Immersion

It is often argued that all you have to do to learn a new language is simply to live in a foreign country for a while, and that the language will then just come to you. Exchange programs are often recommended for French A level students, and a year abroad is usually compulsory for French degree studies. You can read many online reviews about people who found such time abroad a positive experience. Firms who provide language immersion experiences also claim that major progress can happen after just a short period.

The argument is that when you are in a foreign country, you just can’t avoid being involved with the local language. You have to talk with other people as part of everyday life, and you are also surrounded by things like advertising, television, newspapers, songs on the radio, etc.

A major review by Kinginger (2009) found overall support for this idea, with students generally making significant progress on a range of aspects, particularly those which involve the use and meaning of the new language, as well as the more common and informal use of certain expressions. For instance in everyday life, ‘on’ is used much more than ‘nous’, and people pick this up when they have been in France for a short while. So, you would say ‘est-ce qu'on doit y aller?’, rather than ‘est-ce que nous devons y aller?’ (do we have to go there?). Although formal teaching emphasises ‘nous’, use of this in normal conversation makes speech sound rather strange and over-formal.

There can however be quite a high level of variation in the progress which is made. On the positive side, Milton and Meara (1995) for instance found that French business degree students spending 6 months in England made vocabulary gains of about 1,325 words over 6 months, compared with their previous progress of about 275 words over 6 months in their home country. In marked contrast to this, another study (Milton 2006) tracked English students who spent a year in France as part of their degree studies in French. Remarkably, they made virtually no progress with their French vocabulary; these findings are particularly surprising as these students were presumably motivated and already fairly competent in French. This means that they should have found it easy to get independently involved in the range of language activities.

The reasons behind these marked differences in progress seem to lie with the specific experiences of the individuals concerned. Simply being in another country is no guarantee of actual exposure or involvement with the language. In fact, many aspects of being in a foreign country can be somewhat isolating. Milton’s (2006) students had little integration as the native French social groupings were already formed and tended to exclude them. There were also no explicit activities to involve them, or to develop their language abilities.

Richards (2018) also notes that being in foreign country where one cannot communicate fluently, can be a lonely and depressing experience. It may be ok for thick-skinned extroverts to force themselves on others, but for the majority of people, this is just too painful. It is worth noting here that when children emigrate to a foreign language country, they typically go through a ‘silent period’ which can last up to about a year, presumably due to lack of fluency. This returns to the idea of ‘match’ which underlies whether people are likely to be involved (see theory).

When students experience either linguistic or social mismatch, they typically find it easier to simply stick with their expatriate student friends. Some can adopt a tourist mode and end up treating the experience as an opportunity just to visit places and socialise. Others can escape using IT – as Kinginger puts it, to ‘re-attach themselves to home via the electronic umbilical cord of the internet’.

In the studies which have shown most progress, students followed programs where they were closely integrated, in both formal and informal activities. Rather than simply hope that students will join in with local groups, it seems best to set up things like native language buddies, and interest groups based on things like hobbies, sport or volunteering. Even when students are placed with a family, the level of involvement can vary enormously. Individuals make the greatest progress when they are accepted and included in family life, as opposed to simply being a lodger. Some of the students who make the greatest progress have someone who has a greater expertise with the language take them under their wing and facilitate their learning – something which is difficult to engineer.

It is also somewhat unrealistic to expect to gain much from a short experience (such as a few weeks). With good structure, support and integration, then progress seems to be similar to the rate of normal, first language development, so one should probably be thinking in terms of a stay of many months to get some significant benefits.

In terms of natural contact and involvement, it will be best to at least have some level of independence with the language (about B2). If you are struggling all the time and are overloaded whenever someone responds to you, this will just be quite demotivating. In terms of what is achieved, it also seems that you should expect most progress to be in terms of the practical ways in which language is used, rather than grammar and vocabulary. Ideally you should be in an enjoyable situation, where you are able to follow your interests and develop social contacts, for instance with activities such as art, cooking, or even some low level employment. By doing this, language and the desire to communicate will come from the activity, rather than self-conscious exercises.

Immersion

The Best Way to Learn?