Sharkbait's Local Spot

I read something last night that broke my linguistic heart. Tim Ferriss, author of The 4-hour Workweek, posted "How to learn (but not master) any language in 1 hour" on his very popular blog (Nov. 2007).

The blog entry focuses on "deconstructing" a language, as a means to acquisition. In his post, he reduces language learning to a sport, unintentionally undermines linguistics and its sub-fields, and encourages several language myths at once. And sadly, the 320+ comments and responses* to the thread are rife with stereotypes and misconceptions about language and culture.

There is also extremely little informative discourse from sociologists, linguists, or other scholars of related fields in response to the post and comments. Maybe they don't know where to begin. Or maybe they just let it be. Maybe it wasn't noticed or read. Or maybe they didn't care or have nothing to say. I do.

So much so, that I can't let these finer point slide...

1. The post repeatedly mentions "deconstruction." I'm sorry Tim, but this word does not mean what you think it means. "Deconstruction" is not an appropriate word to use in the contexts you have chosen, especially when referring to social sciences, linguistics and philosophy. It is actually a scientific term, with a wealth of theory from Heidegger to Derrida to substantiate it. When you cite the languages you've "deconstructed", you are presenting this term to laypersons in a way that seriously misrepresents it. Those who are introduced to the term for the very first time through your post are being done a terrible disservice. The true meaning of the word, used in its proper context, can lead down a rabbit hole of delightful foray into history and the underpinnings of Western thought (for those who dare). But if we aren't going to go there, please use a different, more appropriate term to say what you mean.

2. A language is so deeply enmeshed with the culture of its speakers that choosing to only focus on technical acquisition misses a major point of language learning! Phonology, morphology, and syntax are great, but without semantics and pragmatics to tie it all together, you'll sound like a computer or a turing machine. Or a completely ignorant human. Not to mention how incredibly egocentric and narrow-minded it would be to A) choose a language to learn based solely on ease, and B) choose to ignore the cultural and pragmatic aspects of a language to spare oneself some hard work. Besides, the best part of language learning is when you start getting the jokes.

3. If we are going to choose a language to learn based on it's syntactic, phonological, and morphological similarity to a language that one has already mastered, it'd be best to do this from a historical perspective. Languages are spoken of in kinship terms for a reason. Sister languages are more closely related to each other than distant cousins. This is why Spanish, French, and Italian are so alike. And for the record, English is NOT a romance language, as one commenter has suggested.

4. Saying that one language is easier to learn than another is dangerously close to the myth that some languages are more or less complex than others. This is simply not true, and has been documented ad nauseam in sociology and linguistic textbooks and journals for decades. The reason why it is a dangerous notion is because language is indexical of the culture of its speakers, and making claims about its simplicity promotes negative attitudes of those speakers. Saying that "Spanish is easy" is one step away from the idea Spanish people are simple or lazy. This is linguistic prejudice, and it can affect everything from how much one tips their server, to major shifts in foreign policy, to education reform, immigration law, and on and on.

I'm not suggesting that the post is prejudiced or that its intention is harmful, but the content and style is indeed somewhat careless, which can allow uninformed thinking to propagate itself, inevitably leading to negative attitudes and stereotypes about language.

If you have the opportunity to set the bar higher and challenge others, do so!

5. If we are to go along with the idea of feature analysis as a means of determining a language to learn, then we can't pick and choose which features to ignore or include based on our familiarity with the terms in our criteria of selection. For example, English has many important language features that we may not have conscious awareness of, but we need to become aware of those features if we are to compare it to another fairly and holistically. (Ironically, this would be part of the "deconstruction" of which you mis-speak. And it usually takes more than an hour.) Just because we know that English has an underlyingly SVO word-order does not mean that this is a salient criteria for comparison. Many languages have SVO word-order. But what if you choose an SVO language that is syntactically simple, but morphologically complex? You'll have a real problem applying your syntactically complex English framework. And don't get me started on wrapping your head around case markings, which sometimes becomes very important when dealing with a language in which syntax is not as complex.

6. Choosing a language to learn based on its similarity to one you already know sucks all the fun out of it. AND THE PROCESS ISN'T ANY LESS CHALLENGING. See #4.

7. The post title is a misnomer. But hey, it's a blog on teh intarwebs! who cares, amirite?!?!
---------------------
When you assume an informed position, with the intent to teach others, you have a responsibility to maintain the credibility of the claims made and continue to provide factual reinforcement of those teachings. I'm saddened that you have chosen to let so much misinformation stand uncorrected. It gives the impression that you agree with the responses by some of your commenters, which is egregious considering that some of these people state things that are blatant falsities and linguistic stereotypes posing as truths. I do not think these commenters are intentionally doing this; this is actually a great opportunity to correct and inform. With your credentials, the scope of your influence, and the endeavor to teach others, I am surprised that you have no desire to either gently correct the errors, or at the very least, disassociate yourself from the less-informed opinions of your audience. As I read your post today, it would appear that you either don't care, or you endorse these viewpoints. Both possibilities are disheartening.
---------------------
I enjoyed Tim Ferriss' blog up until I read that posting. It bummed me out and angered me, which I'm sure you can tell by my overrantical tirade. I hope that if Tim or any of his fans do take the time to read this, they will ignore any harsh tone and snark in my writing and aim to focus on understanding what it is that I am railing against. I've tried to keep this post fair and kind, but in charged situations its often hard to find objectivity. I apologize in advance for any offense this post may cause. I do not intend to incite, but rather provide a differing perspective. I welcome any and all opinions, questions, corrections, information and encouragement.

Thank you.
---------------------
A different language is a different vision of life. ~Federico Fellini
---------------------
*I do understand that the blog author is not responsible for the views expressed in the comments and all that jazz—I'm not trying to say that I hold Tim Ferriss accountable for the opinions of his readers. That'd be ridiculous. I'm just sayin'...fois gras in, fois gras out.