David1917 wrote:
A worse example is the Russian course. One of the learners on there cannot roll the R, and instead uses some weird half-French R in Russian words. Even though you hear the instructor speaking "properly" - you still get mixed input at a stage where what you hear should be getting very well-tailored.
Ah, the new courses. Thomas would correct stuff like that. The ones made after his death do not follow his method (although they claim they do). I have so often lamented that there was no Michel Thomas or Language Transfer Mandarin course when I started out, it would have helped me so much. Yet this wish may surprise you, because there is a "Michel Thomas Method" course, but that's a very different animal. I don't recommend the new courses nearly so much.
David1917 wrote: Even different native accents are better to hear than someone trying to speak the language for the first time. Moreover, in these courses the amount of target language is pretty minimal, so I'm very skeptical of thinking that it gives a "phonemic map" as much as an "exposition to the new sounds you'll have to learn elsewhere"
In fact I know for sure that the first few times round, the local (Chinese) teachers did a much better job teaching that distinction than I (a native) did, to the benefit of our students at the time. My pronunciation of English is better than theirs was; but they had a more accurate phonemic map of that part of GA or RP* phonology. Similarly, I once saw a native teacher of US English (so he had this distinction in his speech, he was just totally unaware of it consciously) demonstrate an activity that ostensibly involved sorting words into two target sounds but in fact was confusing as hell to learners because it really involved 3. He was totally unaware that the vowel in "book" and the vowel in "food" are different, even though as a native he produced these both absolutely perfectly. None of the local teachers would make such an error, because they all knew this distinction and could pronounce approximations even if not as accurately as he could.
It's like comparing apples and oranges: if you are practicing pronunciation in the sense of hitting the sounds almost perfectly, IMO a native is almost always better; if you are learning phonological patterns or being corrected on them, the best teacher is the best pedagog, regardless iof whether they are native or not. Neither Thomas nor LT teach pronunciation in that sense.
After finishing a course from LT, you'll know that there is a phonemic distinction between certain sounds, approximately how to pronounce them and have them linked to meaningful distinctions. Actually nailing the sounds is a different process that takes far longer and requires hours of hundreds of hours of exposure to native speech.
David1917 wrote: You're right that basing one's learning off of these courses would be a mistake. However, the "average learner" is going to succumb to marketing and think that they only need ONE method, since they all market themselves as being COMPLETE, etc. It is with this in mind that I think having learners on the recording is detrimental, and it would be much more beneficial to have a group of natives explaining the language back and forth, and of course to transition to a higher ratio of TL:English.
Here I'll split Thomas and LT up. Where Thomas is concerned, I totally agree, but the only solution is to make the marketing more truthful. The method simply doesn't work the same way without a learner on the audio unless you have a teacher who can correct you personally. Correction is an integral part of the method and since you can't be corrected personally, hearing the learner on the audio being corrected is the only way to provide it.
With LT, I don't think Mihalis misrepresents his courses the way Hodder and Stoughton do Thomas's.
* in case some people don't know, GA = General American and RP = Received Pronunciation, which are the two recognised standard pronunciations in China (and probably other countries too).