430 messages over 54 pages: << Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 29 ... 53 54 Next >>
CaitO'Ceallaigh
Triglot
Senior Member
United States
katiekelly.wordpress
Joined 6654 days ago
795 posts - 829 votes 
Speaks: English*, Spanish, Russian
Studies: Czech, German
| Message 225 of 430 01 May 2008 at 6:00pm | IP Logged |
I don't see how you can learn a language without input + output + time. I would like someone to prove to me that you don't need all three of those.
1 person has voted this message useful
| CaitO'Ceallaigh
Triglot
Senior Member
United States
katiekelly.wordpress
Joined 6654 days ago
795 posts - 829 votes
Speaks: English*, Spanish, Russian
Studies: Czech, German
| Message 226 of 430 01 May 2008 at 6:12pm | IP Logged |
frenkeld wrote:
The context method with native materials assumes that one already knows some number of words - the discussions in this forum came up with the estimates of about 2000 for common European languages, and about twice as many for more distant languages. The question then is how to acquire this initial vocabulary, for which most people would use either a dictionary or a translation. To avoid both may require immersion where one can interact with people.
|
|
|
Dictionary or human interaction equals INPUT.
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 227 of 430 01 May 2008 at 6:26pm | IP Logged |
CaitO'Ceallaigh wrote:
| I don't see how you can learn a language without input + output + time. I would like someone to prove to me that you don't need all three of those. |
|
|
No one suggested you can. The issue was whether that's all one needs, i.e., whether to use an artificial decoding device on raw input in order to accelerate learning.
CaitO'Ceallaigh wrote:
| Dictionary or human interaction equals INPUT. |
|
|
If one uses novels for input, then dictionary is a decoding device that makes that input comprehensible. Human interaction is both input and a way to decode it from context, gestures, etc.
Some people do pour over dictionaries, looking at sample phrases, etc. In that case, it becomes a form of input.
1 person has voted this message useful
| reineke
Senior Member
United States
https://learnalangua
Joined 6244 days ago
851 posts - 1008 votes
Studies: German
| Message 228 of 430 01 May 2008 at 6:27pm | IP Logged |
Time is more important in mountaineering than equipment or weather conditions assuming the only goal is to reach the top. You can conquer a stormy mountain with bare hands but you need time. Having a rope and a few other essentials should help you get to the top sooner and prevent nasty falls. If you use the rope to hang yourself well...
Any activity requires time. Methods and language tools help students manage the learning activity. A method or a language tool may help you conserve time, which you can then apply to another language (or to have "fun").
Edited by reineke on 01 May 2008 at 6:28pm
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 229 of 430 01 May 2008 at 6:31pm | IP Logged |
reineke wrote:
| The theme was best method or more time ... |
|
|
... and passion. In a way it is a zero-sum game - the less efficient the method, the more time it requires to reach your target competence level and the more passion it takes not to abandon the project, although I must say I have trouble picturing a passion for a language that doesn't care about reaching high levels of competency fast. A blind passion, perhaps?
With an efficient method, one can actually dispense with the passion - a moderate amount of determination, a bit of spare time, and having nothing better to do than study languages should suffice to learn one.
Edited by frenkeld on 02 May 2008 at 8:10am
1 person has voted this message useful
| reineke
Senior Member
United States
https://learnalangua
Joined 6244 days ago
851 posts - 1008 votes
Studies: German
| Message 230 of 430 01 May 2008 at 6:36pm | IP Logged |
CaitO'Ceallaigh wrote:
frenkeld wrote:
The context method with native materials assumes that one already knows some number of words - the discussions in this forum came up with the estimates of about 2000 for common European languages, and about twice as many for more distant languages. The question then is how to acquire this initial vocabulary, for which most people would use either a dictionary or a translation. To avoid both may require immersion where one can interact with people.
|
|
|
Dictionary or human interaction equals INPUT. |
|
|
A dictionary is a tool used to bring meaning to "input". Interaction with a teacher is also input (and interaction, lol), but the teacher is likely following a method.
1 person has voted this message useful
| ChrisWebb
Senior Member
United Kingdom
Joined 6060 days ago
181 posts - 190 votes
Speaks: English*
Studies: Korean
| Message 231 of 430 02 May 2008 at 2:36am | IP Logged |
slucido wrote:
ChrisWebb, I really don't understand what are you arguing right now.
About evidence:
1-Scientifically speaking, if you tell us that some method is better than others, you had to prove it. If not, we don't have any meaningful differences.
If you have a new drug, you had to prove this new drug is better than others. If not, we don't have meaningful differences. You can ask FDA.
2-Apart from point two, we have evidences in favor of my vision. The FSI article about fifty years of theory and practice in government language teaching.
I don't know if you respect those people, but here you go:
slucido wrote:
Lessons learned from fifty years of theory and practice in government language teaching
http://digital.georgetown.edu/gurt/1999/gurt_1999_07.pdf
"Lesson 3. There is no “one right way” to teach (or learn) languages, nor is there a single “right” syllabus.
Students at FSI and in other government language
training programs have learned and still do learn languages successfully
from syllabi based on audio-lingual practice of grammatical patterns, linguistic
functions, social situations, task-based learning, community language learning,
the silent way, and combinations of these and other approaches. Spolsky (1989:
383) writes, “Any intelligent and disinterested observer knows that there are
many ways to learn languages and many ways to teach them, and that some ways
work with some students in some circumstances and fail with others.” This
matches our experience precisely.
It is also clear, as many have reported, that learners’ needs change over
time—sometimes rapidly.
Lesson 4. Time on task and the intensity of the learning experience appear
crucial.
....
Learning a language also cannot be done in a short time."
|
|
|
ChrisWebb wrote:
Would it be fair to assume that your real point is that you dont believe commercial language courses offer good value? If that is so I wonder on what evidential basis you hold that view? I wonder if I spend $50 on language course material ( say for example Assimil ) in one language and $50 on a few foreign language DVDs in another, give them to an average person with a job, family and interest in the languages concerned and leave them to use only these materials for 6 months are you really sure that if he/she invests say 200 hours in each ( because he/she enjoys then equally ) he will be at a similar level in each? I'd bet that he will be further advanced with the language course and it will look like a good investment in terms of both time and money. . |
|
|
I have used Assimil, Pismleur, Micheal Thomas and more. And I have used several non commercial methods you can find here.
We are talking about reaching native or near native fluency. We are talking about that goal from the beginning. This can not be achieved in a short period of time. You can read the FSI article. If you need native Korean native fluency in six moths, you have a big problem.
By the way, sooner or later you will need a lot of real materials and real interaction with native speakers. When you achieve your native fluency goal, the method you have been used will be of little importance. Listening, reading, writing and speaking (input and speaking) will be the main generic method for you.
ChrisWebb wrote:
My own personal experience is that I married a Korean girl around 2 years ago and we watch Korean TV together regularly, over 2 years I've probably watched around 1000 hours, I enjoy the experience and although I watch for pleasure I do try and pick things up from watching, indeed I have learned a few words this way. However 6 months or so ago I picked up some language courses, I've spent maybe 150 hours on language course material since then, I dont particularly enjoy language courses yet I have learned far more from them than the TV viewing. My conclusion is that they are simply more effective regardless of psychological factors. |
|
|
If that is what you feel work the best for you, do it !!!
However, are you sure you worked with PASSION and INTENSITY with the first method? Did you use output interaction with the first method? I am not so sure.
By the way, if your goal is native fluency, most of your time will be spent with real native materials and real native interaction. Do you need any evidence?
I think the problem is that some of you NEED that your method is OBJECTIVELY the best method and others methods are OBJECTIVELY worst.
Maybe the Rambo method doesn't work for you, but it can work with other people. Maybe gifted or freaky ones, but maybe it even work for you in some moment of your life. Who knows?
|
|
|
I can no longer be bothered to address most of this, however I will note that you have a poor understanding of science and the scientific method. Proof is for mathematics ( and alcohol! ), science is about forming a hypothesis and then testing it against observed reality to see if its a good explanation, over time science tries to find a best explanation with this approach. Within this method it simply is not necessary to disprove each and every idea with full-on peer reviewed research, the idea has to get to a position where people are actually taking it seriously before anyone will bother with research to test it out. Typically if people dont take your idea seriously enough you will have to do the research yourself if you are that convinced. Even if what I have just noted were untrue this is actually your thread in which you are pushing an idea contrary to others observations, in such a case if proof were needed it would in fact be you bearing the burden to provide it. So far as a 'burden of proof' exists here it rests on you and not those you seek to convince.
I will deal with FSI, you quoted selectively and made it appear that they agree with your total position but reading the document it actually also says;
Quote:
Lesson 8. Learners may not learn a linguistic form until they are
“ready,” but FSI’s experience indicates that teachers and a well designed
course can help learners become ready earlier. |
|
|
Which does give the game away that you are in essence misunderstanding their position. In fact they do recognise the value of using a well designed course over methods excluding such a course, whether those other methods are using a poorly designed course or indeed no course at all. In doing this they are implicitly rejecting your assertion that each method is as good as the next. Recognising time as a key factor hardly precludes the recognition of method as important, in essence your whole position appears to reduce to a simple case of the false dichotomy fallacy and I would suggest your comprehension of the FSI article is not complete.
The evidence you present yourself is evidence against your own position.
Edited by ChrisWebb on 02 May 2008 at 4:16am
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 232 of 430 02 May 2008 at 9:49am | IP Logged |
frenkeld wrote:
The main alternatives to dictionaries that have been discussed are (a) using a translation of the text, (b) picking up word meanings from context.
The context method with native materials assumes that one already knows some number of words - the discussions in this forum came up with the estimates of about 2000 for common European languages, and about twice as many for more distant languages. The question then is how to acquire this initial vocabulary, for which most people would use either a dictionary or a translation. To avoid both may require immersion where one can interact with people.
|
|
|
I agree. Context can be a native speaker than helps you as well.
Dictionaries are a linguistic device that has a psychological component. The strength of this psychological factor depend on cognates and context.And it depends whether it's bilingual or monolingual as well. So what?
1 person has voted this message useful
|
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 0.6563 seconds.
DHTML Menu By Milonic JavaScript
|
Language Learning Forum : Learning Techniques, Methods & Strategies
Printable version
