Preface
Itās my lunch break and Iām being serenaded by a lime-green owl. āDid you know!ā the owl calls as it swaggers jauntily across my line of sight, āThere are more people learning languages on Duolingo in the US than there are people learning foreign languages in the entire US public school system!ā
The year is 2019, and I will soon be travelling to Italy for the summer, which is why I have found myself being taught Italian vocabulary and grammar, along with a variety of trivia, by this digital apparition, the mascot of the language-learning app Duolingo. I learned of Duolingoās existence only recently, but it transpires to be phenomenally popular, offering courses in 23 languages to 300 million users worldwide. Initially, there seems to me something faintly Japanese about the wing-gestures made by the mascot, Duo, but I check and discover that the company originated in the States, as I suppose I should have guessed from the trivia-nugget above; itās the brainchild of Luis von Ahn and Severin Hacker, born out of the idea that āfree education will really change the worldā.
Duoās screech is unvoiced but it sticks in my head nonetheless, whooping and half-demented, Disney-villainesque: Did you know! Did you know! Did you know! And no, as it happens, I didnāt know. At least the first time big-eyed big-eyelashed Duo addressed me, I didnāt know. By the tenth time it pops up on my screen Iāve begun to feel very familiar with this particular bit of trivia, and I also know something else: each run-in with it leaves me feeling a little unclean, in a way I canāt really account for.
As the fact I am spending my lunchtimes with Duo reveals, I am not entirely sceptical of its methods, and I donāt find the comparison drawn between public-school language education and the Duolingo model outrageous, at least prima facie. Unlike a lot of language-focused applications, Duolingo is not devoid of audio content; it has clips of real people talking, and invites its users to speak phrases into the microphone, so they are at least interacting with how the language actually sounds, and feels in the mouth. While its level-unlocking structure drawn from the world of gaming means that users might be focusing on strategies to pass rather than to truly master, the same accusation could be levelled at language education in schools: there is, in short, a lot of hoop-jumping. You learn the language the way that the exam boards or the green owl want you to, but it is, at least, a start. If it makes language education accessible and enjoyable to those who might not otherwise have access to it, then that is surely a good thing.
So why, then, does Duoās factoid bring me such a sense of unease, and why do I begrudge his hooting pride? It dawns on me that the source of my discomfort resides, utterly unreasonably, with his use of the word ālearningā. I say unreasonably, because I recognize that this word is used legitimately to cover a whole range of activities undertaken with varying degrees of intensity. The generous, rational part of me can see there is no cause to bar people from calling their five or twenty minutes a day on Duolingo ālearning a languageā. But even as I have this thought, another part of me stamps its foot resentfully, the kind of foot-stamp that ends up hurting the stamper, and declares that the world has turned its eyes from what is real and true. This part wants to say its piece. It wants wider recognition that there is another, far less stable form of learning ā a radium to Duolingoās lurid neon.
The language learning I want to talk about is a sensory bombardment. It is a possession, a bedevilment, a physical takeover; it is streams of sounds pouring in and striking off scattershot associations in a manner so chaotic and out of control that you are taken by the desire to block your ears ā except that even when you do block your ears, your head remains an echo chamber. The language learning that fascinates me is not livening your commute and scoring a dopamine hit with another ā5 in a row! Way to go!ā Rather, it is never getting it right, hating yourself for never getting it right, staking your self-worth on getting it right next time. It is getting it right and feeling as if your entire existence has been validated. It is the kind of learning that makes you think: this is what I must have experienced in infancy except I have forgotten it, and at times it occurs to you that you have forgotten it not just because you were too young when it happened but because there is something so utterly destabilizing about the experience that we as dignified, shame-fearing humans are destined to repress it. It is a learning that doesnāt know goals or boundaries, and which is commonly known as āimmersiveā. The image that springs to mind is a lone figure wading gallantly into the sea, naked, without a single swimming lesson behind them.
As youāll have inferred from my self-righteous tone, I speak from experience. āImmersionā is exactly what I did when I went to Japan, although probably itās more correct to say that immersion is what happened to me. If Iād known what I was getting myself into before I went out there I may well not have had the nerve to go, and knowing this, I donāt go around patting myself on the back for having done it. At least, I donāt believe that I do, until Iām confronted with the pride of a green owl, and then I realize that there is some part of me that wants for this experience of mine to be recognized. Not only is this part not rational ā itās furious with all the goal-driven rationality of the commute-friendly app.
In particular, what Iām burning to tell Duo is the following: Did you know! When you immerse yourself in a very different language as a total beginner, not only do you not have goals! You also have no system within which to conceptualize what those objectives could be ā discounting, that is, overarching goals like ālearning to readā, or ābecoming fluentā, which themselves start to seem less and less meaningful the more you poke around beneath their smooth surfaces!
Immersion in a foreign language is a bombardment of sounds, until you decide that you are going to actually do this thing and learn, and then it becomes a bombardment of imperatives: learn this, learn this, learn this. Just start from the basics, sings a voice in your head as you are tossed around in the waves of incomprehensibility. Yet as you continue to live in a language you donāt know, it becomes increasingly obvious to you how much this category of ābasicsā could theoretically encompass. Greetings and everyday interactions are of course basic, and there is always something embarrassing about not knowing basic forms of verbs. Everyone knows numbers are incredibly basic, as are colours, clothes, the subjects you study at school, animals, anything to do with weather, and adjectives for describing people. In fact, we could go ahead and say that every object is also basic, and there is something particularly alarming when you donāt know how to say the first words you would have learned in your language(s) as a child: teddy, buggy, shoelace. And then there is the most fundamental-seeming vocabulary of all: abstract nouns, like justice, friendship, pleasure, evil, and vanity.
If the language in question has a writing system different from that you know, then even mastering āthe basicsā of the spoken language isnāt enough, because a whole new category of basics awaits you in the form of the written one. In particular, Japanese is the gift that keeps on giving in this regard, having as it does three different scripts: two phonetic ones, katakana and hiragana (collectively known as kana), with forty-six characters apiece; and then the kanji, or characters of Chinese origin, 2,136 of which have been officially deemed āin common usageā. Which means, there is never any shortage of basics to trip you up and convince you of how little you know.
Last week (this is true), I had to look up a kanji that turned out to mean āowlā. It wasnāt entirely new to me; Iād learned it somewhere down the line and then forgotten it, but the experience still brought me to my knees with shame. Yes, itās not a commonly used character, but then Iām supposed to be a translator. I should know something as basic as āowlā.
As I sat staring down in despair at the owl kanji, wishing my self from two minutes ago had only managed to remember it, wondering how I could have failed to recognize a legless bird on a tree, I recalled without warning an incident from long ago, back when Iād been learning Japanese for a little over two years and had just found a job at a small Japanese publishing company in London. One day I glanced up to see O, a senior employee, approaching my desk. In his hand were two of the slips that employees had to submit when requesting or reporting time off, and as he moved closer, I saw they were the ones I had recently filled in.
āPolly-chan,ā he said, pulling up a chair beside me, looking at me in a way that managed to be both conspiratorial and didactic, āLetās talk. Your kanji usage is all over the place.ā
āOh,ā was all I had the wherewithal to reply. I felt simultaneously apprehensive about what was to come, and flattered that he was taking the time to school me individually.
āSometimes you write them perfectly, and sometimes theyāre totally off.ā
As he spoke, Oās eyes drifted to my computer monitor, around whose edge Iād stuck up a number of kanji written out on small post-it notes. I remember that one of them was ācrowā: the same as ābirdā, but with the stroke symbolizing the eye missing. This had cropped up during one of the translations Iād been asked to do the previous week, and I hadnāt known it.
āYou donāt need that,ā O said, pointing at the crow. He began to hover his finger around the other post-its, informing me which I did and didnāt need. Then, with hawk-like focus, his attention moved back to the offending slip.
āLook,ā he said, his finger thumping the desk. āLook what youāve written here. This is missing a radical. You canāt just miss parts of kanji like that, because then they mean something else entirely. Youāre trying to write āproblemā and this says āmonā.ā
Maybe sensing that I was struggling a bit to keep up, he looked me right in the eye, and enunciated in English of a crispness that bordered on hostility, āāMonā means āgateā. Youāve written āgateā.ā
I looked down to see that he was, of course, right. My slip read something that might be rendered in English: āUnforeseen absence due to health gate.ā
Even ten years on, this episode feels as real and close as it ever did, and I canāt resist the idea that, in some way, it still encapsulates my status in relation to Japan. To wit, I am always writing the gate. Itās a huge, lofty gate of the kind found in temples; I stand by its posts, passing in and out momentarily, variously welcomed, frowned at, and ousted by its keepers. Even when Iām inside, Iām perpetually aware how quickly I could again be pushed out, that I could find some basic item inexplicably missing from my knowledge. Sometimes I ask myself if things would be different if Iād done my undergraduate degree in Japanese, or a proper language course, or a PhD ā if Iād entrusted the responsibility for accumulating the basics to a system larger than myself in some way. The answer, I think, is slightly. I imagine I would feel at least slightly less liable to have the rug pulled from underneath me, to realize suddenly that Iām on the wrong side of the gate.
For when learning takes a primarily autodidactic form, mastering something is dependent on noticing it, or having it pointed out to you. To the extent that youāre not consulting other sources, obtaining an accurate view of the inventory of items to be learned is all down to exposure, and your ability to perceive that exposure, which is particularly relevant when weāre speaking about aspects of language and culture radically different from anything weāve experienced before. We can notice them, be outraged or intrigued by them, exoticize them, and therefore hoover them up, bump them to the top of our rota ā or, else, we can fail to see them really, fail to appreciate them in their fullness. We are too busy thrashing around in the waves, gulping, spitting, and trying to stay afloat.
When it comes to Japanese, another possible candidate for inclusion in a list of ābasicsā is its vast range of onomatopoeia ā or mimetics, as this area of the language is often referred to. I say possible because the question of whether or not onomatopoeia should rightfully be seen as ābas...