I’m from Vietnam. I’ve been in the UK for 10 years now. When I met my English husband 13 years ago at 19 I knew 0 English. We communicated using machine translation. So that’s when I started learning English. Fast forward to present day after immersion, living in an English speaking country, formal study, etc. and I’d say my writing and listening (understanding) are good, but my speaking and reading are still bad. I kind of gave up on trying to become fluent at this point.
For near-native fluency, there is an age cap at around 10 years. It’s much harder for adults, as their critical learning period is closed: https://news.mit.edu/2018/cognitive-scientists-define-critical-period-learning-language-0501
However there is evidence that psychedelics can open up critical periods for social learning (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06204-3) and ongoing research about other critical periods, language learning being one of them.
It might be scientifically accurate but I think the notion of an age cap is misguided. Just because it’s harder doesn’t mean it’s impossible, and the idea of an “age cap” just makes it seem like you shouldn’t even try (might just be my interpretation).
Also it’s just super helpful to learn something even though you’re not perfect.
I’ve started learning English at 10, put in a lot of work over the years, and it got to near-native in my late 20ies (certified by my language-nerd native-english-speaker wife). At 20 I had trouble booking hostel rooms over the phone.
In my 40ies now and I feel like most of the skills that make “me” today, including playing instruments, programming languages, all kinds of crafts, I learned way past ten and many of them past 20. Started learning Spanish at around 35, nowhere near native but decently conversational. About to start the next course in Catalan soon.
So, this is the one thing where I think people just should ignore the science (which is usually not my stance at all) and get cracking, you can teach an old dog new tricks, and it’s always helpful and fun.
“Dump 100 average 10-year-olds in Spain and most will be able to reach near-native fluency without much effort. Dump 100 average 35-year-olds in Spain and most won’t reach near-native fluency without struggling a great deal.”
is NOT saying
“Having an accent is bad; only perfect pronunciation is good enough.”
“You need flawless grammar to be able to communicate.”
“Hard = impossible”
“There is no point in learning a language if you struggle.”
“35-year-olds shouldn’t even try.”
I got a bunch of downvotes for my comment. I guess you’re not the only one reading “it’s much harder” = “there is no point”. I did not say that. The article I linked did not say that. On the contrary, the article talks about hos the critical period seems to be longer than they previously thought.
I get that … It’s just my impression that the “can’t teach an old dog new tricks” mentality is pretty prevalent in general and people might read an article and use it to confirm that mentality, see a phrase like “critical learning period is closed” and say “see, why even try”. Not you personally, just to be clear.
So I didn’t want to leave that uncommented because I think despite that we should foster a culture of learning at any age.
I agree. Although I think it’s important to shift what’s good enough and to have empathy for those who struggle. A lot of racism in Europe is focused around immigrants “not trying hard enough”, like refusing to speak to people that have an accent. “Why can’t they just learn? It’s not that hard.” It actually is that hard, Cathrine. Try navigating Swedish bureaucracy with your Duolingo food-ordering skills and you’ll see. Some people won’t ever learn proper grammar and tiny nuances and that’s okay, you can have a full conversation anyway.