The biggest flaw in the "X per day" rush method is that it fails to account for when you feel demotivated or unwell, when you oversleep, when you want to watch a TV show, when you need to go shopping etc.

In other words, it fails to account for real life. Yes, technically you could learn 200 words a day if you spent 20 hours at your desk concentrating fully and working to maximum efficiency. But be realistic: it ain't gonna happen. Especially not for 90 consecutive days.

And if you miss a day, you're gonna need to learn 400 words the next day. Your morale will drop and your work rate will suffer. Then the next day you might need to learn 450, then 500 and so on.

Basically you need to understand that you're not a machine, no matter how simple it might sound in theory.

I am rather sceptical about these stories of learning drastically different foreign languages in such a short time, especially when the feat is accomplished by a non-savant. Fifteen months for fluency in Japanese seems like a rodomontade lie to me. I've met many brilliant westerners in the top Japanese Ph.D. programs in the States, and though some of them speak Japanese better than even native scholars of the language it still took them over a decade of intensive studying and exposure. I may not be an expert on learning and memory, but from all the psychology courses and professors I've spoken to at my university, the general conclusion seems to be that such stories are usually extreme exaggerations at best.

I believe it's much like how therapists are taught to double the number of drugs their subjects admit to taking in order to estimate the truthful amount. Or how males always tend to fabricate 30+ lbs when asked how much they bench-press.

And then again, what is fluency defined as? Being able to read basic material and engage in simple discourse in a foreign language is certainly possible in that amount of time. But being able to conjure abstractions and intricate conceptions in the language, and to understand the most complex literature and nuances of the language? That is something that takes many years even for those born into the language. For a westerner with no previous experience to East Asian Languages to be at such an adept level in such a short amount of time seems like an obvious myth to me.

But who knows.

harhol Wrote:The biggest flaw in the "X per day" rush method is that it fails to account for when you feel demotivated or unwell, when you oversleep, when you want to watch a TV show, when you need to go shopping etc.

In other words, it fails to account for real life.

People taking intensive competitive Civil Service exams in Spain, study long tracts of legislation, etc, all day long for month as a time. These exams are highly competitive. If you have any resemblance of a "life" you won't make it. You can tell by how pale they are even in a hot Spanish summer. Students preparing for admission to top Indian I.T. schools go through the same punishing preparation. Not much room for demotivation or illness, though I'm sure they have their off days. But from what I know, it's ten hours a day, five days a week, for months, over two years some times.
People's willingness to give up real life now in exchange for financial security later is not unrealistic. Whether learning Japanese is as strong a motivation is a different matter.

Aijin Wrote:And then again, what is fluency defined as? Being able to read basic material and engage in simple discourse in a foreign language is certainly possible in that amount of time. But being able to conjure abstractions and intricate conceptions in the language, and to understand the most complex literature and nuances of the language? That is something that takes many years even for those born into the language. For a westerner with no previous experience to East Asian Languages to be at such an adept level in such a short amount of time seems like an obvious myth to me.

But who knows.

The most complex literature as a measure for fluency!? That's a freakishly high standard. Fluency has different levels and is mostly subjective. I can say I've reached fluency in Japanese if I wanted to. Basic-intermediate fluency that is .

I have no idea what JLPT is like or how difficult it is, but if it's a typical standardized language test, probably memory champions or savants can "pass" the exam after 3 months of cramming. I don't think passing a test that way has anything to do with fluency or proficiency, though.

About the 300-words-a-day thing, I think it is possible if you only need to memorize superficial knowledge. But I'd rather learn one word a day by reading and listening to it in 300 different contexts. I don't think I'm 300 times slower than those 300-words-a-day guys.

Aijin Wrote:I am rather sceptical about these stories of learning drastically different foreign languages in such a short time, especially when the feat is accomplished by a non-savant.

You speak Japanese natively, right? Take a look at this. I'm pretty sure you'll be impressed. If you close your eyes and listen to the audio, it's almost impossible to tell which guy is a foreigner lol

ghinzdra Wrote:There are two kind of people in this world my friend : those who think it's impossible until someone else do it and those who do it.

The OP has been researching study methods for some time now and has presumably read about the time frames for JLPT1 in this forum. He(?) can predict how people will respond to his question. So perhaps he should instead just go and do it, and then report back. People will applaud. And I will then know for sure that I am mediocre and lack mental strength, confidence and discipline.

I'm curious, Ghinzdra, at what time period would you become skeptical: 3 weeks? 2 weeks? 1 week? 1 day?

Also, you are an example of what hard, efficient studying can achieve: you passed JLPT2 after one year (on top of other studies). That's an accomplishment! But wait a minute. 17x90 days = 1530 hours. 1530 hours / 365 days = 4.2 hours/day. If you spent 4 hours a day, it looks like you should have passed JLPT1, not 2. Especially since you would have 9 extra months to internal the stuff and build listening skills.

I guess I have trouble relating to all this. Is there an entry in the Guiness Book of World Records that people are anxious to see their name in or something?

Is that the person who is supposed to have learned the language in fifteen months? To my ears I still hear a defined accent, then again I saw the speaker before hearing the voice, so I can't say I am free from bias.

Still, what proof is there that there was no previous language exposure or training? Because "fifteen months of fluency" seems too much like a marketing hook to me. I don't mean to sound suspicious or rude, but I am a very cynical girl

There is a listening comprehension segment to this test right? No amount of cramming can prepare one for this.

Actual fluency is not going to come in a few months. If one could somehow BS their way into passing JLPT 1, what good would it do? Are you going to show up at a job interview with it yet not being able to actually communicate in Japanese? May as well spend that time learning how to forge documents and create your own results.

Aijin Wrote:Is that the person who is supposed to have learned the language in fifteen months? What proof is there that there was no previous language exposure or training? Because "fifteen months of fluency" seems too much like a marketing hook to me.

Yeah the AJATT guy had already been studying Chinese for 5+ years beforehand, by his own admission. But I don't think 15 months is outrageous. You see footballers who learn languages to interview standard is six months or less.

magamo Wrote:I have no idea what JLPT is like or how difficult it is, but if it's a typical standardized language test, probably memory champions or savants can "pass" the exam after 3 months of cramming. I don't think passing a test that way has anything to do with fluency or proficiency, though.

Agreed. Not only that but according to the wikipedia it's completely multiple choice. Without studying at all it'd be possible to get 100% with random guesses. Unlikely yes, but not improbable.

Aijin Wrote:Is that the person who is supposed to have learned the language in fifteen months? To my ears I still hear a defined accent, then again I saw the speaker before hearing the voice, so I can't say I am free from bias.

Still, what proof is there that there was no previous language exposure or training? Because "fifteen months of fluency" seems too much like a marketing hook to me. I don't mean to sound suspicious or rude, but I am a very cynical girl

I'm not saying he must have learned Japanese in fifteen months. What I meant was that he IS fluent. Don't you think it'd be still amazing if he reached the fluency, say, in ten years?

As for his accent, I know he has. But then again, everyone including native speakers does. Japanese from Kyushu or Osaka have thicker "accents" than him in a sense.

I would be more interested to know what the minimum time would be to pass jlpt4 starting from scratch.

It's certainly impossible if you read forums half of that time .

HerrPetersen Wrote:I would be more interested to know what the minimum time would be to pass jlpt4 starting from scratch.

150 hours of course

HerrPetersen Wrote:I would be more interested to know what the minimum time would be to pass jlpt4 starting from scratch.

Most students can pass the JLPT4 after two semesters of college courses, which is usually around 140 hours of instruction. Maybe 200 hours of studying total for the average learner? I'm sure there are people who could do it very quickly if they did intensive studying, but my estimate is 7-10 months for someone just studying in their spare time and taking it at a slow and steady rate. I think that's the average for most Americans, but someone please correct me if I am wrong.

magamo Wrote:'m not saying he must have learned Japanese in fifteen months. What I meant was that he IS fluent. Don't you think it'd be still amazing if he reached the fluency, say, in ten years?

I am a bit weary of judging someone's fluency from a YouTube video, but I'd certainly say that the speaking is quite fine for someone with only a year or so of the language under the belt. If he truly learned Japanese that quickly I'd be quite interested in learning more about his method (I plan on teaching Japanese at the university level; I joined this forum so I could learn more about the best techniques for Americans to learn Japanese. So I am very open to learning about new methods). So if you have any more information I'd be grateful. Thank you.

magamo Wrote:

Aijin Wrote:Is that the person who is supposed to have learned the language in fifteen months? To my ears I still hear a defined accent, then again I saw the speaker before hearing the voice, so I can't say I am free from bias.

Still, what proof is there that there was no previous language exposure or training? Because "fifteen months of fluency" seems too much like a marketing hook to me. I don't mean to sound suspicious or rude, but I am a very cynical girl

I'm not saying he must have learned Japanese in fifteen months. What I meant was that he IS fluent. Don't you think it'd be still amazing if he reached the fluency, say, in ten years?

As for his accent, I know he has. But then again, everyone including native speakers does. Japanese from Kyushu or Osaka have thicker "accents" than him in a sense.

I very much doubt he was fluent in 15 months. He makes frequent fundamental mistakes and he has supposedly been fluent for 5 years now. His sentence structure is also pretty basic and he doesn't know (or doesn't want to know) when to use kanji properly.

When you look at his videos now, that isn't him 5 years ago when he finished his 15 month regimen, it's him now. His current level is the same level of just about any other serious learner after that amount of time (6 years+).

vosmiura Wrote:It's certainly impossible if you read forums half of that time .

Only half the time? I don't have that kind of willpower!

vosmiura Wrote:It's certainly impossible if you read forums half of that time .

Unless you post in Japanese on Japanese forums getting feedback from native speakers.

Joking aside, I totally agree with vosmiura. Usually on a forum, the more you post, the more knowledgeable you look. But on language forums, excessive post numbers could make you look less fluent.

travis Wrote:

HerrPetersen Wrote:I would be more interested to know what the minimum time would be to pass jlpt4 starting from scratch.

150 hours of course

They test in Honolulu? I'm there! I haven't had any real interest in taking the test but if it is in my backyard, why not? JLPT 2, here I come!

"The Japan Foundation estimates that approximately 150 hours of study are necessary to pass the Level 4 exam and 900 hours of study are required to pass the Level 1 test, although the figures may be significantly higher for native English speakers. In 2008, the Japanese government announced a plan under consideration to use the JLPT to screen applicants for long-term and permanent resident visas."

900 hours seems ridiculously low. I assume that is for Chinese learners only. The Japanese government might be making the test a consideration for visas?

US Test sites:
Arkansas
Atlanta
Chicago
Honolulu
Los Angeles
New York
San Francisco
Seattle
Washington DC

Arkansas??? What the??? I grew up in Arkansas. If they are giving the test in non-redneck English, I think I know why there is only a 33% pass rate for Level 1 outside of Japan.

900 hours? I am curious what they based that on (or what orifice they pulled that number out of ) 90 days at 10 hours a day, or 180 days at 5 hours a day... passing a university-level English proficiency exam with only 900 hours of study would be impossible for someone from Japan, so I am not sure why they'd think it'd work vice versa. That number wouldn't even be a good estimate for Chinese people, as they have about as much difficulty with our language as most westerners do in my experience.

Could they be referring to classroom hours? With the idea that a student would study a couple hours per classroom hour and 3 classes/week or something?

Thora Wrote:Could they be referring to classroom hours? With the idea that a student would study a couple hours per classroom hour and 3 classes/week or something?

Perhaps they are credit hours. One semester of Japanese gets 4 credit hours at most universities doesn't it? Counting summers, that's 900 hours/ 12 credit hours a year = (Is math on the test?)

Jarvik7 Wrote:I very much doubt he was fluent in 15 months. He makes frequent fundamental mistakes and he has supposedly been fluent for 5 years now. His sentence structure is also pretty basic and he doesn't know (or doesn't want to know) when to use kanji properly.

When you look at his videos now, that isn't him 5 years ago when he finished his 15 month regimen, it's him now. His current level is the same level of just about any other serious learner after that amount of time (6 years+).

I don't think he was that fluent 5 years ago either. But to me it seems a little nitpicking to point out grammatical errors and claim his sentence structure is basic when he sounds this natural. Still needs work, I know. But still...

Aijin Wrote:I am a bit weary of judging someone's fluency from a YouTube video, but I'd certainly say that the speaking is quite fine for someone with only a year or so of the language under the belt. If he truly learned Japanese that quickly I'd be quite interested in learning more about his method (I plan on teaching Japanese at the university level; I joined this forum so I could learn more about the best techniques for Americans to learn Japanese. So I am very open to learning about new methods). So if you have any more information I'd be grateful. Thank you.

True. A short video clip is never a good test to assess fluency. Anyway, here's his blog. I doubt his learning method would work well in a class though...

By the way, I'd love to know how this girl learned Japanese.

If it's class hours, maybe we should multiply it by 3 or 4.

magamo Wrote:I don't think he was that fluent 5 years ago either. But to me it seems a little nitpicking to point out grammatical errors and claim his sentence structure is basic when he sounds this natural. Still needs work, I know. But still...

I've met people fluent in English who make basic, seemingly basic, grammatically mistakes in speech, and yet, at the same time, had better knowledge of vocabulary, but less knowledge of comma use than I did. Guess they weren't fluent after all.

My guess is that some people take fluent to mean perfect.

@kazelee
Judging from some people I've seen on TV, many English native speakers aren't fluent
I would say he's fluent now despite his mistakes, but I seriously doubt his ability five years ago.

@magamo: The way he builds himself up & his superiority complex invites all the criticism. His current level is no better than anyone else who studies halfway seriously for 6 years.