I read a study that said that in your native language you only need to hear 1/3 - 1/2 of the syllables and your brain will automatically fill in the rest, which is why you can understand conversations in a noisy environment. In a foreign language, unless you've achieved a very high level, you need to hear everything so noisy environments are a problem.
Krashen never said that you can learn to speak and write just by listening and reading. He has said that it's a waste of time to speak too early, before you have understood a lot of input. You still have to produce a lot to get better at it. There's also a huge number of studies that show that people who read a lot in their native language speak and write better and studies that show the same effect when learning foreign languages. There's also the practical point that it's useless to be able to speak well if you can't understand the responses you get.
I completely agree that there is a huge gap between B2 and that level you describe as automatic. I'm currently trying to bridge that gap, but I can't live in France so I think it will take me years. I know people who have done it without immersion, so I know it's possible. My solution is to "immerse" myself at home. I do 90% of my reading in French. 90% of the podcasts I listen to are in French. I watch French TV shows and YouTube channels. I listen to French whenever I'm driving, exercising, doing errands, cooking, cleaning, etc. I'm also spending 3 weeks a year in France. That's not full immersion but it helps. When I'm in France, I stay with French speaking hosts and do tours in French. I avoid English at all costs. It'll be interesting to see how far I can get.
Author here. I definitely don't feel completely automatic in French, but when having casual conversation I can be fairly automatic if the subject matter isn't too demanding. I think you're absolutely right that without being immersed in French, you will struggle being automatic, especially in all those situations that you only encounter while being in person with actual French speakers.
I think getting C1/C2 certification doesn't really test for that kind of thing, but instead, to my knowledge, being able to communicate increasingly complex ideas in a relatively sterile environment. So, you probably could get fairly automatic when debating about economics or having general conversation or something abstract at home, but in France you probably won't be automatic until you spend a sufficient amount of time practicing all the little things in daily life. This is something I will struggle with to unless I immerse myself someday, but being able to say what you want generally is definitely good enough to at least survive at live decently well. Good luck, sounds like what you're doing is the best possible!
I don't know any language test that tests actual fluency. That's something you can't standardize.
Like most skills, language proficiency work in steps, and you are usually only able to see the next step, the rest goes above your head.
In the case of language, the first step is learning the words and grammar. This can be tested. But there is a whole world beyond that. I realized it when talking about the Japanese language with a girl she didn't even talk about things that come up in tests, like vocabulary. Instead she talked about how to talk to different kind of people, idiomatic expressions, how to convey emotions, even the quirks of writing text messages. She was on the next level, the part about describing things was already a given, not something worth talking about. There are certainly many things lying beyond that, maybe accent, body language, a point where the distinction between language and culture starts to blur...
An interesting thing is that AFAIK, there are no tests that evaluate the proper use of "bad" language. French (my native language) is famous for its colorful swearing. And you can't really call yourself fluent if you don't know how to do it. Proper use of casual and even offensive language, is, I think, an important skill that most foreigners lack, in any language, and yet, most test don't go below business level speech.
Not sure if being able to understand the lyrics of an NTM or Stromae song should be testable, but I see the point.
French is especially bitchy in that respect since what you learn as formal language will leave out a HUGE part of words and idioms used in everyday interactions. You can speak perfect French but sound like you just stepped out of a time machine. “C’est pas terrible” (colloquial) instead of “Ce n’est pas très bon” (more grammatically correct). “T’inquiètes!” vs “Ne t’inquiètes pas”
Thanks. Good luck to you as well. You said in your post that listening comprehension was your weakest skill. Are you listening to more and different content? I've found some podcasts that include people with different French regional accents (not Québecois) and I've found that helps even if I struggle sometimes with them.
It's a highly effective method in my experience. Also don't forget the production side, you need to practice talking and writing too. You can talk to yourself if you have no one to talk to, it works just as well.
Production is absolutely important, but harder to do. I talk to 3 French people every week, 30 minutes in French in exchange for 30 minutes in English. I also have conversations with myself in French (like a schizophrenic). Where I have been lazy is writing. I need to write more and get it corrected.
My friend who learned english intensively for a lots of years told me one good advice how to become fluent in another language. And how to know you reached the level.
It is when you think in this language. Yes. Exactly. You need to become fluent in thinking in a language to be fluent in real life situations.
And its also kinda cool to be able to think in two language. Its kind of a superpower :)
Reminds me of a website called All Japanese All The Time, where a guy from America made his environment all Japanese while still in college in Utah (?). TV, kanji posters, Windows language settings, friends,...
I studied French from 7th-12th grade in an American High School. After that, I could not understand any French beyond "bonjour". I could not have a conversation in French. I could conjugate verbs and I could read some. Fast forward 45 years and I retired and decided to actually learn French. I followed a very, very similar method and after 9 months of self study took a 2 week intensive course in France where I was told I was at B2 level. Obviously I didn't start at A0 but when I first started with Duolingo, I remembered nothing. 45 years is a long gap. What he describes works. Even an old fart like me can get to B2 level with self study if they are motivated and use good resources. It's never been easier to learn a language with all the excellent resources available.
I'm convinced that a classroom is the worst possible environment for actually learning a 2nd language. There are just so many reasons why.
Probably the most insurmountable one is that the pace at which the class can move is limited by the pace at which the least motivated student is going to learn.
But I also think that it's just a structurally bad environment for efficient language learning. Since everyone needs a chance to participate, you spend the vast majority of your time listening to other people who don't know the language any better than you do, so there's just not much to learn from them. Since you're working from a textbook, everyone has to read the same uncompelling least-common denominator materials, which, by virtue of being boring, are just as likely to sap as to sustain your motivation - and an unmotivated mind isn't going to absorb much.
I'm starting to feel that way about canned programs in general. I've been working on the kanji lately. At the start, a friend of mine told me he thought I was crazy to do all my own flashcards (though I am following the learning order from Remembering the Kanji) when I could just subscribe to WaniKani and have it all handed to me on a silver platter. A couple months later, he estimated I had learned more kanji over 2 months than he had in years. Just assembling your own materials admittedly involves a lot more up-front work and a steeper learning curve, but the process itself has a lot of mnemonic power.
While I had the same experience as you in high school (and primary school language learning was altogether a farce), I found the experience very different in classes at university. I think the primary factor was that there were a negligible number of unmotivated students.
Listening to other people at my level didn't seem a particular detriment because teachers have to speak at roughly my level anyway. They made more mistakes, but the instructors corrected them, and the corrections were valuable since they were often the sorts of mistake I'd make myself. Textbooks are trite, but since their main competition in the internet age is materials put together by dedicated but ultimately pedagogically-unskilled amateurs, I think they're better than most alternative prepackaged materials.
What I will acknowledge is that private study through a flashcard deck is probably the best way to acquire vocab, but that was never my biggest challenge. My vocab has consistently been on the large end of other people I've learned with, just because memorisation suits my personality (and I suspect that's true of a lot of people here). That never, though, translated to being the best in class - ability to fluidly construct a sentence beats out perfect word choice every time. It's also very easy to pair with a taught class, since there's no downside to learning extra vocab on the side.
Classes move a bit slowly, but I think the rationale is valid: You're here for three years anyway, you're probably trying to get to around B2, so we'll train you up to B2 in three years.
I'm not going to argue that it's as good as a private tutor, but it was closer to second-best than worst in my experience.
I moved to Norway as an adult and took classes meant for adult learners. And honestly, there were things I might not have grasped otherwise. Of course, I was in class 15-18 hours a week, was surrounded by Norwegian to a point (English is used a lot: Norwenglish is a thing). I had speaking practice in a nursing home two days a week for some months. Our teacher was a native speaker.
It is honestly helpful to have other learners to practice with: They, in general, have the same knowledge base as you do. Workbooks give repetition, and is helpful with things like grammar and word placement. (I only used a workbook with the first 2 books in the first year). The textbooks had common-sense dialogs and things: These focused on everyday situations (small talk, apartments, speaking about one's background, basic job stuff, and so on). A lot of reading introduced these things or made sure to include information about culture or civics.
And honestly, if one only went to school, participated, and did the homework when we had it, one would learn some language. You were simply better off if you worked on it yourself. I'd certainly not have as much understanding of dialects or grammar trying to learn Norwegian on my own.
This was completely different than the classes most folks had back in the US, generally in high school. I got more instruction as an adult in a day than we usually would get in a week back in high school. I had native speakers teaching. The class was taught in the target language from the first day.
Not all class is the same, and some are very beneficial.
> I'm convinced that a classroom is the worst possible environment for actually learning a 2nd language.
Surely classrooms are the worst environment for learning anything. Of course it's going to be easier to learn any subject if you have a dedicated teacher who makes sure that you understand the material before moving on and keeps you engages. However is it worse than anything? Classrooms usually end up giving you access to a teacher who you can ask questions to and receive a comprehensible response.
Just like in any subject if you actually don't take the effort to study from your own curriculum you're going to be relatively behind. If all someone does is attend their CS lectures and do the bare minimum on their homework assignments then they're effectively wasting their time as they'll be behind their peers who met with professors to collaborate on research projects or with peers to found a startup (in addition to side projects).
Classrooms for any subject are a bad environment because like you stated everyone else has a chance of participating. In addition the material is suited for the majority and isn't personalized. When I was learning about geometric functions in middle school no teacher ever related it to cosine similarity that can be used in NLP.
However 1-on-1 lessons are expensive, so aren't classroms a good enough compromise?
Most other subjects, I'd say classes are a bit sub-optimal, but still a great choice if you aren't working with unlimited resources. There's value in hands-on group projects, labs, instructor feedback, etc. And, in most subjects, there are plenty of successful people who did a lot of their learning in a classroom environment.
Language learning, though, I'd say that a classroom is worse than nothing at all, if you're motivated. And not just a little worse, like, a lot worse. In language learning, it seems remarkably consistent that the vast majority of people who achieve much success eschew classrooms entirely.
As a French, I’ve lived a few years in Australia. A lot of people there can only say “Bonjour” and keep a bitter memory of their lessons. It feels like learning German for the French people, also a difficult (albeit more regular) language. It is merely necessary for political cohesion but not at an individual level; As such German lessons are... not designed for the students. If I had to believe the lessons, there are only two topics that Germans talk about: The Wiedervereinigung (reunification) and the war. All their movies are black and white with yellow subtitles. That’s how I imagine the French language in the Australian culture ;) Something you gotta learn at school, like se hazing or something.
It really feels like we haven’t mastered teaching, as a civilization. Our teaching works for pupils who have an interest; but for the others, it’s like signing for a mortgage and hating the house from the day you move in.
In fact, a lot of Ozzies I’ve met told me they went to Paris and felt hated by parisians. This testimonial was so frequent (dozens of times) that I led my little survey. On Twitter and among friends, all French people love Australians, between surfing and Crocodile Dundee, we have good conversation starters ;) Some may dislike some British but I don’t think there are many, let alone many who would act it out on the street. I just think parisians behave like stressed people behave in very stressful cities. So, no, we don’t hate English-speaking people, and I’m sorry that my language is so hard and so required in your curriculum ;)
For many years, I thought that most French people were arrogant douchebags that hated foreigners.
The reason was that I had only visited the center of Paris, and I really felt disdained there. I even developed the habit of opening conversation in Spanish (my native language) because then people would try English and we would communicate. When I opened conversation in English, they replied in French, I wouldn't understand and they didn't seem interested in communicating at all.
After going to other parts of the country like Nice, Avignon, Lille... and being involved professionally with French people, I had the chance to meet many excellent people and now have several awesome French friends.
Later on, I had the chance to revisit the center of Paris and it no longer felt that unwelcoming anymore (probably partly because I got the hang of the culture and at least some of the language, and partly because I had some more money to go to somewhat better hotels, etc., which can help). But for the first-time clueless foreign visitor, it can feel really hostile. I'm not at all surprised by the testimonials you mention.
We certainly haven't mastered language teaching, at least at public schools. What I remember most is being tested on verb conjugations of irregular verbs. Worst possible way to learn a language.
Languages and gym stick out to me as the most astounding educational failures in high school.
When I later actually wanted to learn about those on my own time, it became obvious that those initial classes were not only not helpful, but actively harmful.
High school language courses might just be overinfluenced by academic linguists-- obscure grammar is probably the right focus if your main interest is comparative linguistics and you've already studied six other languages. That just doesn't apply to many high schoolers.
High school fitness education is like a bad daycare with spontaneous expectations for you to run a couple miles, despite having never been trained in how to build up capacity slowly over time. It's as if the goal is to teach people that fitness is unlearnable and out of reach. It's exactly the opposite, it's one of the domains where it's easiest to measure how much consistent practice improves performance.
I feel like we could redesign both from scratch, based around how people grow up and actually learn these things, and we'd be way ahead.
I disagree on the gym/fitness angle. It's quite possible you had a terrible gym teacher, and it wasn't a good fit for you. But I think it's extremely important to introduce the idea of normal, daily exercise and give students explicit time for that in their schedule, and I don't think the average gym teacher is so bad as to negate that benefit.
Yeah, it's just anecdotal, and I don't want to take away anything from anyone's great gym memories, but I think there's something systemic, or at least common and broader than my own experience, for a few reasons.
I went to multiple schools with different teachers that all used the concept of modules to expose kids to a bunch of activities in rapid bursts without practicing or developing any skills.
Let's play badminton for a week, then football, then dodgeball, then baseball. Now let's administer the presidential fitness test without any warning or prep. No attempt to work on those measurers after the test, making it unclear how important they are.
I might have drawn all the bad teachers and was just unlucky, but my experience seems to track with most people I meet and also with portrayals of gym in popular media.
In my case, it made me hate exercise. I couldn't do the things they required (stuff like somersaults, jumping the pommel horse, etc.) so I just took an adversarial angle. It was not something to enjoy, but to try to beat if possible, or escape otherwise.
Many years later, I can kind of enjoy exercise like running or swimming but I still never go to gyms as they give me bad feelings.
Indeed, being a teacher myself today, I'd rate my gym teachers as terrible, as setting goals (like somersaults) with little relation to the actual exercise most people do, and more relation to innate talent than effort, while not providing much motivation or explanation of why that is useful (I still don't see why today), seems like a huge pedagogical failure. But I had various gym teachers and they all seemed cut from the same cloth, and other people with similar age and country give similar descriptions. Maybe it's better in other countries or it has improved by time, I don't know.
If gym is a child's introduction to the idea of normal, daily exercise all hope has already been lost.
A school or education system that was serious about exercise or fitness would look nothing like the American one. There would not be elementary schools without recess, exercise would be a part of every student's schedule every day and not taking part would not be an option.
As is gym class has to deal with absurdly huge variations in interest and ability. Some children exercise every day, or play multiple sports because they're either enthusiastic or genuinely athletic. Having them in the same class as bookworms and couch potatoes serves no one well.
Gym is awful and cannot be made not awful without a thoroughgoing reform, not of gym class, but of the entire education system. It would be better off burned to the ground. That way it would at least not teach many people that they hate exercise, it would just leave them indifferent.
> a lot of Ozzies I’ve met told me they went to Paris and felt hated by parisians
It's the somewhat true in Québec too, but Québec isn't busy like Paris, so there must be something more to it.
The govt tries to force feed French to new Quebeckers who wants to settle in Québec. I am an expat in Québec. The attitude of Francophones and the Language Policing in Québec makes me not wanting to learn French at all even though it's the best opportunity to learn French. While I understand the reasons behind protecting French in Québec, I feel it can be done differently than by being rude and coercive. Ex: The pastagate in Québec.
Quebec is often feeling disregarded culturally by the rest of Canada, or just seen as "that one area where people don't speak English" even though it is the most bilingual province of Canada by a decent margin [0]. There's also additional bad blood between provinces historically in Canada and a lot of debates that are quite specific to the country, which I don't have the ability to explain properly here.
They're also older than the rest of the country by a good amount of time (I seem to recall Montreal celebrating its 375th birthday during Canada's 150th[1]). And there's definitely a culturally French element to it: being defensive of the French culture and language is not exclusive to Quebec, see the Toubon Law [2] introduced in 1994 forcing 40% of songs on the radio in France to be in French. There's been a lot of pushback to lower the percentage these last few years, while at the same time arguably french-language rap and hip-hop is at an all-time high most likely in big part thanks to that very same law [3] [4, in french]
So in a way you can see why being defensive of the language is mostly a reaction to the shift in dominant language throughout the world, in this case coupled with the good old nonchalant attitude that is part of the French heritage.
And Parisians don't hate you or Australians or anyone in particular, they just hate everyone.
Source: Parisian
Nobody should base their opinion of a country on the way service workers in that country's capital city treated them.
See Le Louvre, La Tour, Musee D'Orsay, Sainte Chapple, perhaps pop in to
l'Orangerie, then get on a train and visit the real France and find real French people.
Actually Père Lachaise is pretty cool too: Fourier and Jim Morrison are buried there.
As a Romanian who had to study German in school, I testify to that. I still remember the word "Umweltverschmutzung" but no idea if it's der, die, das, dem or des umweltverschmutzung :P
My experience as a language learner (French) supports the study. When I use English (native language) subtitles, my listening doesn't improve at all. However, my improvement with or without French subtitles depends on my level of comprehension. If I can understand most of the show without subtitles (~60% or more) I improve faster without subtitles. If I understand half or less, I improve with the subtitles. I guess this is evidence for Stephen Krashen's theory of comprehensible input.
Sometimes new techniques turn out to be a disaster. I-495 in Massachusetts was built using a new technique for concrete roadways. Concrete is normally not used to build roads in New England because it doesn't handle frost heaves. The new technique "solved" that problem. The result was that every inch of I-495 has had to be rebuilt. Even worse, the first "rebuild" was to lay asphalt over the concrete and then subsequently everything had to be ripped out and done again.
I've worked with Swedes, and they were all basically bilingual in English. Except for a bit of an accent, their English was better than many native speakers. Of course, my sample size is only 20, but I was impressed. I was told that many schools in Sweden dedicate one school day a week to English with all subjects being taught in English during that day. Those students end up fluent.
That is not at all common practice. It's the first I've ever heard of it.
My fiancée moved here to Sweden and trying to get by with English when in contact with the tax office, doctors, municipalities etc has been impossible. The tech workers I work with are very good at English compared to the average person here, but would self-assess their skills about the same.
I think it very much depends on the population. Online quiz takers will skew young, whose English is a lot better than that of middle aged and older Swedes, on average. Most Swedes I know have at least competency in English, and I know a lot of them, from being in Sweden too, but I'm sure my sample is also biased. Nonetheless, I'm not suprised at the fluency of Swedes in foreign langauges compared with other countries. As with the Netherlands, they are not an inward-looking culture particularly.
I wonder how much of the adult language learning research is like the research on physical fitness. There's decades of research about the precipitous decline in fitness and strength that comes with age. More recent research shows that the decline had more to do with decades of an increasingly sedentary lifestyle than physical decline. Yes, a fit 60 year old is less fit than a fit 30 year old, but still may be quite fit. Probably the decline in ability to learn languages is real but may not be nearly as pronounced as some studies show.
When I first started learning French, I watched videos intended for French kids and I picked up a lot quickly. The biggest problem for me was, unlike a kid, I couldn't stand to watch them for very long. As an adult, boredom set in pretty quickly and thus loss of focus. However, it was still very useful until I got to a level where I could understand more adult content. It was certainly more useful than most traditional language learning materials.
I started learning French 20 months ago at age 63. I've gone from beginner to B2 (upper intermediate) level in that period. It takes a lot of time. I immerse myself as much as possible. Whenever I'm doing chores, cooking, walking I listen to French podcasts. I watch French YouTube channels. In the evening I watch French TV shows and documentaries. I talk to French people regularly on Skype. I read French novels and French newspapers. Essentially, I try to live as if I were in France. It's working. I have the huge advantage of being retired, so I have more time and I'm kind of obsessive about achieving goals. If you put in the time, you can become fluent in a foreign language at any age, especially with all the resources on the internet.
