|
 |
300-word High Proficiency Kernel Concept | ||
Tags: Number of words | Vocabulary learning | ||
Share with:
| ||
 Language Learning Forum : Learning Techniques, Methods & Strategies |  | |
| Bao Diglot Senior Member Germany tinyurl.com/pe4kqe5 Joined 5561 days ago 2256 posts - 4046 votes  Speaks: German*, English Studies: French, Spanish, Japanese, Mandarin | Message 49 of 80 30 September 2014 at 6:35pm | IP Logged | ||||||||
I simply don't understand why you place so much emphasis on learning to use a small number of words (often part of several lexical units) correctly, making it sound like other people don't do that. In my opinion the only way you can avoid practicing such a core vocabulary is by memorizing words without sufficient context, by then using the language without ever having learnt the majority of idiomatic ways of talking about a certain topic in a certain situation and at the same time brushing off any kind of correction to the way you use the language. It also seems to me that efficient learners of a foreign language often learn basic meanings and figurative use or set expressions at different times - depending how frequently those are encountered in real language use. This kind of strategy allows for consolidation and practicing accurate usage of the more frequent meanings and so helps to develop a more native-like diction. What you seem to propose, however, is to find a set number of key words and to learn all of the ways these words or word families are used, including metaphorical usage and idiomatic expressions. But if you are at a level at which you can't judge by yourself which kinds of situations a word or expression is used in to convey a particular meaning this kind of approach will distort your mental representation of those words until you've had enough exposure to examples of it used natively. Yet, if you are at a level at which you can judge whether it is appropriate to use a certain expression in a certain situation - congratulations, you are at a level at which you do not need to employ such a strategy, and you would be better off having a native speaker assess persistent errors in your production and work on those. Edited by Bao on 30 September 2014 at 6:44pm 6 persons have voted this message useful | |||||||||
| garyb Triglot Senior Member ScotlandRegistered users can see my Skype Name Joined 5002 days ago 1468 posts - 2413 votes Speaks: English*, Italian, French Studies: Spanish | Message 50 of 80 30 September 2014 at 6:36pm | IP Logged | ||||||||
I see posts on this forum from time to time that seem to propose more listening or more reading as the solution to every problem, or at best see output practice as an afterthought. Maybe that's just me reading too much into them or jumping to conclusions though. Anyway my objection in this thread was that Jeffers's post in particular seemed to imply that since you already get lots of practice of the "kernel" just from input, it doesn't require more specific practice of its own, while I feel that input isn't enough if the goal is to learn to use it well in speaking. 1 person has voted this message useful | |||||||||
| Jeffers Senior Member United Kingdom Joined 4704 days ago 2151 posts - 3960 votes Speaks: English* Studies: Hindi, Ancient Greek, French, Sanskrit, German | Message 51 of 80 30 September 2014 at 8:07pm | IP Logged | ||||||||
So far, nobody has said that in these debates. (Actually they may have, but sometimes there have been a dozen or more posts waiting for me so I might have missed it).
I don't know either. I think you may have said it but I didn't notice. Maybe it got lost in all the discussion.
The beginning of my post read, "For me, the way I work on knowing the ins and outs of the core words ..." I meant that input is my preference. My point was that if you have trouble with the core you need more practice. I didn't intend to imply that input was the only way. In fact, I do agree with garyb that the core requires practice on its own. I also agree that it is useful to study the grammar of these words, learn the conjugations, etc. I guess I just assumed that as self-evident, so I didn't write about it (and probably oversated my case!) For me, practicing and drilling the core comes from things like Pimsleur, Michel Thomas and FSI (for French anyway). For other learners it would come from conversation practice with a partner who can correct them. S_allard described a problem in which he knew thousands of words, but stumbled over basic words in a conversation. If talking is his goal, then talking practice really is what he needs. Nevertheless, for someone who is in no rush to get speaking, massive input remains a great way of practicing the core. Taking reading as an example, every page of any normal book is full of examples of uses of core vocabulary, and most importantly it shows how they are used in a broader context. Edited by Jeffers on 30 September 2014 at 8:09pm 3 persons have voted this message useful | |||||||||
| Ari Heptaglot Senior Member Norway Joined 6377 days ago 2314 posts - 5695 votes Speaks: Swedish*, English, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Mandarin, Cantonese Studies: Czech, Latin, German | Message 52 of 80 30 September 2014 at 8:28pm | IP Logged | ||||||||
This isn't the thread to have that debate, but I advocate heavy use of native materials and I would also argue against the need to also practice output. This comes with a whole bunch of caveats about what constitutes "practice" and "output", but I don't think it's a stretch to say that I don't practice output and don't think it's necessary (though, again, some people might consider that I do practice output, for example when shadowing). 1 person has voted this message useful | |||||||||
| s_allard Triglot Senior Member Canada Joined 5225 days ago 2704 posts - 5425 votes Speaks: French*, English, Spanish Studies: Polish | Message 53 of 80 30 September 2014 at 10:58pm | IP Logged | ||||||||
Part of the misunderstanding here comes, I think, from Bao not have followed all the debate. I'll apologize in advance to the many people who have read this before. The reason we're talking about a 300-word figure comes from the fact that some time ago I stated that 300 words (or the equivalent) is all you need to start speaking a language. That provoked a firestorm of its own. We're not talking about this here. In another debate, I stated that one could pass a CEFG B or a C-level speaking test using 300 unique words or less. This provoked an ever bigger firestorm and all sorts of accusations that dog me to this day. There are people who still believe that I said that you only have to learn 300 words for a C exam. My idea was, and still is, that since most conversations in general, and CEFR speaking tests, use less than 300 words, one could define a core 300-word vocabulary that would be the foundation for use in a conversation at any level. I also explicitly said that I'm not talking about trying to talk about all subjects with the same three hundred words. I believe that the speakers will choose from this core vocabulary what they want and add other words that they prefer and are more relevant to the topic. That's why we're talking about 300. I'm not wedded to this figure. It could be 275 or 328. In fact I believe that the actual list that I gave would be better at 350 for what I called the kernel. I should also add, although this is clearly laid out in the beginning of the thread, that I'm speaking of a specific speaking genre that I think can approximate, mutatis mutandi, the kind of speech one finds in a C-level test. I'm not talking about speaking the language in general. To summarize then, I believe that a candidate who has a solid knowledge of this kernel - and all the underlying skills - can pass with flying colours - ace - a C level test all the while substituting where necessary more effective and relevant wordds. And the number of unique words in the conversation or test will still remain under 300. Some people will argue, what's the fuss about. You always learn the core vocabulary of a language. Why bother even developing such a list? What's the problem? Other than hoping to prove that a 300-word kernel can actually work for conversations, the resulting list can serve in my opinion as useful tool for improving speaking fluency. This does not interest everyone. Many people have no interest in actually speaking the language. Many other people already speak the language well enough and see no need for improvement. I'm not in either situation. I have a ton of vocabulary but I do not have the speaking fluency that comes anywhere close to what I see in the TED talks that I refer to. I don't think that I'll ever attain that level of native speaking ability but I believe that this kernel of around 300 - 350 words is the foundation on which I can build good speaking strategies. If this can be achieved with all the usual strategies of input, then no such list is needed. I, however, believe that this list is a tool that brings focus on what is strategically important. Edited by s_allard on 30 September 2014 at 11:02pm 3 persons have voted this message useful | |||||||||
| Serpent Octoglot Senior Member Russian Federation serpent-849.livejour Joined 6392 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 54 of 80 01 October 2014 at 12:02am | IP Logged | ||||||||
|
As for learning from input and a silent period, that would be me too. And antimoon.
And about the list, my main problem with it is that it excludes some pretty common words because you're supposed to know them before C2, but still includes other common words like el, o, cosa, claro that even an A1 speaker should know. That's pretty arbitrary. But thanks for sharing your list. 2 persons have voted this message useful | |||||||||
| s_allard Triglot Senior Member Canada Joined 5225 days ago 2704 posts - 5425 votes Speaks: French*, English, Spanish Studies: Polish | Message 55 of 80 01 October 2014 at 12:22am | IP Logged | ||||||||
|
If I can criticize my own proposal, I would say that this idea of a 300-word kernel is a bit of false representation
because in fact you have to actively know more than 300 unique words to be able to deal with any situation. So maybe you do need an active vocabulary of 2000 words although the kernel remains the same. This criticism is quite valid - even if I say so myself - but remember I'm saying that you will never need more than 300 words for a given conversation or test. This is not sleight of hand or playing with words. I recognize that you will need to be able to use more than just the kernel identified here. The question is how much more. The issue of course is the choice of topics and the degree of detail. Although there is an infinity of topics that one can discuss, when it comes to something like CEFR exams one has to think strategically. Unlike other potential conversations, the CFER speaking tests are aimed specifically at seeing how you can handle the language. They are not university exams on specific content. The form is the content, if I may say so. All the sample CEFR C level tests I have seen emphasize general knowledge and the ability to make a presentation, argue and interact with the examiners. Vocabulary is important of course. The more the better, but what is even more important is mastery of use of this vocabulary in context. What you don't want to do is search for words, stutter and, worst of all, make mistakes of any kind, especially elementary mistakes. Remember that you will be given texts to work with that will contain much of the specific vocabulary that you will need to discuss the topic. I think that the kind of extra vocabulary one needs falls under the heading of general culture: a bit of everything without knowing much in great detail. You will not be asked to name the parts of an automobile or how a human brain works. But you might get on subject on if cyberaddiction is a major problem in society today. You don't have to get into the details of computer technology to be able to deal with a question like this. How many terms are specific to this topic? 10; 20; 30? I don't know. The TED talks attracted me because they deal in such general topics in a sophisticated manner but with quite accessible vocabulary. All this leads me to try to guesstimate that an additional 200-300 active content words over and above the kernel should be enough to talk about a wide range of topics. Edited by s_allard on 01 October 2014 at 12:24am 1 person has voted this message useful | |||||||||
| Serpent Octoglot Senior Member Russian Federation serpent-849.livejour Joined 6392 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 56 of 80 01 October 2014 at 12:50am | IP Logged | ||||||||
I only got one-liners, not all of which were statements (ie just noun phrases). And one minute to prepare. edit: I think they even put the sheet of paper aside once I had looked at the list and chosen my two topics. Although now I certainly agree more than in the previous thread. I can see how dividing the vocabulary you need into kernels can make the task more manageable and how having a structure in your mind can make it easier to recall the words you need. In this sense I agree that at a C2 exam you won't be using some of the kernels that you needed for B1 or even A2, as you won't be saying how many aunts and cousins you have or speaking on other concrete topics. But C2 as described by the guidelines still implies a mastery of the previous levels, even if the C2 exam doesn't test your ability to buy a postcard or order a meal. And let me just repeat that for most HTLAL'ers actually reaching the level is what matters, not whether or not you can pass the respective exam. Edited by Serpent on 01 October 2014 at 3:55am 5 persons have 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. |
