|
 |
On L-R | ||
Tags: Listening-Reading (L-R) | ||
Share with:
| ||
 Language Learning Forum : Learning Techniques, Methods & Strategies |  | |
| icing_death Senior Member United States Joined 5864 days ago 296 posts - 302 votes  Speaks: English* | Message 73 of 164 27 March 2009 at 11:43pm | IP Logged | |||||||||||||||||
There's nothing wrong with criticizing a method. Debating it's validity may prove useful to some. 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||||||||||||||
| Kubelek Tetraglot Senior Member Switzerland chomikuj.pl/Kuba_wal Joined 6855 days ago 415 posts - 528 votes Speaks: Polish*, EnglishC2, French, Spanish Studies: German | Message 74 of 164 28 March 2009 at 1:17am | IP Logged | |||||||||||||||||
|
Has anyone tried LRing with the text they didn't know before? I have problems gathering materials for the books I have read repeatedly. There are many books that I'd like to read though, so I was thinking about listening-reading them instead.
I'm going to try anyway, but maybe you have some success stories to share. 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||||||||||||||
| Volte Tetraglot Senior Member Switzerland Joined 6442 days ago 4474 posts - 6726 votes Speaks: English*, Esperanto, German, Italian Studies: French, Finnish, Mandarin, Japanese | Message 75 of 164 28 March 2009 at 2:47am | IP Logged | |||||||||||||||||
Yes. I find reading the text once beforehand is much, much better than never having read it. Texts I've read multiple times seem even better, as long as I don't start disliking them from the repetition ("The Little Prince" stays nice; "The Master and Margarita" only goes stale slowly - but I haven't really liked repeating most other stuff I've tried) - but reading it just once ahead of time seems to gain a large chunk of the benefit. 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||||||||||||||
 jeff_lindqvist Diglot Moderator SwedenRegistered users can see my Skype Name Joined 6912 days ago 4250 posts - 5711 votes Speaks: Swedish*, English Studies: German, Spanish, Russian, Dutch, Mandarin, Esperanto, Irish, French Personal Language Map | Message 76 of 164 28 March 2009 at 2:51am | IP Logged | |||||||||||||||||
|
Yes, I've tried it in Swedish-German with Elfride Jelinek's "The Piano Teacher" and in English-Russian with Boris Akuinin's "Sister Pelagija and the white bulldog". Not that successful. I'm eager to try it out with other content, though.
1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||||||||||||||
| Volte Tetraglot Senior Member Switzerland Joined 6442 days ago 4474 posts - 6726 votes Speaks: English*, Esperanto, German, Italian Studies: French, Finnish, Mandarin, Japanese | Message 77 of 164 28 March 2009 at 3:12am | IP Logged | |||||||||||||||||
Criticism based on experience is an excellent thing. Acknowledging shortcomings is important: it lets people evaluate better without direct experience (life is too short to try everything; this can help people prune things out), it gives people directions to look for improvements in, etc. Irrelevant criticism, whether in the form of "LOL!!!!" or misapplied theorizing ("Bumblebees can't fly..... if you use an equation describing an entirely different sort of wing... let's ignore reality and insist our interpretation of the equation is correct!") add nothing. "Debating validity" is valuable, to the extent it's based on reality - not popularity contests, not debating skills (including dirty tricks like ridicule), and not premade assumptions which one is not willing to update when slapped in the face with the fact that they're wrong or irrelevant. This is necessary for all parties in a debate, for it to be anything but an utter waste of time. "Debating validity" for the sake of 'equal time' regardless of the validity of a viewpoint, or for the sake of debate itself is a waste of time. The only people I see it being useful for are those who research wastes of time, invalid debating techniques (this sort of debate is usually full of them), etc. Persisting in repeating the same arguments, when they're proven to be wrong by reality (whether or not there are relevant, published scientific studies) is useless. It adds noise, but no information. The value of debate is in increasing the amount of information available. 2 persons have voted this message useful | ||||||||||||||||||
| icing_death Senior Member United States Joined 5864 days ago 296 posts - 302 votes Speaks: English* | Message 79 of 164 28 March 2009 at 5:39am | IP Logged | |||||||||||||||||
So you advocate using x rated material? Interesting.
Agreed. Maybe you should stop telling people it only takes 2 weeks to become a good reader from scratch.
Who were these people?
I say your method is passive, and thus won't work well for many people. But if one wants to spend the time to find out, why not.
For all languages except Japanese and Chinese, I agree
Disagree. Although repeating lines like this will help a little, it certainly won't make you a good conversationalist by itself. 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||||||||||||||
| icing_death Senior Member United States Joined 5864 days ago 296 posts - 302 votes Speaks: English* | Message 80 of 164 28 March 2009 at 5:49am | IP Logged | |||||||||||||||||
I would like to know how many people here have become a good reader from scratch in 10 days or less using this method. Can you read a newspaper or novel (that you haven't read before) at that point, with good comprehension? If not, could you estimate your percentage comprehension of a newspaper or novel? 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. |
