Register  Login  Active Topics  Maps  

How Krashen will delay your fluency

 Language Learning Forum : General discussion Post Reply
81 messages over 11 pages: 1 24 5 6 7 ... 3 ... 10 11 Next >>
Javi
Senior Member
Spain
Joined 5982 days ago

419 posts - 548 votes 
Speaks: Spanish*

 
 Message 17 of 81
31 July 2009 at 1:48am | IP Logged 
healing332 wrote:
This may sound bold but Krashen does not know what he is tallking about..on the subject of output.. he is WRONG..output is very important..output is one of the ways I learned Spanish in 5 months(speaking and understranding reading with anyone)
I am sure Krashen knows alot about learning languages but he has made a HUGE mistake with his silly indifference to output..He has done harm in my opinion with his emphasis on immersion and total imput..

Speaking activates a different part of the brain that is critical for language fluency and if done early will speed fluency ..Krashen has contributed to people waiting to speak which feeds the fear of speaking..


Hi,

since I can't quite believe you learnt Spanish in 5 months, I suppose you meant that you reached a certain level of fluency in Spanish after that time. It would be interesting to know what exactly it was, not because a single case is going to challenge the much better established ideas of Krashen, but well, just for the sake of discussion. So, for example, given that you seem very interested in language learning theory, after those 5 months, were you able to manage a thread like this in Spanish?
1 person has 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 18 of 81
31 July 2009 at 1:51am | IP Logged 
Cainntear wrote:
anamsc wrote:
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.

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?

Quote:
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.

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.
Quote:
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.

That's fair enough, but I'm not suggesting anyone discard anything, just trying to add some context to the
debate.


All good points :).
2 persons have voted this message useful



J-Learner
Senior Member
Australia
Joined 6031 days ago

556 posts - 636 votes 
Studies: Yiddish, English*
Studies: Dutch

 
 Message 19 of 81
31 July 2009 at 3:02am | IP Logged 
It's clear to me that children do not understand everything they hear before they start to give output. Also their output is not always grammatically correct and even native speaking adults are never 100% correct. To me, this invalidates any theory that states input before output and that one has to perfectly understand the input before moving on to putput. But I doubt that is what Krashen is saying but more likely those who pretend to understand what he has to say. (I don't care to read about language learning theories, I prefer to experiment with methods on my own.)

I think there is a difference between speaking aloud the language you are learning and having a conversation when you only know 5 phrases (for example).

To me it is common sense that if I moved to the Netherlands, I would learn Dutch quicker. But even quicker if I studied Dutch while I was there. I can't go to the Netherlands and I found AJATT style immersion to be annoying and slowed me down. So where does that leave me?

Perhaps it is true that babies don't audibly produce output in the early stages but do so internally?

To me all this kind feels like someone saying: Don't have a go at something till you know you'll be good at it!
2 persons have voted this message useful



JS-1
Diglot
Senior Member
Ireland
Joined 5984 days ago

144 posts - 166 votes 
Speaks: English*, French
Studies: Arabic (Egyptian), German, Japanese, Ancient Egyptian, Arabic (Written)

 
 Message 20 of 81
31 July 2009 at 8:19am | IP Logged 
It seems like utter nonsense to me that having a good passive knowledge of a language is
going to be an impediment to learning to speaking it well. I have a fairly decent passive
knowledge of Italian, so do some people believe that this is worse than having no
knowledge of the language at all when I eventually start learning to speak it? That just
seems ridiculous.

Edited by JS-1 on 31 July 2009 at 9:38am

2 persons have voted this message useful





Iversen
Super Polyglot
Moderator
Denmark
berejst.dk
Joined 6704 days ago

9078 posts - 16473 votes 
Speaks: Danish*, French, English, German, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, Swedish, Esperanto, Romanian, Catalan
Studies: Afrikaans, Greek, Norwegian, Russian, Serbian, Icelandic, Latin, Irish, Lowland Scots, Indonesian, Polish, Croatian
Personal Language Map

 
 Message 21 of 81
31 July 2009 at 9:56am | IP Logged 
Answer no. 1:

Let's start in a totally different corner. There are two types of pilots: some start slowly and build up speed, others keep the brakes on until the motors are running at full throttle and then they let go. Both methods work, and it takes roughly the same time. But a gradual start requires more runway.

Personally I hate communicating if I can't do it fluently, but I'm not too terrified of errors - I expect that they can be weeded out later. If runway is translated into communication with other people then it may seem that I start late, but then arrive at a practical communicating stage fast. But in reality the motor has been running at full throttle long before I let off the brakes. Why? Because many years in school taught me that teachers and others can't stop messing around with my errors, and that would interfere with my main task, which is to get fluent in the sense of fluid. So better shut up until the motor is running so fast that even a teacher can't stop it, and THEN let off the brakes. More extrovert personalities may not have the same problem with interference, and then they can start talking to people as soon as they have learnt the first three words. So they use all the runway.

The main problem with the distinction between early production and late production is that it doesn't consider the possibility that you can produce language silently (or in isolation) long before you let your newborn loose amid the carnivores.




Edited by Iversen on 31 July 2009 at 9:59am

6 persons have voted this message useful





Iversen
Super Polyglot
Moderator
Denmark
berejst.dk
Joined 6704 days ago

9078 posts - 16473 votes 
Speaks: Danish*, French, English, German, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, Swedish, Esperanto, Romanian, Catalan
Studies: Afrikaans, Greek, Norwegian, Russian, Serbian, Icelandic, Latin, Irish, Lowland Scots, Indonesian, Polish, Croatian
Personal Language Map

 
 Message 22 of 81
31 July 2009 at 9:57am | IP Logged 
Answer no. 2:

In consequence of answer no. 1 I can't accept that that the usual distinction between early and late output start is the same as the distinction between learning a language actively vs. passively. Purely passive learning does exist, and I would say that my Latin learning in school was close to purely passive - it was the old grammar-translation method in its purest form. The result was that when I stopped learning it I soon lost the ability to read Latin. But when I decided to relearn it as an active language all the good ol' grammar came back to me in a flash, and that made the whole thing much easier. The problem is that I could have avoided 25 years of inability to read the language if I had learnt it as an active language in the first place.

Now I reserve the notion of passive languages for those cases where I haven't got any solid reason for learning a language (or dialect) because I already more or less can read it because I know a close relative - and that would include things like Corsican, which I saw for the first time in my life yesterday.

1 person has voted this message useful



Sunja
Diglot
Senior Member
Germany
Joined 6086 days ago

2020 posts - 2295 votes 
1 sounds
Speaks: English*, German
Studies: French, Mandarin

 
 Message 23 of 81
31 July 2009 at 10:07am | IP Logged 
For what it's worth I'm discovering can't get out of the stalemate I'm in with Japanese unless I activate it. A passive knowledge but of 2,000-3,000 is not enough to read it, and yet I can't get any further with the language unless I can read/study it. I've been activating everything that I've learned so far and I'm hoping the language will become clearer to me so that I can continue building. I don't know how people get by in Japanese with just a passive knowledge. I'm not immersed in the language, so the passive road seems too slow and painful to me. The words just slip into "forgotten" unless I do text chat or write.

Edited by Sunja on 31 July 2009 at 10:16am

1 person has voted this message useful



slucido
Bilingual Diglot
Senior Member
Spain
https://goo.gl/126Yv
Joined 6676 days ago

1296 posts - 1781 votes 
4 sounds
Speaks: Spanish*, Catalan*
Studies: English

 
 Message 24 of 81
31 July 2009 at 10:32am | IP Logged 
healing332 wrote:

I am sure Krashen knows alot about learning languages but he has made a HUGE mistake with his silly indifference to output..He has done harm in my opinion with his emphasis on immersion and total imput..



Tupiniquim wrote:
I'm very interested in the early-output against input-before-output debate. But unfortunately it often resembles a political discussion. Not many facts, the "my stance is the right one" attitude and failure to recognize the fact that people have different goals.



It really doesn't matter what you do as long it keeps you motivated interacting with the language.

More motivation = more time and intensity = success.




1 person has voted this message useful



This discussion contains 81 messages over 11 pages: << Prev 1 24 5 6 7 8 9 10 11  Next >>


Post ReplyPost New Topic Printable version 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 0.4219 seconds.


DHTML Menu By Milonic JavaScript
Copyright 2024 FX Micheloud - All rights reserved
No part of this website may be copied by any means without my written authorization.