Lexiophiles is running an online vote for the top language related blogs on the web. You can have a look here and vote for your favourites. A vote for The Linguist on Language blog (you have to scroll down to the "T" near the bottom) would, of course, be greatly appreciated.
I do not know why this is important, but it certainly is nice to be recognized.
According to a recent article I saw on GMANews, the German government is going to spend a fortune on helping immigrants, and especially parents of school kids, learn German. I wonder how effective this will be? I wonder how motivated these parents are? I am skeptical based on what happens in Canada.
Those immigrants who want to learn the language that they hear around them, just learn. The others, the majority, can go to school or not go to school, they will not improve very much. What matters is not what they do in class, but what they do outside of class.
Forbes reported on a study in Europe that showed that bilingual kids are not at a disadvantage to kids how speak only one language, or something to that effect.
I never cease to be amazed at the useless studies that "academic" get "funding" for. No one can do anything, even the most obviously beneficial thing, without a study.
Not long ago, our spendthrift "Conservative" government handed out $3 million to study why immigrants have trouble getting better jobs. This is not because there has not been a mountain of studies, meetings, conferences and other activity on the subject. This is not because we do not know that language is the biggest obstacle. But it is because it is more fun to get money to do a study than to actual address the problem.
In the case of the kids, just let them enjoy languages and get the teachers of their case with grammar and such. In the case of the immigrants, make it clear that the responsibility is primarily with the immigrant, the learner.
And stop wasting money on useless studies.
I found this interesting collection of articles on language education in Britain. In one article they pointed out that one teacher was successful in Spanish class because she brought three Spanish players from the local soccer team into class. No kidding! Motivation over methodology.
In another article it was reported that the foreign language requirement was removed in order to cut down the number of kids not showing up for school. Yeah, don't try to make it interesting to learn languages, just remove it from the curriculum. What else are they going to remove?
Running this blog I get lots of language learning related email. I just got one from Babbel promoting instant phrases for the traveler. Babbel claims to have a community of 350,000 members all helping each other learn languages. That is the world of the internet that is going to make the classroom a less and less important place to learn languages.
On the other hand I have never been a fan of packages of handy phrases or the like. I have bought such books while traveling, used about 3 of the phrases, and then brought the book home and it sat on the shelf gathering dust. But the demand is there. After all I bought them.
Babbel's promotion material also says
"For those who’ve got a little more time before the big trip, besides the Mini-Vocab, there are twenty other in-depth packages for all relevant situations while traveling, from leaving the airport to arriving at the car rental desk."
I never found those scenario based learning packages useful either. I think that you have to listen and read to a lot of material before you can really communicate at all.
But I salute Babbel for their success. They are competitors but in a way they are colleagues showing the way to more independent language learning on the web.
What do I think of the Birkenbihl method of language learning? I was asked this question in an email. Check out the website. I may be simplifying but I see it as follows.
The basic premises are correct. We need to listen before we speak or try to pronounce. We should not learn isolated lists of words or phrases. We do not need explicit instruction in grammar. We need to learn on our own, not in a classroom. Learners should do what they like to do.
The method consists of four steps. 1) Decoding, meaning working out the word by word translation of the new language. 2) Active listening, meaning listening to the new language along with the word for word translation. 3) Passive listening, meaning listening while doing other chores. 4) Reading, writing, speaking. There are additional detailed suggestions on how to listen, and how to write etc.
I would not follow these 4 steps. I begin by listening and reading. I do the decoding while I read by looking up words and phrases that I do not understand. I listen often after I have decoded, but only to the target language. I dislike having to listen to English while learning other languages. I listen often, actively and passively. I read and re-read, listen and re-listen.
I also put a lot of effort into word and phrases study, based on the words that I have come across in my listening and reading.
I agree that writing and speaking can wait.
So, in summary I agree with the premises but would not follow the 4 steps. I think it is easier to think in terms of listening, reading and word/phrase study as the three steps for a beginner learner. It is easier to keep things simple, rather than proposing complicated rigorous steps that have to be followed. People will tend to stop doing them.
There is a plan in Britain for language lessons to be available for seven to 11 year olds by 2010 - with languages set to become compulsory the following year. This and more is discussed in this BBC article on language instruction in British Schools.
I still say that early language instruction will likely put the kids off languages. Just let them listen to stories and read, (and use LingQ), and keep the grammar commissars and testers away from them. Let the kids enjoy the languages rather than learning to dislike them. They are more likely to learn languages in the long run that way.
Let me begin my saying that I have never used Rosetta Stone. My son, Mark, played professional hockey in Japan for a few years. His team gave him Rosetta Stone to learn Japanese. He tried it and found that it was boring and did not get him very far.
I decided to do some research on the net. Most reviews that I found seemed to have been done by people connected with Rosetta Stone. I am not surprised. Rosetta Stone are excellent marketers for which I salute them. They are not only promoting their product, they are promoting an awareness that people can learn languages on their own.
The best summary of the Rosetta Stone method I found was the following.
The most important component of the Rosetta Stone software-based method
is what I call "a four squares screen". The user is presented with a
page that shows four pictures of various objects or entities. A
prerecorded phrase or word is played back and the user must click on
the square that contains a visual answer to the question or best
illustrates the concept. If the user answers correctly a little "ding"
is heard, a check-mark appears on the screen and the program advances.
That's all folks!
So, why does the Rosetta Stone method work? At the very center of the
Rosetta Stone approach is the idea of constant encouragement. Every
step of the way the user receives positive feedback from the program.
Rosetta Stone takes you through a rapid succession of multiple choice
questions. Given that there are only four options per question it is
not difficult to answer every question even if you don't get it right
away. This process turns into a series of gratifying experiences.
This was contrasted with the usual language learning experience where the reviewer felt that we do not know how we are doing.
As a result we have uncertainty, perception of poor performance and general lack of success. A user is much more likely to quit such a course, and it should be known that not quitting is probably the single most important requirement when learning a foreign language
My reaction to the reviews that I read was that I do not think I would want to use Rosetta Stone. Here are seven reasons.
1) I do not like answering multiple choice questions at the computer. It is not communicating. I might do it once or twice but would not continue. I would not do it daily. I need to connect with a language I am learning daily, in order to learn.
2) Most of my learning activity takes place during dead time. I mostly listen while running, driving, doing the dishes, waiting line etc.. I also read while waiting or as a relaxing activity. If I had to sit at the computer in order to learn I would not do a lot of studying. I just do not have the dedicated time.
3) I do not believe that I can permanently learn words, whether using pictures or other techniques. I know I am going to forget them. In a way I am not interested in learning the word for "red" or "house". I know that I have to be exposed to so much language content, in audio and text, that gradually it all starts to have meaning. I am not conscious of learning and forgetting specific words, but I know I am doing it. I know I have learned words because I can understand more and more. I know I am forgetting because I am constantly unable to remember the most elementary words.
4) I find it difficult to learn words and phrases that are divorced from a larger story or context. Isolated words and phrases do not connect with my brain. I remember words and expressions as part of larger stories that I remember. I often remember when and where I was listening to many of these stories.
5) When I start learning a language, the gratification that I experience comes from the fact that I start to be able to tell when words begin and end, and then soon after start to make sense of short episodes that used to be just noise for me. That is all the feedback that I need. I do not find the uncertainty a problem. It is the feeling of the "fog lifting", the uncertainty turning into more and more clarity, that is so satisfying in the study of another language.
6) I learn languages with the goal of being able to communicate, to understand what is said, and to be able to express myself. That is a long road. I have the impression that Rosettta Stone only takes you a very short way. I do not see it as a useful or necessary step.
7) I feel that a lot of listening to interesting content is a better start than doing multiple choice questions. I am in a hurry to engage with the language, real language situations, and to let my brain get used to it.
What has been the experience of others? I know that I am not impartial, but I have tried to be honest. I do recommend the "Teach Yourself" series and the "Colloquial" series. I would not recommend Rosetta Stone.
I am often asked about learning to write Chinese characters. When I learned them there were no computers and no word processors.
I got a hold of 1,000 flash cards, the most common 1,000. I started with 10 a day and worked up to 30. I wrote or studied characters every, I mean every, day, until I had learned these 1,000 characters.
The flash cards showed the stroke order. I wrote them out on squared paper, down the first column 10 or so times. Then I put the English or pronunciation (Wade Giles in those days) over three columns to the right and picked up the next card, and kept going. Soon I would hit the English of the first card three columns over etc. and have to write it before I forgot it. I kept doing this with the 10, or eventually 30 characters that I was working on. These included new cards and cards that I had already learned and forgotten. I think my retention was less than 50%. After doing this for a while I would review my stack of cards.
After doing this for the first 1000 characters I stopped. From that point on, when I encountered new characters in my reading I would write them out a few times and carry on. I learned 4,000 characters in 8 months, wrote the exam, where we had to translate newspaper editorials in both directions, write a diplomatic note, and take dictation. My hand writing was not pretty, but I passed.
When I was studying Chinese, and it was a full time occupation, I mostly read and listened a lot. I did write some, but not as much as I listened and read. I have now forgotten how to write by hand. I can write on a computer.
What would I do today? I do not know. I am not sure I would bother to learn to write by hand. I can read and type on a computer in Russian, Japanese and Chinese, and even a little Korean, but cannot write any of them by hand. It is not a skill I use, and it is definitely a skill you lose if you do not use it, IMHO.
I am interested in the views of others.
I was just playing around with trying to explain LingQ, what it represents. Here is some doodling. I would appreciate any comments.
For most of human history, people have learned each other's languages without going to school, as people from one small tribe interacted with people from another small tribe.
To learn languages people mostly listened to each other and imitated each other. This went on for over one hundred thousand years.
Our brains kind of got used to hearing words and phrases, noticing
certain patterns, and figuring out what it all meant.
That is how we learned languages.
Things started to change with the invention of writing.
Writing
made it possible to record what was said. That way some people could
learn languages by reading, as well as by listening. But that was quite
recent, maybe in the 11th hour of our existence as humans.
The invention of printing was even more recent, and it helped spread the written word. But for most people around the world, things did not change. Most people could not read until the previous century.
Our brains remained basically programmed to learn languages by listening, noticing and imitating, and that has not changed.
Somewhere
along the line governments decided that everyone should go to school and read text books. Soon people thought that learning
only took place in classrooms.
Gradually our view of language
learning changed. School teachers, text book publishers, and linguistics theorists took over.
We
stopped listening to the
languages we wanted to learn. We started listening to teachers and
other learners in the classroom We started doing a lot of tests
and exercizes. To a large extent we stopped learning other languages.
But
our brains did not change. We still basically need to listen to a
language, read it, notice it, and imitate it, in order to learn it.
Fortunately
things are changing again, and fast. We are headed back to our roots, but on a
global scale. We are once again going to be able to learn languages the way
the brain is used to learning, by interacting with other languages, listening, reading and noticing.
The
iPod, the Internet, social
networking, mobile computing, and perhaps other developments we are as yet
unaware of, are removing the barriers of
distance and location. There is an explosion of language to listen to,
read and imitate on the web. We can download it, share it, exchange it,
and take it with us.
We have a chance to connect like never before,
with other
people and other languages. Maybe not like never before. Maybe, in some
ways, like it used to be, tens of thousands of years ago.
This
is
the kind of language learning power that LingQ offers. Give it a try.
You will find libraries of interesting things to listen to and read.
You will find efficient learning functions that will help you notice
the words and phrases you need, and eventually ensure you remember
them.
And, best of all, you will meet friendly people, to talk to in
the languages you want to learn, and who want to talk to you in your language.
