|
 |
Best Method or More Time ? | ||
Share with:
| ||
 Language Learning Forum : Learning Techniques, Methods & Strategies |  | |
| 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 106 of 430 26 April 2008 at 3:26pm | IP Logged | |||||
Yes, but you must demonstrate that it applies to language as long as we feel good, we get input and output. Please, I don't know any scientific evidence about best methods, only opinions and contradictions between experts, but there are a few underlying factors: input+output+TIME 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 107 of 430 26 April 2008 at 3:36pm | IP Logged | |||||
I never said that I think Assimil is the best method (and you didn't say that I did, either) but rather that I learn more from "comprehensible input" than from something I don't understand at all, can't get any visual cues from et.c. I think I can agree with you that there isn't a single best method (that works for everybody), but I would never suggest taking a plunge into the ocean of language X before having a solid base. Not that you really said that either. Or maybe you did. Back to the Russian news (although I only understand 10% of what is said...). 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 108 of 430 26 April 2008 at 4:12pm | IP Logged | |||||
There is a school of thought that says that language is not a skill, but is something else entirely. I can't explain this idea very cogently - you will have to dig up Linguamor's posts for that - but let me try to say it as best as I can. The premise seems to be that humans have developed this unique language ability, which may imply specialized "language circuits" or "language center" in the brain, and language is too complex to be simply learned as just another skill. How do we learn it? Supposedly, through comprehensible input. As we receive input that we comprehend, through gestures and situational context, looking at a translation, using a dictionary, etc., we gradually develop a feel for the language. The most extreme view is that there is no other fundamental language-learning mechanism. Basically, languages are "acquired", not "learned", unlike a skill, and they are "acquired" through comprehensible input. This may seem radical, but there is clearly some truth to it in that if people are given enough "sentences" with translations, they do seem to figure out a lot of the language over time. This view also suggests that after you optimize the comprehensibility of the input, balancing its being comprehensible with its pushing you further along at the same time (the "i+1" idea), there is not much left to do, but to keep getting the input and letting your brain sort it out - you can only speed things up so much. A useful analogy would be growing a plant - it just grows at a certain rate and there is not much you can do to speed it up. The article cited in several posts in this thread adds the need for production to complement comprehensible input, but without in any way rejecting a major role comprehensible input plays. Edited by frenkeld on 26 April 2008 at 7:27pm 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||
| Goindol Senior Member United States Joined 5871 days ago 165 posts - 203 votes | Message 109 of 430 26 April 2008 at 4:25pm | IP Logged | |||||
|
People manipulate language to varying degrees of success, even native speakers. Native speakers are generally more skilled at it because they were immersed in it during a critical period. They are always practising it. It's not so different from learning to play the piano.
Some of the most skillful practitioners of a language are able to do it professionally. As for your analogy with a plant, yes, there are many people who will never become the next Rilke regardless of effort. You talk about humans being wired with neurocircuitry equipped for learning languages, but I don't think that's terribly relevant. People have the neuromusculature necessary to run. Gradually, with practice, infants learn to walk, then run. The fact that it is a skill becomes apparent only during competition, because it is so natural to us. 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 110 of 430 26 April 2008 at 4:26pm | IP Logged | |||||
I don't always have more time, because when the subconscious problem-solving time I need for my work gets filled with languages, my work suffers. 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 111 of 430 26 April 2008 at 4:32pm | IP Logged | |||||
I was just stating what little I understand of a point of view that seems to have some acceptance among specialists. I neither agree nor disagree with it - I don't know enough to do that. I do find the distinction between "acquisition" and "learning" somehow useful in thinking about different ways of studying languages, but one can probably just as well simply say that languages require ample practice, not just formal study. Edited by frenkeld on 26 April 2008 at 4:34pm 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||
| Leopejo Bilingual Triglot Senior Member Italy Joined 5906 days ago 675 posts - 724 votes Speaks: Italian*, Finnish*, English Studies: French, Russian | Message 112 of 430 27 April 2008 at 3:43am | IP Logged | |||||
Dear slucido, your point is perfectly clear: INPUT + OUTPUT + TIME. People are telling you that for them it is not so. Time enough is only part of the equation, method (= kind of "productivity" per time) is another. What you learn is their product.
Well, is YOUR Big Truth more objective? I don't think so. Very few people here accept your Big Truth: "all methods are equal, only time matters". And no, not contradictory. Assimil is better than Pimsleur for some, Pimsleur is better than Assimil for others, because of their "initial conditions". But saying that they are equal is just, plainly, objectively, wrong. As is wrong saying that if one likes Assimil more and the other likes Pimsleur more, then they both are at the same level as, for example, watching DVDs.
No, I was not referring to all your list of methods. Most of them work well. But some work less well. For example starting with "real native" instead of a structured method. That's what I refer with "inefficient methods". For me some are better, some worse. The worse ones are inefficient. Don't take everything as a personal attack, it's already the second time in this thread. I'm off this thread. By the way, why do you have all those methods? Maybe you have been looking for the "best method"? ;-) 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. |
