Hi Steve,

I need some advice. I first took French at high school and acquired it relatively easily because I was fascinated by my (actually, stereotypical) notion of being French - all about Chanel, and was not yet aware that it should have been hard. Being in a non-French speaking country though (Zimbabwe), and not having any awareness of language acquisition theory and principles, I kind of stayed pinioned to a ceiling I was not aware of until I recently began working (in South Africa) in environments in which French is used for communication with people in other organisations. What also made me aware of the flaws in my previous approach (not the early acquisition - that actually seemed to work! - but my slow progress since), is that I began studying an undergrad degree in French and Linguistics and became enamoured of Steven Pinker, Stephen Krashen (something about the Steves?), Noam Chomsky (to an extent) and Carl Jung (where I see synergies in terms of affective filters). Up until third level though, I have felt distinctly fraudulent in my use of French (good old affective filter) and have stymied my own progress by being afraid, uncertain, reticent and developing the dubious skill of being able to pass any exam on short-term memory and other people's analyses. Result: I have two third level French linguistics exams to write in October and the works are clearly beyond my levels of knowledge. I apologise for the very wordy introduction, but my question is this: Do I just keep doing what I've done and hope to skin my knee in the near clearance of the hurdle of a 50% pass, or can I really facilitate that marked an improvement in this limited a timeframe? What approach do you suggest to unstall the engine?

I am not Steve, but my guess is that if you focus your energies over the next couple months on reading authentic (meant for native speakers) content in French on the particular topics for which you have to write your exams you will make great strides in a short amount of time. If you know the topics that the exams are going to be on, perhaps read French Linguistics papers (written in French) about those topics. If you can give yourself an hour a day (ideally 2 or 3) I'm sure you will be more than satisfied with your progress.

Steve may have further input (possibly contrary to mine), we'll see what he says.

Thanks for taking the time, odiernod! I think this is sound advice and have downloaded some academic commentaries on the works as a starting point. They're a much less stressful read than the works themselves, some of which are very 'Africanly' poetic and use verb tenses that have me in a sweat. My only approach with regards to not feeling too discouraged about it is to try to take a time out in between the 'serious', 'life-depends-on-it' reading for a little diversion once in a while. Fingers crossed!

The Imposter Syndrome

Excerpts taken from this paper (written by a lawyer about the field of law, but applicable to everyone):
http://www.law.stetson.edu/lawreview/media/when...

"Myth #7: The Imposter Syndrome

I find it particularly intriguing that lawyers typically suffer from what is well-known as the Imposter Syndrome. This means that throughout their careers lawyers often experience themselves as people who enter a situation, regarded as the expert or person in charge, when in fact they see themselves as teetering dangerously close to the edges of their own competence. One common sentiment is that everyone in the room knows more than you do, or is better educated than you, or is more capable than you. Sooner or later you are the \"Great Oz.\" As time goes by in the practice of law we all learn to cope with this and overcome this in various ways. We actually learn to appreciate the Imposter Syndrome for fear of its toxic mimic: the Top Gun Syndrome is far worse.

The Top Gun Syndrome is the situation in which one actually believes that one is utterly incapable of error and is an absolute expert in all things that come in front of her. It is hard to believe that anyone would be so foolish as to think that they have completely mastered the law, legal analysis, and all possible angles. For in almost any day, even if you are highly competent at what you do, someone will offer a point of view, or a case, or a prospective you may not have considered before. Among first-year law students, the Imposter Syndrome manifests itself in a variety of ways. Often the law students feel - secretly - that other students know more, are smarter, are more connected, have better opportunities, etc. The truth is, just about everyone in the room feels exactly the same way.

Quite honestly, if they do not, they probably should. Intriguingly, if you step back from the Imposter Syndrome, you begin to recognize that it is nothing other than a healthy recognition of one\'s own limitations and it is a natural and common feature of being a professional. I often feel that the essence of professionalism distills down to the fact that to be a professional is to be someone who can master not only difficult concepts and well-received wisdom, but can also experience herself at the frontier of her abilities and be willing to confront the challenges that society has that will test the abilities of even the very best among the professional caste. At some level we are confident and capable based on past experience, and at another level we are challenged and somewhat unnerved by the open-ended possibilities in front of us...\"

"Myth #22: The Paradox of Errors

This is really not a myth but a paradox. The Paradox of Errors is that while mistakes by lawyers will occur, they are unacceptable. I remember working on a brief when I was in practice with a now-deceased lawyer. He was a crusty litigator in the old mold, who had successfully argued in major cases. While working on a brief with this lawyer, an error occurred. It was early in my career and I was summoned to his office in a very calm and deliberate tone, he pointed out the error. He sensed that I was uncomfortable, because I tend to be a perfectionist, and stopped for a minute to say something that has stuck with me every since. He said, \"I know that errors will occur, but they are unacceptable.\" In the practice of law, as professionals we begin to set for ourselves a standard of perfection that borders on strict liability. We assume that we will not even make the most venial errors. Our learning techniques are oriented toward the notion that errors are simply unacceptable. Nonetheless, we know they will occur. How is it possible to enter a profession whose standard is the acceptance of nothing less than perfect, knowing full well that you will make mistakes and fail to meet that standard? At a certain level, it seems sort of stupid that anyone would ever want to do that to themselves. I guarantee you that at least once in your career you will make one monumental mistake, you may make several...\"

http://www.law.stetson.edu/lawreview/media/when...

This is going to be a fascinating thread, no, it is already fascinating. I wonder whether Yvette has something to contribute, based on her learning experience?

What can I say, fake it till you make it...

I can honestly say I have never experienced Top Gun Syndrome! That is a fascinating insight. Like a practical take on the concept of 'Zone of Proximal Distance' - my takeaway: perhaps everyone needs a guide even when it's their own common sense telling them that they have parameters, but that these are expandable? It does help, actually. Think there's a drug for this? Also, I'm a Secretary at a law firm so yes, a few bruises that smack of familiarity with reference to the context of the article. Thanks!

Where exactly is the line for Top Gun Syndrome? I often feel that I am the smartest (or at least the most competent) person in the class / room / etc., but I have never claimed to be the know-it-all expert in everything.

I think it's the difference between feeling most competent in the class (which I often have) versus feeling incapable of error. You know the guy who's so certain of his opinion that nobody else bears listening to. In the article though:

"We actually learn to appreciate the Imposter Syndrome for fear of its toxic mimic: the Top Gun Syndrome is far worse.

The Top Gun Syndrome is the situation in which one actually believes that one is utterly incapable of error and is an absolute expert in all things that come in front of her. It is hard to believe that anyone would be so foolish as to think that they have completely mastered the law, legal analysis, and all possible angles."

I would import these texts into LingQ and save all the relevant words and phrases and review them. I would do a lot of reading on relevant subjects. I would also do a lot of listening to audio books or other subjects of interest. If audio books I would also seek out the books themselves to read. I would probably stick with 19th century works, Balzac for example, and import the texts into LingQ, because this will enrich your language and give your brain a really good feel for French.

I would also read a lot. Whether you read on linguistics or on other subjects, the exposure is good for your brain. The more you listen and read, the more momentum you will have going into the exam. If you use LingQ you will increase your vocabulary in your chosen field.

Ah, SanneT, "French and Francophone Studies" brings back unmentionable memories! Rousseau is still in my living room. That's why I'm carrying that bottle of Vouvray around. : )

Cashley, first let me say that I agree with Odiernod's suggestions. You have to focus on authentic native materials! Absolutely! I would recommend, however, more than three hours of study. In two hour sessions, I suggest no less than a six hour day of intense work. Daily. Every single day. Six hours [+] is a piece of cake when you're in the academic bubble. You can definitely improve upon your knowledge and skill in two months. Given your foundation in French, you can make significant progress in this short time.

■[...Up until third level though, I have felt distinctly fraudulent in my use of French (good old affective filter) and have stymied my own progress by being afraid, uncertain, reticent and developing the dubious skill of being able to pass any exam on short-term memory and other people's analyses. Result: I have two third level French linguistics exams to write in October and the works are clearly beyond my levels of knowledge....]■

First and foremost--do not be "afraid, uncertain, reticent" about anything whilst you are in this academic phase. As you know, fear will hurt you; it will poison your potential. I know this all too well from personal experience. Fear--get rid of it, it is waste matter: make a mental bonfire, get rid of it now. Today!

You are in an environment where "short-term memory and other people's analyses" are traditional paradigms for critique and analysis, for entering into the conversation. As such, employ the rules of engagement by taking the time to think before you act. Passing an exam is not a matter of memorizing facts, but an activity of retrieving information from your base of knowledge and thinking a thing through. Here are some guidelines* from a year of courses I took for a Liberal Arts degree, and that were indispensable for my thesis in Comp Lit./French Studies degree:

☛ Explain the Question:
You must be able to expand and explain what is at issue:
1. If the question presents you with a theory or a position for your consideration, explain it at length.
2. If the question is deploying a picture or an image, explain it.
3. If there is a set of alternatives for your consideration, what are they?
4. If some claims are open for dispute what are they, and what do the grounds of dispute appear to be?
5. If you are being asked to deploy a theoretical apparatus, what is it exactly?
6. If you are laboring under certain constraints what are they?
7. If you are being asked to tentatively adopt a position what is it?
8. If you are being asked to construct a relationship, then between what and what, and what is the range of relations possible.

☛ Explain your strategy for answering the question:
Given your explanation of the question what will you be trying to accomplish in your response?
1. What needs to be done to accomplish that?
2. What is the order of march?
3. What gets done first, second, etc.?
4. If qualifications or disclaimers are needed what will they be and why will they be used?
5. If some theorists is being appealed to, how do you signal your relation to that theorist?

● Details of the question should inform you of the strategy you should take.
● Take the time to flesh out the features and link those features into relations.
● You need a criterion for judgment.
● What you are picking has to be pointed out.
● Explanations are always pointed at something; are pointed to some aspect of a theory, not the text.
● Almost always true that you have to work backwards. What needs exploration?
● With short answer questions, explain what you have to explain.
● Point to the particular thing that is being explained.

Second point, nothing is "beyond your level of knowledge". Please restrain from putting on this psychological and intellectual blindfold when approaching a language, a complex task and/or text. Try to remember that the language you are embracing, the task at hand, and the text on the page is a process of exploration, discovery. To write French linguistic exam papers, you have to read French linguistic documents. In doing so, you will naturally absorb the rhetorical activity: controlling framework, tone, technique, vocabulary.

Access your library's resources, read tons of academic papers in your field, read it all in French. Do everything in French. As Odiernod wrote, authentic native material only! Listen to French lectures vis-a-vis podcasts. For example, College de France has a wonderful series of lectures on writers and literary analysis. Just do the research in French--everything you need is out there and in you!

*Please note that these guidelines were given to me and my classmates by an awesome group of professors. I cannot find the original document, but several years ago I typed the main points, listed above, which may or may not be verbatim.

"Six hours [+] is a piece of cake when you're in the academic bubble."

Yvette is right. If its even remotely possible to do 6 hours a day, then do that!

Hi all. Thanks to Steve and Yvette for their contributions. I am still finding my way around the site but will try importing some of my material to Lingq this evening. Yvette, wow! I have read through your post several times and thank you for taking the time to give such precisely relevant inputs. What you have all wisely pointed out is the need to pick up my linguistic cane and thrash though the overgrowth in a spirit of 'search' rather than nervousness. And this I have tried to apply with gusto. I'm a writerly type so I've begun (this morning) to get my daily dose of the stuff in French too. I don't think I could manage that many hours at this stage, odiernod and Yvette, (work, commute, kids, other study subjects, etc.) but what I can (and have begun to) do, is download research articles on my other subjects only in French. So I've switched the language medium of my study even where it is not strictly relevant. I see that being a tremendous help. One interesting note - one of my more accessible literature works is La Princesse de Clèves and, thanks to Sarkozy's 2008 comments on the work, there is lots of interesting social context (and many very well-written (in authentic French - sarcasm and all) articles) to this that may not otherwise have existed. I'm going to try to ferret out similar controversies for some of the others while being mindful of Yvette's advice to respond to the question and not (only) try to ferret out ways to talk about what I've prepared in the comfort of prep time. Authentic French practice and exam fodder all at once. Thanks for the suggestions and insights!

.