|
 |
How to get to fluency faster | ||
Tags: Fluency | ||
Share with:
| ||
 Language Learning Forum : Learning Techniques, Methods & Strategies |  | |
| Cainntear Pentaglot Senior Member Scotland linguafrankly.blogsp Joined 5809 days ago 4399 posts - 7687 votes  Speaks: Lowland Scots, English*, French, Spanish, Scottish Gaelic Studies: Catalan, Italian, German, Irish, Welsh | Message 73 of 77 27 July 2008 at 7:57am | IP Logged | |||||
|
J-Learner,
You've actually put Multiple Intelligence Theory (or at least as it's put into practice today) in a nutshell. Yes, multiple intelligence = everybody learns in a different way. This isthe educational establishment´s justification favours playing to the students' strength rather than addressing their weaknesses. So now I think you can see why I hate multiple intelligences. If someone justifies their course using multiple intelligence theory, I see at evidence that the system fails some students, and that the course author does not accept any responsibility for that. Now taking this to what I see as its logical conclusion, I suggest that a course can only be judged by the students it fails, not by the students it helps. 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||
 Iversen Super Polyglot Moderator Denmark berejst.dk Joined 6501 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 74 of 77 27 July 2008 at 5:55pm | IP Logged | |||||
If you are in a foreign country and you have to AND really want to learn its language, then you have got 2 +3 on my list, and then you may get away with being a little lax about 4,5 and 6 - though if I was in that situation I would still want to do a bit of formal study. True, there are also people who live in a foreign country for twenty years with lots of study and learn nothing, but your chances for understanding what you hear around you are better if you also use some of those methods that grown up people outside an immersion situation have to use. Being in an immersion situation with dictionaries and grammars at your disposal must be the ideal study situation. Edited by Iversen on 27 July 2008 at 5:57pm 2 persons have voted this message useful | ||||||
| J-Learner Senior Member Australia Joined 5828 days ago 556 posts - 636 votes Studies: Yiddish, English* Studies: Dutch | Message 75 of 77 27 July 2008 at 8:28pm | IP Logged | |||||
|
Not bad for a guess hey Cainntear? These are only my subjective experiences.
I have thought on these things for years and used it to address my weaknesses. At the same time, however, I have been aware of my strengths. Some thing I can't begin with my weaker inteligences and find I have to default onto my stronger ones. At the same time, I still work on my weaker ones and will continue to do so for many years to come. I would think that multiple intelligences at school fails in the long term and would only really deal with the short and possibly mid term. Passing grades is important in one sense, in another sense (life-long learning - what I fit my experiences into) it is completely useless. That would not be a complete wste of time. If they learn something that is a good thing. But moving out of the liguistic-verbal-numbers trap into a drawing-sounds trap (or whatever they do) is not any better. A wide range is preferable. I think to attack a problem or subject area from many sifferent perspectives and senses is the quickest and most wholesome way to learn. I think it covers things with the most speed and thoroughness. At least it seems to do so for me. :) Shalom, Yehoshua. 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||
| Chris314159 Newbie United States Joined 5758 days ago 1 posts - 1 votes Speaks: English* Studies: German | Message 76 of 77 31 July 2008 at 6:42am | IP Logged | |||||
|
I read this entire thread with much interest. There are several topics discussed and several interesting ideas for
learning languages. I appreciate the input. I do, however, think it is unfortunate that the discourse sometimes seems to degenerate a little. Civil discourse is a dying art and that is a tragedy. Mostly, I think it happens when people are short on time and blurt things out, when they are faced with annoying outside difficulties, like a teacher railing against what they feel is a destructive educational fad they are being pressured to use, for example, or when people simply become accustomed to using logical falacies as a substitute for debate, such as attacking the opposing, or perceived opposing, side. This last technique is getting all too common, largely due, I think, to idiot radio talk show hosts who can't find a reasonable argument for their ridiculous claims. There, see, I demonstrated my point. :) We are all infected!! Personally, I believe the best way to learn anything is to use several approaches at once, assuming one can find the time to do so. Regardless, thats not why I am responding to this thread. I wanted to correct an fallacious statement that was made. This is not false by opinion, this is false with 100% certainty--assuming one accepts the basic rules of deductive logic. Sorry, this may get boring. If so, skip this post, I won't be offended. In fact. I won't even know about it! The statement was made that a certain statement made by a preceding poster was the negation of the converse of a statement, which is the same thing as the original statement. Confused? Not surprising---the claim is incorrect. I am going to try to explain this. If you start bleeding from the nose, then pause, hold your nostrils together to stop the bleeding, and come back to it later, when you are feeling better. Perhaps try reading it out loud, recording it, then listen to it for 2-3 years. By then, it should sink in well enough so that you can speak it out loud to random people you meet on the street. No guarantee that they won't think you are crazy, though. (That is an attempt at humor, not an attack. Must...be....careful....) So, suppose the statement is "If A is true, then B is true." The converse is "If B is true, then A is true." The negation of the converse is a statement that says exactly when the converse is false, i.e., "B is true and A is false". I hope it is clear that if B is true and A is false, then it cannot possibly be true that B being true implies that A is true, so maybe you find this is plausible. It is certainly correct. On the other hand, the original statement "If A is true, then B is true" is equivalent to "Either A is false or B is true, or both A is false and B is true". Think about that one for a bit, it is a little hard to swallow at first, but it is correct. The truth is not always simple! It should be clear, however, that "B is true and A is false" is not at all equivalent to "Either 1) A is false, or 2) B is true, or 3) both A is false and B is true". In fact the former is only one of the three possibilities of the latter. In short, the negation of the converse of a statement is NOT the same thing as the original statement. The contrapositive of the original statement IS equivalent to the original statement. FYI, the contrapositive of "If A is true, then B is true" is "if B is false, then A is false". This is a cool fact to know. For example, "If it is Monday, then I have to work" is equivalent to its contrapositive: "If I don't have to work, then it is not Monday", kind of a different spin on the same statement, with an identical meaning. The converse of the original is: "If I have to work, then it is Monday". This person either has a great job or is very poor. Or maybe both! One of the most common logical fallacies is the assumption that the converse is equivalent to the original. It is obvious in this example that it is not, but this fact is only obvious in my example because I chose an example for which the converse is obviously not equivalent to the original. (Argh, what a sentence!) Politicians use this fallacy all the time to "win" "debates", so watch out for it. The negation of the converse is: "I have to work and it is not Monday", which is clearly not equivalent to "If it is Monday, then I have to work", especially if you only work weekends! If you understood that entire explanation you are either 1) a philosopher, 2) a mathematician, or 3) a genius, ha! Myself, I'm just a mathematician. I just hope I got that all correct--I'm a bit tired right now. I love languages because they are so difficult for me. I like a good challenge and the challenge of even a single language is basically infinite. But then I suppose that applies to mastering any subject. In my case, though, learning languages keeps me very humble, just as learning math keeps most other people humble. A little humility is important. Without it we learn a lot less. I tell my students, "The first step to learning math is to be willing to admit, to yourself and others, what you don't already know." Perhaps that applies to languages as well. By speaking the language we are learning, we are making it obvious to native speakers how little we know. There is no shame in this. No one speaks every language. I find most native speakers are delighted that I try, with the unfortunate exception of a few French and German people I have met who complained that my accent was "incorrect". Not surprising. I'm American. Even my English accent is incorrect. :) No offense to the French and Germans out there. Thats just been my personal experience. That said, avoiding too much frustration is also important early on. I hate being forced into a "conversation" in a language class setting (or while traveling) when I feel I am unprepared for it. Its like going on stage with a band that sucks. I'd rather get in some long practice sessions first. It is very discouraging and it is embarrassing to speak before I feel at least a little confidence, as irrational as that may be. Still, its probably good for me, as long as I don't let the experience convince me to quit. The first phrases I want to learn in any language are "I don't understand." and "Can you repeat that. please? I don't understand". Then I think I'm ok. At least I can then respond to anything at all that someone might say to me, rather than standing there. glassy-eyed, with slack jaw, and saying nothing. Its especially nice that the two phrases overlap. Oh," Where is the toilet" and "How the hell does this thing work?" can be quite useful too, although if I don't know the latter phrase, I suppose can always just say, "I don't understand." and point at the little hose/bucket/wooden rod/pile of dirt next to the toilet. "Do you speak English" is always tempting, but rather silly, since one can easily get a quick answer, and allow the other person an opportunity to show off, by just asking in English. This usually works even if you have an American accent. Sometimes I even get responses like, "No, I don't speak English. I was learning it in school, but I had to drop out in my sixth year to help my father on his farm, so I've never really had much education. I would like to go back to school some day, but....." 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||
| Cainntear Pentaglot Senior Member Scotland linguafrankly.blogsp Joined 5809 days ago 4399 posts - 7687 votes Speaks: Lowland Scots, English*, French, Spanish, Scottish Gaelic Studies: Catalan, Italian, German, Irish, Welsh | Message 77 of 77 31 July 2008 at 5:06pm | IP Logged | |||||
The problem I have with that is that "can you repeat that, please?" takes a lot of work to memorise. Well, not for you, obviously. You can memorise the English question very easily because you understand it. If I said it to you, you could repeat it back to me immediately. But if I gave you the Scottish Gaelic equivalent and asked you to repeat it back to me, you wouldn't be able to. I'd have to tell you it dozens of times before it would stick. But as phrases go, it's fairly simple, and if I taught you the imperative, then "please", then the verb "to say", you'd be able to create the sentence for yourself. Then remembering the phrase would be a simple matter of remembering which words go where, rather than remembering a great long string of alien sounds. Besides, the usefulness of "say that again" is quite limited if you don't really know the language anyway. If you don't know the language, then the other person repeating himself isn't any use because you still won't understand him. 1 person has voted this message useful |
If you wish to post a reply to this topic you must first login. If you are not already registered you must first register
|  | 
Printable version
|
| Copyright 2024 FX Micheloud - All rights reserved No part of this website may be copied by any means without my written authorization. |
