|
 |
Viewpoint: You can damage Language by writing and speaking | ||
Share with:
| ||
 Language Learning Forum : General discussion |  | |
| The Real CZ Senior Member United States Joined 5446 days ago 1069 posts - 1495 votes  Speaks: English* Studies: Japanese, Korean | Message 17 of 46 04 July 2014 at 4:53am | IP Logged | ||||||||
|
As someone who used to religiously follow AJATT/Antimoon, I can agree with them to a
certain extent, but mistakes aren't fossilized if one actively analyzes their own output to find out what's wrong. While I have been switching to a more output-based approach, I still need a lot of input to model my sentences after. When I write or think in the language, I mainly stick to sentence structures I can correctly use and try incorporating new structures I have been working on. If I try to write/think something I don't know how to use, I struggle to think of a way to say it, and I know what I had just written/thought is wrong, so when it is feasible, I simply look up the structure I wanted to use earlier, read the many example sentences provided and then try to model what I wanted to say after using the structure in the example sentences. Honestly, I see output like high-intensity training. It's very effective, but only possible in short bursts because your body can't perform at such a high level for very long. Input is like the recovery period before the next time you do the next intensive activity. People who have an output approach are still likely to have an input- dominated routine, so we're still getting ample input before we practice our output. 9 persons have voted this message useful | |||||||||
| Serpent Octoglot Senior Member Russian Federation serpent-849.livejour Joined 6394 days ago 9753 posts - 15779 votes 4 sounds Speaks: Russian*, English, FinnishC1, Latin, German, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese Studies: Danish, Romanian, Polish, Belarusian, Ukrainian, Croatian, Slovenian, Catalan, Czech, Galician, Dutch, Swedish | Message 18 of 46 04 July 2014 at 5:10am | IP Logged | ||||||||
Hmmm but do textbooks count in your opinion? Without additional exposure, they're actually better at teaching production, if you work through them diligently. 1 person has voted this message useful | |||||||||
| The Real CZ Senior Member United States Joined 5446 days ago 1069 posts - 1495 votes Speaks: English* Studies: Japanese, Korean | Message 19 of 46 04 July 2014 at 5:43am | IP Logged | ||||||||
I think textbooks count. Textbooks teach you how to say things in a straightforward manner. However, I don't use textbooks as my sole source of input. I watch TV/movies, read books, news articles and comics, and listen to podcasts while I'm not focusing on input. I don't think textbooks and native content have to be mutually exclusive. 1 person has voted this message useful | |||||||||
| s_allard Triglot Senior Member Canada Joined 5227 days ago 2704 posts - 5425 votes Speaks: French*, English, Spanish Studies: Polish | Message 20 of 46 04 July 2014 at 6:46am | IP Logged | ||||||||
I fail to see how any of this relates to learning a language. Are you saying for example that trying to figure out what is wrong with what you have just said in a target language is more efficient that having somebody point it out to you? The problem with making mistakes in a foreign language is that one is usually totally unaware of the mistake. What's there to figure out? That's the problem. Let's say that in French you are mixing up the verbs revenir and retourner because of the influence of English in which come back and return mean the same thing. How can you figure out the correct usage by yourself if you've been making this mistake from the very beginning? On the other hand, a tutor will correct that mistake in five minutes and set you on the right track. What we as learners need is not so much guidance as correction. 1 person has voted this message useful | |||||||||
| Serpent Octoglot Senior Member Russian Federation serpent-849.livejour Joined 6394 days ago 9753 posts - 15779 votes 4 sounds Speaks: Russian*, English, FinnishC1, Latin, German, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese Studies: Danish, Romanian, Polish, Belarusian, Ukrainian, Croatian, Slovenian, Catalan, Czech, Galician, Dutch, Swedish | Message 21 of 46 04 July 2014 at 7:34am | IP Logged | ||||||||
I wasn't questioning your strategy, I'm just afraid that having a good input:output ratio isn't as common as you think :( 1 person has voted this message useful | |||||||||
| rdearman Senior Member United Kingdom rdearman.orgRegistered users can see my Skype Name Joined 5033 days ago 881 posts - 1812 votes Speaks: English* Studies: Italian, French, Mandarin | Message 22 of 46 04 July 2014 at 11:08am | IP Logged | ||||||||
As an American living in England I'd like to make a small observation. Most people in the UK would say. "Cross at the pedestrian crossing". Or at the zebra crossing. Or at the pelican crossing. There are actually different types of pedestrian crossings in the UK believe it or not so the generic one is pedestrian crossing. Growing up in America we always said. Cross the road at the crosswalk. The sidewalk is the thing going down the sides of the street. Admittedly this might be different outside the state of Ohio. :) 3 persons have voted this message useful | |||||||||
| rdearman Senior Member United Kingdom rdearman.orgRegistered users can see my Skype Name Joined 5033 days ago 881 posts - 1812 votes Speaks: English* Studies: Italian, French, Mandarin | Message 23 of 46 04 July 2014 at 11:58am | IP Logged | ||||||||
I suspect we are in agreement, we both seem to agree making mistakes is OK. My point was only that, after you've had a correction or mistake pointed out, it is better for the learner to go back and determine where they have gone wrong. So I agree the learner doesn't need guidance, simply correction; if they can figure out where they are going wrong and internalise the corrective action then it will "stick". For example my Italian tutor used to give me English sentences to translate into Italian. Then she would review my sentence, line through the mistake and write the corrections. It was then left as an exercise for me to find out WHY my original translation was incorrect. This was much more beneficial to me and stuck in my head longer when I figured out the reason she'd lined through "Io sono" and replaced it with "Ero" was because I'd used present tense and it should have been past tense. I've also had the opposite experience when my mistake was shown to me and explained in detail why it was wrong. Then made the same mistake the very next week because I'd not internalised the correction. So it is different for everyone, but I find that for myself when I have to put in a lot of mental energy into puzzling things out I learn/remember more. Which is why I typically don't watch films with subtitles, if I have to puzzle out what is being said I take it on board. I always try to figure out a word in a book through context and use a dictionary only as a last resort. 1 person has voted this message useful | |||||||||
 Iversen Super Polyglot Moderator Denmark berejst.dk Joined 6500 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 24 of 46 04 July 2014 at 12:15pm | IP Logged | ||||||||
I fully agree.
I fully agree.
This one is less clearcut. I do want to think things over and collect information from several sources instead of just getting it presented in its final form on a silver platter, but there is a limit to the time it is worth mulling over some moot point when a peek in a dictionary or a Google search could have given me the relevant information right away. And even if I have figured things out myself I still like to get confirmation. Actually I think that I'm less liable to remember things which have remained dubious - I just leave them aside and forget about the issue. On the other hand, if you continue to mull about mysterious issues you may remember them better than questions which are solved right away. It may be a difference in psychology. As for the scientific literature I have seen references to research that supports the idea that fast and reliable information is at least as good as fuzzy information gathered through reasoning. Edited by Iversen on 04 July 2014 at 12:28pm 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. |
