Reply to comment

The first is that “in order to learn Kazakh, one should know Russian.” This is difficult to sustain. From my own teaching experience, I know that even if learners don’t know Russian, they can acquire the Cyrillic alphabet in a short period of time.

I think the source of this myth has much less to do with difficulties with the alphabet or with any alleged similarities between the two languages (which you point out are few and far between) but rather with the method of teaching. If you're going for immersion, there's no reason to learn Russian before you learn Kazakh.

If you're an English speaker wanting to learn Kazakh in Kazakhstan and aren't going for an immersion experience, you'd better know Russian because the odds of finding someone who teaches Kazakh and speaks English but not Russian are much lower than of finding someone who teaches Kazakh and speaks Russian but not English.

Second, the article claims that it is difficult to learn Kazakh because there is no methodology of teaching Kazakh. It seems that many people adhere to this opinion, but I think that many linguists and teachers of Kazakh would disagree.

This is indeed a common criticism and I have heard it often from those attending various Kazakh language classes. Most of these classes have no textbooks. Teachers show up for classes without any written lesson plans, and seem to structure lessons mostly around vocabulary.

As for the linguists and teachers... when one's livelihood depends on not understanding a thing, it will be very difficult for them to understand it. However there are also language teachers who are willing to admit that there is not a very strong state-supported official pedagogy for the Kazakh language which is available to those teaching privately. As for those working in the state-run schools, I have no idea; perhaps they are faring better.

What is a methodology of teaching? It is a set of techniques that teachers apply in their teaching. It is not some kind of super-theory that a ministry of education should provide. After all, the methods that have been proposed over the years (the grammar-translation method, the direct method, the audio-lingual method, the communicative method) are purely theoretical.

I think the problem here lies is that when those steeped in debating pedagogical theory hear criticisms like "there is no accepted methodology for teaching Kazakh" they are comprehending that within the context of the pedagogical debates they are familiar with from back home, namely, debates between philosophical schools of theoretical methods.

Usually what it means in the local market, from those I have discussed it with, is "there was no textbook" or "the textbook was old" and/or "the textbook made no sense". A textbook being out of date for Kazakh of course means more than it would for English or Russian given the need to expand the Kazakh vocabulary to cover words and concepts the language had no need of ten or more years ago.

What Kazakh teachers need is not an abstract methodology, but more resources. They need professionally made books and dictionaries, and training seminars where they can exchange their teaching experiences. Internet forums would be very helpful, too, except that most Kazakh teachers don’t have access to the internet.

Could not agree more-- and in my experience this is really what people mean when they say there is no methodology.