|
 |
On L-R | ||
Tags: Listening-Reading (L-R) | ||
Share with:
| ||
 Language Learning Forum : Learning Techniques, Methods & Strategies |  | |
| Volte Tetraglot Senior Member Switzerland Joined 6438 days ago 4474 posts - 6726 votes  Speaks: English*, Esperanto, German, Italian Studies: French, Finnish, Mandarin, Japanese | Message 89 of 164 28 March 2009 at 3:31pm | IP Logged | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
As do I, but I got somewhat fed up with illogical arguments against L-R, and thought they were worth countering - perhaps that was a mistake on my part.
It's the least damaging advice I know how to give; our opinions on this vary. Regardless, he chose not to take it, so it's moot.
Here's your fallacy in a nutshell: you're conflating "it can't work", "it works for me", and "it works for everybody". "It can't work" IS falsified by the fact it works for some people; this means your neuroscience argument on why it can't work due to switching is wrong. End of story. "It works for everybody" is something that NO ONE has asserted (atamagaii has listed groups of people who it won't work for, such as people who read slowly), so it's a strawman. I perfectly well agree with you that not everything works for everyone. If you don't consider my logs - or the logs of other people on this site - sufficient documentation of what has been done, or the efficiency of it, attempting to provide that in the space of this thread is a waste of time - doubly so if you don't specify what you require, so can always come up with more things. "My standards for evidence have not been met", without further elucidation, is absolutely useless; when repeated, well...... it doesn't gain in value.
"I am proof that it _can_ work, therefore a proof that it cannot work is fundamentally broken." No one has ever argued that anything else is irrelevant. I advocate other methods to some people (such as people who don't like reading novels, people with very limited time per day, etc), and no one has said L-R works for everyone, so bringing this statement into this discussion, no matter its merits in other contexts, adds no light. 4 persons have voted this message useful | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Bao Diglot Senior Member Germany tinyurl.com/pe4kqe5 Joined 5765 days ago 2256 posts - 4046 votes Speaks: German*, English Studies: French, Spanish, Japanese, Mandarin | Message 90 of 164 28 March 2009 at 4:18pm | IP Logged | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I have a comparatively weak auditory memory and for me the listening-only method does work. Once I heard a word/phrase frequently enough that I have a solid sound image in my mind, I can use that as a guide to check if my pronunciation is acceptable. (Of course the first tries of new sound combinations sound weird, but I can hear and correct it.) 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| glossa.passion Triglot Senior Member Germany Joined 6320 days ago 267 posts - 349 votes 1 sounds Speaks: German*, EnglishC1, Danish Studies: Spanish, Dutch | Message 91 of 164 28 March 2009 at 8:14pm | IP Logged | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Thanks for your answer, I'm glad that you have no problems with this part. As long as the sounds are kind of similar to my native ones, or I have, like you've written 'a solid sound image', I can repeat the words. For example, with Turkish sounds I have no problems. But it does not work for me with special consonants, where I don't know, how to deal with my tongue in my mouth :-) 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Cainntear Pentaglot Senior Member Scotland linguafrankly.blogsp Joined 6010 days ago 4399 posts - 7687 votes Speaks: Lowland Scots, English*, French, Spanish, Scottish Gaelic Studies: Catalan, Italian, German, Irish, Welsh | Message 92 of 164 29 March 2009 at 1:41am | IP Logged | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
To clarify: I'm not saying that it can't work, I'm only saying it can't work the way you describe. You are saying that how it works is irrelevant (this is the "everything else" above), whereas I think how is very relevant. We'll never get past this disagreement -- that's me done. 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Goindol Senior Member United States Joined 6073 days ago 165 posts - 203 votes | Message 94 of 164 30 March 2009 at 12:00am | IP Logged | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
One person on this thread has been amazingly patient ever since he/she first explained the L-R method on this forum. Kudos to that oft-banned poster.
2 persons have voted this message useful | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| hypersport Senior Member United States Joined 5880 days ago 216 posts - 307 votes Studies: Spanish | Message 95 of 164 30 March 2009 at 5:36am | IP Logged | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
hypersport wrote:
The entire concept of L-R method as introduced here on this site comes straight from the school that teaches quacks how to give information to patients in need of real care. Pure bull$hit. Makes absolutely no sense and the people that get in line are the same sheep looking for the magic pill, the amazing never seen before secret that will have them master a language in no time, with no real work. Piss. Look, I can speak for me. I started learning Spanish 3 years ago, and I'm considered fluent by many and can speak with any native speaker about most any subject, even if I have to go the long way around as my vocabulary obviously lacks in different areas. There wasn't any magic involved, just lots of hard work, and I'm not done yet. I did Rosetta Stone 1 and 2 and then went to LSLC and did Level 1 through its entirety more than 30 times. Then I did Level 2 in its entirety more than 20 times. I mocked and spoke over the speakers from the beginning. Then I found out here that there's a chick word for that called shadowing. Who knew? I've been doing it from the beginning. During this time I switched my tv to a Spanish package and quit watching American TV. I started reading childrens books out loud and progressed to novels from Grisham, Sparks, Koontz, etc. I talked with all kinds of people online, in the city, at work, in the gym, restaurants, the soccer field, stores, everywhere. Made friends with many and continue to stay in touch on the phone. I started listening to podcasts during my workday. I had a go at FSI and realized what I had been missing there and am in the process of doing that course now, and yeah, I still speak it everyday with natives and get all my news in Spanish TV. Music too and Spanish radio in the car. I live in America, but I have almost completely immersed myself in Spanish for the sake of becoming fluent in the least time possible. Yeah, I'm venting a bit, but it simply amazes me at how many people say thay want to learn a language, and so few actually put into practice that which will make it happen. You see these guys post what they're GOING to do as they lay out there master plan before they've even started. This course, that course, some shadowing here and there, some L-R too of course as it seems to be legit, hell it gets discussed enough, must be, then some native materials. Unbelievable. Volte wrote: Not a single one of your objections has anything to do with L-R. 1) There are quacks out there, some of whom prey on people: yes. I'm sure you're also willing to admit there are non-quacks, though (if not, the term 'quack' has no useful meaning). Hence, this says nothing about whether or not someone/something is a quack. Irrelevant for the merits of L-R, but: I certainly don't consider myself a sheep. I'm a computer scientist, a skeptic, a rationalist, and favor traditional over alternative medicine. 2) You worked hard, and so you don't like to think you missed an easier path for the same results: that's natural, but says nothing - for OR against - the existence of an easier path. 3) A lot of people talk and never get started on anything. Granted. This often involves Rosetta Stone and LSLC - more often than L-R and shadowing. The relevance of this fact: zero. None of my objections have anything to do with L-R? I'm calling BS on the system as it is written here. Show me one person who has taken the system as written and from nothing (as you recommended to the parents of the original thread starter) has gained fluency. This "system" is so whack that everyone who wants to believe in it (read "wants" as they come running when something looks so easy) can't even understand it. And the ones who have had a crack at it have modified it. Of course they have, who is going to listen to a bunch of garble while reading something in their own language with no background in the new language and gain anything from it? That's right, no one. Unbelievable. Hey, for those that like to study with parallel texts, more power to them. For those that like to listen to audio of the target language while reading the same thing...absolutely. But to think that someone without any knowledge at all of a new language is somehow going to reap some kind of subconscious miracle as the new language just falls into place as they read from their native language and play all that garble in the background...please. Look, there's lots and lots of ways to study. Some people will claim that after doing some form of the L-R they have gained some listening proficiency. For those that already have some background in the language and have modified the process to suit their needs, why not. Progress is progress right. Can't knock it. But don't confuse that with someone going at this thing from jack squat and hoping to become fluent in a matter of weeks with no background in the new language yet. Night and day. Not the same thing. And for that matter, no one has done that yet that I'm aware of. Only lots and lots of questions as to how does this amazing thing work? What do I do? How much at a time? I dont' have the discipline, etc, etc. And the ones that are trying their hand are modifying it to suit their needs, nothing wrong with that, but again, don't confuse it with the original mass of confusion. You claim that I don't like to think that I might have "missed out" on an easier path to fluency. Easier? I've only got 3 years and have been perfecting my speech for the last year. You reach a point in the language where you have it, you only need to fine tune it. I got there in 2 years which is pretty fast. Damn, if only I could have done it in 2 weeks with L-R. Please. And the analogy with the quack: A complete dose of horsecrap. Nothing real here. Like a doctor that isn't qualified and does harm instead of good. The sheep? They're the ones that come running to try the latest and greatest. It sounds so good, I really want to believe it works...but what do I do?? Too much. Look, anyone who has gained fluency in a second language knows that after a while spent learning the construction of the language and getting through a course or two, there comes a time when you have to get in the pool and use native materials and speak on a regular basis to natives that will correct you when you make mistakes. If you don't start using the language, you're not going to get it. This is essential, and it doesn't happen over night. There is no miracle here. 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Volte Tetraglot Senior Member Switzerland Joined 6438 days ago 4474 posts - 6726 votes Speaks: English*, Esperanto, German, Italian Studies: French, Finnish, Mandarin, Japanese | Message 96 of 164 30 March 2009 at 5:49am | IP Logged | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sure, you called BS - and then you proceeded to say a lot of things which were irrelevant to the call.
Atamagaii.
I'm "no one" now; cool. I've done this with Polish; I was pleased with the results.
I wouldn't call it a "subconscious miracle". Aside from that - perhaps it's weird, but it's effective. I've learned a heck of a lot from parallel texts; they're how I gained a reading knowledge of Spanish/German/French. I don't read any of these languages perfectly (to be pedantic, I don't even read English 'perfectly') - but considering the relatively small amount of time invested, etc, I can't complain.
I got to the point where I could understand Polish TV in a few dozen hours of study, with no background in Slavic languages.
I've been happily using "the original mass of confusion". Edit: other than using it much less intensively - I haven't significantly topped 6 hours a day, and rarely even hit that. In my defense, I had a medical problem which was seriously impacting my stamina and concentration; this has been cleared up, and I've found I'm back to my old state of being able to concentrate for 17 hours in a row on other mental work with minimal breaks, so I hope to soon try L-R much more intensively.
No one argues that perfecting a language takes an absolute ton of time - a lifetime isn't long enough, in my opinion. 2 years to learn a language to basic fluency is not fast; there are too many counter-examples, using a huge range of methods, to bother mentioning.
Yes, it's an analogy. It still says nothing about the actuality; nothing is easier than drawing false analogies.
I can't make sense of what you're saying here.
On this, we entirely agree, if you're willing to define 'course' very loosely. Edited by Volte on 30 March 2009 at 6:19am 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. |
