|
 |
Revolutionary approach to learning langua | ||
Share with:
| ||
 Language Learning Forum : General discussion |  | |
| icing_death Senior Member United States Joined 5864 days ago 296 posts - 302 votes  Speaks: English* | Message 89 of 129 12 February 2009 at 9:11am | IP Logged | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
That's nice, slucido makes his own comprehensible input. I read one of your other threads too, and I wanted to
congratulate you on your improved English. Are you up to 100,000 sentences yet? 1 person has voted this message useful | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| chelovek Diglot Senior Member United States Joined 6090 days ago 413 posts - 461 votes 5 sounds Speaks: English*, French Studies: Russian | Message 90 of 129 12 February 2009 at 5:01pm | IP Logged | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I'm going to try this out and see if it helps. I finally started studying Polish today (had been putting it off), so after doing a lesson on pronunciation rules and the alphabet, I found an online radio station. I'm going to try to do 30 to 60 minutes of listening a day and see how easily I make my way through the lessons (I'm using "Colloquial Polish", which is basically a full beginner course, with audio accompaniment).
If there is a big difference to be seen, I suspect it will be easier to see when I'm practically a complete beginner in the language. This obviously isn't a science experiment, but I should be able to sense whether or not I'm learning the new words quickly. Edited by chelovek on 12 February 2009 at 5:07pm 1 person has voted this message useful | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Raчraч Ŋuɲa Triglot Senior Member New Zealand Joined 5821 days ago 154 posts - 233 votes Speaks: Bikol languages*, Tagalog, EnglishC1 Studies: Spanish, Russian, Japanese | Message 91 of 129 12 February 2009 at 11:41pm | IP Logged | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I fall off from my chair laughing when I re-read this thread from the beginning. We've had a passionate discussion. Very good.
One thing though that sticks out like a sore thumb is slucido's comment about comprehensible input:
Comprehensible input is not ambiguous. I think Krashen has defined it for us. Input is comprehensible if its i+1, where i is the current stage of L2 learner. If your input is i+4, then that could possibly be incomprehensible input. I am not aware though if Krashen or anyone has explained if 1 refers to the next stage (if it is, how many stages are there? and what are the characteristics of each?) or if 1 refers to the number of unknown features in the input.
It is not M. Thomas, Assimil, Pimsleur or FSI that determines if the input is comprehensible. It is not the place or the method that determines if an input is comprehensible. It is the degree/scope of difference between your current stage as L2 learner compared with the degree/scope of the input.
Bilingual texts, whether interlinear or parallel, dictionaries, context are good aids in bridging the gap in comprehensibility, from i+n to i+1. Comprehensible input is not an ambiguous concept, its just hard to quantify. Sooner or later, someone will come up with an idea.
slucido: understandable input and comprehensible input are alike. "They learn languages making input understandable" you said. Once you made the input understandable, that is comprehensible input. You therefore indirectly agreed that one needs to have comprehensible input. YES! I can also discern from your words that incomprehensible input is unlearnable. Personally, whatever value incomprehensible/passive input has that you are seeing, it would be negligible. I will have a look though. I do not need to comment further about Stephen Krashen. There exist already a fairly good review of his theories in this site. Edited by Raчraч Ŋuɲa on 12 February 2009 at 11:46pm 1 person has voted this message useful | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| slucido Bilingual Diglot Senior Member Spain https://goo.gl/126Yv Joined 6678 days ago 1296 posts - 1781 votes 4 sounds Speaks: Spanish*, Catalan* Studies: English | Message 93 of 129 13 February 2009 at 3:05am | IP Logged | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trying to make input understandable is NOT the same as comprehensible input. My statement is only a description about what people do when they learn languages. Comprehensible input is a supposed scientific statement with predictive value, but unfortunately it is very ambiguous and it doesn't explain or describe well SLA. Please, look for critical reviews. I think a lot of people aren't aware about critics. By the way, you can read your link: http://www.timothyjpmason.com/WebPages/LangTeach/Licence/CM/ OldLectures/L12_Krashen_Review.htm
On the one hand he talks about learning "without our paying any attention to the process". This sound very "unconscious" to me, but then it seems that if you listen without paying attention or sleeping or incomprehensible input, he thinks those are noises. On the other hand he dismisses learning grammar or teaching. He thinks this is "marginal". It seems Krashen thinks that we acquire languages unconsciously, but only with a narrow conscious activity, comprehensible input...whatever this means. Making input understandable is what we really do and this description avoid a lot of conflicts we see here. There are a lot of ways of making input understandable whatever the level of you or your L2 materials, i.e. if you are learning grammar or using word lists or listening incomprehensible input or speaking from the very beginning, these are different ways to make your input more comprehensible, whatever your level or the level of your input. 1 person has voted this message useful | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| slucido Bilingual Diglot Senior Member Spain https://goo.gl/126Yv Joined 6678 days ago 1296 posts - 1781 votes 4 sounds Speaks: Spanish*, Catalan* Studies: English | Message 94 of 129 13 February 2009 at 3:08am | IP Logged | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I don't understand. You are going to study Polish, Colloquial Polish, one hour a day and additionally you will listen passively one hour of Polish radio. Is that? 1 person has voted this message useful | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Cainntear Pentaglot Senior Member Scotland linguafrankly.blogsp Joined 6014 days ago 4399 posts - 7687 votes Speaks: Lowland Scots, English*, French, Spanish, Scottish Gaelic Studies: Catalan, Italian, German, Irish, Welsh | Message 95 of 129 13 February 2009 at 7:47am | IP Logged | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Agreed. Krashen's theories are very woolly, but then again they are woolly enough that you don't need to overstate the case to show it! What he's talking about isn't quite what you're making out here. When Krashen talks about not being aware of the process he is not talking about not being aware of the material. It's like walking. You can think about every movement of your legs -- lift right foot, swing to front, strike ground with heel, roll forward onto right foot, left heel lifts, lift left foot off ground... etc -- or you can look at your destination and just... well, walk. In the former case you are conscious of the process, but the latter case does not imply that you are unconscious -- most of us can only walk when we are awake. The man who is conscious of the process of walking will move, but he won't notice the colour of the trees, the birds that fly past, etc etc; whereas the man who doesn't focus on the process of walking will see all these things. Now I believe that we do overemphasise the importance of awareness of process in most conventional teaching, but unlike Krashen I think that this is a case of "too much of a good thing". Too much food will kill you and too much water will kill you, but we don't stop eating and drinking because of it! In fact, I not only think that some awareness of process is necessary for learning, but I even say it's inevitable. I find it inconceivable that any adult would not start consciously analysing any new language.
Is this any better defined than anything Krashen says? Surely "making input understandable" is really one of the end goals of learning? (The other being to make understandable output.) In this sense it's a valueless statement. Similarly "you win a football match by scoring more goals than the other team" says nothing about the mechanics of how to score those goals, hence doesn't tell you how to win the match. Edited by Cainntear on 13 February 2009 at 7:54am 1 person has voted this message useful | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| slucido Bilingual Diglot Senior Member Spain https://goo.gl/126Yv Joined 6678 days ago 1296 posts - 1781 votes 4 sounds Speaks: Spanish*, Catalan* Studies: English | Message 96 of 129 13 February 2009 at 10:12am | IP Logged | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Yes, it is.
It's that easy. Making input understandable is an "end goal" but it is a mean and a process too. We learn languages from input and output. The process is: 1-Making input understandable. 2-Making output understandable. Every time we get our input or output understandable we are scoring a goal, but it's much more easy than football because we don't have any rule, unlike football. Whatever trick, technique, method or deception is licit. This is the most easy mechanics, the most easy "how" we can find. What's the practical value of this description? 1-I am putting the emphasis in the learners. They decide what is understandable enough for them 2-I am avoiding the "best method" trap. Whatever technique or trick you use with your target language is licit. Edited by slucido on 13 February 2009 at 10:13am 1 person has voted this message useful |
|  | 
Printable version
|
| Copyright 2024 FX Micheloud - All rights reserved No part of this website may be copied by any means without my written authorization. |
