Learn 2B Dutch Blog

Gabriele's post and my imminent expatriation have led me to further research and contemplate his predicament. I think that everyone can have sympathy for his situation. In the knowledge that I am departing for the Netherlands with only 1 year of work guaranteed, his position is all too real for me. Luckily, I have the option of an academic career, in which being a native English speaker will (hopefully) not prove to be a barrier. As a further safety net, I intend to work like hell on my Dutch.  

But of course, as we all know, exposure is key to learning. And, exposure, in a spoken sense, is not altogether easy to acquire (given that our Dutch friends just love speaking English). Poking around the internet for the stories of frustrated expats, I came across an amusing tail of one Englishman, who in a bar in Amsterdam was heard by a native to have said to the barman "Kan ik een cola alstublieft?" The native found this truly hilarious and retorted, through his hearty laughter, "is that the only thing you can say!?" Clearly, the Brit was outraged and rather effectively, and in true curt British manner, stunned the arrogant piece of bar furniture into silence with a blunt Dutch insult. And good on him!

So, why exactly was the Brit so outraged? His reasons will be his own, however, I would like to pose my own theory.

The Dutch campaign for integration is strong and prominent. And so it should be. The Dutch have a marvellous culture and language and people should be strongly encouraged to play a part in it. So immigrants attend language classes and so on and those who do not speak English are granted unlimited opportunity to practise. Fantastic stuff we all agree.

Now, I do not wish to sound in anyway racist in my following argument. So I would like your permission to assume (and not without logical grounding) that on average, an English speaking immigrant with a job in hand before arrival in the Netherlands is likely to add more value to the Dutch economy than a non-English speaker. This is simply a matter of the education and experience that an English speaker is likely to have acquired in their home country (which may well not be Anglophone). Clearly this is not the case for all individuals, but as I said, on average.

For example, Gabriele has informed us that he is skilled in internet security with many years experience. I have secured a job in the Netherlands that had previously had a full round of interviews and many months of open applications before a suitable candidate was found. We will leave, or have left our own countries to make significant contributions to Dutch society. And yet, does "de man op straat" allow us to integrate into his society by helping us to speak his language even when we are clearly trying? No. We are penalised. Ironically those who are penalised the most are those we can contribute more to Dutch society.

 

It is this dichotomy that frustrates the English speaking ex-pat. All that effort to integrate people and the people who can contribute the most (and may also want to integrate the most) are denied the privilege.

Now, I do not hold this fact against the Dutch. I suspect that this desire to always speak English stems from a long established hard nosed "trade mentality". Such a trade mentality merits using the common and best spoken language. But we are moving beyond trade now. We are moving across borders. We are benefiting from flexible labour markets and migration. But labour needs security, and as we have seen in Gabriele's position, the security that speaking the native language can provide can make all the difference.

Perhaps, in this case, the Dutch need to look past this misguided short run pragmatism which they adopt in dealing with English speakers. They need to consider the wider implications of their actions within the context of their national policies. This will allow them to genuinely meet the things that I believe the Dutch hold dear; fairness, openness and respect.

Comment (6) Read More...

Or if I was going to use lovely Dutch word order, I guess that would be "how to Dutch learn".

Anyway, as my first blog, I thought I might respond to some one who, to an audience of no one, exclaimed on the chat room wall, "someone tell me how to learn Dutch!" I found this quite silly as it seemed to suggest there was some magic formula, fairy dust or potion that imbued one with the magical ability to communicate fluently with native speakers. Clearly I do not actually think that the person in question actually believes this, I am just trying to find the light-hearted side.

However, the question is still valid. So I thought I would share my experiences after 6 months of delving ever deeper into the Dutch tongue.

 I started by throwing money at the problem. I am lucky to recieve a good salary and to live relatively cheaply, thus I could show my commitment by buying Rosetta Stone levels one and two. These language learning CDs have been heavily advertised in the UK. They use a method called “dynamic immersion” which aims to allow a person to learn a language as a child would: through exposure. I must say, I had a marvelous time. I honestly couldn't put it down. Thanks to a few days off work due to food poisoning I made excellent progress and completed it in about 2 months. 

 So, what are pros and cons of this method. Clearly it is good fun. It does really help you to remember the words and basically it does what the adverts say. Now, I didn't do level 3, so I can't comment on that, but really I don't rate it very highly overall. There are several reasons for this.

1) A lack of formalized grammar. The thing with learning a language like you did when you were a child (as Rosetta Stone likes to talk about in adverts) is that you learn grammar by being exposed to every single one of it’s variants in every single context. This works. Being exposed to the rule in maybe three or four contexts just doesn’t work. For example, Rosetta Stone taught me how to say “Ik ben geweest” (which uses the verb zijn) and “Ik heb gegeten” (which uses the verb hebben) and I did know that sometimes the verb hebben is used and sometimes the verb zijn is used in these sort of constructions. However, I didn’t know the rule that determines which to use. This meant that I had no grounding to form any new sentences that Rosetta Stone hadn’t already taught me. Thus if the Rosetta Stone technique was going to really teach you grammar in the way that a child learns (i.e. without knowing the rule) then it would have to expose you to every single sentence so that you knew which verb to use.

2) Stressed pronouns. Rosetta Stone often uses stressed forms (jij or jou for example) when they are not necessarily appropriate.

3) No colloquial words. There are so many marvelous little words in Dutch that Rosetta Stone wont teach you (at least in 1 and 2 but I suspect 3 also). Examples include nou, gewoon, net or even. These are incredibly frequent words in Dutch but they do not fall into Rosetta Stone’s robotic definition of a language.

4) No colloquial phrases. When I started a more traditional approach, one of the first phrases I learnt was zeg trouwens maar ‘je’. It was at this point that I realized the failings of Rosetta Stone. This sentences means “let’s speak informally”. It is vital in the transition from a formal conversation to a more relaxed and friendly one. It is a key part of forming relationships.

And here is the key point. No one uses language in the way that Rosetta Stone teaches it. There really isn’t much more to say than that. Language is full of nuances, rules, flare and beauty. You will not get any of that from Rosetta Stone.

 

I paid something like 300 pounds for Rosetta Stone and I think it was good value for money. I had fun doing it. Maybe it is an okay starting point. But I absolutely believe that Rosetta Stone alone is far too robotic to get you even half way to being conversational, to use language to relate to people, to be part of a community. Het begint met taal.

Comment (5) Read More...