|
 |
10,000 hours of input | ||
Share with:
| ||
 Language Learning Forum : Learning Techniques, Methods & Strategies |  | |
| Akatsuki Triglot Senior Member Portugal Joined 6326 days ago 226 posts - 236 votes  Speaks: Portuguese*, French, English Studies: Norwegian | Message 1 of 60 12 February 2011 at 3:53pm | IP Logged | ||||||||
|
I'm sure everyone has heard about the need of (at least) 10,000 hours of input before reaching native like (or even advanced fluency) proficiency. Many of you may have heard about All Japanese All The Time (AJATT) and may know that the guy who pulled it off (Japanese fluency in 18 months) went through these 10,000 hours in 18 months, listening to Japanese from 18 to 24 hours a day.
My question is, are these 10,000 hours effective (as in to develop the brain) only when squeezed in the shortest time period possible, or are they still (as) useful if the input is spread throughout the years? For example, will I gain more if I squeeze 10,000 hours in 18 months or if I have the same amount of input throughout 5 or 6 years? Edited by Akatsuki on 12 February 2011 at 3:54pm 1 person has voted this message useful | |||||||||
| aloysius Triglot Winner TAC 2010 & 2012 Senior Member SwedenRegistered users can see my Skype Name Joined 6268 days ago 226 posts - 291 votes Speaks: Swedish*, English, German Studies: French, Greek, Italian, Russian | Message 2 of 60 12 February 2011 at 6:27pm | IP Logged | ||||||||
The thread on "time management" might give you some interesting input on this subject, although it doesn't specifically deal with input but with language learning in general.
//aloysius Edited by aloysius on 12 February 2011 at 6:27pm 1 person has voted this message useful | |||||||||
| Cainntear Pentaglot Senior Member Scotland linguafrankly.blogsp Joined 6039 days ago 4399 posts - 7687 votes Speaks: Lowland Scots, English*, French, Spanish, Scottish Gaelic Studies: Catalan, Italian, German, Irish, Welsh | Message 3 of 60 12 February 2011 at 8:20pm | IP Logged | ||||||||
10,000 hours is bad science. Ignore it. 12 persons have voted this message useful | |||||||||
| Bill_Sage667 Groupie United States Joined 5233 days ago 62 posts - 71 votes Speaks: English* | Message 4 of 60 13 February 2011 at 12:00am | IP Logged | ||||||||
When you say that, do you mean it takes much longer than that? Or shorter? 1 person has voted this message useful | |||||||||
| JPike1028 Triglot Senior Member United States piketransitions Joined 5425 days ago 297 posts - 337 votes Speaks: English*, French, Italian Studies: German, Spanish, Russian, Arabic (Written), Swedish, Portuguese, Czech | Message 5 of 60 13 February 2011 at 12:58am | IP Logged | ||||||||
|
I do not think that it is dependent on a short time frame, but I think it is dependent on the quality of the work you
are doing. 2 persons have voted this message useful | |||||||||
| lingoleng Senior Member Germany Joined 5326 days ago 605 posts - 1290 votes | Message 6 of 60 13 February 2011 at 1:02am | IP Logged | ||||||||
Much longer. For me. Much shorter. For you. And learning how to play the piano took my dog 20 487 hours, and he is still a really bad pianist. So it depends. It is a shame how much time I wasted training and supervising my dog. My cat, which is much smarter, learned how to run away from the piano in just 2 hours, another sign of her intellectual superiority and mature wisdom. Sorry, just kidding. It is just a number, like 3 months (fluent in ...). Or seven days (the world was built in ...). Taking these numbers too literally makes no sense. Edit: removed an unnecessarily provocative word. Addition: This 10 000 hour rule, observation, statement is just an arbitrary phrase without any deeper meaning. We already knew that learning something well needs some time, and now someone, a journalist, has come up and attributed a number to this "some time". It is catchy, but nothing my grandma would have been excited about. Edited by lingoleng on 13 February 2011 at 2:06pm 6 persons have voted this message useful | |||||||||
| Akatsuki Triglot Senior Member Portugal Joined 6326 days ago 226 posts - 236 votes Speaks: Portuguese*, French, English Studies: Norwegian | Message 7 of 60 13 February 2011 at 1:49am | IP Logged | ||||||||
|
I'm not asking if 10,000 hours are enough to become fluent. I'm asking whether one can become fluent or highly proficient without having at least 10,000 hours of input. I, by no means, want to claim that A or B only need 10,000 hours to achieve native like proficiency.
I'm just trying to start a discussion here, so give me your thoughts please! 1 person has voted this message useful | |||||||||
| leosmith Senior Member United States Joined 6578 days ago 2365 posts - 3804 votes Speaks: English* Studies: Tagalog | Message 8 of 60 13 February 2011 at 2:23am | IP Logged | ||||||||
|
That depends. Is your definition of fluent or highly proficient the state one reaches after 10,000 hours of
input? If it is, then the answer is no. If not, the answer is maybe. Hope that helps. 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. |
