leosmith Senior Member United States Joined 6551 days ago 2365 posts - 3804 votes Speaks: English* Studies: Tagalog
| Message 18 of 430 22 April 2008 at 3:24pm | IP Logged |
StultusS wrote:
I don't know what (i+1) is |
|
|
wikipedia wrote:
The input hypothesis states that only comprehensible input will result in acquisition of the target language. Krashen says that learners must be exposed to input that is just beyond their current level in order to make progress. This concept is called i+1. If the level of input is at i+1 the learner will make progress. If it is too high, for instance i+7, the learner will be unable to acquire it. |
|
|
bacchanalian wrote:
if one is a strong, say, visual learner then a purely aural method might be fruitless for that individual. In that case, the method might be of
more importance for the given individual. Spending 200 hours with a program with visual and aural input (e.g.FSI) might be much more propitious than spending 500 hours with a purely audio based resource. |
|
|
Good point. What's i+1 for one person may not be i+1 for another.
1 person has voted this message useful
|
slucido Bilingual Diglot Senior Member Spain https://goo.gl/126Yv Joined 6676 days ago 1296 posts - 1781 votes 4 sounds Speaks: Spanish*, Catalan* Studies: English
| Message 19 of 430 22 April 2008 at 4:23pm | IP Logged |
leosmith wrote:
If you rephrased the question a little, for example "If you choose from several dozen established methods that utilize comprehensible input (i+1), which is more important - time on task, or method?" I would say time on task. |
|
|
I think my question is more general, but a very important one.
What's the common factor between successful polyglots who use (seemingly) opposite methods?
Edited by slucido on 22 April 2008 at 4:25pm
1 person has voted this message useful
|
frenkeld Diglot Senior Member United States Joined 6944 days ago 2042 posts - 2719 votes Speaks: Russian*, English Studies: German
| Message 20 of 430 22 April 2008 at 5:36pm | IP Logged |
slucido wrote:
I think my question is more general, but a very important one.
What's the common factor between successful polyglots who use (seemingly) opposite methods? |
|
|
Why is this an important question?
1 person has voted this message useful
|
pentatonic Senior Member United States Joined 7248 days ago 221 posts - 245 votes
| Message 21 of 430 22 April 2008 at 8:21pm | IP Logged |
slucido wrote:
leosmith wrote:
If you rephrased the question a little, for example "If you choose from several dozen established methods that utilize comprehensible input (i+1), which is more important - time on task, or method?" I would say time on task. |
|
|
I think my question is more general, but a very important one.
What's the common factor between successful polyglots who use (seemingly) opposite methods?
|
|
|
I think leosmith just gave you another of the common denominators you're looking for (comprehensible input).
The problem I see with the list of courses and methods you gave and trying to find commonality among them, is that they don't all aim to do the same thing. Ten thousand sentences method is all input, Michel Thomas is all output.
So, assuming you have a good method that fits your learning style, then what is left? I think you are almost there with time. The other keys IMO are regularity and pacing. In my experience, studying for 8 hours in one day is not nearly as effective as studying for 15 minutes a day over a month. The brain needs review and time to create its associations and connections.
(edited several times with apologies)
Edited by pentatonic on 22 April 2008 at 9:16pm
1 person has voted this message useful
|
Alkeides Senior Member Bhutan Joined 6149 days ago 636 posts - 644 votes
| Message 23 of 430 23 April 2008 at 4:26am | IP Logged |
This isn't said in the main page, but if you read the Norsk Experiment site in more detail, he says his German and English knowledge helped him a great deal in reading Norwegian because of cognates.
1 person has voted this message useful
|
Volte Tetraglot Senior Member Switzerland Joined 6440 days ago 4474 posts - 6726 votes Speaks: English*, Esperanto, German, Italian Studies: French, Finnish, Mandarin, Japanese
| Message 24 of 430 23 April 2008 at 4:29am | IP Logged |
StultusS wrote:
Thank you very much for your kind explanation. But the expalanation itself seems to be at least i+3 for me. Pray, Sir, would mind shedding some more light on it in simpler English? Long words bother me, they crash my poor mind.
I should like to ask another question, too. When I open a web page in Japanese or Chinese all I can see are some incomprehensible letters, I presume my current level is then 0. How can I jump to 0+1? Even 1 seems so high for me! |
|
|
For web pages, to get to 0+1, there is quite a lot you can do. The easiest thing is to start browsing web pages that look interesting. Frequently there are loan words, and while the text for a link may be in your target language, the actual URL often contains English. Beyond that, clicking and seeing what happens often makes things more obvious. I've been able to navigate in Turkish, Basque, and Japanese by paying close attention to context and any clues available. Paying attention and a willingness to hit the 'back' button and continue exploring help a lot.
Formatting can be a major clue. Looking at the list about a page into Literatur Emailuak, it becomes obvious that hil, jaio, and zen mean 'born', 'died', and 'in', respectively. I learned those words from another site where the formatting made it even clearer (it had one-paragraph biographies of several authors, one after another), but couldn't find it again to use as an example.
Beyond that, there are tools for making input comprehensible. While you've made your opinion of L-R clear, there are also Heisig's books and a variety of commercial courses.
2 persons have voted this message useful
|