Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Actively speaking two languages protects against cognitive impairment

uoc.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 161 posts

Re: Actively speaking two languages protects against cognitive impairment

#151

Post by lottin »

pvaldes wrote: post #145
lottin wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you see past the rhetoric you will find that Catalan nationalists would like Catalan to be the dominant language in Catalonia while Spanish nationalists would like Spanish to be the dominant language instead. Neither of them are really concerned about English because English is not in a position to replace either Catalan or Spanish.

Replace "spanish nationalists" by "everybody else" and you have it. The idea that the main language of a nation, the only that everybody share and knows, should be deterred from part of the territory is surrealist.

Deter who from what? I don't think you know what deter means.

Re: Actively speaking two languages protects against cognitive impairment

#152

Post by blackbrokkoli »

threatofrain wrote: post #147
blackbrokkoli wrote: post #136

This is pseudo-science. Please refrain from upvoting. You cannot prove (or imply) causation via observation. The only method we know to find causation is by setting up an experiment. This study however merely measures variables in a pre-existing context, without injecting independent variables. The only valid result you may extract from this is a correlation, never causation. Please edit the title to reflect correlat…

Protection is a term of art and doesn't deduce causality... > This is pseudo-science. Please refrain from upvoting. You cannot prove (or imply) causation via observation. The only method we know to find causation is by setting up an experiment. This study however merely measures variables in a pre-existing context, without injecting independent variables. The only valid result you may extract from this is a correlati…

Can you elaborate?

If I say "vegetables save you from cancer" that implies a causation, wouldn't you agree? Just because it does not explicitly say "cause" it still very clearly says "if you do X, Y will happen". Why do you think this is not applicable?

Re: Actively speaking two languages protects against cognitive impairment

#153

Post by School-Cotton »

ggrrhh_ta wrote: post #150
School-Cotton wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FWIW, the study was done in Barcelona, which (along with Montreal) is one of the most fully bilingual cities in the developed Western world.

I can think of many cities (even in Europe) where many people are fully bilingual (in the Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland, Sweden, Finland, in some regions of Italy, Austria and Croatia, etc...) - and if we go outside of Europe, well, in India, Ghana, Paraguay, etc... (just to select one instance across other continents), well, I'd say that bilingualism (or multilingualism) is almost a norm...

Yes, that’s true. I only meant that in the western developed world, Montreal and Barcelona are the only cities I can think of where the vast majority of people have native (or virtually so) proficiency in more than. One language.

Re: Actively speaking two languages protects against cognitive impairment

#154

Post by pvaldes »

lottin wrote: post #151
pvaldes wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Replace "spanish nationalists" by "everybody else" and you have it. The idea that the main language of a nation, the only that everybody share and knows, should be deterred from part of the territory is surrealist.

Deter who from what? I don't think you know what deter means.

Enlighten me, please

Re: Actively speaking two languages protects against cognitive impairment

#155

Post by 7thaccount »

School-Cotton wrote: post #43
7thaccount wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I got that. I was responding to someone saying speaking 2 languages correlates with wealth. I'm not sure how true that is as being bilingual is extremely common outside of the US.

Some googling suggests that about half the world population is bilingual. Certainly more than the rate in the US, but it's a bit of an exaggeration to imply that everyone in the world is bilingual except for the backwards Yanks.

Ok, so is wealth/status still correlated with bilingualiam if 50% of the planet has that capability?

Re: Actively speaking two languages protects against cognitive impairment

#156

Post by threatofrain »

blackbrokkoli wrote: post #152
threatofrain wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Protection is a term of art and doesn't deduce causality... > This is pseudo-science. Please refrain from upvoting. You cannot prove (or imply) causation via observation. The only method we know to find causation is by setting up an experiment. This study however merely measures variables in a pre-existing context, without injecting independent variables. The only valid result you may extract from this is a correlati…

Can you elaborate? If I say "vegetables save you from cancer" that implies a causation, wouldn't you agree? Just because it does not explicitly say "cause" it still very clearly says "if you do X, Y will happen". Why do you think this is not applicable?

It means that when the term is used professionally in literature, it doesn't mean to suggest a deduction of causality.

Also, causal deduction is not the only way to arrive at a competent causal theory; humans and animals do it all the time, and they do it to such proficiency that it cannot be explained by a methodical process of causal deduction.

Re: Actively speaking two languages protects against cognitive impairment

#157

Post by dllthomas »

pvaldes wrote: post #154
lottin wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Deter who from what? I don't think you know what deter means.

Enlighten me, please

It's not the meaning so much as the choice of prepositions. When you say "deter X from Y", usually Y is the thing being reduced/prevented and X is the actor who is now less likely to Y.

So the use of "[action] deterred from [region the action might occur in" was surprising and possibly incorrect. If you'd said "[...] deterred in [...]", it would have been perfectly grammatical English.

It's a weird nit to pick in such harsh language, especially on a comment section that's more likely than the typical HN comment page to attract people who are not native English speakers.

Re: Actively speaking two languages protects against cognitive impairment

#158

Post by pvaldes »

dllthomas wrote: post #157
pvaldes wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Enlighten me, please

It's not the meaning so much as the choice of prepositions. When you say "deter X from Y", usually Y is the thing being reduced/prevented and X is the actor who is now less likely to Y. So the use of "[action] deterred from [region the action might occur in" was surprising and possibly incorrect. If you'd said "[...] deterred in [...]", it would have been perfectly grammatical English. It's a weird nit to pick in suc…

Okay. Well, X is specified in the phrase "... The main language of a nation... should be deterred..."

Spanish is the main language in Spain, the only spoken by everybody, therefore can be inferred easily that X = Spanish

Having this in mind, 'Y' can be inferred easily also.

"the idea that Spanish should be deterred from [being used in] part of a territory is surrealist"

Territory means 'Spain' in this context.

Hope this helps

Re: Actively speaking two languages protects against cognitive impairment

#159

Post by lottin »

pvaldes wrote: post #158
dllthomas wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not the meaning so much as the choice of prepositions. When you say "deter X from Y", usually Y is the thing being reduced/prevented and X is the actor who is now less likely to Y. So the use of "[action] deterred from [region the action might occur in" was surprising and possibly incorrect. If you'd said "[...] deterred in [...]", it would have been perfectly grammatical English. It's a weird nit to pick in suc…

Okay. Well, X is specified in the phrase "... The main language of a nation... should be deterred..." Spanish is the main language in Spain, the only spoken by everybody, therefore can be inferred easily that X = Spanish Having this in mind, 'Y' can be inferred easily also. "the idea that Spanish should be deterred from [being used in] part of a territory is surrealist" Territory means 'Spain' in this context. Hope t…

No, it doesn't help, sorry. A language can't be deterred. Only animated objects, such as animals and people, can. Your sentence doesn't make sense.

Re: Actively speaking two languages protects against cognitive impairment

#160

Post by dllthomas »

lottin wrote: post #159
pvaldes wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay. Well, X is specified in the phrase "... The main language of a nation... should be deterred..." Spanish is the main language in Spain, the only spoken by everybody, therefore can be inferred easily that X = Spanish Having this in mind, 'Y' can be inferred easily also. "the idea that Spanish should be deterred from [being used in] part of a territory is surrealist" Territory means 'Spain' in this context. Hope t…

No, it doesn't help, sorry. A language can't be deterred. Only animated objects, such as animals and people, can. Your sentence doesn't make sense.

Actually, deter has two uses. From MW:

    Definition of deter

    transitive verb
    1 : to turn aside, discourage, or prevent from acting
      she would not be deterred by threats
    2 : inhibit
      painting to deter rust
I have also seen "crime" and "war" given in examples of sense 2. To "deter the language", in sense 2, would be to deter speakers from using the language. You can sort of unify the two senses by treating "rust" or "war" or "crime" as willful entities - but in that case I don't see a reason you couldn't do the same for a language.

Do you actually fail to understand what pvaldes was trying to communicate?

Post reply on HN