native level

[mfgillia]

I spent 6 years trying to learn through casual conversation, result = 0. I only started making progress after I started learning to read properly and using flashcards for vocabulary study. I think I crammed the first 2200 characters and 5000 words in in less than one year, from then on it was slower, with lots of reviewing using flashcards. What's important -- I had the basic vocabulary down, and it's easy to build on that.

In truth I think everyone projects their own situation on to others. If they were unable to make progress following a certain approach then they tend to believe that doesn't work for anyone. I know it sounds trite but ... one generic approach is unlikely to work for everyone. People who learned from being immersed in their environments skipping reading tend to recommend that to everyone. While others advocate the opposite.

In my case, I believe I spent too much time focused on vocabulary and other solitary activities. It was only after I hired dedicated tutors to focus on basic conversation did I start showing real progress and able to have real conversations in Chinese. For me, I couldn't make the jump from flashcards, passive listening and limited conversation practice to being able to handle a real spontaneous conversation without lots of active listening and conversation practice.

[renzhe]

Of course you need conversation practice to improve conversation skills.

It's just that I feel that conversation is best practiced through conversation, and vocabulary is best learned by learning vocabulary and seeing it used in context -- which means reading and listening. These two are best practiced through reading and listening. In the end, every person has different strengths and a different approach to learning, and will need to tailor the learning programme to their own skills and requirements.

Getting a vocabulary of around 10,000 words through exposure and conversation takes native speakers 10-15 years. It will take a non-native learner probably longer. You can learn it in 2 years if you sit down and roll up your sleeves. Conversation is important, but it's not the answer for everything.

[jbradfor]

@mfgillia, I don't think your situation is a counter-argument to what renzhe is saying. When you started to focus on conversation, it was already after you had spent "too much time focused on vocabulary and other solitary activities". The true test is if you had focused only on conversation from the beginning.

[mfgillia]

@mfgillia, I don't think your situation is a counter-argument to what renzhe is saying. When you started to focus on conversation, it was already after you had spent "too much time focused on vocabulary and other solitary activities". The true test is if you had focused only on conversation from the beginning.

Sorry - I'm not following you. True test of what?

[jbradfor]

If I've following you correctly, you seem to be arguing that the best way to learn conversation is just via conversation -- that learning to read will not help.

As evidence, you said that you didn't really improve your conversation stills until you started to focus on conversation.

I was pointing out that this is not good evidence for your assertion, as you already had studied written.

[gato]

The same way they learned most of their vocabulary - by being immersed in the environment in different ways. In truth, I don't think there was really one uniformed approach. One guy would harass his assistant endlessly. Later they married so I guess it proved to be mutually beneficial in the long run.. .

One major benefit of being able to read is that as a literate person, your learning could be much more independent and inefficient. I doubt that the people you are referring have much more than an elementary school-level vocabulary with some technical jargons added. That might be enough for them to come across as fluent, though.

If you tried to learn 20,000 words from a girlfriend, you would most likely not have a girlfriend any more.

[mfgillia]

If I've following you correctly, you seem to be arguing that the best way to learn conversation is just via conversation -- that learning to read will not help.

Absolutely not. Most of us don't have the ability to learn that way. I stated a few times that I clearly can't. I was initially reacting to statements that said no one can reach a high level of fluency without reading. That simply isn't true. There are numerous examples to the contrary walking around here for various reasons. When it comes to learning languages we clearly are not all created equally nor have access to similar environments. People on both sides of this issue tend to believe what worked and didn't work for them is 100% applicable to others.

I had also thought that some here were advocating that beginners should absolutely first focus on reading as a method to fluency versus acknowledging other reasonable alternatives such as first focusing on conversational skills with reading and/or writing secondary.

However, the ratio recommended by Renzhe, about 3 to 1, is pretty much in line with my personal views and other modern approaches versus traditional programs such as those still taught at Shi Da in Taipei where full time students can spend more than half of their time for the first two years on reading, writing and memorizing characters.

Clearly there are exceptions but in general a Mormon that has just completed his first full year on a mission in Taiwan or China will have obtained a level of language proficiency far beyond the typical two year full time graduate from Shi Da. But again, I personally don't believe based on my background and abilities if someone dumped me off in a rural area somewhere and had me go door to door all day talking to locals armed with just a three month, pinyin based, cram course that I would of been able to flourish in such an environment. Others clearly do however...

[mfgillia]

If you tried to learn 20,000 words from a girlfriend, you would most likely not have a girlfriend any more.

20,000? That might actually be worth a divorce let alone a few girlfriends.

Unfortunately from my own personal experience, the average beginner isn't likely to get anywhere near 1000 words without seriously pissing off one's true love.

[renzhe]

I was initially reacting to statements that said no one can reach a high level of fluency without reading. That simply isn't true.

These discussion hinge on the exact definition of "high level of fluency". If you mean "well-educated native level", then yes, it definitely is true. Such a thing is impossible, if only for a fact that education in almost every culture is obtained mostly through reading.

There is no Chinese person who can speak Chinese at a well-educated native level without knowing how to read, so I posit that there is no foreigner who can do this either.

versus traditional programs such as those still taught at Shi Da in Taipei where full time students can spend more than half of their time for the first two years on reading, writing and memorizing characters.

If you are aiming for a high level, than I feel that this initial investment pays off in the long run.

About the number 20,000 words. A well-educated native speaker of Chinese will know over 40,000 words (source: De Francis, don't have the book handy), so 20,000 is a minimum I would expect from someone speaking at a "high level". Learning this many words through conversation, casual listening and pinyin notes is probably impossible in any reasonable amount of time, and at best woefully inefficient.

[mfgillia]

Well I think at this point we will just have to agree to disagree. There are clearly people walking around that for all practical purposes are fluent but didn't get there through reading. Likewise, 50 years ago a good number of native Chinese weren't literate neither.

Again, I don't think the foreigners or those natives would meet your definition of fluency (nor I suppose any one I've ever met) but their level would more than satisfy most others. Regardless, this has been an interesting discussion.

[renzhe]

I think that there are two different things being discussed here.

You can be completely fluent -- pronunciation, understanding, speaking naturally, etc., while still having a very basic command of the language. Every 6-year old is a good example of this. Also every 10-year old, every 12-year old, etc.

Nobody is saying that this is not possible without reading. If a six-year old can learn this without reading, so can you.

What is impossible is speaking a foreign language like a literature professor without reading. It won't happen, ever. High-level command of a language comes with lots of reading. In every language. Illiterate people have limited language abilities. In every language. 50 years ago, majority of Chinese people did not speak at a well-educated native level, because they were not well educated. That's the point.

There is a very easy test. Next time you meet a fluent speaker who cannot read, ask them to watch this tv show or this one. See how much they understand.

[imron]

There are clearly people walking around that for all practical purposes are fluent but didn't get there through reading

You are confusing fluent with well-educated. Not necessarily the same thing.

Edit: Renzhe beat me to it.

[mfgillia]

You are confusing fluent with well-educated. Not necessarily the same thing

Who? Not me. I clearly believe one can be fluent and not be college educated. Renzhe is the one advocating that it isn't possible and therefore that even native illiterate speakers will in fact not meet his definition of fluency. That is an extreme position likely not endorsed by most experts.

[renzhe]

Renzhe is the one advocating that it isn't possible and therefore that even native illiterate speakers will in fact not meet his definition of fluency.

I don't know how you came to this conclusion.

I am simply advocating the position that fluent native speakers who are illiterate do not speak at a well-educated native level. This is a very obvious thing, given the fact that they are not, in fact, well educated.

They are fluent, though.

[mfgillia]

Some one who is able to give lectures to graduate students and discuss complex business issues using the same vocabulary in the textbooks would for most practical purposes be comparable to a well educated native level.

There are clearly natives in every language who can't read for different reasons but still communicate on par with college educated peers. That is, one can't tell they are illiterate until after its pointed out. I am guessing you don't believe these people exist and I also suppose it doesn't really matter.

Most people that wish to obtain a very high degree of fluency are better off learning to read at some point. This I believe is your main point and we more or less agree.

[skylee]

Some one who is able to give lectures to graduate students and discuss complex business issues using the same vocabulary in the textbooks would for most practical purposes be comparable to a well educated native level.

Sorry I think I have lost track of the discussion. mfgillia, do you mean that you know someone who had spent only two years learning Chinese before he/she was able to give lectures in Chinese to graduate students and discuss complex business issues in Chinese using the same Chinese vocab in the Chinese textbooks used? This is impressive. When one has both very high language abilities together with a high level of education that qualifies him/her to teach graduate students that is quite superb. Who is/are he/she/they?

[gato]

There are clearly natives in every language who can't read for different reasons but still communicate on par with college educated peers. That is, one can't tell they are illiterate until after its pointed out. I am guessing you don't believe these people exist and I also suppose it doesn't really matter.

I guess you don't have any recordings of the people you are talking about. But do you have any examples from the English language world? The only examples I've heard are business people who can't read well but can run their business with coping mechanisms. But for most businesses, you don't need a college-level vocabulary to operate.

[imron]

Who? Not me.

Yes, you, because every time Renzhe says 'well-educated' you seem to assume he says 'fluent'. And, while someone who has reached the level of a 'well-educated' native will almost certainly be fluent, someone who is fluent will not necessarily have reached the level of a 'well-educated' native.

In previous posts, Renzhe has quite clearly defined these terms I think.

[jbradfor]

There is no Chinese person who can speak Chinese at a well-educated native level without knowing how to read, so I posit that there is no foreigner who can do this either.

I think you're probably correct. However, I'm not certain.

I'm pretty sure that one can not be at a well-educated native level without knowing how to read. There are just too many concepts -- not just vocabulary -- that one needs to learn.

However, I wonder if it is possible to become well-educated in ones native language, and then become (nearly) as well-educated in a foreign language by learning the new vocabulary. One would need to re-learn the concepts, just the vocabulary.

The part I'm less certain about is how one would become familiar with all the common literature in a foreign language without being able to read it. Books on tape? [Chinese, however, seems especially un-amiable to books-on-tape, especially classical Chinese.]

[Chief123]

Can a blind Chinese person speak and understand at a well educated, native level?