'Native speaker only' ads illegal in the EU

Those who've been following my posts regularly, might have noticed that I've quite strongly voiced my discontent, outrage and frustration at TEFL job ads which demand the applicants to be native speakers. If you're not one, don't bother applying. You might have a PhD in English Studies and 100 years of teaching experience, but no one will even glance at your CV. Your un-English sounding name and your passport make you unfit for the job, I'm afraid. I described the problem and discussed its negative effects on the industry in a previous post which you can read here.

Together with a group of like-minded teachers I've also recently set up another blog, TEFL Equity Advocates, devoted to fighting unequal hiring and employment policies in the TEFL industry. I invite you to visit it, subscribe and help us fight for equality.

In a nutshell, the practice of hiring only NESTs (Native Speaker English Teacher) is so widespread and deeply entrenched within the industry that most of don't even notice it. And if we do, we might just shrug our shoulders either in despair or indifference. But inaction is the worst form of action!

Whenever I go on tefl.com and look at countries like Spain, Italy, Korea, Japan, where almost 100% of all job ads are for NESTs only, I am filled with rage. And an urge to act!

 
Below I reblog my post from TEFL Equity Advocates blog, which you can access here. 

Common sense and gut feeling tell most of us that such ads are a clear case of discrimination. Same as any other type of discrimination, such as based on gender, race or ethnicity. But gut feeling is only just that, and can only get you so far. Have you ever wondered, though, whether such ads were legal?

I have. And I went where most people in doubt go to (no, not the psychologist or a psychic): I googled it! To narrow my scope, I focused on the European Union. Very quickly google told me that the law had the same gut feeling as I did.

Here are some of the things I found:

• Article 21 of EU basic rights reads as follows (highlighted by me): 

Non-discrimination

1.   Any discrimination based on any ground such as sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation shall be prohibited. 2.   Within the scope of application of the Treaties and without prejudice to any of their specific provisions, any discrimination on grounds of nationality shall be prohibited. 

This just confirms what we all know. Discrimination against race and nationality is illegal in the EU. My gut feeling was telling me that non-native speakers were being discriminated against on the basis of their language, birth and ethnic origin. 

Let's delve deeper and see what gems EU law holds for us in store.

• German MEP Jo Leinen asked the European Commission whether the words "native speaker" could be used in a job advertisement. On 23 May 2003 the EC ruled the following:

In its answer to Question E-0941 the commission states that the term native speaker is not acceptable, under any circumstance, under community law. The Commission also states its intention of continuing to use its powers to fight against any discrimination caused by a requirement for native speaker knowledge in job advertisements.

If that was not enough to convince you, continue reading.

• A Commission Communication of 11 December 2002 on ‘Free movement of workers – achieving the full benefits and potential’ (COM (2002) 694 final) when asked about language requirements for particular jobs stated that:

the language requirement must be reasonable and necessary for the job in question and must not be used to exclude workers, so that advertisements requiring a particular language as a ‘mother tongue’ are not acceptable.

More on recruitment rights here: http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/advice-and-guidance/guidance-for-employers-pre-october-10/areas-of-responsibility/recruitment-and-job-advertisements/

All this means that employers are only allowed to ask for native-like competence in a given language, which on CEFR is C2, but not for a mother tongue.
 
In the UK and in the Netherlands some language schools have been taken to court for refusing to employ NNESTs (Non-native Speaker English Teacher). And guess what? They all lost!
 
What does this mean for you as an aspiring NNEST?

That it's high time you got angry and acted. Don't bury your head in the sand. Don't be discouraged if you see a NEST only ad. Stand up for your rights and make your voice heard. The law is on your side so use it.

Not to say that you have to take somebody to court right away, but politely informing the language school they are breaking the law might just do the trick. I've done so on numerous occasions. More often than not, schools are quite eager to listen to persuasive arguments and are willing to change their ads and recruitment policies.

You can join our FB group here, where you will meet like-minded professionals (NESTs and NNESTs alike) who are happy to share their advice and support you. Also visit TEFL Equity Advocates blog and help us fight together against the discrimination.

What if I'm a NEST? Why would I bother doing anything?

Because your help is vital. Your school might not only be choosing teachers based on nationality, rather than their qualifications and experience, but also breaking the law. You might be doing them a big favour by informing them about it. If you've always felt that native speakers only ads were unfair, that teachers should be valued on the basis of their qualifications, then it's your chance to do something about it by joining the movement.

Footnote: I've only described the law in the EU and I'm not sure what it's like outside the community. However, this is where you can come in. Investigate what the law says about it in your country. Consult an anti-discrimination organisation. I'd love to hear your feedback.

Let's be pro-active!

Be fluent in 6 months - first update

From the Author:

Dear All,
The blog has been permanently moved to wordpress. I'm not going to publish anything on the blogspot address any more, and I'll delete the blog within a week or two.
So if you'd still like to follow my posts (I hope you do), please visit the wordpress version and click follow there: teflreflections.wordpress.com You can also find regular updates on the posts on the new blog's FB page by clicking here.
Thanks for reading and commenting on the posts here, and I hope to see you soon on wordpress.
Best,

Marek Kiczkowiak

At the end of January I posted a series of three posts in which I discussed the idea that perhaps we can all learn languages much quicker than most people would have us think. Having reflected on my own learning experience (I speak 6 languages) and having seen and read about various polyglots, I first suggested that there are 5 language learning myths which prevent us from learning faster and achieving fluency by acting as a self-fulfilling prophecy. They are:

1. I haven't got the talent.
2. I'm too old.
3. I've got bad memory.
4. I need a complete immersion program abroad.
5. I haven't got enough time.

All 5 are only bad excuses which most of us tend to make at some point. And they all hamper our learning process. Here read more about why I think they're only bad excuses which stop you from ever achieving your language goals.

In the post that followed, I suggested a 5 step action plan based on positive and successful language learning experience me and other polyglots have had. They're quite simple and definitely not rocket science:

1. Make the language a useful tool.
2. Make mistakes.
3. Exposure is the key.
4. Use it or lose it.
5. A language parent/buddy.

Finally, as I'm a natural sceptic and a disbeliever in everything supernatural (and learning a language in 6 months seems such a feat), I decided to test the advice on myself. My mission has been to become fluent in Portuguese in 6 months. You can read more about it here (i.e. what I mean by fluent, why 6 months and why Portuguese).

And as I'm a language teacher, one of my main goals is to see whether I might discover any techniques or tricks which I can later use with my students to help them learn languages faster.

So it's been two months since my mission statement. I promised I'd give monthly updates, so I'm sorry you've had to wait for twice the time (if actually any of you have been waiting). You might be wondering then how far I got with my Portuguese. Well, here's a video of me speaking it so you can judge for yourself.

It's the first time that I've actually recorded a video, so please bear with me if it doesn't look or sound super slick. It'll be better next time round, I promise :)

 Here are some questions I thought most people might have after watching the video:

1. What did I say?

   Absolute gibberish! ;) I wanted to put subtitles but haven't figured out how yet, so if anyone knows, please let me know. I basically spoke about why I recorded the video, how I've been studying so far and what my sticking points are. I've probably amde hundreds of errors, so if you speak Portuguese, please point them out.

2. How much have I been studying?

   Depends. But in the strict sense of the word I haven't really been studying at all. I haven't got a grammar book and I don't go to language classes. On average I've probably done about 10 to 20mins a day, but there were two weeks when I couldn't study at all.

3. How have I been studying?

   I've been using Memrise (read my post about it here) to learn new words more effectively. So far I've probably learned around 600 hundred words and phrases, which is not bad for 8 weeks. I've done a small bit there on the basic conjugation of a few verbs to get an idea what it's about. I also watch Brazilian TV on the Internet regularly. I chose O Globo, because it seemed to have lots of free videos available. I'm also doing a language exchange, however, I've only managed to have 4 meeting so far, so definitely this is something I need to do more regularly.

Now it's a good time for me to reflect on the process to see what I've done well and what I can do better in the next couple of weeks.

1. It's going to be more difficult than I initially thought.

   Sorry to start with something a bit disheartening (note that I'm still convinced I can reach my goal). If you read my mission statement, you know I speak Spanish. It has been a definite advantage, as there are many words that are similar, but at the same time it's played against me a bit. At times I'm not sure whether I speak Portuguese or just Spanish with a Portuguese accent. A lesson I've learned is to notice the language patterns and use them to generate new words (for example, -ción is always (or almost) -são or -ção in Portuguese). However, overall it might be quite tricky to speak Portuguese without the influence of Spanish on it.

2. Make mistakes and pay attention to the corrections.

   Often students don't even notice that they are being corrected and just go on making the same mistakes over and over again. Of course, worrying too much about being 100% correct can be counter productive too. But I definitely think it's crucial to ask your language buddy to correct some of your errors (perhaps make it focused, e.g. past tense). And you should repeat the correct version a few times so it sticks. When you say the phrase you've had problems with again, be aware of the error you've been making and make a conscious effort to say it correctly.

3. Notice language patterns and imitate them.

   Noticing new language is also very important. If you hear a new phrase, ask what it means, record it if possible (I usually take a little notebook with me to the language exchange). The crucial part here is that you imitate this new language as soon as you get a chance. For example: A: The concert yesterday was class! B: Class? A: Yeah, it was brilliant. A: Oh. I went to a... class concert two weeks ago! It looks very straight forward but a lot of students don't take the opportunity to use the new language. The language kind of goes through one year and exits through the other. So the lesson here is: don't rely on the limited language that you have, but go beyond it. Imitate, imitate and imitate!

4. Out with grammar - in with vocabulary!

   Don't get me wrong. If you want to be 100% correct you might have to study some grammar at some point. However, I don't think it's as important as course books authors would have you believe. Especially at low levels.There are so many grammar points that are utterly useless for successful communication. My advice is to learn whole chunks of language or even whole utterances that carry communicative meaning (e.g. 'What's your name?' 'Can I have the bill, please?'). So far, I've picked up most of the grammar as I went along. Most importantly by repeating the patterns I hear on TV or from my language buddy (see point 2 and 3). For example, if I hear he's speaking about the past, I pay attention to how he conjugates the verbs, so I can quickly give it a shot myself.

5. Enjoy it!

   It's easier said than done, but a positive mindset is the key. Learning should be fun, so make it so. Choose topics that interest you (i.e. if you're crazy about cooking, start with food, cooking and restaurant vocabulary). And if you feel tired or demotivated, flick on a film or a short video. You don't always have to be consciously studying. Watching a fun video on youtube can be as good or even better than toiling over a boring grammar point.

Sticking points and action plan (apart from what I've already been doing):

1. Pronunciation.

   There are certain sounds that are very tricky for me. I've been trying to imitate how people speak. So far I think I'm definitely communicative and intelligible, but far from natural and correct pronunciation.

2. Do more language exchange.

   It's the key. Once a week is OK, but it doesn't give me as much practice as I need if I want to really be fluent in 6 months.

3. Watch videos with more natural/colloquial language.

   I've been watching mostly news and short journalistic reports and I can already understand almost everything. The problem is when people speak quickly on the street in a more unprepared and natural way.

4. Talk to myself.

   That's a tip one of the polyglots, Sid Efromovich gave in this video. He says he always talks to himself in the language he's learning in the shower (so nobody can hear him). It might sound silly or egocentric, but it gives you valuable practice and language rehearsal time, which together with normal language exchange can improve your fluency.

I'll try to post another update in about a month. If you have any questions or suggestions, please comment below. I'd  love to hear about your language learning experiences and whether you've found any of the tips helpful.

Tchau! Até mais!

(Non–)Nativity scenes

This article was published by the TESOL NNEST Newsletter and you can read it here: http://newsmanager.commpartners.com/tesolnnest/issues/2014-03-11/6.html
For your convenience I post the full article below:

December is still a long way away. Yet I have already been haunted by nativity scenes. Not that I have anything against Christmas, let alone Christianity. It is just that I never thought I would have to admire one nativity (or “nativeness”?) scene after another when reading advertisements for English teachers.

To put the enormity of the problem into perspective, over 50% of jobs advertised in the European Union (excluding the United Kingdom, where schools know that a birth certificate should not be confused with a teaching qualification) on tefl.com, the biggest search engine for job-seeking English teachers, are native speakers only. If you are still not convinced that we are talking discrimination here, then ask yourself this simple question: How would you feel if over 50% of the ads you looked at listed as a qualification: all applicants must be WHITE MALES?

And Holland, where I am currently based, is on an infamous par with the rest of the EU. All top-notch language schools. All flaunting teaching excellence. Yet all stress that only native speaker teachers (NESTs) need apply. What is shocking is their cheek and absolute lack of logic. To quote one recruiter, whom I informed that he had illegally turned down my application for a teaching position as I was not a native speaker of English: “This is not discrimination against a particular nationality in any way. We require our French teachers to be native speakers of French, whatever their nationality, and our Spanish teachers to be native speakers of Spanish, again whatever their nationality, just as we expect our Polish teachers to be native speakers of Polish, etc.”

How about leaving the birth certificate in the drawer and focusing on the qualifications and language abilities of your teachers for a change?

But what does this mean for a student in a language school? Well, it might mean your teachers have been selected because they happen to be native speakers. Not necessarily because they are very good teachers. And that you have been deprived of a fair number of possibly highly qualified and motivated English language teachers, who were unfortunate enough not to have been born in an English-speaking country. Mind you, nobody even glanced at their CVs or bothered to interview them, let alone check their level of English (or the language they teach) and their qualifications.

Ha!, I hear you exclaim, surely those nonnative speakers do not speak the language anywhere near native level. Surely native speakers have a broader vocabulary, the feel for the language, the correct pronunciation. Do they? Which native speakers? Which correct pronunciation?

English is spoken as an official language in 60 sovereign states. To give three of the lesser known, but by no means less important examples: Gambia, Lesotho, and Palau. There are, then, hundreds of dialects and accents, some of which are virtually unintelligible even to a native speaker (for Britain, check http://www.bbc.co.uk/voices/recordings/index.shtml).

However, since the 1960s, the idea of native speakers as the ultimate, omniscient, and infallible source of linguistic intuition about their L1 has percolated into mainstream TEFL (teaching English as a foreign language), becoming the status quo and propagating the view of a nonnative speaker “as a defective communicator, limited by an underdeveloped communicative competence” (Firth & Wagner, 1997, p. 285). Yet most linguists have long since moved on, largely abandoning the idea.

For example, Paikeday (1985) dubs the native speaker “a figment of linguist’s imagination” (p. 12). Still deeply ingrained in the TEFL imagination, I would say. Davies (1991) refers to the native speaker as “a fine myth.” He recognises that although the native speaker might still be essential as a benchmark or a model, the term “is useless as a measure.” But as Moussu and Llurda (2008) point out, despite the fact that from a linguistic perspective the view of the nonnative speaker as a deficient communicator—as opposed to the infallible language competence of a native speaker—is linguistically nonsensical, it is still socially present and deeply ingrained in TEFL recruitment policies.

On a more down-to-earth level, people who speak English as the second or third language outnumber native speakers by about three to one (Crystal, 2012). Whether you like it or not, the English do not own English anymore (Widdowson, 1994). Neither do the Scots, the Irish, the Americans, nor any other native speakers.

Let’s face it—it has gone global. Why not embrace rather than evade this? And if you doubt the notion that one can learn a language to a native level, then why bother learning at all? Why bother taking Certificate of Proficiency in English (CPE) or IELTS? Perhaps Cambridge ESOL should put a footnote disclaimer for the candidates: You might pass CPE, but you ain’t never getting to no native level no way!

Even in times when language teaching was almost nonexistent, or simply very backwards by our standards, people did master languages. For one, Joseph Conrad, born, bred, and baptised in Poland as Józef Korzeniowski, managed to outshine and outwrite most of his English contemporaries, showing the English the beauty of English.

But whatever your opinion on the above might be, ask yourself whether it really matters for a teacher to be highly and omnisciently proficient in a language. Does it make them a good teacher? I would like to suggest it does not. I agree with Seidlhofer (1999) and Selvi (in review) that we should not deem somebody a great teacher solely based on his or her language proficiency as it is now done in the case of native speakers. Language proficiency might be a necessary characteristic of a good teacher, but never the sufficient or ultimate one. Successful teaching is so much more!

A typical job advert: qualifications—must be a native speaker. If you have not realised yet, it’s an oxymoron. I have looked, but I am yet to find a degree in “nativity” or “nativeness” (might need to check with a native which is right). Please do let me know if you have more luck.

Let’s be blunt. This most sought-after qualification is bestowed on a few (~359 million) lucky ones at birth. And the rest (~6,700 million)? Boats against the current, ceaselessly toiling over grammar and pronunciation, unaware of the vacuity of our efforts – at least as far as teaching prospects go.

Yet I have a dream.

I have a dream that one day language teachers will not be judged by the colour of their skin.

Nor by their gender.

Or their nationality.

I have a dream that one day they will be judged by the content of their CVs.

There is the green light, the orgiastic future. And unlike Gatsby’s, it is attainable. Article 21 of the basic rights charter of the European Union prohibits any discrimination based on nationality and/or ethnicity. Indeed, a European Commission Communication from 12 November 2002 (COM (2002) 694 final), states that “advertisements requiring a particular language as a ‘mother tongue’ are not acceptable.” On 23 May 2003, in answer to a question from German MEP Jo Leinen, the European Commission stated: “The term native speaker is not acceptable, under any circumstance, under community law.”

There are also law precedents in most countries. In the United Kingdom two different language schools were sued on two separate occasions for advertising native-only positions, and both of them lost. In Holland, the Netherlands Institute for Human Rights has twice declared (e.g., opinion 2007–135, Dutch description: www.mensenrechten.nl) that “the selection criteria of a native speaker is not proportionate” as it “leads to indirect discrimination on the base of nationality and race.”

Why, then, is this discrimination so widespread and prevalent? Language schools often hide behind the demand of the local market. It is true that many students expect their teachers to be native speakers. But what do they really mean by it? Mullock’s study (2010) concludes that students valued teachers who were highly proficient in the language and who had excellent pedagogical skills. Other research (e.g., Kelch & Santana-Williamson, 2002; Liang, 2002) shows that learners emphasised the importance of clear pronunciation. All these characteristics have nothing to do with the teacher’s mother tongue and are by no means innate to native or nonnative speakers. Unsurprisingly, then, Lipovsky and Mahboob (2010) and Benke and Medgyes (2005), among others, found that language students do not have a clear preference for NESTs or NNESTs (nonnative English speaking teachers), but rather appreciate both.

Actually, it can be very motivating for a student to have teachers who have managed to learn the language to a native level themselves. It sets a positive example. It also gives you as a teacher a practical insight into the language-learning process, which many native speakers might lack. You know and understand what students are going through. After all, you’ve been there yourself.

However, I would not like to get into the debate about what NEST and NNESTs are better or worse at. I completely agree with Selvi (in press) that this can only further propagate the dichotomy and that the question Medgyes (1992) posed (“Who’s worth more, the native or the nonnative?”) misses the point. The short answer is: neither! They are both equal. After all, they’re both human, aren’t they? What makes the difference (on a professional level) are the qualifications and the experience.

So this obsession with “nativeness,” as any superstition, is largely a result of hearsay, fueled by lack of knowledge and an unwillingness to change on the part of those recruiters, students, parents, and NESTs who prefer to turn a blind eye and ignore the issue.

That said, the bulk of the blame is on the shoulders of nonnative language teachers—and I’m not talking just English here. So if you’re reading it, then yes, I’m talking to you!

Stand up.

Speak out.

Show some personal dignity for goodness sake!

Indignaos, profes!

References

Benke, E., & Medgyes, P. (2005). Differences in teaching behaviour between native and nonnative speaker teachers: As seen by the learners. In E. Llurda (Ed.), Non-native language teachers: Perceptions, challenges, and contributions to the profession (pp. 195–216). New York, NY: Springer.

Crystal, D. (2012). English as a global language. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Davies, A. (1991). The native speaker in applied linguistics. Edinburgh, Scotland: Edinburgh University Press.

Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (1997). On discourse, communication, and (some) fundamental concepts in SLA research. Modern Language Journal, 81, 285–300.

Kelch, K., & Santana-Williamson, E. (2002). ESL students' attitudes toward native- and nonnative-speaking instructors' accents. CATESOL Journal, 14(1), 57–72.

Liang, K. Y. (2002). English as a second language (ESL) students’ attitudes toward non-native English speaking teachers’ (NNESTs’) accentedness (Unpublished master’s thesis). California State University, Los Angeles.

Lipovsky, C., & Mahboob, A. (2010). Appraisal of native and non-native English speaking teachers. In A. Mahboob (Ed.), The NNEST lens: Non native English speakers in TESOL (pp. 154–179). Newcastle upon Tyne, England: Cambridge Scholars.

Medgyes, P. (1992). Native or non-native: Who's worth more? ELT Journal, 46, 340–349.

Moussu, L., & Llurda, E. (2008). Non-native English-speaking English language teachers: History and research. Language Teaching, 41, 315–348.

Mullock, B. (2010). Does a good language teacher have to be a native speaker? In A. Mahboob (Ed.), The NNEST lens: Non native English speakers in TESOL (pp. 87–113). Newcastle upon Tyne, England: Cambridge Scholars.

Paikeday, T. (1985). The native speaker is dead! Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Paikeday.

Seidlhofer, B. (1999). Double standards: Teacher education in the expanding circle. World Englishes, 18(2), 233–245.

Selvi, A. F. (in review). Myths and misconceptions about the non-native English speakers in TESOL (NNEST) movement. TESOL Journal.

Widdowson, H. (1994). The ownership of English. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 377–389.

 
I'm also involved in research about the perceptions of NESTs and NNESTs among students and recruiters. If you'd like to contribute by spreading the questionnaires in your teaching community or ffilling them in yourself (they only take about 10mins each), I'd really appreciate it. Below are the links:
Questionnaire for recruiters (anyone in your school who is or has been responsible for interviewing and contracting new teachers): https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/DXFRPXY 
Questionnaire for students: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/RXRPK8B
You might find these posts interesting:

• Christina Rebuffet-Broadus: Qualification required: Native English speaker

• Tyson Seburn: NNEST 
• Cecilia Lemos: Nothing more nothing less
•  Mike: Some thoughts about native speakers in Korea

What I've learned from 3 polyglots - dispelling 5 language learning myths

From the Author:

Dear All,
The blog has been permanently moved to wordpress. I'm not going to publish anything on the blogspot address any more, and I'll delete the blog within a week or two.
So if you'd still like to follow my posts (I hope you do), please visit the wordpress version and click follow there: teflreflections.wordpress.com You can also find regular updates on the posts on the new blog's FB page by clicking here.
Thanks for reading and commenting on the posts here, and I hope to see you soon on wordpress.
Best,

Marek Kiczkowiak

I've gone quiet since my last post, but I haven't been completely idle. To the contrary.

I've become fascinated with polyglots and I've watched a couple of videos of different people who have learned a number of different languages, and have done so very quickly. By learning, I mean at least a strong B2 or weak C1 level, if we have to put a label on it. The three videos that have had the greatest impact on me are by Chris Lonsdale, Sid Efromovich and Benny Lewis.

All 3 of them come from different backgrounds, but they share one common thing: they've managed to learn various languages in a relatively quick time. For example, Chris became fluent in Chinese in 6 months and reached a native speaker level in 1 year. Sid got to a very advanced level in 3 languages in 3 years, whereas Benny is an absolute learning machine, and has learned a score of completely different languages, each in around 3 months.

I should make it clear right at the start, though, that I'm a sceptic - or perhaps a realist - and that all those fancy new-age, pseudo-scientific, pseudo-teaching miracle methods (e.g. hypnopaedia) have never really managed to convince me. So taking it all with a pinch of salt at the beginning, I started listening, and became completely hooked. If their stories are true - and I just can't see somebody lying so openly on a TED conference - then there's a lot we language learners and teachers could learn from them.

Common knowledge, backed by most teachers, language school owners, friends, parents and our own experience of having abysmally failed to learn a language at school tells us that you need many years of diligent (classroom) work to become fluent in a language, if you're ever going to get there. Or that the best way is through immersion in the country were the language is spoken. We are also told that the older you get, the more difficult learning a language becomes. And that you can't get to a native speaker level after a certain age (forget what the age was). A lot of us also like to think that they don't have the talent, or that their memory is bad - probably deadens the disappointment of not speaking the language.

But what about people, such as Chris, Sid and Benny (and many others), who have indeed learned a language (to varying degrees of fluency) in a remarkably short time. To make it even more interesting, Chris and Benny were over twenty when they set off to finally learn a foreign language, and especially the latter must be a walking embodiment of "I don't have a flare for languages", as he puts it himself.

So I became really curious: Is it really possible for the average, talent-lacking Joe? Can I do it too? Can anyone do it?

I'm convinced that the answer is a resounding, triple: YES, YES, YES!

In this post, I'd like to first debunk some common misconceptions about language learning, which stop us from being effective learners. The most common excuses people make (based on Chris Lonsdale, Benny Lewis and my own teaching experience) for not being able to learn a language are:

1. You need talent and I haven't got it.

   You don't. I believe that anyone can learn practically anything as long as they put their minds to it. You might just need to try a bit harder than the others, but it doesn't mean you can't. Just look at Benny Lewis - at 21 he miserably failed at learning Spanish while living in Spain, and couldn't speak a word of Irish Gaelic although he'd studied it for 10 years at school! He'd actually had problems learning English... Sounds familiar, doesn't it? Yet, he's now proficient in Spanish, German, French and communicative in a score of different languages, such as Czech, Gaelic and Arabic. If he could become fluent in a language, anyone can (no offence, Benny). Of course, talent might give you a slight advantage over the rest. A head start. But without hard work, talent will not get you far. And often it can just get in a way as a lame excuse for not trying harder.

2. You've got to start young, and I'm too old now.

   Again, not entirely true. It's a common myth that children have this incredible flair for picking up languages, whereas adults struggle and fail. While it's true that a child raised in a multilingual environment will be probably proficient in all the languages it is exposed to, it's going to take the child at least 4 or 5 years before they achieve it. And when it comes to sending kids to language schools, well, I just don't think it changes anything. It took me exactly 10 years to reach C2 level in English, starting at the age of 7 (with classes both in a language and in a public school). But as an adult it took me less than 2 years to reach the same level in Spanish (and a lot of it on my own). Why? Because I studied hard. I was motivated. I used the language almost every day. It is also commonly believed that after a certain age you won't acquire native pronunciation. There are countless examples (myself included) that prove the contrary. Finally, an interesting study done at Haifa University suggests that adults can learn much faster than children if put under the right conditions. So no, you're never too old. So, no, you're never to old to give a new language a try.

3. I've got a bad memory.

   Me too. Like a sieve. I never know where my keys are in the morning. I'm also really bad at remembering names of people and places. Does this mean I can't learn new words? Of course not. Yet, for a long time I was horrible at it. I hated memorising new vocabulary (might sound strange from somebody who speaks 5 languages), until I discovered that I was going about it in a wrong way, trying to cram endless, boring, black-and-white lists of words and their definitions or translations. Fortunately, there are better and more fun ways of doing it. For example, psychologists specialising in memory suggest we link the new word to an image or sound - the more bizarre the better. For example:
   
   

 Another crucial thing for retention is revision. If you want to keep the new word in your long term memory, you should revise the word at regular intervals, like in the example below:

       It's not rocket science, is it? But believe me, it really does work. You not only memorise and retain the new words much faster, but you also have fun in the process.
For more tips, check out my post on Memrise and this article.

     4. Language immersion is the key, but I can't travel at the moment.

Of course, ideally, you'd want to go to Brazil to learn Brazilian Portugese (and in the meantime get a tan and have plenty of fun and cachaça). An ideal unattainable for most. However, the technology and interconnectedness of our world allows you to completely soak up the language and the culture you're trying to learn from the comfort of your house. What's more, most big cities are much more multicultural than you'd think, and you can easily meet people who will be willing to chat with you in their native language, which can be much more fun and interesting than a language course. And a complete immersion mightn't necessarily be such a great idea, especially for complete beginners. Chris compares it to throwing somebody who can't swim at all into the deep end and waiting whether they're going to stay afloat. At best, it will scare you off trying to learn how to swim for a while.

    5. I need to devote a lot of time, which I haven't got.

Neither do I. I run my own business, write weekly blog posts, go to the gym, brush up on my German, read books and have a busy social life at the same time. My own experience tells me that if you really want to achieve something, you'll find the time to do it. More often than not, the language homework isn't done not for lack of time, but for lack of motivation. Or laziness. Or boredom. Or both. A good start, then, is to ditch right away whatever annoys you about the language you're trying to learn, and instead go for something that you're keen on (e.g. football in my case). Studying can, and must be fun. And remember, it doesn't take as much time as you might think. Start with 5 mins a day, slowly increasing it to 10, 15, and so on. When I was learning French on my own, I'd typically spend maybe 20 mins a day studying (usually revising new words or watching a video, or reading the news, which is not what most of us would consider really studying, i.e. doing grammar exercises; I was simply soaking up the language). Is this a lot? How much time do you spend on FB?

I've just realised that this post has become really long. so before I lose you, I'll end it here. Next time, I'm going to talk about 5 easy steps to become fluent in any language in 6 months. Afterwards, I'm going to outline how I'm planning to put these steps into practice myself and try to learn a new language before June. So stay tuned.