Learn 12 languages in 12 months? Right.

[tractor]

Oof yeah maybe. But can you actually find 12 closely related languages to English?

Scots, Dutch, Afrikaans, Frisian, German, Low German, Luxembourgish, Swedish, Danish, Icelandic, Faroese, Norwegian

[Cainntear]

The thing that makes this topic (remotely) interesting is that there are accounts on the internet about people who learned one language in a week or two - like Tammett with his Icelandic and another guy who apparently did Maltese in the same whirlwind way (I won't enter a discussion about their feats). For me it is interesting to know how far a person with a good memory, some language learning experience and general flair CAN get in a week or so in a relevant location with the help of a personal tutor and free access to whatever resources of other kinds that person might want.

Or rather: the thing that would make this topic interesting was if it was genuinely started by such a person.

I believe Tammett openly puts his strength down to neurodiversity and it is good that he can act as a demonstration of why neurodiversity is good, but in general there's a vague "look at me" about these types of feats that I can't really get on board with.

I would not find it impossible to learn the rock bottom basics of a language fast with all those things available, but normally you wouldn't be pampered like that - and with a memory like a sieve, few resources, lots of distractions and a location in your comfy chair far from the real world it would definitely not be possible - but how much CAN you learn in a week? I do find some interest in elucidating that problem!

Yup. But doing any deep analysis of what's going on (if the person in question happened to even be in a position to do that) just tends to detract from the "look at me" of it all, so it rarely happens outside of academic journals!

So instead of disparaging other people, it would be interesting to look at what do the superlearners do.
All good in theory, but isn't the underlying thing here that a lot of the disparagement is about the fact that these sorts of big-banner feats don't tend to look at what the superlearners do...?

There's a massive problem that has already been referred to in this thread: people trying to build their reputation don't do it for free, and are almost always hoping to cash in on their reputation by selling their views on methodology. Much like carts before horses, they're putting their adverts before the product.
This leads to a very poor product.

But anything much greater than this seems unlikely—the human brain can normally only learn so much per hour, and there are only so many hours in a day. Memory palaces and other tricks can stretch this impressively, but languages are still big.

I personally feel memory palaces are a false economy: quick to start with, but just slow in the long term. I used to believe that the first step was to "memorise the dictionary" then "learn the language". I mean not memorise the whole dictionary, but I was really overstating -- just memorise a large number of words; and when I said "learn", what I really meant was internalise. In that mindset, it may seem like a memory palace is a good thing: make memorising the dictionary quicker means you've got more to hand to internalised later.

However, I think that there's a real danger that in making the memorising step more effective as a long term strategy actually reduces the impetus to go to the (background) effort of actually learning/internalising the word. Think about it: have you food yourself being annoyed that you can't remember a word then making a point of looking it up, and after that finding that you really want to remember it... and doing so.
Like about a week ago, I was explaining to a native speaker of one of my L2s that I have problems remembering words... and ironically it turned out that one of the things I couldn't remember was actually the word for remember, so I asked her. She told me, and I repeated it. The next day I had forgotten it again. Over the next few days, it would periodically niggle at me that I'd forgotten it... until 4 or 5 days after the incident, I just knew the word without effort.

I just think that that sense of frustration is probably helpful.

[Cainntear]

I audibly laughed at the 'super-learners' thing. As though there is this thing where people have special knowledge of learning stuff in record time through clever manipulations like a bionic man and that we can all tap into it if we listen carefully. It's a Will-o-the-wisp and stinks of the rubbish pumped out online by the likes of TedTalks and all its 'experts' who are 50% motivational speaker and 50% charlatan, who have fooled a lot of gullible people.

But I don't think that's really what s_allard is saying, though.

He's talking about being interested in what they do... and I am too. I don't see anywhere where he says he'd believe them when they say what they believe they do. I think there's a lot of in-depth analysis required to get at what successful learners do.

Do you remember when I got banned from the predecessor to this forum because a "professional polyglot" kept trying to tell us what he thought was important and I got really... well, let's say "peeved" (just to be polite) that he wouldn't engage in two-way discussions intending to get deeper into what he *actually* did, and instead wanted to lecture us of his uninformed amateur views of what he decided was and was not important...?

I don't like the term "superlearner" personally, and would only really consider it as defining people who are genuinely gifted with a some kind of neurological thin that made them exceptionally well predisposed to learning -- eg Tammett. I wouldn't think that superlearners under that definition present much of a model, but rather people who were good learners because they (for some reason or another) just did the right things when they started out, found them to be successful, then just kept doing the same thing.

[Cainntear]

In another thread I offered the reminder that CEFR is merely a set of rather vague and subjective guidelines used by bodies and organisations offering courses and setting exams. That they are very broadly interpreted and sometimes with a lot of leeway. So what is really being resolved in this scenario as compared to the list of self-evaluation statements provided above? I would say the statement: 'I went for a job interview in Portuguese and got the job' carries more weight than 'I passed a B1 test'.
...

To say that the CEFR is "merely a set of rather vague and subjective guidelines used by bodies and organisations offering courses and setting exams." demonstrates a rather crass ignorance of the goals and the accomplishments of a large number of serious academics given the task of creating a unified system, i.e a common framework, for the description and assessment of language proficiency in the European Union where 24 languages are officially recognized currently.

Hmmm.... I'd kind of say that saying that his views demonstrate "a rather crass ignorance of the goals and the accomplishments of a large number of serious academics given the task of creating a unified system" demonstrates a rather crass ignorance on your part.

Whatever they say post hoc, the way I understand it, the Association of Language Testers in Europe (ALTE) were talking about standards, couldn't agree on them, and then compromised by just coming up with wording that roughly described what they were all doing anyway.

As we know, it is widely used in areas of employment, immigration and citizenship qualifications and university admission requirements inter alia. In Canada where I live we have two different systems, one used by the federal government and one used by the government of Quebec. Neither are comprehensive as the CEFR. The US uses a variety of systems for university admission and language training. So do many countries.

And what of it? The fact that it is used doesn't prove it is rigorous -- it is not "comprehensive" in any real sense.
The best thing to come out of CEFR was simply that instead of having vague level descriptors that didn't map neatly across languages, we instead had a single set of vague descriptors that were language independent. A dictionary equivalent of "intermediate" is correct by the dictionary, but the difference between intermediate, intermedio, dazwischenliegend,... etc in practical spoken usage in the context of language lessons can be quite huge, but if some countries see intermediate (or dictionary equivalent) as meaning something roughly A2, while other countries see their translation of intermediate as B1, you can't translate intermediate to intermediate without messing up information transfer. But the translation for A2 is A2, and the translation of B1 is B1... in every language.

The CEFR was not designed for us language aficionados. We use it as a way of giving some sort of common meaning to the idea of "speaking" a language. If you don't use the CEFR or something similar, you have to resort to either useless descriptors like "fluent" or to avoiding the question completely, e.g. I speak X number of languages. The title of this thread is a perfect example of the pre-CEFR manner of talking about language learning. Useless doggerel.

I should also point out that the various tests based on CEFR are not a requirement. The CEFR provides explicitly for self-evaluation. I personally am a fan of tests in terms of motivation despite not having the slightest need for any language certification.. There's nothing like putting out some hard cash and having a date hanging over your head to get you studying for real. I highly recommend it as a reality check.

[Le Baron]

To say that the CEFR is "merely a set of rather vague and subjective guidelines used by bodies and organisations offering courses and setting exams." demonstrates a rather crass ignorance of the goals and the accomplishments of a large number of serious academics given the task of creating a unified system, i.e a common framework, for the description and assessment of language proficiency in the European Union where 24 languages are officially recognized currently.

It's how they describe their own guidelines. There's no ignorance. I was studying and sitting exams whilst these guidelines were still being developed. The first exams I did in the EU didn't even use the CEFR, but a an early developmental framework. The ones I've done later do use them. I can assure you there's a negligible difference between what exams feel like, what they ask of the candidate and marking schemes etc. As the name suggests it is only a 'common reference'. They don't set exams or write courses and don't interfere in the exams and courses. That makes them guidelines which are interpreted. The descriptions between B2/C1/C2 on CEFR are dubious and vaguely overlapping. Despite the work that went into it they are not exacting by a long way. I don't expect them to be.

As we know, it is widely used in areas of employment, immigration and citizenship qualifications and university admission requirements inter alia. In Canada where I live we have two different systems, one used by the federal government and one used by the government of Quebec. Neither are comprehensive as the CEFR. The US uses a variety of systems for university admission and language training. So do many countries.

Yes, I know this information. So what? This is about social and administrative organisation, not a rapier accurate measure of language competence.

The CEFR was not designed for us language aficionados. We use it as a way of giving some sort of common meaning to the idea of "speaking" a language. If you don't use the CEFR or something similar, you have to resort to either useless descriptors like "fluent" or to avoiding the question completely, e.g. I speak X number of languages. The title of this thread is a perfect example of the pre-CEFR manner of talking about language learning. Useless doggerel.

No, what this thread shows is that things like the CEFR has unintentionally fooled people (like you) into believing that if you can scrape through an intermediate exam on the back of a load of cramming foolishness and tick a lot of boxes, it means something more than it does. The proof of competence is in ability. Languages aren't something you can neatly put in boxes and measure, that's precisely the problem.

I should also point out that the various tests based on CEFR are not a requirement. The CEFR provides explicitly for self-evaluation. I personally am a fan of tests in terms of motivation despite not having the slightest need for any language certification.. There's nothing like putting out some hard cash and having a date hanging over your head to get you studying for real. I highly recommend it as a reality check.

Which will tell you that you passed the test. I agree that setting an exam date can be a motivator, though it won't ever trump the reality of time and learning capacity. There are plenty here who set exam dates, with a reasonable time period beforehand to prepare. This is not the same as your 'in three weeks' caper.

[Le Baron]

He's talking about being interested in what they do... and I am too. I don't see anywhere where he says he'd believe them when they say what they believe they do. I think there's a lot of in-depth analysis required to get at what successful learners do.

It's pretty much like looking at a world class cyclist or chess player or composer or what-have-you and trying to divine how they got there. Let's say we ask questions and try to find out 'methodologies' - although usually people who do things at a high level, can't really explain this in terms of 'steps' or a strategy blueprint. Do we get things we can really replicate at lower level of intensity? And at any level we can can profitably pursue?

What we usually hear is: ' I spent a solid 10+ years developing this skill.' Or: 'I threw myself into it in a single-minded fashion and abolished all other thoughts.' Arnold Schwarzenegger used to talk like this. In the film Pumping Iron (though he played up for the camera a bit) he says how he only cares about the goal in front of him. That his car could get stolen and he doesn't care. This is a different sort of approach. A form of obsession.

This is what 'super learners' do. It's something with a cool, calm exterior after the fact and a feverishly toiling underbelly. Quite a lot of people have been fooled. They think the exterior is the whole thing and that somehow you learn secret 'methodologies' and then you too become accelerated mentally, physically, emotionally. Usually with the minimum of work, 'cos it's 'smarter not harder' innit?

[emk]

This is what 'super learners' do. It's something with a cool, calm exterior after the fact and a feverishly toiling underbelly. Quite a lot of people have been fooled. They think the exterior is the whole thing and that somehow you learn secret 'methodologies' and then you too become accelerated mentally, physically, emotionally. Usually with the minimum of work, 'cos it's 'smarter not harder' innit?

I am not convinced that the "super learner" terminology is useful. It conflates people like:

• Alexander Arguelles, who speaks over 20 languages conversationally, but who (if I recall correctly) has sometimes claimed that this was largely due to putting in the hours.
• Poorly recorded historical figures like Giuseppe Mezzofanti, who certainly knew a lot of lanugages, and who was reputed to learn new ones extremely quickly. Sadly, the historic record is frustratingly vague on the details. But he could supposedly accomplish quite a lot in 2 weeks.
• People who have biologically unusual memory and learning abilities. A few remarkable memory abilities have been demonstrated under controlled laboratory conditions, including people who can reliably recall the news headlines and weather for a randomly-chosen day in 2007. So it's entirely possible that someone might have a 1-in-50-million talent for languages.
• People with a mix of lanugage-learning experience and natural talent, who occasionally try things like a "Zero to A2" challenge, and who do extraordinarily well. I've seen this several times here on this forum, from people that I trust to report their results according to the CEFR scale.

It's usually clearer to keep track of which kind of learner is being discussed.

[Le Baron]

Well it's not my terminology. I only responded to it.

Also, does Alexander Arguelles really speak 20 languages conversationally? Someone showed me a video where he's speaking Spanish very conversationally and with ease, yet it's the only thing I've seen. Most of his langages seem to be reading languages. Obviously I don't know the fellow and haven't met him, so I can't say. Though as you say a great deal of time and work has been put into it. This bolsters my position I think. Where someone very focused on it isn't turning out something worthwhile in terms of many languages in mere weeks or months.

[emk]

Also, does Alexander Arguelles really speak 20 languages conversationally? Someone showed me a video where he's speaking Spanish very conversationally and with ease, yet it's the only thing I've seen. Most of his langages seem to be reading languages. Obviously I don't know the fellow and haven't met him, so I can't say. Though as you say a great deal of time and work has been put into it. This bolsters my position I think. Where someone very focused on it isn't turning out something worthwhile in terms of many languages in mere weeks or months.

I picked the number 20 based on long-distant memory of Arguelles reporting on a conversation with he'd had with two women, in either Dutch of Danish. They had asked him (paraphrased), "How many languages do you speak, anyway?" And he responded, "Well, would you say I speak [the language we're speaking now]?" And the women responded, "Oh, absolutely." He replied, "Well, this is my 20th strongest language or so." It's an imprecise standard, but a useful one. Being able to have a polite conversation with strangers is a handy benchmark.

If I recall correctly, a significant chunk of his languages were Germanic languages? After the first 5 or 10 languages in a family, I imagine they start getting easier. I believe he studied languages for his degree, and then he lived for extended periods of time in various countries, at points dedicating 9 hours a day to language studies. Keep that level of effort up for a couple of decades, and yeah, almost anyone could learn a lot of languages. You could certainly get 20 languages to B1 if you put in 20,000 hours of studying. You'd need to account for maintenance, too. But I'd imagine that eventually the cognate discounts and practical experience would help reduce the costs of learning?

Anyway, all this information pre-dates this incarnation of the forum, and I'm certainly misremembering some things. So take all this with a grain of salt. Before my time, I think he had a dedicated sub-forum on HTLAL where he answered questions. If anyone is curious, you might be able to find some more information there.

[Cainntear]

He's talking about being interested in what they do... and I am too. I don't see anywhere where he says he'd believe them when they say what they believe they do. I think there's a lot of in-depth analysis required to get at what successful learners do.

It's pretty much like looking at a world class cyclist or chess player or composer or what-have-you and trying to divine how they got there. Let's say we ask questions and try to find out 'methodologies' - although usually people who do things at a high level, can't really explain this in terms of 'steps' or a strategy blueprint. Do we get things we can really replicate at lower level of intensity? And at any level we can can profitably pursue?

Well yes and no. If we're looking at what they actually do, we're going to learn something; if we ask them whether they do something or other, you might well learn something or you might not; if you just ask them what they do, you probably won't learn anything.

As I've mentioned repeatedly (including quite recently), I bought a book on swimming called Total Immersion which talked about how swimmers would repeat the lines that their coaches gave them on how to swim "properly" with no analysis of their own technique. But then the underwater chase cam was invented, and you could see the swimmers' technique better than ever. What was discovered was that the best swimmers were doing something quite differently from what they would describe. Swimming changed very rapidly as people started looking at what the top swimmers actually did rather than placing all the weight on what they said they did.

We don't have any technology analogous to a chase cam, so we can't see what successful learners do with any real certainty, but it's still worth having discussions to try to bring us closer to a working model.

What we usually hear is: ' I spent a solid 10+ years developing this skill.' Or: 'I threw myself into it in a single-minded fashion and abolished all other thoughts.' Arnold Schwarzenegger used to talk like this. In the film Pumping Iron (though he played up for the camera a bit) he says how he only cares about the goal in front of him. That his car could get stolen and he doesn't care. This is a different sort of approach. A form of obsession.

This is what 'super learners' do. It's something with a cool, calm exterior after the fact and a feverishly toiling underbelly. Quite a lot of people have been fooled. They think the exterior is the whole thing and that somehow you learn secret 'methodologies' and then you too become accelerated mentally, physically, emotionally. Usually with the minimum of work, 'cos it's 'smarter not harder' innit?

Yes, exactly -- that's what I'm talking about, and why I keep railing against constant focus on superficial activity types: I'm not interested in what's going on at the surface -- I want to dig in and look at that underbelly.