Language learning is not about performance

Athletes compete to see who can run faster, or jump higher, or execute their moves with more precision, or score more goals. Athletes train in order to improve their performance. Learning languages is different. It is, for me, about communicating and enjoying another culture. In fact the learning process, itself, is enjoyable, regardless of the outcome, regardless of the performance. It is possible to enjoy languages without performing at all, without speaking. And when we speak we do not want to be judged, or at least I do not.

I often get comments on my foreign language youtube videos along the lines of:

"your Portuguese is not very good, don't you care?"
" your Japanese sounds a little American, you should work on your accent."
" you made a mistake in your Russian."

Well, I don't care. I am not in competition with native speakers, nor with other non-native learners of any language. If my mistakes are pointed out, it is likely that I will make the same mistake the next time. I know what gives me trouble in these languages. I try to pay attention to these things when I listen, read or speak. But I know that I will continue to make mistakes and will only gradually improve.

I have spent over 3 years on Russian. If we had had Czech or Korean at LingQ I would probably have spent time on them as well, and less time on Russian. But it does not matter whether you go in depth in one language or dabble in three. The main thing is to enjoy the process, not to chalk up more languages to your credit. It is not just the language, it is the culture. For me, in Russian, it is all the books and articles that I have read and listened to, the lively discussions from radio stations about things of interest to Russians.

When I get into Czech and Korean I will enter new worlds, and the quality of my performance will be the furthest thing from my mind. It will be what it is and gradually improve. And whatever it is, I will be satisfied, and just keep going.

--- @ WiseStamp Signature. Get it now

Posted via email from Lingosteve's place

Comments

[Street-Smart Language Learning]

While I certainly agree that language learning is an enjoyable process (or at least it is if you're doing it the right way), I think that performance should be (and, frankly, for just about everyone) is an important issue; languages are an economic asset, and if your skill level isn't enough to make your abilities useful to employers, you still have work to do.

[Steve Kaufmann]

I think that your skills take care of themselves if you enjoy the process. There is no point worrying about your own performance, let alone the performance of others.

[Chris]

I agree Steve, it's important to be happy with what you have achieved and not get frustrated with the things you don't know. This is a problem I have from time to time, desperately trying to cram as many words into my brain as possible like fluff, hiss, gearstick, ruffle, all the words I know in English and yet and lost for in my target language. Sometimes I just need to take a breather.

There was an interesting comment at AllJapaneseAllTheTime where Khatzumoto wrote:

"I am not always impressed by the multi-lingual people I meet, to tell you the truth (there are definitely exceptions, of course). They often have annoying gaps in their knowledge. They function in the languages, but, for example, they can’t handle a lot of nuances, subtle humor or cultural allusions. That bugs me. Now I have to talk to them in a truncated, flavorless, sanitized version of the language. It’s like drinking flat Sprite. Having said that, any level of language skill is still useful, and you can’t (indeed, don’t need to) be good at everything, it’s just not always that much fun to interact with."

I guess it ultimately just depends on your goals. I have grand dreams of learning a dozen or so languages in my lifetime, but I don't want to be half-arsed in all of them, which is what I risk doing by trying to take on five at the same time. But also, maybe one could attain a high command in several, that is, really understand a select few to as near-native a level as possible and then have a number of other languages at a rough-and-ready level. Meh, I don't know. Maybe I should trying to plan everything in detail and just do something.

[Steve Kaufmann]

Chris, I do not know what Khatzumoto meant. It is up to each person how deeply they want to delve into each language they are learning. In my own case, I like to go quite deep I want to read books and listen to audio books and understand political discussions on radio, and be able to participate in such discussions. Other people want to listen to pop music or watch movies. It is really not for the listener, especially the non-native listener to be annoyed at gaps in another person's language skills.

You will never cover as much of the language as you would like. As long as you continue enjoying the language, and want to improve, you will improve, but on your own terms.

[Seriph]

I see those comments on your clips sometimes. It's so ignorant on so many levels it's not even worth going into. I guesse everyones supposed to have native fluency from the get go huh?

[chris/blindside70]

To me there's nothing like sitting down with a scotch, or glass of wine, and reading, most of the time in English, but often in Spanish,French, and Polish all of which I have varying degrees of knowledge in and to realize I understand a lot more than I did 2 years ago, 2 months ago or even 2 weeks ago.

For me, who considers himself first and foremost a reader, reading in languages I'm coming to understand is a complete joy. I don't find very much difference between reading some difficult economic or philosophical paper in English and some of my foreign language reading. I don't understand it all right away, I look things up, I re-read them if I need to and I love it.

[Chris]

Chris (#2),

That's a good point you make. Some of the philosophy texts I've read for my classes have been so dense with the authors own personal vocabulary that getting through even a chapter in English is about as difficult as tackling a "great book" in a foreign language. Of course, if I find the subject matter interesting (which I usually do), I'll make the effort and look up the words. Of course with philosophy, and certain philosophers like Hegel, even knowing all the words in a sentence can still leave you utterly clueless as to what he's trying to say!

[Simon]

I take it from your recent post that you agree that although we primarily acquire a language through autonomous learning, the language classroom still has a role to play - in creating enthusiasm for learning.

Are you saying then that there is no place for correction in the language classroom? I teach EFL and FLE, and I use correction a lot. I don't believe in correcting everything - I generally limit correction activities to the specific function, structure, vocabulary etc. we happen to be working on, and ignore the rest. However, I don't feel I'm doing my job if we have been working on a specific area in class, and I don't correct persistent errors.

In my own second and third language, one of my big frustrations is that people don't correct me more often - this is quite personal though. I realise that fluency is a more important goal than accuracy for many language learners. The challenge in the classroom then becomes how to cater both for those who are eager to be corrected, and those who are frustrated or demotivated by correction. This is one of the limitations of the classroom over autonomous learning.

I am not ready to throw out correction in the classroom - although I'm always on the lookout for better ways to do it.

[Yvette]

Referring to the quote posted by Chris: I read that post on AJATT and I must say that, speaking from my own experience, most people enjoy hearing you speak in their language despite the "gaps." As a case in point, when I communicate with my boyfriend's relatives in the itty-bitty Korean that I know, they are always so delighted to hear me speak. In fact, I receive such warm greetings and heartfelt smiles that I myself am overjoyed by the human connection made through the effort to communicate with not only the language, but also with the spirit of togetherness achieved by a genuine gesture of sincerely relating with another individual. Similarly, I am always filled with joy and a sense of togetherness whenever I encounter a non-native speaker of English. I focus on what they are saying rather than what is not being said or that which cannot at the moment be expressed with so called perfection--a faulty notion at best. The beauty of communicating in different languages--be it of meager recall or great supply--is the beauty of the moment when understanding surfaces. Obviously, language is a vital tool for communication on countless levels; and as a student of languages, I embrace language as a vital and invaluable part of a process called becoming, which in itself is an endless, beautifully imperfect process.

[Steve Kaufmann]

Simon,

If the learner wants to be corrected, or as in a classroom, expects to be corrected, than there is nothing wrong with correcting someone. I do not think it does a lot. Most people know where there problems are. They just are unable to avoid the errors. If the correcting discourages people from communicating, then it should be avoided, in my view.
It is important that corrections be taken as a hint, or help in identifying problem areas or gaps, but often just the act of producing the language will do that. It is then up to the learner to pay attention to those things in listening and reading. That is why our discussion reports and writing reports at LingQ are imported and studied as content.

[Сергей]

Если хотите, я мог бы помочь вам с русским языком.

[Steve Kaufmann]

Спасибо. С удовольствием. Почему не стать членом на LingQ.com. Вы можете помогать люди по русском и учится на другом языке.

[sanami]

It all comes down to "communicable" being able to be understood by others should be the main focus of language learners.

[Aengus]

"I am not in competition with native speakers, nor with other non-native learners of any language."

Well then, why do you have banners at the bottom of your blog posts showing off how many words you know in different languages?

[Steve Kaufmann]

I was expecting that question. I am not in competition in terms of language performance. But I do keep a record of my activity at LingQ, as do all of our members. There is competition at LingQ, and every month we award points to the most active learner, but not, please note, to the learner who has the fewest mistakes or the best accent.

The banners are posted here to stimulate the interest of language learners who might want to come to LingQ and have a look around.

[Anastasia]

Personal experience:
Having an accent is helpful -- it gives people a clue that you are not a native, and they will be more lenient and forgiving of your mistakes.
On occasion, particularly if I'm tired, my grammar slips a bit -- and the standard reaction is shock and surprise if I normally speak fluently and without an accent.
But for another language, where it is clear from the get-go that I am a foreigner, I get only occasional corrections when I've butchered a word in a particularly creative way :-)

[Billy the Kid]

So like, I've been visiting your site occasionally for a good while now, and I've watched a few of your youtube videos, and, well, when I read your latest entry, and the discussion that followed, I realized I just had to speak up.

Umm, basically I think your ideas don't make sense when taken together as a body of statements.

So, like, you don't care if the language you produce is wrong, and you claim at the same time to enjoy the "culture" communicated in the language. But clearly if you haven't even acquired the most elementary features of the language you can't possibly be capable of enjoying the contours and textures and nuances of the things communicated in that language by its speakers. Books and articles and lively discussions on the radio? And the basic features of the language you produce are so bad that native speakers point them out? Sounds to me like somebody's fooling himself into thinking he knows his stuff, when in actuality he doesn't. Why do these reminders of the apparently egregious flaws in your language bother you so much?

So you're "The Linguist." (I still can't believe you actually call yourself that, by the way.) You know lots of languages. But it doesn't matter that there are so many gross mistakes littering these languages of yours that native speakers feel the need to point them out, apparently so often that it's a problem for you. So...do you know these languages? Perhaps you think one doesn't need to know a language in order to know a language.

One reader's comment: "I realise that fluency is a more important goal than accuracy for many language learners." What the heck does that even mean? Oh, no wait, I get it: "it's more important to me that I feel like I'm cool and fluent and I can spew words out readily and think I'm expressing my English thoughts with their handy-dandy nondescript-foreign-language post-its than it is that the language I produce is actually effective in the language community or with the speakers whose language I purport to study." I imagine that you too, Steve - if I may ignore the pompous and ridiculous title by which you're often known - would agree that being able to make a bunch of sounds that you think sound pretty good is more important that actually engaging in successful, meaningful communication?

I'm really looking forward to your articles on other topics. "Writing: it's not about writing well." "Cooking: who cares how it tastes?" "Underperformers: they're heroes in their own minds, so don't rain on their parade, you big meanie!"

"There is competition at LingQ, and every month we award points to the most active learner, but not, please note, to the learner who has the fewest mistakes or the best accent." ?!?! The "most active" learner is awarded? But not (emphatically, lol) the learner who best speaks the language like it's actually spoken? Soo...learners who achieve their goals are not recognized, while learners who thrash around a lot and throw lots of time and energy into an activity whose results we should apparently devalue are awarded?

I'm sorry, but if you're going to present yourself like you have, you're gonna have to reconcile for your readers (whose support makes you a quantifiable sum of money) your claim that you are an authority on the methods of successful language learning with your language learning philosophy, which says that "performance" (the demonstration of successful language acquisition) doesn't matter

[Steve Kaufmann]

Bily,

Do you speak any other languages? Why not write something in these languages or post a video of yourself just to give us an idea of how well you do? And why not tell us how you did it?

As to how well I speak my languages you can check for yourself on youtube. I do just fine, better than most. But I do make mistakes. I know that with continued exposure and practice I will get better, as long as I am attentive to the language, and as long as am active and put in the time. So I do not worry about my mistakes.

A linguist, according to the Oxford dictionary is someone who speaks more than one language.

[Harry]

Billy is not presenting himself as skilled in many languages, so asking him to post videos of himself is not addressing the point.

People who are mediocre at a second language are a dime a dozen. Being mediocre in several of them is not a justification for proclaiming oneself an expert on the subject.

I assume that when most people think of undertaking a second language, their goal is to laugh with people who speak that language, to have in-depth conversations, and build strong relationships. It seems to me that having only an intermediate grasp of the language prevents one from accomplishing those goals. I think that's what Khatzumoto meant in his post. Just knowing the, say, Spanish equivalent of an idea you have in English isn't sufficient. In a way, one has to become Spanish and react to a situation with the expression most Spanish people would use (or at least with an expression that resonates with Spanish people). Otherwise, you are just a strange butcherer of another people's language, and certainly not someone to be admired.

[Steve Kaufmann]

Harry,

Billy quite aggressively challenged my principles of language learning. I think it was quite appropriate for me to ask him if he had expertise in the area of language acquisition. Hearing him speak a few languages would be the best proof of that expertise.

I have always said that meaningful communication on a wide variety of subjects is my goal of language learning, and that is why I focus on the learning of words and phrases through a lot of listening and reading. Why would you assume that someone who makes the odd grammar mistake, or has less than native pronunciation, has only a limited grasp of the language?

But people are free to learn languages for their own reasons. Why would you want to describe a language learner as "a butcher of another language". People learn languages for a variety of reasons, and not necessarily to be admired.

I find all this intolerance, well, intolerable.

[Harry]

I'm not assuming the rare grammar mistake or less than native pronunciation means that the person only has a limited grasp of the language.

I'm just saying that I don't think settling for mediocrity is good advice. Performance does matter. The friends I have whose second language is English have all reached an extremely high level and we are capable of having a real connection. People that I know that have just functional English, well, it's very difficult to really become friends and learn from each other. There is always a block to true communication.

That difference in performance is just so important. Reaching that high level in one's second language is just so amazing and opens up so many new doors. Just being decent doesn't do that. I think being close to native-like in one other language is so much more valuable than being decent in a handful.

Please don't take this as intolerance, but seeing that you haven't seen this difference and also from hearing you speak Chinese and Spanish, it's possible that you have not reached this high level in any of your languages. I think it is a problem that I can directly and easily translate what you've said back into English. It demonstrates you haven't really entered a mindset outside your original Canadian one.

Listening and reading a lot is great. And not getting frustrated with one's lack of progress is necessary. But jumping around and only knowing, for example, 4000 chinese characters just isn't going to cut it.

[Steve Kaufmann]

My Chinese is good enough to be a regular participant on Mandarin television programs where we discuss current events. You say that "only" knowing 4,000 characters is not going to cut it. How many do you thnk are necessary?

My Spanish is fine, even though I hardly ever speak it. I can carry on a conversation on a wide range of topics in Spanish. From what lofty perch do you presume to judge my Chinese or Spanish. Yes, I make mistakes and so do just about all non-native speakers.

It is my view that the quickest path to fluency is not to worry about one's little mistakes but to expose oneself to a lot of the language. I also feel people are free to learn one or more languages however they please and for whatever goal or reason. Your attitude towards the way others learn languages typifies what I was criticizing.

[Harry]

It's not just about grammatical and vocabulary mistakes, which you do make many.
Everything comes from an English mind and point of view. It makes what you say unmistakably foreign and awkward. I fear that might be an unavoidable consequence of spreading oneself too thin.

People should be free to do what they want. But they should know that the methods and strategies you suggest probably won't lead them to native-likeness (if that is their goal, which I think it is for a lot of learners), because it hasn't led you to that.
People should know that if they aspire to be super polyglots like yourself, they are probably going to suck in most of them.

I'm a native speaker of Spanish and I've studied Chinese exclusively and intensely for almost 6 years. Try 8000 characters and maybe educated Chinese people might start to respect you.

[Steve Kaufmann]

It is not necessary to know 8,000 characters to communicate intelligently in Chinese. Few educated Chinese people know that many. I am not impressed by your arrogant bluster.

We are always influenced by our native language to some degree, and usually identifiable as non-native. This need not make us seem awkward, and certainly not feel awkward, since language is for communicating and not for showing off, the way you seem to want to.

Speaking one or more foreign languages comfortably, although identifiably as a foreigner, does not mean we are going to "suck" most of the time. The overwhelming majority of foreign speakers, no doubt you included, can easily be identified as non-native.

Whether or not Chinese people respect me, or you, has more to do with the kind of people we are than our knowledge of obscure characters.

[Harry]

Arrogant? Showing off? I hope I'm not coming off that way. If I am, I don't mean to be.

Chinese people have a high demand for literacy. I don't think characters #4000 to #8000 are obscure.

I AM talking about communicating. Just because you feel comfortable and think you are communicating, it does not mean that your listener is receiving the message you intend to send. I've observed many people who speak Chinese as a second language speak comfortably, but I can tell that their listeners often aren't getting the meaning that the speaker wants to communicate. It's often small inaccuracies in vocabulary choice, structure, and expression, but all together it obscures the speaker's intended meaning dramatically.

It's hard for others to know what kind of people we are if we aren't using the same language. I can't tell you how many Chinese people I know who seem to have completely different personalities in English just because of their language inaccuracies.

It's not necessary that you be indistinguishable from a native speaker, but I know there is a level that you need to reach before you can truly express your thoughts and feelings so that your listener interprets them as you intend them to be.

[Steve Kaufmann]

If you choose to learn 8,000 characters in Chinese, ( and I am taking you at your word here, for all I know you cannot speak Chinese), does not mean that this should be the standard for all.

In fact this level of specialization is the standard for very few foreign language learners, most of whom happily and effectively communicate and socialize in different languages. Your pedantic criticism is irrelevant to 99% of language learners. You are an arrogant bore.

[chris/blindside70]

You're the only native Spanish speaker I've ever heard of named Harry.

If you know 8000 Chinese characters and speak fluently and it's your goal to only learn Chinese and English at extremely high levels, then that fits into everything that Steve has ever said.

If you're like most people who use lingq, and most people involved in the foreign language learning community, then you want to be a pretty high level in more than 3 or 4 languages.

Steve has already said that he speaks Chinese good enough to be on Chinese television and speak about current events and has been asked back multiple times, so there's rock hard evidence right there that Chinese people can have meaningful conversations with him.

Steve also learns languages to immerse himself in the world of Russia, Japan, China ect and somehow this is him sucking at multiple languages. You say "I think being close to native-like in one other language is so much more valuable than being decent in a handful."

But decent is a subjective word. What is decent? Speaking on Chinese TV being interviewed by French radio stations on learning French as a second language, writing a Russian blog for a Russian website, I'd call that pretty damn good, even if he makes mistakes and has to be edited at times he has a much better feel for the 'human condition' than someone can have that only speaks one or two languages at a near native level. I want to be at a high near native level at my wife's native language, but if I could be as 'decent' as Steve in the other languages I want to learn I will have no complaints and no regrets.

By the way, your English is impeccable for it being your second language almost native, I'm glad to see you're learning languages the way the fulfills you.

[Friedemann]

I live and work in China and have earned my colleagues' respect, well before I will even come close to 8000 characters. Even 4000 characters is a tall order for a westener, I think. It is really hard to memorize them without learning to handwrite them. Even though Steve's command of his languages isn't perfect, and cannot be, I am still impressed by the breadth of his portfolio and his great ear.

I think people who are overly boastful about their language skills naturally invite some scrutiny, but all others should not be judged.

I'd love to watch a clip of Harry in Chinese, and of Steve's Mandarin TV appearances for that matter. Is that Canadian Chinese TV?

Steve, how do you maintain your reading skills? Do you still handwrite characters? How often to you read Chinese content? I enjoy learning Chinese so much, but I still find it so incredibly difficult, mainly because of the ambiguity of the words (同音词). I know a lot of Expats in China now, but I've yet to meet another Expat who has taken on Chinese. It just is very difficult.