|
 |
How Krashen will delay your fluency | ||
Share with:
| ||
 Language Learning Forum : General discussion |  | |
| Cainntear Pentaglot Senior Member Scotland linguafrankly.blogsp Joined 6012 days ago 4399 posts - 7687 votes  Speaks: Lowland Scots, English*, French, Spanish, Scottish Gaelic Studies: Catalan, Italian, German, Irish, Welsh | Message 9 of 81 30 July 2009 at 3:57pm | IP Logged | |||||||||||
I'm not convinced they have done. One recurring feature of arguments here is that the arguments are often about things the other person didn't actually say, and when you get down to the centre of the discussion it turns out we're all doing very similar things (check the current discussion "Steve Kauffman and Language Learning" for example) but that we just tend to each identify a different thing as the most important part of our methods.
These studies are all limited by what they're studying. They cannot study "early production vs late production", only "method A (featuring early production) vs method B (featuring late production)". It is very difficult to categorically state that the problem comes for the early production, rather than some other feature of the method. I believe that early production often fails simply because there is often no attempt to build the new learner's phonetic awareness, and that it's assumed that the learner will pick it up as they go along. I reckon the mistake comes in when the learner starts to produce two or more distinct sounds as though they were the same thing (eg a French speaker of English pronouncing T and TH (think) and D and TH (this) identically). Once you start producing them as the same, the brain starts to see them as the same thing and finds it very difficult to split them. This would clearly block the learner from ever acheiving the native accent. As very few courses and very few teachers address this adequately, it is likely that the early-production methods used in the studies also failed to address this.
Well that is interesting. Why didn't you include that in your original message? I'd love to read the original research. 2 persons have voted this message useful | ||||||||||||
| Jimmymac Senior Member United Kingdom strange-lands.com/le Joined 6154 days ago 276 posts - 362 votes Studies: Spanish, Mandarin, French | Message 10 of 81 30 July 2009 at 4:47pm | IP Logged | |||||||||||
I agree up to a certain point but you can't deny that there are those who have moved to a country and learnt a language without focusing consciously on grammar and then there are those who have regularly focused on grammar in learning a language. There are those who have learnt a language without speaking a word of it (not including subvocalization) in the intitial stages and then there are those who have learnt a language speaking from day one. To me, this means there are diferrent ways of learning a language.
This is exactly my point which was apparently so irrelevant. Edited by Jimmymac on 30 July 2009 at 4:48pm 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||||||||
| zerothinking Senior Member Australia Joined 6373 days ago 528 posts - 772 votes Speaks: English* | Message 11 of 81 30 July 2009 at 4:53pm | IP Logged | |||||||||||
Nope. You are wrong. Without ANY input you cannot have output. So input is very important. You need lots of input. Output is not bad. No one is saying it's not helpful. But get as much input as you can. How can you speak a language that you have never seen or heard? It's like trying to cook a recipe that you have never seen or read. It makes no sense. Krashen is right. I want to make this clear once more. Speaking is great. Yes, it's an important part of language learning. But that doesn't make input unimportant. Edited by zerothinking on 30 July 2009 at 4:54pm 4 persons have voted this message useful | ||||||||||||
| anamsc Triglot Senior Member Andorra Joined 6204 days ago 296 posts - 382 votes Speaks: English*, Spanish, Catalan Studies: Arabic (Levantine), Arabic (Written), French | Message 12 of 81 30 July 2009 at 4:56pm | IP Logged | |||||||||||
Fair enough, but that just goes along with my original point, that there's no need to criticize the way others learn if it works for them. Maybe I don't understand what you're saying, but this doesn't seem relevant to the thread and it kind of feels like you're splitting hairs/arguing to argue.
Actually, this is an inaccurate characterization. There have been numerous studies comparing many different methods, so a better way of putting it would be that they're comparing methods A, B, C, D, ... featuring early production and methods M, N, O, P, ... featuring late production. Yes, it's imperfect, but it's not insignificant. And if I understand you correctly, it seems like you're saying that because of these limitations, we should discard these studies and go with what you "believe" instead. I don't really see the logic in that, sorry. Edited by anamsc on 30 July 2009 at 4:58pm 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||||||||
| Cainntear Pentaglot Senior Member Scotland linguafrankly.blogsp Joined 6012 days ago 4399 posts - 7687 votes Speaks: Lowland Scots, English*, French, Spanish, Scottish Gaelic Studies: Catalan, Italian, German, Irish, Welsh | Message 13 of 81 30 July 2009 at 5:57pm | IP Logged | |||||||||||
This might seem like splitting hairs to you, but to me it's one of the most important points in the debate: I am not criticising how people learn, I'm challenging how they say they learn. I'm not asking people to change how they study -- I want people to re-examine what they are doing and be certain that what they are saying is what they are doing. The point of posting here is to share strategies and help each other out. If we can't identify what we are doing, no-one else will be able to replicate it, will they?
But at the same time, I've seen other studies claim that in the long-run, natural methods are less effective than grammar-based methods, and I'm more inclined to believe these. I like to think this is because of the arguments presented, but I can't rule out personal bias. The recurring criticism is that the study groups are non-representative: teachers with a massive personal investment in the method, exceptionally well-trained in it and with a lot of general teaching experience; with the added benefit of exceptionally motivated students.
That's fair enough, but I'm not suggesting anyone discard anything, just trying to add some context to the debate. 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||||||||
| healing332 Senior Member United States Joined 5621 days ago 164 posts - 211 votes | Message 14 of 81 30 July 2009 at 6:58pm | IP Logged | |||||||||||
Anyone who has read any of my post already knows I believe in blasting the brain with continually imput..I feed imput all day long and untranslated and i teach you how to do it (Search my posts on this site) NOW OUTPUT is critical ..I think Krashen has done a harm with his lack of emphasis on output.. Krashen is wrong!! Regardless of weather you Like me or not I only post things that help you learn your new language..Here is scientific proof you must speak from Cornell University!! The link is at the end but here is a quote The fMRI studies suggest that the difficulty adult learners of a second language may have is not with understanding the words of the second language, but with the motor skills of forming the words with the mouth and tongue. This may explain why learners of a second language can oftentimes comprehend a question asked in the new language, but are not always able to form a quick response. Thus, for adult English language learners, techniques that emphasize speaking may be more successful than methods that focus more on reading and listening" End Quote Healing 332 : We do not speak because we are afraid ..i am outgoing and this is a big part of my language learning but even the shy must start to speak..you can read all you want about swimming but you must jump in the water Edited by healing332 on 30 July 2009 at 7:03pm 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||||||||
| healing332 Senior Member United States Joined 5621 days ago 164 posts - 211 votes | Message 15 of 81 30 July 2009 at 7:02pm | IP Logged | |||||||||||
|
http://brainconnection.positscience.com/topics/?main=fa/seco nd-language3
This link works.. 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. |
