I just don't believe his claim: "C1 fluency in French in about 5 months" if he started from 0 unless he didn't do anything but learning the language in the target country. C1 is a damn high fluency:
"Can understand a wide range of demanding, longer texts, and recognise implicit meaning. Can express him/herself fluently and spontaneously without much obvious searching for expressions. Can use language flexibly and effectively for social, academic and professional purposes. Can produce clear, well-structured, detailed text on complex subjects, showing controlled use of organisational patterns, connectors and cohesive devices."
I'm a long-time foreigner in a German-speaking country, learning German after already speaking two more languages apart from my mother tongue, not knowing German before I came here, so I know how many nuances a living language has. Had he say A2, or B1 if he's a language talent, I'd believe him, C1, I can't imagine. I can only guess he didn't actually try to pass some formal verification tests, or he didn't start from 0, there simply must be something he avoided to say. Or he simply lies to himself (and us) that it's actually C1 what he reached in five months.
Yeah, I lived in Germany for just under a year. My great-grandparents spoke nothing but German, and my grandparents were about 50-50. Even being steeped in German my whole life and living there for a year, I only passed the B2 level test after I got back from Germany. Today, I could probably pass the A2, just because I don't know anyone anymore who I can speak German with at any deep level.
C1 in 5 months without living in the country and speaking nothing but that language would put this person into "dangerously intelligent" territory. Super-human levels of language skills. With this "method", I have to wonder if he didn't just memorize phrases and words really, really well. Does he know the grammar and rules well enough to construct a compound thought on the fly and not sound overly foreign? Because you need to be able to do that for C1.
See my response, but I think it's possible. When I first saw this post, my first instinct as a professional (and nationally-certified) translator and polyglot (fluent in 4 languages at some point of my life) was to brush it off. But I see he places appropriate emphasis on vocabulary acquisition, which many language learners fail to do.
It's possible, at the very least. I did this in about 4-5 months at age 17 while living and studying in France (plus I was dreaming and thinking in the language by that point), and I only knew the basics before leaving. I consider myself smart, but not "dangerously intelligent". I have scored very high on foreign language aptitude tests, so I'm not totally representative. But it's certainly possible.
I think you're a good counter-example for what you claim. You knew the basics before -- how much was this "basics"? Couldn't it be at least four years of foreign language classes in school?
Second, you were 17. Third, you were fully immersed in the country of native speakers, probably spending all the time in language learning. Fourth, you say you were evaluated to be very talented for learning languages, do you know where you were at this curve (were you in the top 1% or so)?
What did I claim? I claimed that it was possible for someone to learn a language fluently in 4-5 months, because I did so. To be honest, your demanding tone is a little off-putting, particularly when you're asking personnel questions about my life and schooling. However, in the interest of science, I'll try to answer the questions:
1. The "basic". No, in the US, it's pretty rare to have four years of language training by age 17. I had two years of French before I left, but it was very basic French, on par with the way languages are taught in France. Not, for example, at the level at which languages are taught in Germany or Sweden. I knew the fundamentals of French grammar, but I could speak only very basic phrases when I first arrived in France. I could not carry on a basic conversation in French before my departure.
2. Yes, I was 17. I mentioned that.
3. Yes, I was immersed; I mentioned that as a mitigating factor.
4. Yes, I was in the top 1% of language learners according to aptitude tests. But my whole point in writing the post was to say that learning a language fluently in 4-5 months was possible (because I had done so), not that it had actually happened to the person in question. It may or may not have. But I tend to believe him.
5. What does a diploma have to do with this? In fact, I did not go to a French university, because I wanted to go to an American university.
Seeing the responses of some of you makes me understand a little better why some of the developers I've interviewed and worked with who have strong math/CS backgrounds are so surprised that I'm not able to immediately understand some complex algorithm. We all have different aptitudes, and just because something seems difficult for you, does not mean it is so for another person. I know some of you with strong math and CS training and aptitude are much quicker at understanding algorithms that I am (although I'm pretty quick at picking up PL syntax thanks to my natural language aptitude). I can totally accept that. Why is it so hard to believe that someone who has worked as a professional, ATA-certified translator would be quicker, even much quicker, at learning natural languages than others? If you think an average person could learn this material in a year, don't you think it's possible that a motivated individual with an aptitude for languages could do so in half that time? Isn't it possible that the blog author might be such a person?
Let me summarize: you've had two years of French as a foreign language before you came to France, you are a top 1% language learner, you've spent all your five months in France just learning language and you haven't taken any formal exam which would prove that you've actually reached a C1 level and not B1 or B2. In short, you didn't show that it's possible reaching C1 in five months from zero knowledge even for a top 1% person. Thank you.
(As a top 1% language learner you must have reached A2 only "by osmosis" in two years of French as a foreign language, before you came to France, then reaching B2 (again being top 1%) in five months there is fully realistic.)
When strangers ask you for specific information about claims that you make, they're not trying to insult your trustworthiness. They don't know you, so you start from a place where there's no reason to trust you at all. They're searching for a reason to believe you if you look at it in a positive way.
It doesn't cost me to believe that (if you are good and dedicate a lot of time to it) you can get to B1 or B2 in 4-5 months. C1 is a completely different story though.
I work for an international organization and people around here are naturally predisposed to learn new languages. It's amazing to see how much you can learn from native speakers, however C1 would require many more hours of interaction than 5 months can provide.
Why don't you ask some of the people you work with who are naturally good at languages if they've ever learned a language to a C1 level in 5 months? I imagine some of them will not only confirm that they learned a language to a level equivalent to C1 in that amount of time, but some may also tell you that they learned a language to C2-level fluency in around that amount of time.
We obviously have different ideas what C1 and C2 are. I'm sorry, I know only what exams look like here in this German speaking country for the purpose of obtaining B2 in order to get the right to study and I know how much harder C1 is (as much that a lot of native speakers not trained to write organized texts wouldn't pass it without targeted preparations), and it matches the specification I've linked, see the top post.
Can you please specify your reference for that what you consider a "C1" level? Also please note that once we relax the starting conditions, allowing two years of preparations and avoiding a formal C1 exam, we can't really call it "C1 in five months."
I believe you that you sounded awesome, I believe you you've received a lot of praise for your ability, we just don't agree if that was a C1 as defined.
If it really matters to you, you see my real name. Get in touch with me, and I'll put you in touch with university professors from Europe who will vouch for my progress in the language. But only if you promise to come back on here with your real name (like I'm using mine) and admit you were wrong.
Otherwise, I'm sorry we've both lost this amount of time arguing past each other, when you've clearly made up your mind that no one can learn a language fluently in 5 months, to and even beyond the C1 level as described in the standards posted (the CEFR had not yet been adopted when I was in school).
PS -- And to be clear, I'm not unique, or particularly unusual in my abilities. I've known many other language learners who have learned a language fluently in under 6 months. In fact, most of my translator and interpreter colleagues probably can learn a language in about that amount of time.
PPS -- I'm offline to play with my kids. Good luck.
You admitted you haven't learned French in five months but in at least two years and five months and you're a top 1%. I never doubted you progressed and the results were really good.
You never wrote clearly, have you passed any exam immediately after these five months in France? If so, how was it categorized then?
I agree with the parents that doubt the veracity of these claims. There is so much more to a language than just vocabulary and grammar that I can't imagine anybody picking up on their own in 4-5 months. For example, in Japanese, there are many levels of formality that affect the vocabulary you select as well as the way you say something. And it's not just a matter of using one level with a particular person, how formal you are is very dynamic, and can change back and forth in the same conversation. Also, it's pretty much impossible to reach a native level productiveness of giseigo and giongo (different types of mimetic words) without being born and raised there.
However, if you're a language maven, then I can see how you can obtain high fluency in a short amount of time (although even the mavens I came across had issue with giseigo/giongo production, figure that out). But don't assume the same technique a maven uses will apply to your everyday person. I've studied Japanese for going on 14 years now (8 of those years being intense study: masters program, study abroad) and the more that I learn the more that I realize that I don't know.
Japanese is notoriously hard to master. It's probably not very revealing to use your experiences with Japanese as a benchmark when the blog author is talking about his experiences with French, a language very close to English, particularly in vocabulary (for obvious historical reasons).
You would have a point if the post author didn't also claim to be having the same success with Russian (also rated notoriously hard to master for english speakers). The tone of the article also implies that the same technique can be applied to any language.
That said, I still doubt actual fluency is obtainable for non-mavens even in the romance languages. In my experience, all early learners have a naive view of their own ability, no matter what the target language is.
He mentions right at the start it took longer with Russian.
RTFA.
The US Foreign Service Institute makes estimates for language difficulties for native English speakers, and they seem to be spot on in terms of comparative difficulty—Russian seems to be taking twice as long as French did for me, and they estimate languages like Chinese to take twice as long as Russian.
Agree on the Japanese point. The way you build sentences is just TOO different. You can definitely learn Japanese and speak it as a "gaijin" (meaning using european-style sentences with Japanese words) but speaking Japanese like a Japanese takes tremendous efforts and a serious re-wiring of your own brain as to how you approach language.
I'd seriously doubt if anyone can claim they can learn Japanese to a high level of fluency in a matter of months or even a few years.
"Agree on the Japanese point. The way you build sentences is just TOO different. You can definitely learn Japanese and speak it as a "gaijin" (meaning using european-style sentences with Japanese words) but speaking Japanese like a Japanese takes tremendous efforts and a serious re-wiring of your own brain as to how you approach language."
I don't agree with this. The way you have to 're-wire' your brain isn't too different from what you do while learning a programming language.
The difficult part of Japanese would be all that vocabulary and all those funny symbols and combinations of symbols.
As a Korean learner, vocabulary is a mountain that I make great progress in scaling, yet my progress seems insignificant compared to the size of the mountain.
No, the difficult part of japanese is not about vocabulary or funny symbols. I have a JLPT level 2 certification in Japanese and at this stage, the wording and kanjis is just about memory and practice. What's harder is to learn expressions, idioms, how to use them and how to understand them in different contexts. What you are saying is just like : "as long as you know words and alphabet, then you know the language". There's no way it is that simple.
And human languages are way more complicated and contrived than programming languages. I don't think you can make a reasonable argument to support that it's the same thing.
> What's harder is to learn expressions, idioms, how to use them and how to understand them in different contexts.
Well, that's hard too. But knowing all the words involved makes it a whole lot easier.
I haven't had much success with SRS for Korean vocab. There are so many words that are just too similiar to each other.
> human languages are way more complicated and contrived than programming languages. I don't think you can make a reasonable argument to support that it's the same thing.
I don't claim it's the same thing; I'm just making a comparison. Something like switching from SVO to SOV order isn't particularly difficult for the average programmer. Idiomatic expressions with irregular grammar are going to be problematic, granted.
Why do you feel that the SRS's utility is determined by whether the words are in context or not? In fact, the people over at AJATT[0] have recommended using sentences and never using individual words. You want to practice in the types of situations you're actually going to encounter the language in. And in almost all cases, you'll encounter Korean (and any other spoken language) in the form of whole sentences, or at least phrases.
As an example in the US, we had a co-worker who was from Cyprus but lived in the US for 5 years to get a BS and MS degree. He knew English before coming to the US and spoke fluent English, but would be lost when we talked about US popular culture. Before then I hadn't really realized how often people made allusion to old TV shows, 15 year old politics, childhood books, etc.
Agreed. I'm decent with languages (native English speaker, C1 German, B2 French, B1 Mandarin and Spanish, can fake my way through common travel situations in Moroccan Arabic and a couple other African languages). C1 in 5 months sounds wildly optimistic, even with immersion. I wouldn't consider myself to possess C1 French despite a couple years of classes in school and maybe a year of immersion broken into a few chunks. My German fluency came from ~10 years of classes, including several college classes in other subjects that were taught in German.
For that matter, I know non-native english speakers who don't have C1 fluency despite living in the US and UK for more than 20 years, and not for lack of trying. Learning languages is hard for almost everyone, and for a reasonable portion of the population, it's really hard.
I have seen a lot of foreigners learning French (being French myself, and exposed to international students/professionals in various situations) and I have to seriously doubt that claim as well. I have seen some Americans learning French very fast, in a matter of 6 months, enough to be able to communicate and work in French on a daily basis, but there is no way they could be qualified as producing "clear, well-structured, detailed text on complex subjects".
I trust that some language learning methods work better than others (we can see the disaster of language teaching in schools to understand that HOW you learn makes a difference) , this being said, time spent learning the language is often a critical factor to look at. 30 mins a day, for 5 months is not going to cut it, even with the methods described.
There's just so much the brain can absorb in a short time.
>> There's just so much the brain can absorb in a short time.
Daniel Tammet learned Icelandic in one week. I would be interested to see what backs your claim that the brain can only absorb so much in a short time.
I think both you and the GP are projecting YOUR limitations onto everyone else.
The brain can and does absorb a massive amount of information each and every day. Training the conscious mind to direct that natural ability of the brain is something that is orthogonal to the brains capabilities. Being an Opera Singer (dedicated and focused) probably helps with that task.
Your point? Daniel Tammet is an autistic savant. And some people have eidetic memory. There is little relevance unless we find a method to recreate these traits in "normal" people, there is by no means any evidence that every human has latent super powers.
As a normal person having nevertheless high language aptitude, I reached C1 or very close to C1 in about 6-7 months. I say close to C1 despite reaching C1 level in a test, because I don't think it's fair to claim you have every capability for C1 as described by CEFR just because you passed a 4-hour test, in certain ways you just cheat by learning for the test. Anyway, even that was with a very generous amount of immersion, about a minimum of 8 hours a day including long hours of grammar practice. Still, despite praises from native speakers, at that time I wouldn't assert that I was fluent in speech or writing. Now to claim you can be "fluent" in 5 months just by studying 30-60 minutes a day is a bit outrageous.
I can't tell you how much our brain can really "absorb" and "retain" in one day, but there are very real limits in language acquisition after a certain age. I won't say it's impossible, but to realize your claims, we definitely need a magic pill or surgical operation / cybernetics.
I guess you have never read anything about the brain works. The brain is not an organ to memorize, but an organ to forget. It's a filter for information. You won't remember in 30 minutes a series of 10 numbers you are asked to remember by heart, unless you are exposed to it many, many times. Memory works by repetition. That should be a good observation enough to say the brain is not very good at remembering things, since you need to feed it again and again the same information for it to remember it for a while.
Daniel Tammet is not an ordinary person. You are projecting HIS extraordinary capabilities onto everyone else, and you can see that 99.999999 % of the population is NOT anything like Tammet. So your point does not stand.
Did Daniel Tammet really learn Icelandic in a week?
He studied for a particular interview about his experience learning Icelandic. I don't know how well he spoke in that interview, or if he could cope in situations which weren't interviews about what he thinks of Iceland/Icelandic and his studying method.
5 months without living/breathing the language amongst native speakers, fluency, methinks NOT ;-)
I took 8 years of French growing up (10-18) and I understood nothing, literally nothing when I visited Quebec for the first time (that's a joke, do you get it?)
Anyway, the point is, fluency cannot be gained without living in the culture where the language is spoken. Book learning, reciting phrases, etc. will not give you the auditory queues that conversations with native speakers will. When you mispronounce a word or phrase, a raised eyebrow speaks volumes. Books do not raise eyebrows.
The best way to learn languages is to live abroad, in various places, watch loads of TV (really the more the better) and mingle with the locals.
Finally the absolute best way to learn a language is through your significant other; if he/she speaks the language you are trying to learn, and has no interest in speaking your native tongue, wow, spaceship language learning class of the highest order ;-)
> learn a language is through your significant other
That's a common misconception, and I have personal experiences: actually spoken communication with different native speakers improves your capabilities much more than the communication with only one, given the same amount of time.
I think a significant other helps to get you started, and later is handy for all the little cultural things which C1 fluency absolutely requires.
But you risk using the same terms all the time, getting used to each other's nonstandard pronunciation, and lastly, you may sound much more like a tomboy/sissy by only talking to the opposite gender. I really hope it's not too late for me to stop doing all of these :(
I think we should cut the guy some slack, here. He's laid out a structured plan for anyone to freely follow if they wish. Even if they don't follow it step-by-step, there are still some great tips to improve language-learning efficiency.
Personally, this looks much more effective than the textbook I'm currently using so I'll give it a try. We have no idea whether his timeframe claims are true or not (in which case, how can we criticize?) but any outcome of following his advice is going to be positive.
I speak three languages pretty well, two of them are of Latin origin (Spanish and Portuguese), and Spanish being my native language. I got really fluent in Portuguese in about 6 months, but those who know how close Spanish and Portuguese are, will know that that's not a hard task.
But to get fluent in English it took me some years, living in the U.S. I also know enough to understand Polish, but speaking it is pretty hard for me.
With that said, I can say with a lot of confidence that this guy is most likely to be lying.
Well, if he was immersed in the language, I could believe it. I got to that level in French at age 17 within about 4 months. Of course, I knew the basics before I went, and I was studying in a French school and living with a French family, which made a huge difference (although I attribute my greatest language learning to watching 21 Jump St. in French every day after school -- fortunately, since I had avoided the show like the plague back in the States).
I went on to learn two other languages to that level -- and became a professional translator and interpreter in the process -- but it took me longer because I was never again immersed in a language to the same extent (up to now, at least).
In five months - no way. I went as an exchange student to the US with virtually zero spoken English. I met noone speaking my language for first few months, so it was as immersive as it gets (save getting an English-speaking girlfriend), and yet it took me 3 months to just start conversing. No way in hell one can learn to C1 fluency in 5 month even if it's an 24/7 effort.
absolutely agree, I would LOVE to hear the C1 French speakers demonstrate their savoir faire with la belle langue NOW, with further years of practice post-C1 mastery.
I can guarantee that:
1) you will sound nothing like a native speaker
2) I will laugh
I find the doubters like yourself rediculous. Have you never emersed yourself in anything? Things that seem impossible aren't remotely when you take them seriously and let them consume your every thought. Focus 8 hours a day on memorizing the digit of pi, reading music, speed reading, multiplying four digit numbers in your head, "counting cards" in Blackjack, playing chess without sight of a board, learning JavaScript, playin Tetris, or whatever. You might find that what seems impossible now becomes second nature. You might find that taking something that is second nature to a higher level (speed-reading technical documents, reading symphonies, division in your head, beating level 41, or whatever) is doable in a few more months. Why wouldn't someone who has mastered the basics of a language, perhaps beyond the level of many native speakers in terms of grammar or vocabulary in say three or four months, not be able to reach a truly proficient level in just another month or two? The poster has devised a technique of getting to an accelerated level of learning as soon as possible. If you try, you might find you can do this, too. I won't laugh.
Not everyone has the ability or personality to be a hyperfocused genius working on a difficult task. Even if they could, it's simply doubtful that a learner would pick up everything necessary to be at C1 level in 5 months. On Chinese-Forums we have a few posters who have done intensive full-time study of Chinese using modern methods for months, and I don't believe any of them managed to achieve that level in several months. A2, B1, yes.
See this long debate about whether a guy can achieve C1 fluency in 3 months:
In the SW part of the country, the surf region, there are loads of foreigners, many of whom have been here year-round for more than a decade; still, the accent is poor, the phrasing limited, and the non-native speaker element is absolutely evident.
You may immerse yourself in everything French, but unless you start early on in life it will be exceedingly difficult to attain native speaker type fluency. Language is not just speaking phrases, being able to read literature, etc., it's also being, language is being the being of another culture.
I think you underestimate just how much there is to learn when learning a language that is very different to your own. Learning Javascript, which has a limited grammar and VERY limited vocabulary, really really doesn't compare.
I totally agree. 5 years living in France would be already very difficult, 5 months is just impossible. Unless OP has a special gift for languages, in which case the whole post about the method becomes irrelevant.
I come to France in the autumn and spring, have been doing so for 5 or 6 years; studied French as a kid, and lived off-and-on in Montreal for about 5 years.
I would not consider myself anywhere near fluent; that is, compared to how I am able to express myself in my native language, Scala. Hah, how clever, I actually am a rank amateur in Scala, but its hot, maybe you'd like to hire me?
Anyway, the point is, I've met anglophones who have lived here full-time for several years and, wow, sometimes the accent is just painful, all the words are there, but the ability to articulate themselves in French just isn't happening.
Really, language acquisition has to occur at a young age, the earlier the better. Furthermore, building up a vocabulary is helpful, but you can't think phrases in your native native language and then speak them in another language without creating confusion on the part of your listener(s)
I'd really love to hear the C1s, I think I might have a good laugh -- Skype anyone?
> Really, language acquisition has to occur at a young age, the earlier the better. Furthermore, building up a vocabulary is helpful, but you can't think phrases in your native native language and then speak them in another language without creating confusion on the part of your listener(s)
Ok, i consider myself competent 3 languages(English, Tamil, Hindi). And all three are as different as languages can get(grammatically,lexically).
I consider myself C1 competent in only English. I suspect i might be able to clear it in Tamil as it's after all the native tongue, though not sure, can do it without a month's studying(part-time).
My experience,
I learnt tamil and english during my school days. (english being the medium of instruction). I was fluent* in both in my teens(can't remember much before that, except what seems like episodic memory reformed by hearing). Somewhere around the age of 11/12 i started to learn hindi. but i achieved fluency quick. Infact one of the repetitive grouch/feedback i got from teachers' was "don't write on your own. just reproduce what you read. Newton's law is newton's.". Ofcourse I used to think if you want Newton's words go read the textbook and not my answer sheet.
-- I know i scored a 287/300 in TOEFL. Don't know of any equivalent in Tami l/Hindi, that i would compare to that format.
*-- I mean fluency in terms of forming sentences, by combining vocabulary learnt with/without context to form sentences that express and/or describe processes. Not spoken competency. That came long after that, only when i was forced to immerse myself(school rules around 16 for English and later at 25 when went to do a Master's for Hindi).
Exactly, in the language of the most of the readers here: just like knowing all C++ keywords and class names in the libraries doesn't make you fluent in C++ to the level of "can produce clear, well-structured, detailed text on complex subjects, showing controlled use of organisational patterns, connectors and cohesive devices" (that is a C1 definition).
5000? I have close to 8000 in japanese and I consider myself still a beginner.
Native is at least 20000-25000.
As long as you are continuing to learn then 5000 is a nice start, but you are not going to read novels and speak about broad topics with that vocabulary.
Are we talking about vocabulary usage or recognition? Estimates vary, but the rough consensus for English seems to be that the educated native speaker recognizes around 15,000-25,000 words, but only uses around 5,000-8,000 in their own speech/writing.
The average vocabulary of the average person in their NATIVE TONGUE is just over 3500 words (it varies a lot from culture to culture).
The average vocabulary of a University Graduate in the Arts is 10-12000 words. In the sciences it varies greatly, chemistry, biology and medicine being the most demanding at >15,000.
Someone with a vocabulary of 20-25000 words would be highly educated or very well read, or an specialist in a field.
If you have a Japanese vocabulary of 8000 words, you already have a bigger vocabulary than 74.13% of the population (if you understand what that percentage represents, you already have a larger vocabulary than the majority of people).
I don't know where you got that idea from, but I took an online test for English (which is my native language) vocabulary, and found that I knew about 30000 words. And I wouldn't consider myself to be that unusual.
100 words per day is definitely possible with very clever techniques and hard work, so is a vocabulary of about 20,000 words in 5 months, but to be fluent (C1) in using them is another story. It is certainly unrealistic unless we're talking 8+ hours a day immersion.
I think you may plateau quickly with 100 words per day and I think that plateau is well below 20,000 words.
Memorizing a foreign language word is not just translation, it's about understanding context and usage for that word.
When you tread outside the "trivial vocabulary kit" you lose bijection between languages and acquiring words becomes harder and harder.
Keep in mind I have nothing but my personal experience to back that up, which means formal studies on the topic are more than welcome to enrich the conversation.
>> Memorizing a foreign language word is not just translation, it's about understanding context and usage for that word.
Exactly. I didn't mean to suggest that you can actually "learn" those 100 words in a meaningful way. That treshold is also difficult to measure indeed, I also can't back that up besides anecdote without spending some time looking into research. Anyway, my point wasn't that at all. I was actually trying to state it's not realistic to assume a 100 word per day acquisition, because that would mean you would spend 4-5+ hours a day _just_ to know certain translations of those words, without any context or very little if any. I'm talking about something very mechanic that would gain you very little in real language acquisition terms for the effort you spend. Unrealistic scenario unless you're trying to win a bet.
Also, it's worth to note that this depends strongly on how you actually define new words, i.e. what kind of inflections etc. you consider to be distinct words. In languages where you can derive an average of 3-4 new words for every word you learn this can become almost trivial.
I've thought a little more on the whole subject. What we certainly shouldn't forget is that there are people who are better than 99% of other ones -- by definition, on average, one of hundred around you is better in learning languages than all the rest. I have a friend who's such a talent: after learning the foreign language in school for some years and not leaving her country, she spent only three months in that foreign country and sounds to the native speakers like somebody who was there much, much longer. Now if we'd ignore the years she spent learning language in her home country, it's easy to falsely claim that she did everything "in 3 months." Now the second question is -- what is that that she did.
If you would ask even professors to rate her based on what they hear, they'd give her the highest notes. How people sound is a very important point in the feeling other native speakers have, because those who are not top few percent have problem with that and for them, there is a good correlation between different aspects of their language capabilities. So if some professor is evaluating her for a C1 grade based only on whet he hears in a simple conversation with her, she'd pass it easily. However, if she'd have to write for a C1 exam and the same professor would have to give her a note only based on what she'd write, it would be another story.
Now consider also this: the author of the article we discuss is an opera singer. It's obvious that his "ear" is different than the one of an average person. He hears the nuances better. He is also preselected for his abilities to control his vocal tract enough to be probably one of at least one or even more thousands!
In short, I can easily imagine that he can sound even much better than an average guy who reached C1. Still, if C1 includes a written exam, it's not the same. Take a look at the message exchange between one talented person and me -- I believe him he's better than the most, but still it appears that he didn't understand the point and the arguments to which he replied even as they were in his native language. That's the really hard part, especially as I'm not a native English speaker and certainly not in possession of language superpowers, we can still see how hard is passing the gap between "good" and "the comparable to a good educated native."
That being said, if we compare, let's say, a million people, one of them will be by definition better than 999999 other ones. If the author of the article is one of those, it explains a lot, but then that's the major information missing in his article and the rest of it gives a false hope to 999999 of a million readers.
So I still believe that the article omits some important detail regarding that C1 feat of him. Most probably there is some mix of "small" details missing, just like in the conversation seen here -- some years of a foreign language in school, some years of learning and singing the whole opera pieces in French and a big predisposition for learning languages.
It does not have to be a lie, he could be a prodigious talent and not know it. Some people learn certian things much faster then the general population. He may have a naturally high amplitude for learning language, add a very efficient learning method, and it is not far fetch.
The part that's a bit misleading is the 30 minutes a day he mentions. Those 30 minutes require a LOT of preparation. Also he's a musician, so has "the ear" for it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_European_Framework_of_Re...
"Can understand a wide range of demanding, longer texts, and recognise implicit meaning. Can express him/herself fluently and spontaneously without much obvious searching for expressions. Can use language flexibly and effectively for social, academic and professional purposes. Can produce clear, well-structured, detailed text on complex subjects, showing controlled use of organisational patterns, connectors and cohesive devices."
I'm a long-time foreigner in a German-speaking country, learning German after already speaking two more languages apart from my mother tongue, not knowing German before I came here, so I know how many nuances a living language has. Had he say A2, or B1 if he's a language talent, I'd believe him, C1, I can't imagine. I can only guess he didn't actually try to pass some formal verification tests, or he didn't start from 0, there simply must be something he avoided to say. Or he simply lies to himself (and us) that it's actually C1 what he reached in five months.