Register  Login  Active Topics  Maps  

A continuation of the endless I/O talk

 Language Learning Forum : General discussion Post Reply
126 messages over 16 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 1 ... 15 16 Next >>
Volte
Tetraglot
Senior Member
Switzerland
Joined 6221 days ago
4474 posts - 6726 votes 
Speaks: English*, Esperanto, German, Italian
Studies: French, Finnish, Mandarin, Japanese

 
 Message 1 of 126
25 November 2008 at 12:24pm | IP Logged 
slucido wrote:
Volte wrote:
... against my better judgment, I'm jumping back into this thread.


I understand you. I am a temptation.


Yes.

slucido wrote:

Volte wrote:


Sluicido: the level of your English clearly disproves your hypothesis.



It's very kind of you. Thank you very much. I admire you too.


I've refrained from saying that for a year or so, because I thought it wouldn't go over well.

However: the simple fact is, you're getting input, output, and time, and you continue to make quite a lot of elementary English mistakes. Your theory is very reductionist (which is often a good thing); however, that also makes it easily falsified in this case.

I think you're an intelligent human being, and you theorize and think; if I didn't have some respect for you, I wouldn't bother to reply.

slucido wrote:

Talking about fallacies, your fallacy is known as "false analogy" and you have another fallacy a prefer to forget....


Those were meant to be illustrations, lest you dispute the general statements I was making about necessity and sufficiency. I fully agree that they did not prove that what I said applied to language learning - and that interpreting them that was would make them false analogies.

I do argue that your English proves the insufficiency argument for your theory; a single piece of evidence can be a legitimate counterexample, as I'm sure you'll acknowledge. I really don't want to make this personal. If you prefer, we could instead look at any number of people who have huge amounts of input and output over the course of years (immigrants who aren't in a linguistic bubble, university students studying in foreign languages (note: in, not about)), etc. They tend to become able to use the language, and they tend to use it badly.

slucido wrote:

Volte wrote:

Back to language learning:
- Not all input is equally effective. I've tried dozens/hundreds of hours of internet radio in languages (and sometimes language families) I knew nothing of, dozens of hours of Assimil, dozens of hours of L-R, dozens of hours of reading parallel texts without audio, etc. The results varied from "I know Thai sentences often end with 'krup'" after hundreds of hours of native radio input, to being able to read non-fiction for the gist in Polish (dozens of hours of L-R). This isn't purely a matter of language distance; my German results were nearly as dismal as my Thai ones, and German is closer to English than Polish is.


It changes according to the language, your goal, your attitude


Yes - but within limits. I really liked listening to Thai radio, for example; I listened to tons of it. I admit I didn't really have much of a goal with it (or rather, I was using it as a means to another end) - but I don't think, all else being equal, that having a goal would have helped much.

The simple fact that there is a change, though, unless I'm missing something, is an example of you agreeing with what I keep saying: Input + Output + Time (+ enthusiasm/attitude/goals, as you frequently imply but rarely write explicitly in your formula) is an oversimplification. Some properties of the input matter (I'd argue that the most critical one is how comprehensible it is, but that's a side issue).

sluicido wrote:

and you need output as well.


If you define 'output' to include thinking, I'll agree; otherwise, I remain neutral on this point.

slucido wrote:

Volte wrote:

- Not all output is equally effective. For instance, with Scriptorium and similar techniques, I find myself noticing where I make errors and correcting them (and my mental model of the language); with corrections a week later (or never) to something I wrote freely, I learn much less. Krashen's language learning magazine has some fascinating claims (backed by studies) about forced output (and correction to output) being within statistical significance of no output, when groups of students were chosen to do one or the other (the students had to read in English, and then not write about what they'd read, write about it in their native language, or write about it in English).


Here you can find a lot of testimonies and speculation. Nothing with scientific evidence.


I mentioned studies questioning the value of doing output at all; do you want citations?

As for 'some output is better than others' - I don't have formal studies. I do have personal, careful experimentation. In the absence of formal studies, I work on this basis - and present it to others - with no pretension that it is a formal study, but with the implicit statement that it is something I consider better than nothing - whether as an idea to base a study on, or for the experimentation of fellow hobbyists who don't have the resources (or, in most cases, the inclination) to perform statistically-valid and scientifically sound formal studies.

slucido wrote:

I am saying that the best method is the method you don't give up, If you don't give up method X, you will spend a lot of TIME with this method X, even without being aware.


This is one of the points I find the most maddening, I suppose - because parts of it strike me as very insightful, and part of it strikes me as very wrong.

I fully agree that *a* method you don't give up on is better than one that you would give up on. If method A was 20 times faster than everything else, but only 5% of the population could stand it and you were in the other 95%, then clearly, it's not the best method for you.

However, for any person, I doubt there's only one method that he/she wouldn't abandon - and, given this, it's perfectly valid to start wondering about how those methods would compare (in terms of time required for the same results, amount of interest/fun, etc).

I don't believe that time trumps everything else. I consider myself to have falsified this hypothesis to my own personal satisfaction; I'll leave formal proof to anyone into accelerated learning (even in simple forms like mnemonics) who cares to chime in.

Also: while it's not a scientifically-designed study, looking at all the anecdotal evidence of the time required to learn Kanji by rote vs with mnemonic help, and the retention levels afterward, I'd say a fairly strong case can be made. (I'm perfectly aware that "the plural of anecdotes is not data" - but this is an internet forum, not a scientific journal, and so I consider anecdotes admissible, as long as they're not misrepresented).

slucido wrote:
As long as this method X have input and ouput, you will succeed.


It depends on your definition of success, I suppose. I certainly know academics who are far from happy about their level of English, and remain so over decades, despite quite a lot of input and output.

slucido wrote:

If you don't give up with this method, it means you are maintaining this behavior because it's reinforcing for you. And this method is reinforcing in the behaviorist sense of the term.

Why some method is reinforcing for a certain person?

We don't know, but you can find psychological, cultural, biographical and biological factors. In fact, it doesn't matter. Results is whats matter.


Then pay attention to results, not ideology.

slucido wrote:

For example, I don't like studying languages by itself. Average methods are very boring for me, but I have a lot of interest for specific contents. I can read or listen a lot of hours if something it's interesting for me. If the content is very interesting for me, it means it's reinforcing and I maintain this behavior a lot of time. If I attach this content, with a target language, I spend a lot of time with this language without being aware. Here I am working with two basic principles:

1-Operant conditioning:

2-Classical conditioning.

Very powerful.

People here don't need linguistics, they need behavior analysts.


I have a low opinion of behaviorism, and a lower opinion yet of it with regards to linguistics - but I'm not going to debate it with you on this forum, because it's far too far out of the intended scope.

By all means, do what you enjoy. If you want, feel free to base a theory of language learning off it as well. However, given your penchant for scientific approaches, I'm sure you'll acknowledge that people are free to look at what happens - and when it does not match the theory, the theory is falsified. Reality trumps theory when they conflict, or what is being done has not the slightest fig leaf of of science covering it.

1 person has voted this message useful



slucido
Bilingual Diglot
Senior Member
Spain
https://goo.gl/126Yv
Joined 6457 days ago
1296 posts - 1781 votes 
4 sounds
Speaks: Spanish*, Catalan*
Studies: English

 
 Message 2 of 126
25 November 2008 at 1:29pm | IP Logged 
Volte wrote:

I've refrained from saying that for a year or so, because I thought it wouldn't go over well.


Don't worry! Come on! Get it off your chest!!!



Volte wrote:

However: the simple fact is, you're getting input, output, and time, and you continue to make quite a lot of elementary English mistakes. Your theory is very reductionist (which is often a good thing); however, that also makes it easily falsified in this case.

I think you're an intelligent human being, and you theorize and think; if I didn't have some respect for you, I wouldn't bother to reply.

I do argue that your English proves the insufficiency argument for your theory; a single piece of evidence can be a legitimate counterexample, as I'm sure you'll acknowledge. I really don't want to make this personal. If you prefer, we could instead look at any number of people who have huge amounts of input and output over the course of years (immigrants who aren't in a linguistic bubble, university students studying in foreign languages (note: in, not about)), etc. They tend to become able to use the language, and they tend to use it badly.



Don't worry. I like personal attacks. It talks about people who uses them.

Your are going to find this problems whatever method you use. It doesn't matter you use the listening reading method or shadowing (plus scriptorium) or Michael Thomas or Assimil or whatever. Do you think people have native fluency after this methods. In fact I've used all those methods and more, so what are you falsifying?

On the other hand, here you can find criticisms against other people skills, including Arguelles and Steve Kaufmann. This falsify their methods or what?


Volte wrote:


Yes - but within limits. I really liked listening to Thai radio, for example; I listened to tons of it. I admit I didn't really have much of a goal with it (or rather, I was using it as a means to another end) - but I don't think, all else being equal, that having a goal would have helped much.

The simple fact that there is a change, though, unless I'm missing something, is an example of you agreeing with what I keep saying: Input + Output + Time (+ enthusiasm/attitude/goals, as you frequently imply but rarely write explicitly in your formula) is an oversimplification. Some properties of the input matter (I'd argue that the most critical one is how comprehensible it is, but that's a side issue).


The ingredients you need in your input and output are those which you feel good and motivates you. It's that easy. If you like using dictionaries, use them. If you like parallel texts, use them. If you like the Rambo method, use them. In fact it doesn't matter as long as you keep working.


Volte wrote:

sluicido wrote:

and you need output as well.


If you define 'output' to include thinking, I'll agree; otherwise, I remain neutral on this point.


Output = open your mouth and move your hand.


Volte wrote:


As for 'some output is better than others' - I don't have formal studies. I do have personal, careful experimentation. In the absence of formal studies, I work on this basis - and present it to others - with no pretension that it is a formal study, but with the implicit statement that it is something I consider better than nothing - whether as an idea to base a study on, or for the experimentation of fellow hobbyists who don't have the resources (or, in most cases, the inclination) to perform statistically-valid and scientifically sound formal studies.




Your careful experimentation is careful about you, but not about other people and controlled situations. You can have very good methods that work with you, but not with everybody else. These are opinions and it can be very useful, but they are only opinions.

On the other hand, this methods are useful as long as people use them, but here we have a problem. People give up at high rate. If people give up, this methods are useless.




Volte wrote:


slucido wrote:

I am saying that the best method is the method you don't give up, If you don't give up method X, you will spend a lot of TIME with this method X, even without being aware.


This is one of the points I find the most maddening, I suppose - because parts of it strike me as very insightful, and part of it strikes me as very wrong.

I fully agree that *a* method you don't give up on is better than one that you would give up on. If method A was 20 times faster than everything else, but only 5% of the population could stand it and you were in the other 95%, then clearly, it's not the best method for you.

However, for any person, I doubt there's only one method that he/she wouldn't abandon - and, given this, it's perfectly valid to start wondering about how those methods would compare (in terms of time required for the same results, amount of interest/fun, etc).

I don't believe that time trumps everything else. I consider myself to have falsified this hypothesis to my own personal satisfaction; I'll leave formal proof to anyone into accelerated learning (even in simple forms like mnemonics) who cares to chime in.

Also: while it's not a scientifically-designed study, looking at all the anecdotal evidence of the time required to learn Kanji by rote vs with mnemonic help, and the retention levels afterward, I'd say a fairly strong case can be made. (I'm perfectly aware that "the plural of anecdotes is not data" - but this is an internet forum, not a scientific journal, and so I consider anecdotes admissible, as long as they're not misrepresented).




The most important factor is that you don't give up. If you give up, the best method is useless. If you find mnemonics disgusting, it will be useless for you.

If some method is very good, people will improve very quickly and they will find it reinforcing. If you are focusing in this reinforcing factor, you won't fail.

PLEASE, it's important to focus our attention in this reinforcing factor and not in the technique or method itself. Otherwise, if the method doesn't fit in your mind, you will fail miserably.


Volte wrote:


slucido wrote:
As long as this method X have input and ouput, you will succeed.


It depends on your definition of success, I suppose. I certainly know academics who are far from happy about their level of English, and remain so over decades, despite quite a lot of input and output.



....despite whatever method they use, even with their native language. So what?



Volte wrote:



slucido wrote:

For example, I don't like studying languages by itself. Average methods are very boring for me, but I have a lot of interest for specific contents. I can read or listen a lot of hours if something it's interesting for me. If the content is very interesting for me, it means it's reinforcing and I maintain this behavior a lot of time. If I attach this content, with a target language, I spend a lot of time with this language without being aware. Here I am working with two basic principles:

1-Operant conditioning:

2-Classical conditioning.

Very powerful.

People here don't need linguistics, they need behavior analysts.


I have a low opinion of behaviorism, and a lower opinion yet of it with regards to linguistics - but I'm not going to debate it with you on this forum, because it's far too far out of the intended scope.

By all means, do what you enjoy. If you want, feel free to base a theory of language learning off it as well. However, given your penchant for scientific approaches, I'm sure you'll acknowledge that people are free to look at what happens - and when it does not match the theory, the theory is falsified. Reality trumps theory when they conflict, or what is being done has not the slightest fig leaf of of science covering it.


I don't know what problems you have with behaviorism, but it has a strong scientific evidence at all levels. It's overwhelming. Learning laws are like gravity, facts. It doesn't matter you don't like them, because you will find them.






1 person has voted this message useful



Volte
Tetraglot
Senior Member
Switzerland
Joined 6221 days ago
4474 posts - 6726 votes 
Speaks: English*, Esperanto, German, Italian
Studies: French, Finnish, Mandarin, Japanese

 
 Message 3 of 126
25 November 2008 at 2:11pm | IP Logged 
I regret having started this thread; I have been reminded that nothing productive will come of it.

I strongly second Siberiano's suggestion that you write an essay on a website somewhere.

Consider this an apology, if you will.

1 person has voted this message useful



slucido
Bilingual Diglot
Senior Member
Spain
https://goo.gl/126Yv
Joined 6457 days ago
1296 posts - 1781 votes 
4 sounds
Speaks: Spanish*, Catalan*
Studies: English

 
 Message 4 of 126
25 November 2008 at 2:21pm | IP Logged 
Volte wrote:
I regret having started this thread; I have been reminded that nothing productive will come of it.

I strongly second Siberiano's suggestion that you write an essay on a website somewhere.

Consider this an apology, if you will.


Why??

Productivity and usefulness sometimes are subjetive stuff.




1 person has voted this message useful



Cainntear
Pentaglot
Senior Member
Scotland
linguafrankly.blogsp
Joined 5793 days ago
4399 posts - 7687 votes 
Speaks: Lowland Scots, English*, French, Spanish, Scottish Gaelic
Studies: Catalan, Italian, German, Irish, Welsh

 
 Message 5 of 126
26 November 2008 at 7:26am | IP Logged 
slucido wrote:
Volte wrote:

However: the simple fact is, you're getting input, output, and time, and you continue to make quite a lot of elementary English mistakes. Your theory is very reductionist (which is often a good thing); however, that also makes it easily falsified in this case.

I think you're an intelligent human being, and you theorize and think; if I didn't have some respect for you, I wouldn't bother to reply.

I do argue that your English proves the insufficiency argument for your theory; a single piece of evidence can be a legitimate counterexample, as I'm sure you'll acknowledge. I really don't want to make this personal. If you prefer, we could instead look at any number of people who have huge amounts of input and output over the course of years (immigrants who aren't in a linguistic bubble, university students studying in foreign languages (note: in, not about)), etc. They tend to become able to use the language, and they tend to use it badly.



Don't worry. I like personal attacks. It talks about people who uses them.

It says a lot about you that you are willing to dismiss this so readily as a personal attack. Volte is right -- the effectiveness of the techniques you use can only be measured by the quality of language you produce.

It is an impediment to debate if the data to hand must be discarded as "too personal" to use.
1 person has voted this message useful



slucido
Bilingual Diglot
Senior Member
Spain
https://goo.gl/126Yv
Joined 6457 days ago
1296 posts - 1781 votes 
4 sounds
Speaks: Spanish*, Catalan*
Studies: English

 
 Message 6 of 126
26 November 2008 at 8:12am | IP Logged 
Cainntear wrote:
slucido wrote:
Don't worry. I like personal attacks. It talks about people who uses them.


It says a lot about you that you are willing to dismiss this so readily as a personal attack. Volte is right -- the effectiveness of the techniques you use can only be measured by the quality of language you produce.

It is an impediment to debate if the data to hand must be discarded as "too personal" to use.


I don't understand what you are talking about?

Do you want a forum thread talking about me? Do you want a tread assessing my spelling and orthography for free. I have no problem about that.

Do you want to prove anything? I don't know what do you want to prove. I am only one case, you don't have any control, you can not compare without anyone or anything because you don't know any variable that can affect the outcome. You don't know my age, you don't know my circunstances, you don't know if I am deaf, you don't know my work or if I work full time or if I have children...

On the other hand, you don't know what "techniques" I use, you don't have any independent or dependent variable, therefore you don't know what you are measuring.

At least we have two fallacies:

1-Ad hominem:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

2-Red herring:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html



Best regards,
1 person has voted this message useful





Keith
Diglot
Moderator
JapanRegistered users can see my Skype Name
Joined 6559 days ago
526 posts - 536 votes 
1 sounds
Speaks: English*, Japanese
Studies: Mandarin
Personal Language Map

 
 Message 7 of 126
26 November 2008 at 10:44am | IP Logged 
Slucido, you don't even recognize when the word "you" refers to you personally and when "you" is used in a general sense. Cainntear wrote two sentences.

This sentence is about Slucido:
It says a lot about you that you are willing to dismiss this so readily as a personal attack.

The sentence immediately following that one is not about you personally, but about anyone in general:
Volte is right -- the effectiveness of the techniques you use can only be measured by the quality of language you produce.

It could be rewritten as such:
The effectiveness of the techniques used can only be measured by the quality of the language produced.

Unfortunately, there are people who don't care about the quality of output they produce; they just "want to communicate," yet they don't realize that communication is facilitated by accurate language production and correct interpretation of input.

If we look at ALG World, we can see that by withholding output for a proper amount of time the end results are significantly enhanced. Of course we cannot withhold output forever, but it will occur naturally. Furthermore, the withholding of output is NOT the only factor.
1 person has voted this message useful



slucido
Bilingual Diglot
Senior Member
Spain
https://goo.gl/126Yv
Joined 6457 days ago
1296 posts - 1781 votes 
4 sounds
Speaks: Spanish*, Catalan*
Studies: English

 
 Message 8 of 126
26 November 2008 at 11:01am | IP Logged 
Cainntear wrote:

Volte is right -- the effectiveness of the techniques you use can only be measured by the quality of language you produce.


Additionally this is a wrong presupposition. I am saying that best method is the method you don't give up.

If you work with Assimil and don't give up, you are using my method.

If you work with Michael Tomas and don't give up, you are using my method.

If you work with FSI and you don't give up, you are using my method.

If you work with LR method and you don't give up, you are using my method.

If you use some of these methods and give up, you are NOT using my method.

In fact, I am not talking about "methods", it's about attitude and FOCUS. I am talking about CHANGING your FOCUS from methods to REINFORCEMENT.

If you use a REINFORCING method, you will study more intensive and endlessly (TIME).

What does this mean? How do I know I am using a reinforcing method?

Focusing in my FEELINGS. Focus in your gut.











Edited by slucido on 26 November 2008 at 11:03am


1 person has voted this message useful



This discussion contains 126 messages over 16 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16  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.