the mistaken rapist, makes is that certain flaws in our society’s judicial system exist.

The rape victim in the instance illustrated used her sense perception to try and memorize every aspect of her rapist, so that she could eventually bring him to justice. One would imagine that given the amount of concentration she put into this effort (despite the difficulty it requires, given that she was highly stressed at the time) that her memory of the man’s face would be very vivid, and one she could never forget. However, through a system that reinforced the face of an innocent man, eventually causing this man’s face to be the one she remembered, initiated a sequence of events that put an innocent man behind bars for 11 years. Eye-witness   testimonies are often seen to be the most poignant part of any court case, especially if the witness definitively points out one man, however as this case underscores, the way of knowing witnesses use (sense perception and emotion both being components of memory) can be highly flawed.

This post also calls attention to the way in which persuasion can alter one’s memory. One statement related to this, written in the post caught my eye, “I find this really interesting as I used to think that the more someone thought about a memory they had, the clearer it would get; however, it is completely the opposite.” This caught my attention, as it opens up to the idea of people who ‘go with the gut instinct’, people who try not to mull things over for too long, lest they cloud their memory and decision making skills. Perhaps such people are not as rash as one would assume, as the case about the red Camaro’s brought to attention by Abumrad and Krulwich suggests. Maybe these ‘instinctive’ people are trying to rely on their initial memories, without allowing external factors to affect them.

All in all, I found the way that this post reflected on the value of memory as a way of knowing to be very intriguing, however I believe the consequences of and/or ways to avoid the inflated value should have been explored in more depth. For example, if memory really is so unreliable, then should eye-witness testimony still carry as much weight in a courtroom? And what about all of the successful convictions that came about because of eye-witness testimony? Surely these have to be taken into account as well!

Also, coming back to how persuasion can affect memory, and the way the author of this post stated that memory is, in part, composed of emotion, could such persuasive techniques be used to alter people’s emotional memories, and thus their connections to objects or events? Wouldn’t that be a very handy ability in politics and advertising? If such persuasion is used, which research from my very own extended essay suggests is the case, (for example, rhetorical questions in political speeches which make people question their own opinions/reinforce opinions), doesn’t that seem like a breach of free will? I believe so, yet again, since such persuasions on memory are so commonplace, I doubt we will ever be able to stop it.

Citations:

http://blogs.saschina.org/pudongtok/2012/02/24/how-reliable-is-memory-as-a-way-of-knowing/

http://www.teachit.co.uk/armoore/lang/power.htm#polrhetoric

I thought Joyce’s post on how sound could affect us was very interesting, as I have written about the same topic. It was interesting to see the different perspectives she had. I do agree that we have such “a small amount of bandwidth of process auditory input”, I remember going to really loud and crowded food courts in Singapore, and I would always find it very hard to maintain a conversation because there is just so much going on in the background. I would always get distracted easily by a different conversation close by me, which is similar to what Joyce had said about her trying to listen to several conversations at Starbucks. I remember having a tutor session once at Starbucks, and it was very hard for me to concentrate because of what was happening all around me, all the noise distracted me from focusing on what I was actually meant to be doing. Thus this may demonstrate that sound may affect one’s potential to do better than they actually could.

I’ve tried listening to music whilst doing homework, but I always get distracted and sometimes I can’t concentrate at all. However sometimes while listening to music, I am able to. Just before Christmas break in IB Psychology, my friend and I had to design an experiment. The purpose of the experiment was to examine how music affects the functions of the brain. Specifically, we were investigating the impact of different genres of music on an individual’s recall rate. We used two totally different genres of music (Classical and Rock) and gave people a list of words to memorize while listening to either. After a minute the list of words are taken away from the participant, and they are asked to recall as many words as possible, while still listening to the given music. Our results found that the recall rate between while listening to classical music and rock music showed no significant difference. Therefore we came to the conclusion that music may vary between individuals as everyone listens to different genres of music. Some may feel relaxed while listening to Classical music, while others may not. This shows that the same sound is able to affect each individual differently.

From several articles I read, the brain was not built to multitask, meaning the brain can’t simultaneously process data. Therefore in the TED talk, what Julian Treasure is trying to say is that noise pollution affects us greatly, and everyday we are affected by it. Proving that we do have “a small amount of bandwidth of process auditory input”.

Bibliography;

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/julian_treasure_the_4_ways_sound_affects_us.html

http://www.personal.psu.edu/afr3/blogs/SIOW/2011/10/school-work-and-studying-music-or-no-music.html

http://blogs.saschina.org/bknowles/2011/09/20/how-often-do-you-multitask/

http://blogs.saschina.org/pudongtok/2012/02/28/bad-sound/

Tags: Morrison

This post interested me because it dealt with the same resource that my original post dealt with, Julian Treasure’s TED talk about the four ways that sound affects us, but looked at the source from quite a different perspective. Joyce Siu’s post was addressed in a much more personal way and was based on a more kinesthetic way of understanding the concept at hand. Joyce not only commented on how she felt about the topic and the cathartic effect that it had on the way she “manages” sound, but she also performed her own little experiment to see how the knowledge issues presented in the video applied to her situation. She focuses on sense perception and on the cognitive effects of sound on humans, discussing how productivity and focus can be negatively affected by loud music, multiple conversation happening at once or “noise pollution”.

Joyce’s post does an excellent job evaluating the implications of Mr. Treasures talk; especially in analyzing how in our quotidian lives we often ignore or aren’t even aware of the multiplicity of sounds around us that can be slowing down our pace while we work or pulling our focus away from the tasks we are performing. However, in reading her post I noticed that she did base her arguments a lot on her own experiences and sense perception, which leads me to conclude that her opinions may have been biased by the noisy city life that she lives in Shanghai.

Personally, having discussed with my peers whether or not music or rain sounds or even other people around chattering are helpful when studying, I have realized that each person has a very different opinion on what is beneficial or detrimental to their productivity. The implication of this is that the affects of sound on humans cannot be generalized for every single being, but must take into account the individuality and uniqueness of each person.

Joyce’s more investigative and scientific method of looking at this topic drove me to look up other psychological research done on the affects of sound on humans on a daily basis. One paper that I found extremely interesting presented me with a different aspect to the argument that productivity is slowed down by sounds through an analysis of how sound can be positive when used to increase speed or intensity of most physical activities. “As well as increasing endurance, people also expend more effort when listening to music that speeds up,” says Mariagrace Flint from the Ohio University at Mansfield based on the research done by dozens of psychologists that she cited throughout her paper.

In reading Joyce’s response to Julian Treasure’s talk and further investigating the topic I found that sound can be both helpful and harmful depending on the nature of the activity being carried out and each person’s individual preferences. I also learned not to believe anything without allowing yourself to look at it from various lenses… you never know what you might find if you just open your eyes and look a little closer at things.

Bibliography:

Flint, Mariegrace. “The Effect of Music on Physical Productivity.” . N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Mar 2012. <https://kb.osu.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/1811/45032/Music_Productivity.pdf?sequence=1>.

In Sophie’s blog post, she makes connections to some of the things we are currently learning in ToK, such as the “Ways of Knowing” including sense perception, emotion, language, and reasoning, all of which play a significant role in memory. We are the sum of our past experiences – they shape and define us, and our memories are testament to that. We often use memory to make knowledge claims, but how reliable is memory as a way of knowing? “How do I, or how do we, know that a given assertion is true, or a given judgment is well grounded?”

According to http://human-memory.net/intro_what.html and some of the recent work I have done in my IB Psychology class, I have learnt that memory is our ability to encode, store, retain and subsequently recall information and past experiences in our brains. Memory is a mix of emotion, sense perception, past experiences, and is such an evident part of our everyday lives that we find it difficult to doubt it for even a second. Sophie brings up several cases where memory has proven to be wrong, or untrustworthy, such as when people were present at the scene of a crime and were subsequently asked questions by detectives. One person was asked if they saw a red Camaro car when the crime was committed, and at first answered definitively that there was no car. However, when they were asked again but this time with particular emphasis on the question, they began imagining the scene of the crime with the car even though it was never there. This proves that sometimes our brain “fills in the gaps,” or makes us believe what we think is “supposedly correct” due to a change in the wording of language or a situation. Sophie brings up the point that our brains treat memories in a strange way – instead of storing them away like with a filing cabinet, they can be easily influenced or manipulated, affecting the way we see memory as a reliable way of knowing. This encourages us, as ToK students, to “develop an awareness of how knowledge is constructed, critically examined, evaluated and renewed, by communities and individuals” as well as “understand the strengths and limitations of individual and cultural perspectives,” because both of these relate to how knowledge is constructed and whether we can trust what we know.

The most compelling argument that Sophie uses to support her point is in the case of Jennifer Thompson. Thompson was a college student in North Carolina in 1984, when a man broke into her apartment, put a knife to her throat, and raped her. She studied her rapist throughout the incident with great determination to memorize his face, so that if she survived the attack, she would make sure that “he was put into prison and he was going to rot.” However, 11 years later, after a man named Ronald Cotton had served his time in prison for a crime he did not commit, DNA testing and results eventually proved his innocence and Thompson realized she had made a grave mistake. She even said herself, in an interview, “I was certain, but I was wrong.” Her memory had failed her, impacting not just her but taking away 11 years of the life of an innocent man, and resulting in a substantial injustice. She was confident in her identification, yet hard science proved her wrong in the end. Because of the trauma and the stress that Thompson experienced, her emotional response to the situation had altered her memory, making her think that she had picked the right man when he was not even in the original line up of photos that she was presented. This proves to us that memory is easily influenced by many external factors, and that although we can trust it to a certain extent, the whole concept is still largely misunderstood. It can be distorted and rendered unreliable when we let our emotions get in the way, so it is not always the best idea when we are trying to make an informed decision about something.

This website: http://human-memory.net/index.html, a reliable source that explains human memory, how it works, and its limitations, states that, “[Memory] is an important part of what makes us truly human, and yet it is one of the most elusive and misunderstood of human attributes.” Because of its vast complexity and all the other factors that influence it, we know that is something that will always remain a significant aspect of our lives but will be very difficult to explain or quantify. At the conclusion of her post, Sophie finishes with this thought, “From these two examples, it is clear that memory can easily be altered and destroyed or new memories which aren’t exactly the truth can be created. Therefore, we can clearly say that memory is not the most reliable way of knowing.” Although I agree with this to some extent, I do not believe that memory is a completely unreliable Way of Knowing. We would not be where we are today without our memories. Memory may not always be reliable, but it still holds the key to the person that we are and our purpose in life. I acknowledge my biases as a Psychology student and as someone who has more of an affinity for the human sciences rather than the hard sciences, that I may be more lenient towards the whole abstract concept of memory rather than focusing on the “cold, scientific facts.” However, I know from MY own experiences and memories that without the cultural impact of being an expatriate living overseas and growing up in several major cities around the world, I would not be the person that I am today. Without our memories, we are essentially left with nothing to hold onto and to grow from.

Works Cited

Sophie’s Post:  http://blogs.saschina.org/pudongtok/2012/02/24/how-reliable-is-memory-as-a-way-of-knowing/

The Human Memory – what it is, how it works and how it can go wrong. (n.d.). The Human Memory – what it is, how it works and how it can go wrong. Retrieved March 13, 2012, from http://human-memory.net/index.html

A-level Psychology Human Memory Revision – Models of Memory | S-cool, the revision website. (n.d.). GCSE revision and A level revision | S-cool, the revision website. Retrieved March 13, 2012, from http://www.s-cool.co.uk/a-level/psychology/human-memory/revise-it/models-of-memory

Jennifer, T. (2000, June 18). NYT Archives Article. UW Faculty Web Server. Retrieved March 13, 2012, from http://faculty.washington.edu/gloftus/Other_Information/Legal_Stuff/Articles/News_Articles/Thompson_NYT_6_18_2000.html

Hey Laura,

Overall I think your blog post is extremely interesting and I have learned a lot from it Below I have just summarized your main points, and added my own opinion to it.

“It is our illusions that create the world”. (Didier Cauwelaert). This exact phrase corresponds to Laura’s statement, that it might be possible that “what we see is not always reality.” Such as the idea that the sky appears flat, or the sun appears to be moving across the sky. These actions happening around us are only illusions which attribute to either the visual perceptions or our intellectually interpretations. What is an optical illusion? Optical illusions, also know as visual illusions, involve visual deception. Each person experiences visual illusions in a different way, due to the arrangement of images, effect of colours, impact of light sources and many other variables.

It is difficult to imagine, that our eyes, which we always rely on might sometimes play tricks on our mind. “We can either trust nothing we see, we can trust everything, or we can trust things but be sceptical”, as Laura puts it. I agree with her that it is important to trust our senses, especially ones sight, but it is also crucial to be aware of the fact that our eyes do not always portray the complete truth.

I completely agree with Laura when she writes about how visual illusions can be compared to the way humans act. As human beings, we can be very stubborn, and unwilling to change his/her mind about anything. This is similar to visual illusions. Although I can see an illusion over and over again, even knowing that its not true, my mind will not be able to adjust because it is acting stubborn. The mind can often times be made to see something in a certain way simply because the belief is already present. For instance the “Breathing Square” by Michael Bach represents an optical illusion, because although you may still believe what you see, what you believe and what the object actually represents may different greatly. When watching the illusion, the observer is aware of the fact that the blue square of constant size slowly rotates. However our senses deceive us and to every observes the square seems to be changing size, in fact it seems to be “breathing”. The problem about optical illusions is that we only use our eyesight, therefore clouding our other senses. For instance, for the visual illusion “Breathing Square” the title itself already helps manipulate ones sensory perception by using a specific word choice.

This can be very frustrating and bring questions to mind such as “What is reality?” Does reality have to be the same for each person, or does it depend on the perspective? Therefore it is very difficult to keep sensory perception and other factors apart. Perception changes, and is able to mold someone else’s perception although everyone has a different viewpoint about their surroundings and the world. However are they just living a lie or is it “reality for them”? These questions are very difficult to answer, and as Laura said, the topic of optical illusions and how humans behaviour joins which other factors, as well as different perspectives can be very confusing.  However most importantly, some people have to realize that their perception are false and that they have to change their perspective, like each of us realizes this when an optical illusion is explained after observing it. Although it is difficult to cope with, it is important to not only observe the surface of an issue, but to really dig in deep and analyze and question each knowledge claim.

I agree that memory is not the most reliable way of knowing, as all of Sophie’s points are legitimate. Flaws in memory are not only present in this single case study; it is common knowledge and happens to all of us. The interesting point she made about the “red Camaro incident” in which a memory could be influenced or even implanted in our minds is something I can relate to. Often when I ‘remember’ something that happened in the early years of my childhood, I find it hard to distinguish whether it is really a memory or just something I saw in a photograph. Seeing that image consistently makes me imagine a scenario in which the photo taken, a parallel to the Camaro incident.

Although the majority of people believe that memory is stable and permanent, that long-term ones are simply dormant, due to theories hypothesized by Sigmund Freud and neurological studies conducted by Wilder Penfield, I am still not fully convinced. Psychologist Jean Piaget has her own story which contradicts these claims to the extremest extent. In one of her earliest ‘memories’, she was being pushed on a stretcher by a nurse when a man attempted to kidnap her. As Piaget was strapped in place, her nurse received many scratches to the face trying to defend her, ones Piaget claimed were still visible on her face. A crowd gathered around and a policeman entered the scene, and at this time the thief fled. She even recalled where this entire scene took place. The shocking news was that, years later, she found out that the story had been a total sham, and the nurse even faked the scratches. Since Piaget heard this story as a child, she must have therefore created a visual memory out of the ‘facts’ like I did, when in truth it never even happened.

We all know that sense perception isn’t the most reliable way of knowing, either. It can be easily distorted due to people’s bias, opinions, or how easily they are swayed by others. Sometimes the senses are physically restricted, which would cause different people to depict different things. Memory is purely connected through sense perception, as the marks on the nurses face were key to Jean Piaget’s strong belief in the incident, as were certain landmarks or settings in my childhood photographs. It is therefore evident that memory can also be distorted by these kinds of outer interferences.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/dna/photos/eye/text_06.html

This post calls to attention two very significant ideas when looking at language, which is a major way of knowing.  The first being the thought that babies are very apt at picking up new languages with the second relating the idea that culture is such a strong factor in influencing the way we communicate and utilize language.  However I think an idea that wasn’t outright stated but more so implied was, because adults don’t learn language well, they limit their access to knowledge.

Personally, I have observed the first idea discussed in my own life with my own mother’s use of English.  Her family of six children moved to America when the ages of the children were 21 (her), 19, 18, 15, 12, and 10.  Something that I have observed in each person’s speaking patterns is that the age at which they moved to the US correlates with how strong their pronunciation of the English language is.  While my own mother has a teaching degree in English, her youngest sister has the best grasp of the English language especially pertaining to the sounds used.  While this observation is my own personal one with no scientific background, there is evidence that shows the flexibility of children’s brains and thus their increased capability at picking up languages.  (Dobbs, 2011)

Nevertheless, there is always a counterargument that is important to note.  In an article concerning the capacity of adults to learn new languages, the point is made that with a more developed brain comes the ability to pick up the language.  This does not coincide with that idea you have observed relating to adults not being able to recognize the characteristics of human speech to pick up a new language.  This article does however mention the fact that children have the benefit of total immersion into a language compared with how adults conventionally learn languages (through memorization).

“A child learning a language looks forward to many years of education through school and social situations. There, they have to practice their learned language, and will be corrected if they’re wrong. An adult is not as likely to receive the practice that children get, and even less likely to be corrected if they make a mistake. Since they aren’t corrected, they won’t refine their skills, and many years later won’t be as proficient as the child.” (Inglis-Arkell, 2011)

This brings forward the idea that culture in these social situations has such a profound impact on learning with language and how we communicate.  One idea I think you could have delved deeper into would be that of how language as a way of knowing, affects learning.  What are the implications of language having such a large impact on ones’ learning?  One of the large consequences of language and the vast diversity of languages in the world is that of a limited knowledge based on the language one knows.  Would it not be simpler to standardize language and have one language that unites the world?  This would prevent those misinterpretations that have fostered conflict in the past.  However great this would be, there are still those cultural arguments against this seemingly ideal situation.  Those relate specifically to heritage being “lost in the translation” as one language smothers all others.

The idea that culture is connected so closely to language and thus knowledge is something that I think is covered quite nicely in your original post.  I have observed this closely in my extended essay topic concerning how culture influences the language used in advertising to be directed to specific groups of people.  This notion that culture is such a large factor in learning a language is also seen in the book, You Just Don’t Understand – Women and Men in Conversation by Deborah Tannen.  However in this book that cultural relationship is seen specifically between men and women.  This extends the understanding those different cultures are not only seen with cultural gaps stemming from differences in say nationality or birthplace but also between men and women.  The different genders communicate and utilize language differently as a result of the culture gap that is observed to exist between the two (however much many people insist does not exist), and are something worth exploring for an additional understanding of this phenomenon. (Tannen, 1990).

Works Cited

Dobbs, D. (2011, October). National geographic. Retrieved from http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/10/teenage-brains/dobbs-text

Inglis-Arkell, E. (2011, July 23). Adults may be better at learning languages than children. Retrieved from http://io9.com/5824019/adults-may-be-better-at-learning-languages-than-children

Tannen, D. (1990). You just don’t understand – women and men in conversation. New York: Random House, Inc.

What if we could enter into our brains, and control its own actions? Based on Christopher deCharm’s Ted-talk, this will soon be very possible. DeCharm and his colleagues have been working on a way to show people their own brain activity in real time, and then teach them how to control their own brain activity. They say they’ve had already a 40-60% success rate in chronic pain patients, who have learned, to a degree, to control their own pain. In essence, deCharm is talking about patients who can now, pretty much, turn off their pain.

I feel that this new technology could be dangerous to a society. Not only for the potential it has for the military, and its want for a human super-soldier, but for civilian life as well. The brain creates the feeling of pain for a reason, and being able to ignore that reason, ignore that pain, can’t always be a good thing. DeCharm also claims we’ll be able to control pleasure, love, joy, or even free will. While he believes that in the state the technology is in now means only you can control your brain’s functions, I think at least 20-30 years after this technology becomes readily available to the public, someone will think of a way to control other’s brain functions. If that happens, someone could have pain induced for no reason, or have their free will taken away. Their vision could be seriously impaired, if not destroyed entirely. I think this technology could be useful, in certain cases, but in the wrong hands can be deadly, and affect our freedoms and liberties.

Language, deCharm says, might be another thing we can change, which leads me to talk about Dr. Kuhl’s Ted-talk about language and learning. She believes that children and babies, until they reach age seven, are, in a sense, genius’, because they’re ability to learn, retain, and implement language is so much higher than anyone from any other age group. This means that babies listen to everything, and are “taking statistics” to the language they hear. They listen to the number of sounds, and from that point learn how to mimic the same sounds. This means, however, that babies can learn multiple languages at once, if they are well taught. I agree with what Dr. Kuhl is trying to say, in that language is easier to learn when younger, meaning the older you get, the harder it gets to learn a language.

Dr. Kuhl and her colleagues then placed a baby in an MEG machine, to look at it’s brain functions in real time. I believe that this technology, the ability to look inside someone’s brain and see how they learn, can be very helpful to society. If, for example, someone is diagnosed with dyslexia, it could be very helpful to determine now only how they learn, but what they can learn the best (math, english, foreign language, etc.). While this technology would have to be used carefully, I believe it can help our society, and assist us in increasing the amount we learn, in our ever expanding need for a global point of view.