@Peter: “…Those are some very cocky, aggressive and, of course, false mini-statements. If you want to keep going, start a thread, no need to get aggressive here on mine about languages :)”
Peter, I think you are taking something the wrong way here, buddy! I wasn’t being “aggressive”, I was just stating my opinion!
Okay so we disagree about climate change. You think I’m wrong and I think you’re wrong. Fine, I don’t have a problem with that. We can disagree and still be on friendly terms, can’t we?
As for starting another whole thread…well hey, I’ve already kind of hinted that I don’t want to do that. (But still, I don’t think it is for anybody apart from Steve or Mark to tell me what I am allowed to write on this thread, actually…)
Also note that the 80% of the effort that goes into the last 20% of the mastery of a skill is what separates elite performers from those that are “pretty good”. If you are making your living from a particular thing, then all of that work for the remaining few percentage points is worth it. If you want to be a “renaissance man”, aka pretty good at a lot of different things, using the pareto principle to know where to concentrate your effort is vital.
(EDIT - And I didn’t mean to “tell you” what you could or couldn’t write on the thread, I was just trying to keep the discussion around the topic)
@odiernod - Interesting point, and I agree. As Robert from Austria hinted in his thread about his maintenance methods, the professional level required is ridiculously high.
Yes it is all about goals. My goal is to read books, enjoy movies, understand radio, engage in meaningful conversation on a variety of subjects, and yet still make mistakes. 80% of the effort gets me 80% of the way there. 20% of the effort gets me to the 20% point. It is a long, yet enjoyable road.
@steve - My goal is basically the same as yours. I can only see myself wanting to go further if I were to live longterm in the country, or have some other longterm motivating factors.
@Peter
Okay, no worries buddy. Sorry if I caused any offense
@Imy: “…Say we have to make a journey, the first 80 km are on a nice road and we make quick progress. The road peters out and becomes mud. Then it becomes a marsh. Then it becomes a mountain through snow and ice. Then you’ve got to walk through hell.”
There was a public speech that Steve made in Vancouver a while ago (which can be found online) where he argued that the exact opposite of this is true.
Steve’s theory from this speech is that language learning is a steep rapid learning-curve TO BEGIN WITH, but then becomes a very long but quite laid back road as one moves on towards the higher levels.
For what it’s worth, this was pretty much my experience with German too: nowadays I “learn” by reading books in the language for pure pleasure!
So I’m pretty sure that, after one has reached C1 level, it should be more or less painless to move on up towards C2 - but it takes a lot of time and exposure.
I have a slightly different take on that, JayB. I’d say that someone who is used to studying daily, including listening, reading and having conversations, should have no trouble moving from C1 to C2. But I don’t think it would happen automatically, not without putting in those daily hours. For me, now, to move to C2 in French (i.e. to be able to pass a C2 French exam), I think it would take a further year or two of dedication (including a lot more speaking!).
It reminds me of when I used to train kung fu (and of course this will vary from style to style), a dedicated student was able to get to brown belt in about four years, but they would have needed to spend a minimum of one year on brown before they were able to (i.e. ready to) go for the black. But I guess what makes (or should make) it easier at that level, is that you’ve incorporated the training (or studying, as in the case of a language) into your daily routine, so it might not feel “hard” to achieve.
Intuitively, I tend to agree with the 80/20 principle. How you define 80% of a language is a question though. If you call 100% being functionally equivalent to a native speaker, then it seems to me to be correct. The journey from an advanced speaker of a language (let’s say C1, which would constitute our 80%) to someone who is functionally equivalent to a native speaker (which means you can do, or understand, anything a native speaker can do or understand - it doesn’t mean your pronunciation or even grammar are indistinguishable from that of a native speaker) is a long journey and would require a tremendous amount of immersion.
It’s also true that there is a very steep learning curve in the beginning when nothing at all makes sense.
At any rate, I think it’s fair to say that the journey from being an advanced speaker to a completely fluent speaker is a long one and will take much more time and effort than the journey from beginner to advanced.
I think this principle does apply to a big extent to language learning. The meat of the language found in everyday conversation and the most common words will come fairly quickly due to the commonality of these words and phrases. It doesn’t take too long to get functional enough to get by and converse without too much trouble but then there is still a wealth of less common words and idioms out there to learn which will take up far more of your time to cover to significantly improve your language skills to the point where you would have the linguistic knowledge of an educated adult
I’m still not entirely convinced that there is something special about 80% (as opposed to 82% or 85%, etc…)
A while ago Prof Arguelles made some Youtube videos explaining the level of text-comprehension required to begin extensive reading - which is really what you need to do if you are going to launch a serious assault on fortress-C2.
As I remember it, 80% text-comprehension would be nowhere remotely near the beginning threshold for extensive reading - you need to be at about 97%, I believe. (A person truly at C1 level should already have at least 95% comprehension of any ‘normal’ non-specialist text, BTW.)
But you can apply the 80% in different ways, I guess. I can see that it could apply to the amount of reading time required, or something of that kind.
I interpret the 80% as being how Bortrun described it, “someone who is functionally equivalent to a native speaker”. I would probably even add “a somewhat educated native speaker”.
So the way I see it, this 80/20 concept (and in particular the 80% part), doesn’t mean you have 80% comprehension. It just means that you are 80% of the way towards being at the same level as a somewhat educated native speaker, four fifths of the way. And the point being made, or I guess we should call it a theory, is that the last fifth will take much longer than the first four did. The original hypothetical example being: two years at three hours per day would be enough for the 80% (e.g C1?), and the following eight years at three hours per day to be on par with an educated native speaker. My guess is that C2 (in terms of ability to pass the exam, nothing more) would be reached 1-2 years after the C1. This is fun, I like guessing games
An interesting example might be that French guy who has lived in China for many years, and has (apparently) reached a native level in Chinese (Julien something?). I think he said he had “basic” fluency after three years of full-time study (in France), but it took him six (or was it nine?) years living in China to reach a native speaker level. Mind you, I’m sure his “basic fluency” was probably pretty good as well!
As many have said, it’s all about one’s goals. No one can tell others why, for how long, and which languages they should learn. I do, however, enjoy these kinds of theories or information (if we can call it that) because it helps you put it into perspective and you have a better idea of what to expect relative to how much time you have put into the task.
I do not aspire to being mistaken for a native, or even native like fluency. If I have the chance to live in the country I have the chance to become very fluent, but by that time I am using the language daily, and am not so actively studying it.
My goal in studying a language is roughly C1. The early period, or the steep curve, the first 20% of our effort, is where I get a sense of the language. I get a sense of achievement in that the words are no longer just noise. But I am not 80% towards C1. The fact that I may now know, or more correctly have been exposed to (I still don’t know them really), the most frequently used 80% of the vocabulary does not mean that I am 80% of the way to C1.
Personally I find it a little bit strange to equate level C1 with 80%
I think some people perhaps tend to underestimate just how high C1 actually is!
This is a level where you can use the target language as a medium for high level academic study or professional work. Therefore we are not just talking about people who can only have simple exchanges on easy topics, etc.
I agree with Steve that level C1 is a very good goal for a serious learner - arguably it is the highest realistic goal for anyone who isn’t going to devote many years of continual exposure and reading to the task.
@Imy: “…It’s weird that people are having such a problem with this idea. It’s extremely intuitive to me.”
I wouldn’t exactly say that I have a “problem” with the 80/20 idea - I’m just not convinced by it.
What does seem totally wide of the mark, however, is the notion that 80% of full native ability in a language would equate to any kind of strong functional usage. As I pointed out earlier, 80% of native ability in terms of passive comprehension is absolutely nowhere at all! If a person is only understanding 80% of the words in regular non-specialist texts, then he or she will not be able to read extensively - and will not even be anywhere remotely close to being able to do so.
When it comes to active production of a foreign language in speech and writing, 80% of full native ability would be somewhat more difficult to quantify. But I still have a sneaking feeling that a typical foreign student studying at a university in another country (which is usually a pretty classic case of level C1 in a language) would be operating at more than 80% of native level in terms of active ability. However I will concede that this latter point is rather difficult to show in a concrete way.
