By All of you English teachers out there working in Korea may find this news of interest:
The average TOEFL score of Koreans is 81 points, close to the global average of 80.3. The privately administered English proficiency test is still widely used to evaluate applicants for American universities. It has four parts worth 30 points each.
Koreans who took the Internet-based test last year scored 21 points on average for reading, 20 for listening, 20 for speaking and 21 for writing, which is more or less the global average.
Korea ranked seventh in Asia with 81 points after Singapore (98), the Philippines (88), Pakistan (88), Malaysia (88), Bangladesh (83) and Bhutan (82). It had the same average score as Hong Kong and did better than North Korea (78), Indonesia (78), China (77) and Japan (70).
But Educational Testing Service, the company that administers the test, warns against generalizing from the average national scores as they can be deceptive. [Chosun Ilbo]
11:59 am on December 3rd, 2011 1
Most native english teachers(assistants at public schools or majority who are paid less than public schools when actual benifits are considered) as you might think don’t have anything to do with TOEFL, but nice try. How many military personnel teach TOEFL? Who is that dweeb blogger that says english teachers are paid too much?
2:30 pm on December 3rd, 2011 2
“But Educational Testing Service, the company that administers the test, warns against generalizing from the average national scores as they can be deceptive.”
WTF is wrong with the world… and most of the people in it?
A “score” is no longer a solid measurement of achievement?
Is it now just a contrived number for which its relative worth can be morphed into an increase or decrease depending on the necessity of the situation?
Does a meaningful “score” demonstrating an actual rank now infringe upon the concept that everyone is special and everyone is equal and everything is right regardless of what they do and how they do it?
Why is this number even published if it is so meaningless?
Since the “score” is ambiguous in its function to grade ability, perhaps Educational Testing Service has another number of some sort that is not deceptive… and can more accurately communicate a relative ranking in national English ability.
Otherwise, what is their function again… if it is not to give a test and calculate a “score”?
The world has become filled with this cognitive pollution… where true success is ignored in consideration of the losers’ tender feelings… and failure is rationalized as a blameless misunderstanding, or worse, reinterpreted as an equal-but-different type of success.
And worst of all, there are so many who will angrily defend this line of reasoning… although, they are generally the losers who stand to benefit from it… with the addition of a few deviously clever and successful people who make a big show of supporting it to accomplish their own goals.
The global pendulum has swung way too far toward stupid.
5:23 pm on December 3rd, 2011 3
Indeed the pendulum has swung too far toward stupid.
“But Educational Testing Service, the company that administers the test, warns against generalizing from the average national scores as they can be deceptive.”
Of course the “average national scores” are deceptive. My bet is that very few Koreans take the IELTS, however, I’m sure that many people in Hong Kong do. Similarly, it’s very likely that students from Japan (a rich country) would take the test multiple times to get the highest score possible, while a student from a poorer country like Pakistan would likely do that. I also wonder how each respective country uses TOEFL tests for job applications and other intra-national uses even though the test was designed for foreign students studying at US universities. Essentially, TOEFL is saying that it’s kinda dumb to compare apples to oranges (even if they do release the information to do just that).
It reminds me of the WI teacher unions arguing how great WI schools are because of their high SAT test scores. Of course WI has high SAT scores because only a small percentage (4%) of students, specifically those who are planning on going to East Coast schools, take the SAT. The rest of WI students take the ACT. Now, wouldn’t it be dumb to compare WI where 4% of students take the SAT to GA where 74% of students take the SAT? The same holds true for the TOEFL test.
5:40 pm on December 3rd, 2011 4
What’s the European or American average, by the way?
9:17 pm on December 3rd, 2011 5
4: Americans don’t take TOEFL. It’s a test for non-English speakers.
11:27 pm on December 3rd, 2011 6
There are more than one nation on either European or American continent on this planet.
12:45 am on December 4th, 2011 7
I bet England could tear that TOEFL test up!
2:20 am on December 4th, 2011 8
Well, England speaks only one language.
4:18 am on December 4th, 2011 9
K wrote:
This is a deeply profound statement.
6:32 am on December 4th, 2011 10
#3,
The average TOEFL score is not representative of the proficiency of the average English learner. Most English learners do not take the test since it also tests speaking ability (TOEIC doesn’t, which is why it is much more popular here than TOEFL). And so, those who do take the TOEFL test tend to at a more advanced level of the acquisition process.
#7,
Nope.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_the_United_Kingdom
6:32 am on December 4th, 2011 11
Correction,
#8,
Nope
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_the_United_Kingdom
6:33 am on December 4th, 2011 12
…and I won’t even bother to mention the different dialects of English, some of which are unintelligible to speakers of another.
8:04 am on December 4th, 2011 13
Bhutan has a higher score than South Korea! But Koreans are so smart!
Not surprising really.
8:33 am on December 4th, 2011 14
#13,
As I was saying, the average score means nothing. Few people take the TOEFL exam, and those who do are generally on the higher end of the curve.
9:27 am on December 4th, 2011 15
Hmmm…
I always assumed “England” and the “United Kingdom” were not the same thing…
…so when making fitting generalizations about one, there would be no snippity lesson about the other from a former member of the Empire who should know the difference.
But, hell, what do ignorant Yanks know?
9:31 am on December 4th, 2011 16
I’m sure at least one million of the population in Korea speak English, Chinese, Japanese, and others. But who says Korea is multilingual?
And, England =/= United Kingdom.
10:52 am on December 4th, 2011 17
#14
I heard that getting a TOEFL score is a requirement at some Korean office worker jobs. So, more Koreans who aren’t adequately prepared for it will take it anyway. That would tend to drive the overall national score down.
11:45 am on December 4th, 2011 18
ChickenHead wrote:
CH, I fear you may lack the reading comprehension skills to do well on ETS exams, judging by how you read that ETS warns against generalizing from the average national scores and you took that to mean that a score (i.e., an individual’s score?) is therefore now meaningless.
As others have already mentioned, different people take certain tests for a variety of reasons, and you end up with an apples-and-oranges comparison if you’re comparing national averages. The TOEFL is a test of a specific individual’s ability and a bunch of individuals aggregates scores are not meant to be used for national rankings (as Korea is wont to do), plain and simple, and that’s what ETS was saying.
1:33 pm on December 4th, 2011 19
No, Kushibo…
You are holding the “You Lack Reading Comprehension Pointer” by the wrong end, there, big guy.
I did, in fact, mean national score… and if you read again, you will clearly see I wrote, “national English ability” and I never mentioned individual scores.
But if I did not communicate this well, the fault is almost entirely mine… as most of the burden of good communication is upon the communicator.
I will be more clear.
While much of what I wrote absolutely applies to individuals, as I have frequently written, but it also applies to nations… such as the ones that ETS, the rather shady “non-profit”, needs to keep buttered up so they can continue their monopoly.
To keep from hurting the collective feelings of countries ETS released a meaningless number and then told everybody how meaningless it is.
Why bother?
Countries that score high cannot truly know if their national English proficiency is actually one to be proud of… any pride in a high number is tempered by the reality that it means so little.
Countries that score low will use the excuse that the number is deceptive and rationalize how well they are actually doing in English education.
Certainly there are non-deceptive numbers, or groups of numbers, ETS can release which will accurately rank countries against each other based on other factors… number of times taken, reason for taking, age, etc.
But ETS doesn’t want to hurt any national pride… so they release bullshyt and say it is bullshyt… and everybody walks away with a smile as they reinterpret the number to fit their preconceived notion.
…and it is another case where true success is unrecognized and failure is hidden or excused away.
Was this more clear?
Granted, in a terrible and torturous, misguided pseudo-scientific experiment coupled with a horrendous software/hardware geekout session of stupefying proportion, I have been sleeping 30 minutes every 6 hours for almost 5 days… so a lot of things are not as clear as they should be.
In 18 hours, I will get a solid 8 hours of sleep and all will be well.
Then, after 2 more relaxing days, I get to do it all over again.
1:59 pm on December 4th, 2011 20
ETS is a racket, propped up by Americans too lazy or too cheap to look for a better measure of prospective college success.
But they were right nonetheless that it is deceptive to use national scores to mean anything when in Country A you may have 25% of the population taking the test, many of them just for practice regardless of their expectations, and in Country B you have primarily the educated elite taking it (e.g., because it is a poor country where taking it repeatedly for practice is a nonstarter for most).
Setting aside whether the national averages should be released at all (as there are legitimate reasons to do so besides national rankings), do you agree or disagree that it could be deceptive to generalize national scores to individuals?
2:19 pm on December 4th, 2011 21
What would a European average mean? I’m not sure what the combined average of Swedish and Greek students’ English ability would tell us. Like Asia, Europe is very diverse in terms of money, first language, and historical connections to English speaking powers.
And this isn’t getting into the likely differences between European foreign students and Asian foreign students. My guess is that fewer Europeans come to the US for undergrad, and that the majority of students are coming either as study abroad or grad school. I’ll be honest, there is a huge difference in English ability among semester study abroad students, grad students, and students seeking to get their undergrad degrees in the US. All of these can have serious effects on who takes the TOEFL and the corresponding average scores.
2:37 pm on December 4th, 2011 22
OK. Here’s the deal.
Korean is a CAT IV language for DOD personnel. None of the European languages are higher than CAT III (Russian). A large portion of the world outside Europe and North America speaks English, Spanish, and French, indo-european languages. If you look at the countries – besides Bhutan – which are higher than Korea and the differences in Korean and English versus languages those countries primarily speak or speak in a secondary manner – I’m looking at you phillipines and Singapore – then Koreans are doing pretty good considering how vastly different their language is from English to do as well as the world average.
5:26 pm on December 4th, 2011 23
Phillipines makes sense, as they were a U.S. territory many years ago, but Hong Kong? They should do better than South Korea, they were a British territory until 1997.
Now, Irish Gaelic and Welsh Cymraeg, those are some hard languages.
5:31 pm on December 4th, 2011 24
6 of the top 7 Asian countries were former English colonies. The 7th, Phillipines, was once an American territory.
6:05 pm on December 4th, 2011 25
#17,
You heard wrong. TOEIC is the requirement, which doesn’t test fluency at all all like TOEFL supposedly does.
#20,
“But they were right nonetheless that it is deceptive to use national scores to mean anything when in Country A you may have 25% of the population taking the test, many of them just for practice regardless of their expectations, and in Country B you have primarily the educated elite taking it (e.g., because it is a poor country where taking it repeatedly for practice is a nonstarter for most). ”
Exactly.
#22,
Nope. I think you’re misinterpreting the ratings. Your argument is based on comparative linguistics, which has long been discredited as an accurate means to determine the ease at which a language can be acquired by speakers of another language for a variety of reasons. First, to put it simply, for some learners it’s the similarities between the target language and their first which are easier to notice and learn, whereas for others it’s the differences. Additionally, your argument doesn’t take into consideration the individual learning styles, which is a far more important factor in determining the ease at which a language is learned than grammatical and lexical similarities with the first language. Furthermore, the context in which the target language is learned is also one of the important determining factors. I would imagine Spanish is far easier for Americans to learn than German or Danish (two languages related to English) for the simple reason that Americans are far more opportunities to use Spanish than those two other languages outside of the classroom since there is at the very least a nascent Spanish-speaking community in every American state.
7:23 pm on December 4th, 2011 26
#25: You should send the NSA a letter.
9:43 pm on December 4th, 2011 27
TD has a hard time accepting (due probably to emotional reasons again) that a Korean speaking Korean and English fluently simultaneously is far, far more intellectually challenging (and remarkable) than a Canadian speaking English and French fluently simultaneously.
Korean is considered a CAT IV language in the US military along with Chinese and Japanese because it IS a difficult language to learn for new learners. Conversely, Koreans have relatively easier time picking up Chinese and Japanese, but English is a lot more exceedingly difficult as US personnel find Korean to be.
9:46 pm on December 4th, 2011 28
slight correction: new learners -> new English-speaking learners
2:11 am on December 5th, 2011 29
#27,
CAT IV? Do you even have a clue what this means?
Why is a language perceived to be more difficult to learn than another? Context and perception. Let me explain. The lack of opportunities to use it outside of the classroom is an important factor. Koreans spent billions every year to study English, and yet most can’t hold a conversation in English. Are Koreans stupid? No. They just don’t have the opportunity to speak it outside of the classroom. In fact, Koreans do relatively good in English when you consider that they are learning English in an EFL (English as a foreign language) context, not an ESL (English as a second language) one. As far as Americans, it’s easy for them to learn Spanish, not because it resembles English (it doesn’t), but because learners in the US can use it outside of the classroom. For them Spanish is a second language, not a foreign one. Now, context also affects motivation, no not in the simple terms that you understand it. Americans are far more motivated to learn Spanish than probably any other language as there are both intrinsic and extrinsic motivators (if one is to use the classical model) which affect the learning process. They want to learn Spanish because they want to associate with the culture and have friends who are native speakers of it (a type of motivation linguists refer to as “integrativeness”).
Korean…Well, it’s neither a common language in the US, few Americans know anything about Korean culture, and it is somewhere near the bottom of scale in terms of global languages (so out goes the intrinsic/intergrativeness angle (few Americans see their ideal selves as speakers of Korean).
You clearly don’t know anything about language acquisition and motivation in language learning. Maybe you should quit. You’re embarrassing yourself.
2:24 am on December 5th, 2011 30
#26,
I won’t bother to read this. Let me guess..They believe that language learning programmes should follow Krashen’s preposterous i+1 model (don’t expose the students to anything that’s more than one step beyond their current level). Never mind that the language acquisition process is a non-linear one and that it’s impossible to determine what is “i” since all learners have different strengths and weaknesses. It’s also impractical in a classroom as one student can be 5 steps ahead while another can be 5 behind the average. By design, it doesn’t address the students needs and ignores the reality of language acquisition. Sheesh, American linguistics is so dogmatic. I laugh every time I hear an American bring up Chomsky’s theories on linguistics with a straight face.
2:34 am on December 5th, 2011 31
Teadrinker, I’ve never heard of Krashen. Maybe he introduces 1+i because he thinks it’s easier to learn a language when you’re discussing something interesting, like complex variables.
What about Chomsky makes you laugh? Tell me his three most ridiculous linguistic claims.
2:41 am on December 5th, 2011 32
#31,
Krashen is a big player…in American linguistics. Most of us educated in Europe love pointing the gaping hole in his theories.
Chomsky’s theories are significant, historically, because he steered linguistics away from the established dogma…and then his theories became themselves part of the American dogma. That’s what is tragically ironic about his work and the source of my amusement.
2:54 am on December 5th, 2011 33
The languages are properly categorized I, II, III, and IV by the US military depending on the learning difficulty involved in acquiring them as an English native speaker.
An English native speaker (be him from originally America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, United Kingdom, etc) learning a CAT IV language (Korean, for example) as a second language is a lot more difficult than learning a CAT I language (French, for example).
A Canadian speaking Korean and English fluently simultaneously generally requires more intellectual and academic effort than speaking French and English fluently simultaneously, even to simply offset cultural factors.
글거 차 빠는 넘,
나이 좀 쳐먹었다고 그만 나데 ㅋㅋㅋㅋ 니 얼굴 한번 보고싶다 지룰하는 모습 얼마나 우끼게 생겼는지 ㅋㅋㅋ
3:45 pm on December 5th, 2011 34
Hey, that’s a pretty bad personal attack, claiming that I take Chomsky seriously.
I wanted you to present some contrary evidence, like a paper, to back up your point of view so I can grow and evolve my thinking teadrinker. I’m saying that this NSA paper disagrees with you on arguing that ability to learn languages depends on learning style more than how different the languages are, given that the foreign service institute and defense language institute teach students in an environment that controls for some of the factors that you described; (by this I mean proximity to native speakers, environment in which learning takes place, etc.) Of course there are internal student dynamics that cannot be controlled such as the learner’s style and motivation. However, given a large population with years of study the hours of instruction required to teach these languages to get the same proficiency increases with each category. It doesn’t mention i+1 theory at all, and I think the person who wrote the paper is a naturalized Japanese American with her Bachelor’s from a Japanese university and a Master’s from University of Hawaii that flipped between the two countries. Just because I heckle you for being 개났다 사람 doesn’t mean I’m going to react to contact by returning fire without actually getting positive ID on the argument the other guy is making for the sake of a “stupid yanks” one liner.
I’m not an applied linguistics guy, I work on historical and comparative as a hobby, so I’m willing to work with you if you give me some reading material.
4:00 pm on December 5th, 2011 35
*The Kangaji has not attended DLI.
6:13 pm on December 5th, 2011 36
kangaji, which parts of Chomsky’s work are wrong? Are any parts right?
6:30 pm on December 5th, 2011 37
#33,
As I was saying, you’re embarrassing yourself. Context, particularly the learning context, is an important factor.
“The languages are properly categorized I, II, III, and IV by the US military depending on the learning difficulty involved in acquiring them as an English native speaker.”…who lives in the United States.
#34,
All right. Chomsky’s biggest contribution to linguistics is not the theories themselves (despite the fact that they are, again, popular in the US), but rather that he steered linguistics away from structural linguistics. As for Chomsky’s theories, his theory of Universal Grammar doesn’t take into consideration the social setting in which language acquisition occurs. Others will add that it is simply not psychologically plausible.
Oh, and motivation can be shaped and it is constantly evolving (but, you probably already know that). I don’t want to get into too many details, it’s a very complex subject.
6:40 pm on December 5th, 2011 38
#36,
Basically, he came up with his theories on language acquisition in the mid-50′s, at a time where we understood very little about language acquisition and when most linguists weren’t particularly interested in understanding it either. So, historically, his research is extremely important, but it remains that his theories are far from being perfect.
7:02 pm on December 5th, 2011 39
Chomsky is the subject of a very long article in the repository of all knowledge. He seems to have had many ideas, but I hardly understand any of them. To me it seems obvious that the human species is uniquely talented for language acquisition. Here’s a trivial fact: his birthday is coming up – he was born on Pearl Harbor Day, thirteen years before the fact.
7:43 pm on December 5th, 2011 40
“As I was saying, you’re embarrassing yourself. Context, particularly the learning context, is an important factor.”
It is you who is ignoring the basic fact that the categorization are indeed based on the institutional difficulty of teaching the military personnel the foreign language.
Again, an English native speaker learning Korean, Chinese, or Japanese is generally and statistically more difficult than learning Italian, Spanish, or French.
“…who lives in the United States.”
You are a very naive person. The US military is not a homogeneous organization. The US military is perhaps one of the best representative of a sufficiently sized multicultural organization with a balanced preference to the English language that can be observed and experimented upon in a very well controlled manner.
8:40 pm on December 5th, 2011 41
Glans:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_grammar
Read Criticism of UG. Teadrinker is definitely right on this. UG doesn’t work.
Chomsky kind of got famous for his political point of view in the 60′s/70′s and he is more of a political pundit than a linguist, I think. Academics prop up Chomsky for his political views on the US and Israel when they cite him – not for his linguistics work which is outdated. Basically his Anarcho-syndicalism ideology and views on foreign policy is what he is famous for, but the whole linguistics thing is to give him credibility as a political pundit by saying he’s this linguistic genius.
http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=10046
This article is not so dry.
10:56 pm on December 5th, 2011 42
#39,
“To me it seems obvious that the human species is uniquely talented for language acquisition.”
Well, we aren’t the only species which use language although no species has the complexity and variety that we have, but that’s besides the point. Think of it as him arguing that the acquisition of language is nature only when current research shows that it’s in fact both nature and nurture. I would imagine he probably agrees, although I’m not sure if he’s ever voiced an opinion, one way or another, on the role played by social context and interactions.
#40,
“It is you who is ignoring the basic fact that the categorization are indeed based on the institutional difficulty of teaching the military personnel the foreign language.”
And which military personnel would that be and where do they reside?
“You are a very naive person. The US military is not a homogeneous organization. The US military is perhaps one of the best representative of a sufficiently sized multicultural organization with a balanced preference to the English language that can be observed and experimented upon in a very well controlled manner.”
Oh, so now it isn’t harder for native speakers of English only because the US is a melting pot and many of its military personnel is stationed abroad?
Please, cut it out. I’m starting to feel bad for you.
#41,
I wasn’t going to go there, but yes you could say that, as a linguist, he’s resting on his laurels.
11:35 pm on December 5th, 2011 43
My proposition isn’t based on the theory of universal grammar. You fail.
You could task any unspecified group of English native speakers to learn a Cat 1 or Cat 4 language in an institutionalized manner and generally the native speakers who are going to learn Cat 1 are going to reach a level of proficiency much faster than those learning Cat 4. This is a very easy phenomenon to observe even for the most dim sighted of researchers.
12:09 am on December 6th, 2011 44
Missed saying this: the phenomenon is frequently observed despite the lack of either prior knowledge or particular personal interest in either languages.
1:09 am on December 6th, 2011 45
kangaji 41, thanks for the links. Sadly, I find the refutations of Universal Grammar just as incomprehensible as the arguments for it.
I did enjoy this ungrammatical sentence from the Wikipedia article, though: “What did John meet a man who sold?” It’s a genuine clunker, even if its meaning can be guessed.
But I don’t agree that this is ungrammatical: “Who will be easy for us to get his mother to talk to?” The guy at FrontPageMag claimed to prove it’s ungrammatical, but I think he’s mistaken.
1:31 am on December 6th, 2011 46
“My proposition isn’t based on the theory of universal grammar. You fail.”
No, it’s based on a clear lack of understanding of the processes of language acquisition and its influencing factors. Do you even understand the difference between a second and a foreign language learning context?
“You could task any unspecified group of English native speakers to learn a Cat 1 or Cat 4 language in an institutionalized manner and generally the native speakers who are going to learn Cat 1 are going to reach a level of proficiency much faster than those learning Cat 4.”
You still don’t get it. You’re talking in terms of learners who are in the US, learning these languages as a foreign language (they can’t use it outside of the classroom). The learning context is extremely important. For example, learning Korean is much easier when the learner is immersed in the culture, as he or she will have the opportunity to use it outside of the classroom and he or she will most probably have intrinsic motivations to acquire the target language. What are the motivations to learn Korean in the US except maybe an instrumental ones? It’s not as if there is a strong motivation to learn Korean for the purpose of globalization since English is the lingua franca.
1:38 am on December 6th, 2011 47
“the phenomenon is frequently observed despite the lack of either prior knowledge or particular personal interest in either languages.”
It’s not despite, but rather because. Once again, you’re talking in terms of a foreign language context. And it’s prior interest. Motivation is not constant. It varies greatly, even within a lesson.
1:43 am on December 6th, 2011 48
“I find the refutations of Universal Grammar just as incomprehensible as the arguments for it.”
To put it in simple terms for you…You don’t just learn a language because you have an innate ability to do so, but because you’ve been exposed to it and, preferably, you’ve been immersed in its linguistic community.
1:45 am on December 6th, 2011 49
“No, it’s based on a clear lack of understanding of the processes of language acquisition and its influencing factors. Do you even understand the difference between a second and a foreign language learning context?”
Your arguments are suspiciously based on the emotional unwillingness to accept that Korean, or Chinese, or Japanese are already formally generalized in the academic world to be comparatively difficult languages to learn for the majority of English native speakers, due to the personal implication that such a fact holds for you. This is not the first time you have held bubbles in your mouth in response to an emotional stimulus. The pattern is easy to see.
“You still don’t get it. You’re talking in terms of learners who are in the US,”
No, I’m not. Here you already fail to understand the entire proposition I’m trying to deliver.
2:36 am on December 6th, 2011 50
Teadrinker 48 says, “You don’t just learn a language because you have an innate ability to do so, but because you’ve been exposed to it … ” Surely the need for exposure was never in doubt. I can’t understand Chomsky, but you and a few other commenters can. Really now, did he say that the innate human ability to learn a language is so powerful that the learner needs no exposure to it? On the other hand, innate ability is required, too. Children learn to talk, but dogs don’t.
2:54 am on December 6th, 2011 51
#37
“not psychologically plausible.” Have the sociolinguistics fallen so low that they must borrow creationists’ “irreducible complexity” as an argument?
Let’s not even start with, “his theory of Universal Grammar doesn’t take into consideration the social setting in which language acquisition occurs.” Why does it have to account for social settings other than state that a requisite amount of input is needed to trigger innate pathways in the brain?
I guess my counter question is how does your “motivation based learning” hypothesis account for maturational constraints on language acquisition? I mean what type of social setting will allow an adult L2 learner to become as proficient as an L1 speaker. Is there some type of social dynamic that acts as or produces an affective filter on the intake of the input?
4:00 am on December 6th, 2011 52
#49,
And there you have it. When you can’t attack (or understand) the point, you attack the messenger. Once again, which English speakers and in which context are the learning?
#50,
Dogs communicate. They vocalize, they bark. The limitation to talk is mainly a physical. Their vocal box does not allow them to produce speech. How do you explain gorillas hat have been thought sign language?
#51,
Nope, it’s a matter of how Chomskyian researchers do not pay attention to the process itself.
Secondly, evidence shows that domain-general learning suffices.
And to answer your third question, I suggest you read The Psychology of Language Learning by Dornyei, particularly p.44 and 45, which touch the subject of age, attitude, innate ability, and age.
4:21 am on December 6th, 2011 53
English speakers from either the United States or the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, etc will generally experience equal difficulty or easiness as each other in acquiring NOT ONLY Korean BUT ALSO Chinese or Japanese as either second or foreign language compared to lower category languages. This does not require UG theory to be proven.
Take note that the categorization is not primarily determined by the test taker’s prior familiarity with or knowledge of any particular language (or languages) they are being tested against, but by the test taker’s general intellectual aptitude at language acquisition. Again, Cat IV languages are more intellectually difficult to acquire for ENGLISH NATIVE SPEAKERS compared to lower category languages, NOT JUST AMERICANS.
4:30 am on December 6th, 2011 54
Yes, lots of typos. That’s what happens when you’re in a hurry and you type 100 words per minute.
4:33 am on December 6th, 2011 55
Teadrinker 52, I don’t explain gorillas, and I don’t explain dogs.
Some dog owners talk to their pets. After a few years of that, and of the dog watching Fox News, suppose the dog’s master asks, “Fido, if Mao Zedong had decided not to intervene in Korea, would the country be united, democratic, and prosperous?” Will Fido understand? Can he be trained to answer with modulated tail wags?
Suppose we sign to a gorilla,”Consider these sentences:
1. What did John meet a man who sold?
2. Who will be easy for us to get his mother to talk to?
Are they grammatical? Prove your answer.”
Will the gorilla understand and answer coherently?
4:40 am on December 6th, 2011 56
So are we now having an argument with TD about how dogs would acquire human language as easily as humans would once it’s exposed enough to human environment?
Seriously, what could be serious about TD’s proposition?
4:41 am on December 6th, 2011 57
Oops sorry, Kangaji, I intend no offense to you.
5:35 am on December 6th, 2011 58
“English speakers from either the United States or the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, etc will generally experience equal difficulty or easiness as each other in acquiring NOT ONLY Korean BUT ALSO Chinese or Japanese as either second or foreign language compared to lower category languages. This does not require UG theory to be proven.”
Only proves that there are few opportunities to use those languages outside of the classroom and, once again, that motivation to learn them is low. Really, what are the benefits of learning Korean to someone Wales?
Really, you’re hung up on those ratings without even considering how they came up with that rating system.
PS. Speaking of native English speakers who can speak Chinese…Ever heard of Dashan? All my Chinese students have.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzKdRycr7U0
#56,
Failed remedial English too?
No, you’re not having an argument with me. You’re making one of my points, which is that you don’t have a clue.
5:35 am on December 6th, 2011 59
#55,
Never saw Planet of the Apes?
5:38 am on December 6th, 2011 60
#58,
PPS. My son is also fluent in Mandarin. He picks up languages quite easily. He’s going on his 5th. Some people just have it. It’s got nothing to do with the first language.
5:52 am on December 6th, 2011 61
I take it that your family dog too speak Mandarin fluently.
7:45 am on December 6th, 2011 62
#61,
You’d get along with my dog. He also likes to chase his tail.
7:58 am on December 6th, 2011 63
Indeed. I too speak multiple languages fluently, like your dog. I could learn dog language too and make you happy with my sing-songs every night if I wanted.
3:17 pm on December 6th, 2011 64
I’ve been thinking of questions for dogs and gorillas, but I don’t think I’ll get any answers, so to heck with it.
Good luck to all Korean humans who study English!
8:54 pm on December 6th, 2011 65
#63,
Really or are you just joking? Which do you speak? I speak 4 in varying degrees of fluency and can manage in a couple of other ones (I really should have studied Spanish as my third language instead of German at university. I pick up Spanish quite easily and, as much as I appreciate how logical the German grammar is (analyzing some of Kafka’s texts, in their original German format, was quite an experience (that guy was anal, even for a German)), the language is not nearly as relevant to me as Spanish).
9:38 pm on December 6th, 2011 66
I can speak Netspaek and soon, dog language and another one of those primate languages. I own.
12:35 am on December 7th, 2011 67
He can speak 6 languages… 4 of them like a native and 2 of them like a native with a harelip.
His many books have sold well… as he “saves” all his cleverness for his “publications” and doesn’t “waste” it on mere blog comments.
He was an elite special forces soldier as demonstrated by his vast military knowledge and logical special forces mindset.
He has several advanced degrees… or is working on the second one now… depending on which story best reinforces the current point trying to be made.
He was a published scientist with years of research experience and an international student of the arts… conducting DNA isolation of monoclonal antibodies with one hand while translating Kafka from German to Spanish with the other.
Despite his cover as a hogwon monkey, he has owned big businesses with numerous employees and he shops for buildings on a whim.
He mingles with politicians, movie stars, and the rich elite of Korea… who all break out in warm smiles when he enters the room.
His son, and perhaps even his dog, speak 5 languages.
He can run faster, jump higher, and last longer in bed than any of you.
Teadrinker is…
…the World’s Most Interesting Canadian.
“I don’t often talk… but when I do, I talk smack.”
12:48 am on December 7th, 2011 68
OK, he likes to brag. But at least I can understand what the heck he’s saying, unlike Ferdinand de Saussure and Noam Chomsky.