TYPE AND LANGUAGE LEARNING:Questioning my type again !

[Angel von Himmel]

Well, today I had a little talk with my Professor here at school. I did a 7 minute skit I wrote in German a few classperiods ago for a class assignment, and I wanted to talk to her about my german language speaking ability [I still have problems sometimes pronouncing words right].

Anyhow, I probably should mention that she is flamming out of the wazoo. She spent a few minutes telling me how I have improved so much over the past few weeks in my writting skills that it is bizaare, that every paper is an improvement. Essentially she pretty much fed me positive emotions to the brink, literally.

So anyways, I told her a little about how I learn languages, that I am able to pick apart a whole sentence in a foreign language and figure out the principle parts, like nouns, pronouns, verbs, adverbs, etc. She said that she noticed I was pretty analytical with the language, and that it was a strength that not many people have. I asked her how it would be possible to learn how to relate the language as opposed to analyzing it, since analyzing everything that is being said makes it hard to relate the language. She said that would come with time and with getting the basics down.

Anyhow, I think this is starting to raise questions again about my type. I am not really sure if feeling types are as analytical with languages that I am. I know from reading this article:

http://the16types.info/PPFLL.pdf

That mostly either intuitive based types in general ()()()() and/or thinking based intuitive types
()() tend to be the best at wanting to learn languages.

Anyhow, I guess my question goes more along the line of "how would a thinking type learn a language?" versus "how would an ethical type learn a language?"

What do you guys think?

How would an ethical or logical type learn a language?

[Creepy-bg]

I hardly speak English (and it's the only language I know) so I can't really help on the learning language thing.

Have you ever taken Dmitri's test? I think it's pretty safe to consider it the most legit test of Socionics type in English. It's a bit long (took me about an hour with snack breaks) but he seems to have it down pretty tight. At least then you'd have an objective straight forward opinion to work from.

[Angel von Himmel]

I am mostly just interested if the above means anything ...

[Creepy-bg]

allright then

[implied]

i believe a lot of and types can learn languages well (and better than many intuitive types) with some of the more preferred methods now, like TPR (total physical response.) this seems almost made for people, assuming that dominance can link words to associated actions/concepts.

basically, if you have a good teacher (and enough money) you can learn whatever language you want in whatever manner suits you best. just saying that there isn't one type of classroom out there to use a standard, but there are many types of methods you can work with.


i'll go off on my rosetta stone sales pitch now and just say that they're about the best system out there, probably better for sensors than most language programs.

[Angel von Himmel]

I did not really mean that they do not learn it, it is that the types most interested in learning a foreign language appear to be for the most part intuitive or logical according to that article]

[implied]

I did not really mean that they do not learn it, it is that the types most interested in learning a foreign language appear to be for the most part intuitive or logical according to that article]

then i'd probably have to go on ahead and resign myself to intuitive/logical. ): i see what you mean.

anyhow, i never really have thought about how an ethical type would learn versus a thinking type. i suspect a lot of the chinese students i taught were ST and NT types (some ISTj/INTp mixup,) and they basically did everything we told them to, but i think they got a little embarrassed when we started making them sing things like, "take me out to the ballgame."

[Slacker]

When I was studying languages and language development, over a dozen years ago *sigh*, I learned by comparing bits of one language to another - words, parts of words, how tenses of verbs were formed, etc. I don't know if you can learn a language without some level of analyzing its structure. I don't think that makes you *not* ENFp.

But I never followed through and learned any languages well enough to carry on a conversation. LOL I can understand a bit if I hear someone speaking them.

I have no idea or comment on how anyone else would learn languages, or whatever.

[aestrivex]

seriously... this shouldnt even be an issue in terms of type.

[Gilly]

seriously... this shouldnt even be an issue in terms of type.

I actually think that it could be related. would help mcnew see the similarities between the basic underlying principles of concepts used in the language. For example, if one was reading in a foreign language and came across a word that he/she didn't know, would use the context of the word within the sentence to draw a parallel to another word ("I can see [insert word] being used here instead of [insert known word]) in order to determine, for example, the part of speech, usage in context, etc. of a word.

Does that make any sense?

[Angel von Himmel]

seriously... this shouldnt even be an issue in terms of type.

I actually think that it could be related. would help mcnew see the similarities between the basic underlying principles of concepts used in the language. For example, if one was reading in a foreign language and came across a word that he/she didn't know, would use the context of the word within the sentence to draw a parallel to another word ("I can see [insert word] being used here instead of [insert known word]) in order to determine, for example, the part of speech, usage in context, etc. of a word.

Does that make any sense?

That is exactly what I am able to do ...

[Gilly]

Well there you go :wink:

[implied]

same here. if there's something i think i'm incredibly good at, it's probably learning languages.

[Gilly]

Just for the record, I'm not saying that makes one good at a language; it's simply the approach that I thought seemed most applicable in Mcnew's situation. I myself am no great shakes at foreign languages, and I happen to be dominant.

Any strong function could be used in the understanding of a language. For example, an type might use his awareness of the inflections in a collocutor's voice more effectively than others to help discern meaning.

[CuriousSoul]

It seems almost everyone speaks Spanish in America these days. It is still a fairly minor language in most of Europe. I guess I should try to master it...

[aestrivex]

It seems almost everyone speaks Spanish in America these days. It is still a fairly minor language in most of Europe. I guess I should try to master it...

no te pierdas el tiempo así...

[implied]

It seems almost everyone speaks Spanish in America these days. It is still a fairly minor language in most of Europe. I guess I should try to master it...

that would be a misconception. there are a lot of motivators to learn spanish if you're living in the united states, and there are a lot of opportunities to learn, but most people really don't master it at all. they're mostly novice/intermediate level speakers (unless spanish is the first language of their parents, or some situation like that.)

[Angel von Himmel]

Not to mention that the majority of people who speak any sort of spanish are all of spanish decent of some sort, but since they are also mostly citizens it would seem that Spanish is a more common language than in reality. English is still the most used language generally even though you will find pockets where there are alot of Spanish speakers [southern california and texas, for example, have LOTS of spanish speakers].

[Slacker]

seriously... this shouldnt even be an issue in terms of type.

I actually think that it could be related. would help mcnew see the similarities between the basic underlying principles of concepts used in the language. For example, if one was reading in a foreign language and came across a word that he/she didn't know, would use the context of the word within the sentence to draw a parallel to another word ("I can see [insert word] being used here instead of [insert known word]) in order to determine, for example, the part of speech, usage in context, etc. of a word.

Does that make any sense?

That was exactly what I did when I was learning languages too. Or if the root looked like it could be related to a word in English. Or I figured relationships between how words are put together in the languages, like words beginning in E with an accent mark in French often begin in S in English, and I'd try to figure it out with that information. Etude = study, ecole = school. Sorry if my French spelling is off - this was a LONG time ago and it isn't something I've used since.

[FDG]

Now there are also ways of learning languages? I though you just learn them.