I think each language has something unique to it. For example, Esperanto has correlatives.

With that in mind, do you believe that there is a one size fits all language learning model, which can teach all languages effectively (at least at the beginner level)?

Does Rosetta Stone or Pimsleur come close to that?

Given that each language is different, and that each learner's capacities and prior language experience differ, I would say there is no good "one size fits all" model.

However, some methods are more likely to be efficient than others - this is why we have pedagogy.

I have found Rosetta Stone very overpriced and not very helpful. Pimsleur is good for basic phrases, but you will struggle to advance beyond a basic vocabulary and basic grammar knowledge with it, since it tends not to be very analytical.

The better learning models are multifaceted and incorporate various spoken and textual elements.

I totally agree with your opinions on Rosetta Stone and Pimsleur. Teaching audio comprehension is a big problem I see with these courses. They use a very limited vocabulary and very clear speech, so yes, you will probably understand all of the sentences perfectly if you've been keeping up with the vocabulary, but in the real world you're toast. I went through all of the levels of Pimsleur French and I still can't say I really speak French beyond the level of a tourist (I could have gained this level of French from one year of a basic class). Pronunciation is super hard for French, the courses tend to speak in an unrealistically clear way, then you're hard pressed to understand anything in real life, because real-life elision is much more than what you're taught in a course. Languages like Italian seem to be a bit closer, between what you hear in the course and what you hear in real life.

erinja:I totally agree with your opinions on Rosetta Stone and Pimsleur. Teaching audio comprehension is a big problem I see with these courses. They use a very limited vocabulary and very clear speech, so yes, you will probably understand all of the sentences perfectly if you've been keeping up with the vocabulary, but in the real world you're toast. I went through all of the levels of Pimsleur French and I still can't say I really speak French beyond the level of a tourist (I could have gained this level of French from one year of a basic class). Pronunciation is super hard for French, the courses tend to speak in an unrealistically clear way, then you're hard pressed to understand anything in real life, because real-life elision is much more than what you're taught in a course. Languages like Italian seem to be a bit closer, between what you hear in the course and what you hear in real life.

I spent 4 years in French immersion when I was in Elementary school. We were NOT allowed to talk in any other language besides French. In Junior high and high school, it was a mandatory part-time class. I still can't speak or understand French.

I am still a beginner in French. I do have some vocab swimming around in my head but nothing useful. I can't understand French cartoons or French people.

I don't think it is my fault though. I think our methods for teaching and learning languages suck. We are in the dark ages of language learning.

Alkanadi:I spent 4 years in French immersion when I was in Elementary school. We were NOT allowed to talk in any other language besides French. In Junior high and high school, it was a mandatory part-time class. I still can't speak or understand French.

I am still a beginner in French. I do have some vocab swimming around in my head but nothing useful. I can't understand French cartoons or French people.

I don't think it is my fault though. I think our methods for teaching and learning languages suck. We are in the dark ages of language learning.

I assume you're referring to the US or the UK... In the US, at least, there are several reasons (I think) behind the monoglot culture.

Firstly, people (outside of the major cities) are not used to hearing or seeing languages besides English, mostly due to the US' geographical isolation - they will, at best, only be exposed to a little Spanish.

Compare this to places like the Netherlands, where geographical and cultural proximity foster a greater degree of cosmopolitan-ness, and it becomes increasingly impractical to not speak at least two, and usually three, languages.

Secondly, I don't think language in general is taught well in the US. People who don't know their own language well won't do well with foreign languages. I've had university-level language classes where the students had to ask what a predicate or direct object was. This is basic, basic grammar - without this knowledge, you cannot abstract the underlying concepts from the sounds or the words on the page - it will all look like gibberish that you have to memorise by rote.

Tempodivalse:Secondly, I don't think language in general is taught well in the US. People who don't know their own language well won't do well with foreign languages.

I have an acquaintance who is a professor of linguistics in the University near me. He said that those who have a strong L1 will pick up a second language much easier than those who don't.

This leads me to believe that there is a genetic/social conditioning factor involved. The language centers of the brain are likely more developed in certain individuals. But, this is no excuse. It would be beneficial to come up with a better method of teaching and learning language so that anyone can do it.

Alkanadi:

Tempodivalse:Secondly, I don't think language in general is taught well in the US. People who don't know their own language well won't do well with foreign languages.

I have an acquaintance who is a professor of linguistics in the University near me. He said that those who have a strong L1 will pick up a second language much easier than those who don't.

I am a "senior citizen" in the USA who had a very intensive schooling in prescriptive (American) English grammar, vocabulary, and spelling in the 1950s. Let me tell you, it was intense. Nevertheless, despite almost five years' study of French in high school and university, I could just barely manage my university lectures, papers, and examinations in that language.

Yes, it might have been much more difficult if I had not had a serious L1 grounding, and no, I am not picking on French. It might have been the same for any other L2 language. But that is a so-called "natural" L2. If it had been a regularized, mostly non-idiomatic constructed language such as Esperanto, I probably would have done better (and after almost fifty years retained more of it). Now, without any formal study except "book learning" I can read Esperanto better than all my studies in French of 50+ years ago.