|
 |
How many words for conversation? | ||
Tags: Number of words | Conversation | ||
Share with:
| ||
 Language Learning Forum : General discussion |  | |
| s_allard Triglot Senior Member Canada Joined 5241 days ago 2704 posts - 5425 votes  Speaks: French*, English, Spanish Studies: Polish | Message 49 of 100 10 August 2011 at 8:51am | IP Logged | ||
I think this a very valid approach and should be pursued if it produces the desired results. That said, I think the emphasis here--at least from my perspective-- is on actually speaking the language. We're not talking about learning all the contortions of the 10 most common verbs. It's more the idea that if you are going to use one of four verbs for nearly 40% of all the verbs you use, you should take a hard look at learning the essential forms of those four verbs. If you don't, then you end up tripping up, linguistically speaking, because you can't use those verbs accurately when they come up. Again, the idea behind the so-called chunking hypothesis is that learning in chunks is conducive to developing true fluency because in real life you speak in complete phrases and not in detached words. Whether you learn 500 or 5,000 words, at some point you probably want to use them in sentences. Why do we understand more than we can speak in a foreign language? It's because we can recognize all those words but we can't really put them together spontaneously, accurately and idiomatically. 1 person has voted this message useful | |||
 Iversen Super Polyglot Moderator Denmark berejst.dk Joined 6514 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 50 of 100 10 August 2011 at 9:31am | IP Logged | ||
|
I'm as interested as s_allard in learning chunks, but not because we eventually will need to speak (mostly) in complete sentences. That is also our motivation for learning single words.
Learning chunks has three purposes: 1) they are there, so if you want to speak idiomatically you must willy-nilly know them. 2) they are identified as chunks specifically because they can make your speech stick together (not all idiomatic or fixed expressions have that quality). 3) while you say them you have time to think about your next intelligent and independent remark 1 person has voted this message useful | |||
| maydayayday Pentaglot Senior Member United Kingdom Joined 5030 days ago 564 posts - 839 votes Speaks: English*, German, Italian, SpanishB2, FrenchB2 Studies: Arabic (Egyptian), Russian, Swedish, Turkish, Polish, Persian, Vietnamese Studies: Urdu | Message 51 of 100 10 August 2011 at 11:20am | IP Logged | ||
Ahhh. I'm supposed to make intelligent remarks as well ? I had better just shut up then ...... 1 person has voted this message useful | |||
| s_allard Triglot Senior Member Canada Joined 5241 days ago 2704 posts - 5425 votes Speaks: French*, English, Spanish Studies: Polish | Message 52 of 100 10 August 2011 at 3:32pm | IP Logged | ||
Although Iversen and I seem basically to agree on learning "chunks" or, as I would say, learning "by chunks", I'm afraid that I don't really understands what Iversen means by chunks. I would really like to see some examples. How do chunks differ from idiomatic or fixed expressions? And I still don't understand what using chunks has to do with having time to "think about your next intelligent and independent remark." And on a minor note, I wonder what "you must willy-nilly know them" means. Does that mean "thoroughly" or "haphazardly?" But let me give some very simple Spanish examples of my understanding of learning by chunks. In my favourite soap opera there are a few examples of telephone conversations. The most common way of answering a personal telephone call is "Sí dígame". You can break this expression down into its component parts translated into "Yes, tell me" but you learn it as one chunk. In the same way, you learn that people often use the greeting, "Hola, buenos días" which would seem redundant in translation to our ears. You also continuously hear "de verdad" for "really". So you learn to use these chunks and you kill two birds with one stone. First, you have something real to say and, second, you learn the words and the grammar that binds them. 1 person has voted this message useful | |||
| Iversen Super Polyglot Moderator Denmark berejst.dk Joined 6514 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 53 of 100 10 August 2011 at 4:21pm | IP Logged | ||
|
I think that it was a video by Splog ("FluentCzech") that convinced me of the value of the word 'chunk'.
Chunks form a subgroup of the fixed/idiomatic expressions of a language, and the thing that characterizes them is that they are used as 'glue' to making your conversation stick together. I'm slightly wary of the word 'filler' because it implies that you ONLY say something to fill out a hole (so that your conversation partners don't get the chance to take over). Actually some chunks seem to have this function, but in other cases they can be used to organize an argument into sections, to make people listen or to hint at the logical structure of your argument. Ideally they fill the same role in fluent speech as function functions in syntax. But alas, not all chunks are used for better communication... examples: A fixed expression that isn't a chunk: "fixed expression" A chunk: "by the way" At least that's how I define chunks Edited by Iversen on 10 August 2011 at 4:31pm 1 person has voted this message useful | |||
| Arekkusu Hexaglot Senior Member Canada bit.ly/qc_10_lec Joined 5192 days ago 3971 posts - 7747 votes Speaks: English, French*, GermanC1, Spanish, Japanese, Esperanto Studies: Italian, Norwegian, Mandarin, Romanian, Estonian | Message 54 of 100 10 August 2011 at 4:35pm | IP Logged | ||
Ok, but that's pretty much the definition of "while you say them you have time to think about your next intelligent and independent remark", which you said about chunks. I still prefer the word "filler". I would assume chunks to refer to groups of words you learn together, not fillers. 1 person has voted this message useful | |||
| Arekkusu Hexaglot Senior Member Canada bit.ly/qc_10_lec Joined 5192 days ago 3971 posts - 7747 votes Speaks: English, French*, GermanC1, Spanish, Japanese, Esperanto Studies: Italian, Norwegian, Mandarin, Romanian, Estonian | Message 55 of 100 10 August 2011 at 4:46pm | IP Logged | ||
I disagree. You are essentially saying, let's learn vocab first, THEN learn how to use it. Except that vocabulary is much easier to learn when you actually use it, and it is much easier to get a good grasp on how and when to use words when you actually use them, as opposed to reading it in theory, on paper. It also delays you from learning common colocations, the natural associations that exist between words. Learning that much vocab takes a long time, but it's by no means the hardest part of learning to speak a language. I think everyone would agree that speaking the language to fluency is the ultimate frontier, and that's why I think speaking should be tackled as early as possible, AS you learn vocab, not after. Moreover, loading up on vocab first would delay the most motivating part of language acquisition, namely actual communication with native speakers, though maybe not all learners would agree with this, I suppose. It's certainly demoralizing to think you have spent years learning a language and still can't engage in an actual discussion. Not to mention that without real life experience in the language, determining which 10,000 words should be learned is a bit of a shot in the dark. Statistics would only answer part of the question. Edited by Arekkusu on 10 August 2011 at 4:53pm 1 person has voted this message useful | |||
| maydayayday Pentaglot Senior Member United Kingdom Joined 5030 days ago 564 posts - 839 votes Speaks: English*, German, Italian, SpanishB2, FrenchB2 Studies: Arabic (Egyptian), Russian, Swedish, Turkish, Polish, Persian, Vietnamese Studies: Urdu | Message 56 of 100 10 August 2011 at 5:22pm | IP Logged | ||
Thanks, I think ! It is the combination of (any of 500 ?) commmon words that have a particular meaning or nuance that mark the native speaker. Perhaps my example above should have had more editing. I admit to many a huge gaff by putting oddities together. It gets a laugh, they ask me to explain what I actually mean, I do, they correct me, we get on. I learn the way I have always learned and that is by making mistakes and being corrected. doghouse = a structure in which houses dog(s) = kennel but cathouse <> somewhere to house the cats = no English equivalent that I know; cattery means something different where I come from. At least my business contacts don't cringe now, as they used to. Not really though, 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. |
