|
 |
Revolutionary approach to learning langua | ||
Share with:
| ||
 Language Learning Forum : General discussion |  | |
| Cainntear Pentaglot Senior Member Scotland linguafrankly.blogsp Joined 6014 days ago 4399 posts - 7687 votes  Speaks: Lowland Scots, English*, French, Spanish, Scottish Gaelic Studies: Catalan, Italian, German, Irish, Welsh | Message 122 of 129 15 February 2009 at 10:09am | IP Logged | ||||||||||||||
Trivially yes, this is true. If you don't put anything out, it can't be output. This is why many people favour terms like "production" over "output". It is certainly a supportable claim (although it is naturally open to disagreement) that you can "produce" language (in the sense of willfully composing a sentence) without physically outputing it. But in process terminology (and I'm a computer geek) this composed/produced language is the output of a process.
"Merely" -- that's fighting talk. Surely the important thing is the process?
Unfortunately this reduces the meaningfulness of your definitions. What is the cognitive difference between a consciously composed (but never spoken) utterance and a consciously composed onto paper (but never spoken) one? The physical process of writing (or in more modern times typing) is not an intrinsic part of the language. As I type this, my brain is several words ahead of my fingers. The "output" or product of the internal composition process is the same sentence whether or not it is written down. Your distinction is only relevant if you believe that the goal of output during learning is to receive external correction, which is a claim you haven't made (yet). However, the body of experimental evidence indicates that self-correction is far more effective than external correction, and self correction can clearly be carried out on a sentence that has been internally composed but never spoken.
No, sorry, that's an excessively simplistic view. To the learner, much of what goes on inside his own head is obscured, but the learner has access to the output of the composition process without physically outputting it. If this was not the case, we would be unable to write or type without speaking as we did it.
He wasn't claiming it was input -- he was claiming it is output/production. 1 person has voted this message useful | |||||||||||||||
| slucido Bilingual Diglot Senior Member Spain https://goo.gl/126Yv Joined 6678 days ago 1296 posts - 1781 votes 4 sounds Speaks: Spanish*, Catalan* Studies: English | Message 124 of 129 15 February 2009 at 11:58am | IP Logged | ||||||||||||||
The point is that Krashen seems to say that you can have excellent output after a lot of input without any output training. He gives us ONE anecdotal case. On the one hand, the case sounds like a tale to fool suckers. On the other hand, I give two main distinctions regarding input situations: 1-People who listen and read passively. They understand more or less, but that's all. 2-People who listen and read, but they think actively in the target language. Seemingly the two situations seem the same, but are NOT the same. In fact, one technique people recommend in this forum is to think constantly in your target language, even drilling mentally. For example: -You can walk and talk to yourself (mentally) in your target language describing what you see. -You can learn a verb and its conjugation and while you commute, you can drill it mentally using short sentences in your head. For example: verbo comer (Spanish) Ayer fui al cine...Hoy voy a comprar arroz..Hoy compro patatas...Mañana compraré vino...Últimanente ha comido menos...Mañana comeré más... El año pasado comía mucho... and so on. Seemingly situation one and two are the same: input alone and they don't open their mouths or move their hands. However, there is a HUGE difference. You can dismiss this internal production as "process", but I don't think anybody will take you seriously. Edited by slucido on 15 February 2009 at 12:05pm 1 person has voted this message useful | |||||||||||||||
| Cainntear Pentaglot Senior Member Scotland linguafrankly.blogsp Joined 6014 days ago 4399 posts - 7687 votes Speaks: Lowland Scots, English*, French, Spanish, Scottish Gaelic Studies: Catalan, Italian, German, Irish, Welsh | Message 125 of 129 15 February 2009 at 12:13pm | IP Logged | ||||||||||||||
Volume, clarity, intonation and pronunciation are not features of writing; writing can also be done very slowly and carefully, yet you accept writing as output. Say what you want, but a fully formed piece of language can be composed in someone's brain without ever being uttered. Sure, you can't learn to pronounce things without saying them out loud, but you can certainly construct and compose sentences in your head, and while the girl sitting across from you doesn't know what your saying in your head about her chest size, the sentence still exists. You have completed the process of composing a syntactically and semantically correct sentence. Right. I'm going to try and keep away from this thread until next weekend.... One final point though....
http://www.timothyjpmason.com/WebPages/LangTeach/Licence/CM/ OldLectures/L10_Monitor.htm Edited by Cainntear on 15 February 2009 at 12:31pm 1 person has voted this message useful | |||||||||||||||
| Minder Newbie United States Joined 5765 days ago 11 posts - 11 votes Speaks: English* Studies: Spanish, Japanese | Message 126 of 129 15 February 2009 at 1:44pm | IP Logged | ||||||||||||||
|
@BGG
Correct, subvocalization is processing, however, you are creating the sounds that are occurring inside of your mind (which were indicated on the paper, but you had to follow the indications), therefore, it is a FORM OF production. And I specified that it is different from the standard notion of production. Have you never practiced a speech in your own mind? Thought about what you were going to say to someone? This is output. your brain is creating language. You may not be able to experimentally see when they are doing this, but we know that it occurrs. Anyway, so according to your black box claim if the person read the words aloud instead of only subvocalizing it would be deemed output? alright then. I think that people should read aloud what they are reading before they attempt to produce output on their own. This way the sentence patterns that they are reinforcing are correct and they are mechanically learning how to produce the language. @Cainntear I can fill in your sentence because the patterns are not unique to me. I have seen sentences of that kind before. It is not because I have produced a sentence like that, but that I have heard so many English sentences at this point that my brain automatically fills in sentences based on what it is expecting. And as I was trying to express earlier, maybe you are unconciously performing internal output while processing the input (subvocalizing, thinking, etc.). Khatzumoto in one of his original videos gave an example of how input alone can force you to have sentence patterns you may be unaware of. One of their examples was, They're after me lucky _____. A grammatically incorrect sentence that you may have never produced before except through thinking(subvocalizing) the sentence along with the commercial. You never CREATED a sentence of that sort before. If you output a sentence like that you certainly did not come up with the sentence, all you were doing was repeating the sentence you already heard. This is what I am proposing as output. Repeating known phrases and sentences that have been verified to be grammatically correct so that you can practice your ability to produce the sounds of the language while further ingraining your brain to the grammar of the language. 1 person has voted this message useful | |||||||||||||||
| millnerlondon Tetraglot Newbie United Kingdom latinum.org.uk Joined 6206 days ago 16 posts - 39 votes Speaks: English*, Latin, Modern Hebrew, French | Message 127 of 129 22 December 2009 at 2:39pm | IP Logged | ||||||||||||||
|
These are of course not new ideas at all - the idea you learn though repetition and
exposure to linguistic patterns - WITHOUT comprehensible input, is the reason I set up Latinum 3 years ago - encouraging listeners to memorise poetry and other texts, even before they had full comprehension - and to start listening to texts that were way above their ability level, right from the very beginning of their studies in the language - as a valuable way of internalising grammatical patterns. Sulzberger's research is interesting, and he is by no means the first language instructor to come to this conclusion. For example, the huge Latinum audio project for teaching Classical Latin through extensive audio exposure ( http://latinum.mypodcast.com ) was set up in response to earlier research into the importance of audio for acquiring grammatical patterns subconsciously, irrespective of meaning. This goes back to Chomsky's famous "colourless green ideas sleep furiously" - that grammatical information can be encoded in sentences without meaning. 4 persons have voted this message useful | |||||||||||||||
| victorhart Bilingual Tetraglot Groupie United States mandarinexperiment.o Joined 3710 days ago 66 posts - 155 votes Speaks: English*, Portuguese*, Spanish, French Studies: Mandarin | Message 128 of 129 13 February 2015 at 3:53am | IP Logged | ||||||||||||||
|
Hey, very cool finding this old thread. Many of the posts from one side of this debate
provide some of the best support I've seen yet for the potential usefulness of my experimental approach to learning Mandarin. Of course, I've been clear that I don't consider my exclusive listening project an ideal language acquisition method and would always advocate a method that incorporates plenty of speaking (with natives who are willing to correct and model for you), as well as reading and writing, early on, in addition to tons of listening. But I will confess, based on my previous years of experience learning languages and observing what works and doesn't for hundreds of people, that I suspect my method may actually prove rather effective in the long run. In other words, it may end up that once I begin adding speaking, reading, and writing (after my 1,200 hours of listening are up), that I find I have learned more than was initially apparent, and may be well prepared to complete my acquisition of the language at a fast pace. This thread shows there is some theoretical and academic support for my conjectures born from observation. At any rate, it makes me hopeful! Edited by victorhart on 13 February 2015 at 3:54am 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. |
