|
 |
Best Method or More Time ? | ||
Share with:
| ||
 Language Learning Forum : Learning Techniques, Methods & Strategies |  | |
| Volte Tetraglot Senior Member Switzerland Joined 6236 days ago 4474 posts - 6726 votes  Speaks: English*, Esperanto, German, Italian Studies: French, Finnish, Mandarin, Japanese | Message 81 of 430 25 April 2008 at 3:53pm | IP Logged | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
You need to spend a lot of time with a language to get to a good level, and progressively more to get to higher ones. However, not all time spent learning is equal. If I spend 2 hours Listening-Reading, I learn so much more than when I watch a DVD with subtitles that it's almost ridiculous to compare them (I'm not saying this is a universal, but it's true for me). If I spend 5 hours with Assimil in a language I've never seen before, I learn a lot more than listening to 5 hours of native radio.
I'm willing to accept the premise that massive comprehensive input is absolutely vital for fluency. However, I think the quality and quantity of this input is more important than the amount of time. These are very roughly correlated, especially at the earliest levels. As others have quite rightly pointed out, very little is i+1 at the start; most things are i+n, n>1. It's a simple fact that you can learn thousands of words in around a hundred hours with courses like Assimil, or with Listening-Reading. I know I cannot reproduce this primarily using internet radio in the same amount of time; I've spent much more time than that listening to native Japanese, German, and Dutch. There are a few different issues here. 1) Whether method makes a difference. It most certainly does. This can be observed at any stage of language learning. A lot about beginners has been cited above, but comparing vocabulary gains in native English speakers cramming vocabulary for the SAT vs native English speakers who interact with comprehensible input for the same number of hours, it becomes clear that this is true even at the most advanced levels. 2) Whether there is any silver bullet. No - but there are useful tools for specific purposes, and I find it amazing that anyone denies this. Not even time is a silver bullet; I doubt I'm the only one who knows immigrants who actively study the language of the culture they live in, but still speak quite poorly after years. 3) How important time is. Clearly, it's vital, but I'd argue that this is only because it approximates the amount of comprehensible input, hopefully at i+1, and perhaps the amount of effort and/or passion. 4) The role of fun. Fun is great; all else being equal, I think it's a wonderful thing to aim for in language learning. It's not identical to maximum efficiency, or time spent, or any other factor, although they are not entirely uncorrelated. It's definitely possible to have fun and also be extremely ineffective in language learning; I've spent thousands of pleasant hours that way. 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| frenkeld Diglot Senior Member United States Joined 6740 days ago 2042 posts - 2719 votes Speaks: Russian*, English Studies: German | Message 82 of 430 25 April 2008 at 4:51pm | IP Logged | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I can't speak for East Asian languages, but based on my own experiences with a couple of common West European languages, I am inclined to agree with you in their case at least as far as reading is concerned. A dictionary is a powerful tool, and if one is willing to record and regularly review the new vocabulary one has met, progress can be astonishingly rapid. The fly in the ointment with this approach is the role of grammar. The issue of grammar comes up in two places, in the very beginning, and in the long run. In the beginning, if you have studied no grammar at all and you try to read unabridged sources with just a dictionary (i.e., no translation available), quite a few sentences may be hard to crack. In the long run, if you have studied no grammar, you may not have picked up on all the essential grammatical features you need for producing correct output, even if your intuitively acquired knowledge may suffice for reading. Using graded materials, which almost always use both smaller vocabulary and simpler grammar, will make things easier in the beginning. It is probably not necessary, however - you just have to accept that you will not understand some sentences for now and simply move on. In the longer run, I am not sure the problem of grammar will necessarily solve itself without some help. I can then imagine two possible steps to supplement reading with a dictionary. One is to study grammar. Another is to use a translation. So, here are two proposed extensions of your scheme: INPUT + OUTPUT + GRAMMAR STUDY + TIME and/or INPUT + OUTPUT + BILINGUAL SOURCES + TIME Interestingly, two popular methods that are light on grammar, Assimil and Listening-Reading, depend on having a translation. So does a big part of Prof. Arguelles' approach to language-learning (although he does recommend grammar drills for heavily inflected languages). Could it be that one really needs at least one of those for good results? Perhaps someone who has neither studied grammar nor used bilingual sources could try one of the two and tell us if it makes a difference in the quality of production. 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| slucido Bilingual Diglot Senior Member Spain https://goo.gl/126Yv Joined 6472 days ago 1296 posts - 1781 votes 4 sounds Speaks: Spanish*, Catalan* Studies: English | Message 83 of 430 26 April 2008 at 3:21am | IP Logged | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Well, I find much more useful to learn using DVD, than listening-Reading, but I use unabridged audiobooks as well. I use them with their books and long before L-R arrived here. I can think a lot of reasons about my preference for DVDs, but that's another thread. I don't understand your preference of Assimil against real radio or TV. In fact , thinking that start with one or another is the best method is illusory. Eventually, all is input. I am happy with my delusions, but I don't believe they are the truth, and you?
Maybe that is YOUR experience, but not necessary is the best approach in the long run and for everybody. You need input, you need output and you need a lot of TIME and dedication if you want achieve native (or near native) fluency. I don't see any meaningful difference between different approaches as long as you feel happy with your approach, you feel more motivated and you work more time. If you don't believe me, take a look at the forum. You will find radical, opposite approaches. Maybe hundreds of them. Every group claim their approach is the best and opposite is bad or belittle them.
We are talking about second language acquisition and not native students studying only vocabulary of their own language. We are not talking about pass exams. We are talking about second language acquisition to a native or near-native level.
I know a lot of Moroccans immigrants who learn to speak Spanish. Whatever immigrant who live in a foreign country, has a lot of interest in their new country language and use INPUT,OUTPUT and massive time, will succeed. WHATEVER method he use. Some of them talk like natives, including the pronunciation. Listen, I am talking about Moroccan Arabic people learning Spanish. Not closely related languages. I ask them: How did you learn Spanish? Their answer: Working in the building industry as bricklayer or laborer and interacting with Spanish coworkers. Exceptions: only mentally retarded people or with absolutely lack of interest
The most important factor is effort, passion and TIME interacting with INPUT and OUTPUT. And the input can be comprehensible or not. If not, it will become with time.
If you have fun, but you feel you are becoming ineffective, you will began to feel bad, and you will change to other activity. On the other hand, if you can't learn your target language having fun with , I think it's better to forget learning any language. Edited by slucido on 26 April 2008 at 3:47am 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| slucido Bilingual Diglot Senior Member Spain https://goo.gl/126Yv Joined 6472 days ago 1296 posts - 1781 votes 4 sounds Speaks: Spanish*, Catalan* Studies: English | Message 84 of 430 26 April 2008 at 3:41am | IP Logged | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
You know I don't believe in best approach and I think whatever approach can be good provided that people feels happy with it and include input+output+lots of time. Grammar study and bilingual resources can be very useful and motivating, but I don't think they are necessary at all. I think they are a matter of preference. On the other hand, if you learn enough language, you can study grammar in your target language as well. In this situation, studying grammar is INPUT, like studying history philosophy or sciences in your target language.
As I said to Volte, I have experience with Moroccans who had come to Spain as immigrants. When I find ones who speak Spanish very well I ask them how they have learned Spanish. Their answer is: "In my work, talking with Spanish coworkers", "At the beginning I was the only Moroccan", "It was very hard at the beginning..." and so on. It's seems that feeling good its a preference as well. The good feeling comes when you can start basic communication with coworkers. If you are isolated and you have a great necessity, input+output+time is enough. Those Moroccans usually work as bricklayers, unskilled laborers and things like that. They aren't linguistics, university teachers or intellectuals of any kind, but they usually seem clever people. Reading all the opposite methods of this forum and this experiences with real immigrants learning Spanish, has produced my hard skepticism about best methods. 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 jeff_lindqvist Diglot Moderator SwedenRegistered users can see my Skype Name Joined 6706 days ago 4250 posts - 5710 votes Speaks: Swedish*, English Studies: German, Spanish, Russian, Dutch, Mandarin, Esperanto, Irish, French Personal Language Map | Message 85 of 430 26 April 2008 at 4:15am | IP Logged | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I'm also one of those who feel that I learn more from Assimil - possibly due to the gradual progression. For instance, I shadowed the Assimil Russian audio for the first time last week (~4 hours over a few days), and not only was it a good shadowing exercise, but also did I feel that each new lesson built on the previous one, and I could pretty much figure out the meaning from the context. If I listen to, say, a newscast I usually don't get much - even if I listen to it repetedly. Perhaps that's just me. 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Volte Tetraglot Senior Member Switzerland Joined 6236 days ago 4474 posts - 6726 votes Speaks: English*, Esperanto, German, Italian Studies: French, Finnish, Mandarin, Japanese | Message 86 of 430 26 April 2008 at 7:18am | IP Logged | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
At an early-intermediate beginner level, it is a strong preference. It's based on observing what has worked - and not worked - for me.
Eventually, assuming sufficiently varied input (listening to a single word one million times, and nothing else, will not make you fluent in a language) - but our lives are finite. I'm not saying that "because you start with method X, you can never be fluent" - that would be nonsense. But I freely say "You can learn Y amount faster using X rather than Z -- or at least, I can/most people can".
I believe that there are things I don't know. I also believe that there are things I know - some only for myself, and some of which apply to other people. I consider these truths (not Truths - unchangeable and carved-in-stone)- I am willing to update my view when I find out I am wrong.
I said "I know I cannot reproduce this primarily using...", etc. I am not saying the above is a universal, but it is true for me - and I'm willing to go out on a limb and say it's probably true for most people.
You don't; I do. This is our major point of contention. I have felt very motivated and worked for quite a lot of time listening to German radio. I got some results from it, but I still consider myself a beginner. I put in significantly less time with Listening-Reading and Assimil, and had much better results. Again, I'm not saying this is universal. For me, I am positive that not all methods are equal. Perhaps another example of this is your sound clip for rolling Rs. Multiple people have found it helpful. Doing something else for the same amount of time hasn't given them the ability to roll their Rs - and I'd argue that it hasn't necessarily given them something of equal value either.
Radical, opposite approaches are perfectly compatible with the idea that not all methods are equal. Another point we differ on is if there are different learning styles. I have to say that I genuinely believe there are. To use another personal example, on tests of whether I was a visual, auditory, or kinesthetic learner as a child, I'd score the maximum on visual and auditory, and very near the minimum on kinesthetic. Hence, I hated a lot of the exercises that were based on the theory that all kids should learn kinesthetically. This has carried on in my life; in high school, I had to calculate rotations of groups in my head in math. I could do so easily. Trying to do it by turning paper, as everyone else did, left me fumbling and unable to do it. Similarly, with language learning, I literally cannot learn by doing most drills. My brain 'shuts off', and I do things by rote, with almost no retention even 5 minutes after. Most people on this forum are respectful, most of the time, and open to other methods. While there have been notable exceptions, I wouldn't tar everyone with such a description.
The same is true for nearly-native non-native speakers. I know - I've taken SAT prep classes with them. It's not a matter of whether it is something to pass exams or not. This is a clear example that not all forms of comprehensible input give the same results. Focused work on one particular area allows you to learn it much more rapidly than you would by doing nothing - and, for many things, you would not learn it at all without this. This is true for vocabulary, mathematics, and many other things.
Yes - some people learn well that way. Having co-workers who speak to the learner in their native language is, using the term broadly, a 'method' - and it's one that seems to frequently work quite well.
As for your exceptions: I find that downright insulting. I know several intelligent people (university graduates, above average IQs, with decent professional records) who are interested in learning Italian, but speak it poorly, after a decade, or several decades, of living here. They talk to people, do daily interactions with Italian speakers in Italian, actively study, listen to the TV and radio, and read. Would they have done better with the 'Moroccan immigrant method'? Quite possibly. I'd like to believe that time or comprehensible inputs are the magic fairy wands that make everyone fluent. Evidence forces me to think they are not.
If the input isn't comprehensible, it takes much more time to learn from it. I agree it becomes comprehensible, but it's a matter of months or years, rather than minutes with tools like a dictionary or bilingual text. And with some simple techniques, such as shadowing, I can make most of it remain comprehensible, and genuinely consider myself to have learned it. The simple fact of the matter, as I see it, is that if you have a decade to learn a language to basic fluency, pretty much anything that isn't pure abstract study (ie, entirely grammar rules and so forth, with no comprehensible input) will work. If you want to be conversational, or reading books, in a few months, you need to be more selective.
Assuming it's not an absolute necessity for some reason, I agree. 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| slucido Bilingual Diglot Senior Member Spain https://goo.gl/126Yv Joined 6472 days ago 1296 posts - 1781 votes 4 sounds Speaks: Spanish*, Catalan* Studies: English | Message 87 of 430 26 April 2008 at 8:09am | IP Logged | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
As you said, you FEEL that your learn more from Assimil or shadowing it. This doesn't mean that is the best method. It's what motivates you more whatever the reason. It's all about subjetive feelings and motivations. More motivation equals more time. I have read several times here about people who start with Pimsleur or Michael Thomas, then work some of these methods intensively one month and a half and then they jumpstart with native materials, TV or radio. I have read here about people who start with this method and listening radio while commuting from the very beginning. I think all this "Assimil is the best method" or "Listening-Reading is the best method" is more about a social forum construction and peer pressure than anything else. On the other hand we can read what the Administrator explain about Assimil in his website:
He doesn't change his opinion in the last years in spite hard opinions in favor of Assimil and against Pimsleur or FSI. I think Assimil (or L-R) is like any other method, a matter of personal preference. It's neither the best or the worst method. 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| slucido Bilingual Diglot Senior Member Spain https://goo.gl/126Yv Joined 6472 days ago 1296 posts - 1781 votes 4 sounds Speaks: Spanish*, Catalan* Studies: English | Message 88 of 430 26 April 2008 at 8:50am | IP Logged | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Volte, my position is:
input+output+TIME The most important factor is the amount of TIME you dedicate to the language and not a question about methods. When I say we need INPUT , I'm not saying 'comprehensible input", I mean input WHATEVER the level. Everything else are personal and subjetive preferences. They are good as long as you feel good studying with the language and you spend more time (every day and during long periods of time)
On the one hand you are talking about what it works for you, you personal preferences, that your are not saying that is universal. On the other hand continue to believe in universal truths about this subject "You can learn Y amount faster using X rather than Z -- or at least, I can/most people can".
Thank you, but this "rolling R" is one meaningless fraction of the language. In this case you don't find anything special, only INPUT and you work in a sort of interaction with a native speaker. Eventually you don't need this to get native fluency in Spanish. On the other hand, this tricks can be good, but other techniques can be good as well or maybe no technique at all. It's a matter of personal preference.
First, I am not talking about "comprehensible input", but about "input" (whatever the level), output and lots of time. Second, we are not talking about pass one exam, we are talking about achieving native (or near native) fluency in a second language. I think it's very different. Talking about learning vocabulary there is scientific evidence that keyword method is very effective, but there is evidence that there are no differences in the long run. On the other hand, if I know people who has aversion to all this mnemonic staff. They feel bad with that. It's useless for them despite all the scientific evidence. It's all about subjetive perceptions.
I'm very surprised with your answer.....You are absolutly STUCK with all this "best method" staff. I am saying we need: input (whatever the level)+output+ TIME (lots of them) I am not telling you that the 'Moroccan immigrant method' is the best method, I'm telling you that this is ONE possible method. No better no worst than whatever endless combinations you can find in this forums. Finally, everything is about listening is you want listening skills, reading if you want reading skills and speaking and writing if you want speaking and writing skills. Keep it simple. Edited by slucido on 26 April 2008 at 8:53am 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. |
