From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Before making major revisions to this article, please discuss it with the community first. Ryanfrei (talk) 19:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Contents 1 More than Pimsleur 1.1 Pimsleur Award 1.2 A Journal of Research in Language Studies 2 This is an advertisement for Pimsleur 2.1 NPOV 2.2 Core Vocabulary 2.2.1 Reply: Unknown Words 2.3 Organic Learning 2.4 Needs studies of Pimsleur method effectiveness 2.5 NPOV? 2.6 Unprincipled 2.7 Unprincipled? 2.8 Effectiveness/etc. 2.9 must be deleted!! 2.10 Still One Of The Best Methods 3 Despite how successful the method is... 3.1 Anecdotal data does not contribute to the discussion of second language acquisition 4 The Impossibility of Mechanical Flight 4.1 Dont be too negative - work with the tools available. 4.2 Languge learning, methods and materials. 4.3 Core Language 5 This article and talk page are being manipulated 6 Figures out of Mandrake's hat 7 NPOV edits 7.1 Ultimate Language Store (Advertisements)

[edit] More than Pimsleur

[edit] Pimsleur Award

The Pimsleur Award is rewarded for the best research article on foreign language education. See A Journal of Research in Language Studies for details. See also the American Council website. This council awards also the ACTFL-MLJ Paul Pimsleur Award for Research in Foreign Language Education.

[edit] A Journal of Research in Language Studies

There is a journal devoted to language learning, see this link for further details. This is another link. I noticed that this journal mentiones quite often the Pimsleur Award.

Language Learning is a scientific journal dedicated to the understanding of language learning broadly defined. It publishes research articles that systematically apply methods of inquiry from disciplines including psychology, linguistics, cognitive science, educational inquiry, neuroscience, ethnography, sociolinguistics, sociology, and semiotics. It is concerned with fundamental theoretical issues in language learning such as child, second, and foreign language acquisition, language education, bilingualism, literacy, language representation in mind and brain, culture, cognition, pragmatics, and intergroup relations. Since 1994, subscription includes an annual supplement - a volume from the Best of Language Learning Series or the Language Learning Monograph Series. From 2006 there will also be a biennial Monograph, the Language Learning-Max Planck Institute Cognitive Neurosciences Series.

Now, although some dispute the merits of Pimsleur's method, the academic community may have a different view.

Discoleo 18:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This is an advertisement for Pimsleur

[edit] NPOV

The tone of this article is very strongly pro-Pimsleur. It reads more like an ad than like a Wikipedia article.

The content is more or less fine, but please fix the feel. Taw 06:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Some of this content was taken from the Pimsleur sales literature, placed here in order to provide content, but not edited for tone.

maybe it looks like pro-pimsleur, but the article gives a neutral description on this method. I tried the french pimsleur course after reading this article, and i think it matches what's described here. --Kevinfromhk 10:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Core Vocabulary

And even leaving the neutrality aside, the "Core Vocabulary" section is completely incorrect. Where the article says "1200 words is enough to understand 90%", the more accurate description would be "Knowing 1200 words mean that you will not understand 1 word in every 10, on average 2 words per sentence, and usually the ones that carry most meaning".

One study (Incorrectly cited in Second language acquisition. Anyway, I've read that paper, and I'll try to find the correct reference later ;-)) says that one needs to understand about 98% of the words to correctly understand most of the meaning of the text, and below that the comprehension rapidly deteriorates. Taw 18:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep in mind the article says the 1200 word statement refers to "constructed" languages, though I don't see how that's relevant to learning a real language. Also keep in mind that the Pimsleur courses only teach enough to give you fairly simple conversational fluency. If you complete all three volumes for a language, you won't be able to debate complex or obscure topics with someone in that language, but you will be able to carry on an everyday type conversation, and be able to ask for clarification when you don't understand something, thus you accumulate new vocabulary. There is no way you can become fluent in a language with just these courses, but it's tough to find a better starting point. They provide a good foundation for self-instruction but should be supplemented with written materials, vocab lists, and it helps to watch shows and movies in the language you're learning. Getting back to the article, I think most of the content was pasted from Pimsleur's site. If there exists some 3rd party research about the effectiveness of various language programs including Pimsleur, I'd like to see that instead. -FrozenNorth 17:38, 04 February 2006 (UTC)

When I was taking French in high school and college, I was able to score A's and B's by learning to read the text the way most people learn new words, by looking at the words around and attempting to see what it would mean in the particular sentence (context clues). I do agree that the Pimsleur method is faulty, however, I have found most people gain vocabulary through contextual learning. Perhaps there is a difference in a foreign language versus one's natural language but I would very much like to know the study that you are referring to in your comment.

[edit] Reply: Unknown Words

"One study (Incorrectly cited in Second language acquisition. Anyway, I've read that paper, and I'll try to find the correct reference later ;-)) says that one needs to understand about 98% of the words to correctly understand most of the meaning of the text, and below that the comprehension rapidly deteriorates. Taw 18:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC)"

That is incorrect. I speak a number of very different languages and from my experience it is much less to understand the general sense of something.

IF you know most common "supplementary words" (aka common filling words, prepositions and so on) and some basic nouns and verbs, you can understand many things (though NOT a technical article, but that is NOT to discussion here).

I currently learn japanese AND with little language knowledge and a dictionary I still can decipher a conversation. You really don't need to know all those words. I found it really amazing, that I could find the sense by myself even for spoken japanese with only a dictionary.

I do NOT speak flammand (Belgium), yet I discovered with surprise, that (knowing english and german) I could understand a (technical) article quite well.

My mother tongue belongs to the latin languages, AND I can indeed understand many italian and spanish things, even without ever learning them. (though NOT french, where I am really poor)

Even if the latter 2 situations are more particular, I can tell you that Pimsleur gives you everything to start with, and all you need to build on it is a dictionary and the desire to learn more.

Another common experiment is to ignore some words in a text, and see how much you still understand. That was a common method to read a text very fast, and I believe you can jump over 30% of the words and still have a complete understanding. This doesn't address the number of words needed to understand something, but it gives some information on how redundant the speech is. --Discoleo 22:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Organic Learning

"It has been said that language is primarily speech." - Weasel words should be addressed, though we could link this to Derrida for a counter-argument(kidding) -SeanL.

[edit] Needs studies of Pimsleur method effectiveness

This entry will remain an ad for Pimsleur until someone adds studies about how effective this method is compared to other methods, and whether any advances have been made on Pimsleur's ideas since his death.

My note: Pimsleur himself did studies on the method's effectiveness. In his limited published research, you will find good evidence for the method's success. Unfortunately, studies of effectiveness seem to be not quite on in the world of language learning. I agree that it would be a good idea to do some additional studies and to cite the studies that Pimsleur himself performed. However, there is a community of people worldwide who have used the Pimsleur programs, and virtually all of their reviews are very positive. See Amazon.com for examples under any Pimsleur language program. You will find many, many positive reviews, and few or no negative ones. You will certainly not find this to be true of any other language program or method. The point is that Pimsleur has been found to be effective by many thousands of users, and there doesn't seem to be anyone who thinks they are ineffective.

There are no citations of effectiveness for any other method, so far as I am aware. Could someone post an example?

Also, Paul Nation's comprehensive book on learning vocabulary in a foreign language shows that the Pimsleur method's memory schedule has been corroborated by additional research since his seminal paper (1967?). I am adding a note to that effect.

---

I would note that although other self-taught courses may not be as effective as Pimsleur, if you buckle down and take a few college classes, you will learn a language at least as well. Pimsleur I would agree is the best self taught course, but that is just a reflection on the sorry state of self taught courses.

-- That depends on what you mean by "buckle down". For example, after learning French for 8 years of school in total (the first few were completely useless), I have only a rusty conversational level and can't debate very difficult topics either. I think this experience is common in foreign language learning and if the vast majority of people come out the other end (through their own lack of effort or whatever - but then again, how much discipline and time are we talking about? No one has infinite amounts of both) with a poor level of fluency, they're sufficiently justified in feeling unsatisfied. In comparison, the Pimsleur methods pretty much guarantee that if you follow all the steps correctly (obeying the >= 80% correct heuristic for progressing to the next lesson) - each of which is very doable and without much exertion - you'll deterministically arrive at the end with a good standard that can be expanded on, and relatively strong oral/aural skills, since you're spending all of the lesson times listening and speaking. And it's my experience so far (well, after 28 lessons in Mandarin Chinese Unit I) that this is the case. IMO, it is very effective for two reasons: firstly, the entire course is defined, then divided into discrete, measurable segments which one can complete easily in one sitting - meaning that anyone can complete them, rather than getting lost somewhere between undefinable points A and B, becoming disillusioned and giving up as is so often the case with other courses. Secondly, it's arranged around the Leitner cardfile system which has been proven to be an extremely effective study tool that helps to move information from short/medium to long term memory.

Destynova 01:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV?

I checked the Amazon reviews for the Spanish version of Pimsleur, and arranged the reviews by "helpfulness" votes. 28 out of the 30 "most helpful" votes were 5/5. the other two were 4/5. True, this article sounds like an advertisement, but the reviews are all positive. 68.197.167.129 01:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The article seems essentially objectified to an un-biased viewpoint. Would it be okay to remove the bias tag?

if no one in the next few days says otherwise, i'm gonna remove the bias tag. 68.197.167.129 16:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Remove it, the article is fine. --72.57.241.84 15:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

For all the reasons discussed on this talk page, it's not fine, it's barely disguised sales literature. It needs research and to have the statements in it back up or else it's not NPOV. - Taxman ^Talk 00:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I've tried a rewrite of the introduction, so it doesn't smack of being an immediate advertisement for Simon & Shuster. However, what the article could REALLY use is references, to back up the methodology, and possibly to back up criticism, as outlined by a user below this section. --JohnDBuell 02:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unprincipled

Pimsleur died 30 years ago so it's only natural that his method fails to incorporate modern second language learning methods. You'll look in vain for the Pimsleur principles of Anticipation and Graduated Interval Recall in any modern Second Language Acquisition textbook. I teach languages and I am learning German. I am using the Pimsleur CDs. They are okay, I suppose, but clunky and boring. They rely far too much on English translations. A modern alternative would be something like found at "MyGermanClass.com" podcast where despite not knowing any German, it is easy (and fun) to follow along even lessons for beginners--that are conducted entirely in German. The Pimsleur method, like the older audiolingual methods, stress pronunciation and student output. The Pimsleur method makes some claim that by repeating the word or phrase, it completes "the learning circle" in the brain. There's no evidence for this. There's other methods, such as Total Physical Response (TPR) that uses very little student producation at early stages and they have very good results. So, you really can't say student output is critical or even necessary to acquire a second language.

The graduated interval method, espoused by Pimsleur, is shaky. Instead, modern methods of teaching a language try to develop "hooks" and develop meaning for the learner. For example, it's easier for the teacher to bring in an orange and have the students make orange juice (using the target language) then to repeat the word "orange" five times at different intervals. Notice too, that this activity, doesn't require a lot of student output either. It's not that the Pimsleur method doesn't work--it can. But in the 30 years after Pimsleur's death we know we can teach language more effectively through content, through the target language. The attempt to explain the "effectiveness" of the Pimsleur method seems very pseudo-scientific to me. In fact, yesterday when I listened to the narrator explain the scientific basis for the Pimsleur method--I laughed.

The above unsigned comment seems to me to be talking about language instruction in a class, whereas the Pimsleur tapes/CDs are meant for self-study. Obviously there are going to be some things a teacher can do in a class that self-study tapes cannot do, and vice versa. Are we evaluating Pimsleur in a classroom context or in its intended self-study context? (PS: please explain the heading "unprincipled") Silas S. Brown (talk) 21:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unprincipled?

Although Pimsleur died 30 years ago, you could also argue that the method intends to emulate how humans naturally acquire language closer than most other techniques currently available. So the Unprincipled criticism above would have no relevance, since it argues that the Pimsleur method "fails to incorporate modern second language learning methods." According to my understanding, Pimsleur attempts to deliver the most organic method of learning - which obviously would not encompass modern techniques.

Also, the above section seems only to serve as an advertising mechanism for "MyGermanClass.com".

   I find your criticism also unprincipled.  What the method intends and what it
   provides are very different.  Learning a second language through only auditory
   instruction is very different from the immersion and multisensorial manner a first
   language is acquired.  If you have some evidence of the efficacy of the method compared
   to other methods, please add them to the article as references.
   I disagree that the above is solely an advertising mechanism for the website
   mentioned.  The writer points out a number of shortcomings in the Pimsleur method and
   provides an example which uses modern methods addressing some of these shortcomings.  
   Rather than go into a long discussion about the "organic" nature of Pimsleur, I
   will just ask the question; wouldn't it be more organic to include at least visual
   prompts in addition to the auditory?

Pimsleur does not emulate how humans naturally acquire their language. First, children are not taught how to speak by translating to some baby language. Second, children are not forced to speak immediatelly after birth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.101.76.122 (talk) 14:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

"Emulation" does not necessarily mean "exact copy". It can be an emulation of some aspects but not others. (Or maybe that needs to be stated more exactly.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Silas S. Brown (talk • contribs) 21:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Effectiveness/etc.

Hi everyone. I know virtually nothing about language learning theory & science, including the relative effectiveness of various language teaching methods. So my comments probably add nothing to the discussion about NPOV, references to comparative methods and effectiveness studies, etc. But for what it's worth, I do know that the Pimsleur tapes I am using to learn conversational Japanese are very good. And this is from someone with seemingly no aptitude for foreign-language learning (except for a bit of French, which I grew up hearing), and with a language in which, compared to English, the grammar seems upside-down-and-backwards, and the written forms (except for romanized writing) are completely unintelligible. C'est la vie. :) Z Wylld 19:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a language scholar either, but I must say that the Pimleur method taught me to speak fluent Spanish. Sorry all of you who criticize the method without even having tried it or spoken with people who have tried it. Unfortunately for you I know about 20 other people who also learned to speak fluent Spanish by using the method... Although I'm not a language scholar, I do know something about educating the human brain, and the Pimsleur method taps into one very important field: memory. Theoretically, probably almost anyone with a strong auditory memory would do very well using this system. However, for someone with poor auditory memory (lets say someone with a strong visual memory) this method could easily flop. I should also mention that when I studied Spanish using the Pimsleur method, it was the first time in my life that I ever felt challenged in a classroom (the experience of his "anticipation" principle). I end by stating that I very much admire his work, which, though it does not teach reading and writing (something one can easily remedy on one's own), gives a student the key to opening up a new language.

I too will attest to the effectiveness of the Pimsleur method. I challenge any naysayers to go out and find another language program with as much critical acclaim as the Pimsleur method. It will be a futile task. I should know because I've spent over 5 years looking. If it wasn't so good, people wouldn't be paying hundreds of dollars for it year over year. How's that for proof of effectiveness? Proof by market price is often overlooked by those seeking proof by academic paper.

David here. I am doing both Pimsleur German and Farsi, and they work. I don't care what anyone says. Go to the SimonSays website, where Pimsleur is sold directly from the publisher, and look up the samples, which are the first lessons from every language course. Download it and try it. This article does sound like sales lit, and most of the content is off their site, but Pimsleur is highly effective. And although student output may not be entirely necessary, it's highly crucial. Language is a audio-verbal tool, and Pimsleur, along with extra learning materials, is a highly effective language aquisition method.

Chad here! I spent fourteen months in an intensive Russian Military Language school, where we did nothing but russian all day, and with three hours of homework a night. And when I graduated near the top of my very gifted class, I still wasn't fluent. While I won't discount your experience, I must say that it is impossible to become fluent in any foriegn language after listening to four hours of CD's. I don't doubt that the method is effective, but I do doubt your claim that it, and it alone, taught you to become fluent in any language.

With all due respect to the unsigned comments above, it doesn't matter what your personal opinions are. Wikipedia must strive to produce verifiable, referenced content. Now if you can cite a study (from a reputable source) which demonstrates the advantages of the technique, we could discuss that... --Nickj69 20:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I went through all 3 levels of Pimsleur Japanese over a couple years leading up to a 2 week visit to Japan. My conclusion was that Pimsleur does a fantastic job of pounding basic grammar, survival vocabulary, and the ritual phrases of everyday life into my brain. Listening to conversations around me, I could often understand the grammar being used. The standard ritual phrases did wonders for the quality of my vacation. The voices in my head still whisper driving instructions in Japanese when I'm behind the wheel.

Where the Pimsleur system turned out to be badly deficient was in vocabulary. Had I known twice as many words, more of that "sense of grammar" would have turned into true understanding. Also, the later lessons focus on cashing travelers cheques and changing currency to an unhealthy degree (we just used the ATM at Narita), while completely skipping things like "for here or to go" and "smoking or non-smoking". That led to some inconvenience. Kanji readings for all of the vocabulary words would have been useful too. But given the limitations of an audio-only format, I'd say it worked well for me. Bouncey (talk) 15:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] must be deleted!!

This is an Encyclopedia not an add agency, the only mention for the product should be a small sentences that states Pimsleur as a method for learning a new language. Unless someone can provide a trusted resource of the product review other than Amazon and your personal opinion this article must be deleted.

Well that's not quite true either. While it doesn't need to read like an ad like it currently does, there is also room for an article about the method, it's success or lack thereof, sales, effectiveness, etc. But you're right, it does need real sources. - Taxman ^Talk 00:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

In an effort to tone down the commercialism of the article I removed the 'languages offered' section. If the article is indeed about the system it should confine itself to the methods and principles, rather than the commercial offerings available from certain companies. I'll also look to do a copy edit. --Nickj69 20:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

done. Just as an aside, can anyone see why the SImon and Schuster link should be there? Do they have a patent or similar on his method? --Nickj69 20:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The Pimsleur courses are very interesting and effective (I learned Spanish and Russian with it). Let's not delete this just because it discusses a commercial product, but I agree it should not simply be an advertisement. DonPMitchell 16:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Still One Of The Best Methods

This is a quote from Barry Farber's How to Learn Any Language: Quickly, Easily, Inexpensively, Enjoyably and On Your Own. As the quote says, Dr Pimsleur died before he could develop courses to advanced levels for many of the languages. However, it still one of the best methods (at least for the original courses). I should point out that Mr Farber speaks some 20 (27) languages, so he might know better on these methods than anyone of us.

"The formatted cassette puts theories of instruction into practice and follows systems that some highly successful language teachers have found effective. For example the Pimsleur method, named after the late Dr. Paul Pimsleur, takes the student by the ear and guides him through the language as though it were a Disneyland exhibit. Unfortunately Dr. Pimsleur died before he could personally develop courses in a large variety of languages to advanced levels. His techniques, however, are being applied to more courses in more languages by Dr. Charles A. S. Heinle of the Cassette Learning Centre in Concord, Massachusetts. The Pimsleur method provides the best minute by minute “learning through listening,” thanks to several strokes of Dr. Pimsleur’s innovative genius. First of all, you become a participant. Pimsleur doesn’t let you merely listen in hopes your lazy mind will help itself to some of the new words being offered on the smorgasbord. After five minutes with any Pimsleur course you will always harbour a certain disdain for all cassette courses that merely give you a voice saying something in English followed by the equivalent in the target language. Pimsleur pricks your wandering mind to attention by asking, for example, “Do you remember the Greek word for ‘wine’?”"

[This link] might be useful (an interview with Barry Farber from 2005). Another useful link discussing the Pimsleur method is [here]. Please note, that this latter review does NOT only praise the method, BUT also points to some shortcomings of the Simon and Schuster releases, too. There are a variaty of releases and for further details I strongly encourage everyone to read accurately that review. I added here only one quote, BUT for the full details please read the paragraphs: Pimsleur Quick and Simple, Pimsleur Instant Conversation and Pimsleur Compact to see the difference to Pimsleur Comprehensive.

"I feel that the Pimsleur Comprehensive course is the single best language learning product available, but the brilliant method designed for Pimsleur Comprehensive courses does not work as well for the shorter courses that Simon and Schuster releases under the Pimsleur name."

[edit] Despite how successful the method is...

I think most of the article is great however the "Core Vocabulary" section is, as noted above, completely wrong. This paragraph also reads like a bad freshman term paper. There are no citations, and no real information other than the wrong and misleading ideas the individual has presented. I think for the time being the "Core Vocabulary" section should bee deleted until it can be rewritten to contain validated information. )

[edit] Anecdotal data does not contribute to the discussion of second language acquisition

Many people who have commented here have used their own language learning experiences to bolster their positions. If the idea is to have a real discussion of of current principles of second language acquisition, and then to look at the structure of the Pimsleur method in that context, then that is probably too big a goal for a wikipedia entry.

I haven't tried the Pimsleur method, but I do see some oddities in the underlying theory; as others have pointed out, adults don't and can't acquire language the way children do. Children acquire; adults learn. Some people are primarily aural in the way they learn, while others need visual stimulation and some require the kinestetic approach. So it's not surprising that this all-aural method works for some people very well, and for some not so well.

Finally, as a neutral observer with a PhD in linguistics, the article doesn't read like an ad to me.

No. While it's true that adults usualy learn, it doesn't mean they can't acquire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.101.76.122 (talk) 14:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Impossibility of Mechanical Flight

This note is merely added as a caution. We all know that learned professors can be wrong, as in the case of mechanical flight etc. What I would caution against is becoming one of those learned professors who built clouds of theory, declaring that mechanical flight was impossible, and who went on to declare, after the Wright brothers, that the Wright brothers were simply lying.

I have been conducting a "scientific experiment" here in Thailand, involving a young male student who apparently could not learn English. We kept at it (he's dedicated) for almost a year, before I finally cancelled the class with him. As he himself said, he couldn't remember ANYTHING.

At this point, I should probably mention that I have an M.A. in English and about ten years of TEFL experience.

This boy (a Burmese refugee) REALLY wanted to learn English, and all of my traditional methods failed with him.

A year later, I decided to try Pimsleur with him. The only problem was that the Pimsleur program "English for Thai Speakers" did not exist -- and was not scheduled to exist until December 2009.

So I bought the Pimsleur course, "English for French Speakers," and simply translated the French instructions into Thai!

So began my "scientific experiment." Would the Pimsleur method give me better results?

The answer was a definite "Yes!" My student (after only 1-2 months of 30 minutes a day) can now say things like "Would you like something to eat?" --- "What would you like to do now?"---"Do you understand Thai?"---"Yes, I understand a little English" AND he is starting to speak English on a daily basis.

The academics who come here and declare that such anecdotal remarks do not constitute any proof of language-learning theory -- well, frankly, they should be doing what I have been doing. They should be RESEARCHING the Pimsleur method and finding out why so many people rave about it. They should get OVER the "not-invented here" syndrome and try to make something out of their complete defeat in the practical world.

Yes, the Pimsleur method is SLOW. But it works, SLOWLY. Other English (and language courses) take the opposite tack -- they fail, and they fail SLOWLY.

[edit] Dont be too negative - work with the tools available.

I had never heard of Pimsleur until a few weeks ago but although I am 62 I have recently become conversant in basic Japanese and Polish using the method. I had already learned and taught seven languages by a variety of methods throughout my life, some similar to Pimsleur, and I am pretty positive about Pimsleurs method. I agree with some of the criticism here but I suggest you think creatively and adapt the method to suit yourself. Its an excellent starting point and no-one will waste their time in using it. Perhaps a little clarification about the commercial nature of the source might have helped (for academic purposes) but the benefits of the method are undeniable.

[edit] Languge learning, methods and materials.

A lot of the above is little more than supporters of each side (pro-pinsleur, anti-pimsleur) arguing that the pimsleur method/materials/claims are completely false or thoroughly true.

Having learnt a number of languages without formal lessons, simply using the materials available on the market, and being a teacher of English to foreigners, I feel that I have a fair bit of experience in the area of language learning and self-instruction. However, I won't pretend that my views are anything other than just that, my own opinions moulded by my own experiences and preferences (which are pretty spartan). I certainly won't be quoting any studies from the field of applied linguistics - there are already far too many people talking about learning languages instead of getting on with it and learing them (lets face it, it's easier that way - easier for your brain and easier to get ahead in your university career). The findings and theories of applied linguistics are generally too specific or too general to be of use to the learner. Any applied linguist can justify or condemn anything in language learning with reference to fashionable theories and psycho-babble. I'd advise a prospective learner to start using the materials available on the market to find out how he learns best.

Basically, after learning languages by buying all the materials available for each language (for better or for worse) and working through them, I am of the opinion that learning a language is too huge a task to be contained in any one set of materials or method.

I advise anyone using this article to try out the pimsleur materials and try out whatever other materials they can get their hands on too.

Contrary to the opinions of some of the writers above and the principles of wikipedia, I believe that what is needed in this article is fewer references to studies from applied linguistics and more anecdotal writing. People who see this article are probably thinking of investing in the pimsleur materials and won't benefit from reading the opinions of people disguising their opinions in pseudo-linguistic theory. What they really need is the experience of people who have tried the pimsleur and other materials.

This is where the article fails. Whether or not it is biased or unscientific, the fundamental flaw is that it doesn't tell you anything you can't get from pimsleur's own web sites.

If you really want to find out something about the method - go to amazon.com and read the customer reviews!

[edit] Core Language

Paul Nation has already established, for English, that knowledge of the 2000 most common word families provides 80 percent coverage of non-technical texts. I added the relevant link. You should note, however, that the Spanish ESL version of Pimsleur doesn't provide even a 1,200 word coverage. I counted the words myself and there are only 600 words total, a lot of which are in the same word family. I think Pimsleur's great, since it taught me Spanish (I live in Peru now) but the Simon & Schuster implementation of it leaves some things to be desired. 190.43.195.158 22:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This article and talk page are being manipulated

It is obvious that people with a vested interest in Pimsleur courses are manipulating this article and talk page. The article is written like an advertisement, and the talk page is filled with positive comments by people who either don't sign their name or sign it with an IP address. Most Wikipedia articles don't have anywhere near this many anonymous comments on their talk pages. As for someone's comment above about the many positive Amazon.com reviews, Amazon.com is gradually being overrun by fake reviewers. Fake Amazon.com reviews can be identified by clicking on a reviewer's "See all my reviews" link. If the reviewer has only ever reviewed a single product and gave that product a 5 star review, then it is probably fake. If the reviewer has only reviewed products by a single company and gives them all four or five stars, then it is probably fake. If the reviewer has reviewed an unbelievably high number of products and given almost all of them four or five stars, then it is probably fake. --JHP (talk) 07:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Figures out of Mandrake's hat

Let me quote the article: "the number of words required for 50% coverage varies from 199 words in Hindi to 7,699 in Malayalam, while 80% coverage for those languages is 2,874 and 126,344 respectively."

I say: nonsense, UTTER, ARRANT NONSENSE! The only way in which one can arrive at such figures is by counting grammatical inflections and word derivations as as many distinct words. So, taking Latin for instance, we have: rosa, rosam, rosae, rosâ, rosas, rosarum, rosis, 7 words, and: amo, amas, amat, amamus, amatis, amant, amabam, amabas, and so on, probably close to 100, forgive me for not bothering to count them.

As for 199 words for Hindi, NONSENSE again. I did learn some Hindi and I might still remember a couple of hundred words. I understand NOTHING. And I cannot think of a language where 200 words may suffice for 50% comprehension, not even Bislama, the pidgin-english of Vanuatu.

JacquesGuy (talk) 05:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The article mentions 50% "coverage", not "comprehension". There is a fundamental difference in meaning between these concepts.

In the context of "coverage", it would be fair to classify the Latin conjugation of "love" as a single word. It is not exactly an irregular verb, after all. If we count each inflection as a separate word, it could be said that all Turks have a vocabulary of millions of words. Somehow they manage to cope.

Your attack is not quite justified, although I do agree that Pimsleur have at times excaggerated their claims for vocabulary learning.--Lingvo9 (talk) 11:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV edits

I just made a bunch of edits throughout the article, trying to get a NPOV. Is it neutral enough to take off the advertisement/NPOV tags, or are we not there yet? Ryanfrei (talk) 02:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

With your edits I think we're good to remove the tags. I read it over and I only found one sentence to change. This article now speaks more like "the approach tries to ..." rather than "the approach does ...". Actually, the only section that smacks of bias is the critisism section. Proof of this is the first sentence, "The Pimsleur system does not teach how to read and write a language." This is not true. Pimsleur does include basic reading lessons. Also the statement "Pimsleur students only receive feedback on the phrases used in the Pimsleur program" is true of any language course, and cannot be held against Pimsleur. I've edited the article accordingly. cybersaga (talk) 15:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of its NPOV status, the article now comprises 80% original research, and as such 80% of it is eligible for summary deletion. --Lingvo9 (talk) 16:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe switching from advertisement/NPOV tags to "original research and unverifiable claims" would be in order, then? Ryanfrei (talk) 03:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but a new edit by a conscientious editor such a yourself would be much better! --Lingvo9 (talk) 11:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we need any tags at all. All the article says is that the lessons exist and describes the theory on which they are based. The article makes no claim as to whether the methods actually work. Look at the article for Freud for example. It describes all of his theories (including the idea that "the unconscious always desires the phallus (penis)"). Yet the article carries no tags. That's because that article does a good job of saying "Freud believed ..." rather than "Freud proved ...". This article does a pretty good job of not presenting any of Pimsleur's research as truth either, so no tags should be needed. cybersaga (talk) 21:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought that the above inputs were validation enough to take out the NPOV/advertisement tags. But I think that what is really needed are some good solid citations to this article. I have looked a little for some research on the effectiveness of the system, or some of Pimsleur's original research, but to no avail (so far). All I have been able to find are commercial sites that say "based on scientific research," or something to that effect. A few citations of actual studies would improve this article a lot. I have marked a few points in particular that need citing, and will keep looking for some good sources. Ryanfrei (talk) 05:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

If someone would even just go to a library and hunt down some scientific journals related to this topic, I'm sure some kind of study could be found. This system's been around for decades. Reviews and articles are out there, perhaps not on the internet, but undoubtedly out there. Howa0082 (talk) 17:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ultimate Language Store (Advertisements)

A very unreferenced paragraph has been inserted into the criticism section, mentioning price of Pimsleur units and how you can sell them on this website and get some money back. This is a pretty blatant ad for that site, but it might be useful information despite that. If other people object to it, the paragraph should be removed. Thoughts? Howa0082 (talk) 04:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I removed it after all, along with another ad for another site. The S&S link I leave, as it leads to the company that publishes Pimsleur; the sites I removed from the article are unaffiliated, and merely reselling S&S Pimsleur courses on flashcard or whatever. Howa0082 (talk) 06:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)