If anyone has taught themselves a language, what would they recommend as being one of the best ways for it?

Good question, Timbo. While you wait for the perfect language-learning method, here's something to read.

Heinrich Schliemann explains how he learned a number of languages "on his own."

One of the best ways to learn a second language is to live in a place where people speak it and very little of your first language.

Oh, I sort of forgot to add "apart from immersion" sorry 'bout that

Timbo, your Public Profile in this community reveals that you have been a member here for three months. Apart from that -- and your name -- it reveals nothing.

You asked us to give you recommendations as to methods we have used in autodidactic foreign language acquisition, specifically Italian.

Is English your native language? You reject "immersion," but you don't tell us why. When you were learning English, did you use some method other than immersion? Can you tell us about that ?

Certain additional questions come to mind. Why are you interested in learning Italian? Are you a scholar in language-acquisition methodology ?
Where do you live? Do you have Italian-speaking neighbors? Do you have access to books ? Do you have access to sources of information other than this WordCraft Community ?

Does your mommy know you stay up late and play with your ..... computer ?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: jerry thomas,

Timbo, you might read this Wikipedia article on second language acquisition and see what folks who study the situation have to say about it.

Timbo, please see your PMs.

quote:

Originally posted by jerry thomas:
Timbo, your Public Profile in this community reveals that you have been a member here for three months. Apart from that -- and your name -- it reveals nothing.

You asked us to give you recommendations as to methods we have used in autodidactic foreign language acquisition, specifically Italian.

Is English your native language? You reject "immersion," but you don't tell us why. When you were learning English, did you use some method other than immersion? Can you tell us about that ?

Certain additional questions come to mind. Why are you interested in learning Italian? Are you a scholar in language-acquisition methodology ?
Where do you live? Do you have Italian-speaking neighbors? Do you have access to books ? Do you have access to sources of information other than this WordCraft Community ?

Does your mommy know you stay up late and play with your ..... computer ?

Evenin' Jer!

I am a man shrouded in an enigma wrapped in a miasmic mystery o,o I have derived endless enjoyment from being the man that everyone is curious about yet who's story remains but a tease . . . . . . . . . . .

English, yes! Immersion, no! Grad student, poor!

I hail from an Italian background, thus learning the language is something I've always wanted to do. It becomes unfortunate however insofar that the American Public School system is in egregious derelict of providing or even encouraging adequate language training at the ages most porous for sponging up syntax. I am a scholar in everything I do.

Arizona (oy!) No Italian speaking neighbors Only smokers. Books, yes! But which, you see, is the question I was hoping to have answered.

She does, and thinks I'm very special

Anyone seriously interested in language acquisition could profit from this .... Heinrich Schliemann

... and this

This message has been edited. Last edited by: jerry thomas,

Timbo, there are many resources on the Web (link), e.g., forums (link), radio stations (link), newspapers (link).

Dude, you're in Arizona. Just learn Spanish and say it with an Italian accent.

Neveu always makes me laugh.

I've only been to a few operas, but my friends who frequent the opera say it's the most beautiful of all the languages. I used to think French was, but perhaps it's too nasal.

quote:

I've only been to a few operas, but my friends who frequent the opera say it's the most beautiful of all the languages.

I would agree with that. And the fact that so many Italian words end in vowels must help when it is used for singing, since words ending in vowels can be sustained on their final syllables for as long as required by the music. Words ending in consonants can only be sustained on their penultimate or ante-penultimate syllables.

Organizers of a beauty contest for languages should be reminded not to neglect Estonian.

quote:

The idea for the contest arose out of an Estonian story that the country’s language was once crowned the second most beautiful language in the world after Italian

I suppose the $10 for second place in a beauty contest came in handy when Estonia was an impoverished country.

I've always found the linguolabial consonants of some Oceanic languages asthetically pleasing.

quote:

Originally posted by Timbo:
If anyone has taught themselves a language, what would they recommend as being one of the best ways for it?

Hi, Timbo. Even immersion (via foreign travel, I mean) is recommended by language acquisition experts only after a beginner's course in the language. Looks like foreign travel is going to stay expensive for a while... meanwhile, here's an excerpt of an email I just received from a forum of FL teachers which may be helpful:

ALL(the Association for Language Learning)has focus groups for various languages including Italian. Go to this link: http://www.all-languages.org.uk/committee_italian.asp and at the bottom of the page you can click on a link to open a PDF file which,
on page 29, has a long list of Italian websites, many of which are useful
for Primary, and some other links.

I would also suggest, as you peruse local papers for cheap courses (e.g. adult-ed at local h.s. and/or community college), to keep an eye out for anyone who uses "TPR" or "TPRS" or "FluencyFast" trademark methods. They are derived from Asher and Krashen's language acquisition research, and are geared to speedy acquisition for use abroad.

My Spanish course was immersion in nature in that it focused on conversational Spanish, not the grammar, and we couldn't say or write a word of English ever. learned an awful lot from my 2 years in HS Spanish.

Go buy something that's sold internationally, and read the Italian version of the instructions, then the English one. It may sound silly, but I've learned a bit about several languages this way. Idioms, however, will hang one up a good bit.

You might also advertise on Craig's List for Italian speakers.

Buona fortuna!

And be sure to read the book, "Eat Pray Love" by Elizabeth Gilbert!

quote:

Originally posted by Kalleh:
My Spanish course was immersion in nature in that it focused on conversational Spanish, not the grammar, and we couldn't say or write a word of English ever. learned an awful lot from my 2 years in HS Spanish.

Sorry so slow on the uptake, Kalleh! I've been completely "immersed" in end-of-school-year running around like a chicken with-- well, you know! Just wanted to say, wow! I didn't know one could get a conversational FL class in high school before quite recently! You were very fortunate. Did you attend hs in Chicago? Was this an enlightened public school district or a private school?

My youngest son just finished his first year of a conversational Spanish class at the h.s. here. They call it "Exploratory Spanish" & it was only "invented" 4 yrs ago to accommodate all the classified kids who were arriving in 9th grade without ever having had FL before. In their great wisdom, our school district eschews middle-school FL in favor of resource room. It makes sense in context-- FL here is taught via the ancient grammar-text method, which means it is memorization-, written-work- and homework-heavy. For a kid classified w/LD, that's one too many academic courses. (If they taught it properly, FL would be more like a music course & would give the kids' brains a respite!)

quote:

My Spanish course was immersion in nature in that it focused on conversational Spanish, not the grammar, and we couldn't say or write a word of English ever. learned an awful lot from my 2 years in HS Spanish.

Of course, this is the way that we all learned to speak our native tongue (or tongues - babies of multi-lingual parents learn all their parents' languages quite effortlessly). Speaking is a natural skill - writing and reading has to be learned.

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English:
Of course, this is the way that we all learned to speak our native tongue (or tongues - babies of multi-lingual parents learn all their parents' languages quite effortlessly). Speaking is a natural skill - writing and reading has to be learned.

Right on (raised fist)! You wouldn't think such an idea would be controversial, would you? Sad to say, the emperor still goes naked in curmudgeonly public school FL depts all across the US (having been sold a 100-yr old syllabus & told it would make a nice outfit...) Times they are a changin'. Very slowly.

quote:

Did you attend hs in Chicago? Was this an enlightened public school district or a private school?

This was in a public school in Wisconsin. I even remember the nuances of pronunciation, such as not using the hard "d" with your tongue.

quote:

Originally posted by bethree5:

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English:
Of course, this is the way that we all learned to speak our native tongue (or tongues - babies of multi-lingual parents learn all their parents' languages quite effortlessly). Speaking is a natural skill - writing and reading has to be learned.

Right on (raised fist)! You wouldn't think such an idea would be controversial, would you? Sad to say, the emperor still goes naked in curmudgeonly public school FL depts all across the US (having been sold a 100-yr old syllabus & told it would make a nice outfit...) Times they are a changin'. Very slowly.

Adults don't learn language the same way children do. If they did, we wouldn't need language teachers. There are huge motivational and physiological differences. Some educators like Stephen Krashen argue that all adults need for language learning is lots of comprehensible input. Krashen is a big fan of immersion programs, but it is not all evident that immersion programs, like French immersion in Canada, work. Many researchers agree that input is not enough, adults need explicit instruction in grammar as well.

quote:

Many researchers agree that input is not enough, adults need explicit instruction in grammar as well.

I's sure you're right. But I believe the grammatical instruction is needed primarily to take care of written communication. Even adults would master vocal communication sufficiently well to be able to make their needs known.

I know nothing of written Greek - but I can speak enough to order a drink and ask people how they are. Were I to be in Greece for a few weeks, speaking little but Greek, I would probably be able to adequately express my main needs vocally - and would still have little knowledge of the grammar - or even the alphabet.

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English:
Even adults would master vocal communication sufficiently well to be able to make their needs known.

For basic information exchange, sure. But that's only the first step in learning to speak a language. AIUI, ESL teaching, at least in Toronto, has recently gone thru a phase where grammar was not taught. The students were fluent, that is they spoke naturally without pauses, but often what they said didn't make any sense. Students who were the French immersion program speak something known as "immersion French" which while it is understandable, is not normal.

All children learn language. They can't help it. But not all adults learn language, even in immersion environments.

Heinrich Schliemann's method worked for him. And (with modifications) has worked for me. Try it for a year and let us know what you think.

quote:

For basic information exchange, sure. But that's only the first step in learning to speak a language.

Oh I agree. To learn to speak a language adequately is often easy; to learn to speak that same language perfectly - or even reasonably well - is very much more difficult. And to achieve a level even approaching perfection, a knowledge of grammar would be essential.

Well, of course this is your field, goofy, so I will have to go along with you on the grammar part. However, I am skeptical. I have seen the best learning of languages, by kids or adults, in an immersion type course. I have seen some of the most failed learning when there is grammar taught in a classroom.

quote:

Originally posted by Kalleh:
I have seen the best learning of languages, by kids or adults, in an immersion type course. I have seen some of the most failed learning when there is grammar taught in a classroom.

Well, it's semantics, really. Grammar is taught in the "conversational" or "immersion" classroom in context, with occasional sidebars. The emphasis is on using the grammar in spoken language, rather than on practicing the application of rules. One of the cutting-edge techniques in the FL classroom is Blaine Ray's TPRS. Though its origins are in conversation-only ESL methods of the '70's, these methods have come a long way. You really couldn't come out of an even halfway-decent TPRS Level 1 without being able to converse using present and simple past of various irregular and regular verbs, in 1st-3rd sing & plur, as well as a large amount of commonly-spoken vocabulary. Writing and reading go right along with the method in an amount dictated by age/education-level of the student. There are a few studies in California, and other states where it is more widely used, which show these kids do as well as (usually better than) their peers on standardized tests at all levels including AP. (Obviously they out-perform their peers by a large margin on the oral/conversational segments of those tests).

It will be slow going to bring this sort of method consistently into the classroom. It is simply very different from older methods. Training and updates are essential, you can't just wing it or you'll end up with gobbledy-gook as Goofy notes in Canada. There is a real resistance in the US, and I think that's allowed to stand because our kids do not get much foreign travel, so the point is not driven home that graduates of the "grammar method" barely speak the language. My anecdotal observation of my chi-chi local h.s.: teachers don't really know how to teach the conversational end of it. They send home CD's & tell kids to listen & repeat; they test them on that material. But it's a small percentage of the total curriculum taught inefficiently. As always, it's the kids who are "good at language" who pick it up no matter what method is used. Your average student is left (as always) to conclude "I'm no good with languages."

quote:

Originally posted by jerry thomas:
Heinrich Schliemann's method worked for him. And (with modifications) has worked for me. Try it for a year and let us know what you think.

Jerry thanx for the link-- gives more dope on what Schliemann is all about than one you posted a while back. I am intrigued by the approach, though I think it would work better for me with a 3rd ingredient: an "audiobook" in the original language. Is that one of your modifications? Share!

quote:

I have seen some of the most failed learning when there is grammar taught in a classroom.

Possibly I should have been more explicit.

When we learn our first language at our mother's knee, we rapidly learn to communicate quite adequately, and, as we grow up we begin to speak even more fluently as we listen to our peers and watch TV. Some grammar we will learn without appreciating its significance - or even realising that we are learning it.

But there comes a point when we do need to learn about the structure of language - especially when we need to write. When we start to learn how symbols can represent sounds we then also need to start to learn about spelling, grammar and punctuation.

But I am inclined to agree that it is better to learn to speak by imitation first and learn about the mechanics of grammar later - just as we all did when we learnt to speak our native tongues. From my own recollection that's not the way I learnt French and Spanish at school - we started by learning the articles and the common verbs from the blackboard before we started to listen to and speak full sentences.

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English:
When we learn our first language at our mother's knee, we rapidly learn to communicate quite adequately, and, as we grow up we begin to speak even more fluently as we listen to our peers and watch TV. Some grammar we will learn without appreciating its significance - or even realising that we are learning it.

I'd say most of English grammar is acquired this way. By the time children are taught grammar in school, if they are at all, they can already construct complicated multi-clause sentences.

quote:

But there comes a point when we do need to learn about the structure of language - especially when we need to write.

That's the only reason. I think it's exactly because we're a literate culture that teaching grammar can be useful. And even then I'm not convinced it's necessary. English grammar was not formally taught until the 18th century, and great literature was produced before that point.

quote:

Originally posted by Kalleh:
Well, of course this is your field, goofy, so I will have to go along with you on the grammar part. However, I am skeptical. I have seen the best learning of languages, by kids or adults, in an immersion type course. I have seen some of the most failed learning when there is grammar taught in a classroom.

I'm just stating what the research tells us. Of course it depends a great deal on how grammar is taught.

quote:

That's the only reason. I think it's exactly because we're a literate culture that teaching grammar can be useful. And even then I'm not convinced it's necessary. English grammar was not formally taught until the 18th century, and great literature was produced before that point.

I would have thought that the writers of great literature, even if they had not been formally taught grammar, would have learnt it in rather more depth than most.

Of course, learning doesn't necessarily mean being taught - although that's what many people assume. By far the largest proportion of people's learning is informal and untaught; teaching is just a device for putting some kind of structure on the learning process.

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English:
I would have thought that the writers of great literature, even if they had not been formally taught grammar, would have learnt it in rather more depth than most.

Could be, is there any evidence one way or the other?

I'm very sorry everyone, especially Richard.

I have been given editing permission on the whole forum, and I should only have it for the Lx 101 area. Anyway, I accidentally erased Richard's last post. Please post it again, Richard.

sorry.

Oh dear!

As near as I can remember, I said that it was clear that William Wordsworth must have had a better grasp of grammar (as well as of poetic techniques) than William McGonagall, and that this was probably sufficient evidence that the better writers of the past did have a better grasp of grammar than most.

This is not what grammar means to me. McGonagall's grammar seems perfectly OK. Even his spelling and punctuation are standard for his time. It seems that Woodsworth and McGonagall both had a native grasp of the grammar of English. Where the latter's poetry fails is in his sprained meter and banal imagery.

quote:

Beautiful Moon
by
William McGonagall

Beautiful Moon, with thy silvery light,
Thou seemest most charming to my sight;
As I gaze upon thee in the sky so high,
A tear of joy does moisten mine eye.
Beautiful Moon, with thy silvery light,
Thou cheerest the Esquimau in the night;
For thou lettest him see to harpoon the fish,
And with them he makes a dainty dish.
Beautiful Moon, with thy silvery light,
Thou cheerest the fox in the night,
And lettest him see to steal the grey goose away
Out of the farm-yard from a stack of hay.
Beautiful Moon, with thy silvery light,
Thou cheerest the farmer in the night,
And makest his heart beat high with delight
As he views his crops by the light in the night.
Beautiful Moon, with thy silvery light,
Thou cheerest the eagle in the night,
And lettest him see to devour his prey
And carry it to his nest away.
Beautiful Moon, with thy silvery light,
Thou cheerest the mariner in the night;
As he paces the deck alone,
Thinking of his dear friends at home.
Beautiful Moon, with thy silvery light,
Thou cheerest the weary traveller in the night;
For thou lightest up the wayside around
To him when he is homeward bound.

Beautiful Moon, with thy silvery light,
Thou cheerest the lovers in the night
As they walk through the shady groves alone,
Making love to each other before they go home.

Beautiful Moon, with thy silvery light,
Thou cheerest the poacher in the night;
For thou lettest him see to set his snares
To catch the rabbits and the hares.

I agree with zmjezhd. I was talking about grammar, not poetic techniques. I don't see any evidence that Shakespeare had a better grasp of grammar than any other native English writer.

I was wondering if maybe we could have a thread in 101 about language acquisition. I have a pile of textbooks on the subject within reach of where I am right now and could also dig out some of my assignments on the subject from my Cert Ed.

It's a topic on which there are many views though, as far as I recall, it's pretty well universally agreed that the way we acquire our first language is different to they way we learn subsequent ones. Hence the switch of verb in that last sentence.

I'd be happy to summarise some of the main theories.

Good idea, Bob. I'll start one.

quote:

I don't see any evidence that Shakespeare had a better grasp of grammar than any other native English writer.

Since many people were illiterate in Shakespeare's day, there must have been a continuum of written grammatical ability from zero to excellent. I don't assume you can say that all Shakespeare's contemporary writers would be at the same point on that continuum.

It would be possible to assess grammatical ability (and other linguistic abilities) by comparing various writers' work - but it's not a task that I feel competent to undertake.

quote:

Since many people were illiterate in Shakespeare's day, there must have been a continuum of written grammatical ability from zero to excellent.

What has illiteracy to do with grammar? As already mentioned, most English speakers have a native grasp of English grammar.

I think Richard means one's explicit knowledge of grammar, since earlier he was talking about writers who weren't formally taught grammar, but still might have learned it.

I'm still not convinced that there's a correlation between writing skill and explicit grammatical knowledge.

I am speaking of written English, not spoken English. As I think we agreed, a knowledge of grammar becomes more important when we learn to write.

Illiterate people cannot write and need to be taught how to read, write and construct sentences.

quote:

I'm still not convinced that there's a correlation between writing skill and explicit grammatical knowledge.

Writing is a skill and some have a greater talent and ability than others. But even the most gifted writers will need to acquire a knowledge of grammar - even though they might acquire it more easily than those writers who have struggled to learn the technique.

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English:
I am speaking of written English, not spoken English. As I think we agreed, a knowledge of grammar becomes more important when we learn to write.

I said it could be useful, but I don't think it's necessary.