|
 |
Quantity makes the difference | ||
Tags: Learning Strategy | ||
Share with:
| ||
 Language Learning Forum : General discussion |  | |
| leosmith Senior Member United States Joined 6555 days ago 2365 posts - 3804 votes  Speaks: English* Studies: Tagalog | Message 73 of 122 23 December 2010 at 9:40pm | IP Logged | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I didn't think you were serious about this question in the Pimsleur thread, so sorry I didn't answer it. Here is my opinion. I realize it's popular on this forum these days, but I disagree with this whole philosophy of "tricking oneself" into deriving pleasure from language learning. I think the real issue is how you can overcome the need for things to be "fun" or "easy" in order for you to learn. For that matter, the need for any strong emotion in order to learn is a weakness, IMO. Here's you - "Make material elicit strong emotions in order to allow efficient learning". Here's me - "Learn material efficiently regardless of the emotions it elicits." 3 persons have voted this message useful | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Arekkusu Hexaglot Senior Member Canada bit.ly/qc_10_lec Joined 5386 days ago 3971 posts - 7747 votes Speaks: English, French*, GermanC1, Spanish, Japanese, Esperanto Studies: Italian, Norwegian, Mandarin, Romanian, Estonian | Message 74 of 122 23 December 2010 at 9:58pm | IP Logged | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Here's me - "Material that elicits strong emotions yields efficient learning". Edited by Arekkusu on 23 December 2010 at 9:59pm 3 persons have voted this message useful | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| leosmith Senior Member United States Joined 6555 days ago 2365 posts - 3804 votes Speaks: English* Studies: Tagalog | Message 75 of 122 23 December 2010 at 10:11pm | IP Logged | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Without qualifiers, this is not true for me. 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| slucido Bilingual Diglot Senior Member Spain https://goo.gl/126Yv Joined 6680 days ago 1296 posts - 1781 votes 4 sounds Speaks: Spanish*, Catalan* Studies: English | Message 76 of 122 23 December 2010 at 10:14pm | IP Logged | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
As I write in my last post active experiencing can be the answer. We can make memorable boring material, but sometimes isn't needed. If you strongly believe that some drilling is extremely useful, this is emotion enough to charge your desire and to keep doing very boring exercises. Leosmith is an example. Beliefs and values are powerful and they are emotional by nature. Many times we use our reason to justify them and sometimes this is plain cognitive dissonance at work. Edited by slucido on 23 December 2010 at 10:22pm 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Cainntear Pentaglot Senior Member Scotland linguafrankly.blogsp Joined 6016 days ago 4399 posts - 7687 votes Speaks: Lowland Scots, English*, French, Spanish, Scottish Gaelic Studies: Catalan, Italian, German, Irish, Welsh | Message 77 of 122 23 December 2010 at 10:17pm | IP Logged | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
That wasn't clear in the context. I assume when you said "never", you meant "never".
Last I heard, it was widely accepted as minority usage and dying rapidly. Google gives 130 million whoms, but over 2 billion whos. Even accounting for the World Health Organisation, Roger Daltrey's band and Dr Who, that's a fairly big difference. The proportion is roughly the same in the British National Corpus as in GoogleÑ Whom - 12573 Who - 200715 It is a minority usage and has no place being taught as standard. Most academics don't even use it -- you'd be hard pressed to find any modern publication where it is the norm.
Yes, and that's because "to who?" is weird. The normal modern question is "who did you give it to?" whereas the archaic schoolbook style is "To whom did you give it?" But then it's OK that "to WHO?!?" is weird, because it's a marked form, just like "you did WHAT?!?" -- neither is a normal question form.
Nobody. My point was that according to Cambridge, "who" is never wrong. You don't gain any marks by learning "whom", you only risk losing marks by using it. Learners really shouldn't bother with it.
A) Which language do all those words come from? B) As we were talking about outdated grammar, I thought it more appropriate to use outdated terminology.
Or more particularly, it's to do with co-occurence. Put simply, people that are taught "whom" are the same people that are taught not to end sentences with prepositions. So the two things almost always co-occur.
And a hell of a lot of people say "ain't" and use negative concordance (pejoratively known as "double negatives"). Why is your minority usage "correct" and "formal" when theirs is "colloquial"? "Who" is the statistical norm.
Wrong, no. But it's far from the statistical norm and not something you would teach a learner. Happy to continue this conversation, but maybe we should start a new thread in the philological room...? 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Arekkusu Hexaglot Senior Member Canada bit.ly/qc_10_lec Joined 5386 days ago 3971 posts - 7747 votes Speaks: English, French*, GermanC1, Spanish, Japanese, Esperanto Studies: Italian, Norwegian, Mandarin, Romanian, Estonian | Message 78 of 122 23 December 2010 at 10:18pm | IP Logged | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
How about "Meaningful material elicits efficient learning"? 2 persons have voted this message useful | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Cainntear Pentaglot Senior Member Scotland linguafrankly.blogsp Joined 6016 days ago 4399 posts - 7687 votes Speaks: Lowland Scots, English*, French, Spanish, Scottish Gaelic Studies: Catalan, Italian, German, Irish, Welsh | Message 79 of 122 23 December 2010 at 10:30pm | IP Logged | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Some people can make boring material memorable. Most people just get bored. You talk about repeating emotional sentences thousands of times. The more you say something, the less you need to think about its meaning. Most people stop connecting with the sentence when they've heard it too often. Imagine your favourite TV series. Do you find yourself paying more attention to the lyrics of the theme song every time you watch, or less? I find that over time it fades into the background. Their was a time when a massive percentage of the English speaking population (and many non-English speakers) would be able to sing along to the theme song of Friends without really thinking about what the words mean. Excessive repetition tends to become rote learning, which is by definition emotionless.
Yet a lot of religious people go on "autopilot" when reciting prayers. 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Arekkusu Hexaglot Senior Member Canada bit.ly/qc_10_lec Joined 5386 days ago 3971 posts - 7747 votes Speaks: English, French*, GermanC1, Spanish, Japanese, Esperanto Studies: Italian, Norwegian, Mandarin, Romanian, Estonian | Message 80 of 122 23 December 2010 at 10:37pm | IP Logged | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I agree. A few repetitions is all that's necessary; after that, you're on autopilot and it becomes meaningless. 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. |
