Polyglots?

[DRSB]

Kimpatsu wrote:OK, all you Western European speakers, I'll rephrase:
Do you honestly consider someone who can speak Japanese but not read it to be fluent? If so, why can't they do my job?


No, somebody who can't read signs is not fluent, even if he can hold a general discussion (or possibly a professional one) in purely oral form.

FBM:
200 years ago, when literacy was not prevalent, my verdict might have been different, but nowadays, first world cultures demand written as well as spoken skill for fluency to be confirmed.

Somebody who can read the signs but cannot speak does not know this language either. Most of the world's languages have no written form, no grammar books and their carriers are illiterate in every sense. But they are fluent nonetheless. So reading and writing here is really no criterion.

My husband studied minority languages of South India, went there for months, talked to nomads, collected material, wrote it down. Does he speak any of those languages, hell no, this was no even his objective. His objective was to "get" the the grammar of a language, or to compare the use of one morpheme, for example, in several unrelated languages. Does he "know" those languages? Hell, no, but he is able he compare them. Isn't this ability still "knowing" a language of a kind?
Let's ask Steven Pinker. Here, by the way, a beautiful interview, RD interviewing Stephen Pinker on Darwin: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIMReUsxTt4

[Kimpatsu]

Most of the world's languages have no written form, no grammar books and their carriers are illiterate in every sense. But they are fluent nonetheless.

Are you sure about that? The three biggest lkanguages in the world aer Chinese, English, and Spanish, and they all have written systems.

[DRSB]

Kimpatsu wrote

Deersbee wrote: Most of the world's languages have no written form, no grammar books and their carriers are illiterate in every sense. But they are fluent nonetheless.


Are you sure about that? The three biggest lkanguages in the world aer Chinese, English, and Spanish, and they all have written systems.

I mean "number of languages", roughly 7000, not "number of speakers". Besides, even the languages you mention, have been written for several thousand years at best (in the case of Chinese). Are you suggesting that their speakers before the emergence of writing had not been fluent?

[FBM]

I won't speak for the Koreans and Chinese, but the reason the Japanese can't speak English is cultural, not linguistic. basically, they are too paranoid about being laughed at for making a mistake (which we all make when we're learning to speak a foreign language, whether it be calling the Sydney Carnival a "big orgy" or offering a French girl a "big fuck"), so they avoid any attempts at speaking.

That's the same here in Korea, but that's only one part of the problem, not the whole diagnosis. The traditional teacher-centered classroom, with 40~50 students per class do not involve the students in producing language, only comprehending it. Without such practice, they never develop the muscle memory that's so crucial to fluency.

As for the Natural Approach (why the capitalization, bTW? Is it a copyrighted system?),

Because that's the way it's treated in professional literature on the subject. http://www.sil.org/lingualinks/language ... proach.htm

I don7t think it can produce experts on the level of the traditional approach.

Well, you disagree with the experts, then, as well as my professional and personal experiences. No big deal. People are free to disagree with experts as they see fit. I'm going to stick with the professional linguists and educators, tho. It has made me into a very popular teacher around these parts, and I've seen it work for many, many students in the past 14 years, including myself.

How do your students learn irregular verbs, for example?

How did you learn them in your native tongue? How did people learn them before standardized education and literacy were widespread? The natural way. Immersion in the target language and being guided by those who already have the skills.

[Svartalf]

My own take on the problem is that if lack of literacy entails a handicap when living in the culture, then literacy is part and parcel of fluency.

[Kimpatsu]

My own take on the problem is that if lack of literacy entails a handicap when living in the culture, then literacy is part and parcel of fluency.

Thank you, mon ami.

[Kimpatsu]

That's the same here in Korea, but that's only one part of the problem, not the whole diagnosis. The traditional teacher-centered classroom, with 40~50 students per class do not involve the students in producing language, only comprehending it. Without such practice, they never develop the muscle memory that's so crucial to fluency.

Do Korean classes ahve 40 to 50 students in them? Not even Japan's that bad.

Because that's the way it's treated in professional literature on the subject.

Then I suspect that someone, somewhere, does hold the copyright.

Well, you disagree with the experts, then, as well as my professional and personal experiences. No big deal. People are free to disagree with experts as they see fit. I'm going to stick with the professional linguists and educators, tho. It has made me into a very popular teacher around these parts, and I've seen it work for many, many students in the past 14 years, including myself.

No, I disagree with SOME experts. There are still plenty who value the traditional approach, as employed at my own alma mater, for example.

How did you learn them in your native tongue? How did people learn them before standardized education and literacy were widespread? The natural way. Immersion in the target language and being guided by those who already have the skills.

I didn't learn my native tongue; I absorbed it. A system that is quite impractical for anyone ever the age of about 12. Immersing adults will not only be fruitless, it can be downright counterproductive. For example, imemrsing adults in japan will lead grown men to pick up language from their girlfriends, and they'll end up talking like 12YO schoolgirls. Not very conducive to conversation.

[FBM]

My own take on the problem is that if lack of literacy entails a handicap when living in the culture, then literacy is part and parcel of fluency.

In the vernacular, you can stipulate lots of non-technical connotations that don't match lexical or professional definitions. I'd say that literacy is practically essential for success in a modern, literate society, but that doesn't affect the lexical definition. And I agree, of course, that an illiterate person has a big disadvantate, but they are, by definition, fluent in their mother tongue.

Do Korean classes ahve 40 to 50 students in them? Not even Japan's that bad.

Yeah, tell me about it. That's one big reason why the have to rely so much on rote memorization and don't have the opportunity to practice or develop creativity. Curiosity is also stamped out of them at an early age. Or nearly so.

No, I disagree with SOME experts. There are still plenty who value the traditional approach, as employed at my own alma mater, for example.

Right. My bad. I should have qualified that to say that you disagree with most leading experts in the field of linguistics, though you do agree with many traditional teachers.

I didn't learn my native tongue; I absorbed it.

This is the distinction that Krashen introduced. Language acqusition is superior to language learning.

A system that is quite impractical for anyone ever the age of about 12. Immersing adults will not only be fruitless, it can be downright counterproductive.

That's definitely one opinion.

For example, imemrsing adults in japan will lead grown men to pick up language from their girlfriends, and they'll end up talking like 12YO schoolgirls. Not very conducive to conversation.

Do you really think that immersion is about limiting your experiences to one person? The approach I outlined uses life-like situations or simulations of them as its primary activity. Studying vocabulary and grammar is not forbidden; it's just relegated to being supplementary. Also, can you hook me up with a 12-y-o schoolgirl for a girlfriend? I hear that's legal in Japan.

[Kimpatsu]

Yeah, tell me about it. That's one big reason why the have to rely so much on rote memorization and don't have the opportunity to practice or develop creativity. Curiosity is also stamped out of them at an early age. Or nearly so.

That reminds me of Peter Ustinov, who said that on his school report was written "The boy shows great creativity and originality, which must be crushed out of him".

Right. My bad. I should have qualified that to say that you disagree with most leading experts in the field of linguistics, though you do agree with many traditional teachers.

Some, not most, surely? And again, the traditional methods seem to create better experts in the foreign languages.

This is the distinction that Krashen introduced. Language acqusition is superior to language learning.

But it only works for peopel up to about age 12. After that, any attempt at straightforward absorption is futile.

That's definitely one opinion.

It's a fact. Absorption ceases to work after approx. age 12.

Do you really think that immersion is about limiting your experiences to one person? The approach I outlined uses life-like situations or simulations of them as its primary activity. Studying vocabulary and grammar is not forbidden; it's just relegated to being supplementary. Also, can you hook me up with a 12-y-o schoolgirl for a girlfriend? I hear that's legal in Japan.

Adults who have tried learning languages by absorption prioritise their girlfriends' speech above all others, for a variety of reasons: person most interesting to them, person they are most likely to listen to, person with whom they spend the most time. Pretending they will give equal weight to the boss is nonsense. (And also dangerous, because you'll start commanding the boss to do things rather than asking him for permission.)
Grown women in their 20s will often speak "schoolgirlese" because they think it makes them more cute and adorable. Unfortunately, 12yo girlfriends are now a no-no in Japan.

[FBM]

We're both entrenched in our positions, and others in this thread have reported experiences that support Krashen's Second Language Acquisition Theory and The Natural Approach. I've got a deadline to meet on this research paper, so I'll end with letting you know that the [url=http://www.lotpublications.nl/publish/a ... okpart.pdf]Critical Period Hypothesis[/quote] is exactly that: a hypothesis. It's still being debated and there are studies that suggest it is a flawed concept.

Nice chatting with you.

[Eriku]

OK, all you Western European speakers, I'll rephrase:
Do you honestly consider someone who can speak Japanese but not read it to be fluent? If so, why can't they do my job?

Of course s/he's fluent... If not literate. It's elitist to demand literacy. Some languages don't have an orthography, y'know? Doesn't make it any less of a language to me.

Literacy is elitist? Says the man who can read and write.

Why the smug smiley? You misread me, for one... I said it's elitist to DEMAND literacy... Does it not seem a credible stance on my part due to my being able to read and write? If so, explain.

So many things of what you say seem to miss the point. You take people's hypotheticals, change the criteria, and then proclaim a victory in favour of your own argument.

Btw, I'd love a link to your claim about immersion being unproductive after the age of 12. Not saying I think you're lying, I've just never come across it myself.

Anyway... stating that literacy is a requirement is basically dismissing a boatload of languages which have no orthography. Of course someone can be fluent and not master writing. If they can communicate their own thoughts and comprehend the ones others are putting forward in the language, and if they master the intricacies of things like prosody, the language's (or dialect's) phonemes, etc. then I'd say they're fluent.

Also, I didn't learn my irregular verbs in English through memorisation... It came to me naturally through my being exposed to far too much television, engaging English speakers on every opportunity, and just generally using the language a great deal. My fluency is actually higher than a great deal native English speakers, which should be impossible according to your claims.

And my experiences in South America trying to learn Spanish and Portuguese without a teacher, through listening intently and NOT through rote learning, proved to be far more successful than me trying to learn German, which even has a shedload of cognates to Norwegian.

To me a lot of your claims just don't ring true at all... Not when compared to my own experiences, nor what I've read and learnt about linguistics.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I was thinking of the Dukes of Hazard, actually.

I know nothing about the Dukes of Hazard, sorry.

US Southern "red necks" are often referred to as "crackers", especially the ones from Georgia.

[Ronja]

I was thinking of the Dukes of Hazard, actually.

I know nothing about the Dukes of Hazard, sorry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dukes_of_Hazzard - as simple as that.

Or did you actually intend to convey this message ('cause on the meta message level it reads pretty loud and clear): "I'm too lazy to google, and too arrogant or stupid to not flaunt my ignorance" - ?

Please note that you did not get directly - that's my "innocent or forgiven until third offense" policy. Have a nice day!

[Kimpatsu]

We're both entrenched in our positions, and others in this thread have reported experiences that support Krashen's Second Language Acquisition Theory and The Natural Approach. I've got a deadline to meet on this research paper, so I'll end with letting you know that the [url=http://www.lotpublications.nl/publish/a ... okpart.pdf]Critical Period Hypothesis

is exactly that: a hypothesis. It's still being debated and there are studies that suggest it is a flawed concept.
Nice chatting with you. [/quote]
I'm not entrenched in my position; if you can show proper statistical evidence with a funnel plot that your method of "suck it and see" is truly more effective than my already-proven method of hard work and effort, with a reasonably-sized cohort for both your trial and control groups, then I'll listen. Until then, I'll stick to recommending what I KNOW works.
Nice talking to you, too. BTW; is that a crown or a tiara you're wearing?

[FBM]

Done working on the paper for the evening, so may as well indulge a bit...

I'm not entrenched in my position;

Oh. Maybe it's just me.

if you can show proper statistical evidence with a funnel plot that your method of "suck it and see"

I'm obviously missing out on something that's going through your head in this discussion.

is truly more effective than my already-proven method of hard work and effort, with a reasonably-sized cohort for both your trial and control groups, then I'll listen.

So far, I'm the only one of us who has produced scholarship of any type in this exchange. Making unreasonable and excessive demands of evidence from others while providing none yourself...????

Until then, I'll stick to recommending what I KNOW works.

Which is exactly what I'm doing.

Snark aside for a moment, the methods you ascribe to are very successful in producing skilled translators of written materials, which, I gather, you are. In Korea's and Japan's early days of modernization, there were few Westerners in residence in those countries. Their main sources of scientific and technical information was from the written media of textbooks and journals. Therefore, they quite rightfully adopted the Grammar-Translation Method to address their needs. As long as nothing more than translating written materials is the target skill, that method is appropriate. However, my students need oral communication skills. Most of the larger corporations that hire them after graduation are requiring TOEIC Speaking and OPIC test scores as part of their selection process. As the world becomes more globalized and mobile, productive language skills are increasing in demand. The Natural Approach and Second Language Acquisition Theory are better suited for the skills my students require. When I do teach translation and writing classes, I revert to the Grammar-Translation Method, with the added nuance of Comparative Grammar/Syntax, etc.

So, for me, it's just a matter of choosing the better tool for the job. What you're after is quite different from what my students need/demand, so it's hardly surprising that different tools, methods and approaches are appropriate for each of us. If I've given you the impression that I disrespect or disregard your individual accomplishments, it's almost certainly due to my flawed representation of my position.

Nice talking to you, too. BTW; is that a crown or a tiara you're wearing?

Tiara. It was forced upon me. As were the overalls and sleeveless plaid shirt.