"A lot of people seem to think that being in a foreign country means that you automatically learn the country's language well. Perhaps the most prominent people who believe in this "common-sense truth" are European parents who pay a lot of money to send their children to language schools in England, expecting that they will come back speaking fluent English.

Fact:
Most immigrants in America don't speak English very well, even after living there for 20 years. Many of them have been making the same basic mistakes for decades — for example, saying things like "He make tea?" instead of "Did he make tea?" or "I help you" instead of "I will help you". They typically speak with strong accents, which enables others to instantly classify them as Asians, Latinos, Russians, etc.

The reason immigrants don't do anything about their grammar and pronunciation is that there is little pressure to do so. Other people can understand them despite their mistakes (sometimes with some effort), and are normally too polite to correct them.

The example of immigrants in America reveals a truth that many language learners find quite shocking: that living in a foreign country simply does not make you speak the country's language well. It does not force you to learn good grammar, good pronunciation, or a large vocabulary, because you can do quite well without those things in everyday life. For example, you can skip all your articles when speaking English ("Give me apple", "Watch is not good") and still be able to shop in America or Britain without much trouble.

Being in a foreign country only forces you to learn what is necessary to survive — the ability to understand everyday language and just enough speaking skills to order pizza and communicate with your co-workers or co-students. The rest is up to you, your motivation and ability to learn — which means that you're not much better off than someone who's learning the language in his own country.

In addition, being in a foreign country often forces you to say incorrect sentences, because it forces you to speak, even if you make a lot of mistakes. When you're in a foreign country, you cannot decide that you will temporarily stop talking to people and focus on writing practice (which would enable you to learn correct grammar better than speaking, because you could take as much time as you needed to look up correct phrases on the Web or in dictionaries). You have to speak, because your life depends on it.

By making mistakes, you reinforce your bad habits, and after a couple of years of saying things like "He make tea?", it's really hard to start speaking correctly. It is important to remember that native speakers will not correct your mistakes. Instead, they will try to be nice and try to understand you, no matter how bad your grammar is.
Conclusions

While going to another country may seem like a sure-fire way to master a foreign language, it is not so. Without sufficient motivation, you will learn very little and are likely to end up speaking in an understandable way, but with lots of mistakes. On the other hand, if you have the motivation, you might as well simulate a foreign-language environment in your own home with foreign-language TV and the Internet. Such an environment will be safer, because it will not force you to speak and reinforce your mistakes. Instead, you can learn at your own pace and concentrate on pronunciation, input and writing before you start speaking.

The advantages of going abroad are:

* easy access to native speakers that you can converse with (though you can also find natives in your own country, or you can just talk with someone who's learning the same language)
* the opportunity to perfect your listening skills (trying to understand English-language TV and movies is not quite the same as trying to understand the speech of a teenaged supermarket clerk in Frederick, Maryland)
* the opportunity to learn useful everyday words which are not frequently heard on TV or in movies, e.g. Kleenex, ATM, carpool, parking space, detergent, deli, cereal.

All things considered, learning in your own country will be a safer (and cheaper) option than going abroad, assuming you can motivate yourself and can find opportunities to speak in the language you're learning. After you've learned to speak the language fluently, you can go abroad to polish your listening skills and make your vocabulary a bit more native-like."

http://www.antimoon.com/other/myths-country.htm

A second opinion is necessary.

http://french.about.com/library/weekly/aa072701d.htm

Why for you make such big post?

This antimoon bit is so full of holes.

Why bring up the example of immigrants in America who can't speak proper English and use that as the only possible result of living in a foreign country?

As Jarvik and I both have pointed out before, a motivated student studying in their own country will be outpaced by a motivated student studying in the country of their target language every time.

'Nuff said.

Fact: If you don't want to learn, you won't learn anywhere and any how.
Fact: If you want to learn a language, you will have better and easier ways of doing it in a country where that language is spoken.

I'd also like to point out to anyone wondering: antimoon =/= researchers. It's their opinions against other peoples opinions. Citing them when trying to make a point = generally a bad idea.

EnjukuBlack Wrote:This antimoon bit is so full of holes.

Why bring up the example of immigrants in America who can't speak proper English and use that as the only possible result of living in a foreign country?

As Jarvik and I both have pointed out before, a motivated student studying in their own country will be outpaced by a motivated student studying in the country of their target language every time.

'Nuff said.

Outpaced to what? Speaking fluently (in its loosest sense)? Yes. Speaking correctly? Not necessarily. What about listening, reading and writing? Will someone in the target country necessarily outpace the other student in his home country?

What about all the neural tissue being constructed when the student is groping to be understood?

EnjukuBlack Wrote:This antimoon bit is so full of holes.

Why bring up the example of immigrants in America who can't speak proper English and use that as the only possible result of living in a foreign country?

Please point me to where they say it's the only possible result.

Please reread this conclusion

Quote:While going to another country may seem like a sure-fire way to master a foreign language, it is not so. Without sufficient motivation, you will learn very little and are likely to end up speaking in an understandable way, but with lots of mistakes. On the other hand, if you have the motivation, you might as well simulate a foreign-language environment in your own home with foreign-language TV and the Internet. Such an environment will be safer, because it will not force you to speak and reinforce your mistakes. Instead, you can learn at your own pace and concentrate on pronunciation, input and writing before you start speaking.

The advantages of going abroad are:

* easy access to native speakers that you can converse with (though you can also find natives in your own country, or you can just talk with someone who's learning the same language)
* the opportunity to perfect your listening skills (trying to understand English-language TV and movies is not quite the same as trying to understand the speech of a teenaged supermarket clerk in Frederick, Maryland)
* the opportunity to learn useful everyday words which are not frequently heard on TV or in movies, e.g. Kleenex, ATM, carpool, parking space, detergent, deli, cereal.

All things considered, learning in your own country will be a safer (and cheaper) option than going abroad, assuming you can motivate yourself and can find opportunities to speak in the language you're learning. After you've learned to speak the language fluently, you can go abroad to polish your listening skills and make your vocabulary a bit more native-like.

Seems more like general conclusions rather than definitive arguments. Not everything has to be written by a person with 16 degrees to have truth to it. 3% true = true.

*Being in a foreign country only forces you to learn what is necessary to survive — the ability to understand everyday language and just enough speaking skills to order pizza and communicate with your co-workers or co-students. The rest is up to you, your motivation and ability to learn — which means that you're not much better off than someone who's learning the language in his own country.* --Antimoon

*Note that simply living in France won't mean that you will magically become fluent. You have to use the language: go shopping, take taxis, negotiate... in other words, talk to people! Only by speaking French can you improve your language ability, no matter where you live and study. * -- some chick who studied french and wrote a book (see link)

*What's more, few linguists I'm told, are actually multilingual and speak a foreign language. They merely study facts about languages instead. Yet, there are some insights to be gained in languages which I think can only come from attempting to learn another language. * --some guy on antimoon forum (i googles it )


When it comes down to it, each method has it's own advantages. They are just in support of the more prudent routes, based on their personal experiences.

As a mexican immigrant in America right now, I have to say there is a huge different between people who go to a country for work(or whatever their goal may be) and learning or not learning language, and us. Language students, who go to a country to study the language. Its a pretty basic difference I believe.

kazelee Wrote:*What's more, few linguists I'm told, are actually multilingual and speak a foreign language. They merely study facts about languages instead. Yet, there are some insights to be gained in languages which I think can only come from attempting to learn another language. * --some guy on antimoon forum (i googles it )

From what I heard from a Linguistics professor I've had, it used to be that a Linguist would learn languages, in the US often Native American Languages. The cunning Linguist would then proceed to identify, to clarify and classify, pretty much whatever he or she could.

Then along comes Noam Chomsky, and suddenly new Linguists don't learn languages anymore. Oh, sure, doubtless some of them do, but all of a sudden it isn't even close to being a Linguist, whereas before it was indispensable.

This is all second-hand from when the professor was waxing historical, so take with your usual dose of salt.

~J

woodwojr Wrote:From what I heard from a Linguistics professor I've had, it used to be that a Linguist would learn languages, in the US often Native American Languages. The cunning Linguist would then proceed to identify, to clarify and classify, pretty much whatever he or she could.

~J

This is the first time I have ever heard cunning Linguist used in a serious discussion. I actually had no idea this was a real word other than a play off cunnilingus! :O
Sorry, not trying to be crude.

bodhisamaya Wrote:

woodwojr Wrote:From what I heard from a Linguistics professor I've had, it used to be that a Linguist would learn languages, in the US often Native American Languages. The cunning Linguist would then proceed to identify, to clarify and classify, pretty much whatever he or she could.

~J

This is the first time I have ever heard cunning Linguist used in a serious discussion. I actually had no idea this was a real word other than a play off cunnilingus! :O
Sorry, not trying to be crude.

I think he worked it in on purpose. BTW, there's a 'cunning linguist' blog that's pretty decent. (And yes, it's about language.)

I think Enjuku meant to say unmotivated in the second part

wccrawford Wrote:

bodhisamaya Wrote:This is the first time I have ever heard cunning Linguist used in a serious discussion. I actually had no idea this was a real word other than a play off cunnilingus! :O
Sorry, not trying to be crude.

I think he worked it in on purpose.

I was originally using some different trait (I don't remember what, probably "hard-working" or something like that), but it sounded awkward, and when I went back to reconsider my word choice it became obvious what I should pick.

~J

musigny Wrote:"
Fact:
Most immigrants in America don't speak English very well, even after living there for 20 years. Many of them have been making the same basic mistakes for decades — for example, saying things like "He make tea?" instead of "Did he make tea?" or "I help you" instead of "I will help you". They typically speak with strong accents, which enables others to instantly classify them as Asians, Latinos, Russians, etc.

I've got to say honestly, this is complete bollocks. Most immigrants in America speak excellent English. However they probably aren't as easy for you to spot as those examples who have an accent or make grammatical mistakes. Secondly haven't an accent doesn't mean you can't speak English. So there is no way this is a "fact", the only fact is that you are somewhere between xenophobic and racist.

anon6969 Wrote:So there is no way this is a "fact", the only fact is that you are somewhere between xenophobic and racist.

Unless you're joking in this statement, I believe this is out of the normal bounds of this site's forums(name calling). Take care.

theasianpleaser Wrote:

anon6969 Wrote:So there is no way this is a "fact", the only fact is that you are somewhere between xenophobic and racist.

Unless you're joking in this statement, I believe this is out of the normal bounds of this site's forums(name calling). Take care.

And claiming most immigrants can't speak proper English isn't in the same category? Especially since it's not even true?

kazelee Wrote:

EnjukuBlack Wrote:This antimoon bit is so full of holes.

Why bring up the example of immigrants in America who can't speak proper English and use that as the only possible result of living in a foreign country?

Please point me to where they say it's the only possible result.

"Fact:
Most immigrants in America don't speak English very well, even after living there for 20 years. Many of them have been making the same basic mistakes for decades — for example, saying things like "He make tea?" instead of "Did he make tea?" or "I help you" instead of "I will help you". They typically speak with strong accents, which enables others to instantly classify them as Asians, Latinos, Russians, etc.

The reason immigrants don't do anything about their grammar and pronunciation is that there is little pressure to do so. Other people can understand them despite their mistakes (sometimes with some effort), and are normally too polite to correct them."

Immigrants with poor English ability who lack motivation to change their language habits - this is the only example with which antimoon provides us.

What he doesn't address is the possibility of a highly motivated student living abroad.

I mean, his argument amounts to: "There are immigrants in America with poor English, ergo you won't learn English just by moving there."

To assume that just by living in a foreign country suddenly saps you of all motivation to learn that country's language is a very strange assumption.

I studied Japanese quite diligently back in the States before moving here. Now that I'm here in Japan, my study habits haven't just disappeared. I continue to study every day. I simply have the added bonus of being completely surrounded by spoken and written Japanese every day, both inside and outside my home.

Why doesn't antimoon provide us with that type of example, as well? Why only talk about the unmotivated immigrant?

Could it be that inclusion of such an example would weaken his argument?

musigny Wrote:Outpaced to what? Speaking fluently (in its loosest sense)? Yes. Speaking correctly? Not necessarily. What about listening, reading and writing? Will someone in the target country necessarily outpace the other student in his home country?

If they are both equally motivated and using the same study materials and study habits, then yes, the student in the target country will learn faster.

musigny Wrote:What about all the neural tissue being constructed when the student is groping to be understood?

You seem to be suggesting that mistakes will be permanently burned into the brain.

I know that I have had bad habits in Japanese, but the moment that I realize I'm making a mistake is embarrassing enough for me to be highly conscious of it and avoid repeating it.

I have yet to encounter a bad habit I have been unable to correct.

And for Antimoon to say that "native speakers will not correct your mistakes" is flat-out wrong. I have been corrected time and again by native speakers.

EnjukuBlack Wrote:I mean, his argument amounts to: "There are immigrants in America with poor English, ergo you won't learn English just by moving there."

Right. It's a totally logically correct argument. If you learned English just by living here, everyone here would have awesome English; some long-term residents don't have awesome English, consequently you don't learn English just by moving here.

Quote:To assume that just by living in a foreign country suddenly saps you of all motivation to learn that country's language is a very strange assumption.

It is a very strange assumption. Almost as strange as the fact that you bring this up, given that it isn't related to the argument, which you correctly summarized in your previous paragraph.

Quote:Why doesn't antimoon provide us with that type of example, as well? Why only talk about the unmotivated immigrant?

Could it be that inclusion of such an example would weaken his argument?

No, because it's irrelevant to his argument. Because a person can be an unmotivated immigrant, immigration is not predictive of future fluency.

~J

Unmotivated immigrants generally immigrate for family, work, or freedom (from war, oppression, persecution, whatever) and not because they are in love with the language or culture. It is stupid to compare that with students.

Quote:All things considered, learning in your own country will be a safer (and cheaper) option than going abroad, assuming you can motivate yourself and can find opportunities to speak in the language you're learning.

WUT? Few countries in the world are safer than Japan. Japan is cheaper to live in than most major cities in North America (as long as you can settle with a having a small apartment or roommates. Also note that Tokyo is not the only city in Japan, other places are much cheaper.) Being able to work while you're over there is the only concern, since the alternative is to just live on savings (but if you're doing that as a student at home anyways then np).

Not at all. If being in the country meant you automatically learned the language, those people too would be fluent.

Now, if your argument is that any nonzero amount of motivation suffices, that's a (slightly) weaker claim that would require a new exemplar as a counterexample. I'm too tired to find such an exemplar right now, but I suspect they aren't rare.

~J

Jarvik7 Wrote:Unmotivated immigrants generally immigrate for family, work, or freedom (from war, oppression, persecution, whatever) and not because they are in love with the language or culture. It is stupid to compare that with students.

See, thank you. It IS a lousy comparison.


But I understand why its being made. People here, including me, are very determined in their language studies. I admire it in fact, and because of that I think we strive to always break these sayings about languages and 'assumptions'. We want to prove that damnit we can, by ourselves and with our personal tools, achieve something like this.

I mean, the thread title wasn't even proven to be false by any of the posts, even the first. You can immerse yourself all you want at home, but if you did all this immersion AND lived in Japan would it not be better? We cannot deny its a plus no matter what, so if we feel as if we can change any variable(how much one studies, how immersed one is, how much one uses the language) then we can say that someone can do all of those things WHILE being in Japan as well.

Immersion at home(in the US for most users here): Awesome

Immersion in Japan: Better

It really depends on the situation you are in when living in the foreign country. If you go to japan and teach english and are expected to speak english all day then of course you aren't gonna see much benefit in your japanese. But if you actually move to japan and work in a japanese company with japanese employees who have meetings in japanese and do business in yes....japanese, and write emails in ...japanese. You would have to be an idiot to think that going to a foreign country "doesn't" help in acquiring the language faster. In japan you can't run away from japanese...sometimes i am fed up and want to speak english..but guess what I have to work something out with some co-workers/landlord/friends. Yes you can say.."ooo but now your are forcing output too much and u will sound like a mistake ridden retard when you speak" but, do you know how much passive input you get when you move to japan? ALOT. Just sitting at my desk writing this damn post i have about 6 japanese people yapping about something or another (in correct grammatical japanese). If you go shopping in japan you will see that most stores (if not all) got some dood yelling out the sales in the store for the day, and if he isn't there...they will record him and use a stereo to do it. So you can sit here and say something how much better it is to have a "self made immersion"...but guess what ..as soon as you set foot outside of your house because you ran out of milk/toilet paper/ect. your immersion is no longer whole. In japan...my milk and toilet paper covers are all in japanese. Ever try and figure which is the low fat milk and which is the whole milk w/o heisig...have fun. sorry for the rant.

Related to what Saizen said:

I found if I really mess up my Japanese, as in I have no idea how to say what I want to say correctly, the Japanese person will look at me, think, then say what I wanted to say.

If time permits(not to interrupt the flow of the conversation), I write down what they said and throw it into Anki later.

That's one method I use to offset the "don't speak too soon" idea.

I'm curious how much musigny is speaking from personal experience and how much is wild speculation.

Speaking from my own personal experience, my Japanese abilities in all four facets skyrocketed after moving here. Having storefronts, product labels, and daily conversations all in Japanese certainly forced me to try to understand it. Of course it took a lot of work and studying. One would have to be a fool to think one can learn a language with no effort at all. But the vocabulary I accumulated in my reading was reinforced by my daily conversations and vice versa.

As several people have already pointed out, all musigny has managed to demonstrate with his US immigrant example is that people with no motivation to learn will not learn much. I don't think we needed anyone to tell us that.

musigny Wrote:Outpaced to what? Speaking fluently (in its loosest sense)? Yes. Speaking correctly? Not necessarily. What about listening, reading and writing? Will someone in the target country necessarily outpace the other student in his home country?

Given the same amount of effort, the likelihood is that the person in a country where the language is natively spoken will progress faster in all areas.

musigny Wrote:What about all the neural tissue being constructed when the student is groping to be understood?

Is this anything like the neural tissue being constructed when a child is groping to be understood in their first language? Despite the initial groping, a lot of children grow up to speak pretty well, from what I've seen.

woodwojr Wrote:

EnjukuBlack Wrote:I mean, his argument amounts to: "There are immigrants in America with poor English, ergo you won't learn English just by moving there."

Right. It's a totally logically correct argument. If you learned English just by living here, everyone here would have awesome English; some long-term residents don't have awesome English, consequently you don't learn English just by moving here.

I apologize, I didn't word that well enough to get my point across.

The 'you' I used in that sentence was (in my head, at least) any of the people here at this site, who, for the most part, strike me as motivated students of Japanese. I completely agree that simply moving to a country does nothing for your language acquisition. I have personally met people who have been here as long as 20 years and still can't speak beyond basic, accented phrases.

But my point was (at least supposed to be) that a motivated student in-country is very different from the unmotivated immigrants referenced in Antimoon's argument. He doesn't even discuss a 'motivated, in-country student' scenario.

woodwojr Wrote:

Quote:To assume that just by living in a foreign country suddenly saps you of all motivation to learn that country's language is a very strange assumption.

It is a very strange assumption. Almost as strange as the fact that you bring this up, given that it isn't related to the argument, which you correctly summarized in your previous paragraph.

Once again, the only example Antimoon provides us with is an unmotivated immigrant. Can he not picture a situation where an immigrant might be motivated? Why does he leave this out of the discussion? Is it because there is no alternative to being an unmotivated immigrant?

woodwojr Wrote:Because a person can be an unmotivated immigrant, immigration is not predictive of future fluency.

~J

Likewise, the fact that immigrant X is unmotivated is not predictive of the future fluency of a motivated student.