info on learning russian

[dgc]

I know Edward has a post on some russian words anyone have some advice on a audio

cd's you can buy to help with this also

[ace131]

i am not sure but probably there is Rosseta Stones CDs?
you could try to find out.
have you thought about taking classing online?
Ace131

[SANDRO43]

have you thought about taking classing online?

Dgc, check out Learn Russian in our RWDpedia (http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/mwiki/index.php/Learn_Russian).

[GQBlues]

I know Edward has a post on some russian words anyone have some advice on a audio

cd's you can buy to help with this also

Not sure if you're trying to learn simple, basic phonetics or how extensive you'd like to learn. I used Pimsleur before but that was just to get me by for 2 weeks the first time - barely - and more for pronunciation of basic phrases...

Beyond what Sandro posted, which is great, here's a nice little site that gives you a few basic words/phrases both in cyrillic and phonetics..it even has the alphabet which is pretty nice to learn if you're serious of learning the language in depth.

http://www.dating-world.net/Russian%20phrases.htm

"ya palyubil tebya s pervova vzglyada"  *Я полюбил тебя с первого взгляда* 

[KevinD]

I checked-out the Pimsleur CDs from my library. I listend to the first CD so far. I have about a month before I am in Ukraine so far it is OK. They teach you phrases so I am not sure how much help it will be in real life.

[Nat]

I know Edward has a post on some russian words anyone have some advice on a audio

cd's you can buy to help with this also

It seems to me that the best audio is communication with a native speaker Of course first you'll need some theory, which can be found in any self-study book, and then the more practice you have, the quicker you begin to speak and the better you do it

[Faux Pas]

dgc


What is it exactly you'd like to do? Are you looking to learn some words and phrases for a visit or are you looking for something more intense and expanded to become an experienced speaker? Like any other language, there's A, then Z, then everything from A to Z

[dgc]

Thanks for the help found some of the links online and it has helped a lot


Dave

[jj]

http://www.internetpolyglot.com/


lots of options on youtube and internet. here is one of many. jj

[jj]

http://www.uni.edu/becker/Russian2.html#photos

[fishkeeper008]

the best way i believe to learn a foreign language is to actually go to the courty is is spoken, that way you are forced to use it and think about it. My stepmom is from Honduras and ive been there a few times with my dad and she taught me a little bit growing up but the first trip i took there i learned 100x as much in two weeks as i did in a months of learning it from her. The time i spent in South Korea i cant compare as much because i didnt try to learn any before the army sent me there but when we were off post drinking or shopping you would pick it up quickly because you are forced to, IMHO that is the best way to learn, at least for me, the trial by fire so to speak. Now obviosly this doesnt apply to what we do here becuase you want to know some before you take a trip to FSU, but for me even as i study it and try to learn, i know when i take a trip there ill learn a lot more because ill be more or less forced to use it.

[Tim22]

http://www.ruslan.co.uk

http://www.linguaphone.co.uk

[kbluck]

Pimsleur works. At least, it works better than every other packaged retail course I've worked with (a lot of them.) By the time you complete all three phases, you won't be anything resembling fluent, but you will be able to say a surprising amount of useful stuff and actually be able to guess how to say some things you've never been taught specificallly. Pimsleur has its flaws, to be sure. It's not so good with the listening in the real world; unfortunately, only immersion really works for that. The "reading" materials suck. It's 1970's audio technology, and can be boring. The cold-war Russian stereotypes can get a bit trite. (Mr. Sukhov is never in his office, the telephone never works, you can never find a place to put the car, the best hotel is the Intourist, etc...) You'll sound a bit dated. But warts aside, it works surprisingly well when used as directed.

Rosetta Stone doesn't work. It's beautiful and slick and fun to use, and boy are they great at marketing. But I have yet to meet anybody (including myself) who Rosetta Stone taught to say anything useful. The whole concept is flawed. They can call their software "dynamic immersion" all they want, but its nothing even resembling real immersion. If you order Rosetta, do remember they offer that generous 6-month return policy. After 6 months when you still can't say a damn thing except useless nonsense like "The cat is under the mat", you'll be glad to have your money back. I know I was. And don't believe you have no talent for languages just because you couldn't learn anything from Rosetta Stone.

In general, steer clear of programs that promise you'll "Learn like a child." It's a silly idea, really. Children don't know what anything is. As a result they have to guess and make lots of (oh-so-cute!) mistakes. You're an adult. You don't need to guess. You can look it up. Making you guess at things like a toddler doesn't help you learn; it just wastes your time. I don't know why everybody thinks small kids are so great at learning languages anyway. They live full-time in an immersion environment, have ready access around the clock to multiple tutors (aka parents and other caregivers) who diligently correct their mistakes, and still it takes them years to attain anything resembling fluency, never mind literacy. Put most adults in that environment and they'll be functionally fluent in 6 months to a year, tops.

--
Kevin

[FredC]

I'll also add this about Rosetta Stone. If you try to buy a used program, check the version that you are buying. I bought it a few years ago. The version that I have, does not start by teaching you the alphabet. So, when they show you the words, it doesn't mean anything.

From what I understand, they have changed this in recent versions.

It is still a difficult process without having a teacher to answer your questions.

[Boethius]

. I don't know why everybody thinks small kids are so great at learning languages anyway. They live full-time in an immersion environment, have ready access around the clock to multiple tutors (aka parents and other caregivers) who diligently correct their mistakes, and still it takes them years to attain anything resembling fluency, never mind literacy. Put most adults in that environment and they'll be functionally fluent in 6 months to a year, tops.
 

I respectfully disagree.  "Learning like a child" means letting go and not being inhibited.  It also means throwing out the rules you know and trying to "relearn".  My husband is multilingual.  He has a natural talent for languages, but he said he always threw out the rules and "learned like a child".  Children aren't inhibited in making mistakes.  They don't come to a language with preconceived views.  I think that's the key.  Children's brains are also mapped differently, so learning languages is, in fact, easier for them.

Most people won't be functionally fluent in a language with which they have no previous knowledge within six months to a year.  They may be able to make their desires known, but I don't think that equates to fluency.

In the end, we all learn in different ways, and each individual needs to use what works for him/her.

[kbluck]

I still say children aren't actually better than adults at learning languages. What they're better at is spending the necessary time to learn. They're sort of over the proverbial barrel and have little better to do than practice language skills at that age.

Anders Ericsson proposed a rule of thumb that says to get really, truly good at any complex skilled undertaking, you need to practice at it about 10,000 hours.

http://www.coachingmanagement.nl/The%20Making%20of%20an%20Expert.pdf

This rule of thumb applies to sports, musical instruments, skilled trades, etc. I think it applies equally well to languages.

Children get those 10k hours pretty much by default. In an immersion environment, where you actively attempt to use the language for 12-16 hours a day, you will acquire your 10k hours in about two years. Kids are actually somewhat slower than this; from the time they first acquire the capacity to speak language around the age of 1, it usually takes them 3-4 years to approach oral fluency. They'll usually continue to refine for another few years. In my experience, a typical adult also in a full-immersion environment where they actively use the second language to communicate for 12-16 hours a day, will reach functional fluency in about two years.

Note that just living in a foreign country isn't automatically "immersion"; many expats actually spend most of their time using their primary language instead of the local language.

I have a further rule of thumb; I divide the stages of language achievement into powers of 10:

1 hour will get you a couple of badly-pronounced, memorized phrases.
10 hours will get you a couple dozen memorized survival phrases.
100 hours will get you the ability to express simple concepts in complete sentences.
1,000 hours will get you the ability to engage in elementary conversations with strangers.
10,000 hours will get you sufficient fluency to be comfortable in most contexts.

Now, it's just a matter of math. As I said, total immersion should get you to fluency in two years, and you'll reach the 1,000 hour basic conversational level in 2-3 months. That coincides pretty well with my observations.

On the other hand, if you're trying to learn a language by studying some course or software for 30 minutes a day an average of 4-5 times a week, which is typical, it's going to take you the best part of a year just to reach the 100-hour "simple sentences" stage. That's about right, in my experience. It'll take you about 8 years to reach the "elementary conversation" stage, which indeed is about how long it takes to get through a typical high school and college program. In the absence of immersion experiences, finishing 8 years of school language courses does indeed in my experience leave you at about the "elementary conversation" level.

So, in my view, aptitude is a relatively minor factor. Most humans in fact have an innate skill for language. I believe those with a "talent" for it probably really have the talent of *liking to practice languages more*, not any real cognitive differences.

--
Kevin

[Boethius]

So, in my view, aptitude is a relatively minor factor.

Most linguists disagree with this.  There are several language aptitude tests that assess this.  Pimsleur developed one which assessed both aptitude and motivation.  Further, aptitude remains relatively constant throughout an individual's lifetime.

Ericcson's research fails to consider natural abilities.  I can assure you, I could devote 10,000 hours to golf, but I wouldn't be Tiger Woods.

[kbluck]

Ericcson's research fails to consider natural abilities.  I can assure you, I could devote 10,000 hours to golf, but I wouldn't be Tiger Woods.

Ericssons's research certainly does consider natural abilities.  His entire line of research is devoted to the question of what makes an expert. The conventional wisdom is that aptitude matters most, but his research indicates that aptitude isn't nearly as important as practice. There are many examples of experts who initially displayed no particular aptitude for their field; there are practically no examples of experts who did not prepare themselves for expertise with long hours of practice. Aptitude does serve to introduce relatively minor performance differences between experts that can be important in competition between experts, but not to rule out expertise entirely. In other words, almost anybody with or without aptitude can become an expert in almost anything with enough dedicated practice; aptitude can make that expert into a legend, but first they must develop expertise through practice. Aptitude alone is never enough to become an expert; practice alone can be enough.

The trouble with aptitude is that it often becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you or others judge you as having no aptitude, very often your access to high-quality training is restricted. Even worse, assessment of aptitude is often subjective, unreliable, or just plain discriminatory. That phenomenon is certainly visible in most educational systems, where the "bad" students are usually the poorest and the racial minorities, and as a result of being assessed as "bad" usually also have the worst teachers and fewest resources for learning, thus nearly guaranteeing that they will stay "bad."

You yourself have obviously decided that your own aptitude for golf is limited. But I bet that if you really did devote 10k hours of focused, rigorous training to your golf game, you would in fact be ready to join the PGA tour. That doesn't mean just hacking around the local golf course; it means training the way Tiger Woods trains.You would certainly be far better than a "natural" player who doesn't train. A legend like Tiger Woods, perhaps not; but an expert golfer capable of contending with other world-class players, certainly.  One of Ericsson's main findings is that the quality of practice time matters greatly.

Which gets us back to language courses. In my opinion, Pimsleur delivers higher-quality practice time than does Rosetta Stone. So, if a person is going to limit themselves to acquiring only 100 hours of language practice, which is typical for RW seekers, I think that spending that time with Pimsleur will leave them significantly more capable than spending it with Rosetta. But no matter what course they choose, they should understand that they will never approach fluency or even competence with that small an investment in practice time.

--
Kevin

[Faux Pas]

kbluck

Your statements and Ericsson's research sounds plausible on it's face but seems also built on the assumption that everyone's aptitude level is the same when obviously it isn't. 3 different people working on the Pimsleur course the same amount of hours will in all likelihood while being at the same general level will not be equal in the amount they learned or absorbed. That sounds almost robotic.

While Rosetta Stone didn't work well for you yet, Pimsleur did, hardly means Rosetta Stone won't work for the next person. I'm definitely not a linguist and certainly not cunning  but attempting to "cookie cutter" what will and won't work in general for learning a foreign language seems really "out there" to me. IMO

I've dabbled off and on in Russian for 3 years and still can't formulate a sentence much less hold a decent conversation but, it's more reflective of my lack of commitment. I didn't get much from the Rosetta Stone or Pimsleur. Basically just learned how to memorize some words but, nothing from either one on how to understand the language. There is a Harvard course some where here at RWD (do a search on Daveman's post concerning it) It's long and lengthy and I have only begun with it but already learning more with it than Pimsleur and RS combined. I do not really think it is better than those two but, my familiarity with Russian prior to starting it has made the difference.

I've learned that learning a new language is very difficult for me and  I suppose I suffer from some form of ADD. I get bored easily. My posts at RWD notwithstanding, I am a fairly intelligent sort and score well on IQ tests. Many things I learn very quickly, many I struggle with as well.

I get that if one spends 10K hours on anything they could become an expert but, 10K hours spent on any one thing is probably way too much again, IMHO

[mendeleyev]

I agree wholeheartedly with most of the comments made up-thread about Rosetta Stone.

If your local library is part of the national library association, most are, then you can order all 3 of the main Pimsleur series for a 30 day period. Free. It is an online, on demand feature, audio download. Pimsleur however is woefully lacking in the areas of visual alphabet recognition and explaining how grammar works.

CDs do have limitations. If you live in the West and can speak English but cannot read or write, you are considered to be illerate. If you land in the FSU and have learned only words and phrases but can't read the menu, the Metro signs, street names, etc, you're still illerate in Russian.

In tracking the search words/topics readers use to find the Mendeleyev Journal, it is fairly constant that among the top searches are--

Cyrillic alphabet
Easter in Russia
Black bread recipe
Christmas in Russia

Helpful links
Cyrillic alphabet: http://russianreport.wordpress.com/russian-language/learn-the-cyrillic-alphabet/

Russian language resources list: http://russianreport.wordpress.com/russian-language/russian-language-resources/

Suggestions are welcome for resource list additions.