How Krashen will delay your fluency (General discussion) Language Learning Forum

How Krashen will delay your fluency
Tags: Natural method \| Language Acquisition Theory \| Learning Difficulty \| Fluency
Share with: Delicious Digg reddit Facebook StumbleUpon
Language Learning Forum : General discussion

81 messages over 11 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 2 ... 10 11 Next >>

Cainntear
Pentaglot
Senior Member
Scotland
linguafrankly.blogsp
Joined 6015 days ago
4399 posts - 7687 votes

Speaks: Lowland Scots, English*, French, Spanish, Scottish Gaelic
Studies: Catalan, Italian, German, Irish, Welsh

Message 9 of 81

30 July 2009 at 3:57pm | IP Logged

anamsc wrote:

I don't see why more than one method can't be right. People have different learning styles and goals when learning
a language. People have learned languages to fluency in many different ways.

I'm not convinced they have done. One recurring feature of arguments here is that the arguments are often about things the other person didn't actually say, and when you get down to the centre of the discussion it turns out we're all doing very similar things (check the current discussion "Steve Kauffman and Language Learning" for example) but that we just tend to each identify a different thing as the most important part of our methods.

Quote:

I know in the case of development of a native-like accent,
I have read scholarly articles (which I would be happy to site) that say that a waiting to speak is more effective than
speaking from the beginning. But again, it depends on your goals in learning. Some people have the goal of
someday being native-like, and some people want to communicate right away.

These studies are all limited by what they're studying. They cannot study "early production vs late production", only "method A (featuring early production) vs method B (featuring late production)". It is very difficult to categorically state that the problem comes for the early production, rather than some other feature of the method.

I believe that early production often fails simply because there is often no attempt to build the new learner's phonetic awareness, and that it's assumed that the learner will pick it up as they go along. I reckon the mistake comes in when the learner starts to produce two or more distinct sounds as though they were the same thing (eg a French speaker of English pronouncing T and TH (think) and D and TH (this) identically). Once you start producing them as the same, the brain starts to see them as the same thing and finds it very difficult to split them. This would clearly block the learner from ever acheiving the native accent.

As very few courses and very few teachers address this adequately, it is likely that the early-production methods used in the studies also failed to address this.

healing332 wrote:

I posted this on Krashen because current brain scan imaging shows that speaking in a second language activates a different part of the frontal lobe..it goes on to say that this is why it is possible to understand a foreign language and still not be able to speak it back..

Well that is interesting. Why didn't you include that in your original message? I'd love to read the original research.
2 persons have voted this message useful

Jimmymac
Senior Member
United Kingdom
strange-lands.com/le
Joined 6157 days ago
276 posts - 362 votes

Studies: Spanish, Mandarin, French

Message 10 of 81

30 July 2009 at 4:47pm | IP Logged

Cainntear wrote:

anamsc wrote:

I don't see why more than one method can't be right. People have different learning styles and goals when learning
a language. People have learned languages to fluency in many different ways.

I agree up to a certain point but you can't deny that there are those who have moved to a country and learnt a language without focusing consciously on grammar and then there are those who have regularly focused on grammar in learning a language. There are those who have learnt a language without speaking a word of it (not including subvocalization) in the intitial stages and then there are those who have learnt a language speaking from day one. To me, this means there are diferrent ways of learning a language.

healing332 wrote:

Cainntear wrote:

Well that is interesting. Why didn't you include that in your original message? I'd love to read the original research.

This is exactly my point which was apparently so irrelevant.

Edited by Jimmymac on 30 July 2009 at 4:48pm
1 person has voted this message useful

zerothinking
Senior Member
Australia
Joined 6376 days ago
528 posts - 772 votes

Speaks: English*

Message 11 of 81

30 July 2009 at 4:53pm | IP Logged

healing332 wrote:

This may sound bold but Krashen does not know what he is tallking
about..on the subject of output.. he is WRONG..output is very important..output is one
of the ways I learned Spanish in 5 months(speaking and understranding reading with
anyone)
I am sure Krashen knows alot about learning languages but he has made a HUGE mistake
with his silly indifference to output..He has done harm in my opinion with his emphasis
on immersion and total imput..

Speaking activates a different part of the brain that is critical for language fluency
and if done early will speed fluency ..Krashen has contributed to people waiting to
speak which feeds the fear of speaking..

Nope. You are wrong. Without ANY input you cannot have output. So input is very
important. You need lots of input. Output is not bad. No one is saying it's not
helpful. But get as much input as you can. How can you speak a language that you have
never seen or heard? It's like trying to cook a recipe that you have never seen or
read. It makes no sense. Krashen is right.

I want to make this clear once more. Speaking is great. Yes, it's an important part of
language learning. But that doesn't make input unimportant.

Edited by zerothinking on 30 July 2009 at 4:54pm
4 persons have voted this message useful

anamsc
Triglot
Senior Member
Andorra
Joined 6207 days ago
296 posts - 382 votes

Speaks: English*, Spanish, Catalan
Studies: Arabic (Levantine), Arabic (Written), French

Message 12 of 81

30 July 2009 at 4:56pm | IP Logged

Cainntear wrote:

anamsc wrote:

I don't see why more than one method can't be right. People have
different learning styles and goals when learning
a language. People have learned languages to fluency in many different ways.

I'm not convinced they have done. One recurring feature of arguments here is that the arguments are often
about things the other person didn't actually say, and when you get down to the centre of the discussion it turns
out we're all doing very similar things (check the current discussion "Steve Kauffman and Language Learning" for
example) but that we just tend to each identify a different thing as the most important part of our
methods.

Fair enough, but that just goes along with my original point, that there's no need to criticize the way others learn
if it works for them. Maybe I don't understand what you're saying, but this doesn't seem relevant to the thread
and it kind of feels like you're splitting hairs/arguing to argue.

Quote:

I know in the case of development of a native-like accent,
I have read scholarly articles (which I would be happy to site) that say that a waiting to speak is more effective
than
speaking from the beginning. But again, it depends on your goals in learning. Some people have the goal of
someday being native-like, and some people want to communicate right away.

These studies are all limited by what they're studying. They cannot study "early production vs late production",
only "method A (featuring early production) vs method B (featuring late production)". It is very difficult to
categorically state that the problem comes for the early production, rather than some other feature of the
method.

I believe that early production often fails simply because there is often no attempt to build the new learner's
phonetic awareness, and that it's assumed that the learner will pick it up as they go along. I reckon the mistake
comes in when the learner starts to produce two or more distinct sounds as though they were the same thing
(eg a French speaker of English pronouncing T and TH (think) and D and TH (this) identically). Once you start
producing them as the same, the brain starts to see them as the same thing and finds it very difficult to split
them. This would clearly block the learner from ever acheiving the native accent.

As very few courses and very few teachers address this adequately, it is likely that the early-production methods
used in the studies also failed to address this.

Actually, this is an inaccurate characterization. There have been numerous studies comparing many different
methods, so a better way of putting it would be that they're comparing methods A, B, C, D, ... featuring early
production and methods M, N, O, P, ... featuring late production. Yes, it's imperfect, but it's not insignificant.
And if I understand you correctly, it seems like you're saying that because of these limitations, we should discard
these studies and go with what you "believe" instead. I don't really see the logic in that, sorry.

Edited by anamsc on 30 July 2009 at 4:58pm
1 person has voted this message useful

Cainntear
Pentaglot
Senior Member
Scotland
linguafrankly.blogsp
Joined 6015 days ago
4399 posts - 7687 votes

Speaks: Lowland Scots, English*, French, Spanish, Scottish Gaelic
Studies: Catalan, Italian, German, Irish, Welsh

Message 13 of 81

30 July 2009 at 5:57pm | IP Logged

anamsc wrote:

This might seem like splitting hairs to you, but to me it's one of the most important points in the debate: I am not criticising how people learn, I'm challenging how they say they learn.

I'm not asking people to change how they study -- I want people to re-examine what they are doing and be certain that what they are saying is what they are doing. The point of posting here is to share strategies and help each other out. If we can't identify what we are doing, no-one else will be able to replicate it, will they?

Quote:

But at the same time, I've seen other studies claim that in the long-run, natural methods are less effective than grammar-based methods, and I'm more inclined to believe these. I like to think this is because of the arguments presented, but I can't rule out personal bias.

The recurring criticism is that the study groups are non-representative: teachers with a massive personal investment in the method, exceptionally well-trained in it and with a lot of general teaching experience; with the added benefit of exceptionally motivated students.

Quote:

And if I understand you correctly, it seems like you're saying that because of these limitations, we should discard
these studies and go with what you "believe" instead. I don't really see the logic in that, sorry.

That's fair enough, but I'm not suggesting anyone discard anything, just trying to add some context to the debate.
1 person has voted this message useful

healing332
Senior Member
United States
Joined 5624 days ago
164 posts - 211 votes

Message 14 of 81

30 July 2009 at 6:58pm | IP Logged

zerothinking wrote:

]

Nope. You are wrong. Without ANY input you cannot have output. So input is very
important. You need lots of input. Output is not bad. No one is saying it's not
helpful. But get as much input as you can. How can you speak a language that you have
never seen or heard? It's like trying to cook a recipe that you have never seen or read. It makes no sense. Krashen is right.

I want to make this clear once more. Speaking is great. Yes, it's an important part of
language learning. But that doesn't make input unimportant.

Anyone who has read any of my post already knows I believe in blasting the brain with continually imput..I feed imput all day long and untranslated

and i teach you how to do it (Search my posts on this site)

NOW OUTPUT is critical ..I think Krashen has done a harm with his lack of emphasis on output.. Krashen is wrong!!

Regardless of weather you Like me or not I only post things that help you learn your new language..Here is scientific proof you must speak from Cornell University!!

The link is at the end but here is a quote

The fMRI studies suggest that the difficulty adult learners of a second language may have is not with understanding the words of the second language, but with the motor skills of forming the words with the mouth and tongue. This may explain why learners of a second language can oftentimes comprehend a question asked in the new language, but are not always able to form a quick response.

Thus, for adult English language learners, techniques that emphasize speaking may be more successful than methods that focus more on reading and listening" End Quote

Healing 332 : We do not speak because we are afraid ..i am outgoing and this is a big part of my language learning but even the shy must start to speak..you can read all you want about swimming but you must jump in the water

Edited by healing332 on 30 July 2009 at 7:03pm
1 person has voted this message useful

healing332
Senior Member
United States
Joined 5624 days ago
164 posts - 211 votes

Message 15 of 81

30 July 2009 at 7:02pm | IP Logged

http://brainconnection.positscience.com/topics/?main=fa/seco nd-language3

This link works..
1 person has voted this message useful

This discussion contains 81 messages over 11 pages: << Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next >>

Printable version

You cannot post new topics in this forum - You cannot reply to topics in this forum - You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum - You cannot create polls in this forum - You cannot vote in polls in this forum

This page was generated in 0.5000 seconds.