The Linguist - language learning should be fun

Great English language podcasts for advanced speakers, I fixed the links.

I referred you to a site with great podcasts in English intended for native speakers. The links on the site did not work. I have searched the individual links and put them up. Enjoy.

Canadian Language Benchmarks.

In my contacts with people involved with English language programs for immigrants which are funded by the Canadian government, it appears all instruction has to be based on the Canadian Language Benchmarks. Only learning resources that fit in to the CLB are considered valid.

To my knowledge, the CLB is initially a detailed breakdown of proficiency levels of learners, into 12 steps.  I have the book and found it quite confusing. That is why we adopted the much simpler 6 levels of the Common European Framework, which we use to allow learners at LingQ to self-evaluate.

Apparently the CLB also encompasses  a teaching methodology which focuses on tasks. I doubt that it is a wise idea to force everyone to learn based on tasks, and  on having to speak. There is quite a body of experience to suggest that input based learning, with the learner choosing the subject,  can be more effective for some people, if not most, than tasks chosen by a teacher.

My question is, does anyone beside the Canadian government support the CLB. Is it used in other countries? Is it used in private schools in Canada? Why does the CLB have to be the monopoly form of English instruction for all immigrants whose ESL learning is supported by the Canadian government?

How do we learn how to write well ? Stanley Fish in the NY Times

Stanley Fish has an interesting article in the NY Times on how to improve the writing skills of college students. He has a number of suggested drills and exercizes that he would use in class such as the following.

"I have devised a number of exercises designed to reinforce and extend the basic insight. These include (1) asking students to make a sentence out of a random list of words, and then explain what they did; (2) asking students to turn a three-word sentence like “Jane likes cake” into a 100-word sentence without losing control of the basic structure and then explain, word-by-word, clause-by-clause, what they did; (3) asking students to replace the nonsense words in the first stanza of Lewis Carroll’s “Jabberwocky” with ordinary English words in a way that makes coherent (if silly) sense, and then explain what they did, and how they knew what kind of word to put into each “slot.” (The answer is that even in the absence of sense or content, the stanzas’ formal structure tells them what to do and what not to do.)"

I would resist doing any of this stuff. I would rather read, and then have to write. Yes, I think it is a good idea to insist on a certain structure in writing. In the US there is the five point essay. At my French university it was the balanced formal exposé; with an intro, part 1, part 2 and conclusion. A formula gives you an easy to use framework that you can either stick to or abandon later on as you see fit. It helps get you started and helps you organize your thoughts.

However, Fish's artificial exercizes would annoy me.

I cannot help feel that LingQ could be a great tool for improving writing skills. We save key words and phrases that we can use to make our language flow better. LingQ also offers writing correction, in a way that enable us to try out new words and phrases,and then if we get them wrong we can import and integrate the corrected usage into our learning.

In any case, lots of reading of well written material on the one hand, and writing and being corrected, on the other hand, are the best ways to become a better writer IMHO. I would not take Stanley Fish's class on writing.

Language registers, scaffolding and language styles.

I have always held the view that in learning a foreign language, it is best to treat it as one language. To me the spoken language, written language, business language, academic language, are all really one. I try to speak as neutrally as possible, keep my writing as simple and straight forward as possible. I focus on learning the words and phrases I am interested in.

If I spend a month or two on a Tolstoi novel, that will be the vocabulary that I focus on, and feel most comfortable with. If I needed to communicate on economics I would focus my reading and listening on that kind of content. If I wanted to write business letters, I would read business letters, probably have someone record them for me to listen to, and save words and phrases from them at LingQ.

I have never considered these things as different forms of the language, just variations on a common base. Much of the basic vocabulary is the same. Focusing on different types of content helps to round out your language skills. I would never take a course on business Russian, or academic Russian. I would consider it a waste of time. Now that is just me.

Here are some exchanges from my language teacher's listserv. I would be interested in your opinions on how to deal with different language styles.

......

"On vacation I had a place and time to think about my last year's Thai 
student

I spoke English with her, corrected her English, and edited her 
academic papers.

I was struck by something people on this list probably take for 
granted:  she had one "mode" or discourse
of English, which she used for both speaking and writing. Academic 
writing is  a different discourse than
spoken English.  Consequently, we spent a lot of time pulling apart 
her spoken English and inserting a more
  academic style

Has anyone on the list encountered this problem?  Any useful thoughts?

What I did:  "You can't say that on a paper, we'll have to find 
another  [phrase, sentence] that will work better."

..........

"I teach on the for-credit side at a community college. Many of our students are long-term immigrants whose spoken English is fine. In fact, some of our students have graduated from US high schools. One of their biggest problems is they don't understand there is more than one register. I spend a lot of time teaching students the difference between everyday spoken English and more formal academic English. I don't have any specific materials, but just keep reminding them."

................

"We are presumably all familiar with the importance of scaffolding in instruction, i.e. building upon our learners' background knowledge.  Registers are associated with real-life domains.  We need to work on helping those domains take on a life of their own, so to speak, and the register will then be context-embedded and more meaningful, thus easier to learn and use rather than residing in the "abstract.""

What is a linguist?

What is a linguist? Why do I call this blog The Linguist on Language? Why did I call my book The Way of the Linguist?

Every so often someone comments on my blog about that fact that I am not a linguist, since I have not studied linguistics. I do not know all the terms used in linguistics, and they are many. For $120 dollars you can buy a book which  "Explains all of the terms which students of linguistics and English language are likely to encounter during their undergraduate study."

So let me be clear. I have read a few books and articles about linguistics. I am not interested. I do not find the hair-splitting and categorization of the phenomena of language that takes place in linguistics to be interesting, nor do I find that it helps me to understand anything about language. It certainly does not help me learn languages.

So why do I call the blog The Linguist on Language? Why did I call my book The Way of the Linguist?

Because I use the term "linguist"  in the sense of the first definition provided by the Oxford dictionary. I believe we are all potential linguists.

linguist

The Oxford Pocket Dictionary of Current English | 2009

lin·guist / ˈlinggwist/ • n. 1. a person skilled in foreign languages. 2. a person who studies linguistics.

Seven reasons why I would not use Rosetta Stone.

Download the podcast.

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.

Limits to Krashen?

Here is the podcast.Download Krashen challenged

Beniko Mason has some wonderful articles on research on language learning showing that reading is more efficient in language learning than deliberate instruction. I am indebted to Igor the Macedonian for the link.

He will now attack me as I explain why I like to do a little Krashen plus "n". In other words I believe a little speaking and writing and word review, and even a little grammar review, have their place in making the brain more attentive. As long as we do not expect to learn the grammar or the new words, as long as we are not hung up about speaking and writing correctly, these deliberate learning activities help, as long as they do not get in the way of listening and reading.

I also make the point that the interest in the content is more important than making the reading easy. I am not a fan of graded readers, for example, at least for my own learning. A little bit of easy content to start with and then let me at the authentic stuff as soons as possible. I believe that LingQ makes that jump easier, and that is why we developed the system the way we did.

So go ahead Igor, and hit me. I can take it.

English has a million words?

English is supposed to have a million words. I was sent this list by a friend.

English    999,985

Chinese    500,000+ (various dialects)

Japanese    232,000

Spanish    225,000+

Russian    195,000 ( should be easy to learn!!)

 

Source: Global Language Monitor

To me this is not very useful information. All languages have words that nobody uses. I find that you need more words to make sense in Russian than in English, but then I have not counted.

How to become a good language learner?

Here is the podcast

I think I can say that I am a good language learner. I speak 11 languages and have a good head start on a 12th, Korean. I have observed a lot of other people learn. Other than the obvious need for strong motivation, and the opportunity to use the language, I think there is one absolutely key element that is often ignored.

That key element is the willingness to accept uncertainty, vagueness, imperfection. Most people seem to want to nail things down when they learn. I think that accounts for the popularity of certain podcasts and other content that is not at normal speed and is not authentic.  I think that is why people enjoy Michel Thomas and Pimsleur with their English content. I think that is why people want explanations, most of which they cannot remember or apply.

I have always wanted to get to authentic, native content, as soon as possible. I would never want to listen to something like ESL Podcasts if I were learning another language. Yet these are far more popular than our own EnglishLingQ Podcasts, where Mark and I just ramble on at normal speed.

I am prepared to listen to things and read things that I do not fully understand, in the knowledge that this will lead me to understand and feel the language faster and better and more solidly, than trying to understand everything and get expanations.

So I think the key to successful language learning is to accept uncertainty vagueness and imprefection, for a long long time, and to enjoy it. Maybe that is just me.

Learning words and the use of the dictionary.

Learning words is the key task in language learning, but the dictionary is over-rated as a language learning tool. Here I talk about why I feel this way.