I, too, am quite late to this discussion but boy, is it fascinating!
I took many many German classes in high school and college but never lived there, had no friends who spoke German and didn't need it or use it in my work life. Not surprising that I have hardly retained it so many years later. Clearly one needs to spend time (and probably lots of it) in a country where the language is spoken -- I see no practical way to really learn a new language.
I have more recently taken a few private Italian lessons (and am looking for beginner classes to continue). Like others, I find that I translate the Italian word into English in my head, even concepts such as "near" or "far." Sometimes I even picture the written English word in my head. I figure that once I can speak or read without that cerebral conversion, I have begun to really learn the language. Clearly infants have no ability to picture either the written word or the concept, so their method of learning must be completely different. I've always figured it was good to have this "tool" but perhaps if I skipped the conversion in my head, other neurons would kick in and I could learn more quickly. ?? Hmmm.
I also find that in my work life (also true in college, lo those many years ago) that if I'm in a meeting, and I write notes, however brief and even if I never refer to them again, I am much more likely to remember what was discussed.
My husband is an ESL teacher and has taught US history to non-English speaking students in the public high school for many years. He strongly believes that learning is experiential and should be tied to everyday life, if possible. When he was teaching ESL to adults, he would take bowls of fruit into class, and they would name them, describe them and talk about them, and then cut them up and enjoy a fruit salad. He also took music (I remember Motown being a favorite) and used the lyrics as another teaching tool.
I consider myself to be a linear thinker and not a particularly astute visual person, but perhaps I've been wrong about myself all these years, as I have a very good sense of direction. I often can't remember the names of the streets, etc., but I can find my way fairly easily even in new cities (especially if they are laid out in a grid pattern).
I know there has been much study of the teaching of language in schools, particularly here in the US and in Quebec where (I think) they use the immersion system in the schools.
In fact, I would say I only became fluent perhaps after 3 years living there, when I finally stop translating everything I wanted to say from English and simply thought and communicated directly in Italian.
This is an interesting point. Is our consensus that immersion methods aim towards the goal of thinking in the new language and not having another language "in the way"?
PS Patrick, I think I'm going to have to use that one! Thanks.
This is an interesting point. Is our consensus that immersion methods aim towards the goal of thinking in the new language and not having another language "in the way"?
Yes, it is very important to start thinking in the second language since the very beginning. The immersion methods i.e. the methods that use since the beginning just the second laguage (and not the translations from the mother language to the second one) aim to let the student immediately think in the new language.
The "translation" method is very dangerous for the learning process, because it gives life to a very negative mechanism that it is very difficult later to remove ...
But the immersion method has only one "negative" aspect for students which is the increasing of the level of stress, especially for (adults) beginners.
In my teaching experience I met many students (adults) who were very afraid of not being able to undestand EVE-RY SIN-GLE WORD I said. But in reality they understood the whole meaning of a sentence or of and istruction, but for sure they didn't understand every word... So I had to spend a lot of time to convince them that it's important to understand THE GENERAL meaning of something at the beginning and then -step by step - they will be able to get every word. This is because the learning process takes time and it's a sort of "long travel" from A to B.
All this frustrated students (unfortunately for them) have been exposed to the "translation" methods which have given them a false confindence in the second language. False because it was supported by the traslations..that in REAL situation it does not exist...
I must say though, that I am glad not to have started with full immersion.
As an adult, and this is where there would be certain disagreement, I feel I needed a more rational way of approaching a new language, that is, a method in which the structure, syntax and grammatical aspects are clearly laid out for me to grasp.
Inevitably, this leads to translating words and phrases every time one needs to speak, and as Alessandra pointed out, this can become a handicap in progressing to the next level. However, I won't go as far as to say that it is dangerous for the learning process.
I think it was still a valid step as it provided me with the foundation for getting my grammar right in the first place. If I had begun and continued with immersion I would probably have been able to progress much faster with my communication but at the expense of grammar and structure.
In any case, I still think that "translation" occurs for every beginner even with immersion, except that we translate intentions and concepts rather than individual words, and in so doing give the impression progress is made faster.
Of course, each of us may be thinking of very different things altogether when we talk about "progress".
Originally posted by David: This is an interesting point. Is our consensus that immersion methods aim towards the goal of thinking in the new language and not having another language "in the way"?
I don't think it's the case. We all can't help but to rely on our first language to figure things out before communicating in an unfamiliar language, so immersion or not, that will happen until such time when we feel really confident with the latter.
That's why it took me years even though I was in "full immersion" for most of that time.
One very interesting question - how would each of you define "fluency" in a language?
first of all I would like to say that I respect your way of learning a language as it's YOUR way of learning.
But when you say "I think it was still a valid step as it provided me with the foundation for getting my grammar right in the first place. If I had begun and continued with immersion I would probably have been able to progress much faster with my communication but at the expense of grammar and structure."
I have a diffent opinion. Immersion is not a synomous of absence of grammar structures..In the immersion methods grammar and abilities to talk and listen have the same importance (while in the grammar method, grammar has 80% and the others 20%?) Thanks to the immersion a beginner is able to start saying easy senteces and start to interact since the first lesson and so taking confidence to speak.
For sure I have a totally different opinion from yours (it doesn't mean that I don't respect yours). It's evident that am a "fan" of natural approaches, i.e. I think that it's very important to learn a language making mistakes, mistakes that will produce the "correct" form at a certain point (and this point differs from person to person). Since the first lesson I encourage my student to talk, because I am sure (and from my experience) that this can help the process. Language is an ability, it's similar to drive so that as soon as you start trying as soon you can improve.
______________________________ In the immersion methods grammar and abilities to talk and listen have the same importance... ______________________________
Hi Alessandra, if that's what you mean by immersion then I would agree with you. The "immersion" I was thinking of was more the way little children learn - just picking up language by listening to others without going through the "formal" aspects.
Just to be clear, I am not a teacher of languages so I am not familiar with the didactic techniques currently in use. I only know the ones I experienced myself learning the language over 20 years ago.
Mine was a very unusual process - 1) Correspondence course in the beginning (mostly written text with the occasional listening to cassette tapes), then 2) Evening classes in full immersion after about a month (and goodness did I struggle with this one because I signed up for "intermediate" level!!), then 3) Another course of evening intermediate classes, but with English as a base language. Ironically, it was good for me because I had my immersion before this course, so was considerably ahead of the rest of the class. Then off to Italy for 4) Private 1-on-1 lessons for 2 weeks (was deperate - had to pass an entrance exam for university). And finally, 5) Further classes in full immersion within Italy.
It's a mish-mash of methods which might have been counter-productive at times, but I survived!
Oh, one thing. Having lived in the north for so long, I hardly ever use the passato remoto. I do, however, employ the subjunctive very often, including the imperfect subjunctive. Just goes to show how much your surrounding environment can affect you.
thank you for your reply. Now I can better understand your learning process. It's very interesting to me to see how people learn a second language and it's amazing to see that a language can be learnt in differen ways and with different steps and processes.
Me too, I was exposed to several methods so I understand what you mean. But in my experience the most important improvement happened when I start living for a while in UK and than when I start working with people from abroad. So the real big step happened when I had the chance to interact with native and non-native English speakers...
Alessandra
P.S. Concerning the use of passato remoto, it's very rare in modern standard Italian. It's used a bit more frequently in Sicilia, but it's a regional use of that tense. Congratulations for the use of subjunctive. Even if Italians use (in non-formal contexts) this almost rarely I think that it's a very important tense.
Sure! Subjunctive imbues elegance and how can I explain ... time "deepness" and time "perspective"!Saying the same sentence with imperfetto (as Italians are doing very frequently) it's not the same!!!
Well done!!
I will be very happy to meet you. If you have the chance to drop in Todi during your stay in Assisi I will be very happy to share a caffè with you talking in Italian! My office is close to the main gate of Todi, so it's very easy to find me and in that period I will be here.
In any case, I still think that "translation" occurs for every beginner even with immersion, except that we translate intentions and concepts rather than individual words, and in so doing give the impression progress is made faster.
An interesting thought, EC. Thanks. Alessandra, do you have a feeling about that theory? That, with immersion, the kind of brain work that occurs is a kind of translation, but on a different level - that of, as EC says, "intentions and concepts"?
quote:
One very interesting question - how would each of you define "fluency" in a language?
This is an issue that frequently comes up for me. I only consider myself fluent in English, although I have varying amounts of proficiency in Italian, French, Spanish and German that make it possible for me to get along pretty well in countries that speak those languages. But my friends often label me "fluent" in any of the above - which has caused me to feel embarrassed, particularly in front of people who, IMO, have true fluency in the language.
In French, the term I use (and that I think is generally used) for fluency is "parler couramment." On an intuitive level, I've always equated "couramment" with courir - to run, so that being "fluent" for me kind of meant that one could speak in a "running" way, without hesitation. Now that I look at the word in the dictionary, etymologically, it looks like it's more related to words like "courant" - ordinary, everyday, etc. So, in that case, the reason the French say "parler couramment" would be closer to them equating fluency with what I'd call getting around on a daily basis.
Hm.... all of this might have no real bearing on what fluency really is, but I thought it was interesting to have a look at it.
I also found this little discussion on another message board comparing "maitriser un langue" with "parler courrament" (sic) - which I think confuses the issue even more. When I think about "mastering" a language (which would be the English cognate for maitriser, no?), the connotation is that one is not only fluent in a conversational sense, but also on a scholarly, academic level. Or maybe I'm wrong and the shade of meaning in French of maitriser isn't as comprehensive as it is in English?
At any rate, I think this is worth discussing. Anyone else regarding the question: what constitutes fluency?
David I think you'll find that the French "courant", Italian "corrente" and English "current", all have several meanings, two being "of the present" and "flowing/fluent". The equivalent Italian phrase is "parlare correntemente" -speak fluently.
I had always thought of "courrament" to mean "flowingly", as in a smooth syntax, which flows.
Yes, I've had that notion as well - just neglected to include it.
Hm... AinP, I checked the spelling of couramment in a couple of sources - my first inclination was, as yours, to spell it "courrament," but then my big Robert dictionary said "couramment."
Thanks, Vasco. That's a good way to think of it - how, in English, the word has two basic meanings as well.
Originally posted by David: [QUOTE]In any case, I still think that "translation" occurs for every beginner even with immersion, except that we translate intentions and concepts rather than individual words, and in so doing give the impression progress is made faster.
An interesting thought, EC. Thanks. Alessandra, do you have a feeling about that theory? That, with immersion, the kind of brain work that occurs is a kind of translation, but on a different level - that of, as EC says, "intentions and concepts"?
quote:
One very interesting question - how would each of you define "fluency" in a language?
Ciao David and everybody,
as far as I know, supported by my experience, adult beginner learners often try to translate single words/single sentence. This is because adults always want to have the situation under their control, as I wrote in one of my previous posts.
On the other end, the fact to translate intentions and concept I think it's a very good thing, because it's a natural process that, for some theories, the brain acts also when we speak in our mother language. Fore sure, when we do it in our mother language, the process is so fast that it's hard to be aware of it.
Giving that I was/am a teacher I will provide an example and this example will be funny so that you will remember
Ex. When I want to express my love for my husband in Italian I say " Ti amo", so I translate the idea of love in this words. Now we can discuss on the fact if this words "Ti amo" are able to translate the huge concept of love...but this is a phylosophical discussion....
However, the immersion methods tends to this goal, i.e. to let people "translate" concepts and intentions (not single words or single sentences) into the target language.
This ideas are important also for the second question about the definition of fluency.
At university when I followed my course on linguistics and learning I was taught that a person can be considered fluent when he/she is able to express his/her personality at the same level of abilities that he/she has when he/she talks in his/her mother language.
As much as we are "authentic" (i.e. we are able to express ourselves, our personality) when when speak in a second language as much we speak well or we are fluent.
At university when I followed my course on linguistics and learning I was taught that a person can be considered fluent when he/she is able to express his/her personality at the same level of abilities that he/she has when he/she talks in his/her mother language.
As much as we are "authentic" (i.e. we are able to express ourselves, our personality) when speak in a second language as much we speak well or we are fluent.
I like that. Thanks. It's a little general, but I like the idea.
I might not go as far as to say that the second or third language needs to be as high a level as the first, but I would certainly agree with the idea of being able to express one's personality in one's speech, and not just simply communicate explicit ideas.
It's that final step of subtlety I guess, going beyond the overt meaning of the sentences and into the realm "in-between the lines" - wit, irony, sarcasm, diplomacy, etc.
One example leaps to mind. I once worked for an ultra famous actor from Hong Kong, well, THE most famous action actor in the world. He makes all kinds of grammatical and vocab mistakes in English, - he is SO going to kill me, - yet his very own English is extremely expressive. In fact in his defective me-tarzan-you-jane kind of syntax, he is so much more expressive than so many native speakers of English, including well educated ones. I guess as an actor and a speaker, he has this thirst to communicate.
David, yes I would call his English imperfect but fluent. In fact as his interpretor, I always encouraged him to do his own interviews in English as much as possible without an interpretor (lazy me ), because his expressive ways should not be diluted by my interpreting.
Originally posted by Americana in Parigi: David, yes I would call his English imperfect but fluent. In fact as his interpretor, I always encouraged him to do his own interviews in English as much as possible without an interpretor (lazy me ), because his expressive ways should not be diluted by my interpreting.
This is a very interesting point AinP..For sure people can be expressive in a second language even if their grammar is full of mistakes..
But the point is if this person, this actor, is "authentic" in comparison to the perception that other people have when he speaks in his mother language. I mean the concept of fluency I expressed before is connected to this concept of "being authentic". I don't think that if this person that committed many mistakes in his second language could be felt by an English audience in the same (authentic) way he is perceived by an audience that have his mother tongue.. For sure he is perceived as a very funny person (and probably he is) but maybe people can think: why this person, so famous, so important haven't ever done a language class! For sure he will not be perceived as an non-educated person just because he is famous and everybody knows who he is. So HE can do it.
But for an "unknown" person, it's different.
I don't know if I am able to express and explain this concept of "being authentic", because it's quite technical and I don't want to be too specific (plus I'm trying to explain it in my second language )
Even if I always put my accent on "speaking at every cost", I don't think that a serious lack of grammar can allow a person to be perceived as "authentic"
I think that all of you know "MY FAIR LADY" : we are as we speak.
For sure he is perceived as a very funny person (and probably he is) but maybe people can think: why this person, so famous, so important haven't ever done a language class!
The actor does not make the kind of grammatical or vocab mistakes that are too intrusive or distracting. He has things to say, and he gets them across effectively. Therefore I don't think listeners wonder about his (lack of) language training.
quote:
For sure he will not be perceived as an non-educated person just because he is famous and everybody knows who he is. So HE can do it.
I beg to differ. He can do it because he is indeed a born communicator. I have met other "born communicators" who are not famous, who have the same knack of getting their meaning across.
quote:
I don't think that a serious lack of grammar can allow a person to be perceived as "authentic"
I totally agree here. or I would put it this way, a serious lack of grammar would impede a person's authencity from coming across. And any speech with a serious lack of grammar is not what I would consider fluent. As in the actor's case, he has a noticeable but not "serious" lack of grammar, at least not to a distracting degree.
Now that I've found another beginner class (and I'm chagrined to say, starting back at the very beginning!), I wonder how best to approach it. As someone who translates the Italian in my head, how can I let go of that and try not to let my "brain" get in the way of the learning?
I am able to listen to the teacher and not translate from her each and every word, but focus on the gist of what she's saying, but how do I apply that to when I need to respond? They seem like two different actions -- one to listen and understand -- and the other, to focus on each word that I say.
Would it be helpful to also listen to Italian in the car or on an ipod in addition to the once a week class? Seems like more exposure would be good but the CDs can be dull.
Would it be helpful to also listen to Italian in the car or on an ipod in addition to the once a week class? Seems like more exposure would be good but the CDs can be dull.
DD
Ciao DD, for sure more exposure to Italian would be in general very good. But be careful on the level of listening you will be exposed.
In order that we can improve in the listening and comprehension ability the input has to be: input+1. In simple words, the level of listening has to be only 1 step (+1)ahead, I mean 1 step more difficult than your level, otherwise it's not productive, because it is too much complicated.
As a linguist said "A foreign language is not a disease" like the flu, virus A1N1!
for sure more exposure to Italian would be in general very good. But be careful on the level of listening you will be exposed.
The two systems that Roz recommends - Michael Thomas and Pimsleur - would be very good for you, DD. You could listen to particularly the early lessons. I'm a big proponent of: if you get it in your ear, it will come more quickly to your mouth and your mind. IMO, a once-a-week class is very minimal exposure. The more exposure, the faster you learn. Cheers,
You might try some of the free Italian podcasts. One that I have enjoyed is learnitalianpod.com.
- Roz
Roz,
Thanks for mentioning LearnItalianPod I had forgotten about that site. It is super for me when I'm on the treadmill. Hopefully, lose some weight & refresh Italian at the same time.
I have recently returned from 6 months in our NC home, and my Italian has really suffered. I think this site is a great learning tool and/or a refresher.
Edited to fix link.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: David,
Thanks for the suggestions on the CDs! I will take your advice to heart, Alessandra and try for basic level exposure with a little bit to stretch myself.
Originally posted by DDtraveler: Thanks for the suggestions on the CDs! I will take your advice to heart, Alessandra and try for basic level exposure with a little bit to stretch myself.
DD
Benissimo DD!! Have a nice "listening" !Let me know about you progress!!
When I think about "mastering" a language (which would be the English cognate for maitriser, no?), the connotation is that one is not only fluent in a conversational sense, but also on a scholarly, academic level. Or maybe I'm wrong and the shade of meaning in French of maitriser isn't as comprehensive as it is in English?
and this example will be funny so that you will remember 
