A continuation of the endless I/O talk (General discussion) Language Learning Forum

A continuation of the endless I/O talk
Share with: Delicious Digg reddit Facebook StumbleUpon
Language Learning Forum : General discussion

126 messages over 16 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 6 ... 15 16 Next >>

zerothinking
Senior Member
Australia
Joined 6375 days ago
528 posts - 772 votes

Speaks: English*

Message 41 of 126

27 November 2008 at 7:20pm | IP Logged

He attacked your English. An ad hominem is attacking the person not the argument. He
is using your English as evidence against your argument. He therefore attacked your
argument. So he didn't commit a logical fallacy. It was totally relevant.(1) Your
level of English can be objectively measured. You do make elementary mistakes and
there is 100% proof of this.(or so Volte says, I haven't checked through them
personally)

Edited by zerothinking on 27 November 2008 at 7:23pm
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 42 of 126

28 November 2008 at 3:18am | IP Logged

JohnnyR wrote:

This just sounds like stating the obvious to me. 'You need to practice and you need to keep practicing' that is all this is and it actually seems silly to even talk about it.

Yes, it that easy.

I am talking about how to keep practicing your favorite method.

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 43 of 126

28 November 2008 at 5:33am | IP Logged

zerothinking wrote:

It's interesting how sales rep are getting out of the closet.
It's interesting how you EDIT your English orthographic mistakes. :O)

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 44 of 126

28 November 2008 at 5:50am | IP Logged

reineke wrote:

Sluicido,

You could have expressed yourself in this manner:

The best approach is to keep studying/doing the language. Do what you have to keep going, regroup and attack with whatever you think is the best approach or whatever you think is palatable and acceptable.

I agree with you.

reineke wrote:

For most people ensuring success is more important than Spartan efficiency. I have no problem with this, I would actually support it but it does not change the fact that one approach will objectively achieve better/faster results than another. I am not defending a particular method. I do not terribly care for language courses or methods. I don't like witch doctors and your lack of logic is painful to watch.

Spartan work can be reiforcing for some people and is the best method for them, but for another people this method is extremely inefficient, because they quit.

It's very easy to claim that some methods are "objectively" better and faster than others and then...claiming that you are not defending any particular method.
Is this your logic?

Please, what methods are objectively best?

reineke wrote:

You suggest that a person’s giving up automatically means that the method was bad. Countless others will achieve success. The method was therefore sound whether through its intrinsic quality or simply because of the presence of what you call input/output. Blaming the book is a good trick but it’s still a trick and one that cannot be used too many times.

If you give up a method, this method is very bad FOR YOU and its extremely inefficient FOR YOU.

Blaming the student is a ugly trick.

reineke wrote:

Modern courses are structured so as to motivate/encourage the learner and reinforce good behavior. Your mantra reduces all the methods to language exposure (plus marketing/faith). This undermines everything, including their marginal utility as motivators and eventually leads people to engage mostly in pleasurable activities and follow the path of the least resistance. The problem with this approach is that while overindulging in one area, it creates terrible deficiencies elsewhere.

Marketing mantras give you terrible deficiencies and they claim "fluency". Lying is an efficient marketing method, but not a good teaching method.

reineke wrote:

You gloss over the fact that different approaches/courses offer different types of exposure. You believe that this is not important because whatever method employed, the task is endless and never completed. You believe that in order to achieve perfection one needs an immeasurable amount of time whereby any advantage gained through particular methods pales in comparison.“Endless work” is not a very fortunate expression. You place too little value on people’s time.

If you want fluency in a language, you need "endless time", years. If you want to spend less time, months, you need immersion: more time every day and more intensity.
You need hard work and native materials.

I am very sorry.

Edited by slucido on 28 November 2008 at 5:51am
1 person has voted this message useful

glossa.passion
Triglot
Senior Member
Germany
Joined 6324 days ago
267 posts - 349 votes

1 sounds
Speaks: German*, English^C1, Danish
Studies: Spanish, Dutch

Message 45 of 126

28 November 2008 at 8:47am | IP Logged

I do find it often difficult to discuss in abstract terms in my mothertongue and even more challenging in a foreign language. But I hope I can nevertheless make my point of view clear.

A few years ago I attended a language school. But as much as I learned the language, I learned about how I could study a language on my own – not that the school intended that insight. This meant to me developing my own holistically concept (not a method) which should enable me to master a foreign language.
So I began to check some of the various books, methods and courses in the vast field of language study – which I’m by the way still doing. Checking means for me really trying out and then evaluate for my purpose. Good, bad, easy, boring, best method and so on are not the categories I use for my evaluation. I’m interested in the result that I could achieve. But I’m only an amateur of the lower level and I wouldn‘t dare to generalize my findings.

For me the study of a language is a complex (and highly interesting!) matter, which I never would reduce to just input, output and reinforcement and therefore conclude it’s that easy. The complexity still exists, even if we try to simplify it by using universal terms.

From my experience I can’t consider „not giving up“ as a valid point in the assessment of language learning methods or any other method at all. It is common sense, that language learning requires sensible commitment for a longer period and some people underestimate that fact. Therefore all targeting of easiness is of course very welcome, because it implies less time and dedication, even if this is not intended by the author!

I often sense that the core of talking about using one or more certain methods is to cover the fact, that in the first place everyone has the sole resposibility for his/her studies. I can pay for language classes, a tutor, a self-study-course, follow methods and concepts or whatever guidance, but I can never transfer the responsibility. So I do prefer to explore newer forefronts when problems arise rather than agonize over or give up due to inappropriate methods.

I hope, that I could explain my point of view as an amateur in a proper style.
1 person has voted this message useful

zerothinking
Senior Member
Australia
Joined 6375 days ago
528 posts - 772 votes

Speaks: English*

Message 46 of 126

28 November 2008 at 9:09am | IP Logged

slucido wrote:

zerothinking wrote:

He attacked your English. An ad hominem is
attacking the person not the argument. He
is using your English as evidence against your argument. He therefore attacked your
argument. So he didn't commit a logical fallacy. It was totally relevant.(1) Your
level of English can be objectively measured. You do make elementary mistakes and
there is 100% proof of this.(or so Volte says, I haven't checked through them
personally)

It's interesting how sales rep are getting out of the closet.
It's interesting how you EDIT your English orthographic mistakes. :O)

I don't understand your first sentence. You're talking about sales reps? I don't
understand how this has anything to do with my discussion on your incorrect labeling
of an ad hominem attack. Please explain it to me. I may have missed your point. To the
casual observer it might seem as though you are some how indirectly attacking me. That
is the perfect example of an ad hominem attack.

Isn't it funny how I automatically know that its a spelling error? Anyway, usually
it's a typo (nothing but a hit and miss on the keyboard) and not a direct mistake.
Orthographic mistakes are not what I think Volte was talking about anyway. They aren't
the mistakes that matter most. Spelling and writing is, after all, unnatural. What
matters is the usage of the language, its grammar, form, and idiomatic usage. I
believe that's what Volte was saying. For instance, I don't know if this is a typo or
not but in the first sentence in your response to me you have forgotten pluralize a
word. These are the types of mistakes that natives invariably never make. These 'non-
native' mistakes are what Volte would be talking about.

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 47 of 126

28 November 2008 at 9:15am | IP Logged

glossa.passion, thank you for your comments.

glossa.passion wrote:

A few years ago I attended a language school. But as much as I learned the language, I learned about how I could study a language on my own – not that the school intended that insight. This meant to me developing my own holistically concept (not a method) which should enable me to master a foreign language.

I agree. I am talking about this. You are following your OWN way.

glossa.passion wrote:

For me the study of a language is a complex (and highly interesting!) matter, which I never would reduce to just input, output and reinforcement and therefore conclude it’s that easy. The complexity still exists, even if we try to simplify it by using universal terms.

Input+output+Time (reinforcement) is an easy general rule, but is VERY difficult to specify.

glossa.passion wrote:

From my experience I can’t consider „not giving up“ as a valid point in the assessment of language learning methods or any other method at all. It is common sense, that language learning requires sensible commitment for a longer period and some people underestimate that fact. Therefore all targeting of easiness is of course very welcome, because it implies less time and dedication, even if this is not intended by the author!

Reinforcement is NOT equal to easiness or less time.

Reinforcement is measured by results: increased behavior.

If you give up, you don't learn anything, languages or whatever.

glossa.passion wrote:

I often sense that the core of talking about using one or more certain methods is to cover the fact, that in the first place everyone has the sole resposibility for his/her studies. I can pay for language classes, a tutor, a self-study-course, follow methods and concepts or whatever guidance, but I can never transfer the responsibility. So I do prefer to explore newer forefronts when problems arise rather than agonize over or give up due to inappropriate methods.

I agree. It's your responsibility to find the most reinforcing method for you.

Edited by slucido on 28 November 2008 at 9:48am
1 person has voted this message useful

dswans
Newbie
United States
Joined 5892 days ago
17 posts - 17 votes
Speaks: English*
Studies: German

Message 48 of 126

28 November 2008 at 10:25am | IP Logged

zerothinking wrote:

Isn't it funny how I automatically know that its a spelling error? Anyway, usually
it's a typo (nothing but a hit and miss on the keyboard) and not a direct mistake.
Orthographic mistakes are not what I think Volte was talking about anyway. They aren't the mistakes that matter most. Spelling and writing is, after all, unnatural. What matters is the usage of the language, its grammar, form, and idiomatic usage. I believe that's what Volte was saying. For instance, I don't know if this is a typo or
not but in the first sentence in your response to me you have forgotten pluralize a
word. These are the types of mistakes that natives invariably never make. These 'non-native' mistakes are what Volte would be talking about.

The above text contains an example of a 'native' mistake. In the first line quoted above, the word 'its' appears. This is the possessive form of the pronoun it. The appropriate word here is 'it's', a contraction of 'it' and 'is'. The words are the exact same in oral communication, so a speaker cannot 'hear' that this is a mistake. Furthermore, I would deduce that it is a simple typographical error, as 'it's' is used properly in the next sentence:)

On the topic of I/O, I can only say that output has very little value until it is good output. I find various aspects of German grammar difficult because I have made so many repeated mistakes in output. My repeated mistakes provide non-native input and thus interfere with my ability to see or hear when something is grammatically incorrect. I am not aware of a method of preventing my brain from taking my output as legitimate input. Thus, I must conclude that learner-generated output (as opposed to shadowing or other carefully copied output) at the early stages of language acquisition is a very bad idea.

1 person has voted this message useful

This discussion contains 126 messages over 16 pages: << Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 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 2.1094 seconds.