A World of Languages: An Interview with Simon Ager

I lived in Korea for two years and had some experience teaching English to Korean while learning the Korean language myself. It amazed me how someone who had taken English classes since they were six could struggle to put even one coherent sentence together. Their vocabulary rivaled that of a native, but the ability to communicate was almost nonexistent. I, on the other hand, had only been studying Korean for a little over a year and could carry on a fluid casual conversation with ease. I knew and used the words Koreans used when they spoke. I was up a creek without a paddle when reading text books or even most newspapers, but I could communicate well.

The difference, of course, comes in the learning method. I studied from books, yes, but I spent all day, every day talking to Koreans in Korean. 15+ years of book study can't give you the experience that one year of total immersion can. If you want to learn a language - I mean really learn it - you have to speak it. (I'd also recommend eating the food. How can you expect to speak Korean if you don't eat your fair share of kimchi?)

Does Mr. Ager plan on trying his hand at learning some ancient dead languages such as Akkadian or Sumerian? How about earlier versions of modern languages -- Old English, Middle German, that sort of thing?

Within the interview Simon mentions that certain languages are considered to have more 'grammar' than others based on how closely they approximate the structure of Latin. For one thing, it seems odd that the Romance languages (i.e. those closest in affiliation with Latin) have lost such a large portion of their 'grammar.' The loss of the Latin declensions comes to mind immediately. Simon, do you think, as language development goes, that this was a boon to the Romance languages in that learning became somewhat simplified? Is there a noticeable drawback to having a language with less 'grammar' or is this a case of a new easier system working as well as the old? How has your experience with 'grammar' intensive languages (e.g. German, Russian) compared with your studies of languages of less 'grammar' (e.g. French)?

You discussed the adoption of slang into mainstream language some, but I wonder if you have any personal feelings about imposed limitations on word adoption. Do you think it wise for a government to regulate the "integrity" or "purity" of a language as an integral part of their culture? Or, do you see words adopted from other languages as being just as "valid" and worthy of inclusion in the official language? Should words like "phat" and "pwn" be recognized and used, or just tolerated and (reluctantly) defined? What about words borrowed from other languages, as demonstrated by the recently reported actions of the Iranian government?

From the article and the comments, it seems clear that the best way to learn a language is to immerse oneself into the culture of choice and "live" the language - speak, read, converse, do business, etc. Assuming that method is not possible for someone, what do you think is the second-best way to learn a new language?

I'm learning Arabic right now, and my instructor's method is to teach reading, writing and speaking all at the same time, with the rationale that learning to read & write first (or simultaneously) will make it easier to speak. Do you agree with this? Why or why not? If yes, do you think this method would apply universally, or mainly to languages that do NOT share an alphabet with English (Russian, Arabic, Korean, etc.)?

Also, what is your opinion of language-teaching software (such as Rosetta Stone)? Are they effective, or is personal instruction the better way to go?

I've heard numerous people say that routine practice of a language is essential to maintaining your skills once you have acquired them. Simon, do you have a weekly schedule/routine for practicing your myriad languages so as to prevent any lingual atrophy? If so, could you give us a brief overview?