Okay Steve, but you didn’t mention Mandarin in your above post.
However in your book, “The Way of the Linguist”, you do relate how you learned Mandarin very intensively in a classroom setting when you were a young diplomat in the late 1960s. After about 9 months of taking classes in Hong Hong (not a Mandarin city in those days) you had learned enough to pass high level diplomatic exams - which included acting as an interpreter and writing official notes, etc.
Mastering Mandarin Chinese is a formidable challenge under almost any circumstances - doing so in 9 months was a very great achievement of which you should (in my opinion) be rightly very proud.
It is noticable that - to this day - Mandarin remains one of your strongest languages as regards spoken fluency.
I spent three hours a day in class, but most of my learning time was spent on my own, largely listening and reading. That is why I took 9 months and others took 2 years and achieved much less. Most of the Canadian diplomats I studied with are unable to maintain a conversation in Chinese today, and even struggled back then.
Jay, I was not posted to Hong Kong by accident, but rather as a language student since Canada was getting ready to recognize the PRC at that time. If I had been sent as a language student of Russian to Moscow, I would have learned it.
My point is only that neither attending FSI or any other school, nor being a diplomat, guarantees success in language learning. It is a matter of attitude, time, and the ability to notice and observe the language.
@Steve: “…My point is only that neither attending FSI or any other school, nor being a diplomat, guarantees success in language learning. It is a matter of attitude, time, and the ability to notice and observe the language.”
I agree that the right attitude is vital, Steve. And I take the point about how you learned Japanese using your own self-study methods.
But I have a sneaking feeling (and I may be wrong of course) that back in 1969 you would have went at those Russian cases 24/7 like a fanatic. And I reckon you would have mastered them the same way that you mastered Chinese writing. (In other words, I reckon you would now have an effortless silky smooth mastery of Russian grammar!)
People aren’t gonna master language because they read “The Linguist” and all of a sudden become enlightened to the fact that they need to read and listen a lot.
The classroom setting fails just as well as the self-study methods do.
With all these ridiculous “what’s the best method” arguments going on, I’m surprised no one simply takes a step back to realize that there are no new methods or best methods. People have been learning languages since we’ve been able to point with different fingers. All the “methods” are out people. Before books were printed… people still learned languages! I don’t think people figured reading was an important step in language learning back then. The people with the passion (or need) for it just DID IT. We can stop writing books about new methods.
Every method works as long as you have the passion to follow it through. And there is only and always will only be a small percentage of the world’s population that has this passion and motivation to master new languages. Yes… everyone can do it… but the question is, does everyone have the will to. The answer is no, even though they say they do. And it won’t matter if these people are in classroom settings or self-study.
Ricky, I kind of get where you are coming from, but I think you might be surprised to know how many of us are out there laboring in ignorance about the right way to proceed. You state:
”People aren’t gonna master language because they read “The Linguist” and all of a sudden become enlightened to the fact that they need to read and listen a lot.”
Funny as you should say that though, but reading about a different (primarily input based methodology) made a decisive difference in how I pursued my own language goals. Yes, I already had motivation to work and time to do so, but coming across a different perspective on what a language learner should do really changed my thinking. I made very poor progress for years, read about different methodology, enacted it, and proceeded to make amazing progress.
Of course reducing everything to a matter of technique is crazy, but technique is very important. If you consistently fail to have much success after years of poor methods then your motivation will decline. If you make good progress with good methods then your motivation will increase.
@danchan.
Trust me. I’m one of those people out there “laboring in ignorance”. I’m no polyglot and certainly no kind of language learning guru. But I’m a common sense specialist. And it pains me to see people pretend as though the world will change due to a supposedly different method.
I absolutely LOVE this input based methodology. I absolutely LOVE this site called LingQ. But that still doesn’t change the fact that it’s my personal dedication which will boost me to where I need to be.
I’ll put it this way:
Take 1000 kids and put them in a current classroom environment to learn a language. I bet you if we took those exact same 1000 kids at the same time (if that were scientifically possible) and put them in a primarily input based method/self-study learning environment you would notice two things. Number one: Around week 6-7, in BOTH group of kids you’d start to see that a portion of them are excelling faster than the others. This would be due to interest and passion. Interest wanes after the excitement of something new wears off. Passion on the other hand is something totally different. And to truly say you can master anything in this world… you gotta have passion for it. You can’t teach that, and you can’t self-study that. It just starts happening. The second thing you’d notice is that no matter which group the kids were in, the passionate ones wouldn’t limit themselves on how long they studied/learned the language. They’d simply find it irresistible and wouldn’t be able to stop even though “class” was over. And this would continue for years.
Few people dispute that attitude, or passion is the number one factor in language learning success. However, method does matter. I think it is normal that people should present their views on which methods they think are the most effective, and try to persuade others. There is more than one way to hit a golf ball, play the violin, or run a kindergarten. What is wrong with discussing and debating the merits of different systems. People will make their own choices.
There is evidence in Canadian schools that letting kids just listen to and read stories in class, produces better results than conventional language teaching. This happened twice in comparing schools in New Brunswick.
So I am not sick of the argument, discussion, debate on learning methods, and suggest that those that are, just discuss something else, or for that matter, as you have done, express their disgust at those who do engage in this debate. People will discuss what they want, wherever they want, including this forum. So thanks for stimulating further debate around this debate here Ricky.
No Steve. There is a danger in continuing to try and persuade students that one method is better than another. Simply because it distracts the learners from what will actually help them in the long run. And that’s hard work. I sincerely doubt that the evidence you are citing actually studies the long term (10-15 year) effects of these “letting kids just listen an read” schools. I bet you those kids after 10 years can still be separated into 2 groups: one group continued and maintained because of passion, and the other group forgot it all because they don’t really care. The long term, end result is still the same across all methods and methodologies.
I tend to agree with Ricky. The method is not that important.
My opinion is that if you have a VERY strong motivation to learn a foreign language, then you will learn it, whatever your method is.
At the contrary, if you use an effective method but have no motivation to learn, you will fail miserably.
Your method affects the speed of learning, but it is your motivation that affects the learning process in itself.
In this regard, “The Linguist” is, in my opinion, more about motivation than technique.
“‘But I’m a common sense specialist’ Sorry but that sounds incredibly arrogant.”
It might sound that way, but can you be sure that was Ricky’s intention? It is easy to convey the wrong impression in an internet discussion. Accusing others of arrogance is really quite a serious charge, and in this case it is also not relevant to the argument Ricky is making. What we end up with is a shutting down of an interesting discussion if we start going ad-hominem.
@Ricky,
“I bet you those kids after 10 years can still be separated into 2 groups: one group continued and maintained because of passion, and the other group forgot it all because they don’t really care. The long term, end result is still the same across all methods and methodologies.”
Sure, but would both groups be the same size? You say that you cannot teach passion. In some sense I think this is true. However I also think it is true that dreadful methods can kill it, and enjoyable methods can help it grow. While studying Japanese at university level I saw many, many people drop by the wayside and give up. The ratio of people who start learning the language to people who successfully reach fluency may well be several times worse than a hundred to one. What I am interested in knowing is how many of those people might have kept going if they had seen/felt more success because they were using more enjoyable, effective methods? I sincerely doubt that it would make no difference at all.
I gotta agree with dancan: it is kind of unhelpful to start calling someone arrogant. Let’s face it - we are ALL arrogant to some degree. (And that certainly includes you, Imyirtseshem old buddy!)
Having said that, I’m not 100% sure where Ricky is coming from here??
In the FSI report (which this thread is about) they clearly acknowledge that there are different approaches to learning; that what works well for person A might not work well for person B; that there should be more flexibility in language teaching: and that teachers should try to give adult learners what they want rather than forcing a particular approach.
So where’s the problem?
I started my own comments on this thread by asserting that motivation is key - and I stand by that. I believe that if a person is truly determined and motivated enough, then he/she will achieve the goal with almost any method.
(However that isn’t to say that all methods would be equally effective for any given individual, obviously.)
if I want to kick someone’s ass, I’m pretty sure I do have the motivation. however, if that “someone” has something more than motivation, e.g. better techniques, chances are I’m gonna bite the dust. in the end, motivation/passion matters but it’s just one factor, and there are lots and lots of them (sometimes passion kills itself)
let’s say I’m a pretty awesome boxer and I want to fight a jūjutsu expert. now, who’s gonna win? it depends… who’s faster/stronger/luckier? who’s got faster reflexes? who’s got more exp? who’s got “the talent”? who’s got… who’s got… who’s got… there are too many frigging factors as well. in some scenarios I could win and in some others, well, I would be counting my teeth
specific scenarios/conditions/environments/factors need different techniques/methods (most of the time)… of course, there are -in any field- some basic principles (like saying “motivation”) but you need to develop some techs in order to really make the most of those, and these techs need to get in touch with your reality/scenario/condition/environment or they could simply suck -big time
some techs/methods are better than others?
of course
are they equally effective no matter of the particular scenario?
of course not
err… and again, I forgot what I really wanted to say ;D
@JujuLeCaribou “I tend to agree with Ricky. The method is not that important.” // “Your method affects the speed of learning,…”
if the method affects the speed of learning then, for me at least, it is “that” important
