Scientists find connection between mental fitness and multi-lingualism

Children who speak a second or third language may have an unexpected
advantage
later in life, a new Tel Aviv University study has found. Knowing and
speaking
many languages may protect the brain against the effects of aging.

Dr. Gitit Kavé, a clinical neuro-psychologist from the Herczeg
Institute on
Aging at Tel Aviv University, together with her colleagues Nitza Eyal,
Aviva
Shorek, and Jiska Cohen-Manfield, discovered recently that senior
citizens who
speak more languages test for better cognitive functioning. The
results of her
study were published in the journal Psychology and Aging.

However, Kavé says that one should approach these findings with
caution. "There
is no sure-fire recipe for avoiding the pitfalls of mental aging. But
using a
second or third language may help prolong the good years," she
advises.

Exercising the Brain

A person who speaks more languages is likely to be more clear-minded
at an older
age, she says, in effect "exercising" his or her brain more than those
who are
monolingual. Languages may create new links in the brain, contributing
to this
strengthening effect.

The research was based on a survey taken in 1989 on people between the
ages of
75 and 95. Each person was asked how many languages he or she knew,
what his or
her mother tongue was, and which language he or she spoke best. The
researchers
compared bilingual speakers to tri- and multilingual speakers.

Analyzing the results, the researchers found that the more languages a
person
spoke, the better his or her cognitive state was. A person's level of
education
was also strongly associated with cognitive state, but the number of
languages
contributed to the prediction of cognitive fitness beyond the effect
of
education alone.

A Matter of Words, Not Degrees

Although the easiest way to explain the findings was to point out the
relationship between higher education and number of languages, this
was not the
whole story. In fact, Dr. Kavé says, "We found that more languages
were most
significantly correlated with cognitive state in those people who had
no
education at all."

Dr. Kavé, however, adds a note when interpreting the statistics. "The
study
looked at the final result and not the cause," she says.

Use It or Lose It?

A future question for research, according to Kavé, is whether
languages reflect
an initial potential for prolonged mental fitness, or that learning
and speaking
more languages actually do something to the brain over time.

While the controversy continues as to whether or not parents should
introduce
their young children to a second language, Kavé thinks that learning a
new
language is only a good thing, even if it isn't intended to stave off
mental
decline in old age.

"In my professional opinion, learning a new language can only do good
things,"
she believes. "Other languages are good for you at any age. They allow
for a
flexibility of thought and a channel for understanding another culture
better,
as well as your own," says Kavé.

Source: American Friends of Tel Aviv University
http://www.physorg.com/news129393881.html

> "In my professional opinion, learning a new language can only do good
> things,"
> she believes. "Other languages are good for you at any age..."

That's only true, I think, if the child is well motivated. I found
science meaningful at school and thought learning French was a useless
hindrance to studying more interesting things. I was taken by the
wonderful logic of physics at an early age and thought French grammar
was pitiful by comparison. I largely gave up when  we were told about
'le' and 'la' (lesson 1) Why do cats or chairs have a specific gender?
Makes no sense at all! After that I spent French class thinking about
Einstein's twin paradox and the like, which I could have done better
at home (all that garbling from the stern woman at the front of the
class about  Pierre and Marie allezing down to la (le?) boulangerie,
and such enlightening activities, disturbed my relativistic
calculations).

"Paul Grieg"  a écrit dans le message de news: 
bce05aad-0a78-4ad2-94d9-acdcdcc08503@27g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
>> "In my professional opinion, learning a new language can only do good
>> things,"
>> she believes. "Other languages are good for you at any age..."
>
> That's only true, I think, if the child is well motivated. I found
> science meaningful at school and thought learning French was a useless
> hindrance to studying more interesting things. I was taken by the
> wonderful logic of physics at an early age and thought French grammar
> was pitiful by comparison. I largely gave up when  we were told about
> 'le' and 'la' (lesson 1) Why do cats or chairs have a specific gender?
> Makes no sense at all! After that I spent French class thinking about
> Einstein's twin paradox and the like, which I could have done better
> at home (all that garbling from the stern woman at the front of the
> class about  Pierre and Marie allezing down to la (le?) boulangerie,
> and such enlightening activities, disturbed my relativistic
> calculations).

:)

Languages however allow you to explore and understand other cultures in a 
way that is inaccessible to those who go blundering in with their 
Anglo-Saxon preconceptions and loud English voices! ("Shout a little more if 
they don't understand...")

Not that I'm suggesting this applies to you, of course :-D

(PS English is full of pointless exceptions and illogicalities. Convention 
plays at least as important role as logic in its rules. If we say one mouse 
and two mice, why don't we say one house and two hice? One person, two 
people? One box/two boxes, one ox ,two oxen? Foot/feet, boot.... )

And then there's pronunciation ... How many ways are there to pronounce 
"ough"?

"The dough-faced ploughboy coughed and hiccoughed his way through 
Loughborough to the lough"

8!!

If you gave up when faced with "le" and "la", imagine how the poor French 
feel trying to pronounce the above!

On plurals (author unknown)...

"We'll begin with a box and the plural is boxes.
But the plural of ox should be oxen, not oxes.
The one fowl is a goose but two are called geese,
Yet the plural of moose should never be meese.

You may found a lone mouse or a whole set of mice,
Yet the plural of house is houses not hice.

If the plural of man is always called men,
Why shouldn't the plural of pan be called pen?

If I speak of a foot and you show me your feet,
And I give you a boot, would a pair be called beet?

If one is a tooth and a whole set are teeth,
Why should not the plural of booth be called beeth?

Then one may be that and three would be those,
Yet hat in the plural wouldn't be hose.
And the plural of cat is cats and not cose.

We speak of a brother and also of brethren,
But though we say Mother, we never say Methren,

Then the masculine pronouns are he, his and him,
But imagine the feminine she, shis and shim,

So English, I fancy you will all agree,
Is the funniest language you ever did see."

pga

On May 19, 7:37 am, "PG"  wrote:
> "Paul Grieg"  a écrit dans le message de news:
> bce05aad-0a78-4ad2-94d9-acdcdcc08...@27g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> >> "In my professional opinion, learning a new language can only do good
> >> things,"
> >> she believes. "Other languages are good for you at any age..."
>
> > That's only true, I think, if the child is well motivated. I found
> > science meaningful at school and thought learning French was a useless
> > hindrance to studying more interesting things. I was taken by the
> > wonderful logic of physics at an early age and thought French grammar
> > was pitiful by comparison. I largely gave up when  we were told about
> > 'le' and 'la' (lesson 1) Why do cats or chairs have a specific gender?
> > Makes no sense at all! After that I spent French class thinking about
> > Einstein's twin paradox and the like, which I could have done better
> > at home (all that garbling from the stern woman at the front of the
> > class about  Pierre and Marie allezing down to la (le?) boulangerie,
> > and such enlightening activities, disturbed my relativistic
> > calculations).
>
> :)
>
> Languages however allow you to explore and understand other cultures in a
> way that is inaccessible to those who go blundering in with their
> Anglo-Saxon preconceptions and loud English voices! ("Shout a little more if
> they don't understand...")


> Not that I'm suggesting this applies to you, of course :-D
>
> (PS English is full of pointless exceptions and illogicalities. Convention> plays at least as important role as logic in its rules. If we say one mouse
> and two mice, why don't we say one house and two hice? One person, two
> people? One box/two boxes, one ox ,two oxen? Foot/feet, boot.... )
>
> And then there's pronunciation ... How many ways are there to pronounce
> "ough"?
>
> "The dough-faced ploughboy coughed and hiccoughed his way through
> Loughborough to the lough"
>
> If you gave up when faced with "le" and "la", imagine how the poor French
> feel trying to pronounce the above!

Oui indeed.

I was not trying to suggest that English is any more logical.

I was just pointing out that there are circumstances in which there
are no benefits, in fact debits, accruing to attempting to inculcate
another language.

Why force a tone deaf music hater to learn the piano? If Mr Tone Deaf
is a maths whiz then wouldn't he better learning more mathematics in
piano practice time?

"Paul Grieg"  a écrit dans le message de news: 
c24fb109-2124-4692-9cbb-9bb615763bc3@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On May 19, 7:37 am, "PG"  wrote:
> "Paul Grieg"  a écrit dans le message de news:
> bce05aad-0a78-4ad2-94d9-acdcdcc08...@27g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> "In my professional opinion, learning a new language can only do good
> >> things,"
> >> she believes. "Other languages are good for you at any age..."
>
> > That's only true, I think, if the child is well motivated. I found
> > science meaningful at school and thought learning French was a useless
> > hindrance to studying more interesting things. I was taken by the
> > wonderful logic of physics at an early age and thought French grammar
> > was pitiful by comparison. I largely gave up when  we were told about
> > 'le' and 'la' (lesson 1) Why do cats or chairs have a specific gender?
> > Makes no sense at all! After that I spent French class thinking about
> > Einstein's twin paradox and the like, which I could have done better
> > at home (all that garbling from the stern woman at the front of the
> > class about  Pierre and Marie allezing down to la (le?) boulangerie,
> > and such enlightening activities, disturbed my relativistic
> > calculations).
>
> :)
>
> Languages however allow you to explore and understand other cultures in a
> way that is inaccessible to those who go blundering in with their
> Anglo-Saxon preconceptions and loud English voices! ("Shout a little more 
> if
> they don't understand...")

> Not that I'm suggesting this applies to you, of course :-D
>
> (PS English is full of pointless exceptions and illogicalities. Convention
> plays at least as important role as logic in its rules. If we say one 
> mouse
> and two mice, why don't we say one house and two hice? One person, two
> people? One box/two boxes, one ox ,two oxen? Foot/feet, boot.... )
>
> And then there's pronunciation ... How many ways are there to pronounce
> "ough"?
>
> "The dough-faced ploughboy coughed and hiccoughed his way through
> Loughborough to the lough"
>
> If you gave up when faced with "le" and "la", imagine how the poor French
> feel trying to pronounce the above!

> Oui indeed.

> I was not trying to suggest that English is any more logical.
>
> I was just pointing out that there are circumstances in which there
> are no benefits, in fact debits, accruing to attempting to inculcate
> another language.
>
> Why force a tone deaf music hater to learn the piano? If Mr Tone Deaf
> is a maths whiz then wouldn't he better learning more mathematics in
> piano practice time?

Sure, but being tone deaf doesn't stop you from learning a foreign language, 
albeit with a possibly horrible accent! And unless the UK suffers from a 
disproportionately large number of people who lack a musical ear, other 
parts of the world - where learning two or more languages is standard 
practice for all children - don't seem to have a problem. Belgium ... 
Switzerland .... parts of Scandinavia ... etc.

pga

On May 18, 6:25 pm, Paul Grieg  wrote:
> > "In my professional opinion, learning a new language can only do good
> > things,"
> > she believes. "Other languages are good for you at any age..."
>
> That's only true, I think, if the child is well motivated. I found
> science meaningful at school and thought learning French was a useless
> hindrance to studying more interesting things. I was taken by the
> wonderful logic of physics at an early age and thought French grammar
> was pitiful by comparison. I largely gave up when  we were told about
> 'le' and 'la' (lesson 1) Why do cats or chairs have a specific gender?
> Makes no sense at all! After that I spent French class thinking about
> Einstein's twin paradox and the like, which I could have done better
> at home (all that garbling from the stern woman at the front of the
> class about  Pierre and Marie allezing down to la (le?) boulangerie,
> and such enlightening activities, disturbed my relativistic
> calculations).

You were obviously a very clever child.

Still, if you think about it, your remarks seem to be suggesting that
a child should be left to develop only one talent, one mental
capacity. Surely music and art, and literature, and sport, and many
other things that people do and children are expected to learn
something about, would also have interfered with your reflections on
Einstein's twin paradox? So why pick on French as the one that got in
the way rather than music? If, on the other hand, you do agree that
children should have a broad exposure to human learning and avoid
premature foreclosure, then learning another language is surely a good
thing.

Grammar, including gender, is important in ruling out ambiguities.
Research (in The Psych Review, iirc) shows that languages with fewer
arbitary grammatical distinctions (like gender) generate more (a
greater quantity) ambiguous sentences. So there is a pay off for that
grammatical arbitrariness in the greater precision of what an be said
in the language.

Lance

On May 20, 6:23 pm, Paul Grieg  wrote:
> On May 19, 7:37 am, "PG"  wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Paul Grieg"  a écrit dans le message de news:
> > bce05aad-0a78-4ad2-94d9-acdcdcc08...@27g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > >> "In my professional opinion, learning a new language can only do good> > >> things,"
> > >> she believes. "Other languages are good for you at any age..."
>
> > > That's only true, I think, if the child is well motivated. I found
> > > science meaningful at school and thought learning French was a useless> > > hindrance to studying more interesting things. I was taken by the
> > > wonderful logic of physics at an early age and thought French grammar
> > > was pitiful by comparison. I largely gave up when  we were told about
> > > 'le' and 'la' (lesson 1) Why do cats or chairs have a specific gender?> > > Makes no sense at all! After that I spent French class thinking about
> > > Einstein's twin paradox and the like, which I could have done better
> > > at home (all that garbling from the stern woman at the front of the
> > > class about  Pierre and Marie allezing down to la (le?) boulangerie,> > > and such enlightening activities, disturbed my relativistic
> > > calculations).
>
> > :)
>
> > Languages however allow you to explore and understand other cultures in a
> > way that is inaccessible to those who go blundering in with their
> > Anglo-Saxon preconceptions and loud English voices! ("Shout a little more if
> > they don't understand...")
> > Not that I'm suggesting this applies to you, of course :-D
>
> > (PS English is full of pointless exceptions and illogicalities. Convention
> > plays at least as important role as logic in its rules. If we say one mouse
> > and two mice, why don't we say one house and two hice? One person, two
> > people? One box/two boxes, one ox ,two oxen? Foot/feet, boot.... )
>
> > And then there's pronunciation ... How many ways are there to pronounce
> > "ough"?
>
> > "The dough-faced ploughboy coughed and hiccoughed his way through
> > Loughborough to the lough"
>
> > If you gave up when faced with "le" and "la", imagine how the poor French
> > feel trying to pronounce the above!
>
> Oui indeed.
>
> I was not trying to suggest that English is any more logical.
>
> I was just pointing out that there are circumstances in which there
> are no benefits, in fact debits, accruing to attempting to inculcate
> another language.
>
> Why force a tone deaf music hater to learn the piano? If Mr Tone Deaf
> is a maths whiz then wouldn't he better learning more mathematics in
> piano practice time?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

As far as I know there are no normal children who are unable to learn
a language (the equivalent of tone-deafness for languages). The
research evidence is clear: Young children seem to be able to learn
languages easily and to acquire them without accents, unlike adults.

On the other hand research over many decades in Canada and other
places shows that difficulty in learning a language can usually be
related to a person's attitutde to the culture represented by the
language, rather than any intrinsic difficulties of the language. So
my guess would be that you did not have a high opinion of the French
or of French culture...

Lance

On May 22, 8:31 am, Lance  wrote:
> On May 18, 6:25 pm, Paul Grieg  wrote:
>
>
>
> > > "In my professional opinion, learning a new language can only do good
> > > things,"
> > > she believes. "Other languages are good for you at any age..."
>
> > That's only true, I think, if the child is well motivated. I found
> > science meaningful at school and thought learning French was a useless
> > hindrance to studying more interesting things. I was taken by the
> > wonderful logic of physics at an early age and thought French grammar
> > was pitiful by comparison. I largely gave up when  we were told about
> > 'le' and 'la' (lesson 1) Why do cats or chairs have a specific gender?
> > Makes no sense at all! After that I spent French class thinking about
> > Einstein's twin paradox and the like, which I could have done better
> > at home (all that garbling from the stern woman at the front of the
> > class about  Pierre and Marie allezing down to la (le?) boulangerie,
> > and such enlightening activities, disturbed my relativistic
> > calculations).
>
> You were obviously a very clever child.
>
> Still, if you think about it, your remarks seem to be suggesting that
> a child should be left to develop only one talent, one mental
> capacity.

I'm suggesting that the child should be left to develop what
capacities they want. Why should a child be forced to pursue music,
art, literature, and sport? They might be given the gentlest of
introductions to them, and be allowed to drift in and out of them. But
if after 3 months of French my 11 year self said, "This le and la
stuff is rubbish I'm off to read Einstein in the library." Then why
not let me? The alternative is me sitting around disrupting students
who like the le and la stuff.

> other things that people do and children are expected to learn
> something about, would also have interfered with your reflections on
> Einstein's twin paradox? So why pick on French as the one that got in
> the way rather than music?

Because it's the one that *really* got in *my* way. It's the only
subject I was forced, kicking and screaming, to do for GCE, and the
only subject I didn't get an A in (I got an F!)

Einstein liked music, so I quite liked music :-) Anyway, the class
consisted mostly in sitting around listening to Beethoven -- we had a
very lazy music teacher. But (hey) this class worked for me! I could
listen to the music, or let it drift by as I considered black holes.
The teacher didn't disturb me with cries of 'the past tense,
numbskull!' There should be more relaxation in schools.

> children should have a broad exposure to human learning and avoid
> premature foreclosure, then learning another language is surely a good
> thing.

I agree that a broad education is good. But why so much stress on
French at the expense of philosophy,  psychology, gardening,
meditation, yoga, sailing... The list goes on. I  can see an argument
for giving a student, say, a year of French and then encouraging them
to do some other subjects. Now that would be broad! This would give
them a chance to find something they like.

> Grammar, including gender, is important in ruling out ambiguities.
> Research (in The Psych Review, iirc) shows that languages with fewer
> arbitary grammatical distinctions (like gender) generate more (a
> greater quantity) ambiguous sentences. So there is a pay off for that
> grammatical arbitrariness in the greater precision of what an be said
> in the language.

Now that's interesting! Maybe if you had been my French teacher?...

I guess what I'm arguing for is a more child-centred approach, teach
them what they are currently interested in at the time, so that they
can actually enjoy school.

Because I enjoyed science, English and History so much, and did well
in them, it's a real condemnation of the school system that I don't
have happy memories of school. I was only doing science half the time
and things like French, forced brutal sports, metalwork,
excruciatingly boring religious assemblies, nasty teachers & pupils,
'play' time, really put the mockers on it.

On May 22, 5:02 pm, Paul Grieg  wrote:
> On May 22, 8:31 am, Lance  wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 18, 6:25 pm, Paul Grieg  wrote:
>
> > > > "In my professional opinion, learning a new language can only do good
> > > > things,"
> > > > she believes. "Other languages are good for you at any age..."
>
> > > That's only true, I think, if the child is well motivated. I found
> > > science meaningful at school and thought learning French was a useless> > > hindrance to studying more interesting things. I was taken by the
> > > wonderful logic of physics at an early age and thought French grammar
> > > was pitiful by comparison. I largely gave up when  we were told about
> > > 'le' and 'la' (lesson 1) Why do cats or chairs have a specific gender?> > > Makes no sense at all! After that I spent French class thinking about
> > > Einstein's twin paradox and the like, which I could have done better
> > > at home (all that garbling from the stern woman at the front of the
> > > class about  Pierre and Marie allezing down to la (le?) boulangerie,> > > and such enlightening activities, disturbed my relativistic
> > > calculations).
>
> > You were obviously a very clever child.
>
> > Still, if you think about it, your remarks seem to be suggesting that
> > a child should be left to develop only one talent, one mental
> > capacity.
>
> I'm suggesting that the child should be left to develop what
> capacities they want. Why should a child be forced to pursue music,
> art, literature, and sport? They might be given the gentlest of
> introductions to them, and be allowed to drift in and out of them. But
> if after 3 months of French my 11 year self said, "This le and la
> stuff is rubbish I'm off to read Einstein in the library." Then why
> not let me? The alternative is me sitting around disrupting students
> who like the le and la stuff.
>
> > other things that people do and children are expected to learn
> > something about, would also have interfered with your reflections on
> > Einstein's twin paradox? So why pick on French as the one that got in
> > the way rather than music?
>
> Because it's the one that *really* got in *my* way. It's the only
> subject I was forced, kicking and screaming, to do for GCE, and the
> only subject I didn't get an A in (I got an F!)
>
> Einstein liked music, so I quite liked music :-) Anyway, the class
> consisted mostly in sitting around listening to Beethoven -- we had a
> very lazy music teacher. But (hey) this class worked for me! I could
> listen to the music, or let it drift by as I considered black holes.
> The teacher didn't disturb me with cries of 'the past tense,
> numbskull!' There should be more relaxation in schools.
>
> > children should have a broad exposure to human learning and avoid
> > premature foreclosure, then learning another language is surely a good
> > thing.
>
> I agree that a broad education is good. But why so much stress on
> French at the expense of philosophy,  psychology, gardening,
> meditation, yoga, sailing... The list goes on. I  can see an argument
> for giving a student, say, a year of French and then encouraging them
> to do some other subjects. Now that would be broad! This would give
> them a chance to find something they like.
>
> > Grammar, including gender, is important in ruling out ambiguities.
> > Research (in The Psych Review, iirc) shows that languages with fewer
> > arbitary grammatical distinctions (like gender) generate more (a
> > greater quantity) ambiguous sentences. So there is a pay off for that
> > grammatical arbitrariness in the greater precision of what an be said
> > in the language.
>
> Now that's interesting! Maybe if you had been my French teacher?...
>
> I guess what I'm arguing for is a more child-centred approach, teach
> them what they are currently interested in at the time, so that they
> can actually enjoy school.
>
> Because I enjoyed science, English and History so much, and did well
> in them, it's a real condemnation of the school system that I don't
> have happy memories of school. I was only doing science half the time
> and things like French, forced brutal sports, metalwork,
> excruciatingly boring religious assemblies, nasty teachers & pupils,
> 'play' time, really put the mockers on it.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

"I'm suggesting that the child should be left to develop what
capacities they want. Why should a child be forced to pursue music,
art, literature, and sport? They might be given the gentlest of
introductions to them, and be allowed to drift in and out of them. But
if after 3 months of French my 11 year self said, "This le and la
stuff is rubbish I'm off to read Einstein in the library." Then why
not let me? The alternative is me sitting around disrupting students
who like the le and la stuff."

So many value judgements here. One reason that children are not free
to simply choose whatever they will learn is precisely these value
judgements. A child is not in a position to know for sure what will
prove valuable to know.

English speakers seem to me to be incredibly arrogant in their
approach to other peoples' languages. You just assume that nothing
valuable will ever published in French or German or Russian, or
Japanese, or Chinese, so there is absolutely no need for you to learn
other languages. Yet Einstein wrote in German, and had no English
speakers read German, YOU would never have been able to read him.

Try switching your argument round to a French boy who is interested in
physics and doesn't want to learn English. Would you not say that he
is depriving himself of access to the very stuff he is interested in?
By Kant's principle of universalisation, what is good for the goose is
good for the gander. So English boys ought also to learn languages
that will increase their access to cultural products such as physics.

Lance

On May 23, 10:22 am, Lance  wrote:
> On May 22, 5:02 pm, Paul Grieg  wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 22, 8:31 am, Lance  wrote:
>
> > > On May 18, 6:25 pm, Paul Grieg  wrote:
>
> > > > > "In my professional opinion, learning a new language can only do good
> > > > > things,"
> > > > > she believes. "Other languages are good for you at any age..."
>
> > > > That's only true, I think, if the child is well motivated. I found
> > > > science meaningful at school and thought learning French was a useless
> > > > hindrance to studying more interesting things. I was taken by the
> > > > wonderful logic of physics at an early age and thought French grammar
> > > > was pitiful by comparison. I largely gave up when  we were told about
> > > > 'le' and 'la' (lesson 1) Why do cats or chairs have a specific gender?
> > > > Makes no sense at all! After that I spent French class thinking about
> > > > Einstein's twin paradox and the like, which I could have done better> > > > at home (all that garbling from the stern woman at the front of the
> > > > class about  Pierre and Marie allezing down to la (le?) boulangerie,
> > > > and such enlightening activities, disturbed my relativistic
> > > > calculations).
>
> > > You were obviously a very clever child.
>
> > > Still, if you think about it, your remarks seem to be suggesting that
> > > a child should be left to develop only one talent, one mental
> > > capacity.
>
> > I'm suggesting that the child should be left to develop what
> > capacities they want. Why should a child be forced to pursue music,
> > art, literature, and sport? They might be given the gentlest of
> > introductions to them, and be allowed to drift in and out of them. But
> > if after 3 months of French my 11 year self said, "This le and la
> > stuff is rubbish I'm off to read Einstein in the library." Then why
> > not let me? The alternative is me sitting around disrupting students
> > who like the le and la stuff.
>
> > > other things that people do and children are expected to learn
> > > something about, would also have interfered with your reflections on
> > > Einstein's twin paradox? So why pick on French as the one that got in
> > > the way rather than music?
>
> > Because it's the one that *really* got in *my* way. It's the only
> > subject I was forced, kicking and screaming, to do for GCE, and the
> > only subject I didn't get an A in (I got an F!)
>
> > Einstein liked music, so I quite liked music :-) Anyway, the class
> > consisted mostly in sitting around listening to Beethoven -- we had a
> > very lazy music teacher. But (hey) this class worked for me! I could
> > listen to the music, or let it drift by as I considered black holes.
> > The teacher didn't disturb me with cries of 'the past tense,
> > numbskull!' There should be more relaxation in schools.
>
> > > children should have a broad exposure to human learning and avoid
> > > premature foreclosure, then learning another language is surely a good> > > thing.
>
> > I agree that a broad education is good. But why so much stress on
> > French at the expense of philosophy,  psychology, gardening,
> > meditation, yoga, sailing... The list goes on. I  can see an argument
> > for giving a student, say, a year of French and then encouraging them
> > to do some other subjects. Now that would be broad! This would give
> > them a chance to find something they like.
>
> > > Grammar, including gender, is important in ruling out ambiguities.
> > > Research (in The Psych Review, iirc) shows that languages with fewer
> > > arbitary grammatical distinctions (like gender) generate more (a
> > > greater quantity) ambiguous sentences. So there is a pay off for that
> > > grammatical arbitrariness in the greater precision of what an be said
> > > in the language.
>
> > Now that's interesting! Maybe if you had been my French teacher?...
>
> > I guess what I'm arguing for is a more child-centred approach, teach
> > them what they are currently interested in at the time, so that they
> > can actually enjoy school.
>
> > Because I enjoyed science, English and History so much, and did well
> > in them, it's a real condemnation of the school system that I don't
> > have happy memories of school. I was only doing science half the time
> > and things like French, forced brutal sports, metalwork,
> > excruciatingly boring religious assemblies, nasty teachers & pupils,
> > 'play' time, really put the mockers on it.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> "I'm suggesting that the child should be left to develop what
> capacities they want. Why should a child be forced to pursue music,
> art, literature, and sport? They might be given the gentlest of
> introductions to them, and be allowed to drift in and out of them. But
> if after 3 months of French my 11 year self said, "This le and la
> stuff is rubbish I'm off to read Einstein in the library." Then why
> not let me? The alternative is me sitting around disrupting students
> who like the le and la stuff."
>
> So many value judgements here. One reason that children are not free
> to simply choose whatever they will learn is precisely these value
> judgements. A child is not in a position to know for sure what will
> prove valuable to know.
>
> English speakers seem to me to be incredibly arrogant in their
> approach to other peoples' languages. You just assume that nothing
> valuable will ever published in French or German or Russian, or
> Japanese, or Chinese, so there is absolutely no need for you to learn
> other languages. Yet Einstein wrote in German, and had no English
> speakers read German, YOU would never have been able to read him.
>
> Try switching your argument round to a French boy who is interested in
> physics and doesn't want to learn English. Would you not say that he
> is depriving himself of access to the very stuff he is interested in?
> By Kant's principle of universalisation, what is good for the goose is
> good for the gander. So English boys ought also to learn languages
> that will increase their access to cultural products such as physics.
>
I don't disagree with your point, but the language of physics is
mathematics, rather than English or German.

I agree with your point about politics - I only got through my matric
Afrikaans because my brother got me a pass to read a banned book in
the city library. Afrikaans is not a difficult language to learn, but
in Natal it is possible to never hear anybody speak it and, then, it
was seen as the language of the oppressor.

On May 23, 6:39 pm, Peter Brooks  wrote:
> On May 23, 10:22 am, Lance  wrote:
>
> > On May 22, 5:02 pm, Paul Grieg  wrote:
>
> > > On May 22, 8:31 am, Lance  wrote:
>
> > > > On May 18, 6:25 pm, Paul Grieg  wrote:
>
> > > > > > "In my professional opinion, learning a new language can only do good
> > > > > > things,"
> > > > > > she believes. "Other languages are good for you at any age..."
>
> > > > > That's only true, I think, if the child is well motivated. I found
> > > > > science meaningful at school and thought learning French was a useless
> > > > > hindrance to studying more interesting things. I was taken by the
> > > > > wonderful logic of physics at an early age and thought French grammar
> > > > > was pitiful by comparison. I largely gave up when  we were told about
> > > > > 'le' and 'la' (lesson 1) Why do cats or chairs have a specific gender?
> > > > > Makes no sense at all! After that I spent French class thinking about
> > > > > Einstein's twin paradox and the like, which I could have done better
> > > > > at home (all that garbling from the stern woman at the front of the
> > > > > class about  Pierre and Marie allezing down to la (le?) boulangerie,
> > > > > and such enlightening activities, disturbed my relativistic
> > > > > calculations).
>
> > > > You were obviously a very clever child.
>
> > > > Still, if you think about it, your remarks seem to be suggesting that
> > > > a child should be left to develop only one talent, one mental
> > > > capacity.
>
> > > I'm suggesting that the child should be left to develop what
> > > capacities they want. Why should a child be forced to pursue music,
> > > art, literature, and sport? They might be given the gentlest of
> > > introductions to them, and be allowed to drift in and out of them. But
> > > if after 3 months of French my 11 year self said, "This le and la
> > > stuff is rubbish I'm off to read Einstein in the library." Then why
> > > not let me? The alternative is me sitting around disrupting students
> > > who like the le and la stuff.
>
> > > > other things that people do and children are expected to learn
> > > > something about, would also have interfered with your reflections on
> > > > Einstein's twin paradox? So why pick on French as the one that got in
> > > > the way rather than music?
>
> > > Because it's the one that *really* got in *my* way. It's the only
> > > subject I was forced, kicking and screaming, to do for GCE, and the
> > > only subject I didn't get an A in (I got an F!)
>
> > > Einstein liked music, so I quite liked music :-) Anyway, the class
> > > consisted mostly in sitting around listening to Beethoven -- we had a
> > > very lazy music teacher. But (hey) this class worked for me! I could
> > > listen to the music, or let it drift by as I considered black holes.
> > > The teacher didn't disturb me with cries of 'the past tense,
> > > numbskull!' There should be more relaxation in schools.
>
> > > > children should have a broad exposure to human learning and avoid
> > > > premature foreclosure, then learning another language is surely a good
> > > > thing.
>
> > > I agree that a broad education is good. But why so much stress on
> > > French at the expense of philosophy,  psychology, gardening,
> > > meditation, yoga, sailing... The list goes on. I  can see an argument
> > > for giving a student, say, a year of French and then encouraging them
> > > to do some other subjects. Now that would be broad! This would give
> > > them a chance to find something they like.
>
> > > > Grammar, including gender, is important in ruling out ambiguities.
> > > > Research (in The Psych Review, iirc) shows that languages with fewer
> > > > arbitary grammatical distinctions (like gender) generate more (a
> > > > greater quantity) ambiguous sentences. So there is a pay off for that
> > > > grammatical arbitrariness in the greater precision of what an be said
> > > > in the language.
>
> > > Now that's interesting! Maybe if you had been my French teacher?...
>
> > > I guess what I'm arguing for is a more child-centred approach, teach
> > > them what they are currently interested in at the time, so that they
> > > can actually enjoy school.
>
> > > Because I enjoyed science, English and History so much, and did well
> > > in them, it's a real condemnation of the school system that I don't
> > > have happy memories of school. I was only doing science half the time
> > > and things like French, forced brutal sports, metalwork,
> > > excruciatingly boring religious assemblies, nasty teachers & pupils,
> > > 'play' time, really put the mockers on it.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > "I'm suggesting that the child should be left to develop what
> > capacities they want. Why should a child be forced to pursue music,
> > art, literature, and sport? They might be given the gentlest of
> > introductions to them, and be allowed to drift in and out of them. But
> > if after 3 months of French my 11 year self said, "This le and la
> > stuff is rubbish I'm off to read Einstein in the library." Then why
> > not let me? The alternative is me sitting around disrupting students
> > who like the le and la stuff."
>
> > So many value judgements here. One reason that children are not free
> > to simply choose whatever they will learn is precisely these value
> > judgements. A child is not in a position to know for sure what will
> > prove valuable to know.

Is an adult?

> > English speakers seem to me to be incredibly arrogant in their
> > approach to other peoples' languages.

I was giving honest reasons why I did not like learning French when I
was 11. That's hardly arrogance. I found the use of gender
inconsistent. Lance has pointed out how gender 'might' be useful. I
think he's wrong, but he might be right, but the argument never
entered my head at 11. Also the textbook was incredibly boring, full
of stultifying exercises like "translate - Jacques and Marie go to the
green grocers'. I was spending my evenings observing and working out
the orbit's of Jupiter's moons -- the teachers needed to try MUCH
harder to make French as interesting as that. (Translating Descartes
or Laplace might have done it for me).

> > You just assume that nothing
> > valuable will ever published in French or German or Russian, or
> > Japanese, or Chinese, so there is absolutely no need for you to learn
> > other languages.

Even my 11 year old self didn't think that!

> > Yet Einstein wrote in German, and had no English
> > speakers read German, YOU would never have been able to read him.

True? So what. I was reading popular accounts in English at 11 (Gamow,
Asimov...). That was good enough. Maybe the public library at fault,
if it hadn't had so many interesting books I might have stuck with
French...

> > Try switching your argument round to a French boy who is interested in
> > physics and doesn't want to learn English.

Surely there are good writers on physics in French? So (given a good
public bibliotheque) he'd be fine. Even at university the French learn
physics in their own language. Indeed, the French are incredibly
protective of their language, more so than the English, e.g.,
translating words like 'computer' into ordinateur.

> >Would you not say that he
> > is depriving himself of access to the very stuff he is interested in?

It depends. Every work of philosophy I've felt I 'must' read has been
translated into English. Most commentaries on these works I've felt an
inkling to read have been in English. I have seen French commentaries
referenced in some books, which are not translated, that I've felt I
might have liked to read (or glance at) -- but not enough to feel the
motivation to learn French. And I don't feel I've missed anything
important by not reading such books. If, say, the main works of
Schopenhauer had not been translated into English *then* I would learn
German.

> > By Kant's principle of universalisation, what is good for the goose is
> > good for the gander. So English boys ought also to learn languages
> > that will increase their access to cultural products such as physics.

One of the most heralded impacts by one philosopher on another is
Hume's impact on Kant. But Kant did not understand English, he had top
read a translation!

> I don't disagree with your point, but the language of physics is
> mathematics, rather than English or German.

Exactly, therefore why force physicists to learn German?

"Paul Grieg"  a écrit dans le message de news: 
711f413a-0078-47be-a548-f6399ec23f85@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On May 23, 6:39 pm, Peter Brooks  wrote:
>> On May 23, 10:22 am, Lance  wrote:

<snip>

>> I don't disagree with your point, but the language of physics is
>> mathematics, rather than English or German.
>
> Exactly, therefore why force physicists to learn German?

That's the spirit! These damn foreigners, expecting us to learn their 
language should we need to go over there and actually have to talk to one of 
them! Bloody cheek. I say shout louder at them and if they don't understand 
English, sack'em. Every foreign child should be forced to learn English 
before anything else, just in case he or she ends up as a physicist and 
needs to speak to the real experts, English-speaking obviously, who haven't 
had their brains addled by all this foreign lingo gibberish.

On May 24, 1:17 pm, Paul Grieg  wrote:
> On May 23, 6:39 pm, Peter Brooks  wrote:
>
>
> One of the most heralded impacts by one philosopher on another is
> Hume's impact on Kant. But Kant did not understand English, he had top
> read a translation!
I think you've got your attributions wrong - most of what you replied
to was from Lance.
>
> > I don't disagree with your point, but the language of physics is
> > mathematics, rather than English or German.
>
> Exactly, therefore why force physicists to learn German?
>
This last bit was me, and I don't think that anybody was suggesting
forced German lessons. English is a Germanic language anyway, so it
isn't that difficult to learn German.

I've been fascinated by other languages. The Hangul script of the
Koreans and its relationship to Chinese is an amazing story - how it
could be that the script for sam-sung could be pronounced differently
for the company and the underground station. All that work to
standardise and formalise things on a simple script subverted by the
simple expedient of remembering the Chinese original!

I've been in the Gulf a fair bit recently, so I downloaded some
introductory books to Arabic. Again, it is remarkable to see how the
script is put together - strings that all looked the same now begin to
reveal their structure. I like the way that, being script based,
Arabic lends itself to calligraphic designs that still make sense. And
all of this without knowing much about the subject at all.

I'd like to read a book that introduced the world's scripts with just
a smidgin of background, some comparisons and historical notes. I
loved the Georgian script on the wine bottles when in Tiblisi and I'm
intrigued that Hindi looks so similar, in structure, to Arabic - but,
for all I know, might be quite different.

My first encounter with this was the runic script in the appendix to
the Lord of the Rings. Part of the problem, for me, is the gulf
between getting a little bit of an idea and knowing anything useful.

On May 24, 6:17 am, Paul Grieg  wrote:

> Exactly, therefore why force physicists to learn German?

My undergraduate adviser (a physics professor) had the opinion that
English was all one needed although English wasn't his native
language.

--
   Ron

On May 23, 7:39 pm, Peter Brooks  wrote:
> On May 23, 10:22 am, Lance  wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 22, 5:02 pm, Paul Grieg  wrote:
>
> > > On May 22, 8:31 am, Lance  wrote:
>
> > > > On May 18, 6:25 pm, Paul Grieg  wrote:
>
> > > > > > "In my professional opinion, learning a new language can only do good
> > > > > > things,"
> > > > > > she believes. "Other languages are good for you at any age..."
>
> > > > > That's only true, I think, if the child is well motivated. I found> > > > > science meaningful at school and thought learning French was a useless
> > > > > hindrance to studying more interesting things. I was taken by the
> > > > > wonderful logic of physics at an early age and thought French grammar
> > > > > was pitiful by comparison. I largely gave up when  we were told about
> > > > > 'le' and 'la' (lesson 1) Why do cats or chairs have a specific gender?
> > > > > Makes no sense at all! After that I spent French class thinking about
> > > > > Einstein's twin paradox and the like, which I could have done better
> > > > > at home (all that garbling from the stern woman at the front of the
> > > > > class about  Pierre and Marie allezing down to la (le?) boulangerie,
> > > > > and such enlightening activities, disturbed my relativistic
> > > > > calculations).
>
> > > > You were obviously a very clever child.
>
> > > > Still, if you think about it, your remarks seem to be suggesting that
> > > > a child should be left to develop only one talent, one mental
> > > > capacity.
>
> > > I'm suggesting that the child should be left to develop what
> > > capacities they want. Why should a child be forced to pursue music,
> > > art, literature, and sport? They might be given the gentlest of
> > > introductions to them, and be allowed to drift in and out of them. But> > > if after 3 months of French my 11 year self said, "This le and la
> > > stuff is rubbish I'm off to read Einstein in the library." Then why
> > > not let me? The alternative is me sitting around disrupting students
> > > who like the le and la stuff.
>
> > > > other things that people do and children are expected to learn
> > > > something about, would also have interfered with your reflections on> > > > Einstein's twin paradox? So why pick on French as the one that got in
> > > > the way rather than music?
>
> > > Because it's the one that *really* got in *my* way. It's the only
> > > subject I was forced, kicking and screaming, to do for GCE, and the
> > > only subject I didn't get an A in (I got an F!)
>
> > > Einstein liked music, so I quite liked music :-) Anyway, the class
> > > consisted mostly in sitting around listening to Beethoven -- we had a
> > > very lazy music teacher. But (hey) this class worked for me! I could
> > > listen to the music, or let it drift by as I considered black holes.
> > > The teacher didn't disturb me with cries of 'the past tense,
> > > numbskull!' There should be more relaxation in schools.
>
> > > > children should have a broad exposure to human learning and avoid
> > > > premature foreclosure, then learning another language is surely a good
> > > > thing.
>
> > > I agree that a broad education is good. But why so much stress on
> > > French at the expense of philosophy,  psychology, gardening,
> > > meditation, yoga, sailing... The list goes on. I  can see an argument
> > > for giving a student, say, a year of French and then encouraging them
> > > to do some other subjects. Now that would be broad! This would give
> > > them a chance to find something they like.
>
> > > > Grammar, including gender, is important in ruling out ambiguities.
> > > > Research (in The Psych Review, iirc) shows that languages with fewer> > > > arbitary grammatical distinctions (like gender) generate more (a
> > > > greater quantity) ambiguous sentences. So there is a pay off for that
> > > > grammatical arbitrariness in the greater precision of what an be said
> > > > in the language.
>
> > > Now that's interesting! Maybe if you had been my French teacher?...
>
> > > I guess what I'm arguing for is a more child-centred approach, teach
> > > them what they are currently interested in at the time, so that they
> > > can actually enjoy school.
>
> > > Because I enjoyed science, English and History so much, and did well
> > > in them, it's a real condemnation of the school system that I don't
> > > have happy memories of school. I was only doing science half the time
> > > and things like French, forced brutal sports, metalwork,
> > > excruciatingly boring religious assemblies, nasty teachers & pupils,
> > > 'play' time, really put the mockers on it.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > "I'm suggesting that the child should be left to develop what
> > capacities they want. Why should a child be forced to pursue music,
> > art, literature, and sport? They might be given the gentlest of
> > introductions to them, and be allowed to drift in and out of them. But
> > if after 3 months of French my 11 year self said, "This le and la
> > stuff is rubbish I'm off to read Einstein in the library." Then why
> > not let me? The alternative is me sitting around disrupting students
> > who like the le and la stuff."
>
> > So many value judgements here. One reason that children are not free
> > to simply choose whatever they will learn is precisely these value
> > judgements. A child is not in a position to know for sure what will
> > prove valuable to know.
>
> > English speakers seem to me to be incredibly arrogant in their
> > approach to other peoples' languages. You just assume that nothing
> > valuable will ever published in French or German or Russian, or
> > Japanese, or Chinese, so there is absolutely no need for you to learn
> > other languages. Yet Einstein wrote in German, and had no English
> > speakers read German, YOU would never have been able to read him.
>
> > Try switching your argument round to a French boy who is interested in
> > physics and doesn't want to learn English. Would you not say that he
> > is depriving himself of access to the very stuff he is interested in?
> > By Kant's principle of universalisation, what is good for the goose is
> > good for the gander. So English boys ought also to learn languages
> > that will increase their access to cultural products such as physics.
>
> I don't disagree with your point, but the language of physics is
> mathematics, rather than English or German.
>

I don't believe this. There are not that many equations in Einstein's
writings, and he was a physicist - a rather good one.

I think maths has to be interpreted to be of use to physicists, and I
think physics requires experimentation, and that purely mathematical
physics is "not even wrong". Language is essential for showing how
equations map onto physical truths, and language is essential for
setting up and communicating experiments.

> I agree with your point about politics - I only got through my matric
> Afrikaans because my brother got me a pass to read a banned book in
> the city library. Afrikaans is not a difficult language to learn, but
> in Natal it is possible to never hear anybody speak it and, then, it
> was seen as the language of the oppressor.- Hide quoted text -
>

Yes, Paul Grieg's dislike of the French is quite clear in the way he
writes of teh french language.

Lance

On May 27, 2:10 pm, Lance  wrote:
> On May 23, 7:39 pm, Peter Brooks  wrote:
>
>
> I don't believe this. There are not that many equations in Einstein's
> writings, and he was a physicist - a rather good one.
>
> I think maths has to be interpreted to be of use to physicists, and I
> think physics requires experimentation, and that purely mathematical
> physics is "not even wrong". Language is essential for showing how
> equations map onto physical truths, and language is essential for
> setting up and communicating experiments.
>
I wouldn't measure equations by their number and I don't disagree that
language is useful for the reasons you give.

Mathematics is, though, a language. If you look at Maxwell's
equations, you can see, and demonstrate by solving them in particular
situations, what is going on, you could then, indeed, add separate
voice-overs to describe what was going on, but the actual working can
all be done in a universal language with no need for translation to
German, French or English.

If you are too tied to what the letters 'stand for' then you can be
led into error. It might well be easier to understand E=mc^2 if you
are Chinese because there is no drag along in the meanings of the
symbols. Of course, many equations use Greek symbols, so you don't
have this problem.

On May 26, 11:45 pm, Ron Peterson  wrote:
> On May 24, 6:17 am, Paul Grieg  wrote:
>
> > Exactly, therefore why force physicists to learn German?
>
> My undergraduate adviser (a physics professor) had the opinion that
> English was all one needed although English wasn't his native
> language.
>
> --
>    Ron

The original article just argued (and there are many other articles
and studies supporting this) that learning a language has cognitive
benefits.

Mr Grieg hijacked the topic to argue that children shouldn't be forced
to learn a language if they don't want to learn one. The topic of what
should go into a school curriculum is a complex one, and I doubt that
children are themselves entirely in a position to judge the value of
what they learn at school. Anyway, I suggested that a French child
could not learn modern physics (especially if intending to study it at
a higher level) without learning English, and that by reciprocity Mr
Grieg shouldn't begrudge having been exposed to French. Thus the
argument turned to the question of English as adequate to learning
physics. Anyway, a few years back, the American Scientist had an issue
devoted to science in the "rest of the world" (i.e., not America) and
was surprised to learn how much of it existed outside of the USA. In
that issue the authors pointed out that Americans (and I suspect
people in the UK) largely read American and English articles but
sseldom read anything not published in English or in American/UK
journals. However, Europeans and Russians and Chinese read English
journals as well as other material in their local languages. The issue
concluded that these imbalances in access to material had
significantly advantaged those willing to read science not published
in America, and not written in English. As science takes root outside
of the "Western world" I think the problem will grow worse.

I suppose I dislike the dismisive and patronizing "le and la" tone of
Mr Grieg's reply. I do think languages give access to the another way
of seeing the world, and I think it sad that people who have
opportunities to acquire such access should spurn them in such a
dismissive way. All this without taking into account the cognitive
advantages that such learning may provide.

Ah, well,

Lance