And Assimil? (Language Programs, Books & Tapes) Language Learning Forum

And Assimil?
Tags: Assimil \| German
Share with: Delicious Digg reddit Facebook StumbleUpon
Language Learning Forum : Language Programs, Books & Tapes

191 messages over 24 pages: << Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 16 ... 23 24 Next >>

Seth
Diglot
Changed to RedKing’sDream
Senior Member
United States
Joined 7022 days ago
240 posts - 252 votes

Speaks: English*, Russian
Studies: Persian

Message 121 of 191

13 July 2007 at 1:38pm | IP Logged

What else does one need? Well, I guess if you mean "Is it possible to learn a language with just dialogues and a reference grammar?" then I guess you don't really "need" anything else. However, that isn't really the point. What I am interested in here is the most efficient and quickest way to gain competency in speaking a foreign language.

Seriously, if your argument is that X has worked in the past, therefore anything additional is "just salt," then we really should abandon a large portion research in applied psycholinguistics. Unless you say that the salt really is important. My guess is the very reason drill-based methods like FSI were employed in the past was precisely because they noticed that it simply took students too long to build competency in speaking the language using traditional methods.

If someone thinks speaking-prompted methods are so superfluous that they choose to avoid them, that is certainly fine. I personally enjoying using lots of comprehensible input plus drills. I wouldn't mind trying Assimil with German, for example. With Hungarian, I listened and read over and over and over...and very little stuck. To me, it was frusturating not to be able to hear a single word in isolation, nor see how strings were built up. With FSI Hungarian, however, I was almost immediately forming strings (albeit with the extremely limited vocabulary of the first few lessons.) I believe Chung had a similar experience.

1 person has voted this message useful

leosmith
Senior Member
United States
Joined 6348 days ago
2365 posts - 3804 votes

Speaks: English*
Studies: Tagalog

Message 122 of 191

13 July 2007 at 1:42pm | IP Logged

FSI wrote:

I believe comprehensible input to be a method, a technique, and a form of input - all at once. As in, all three, together. You don't have to. I realize you do not agree with my usage of these terms, leosmith, but I do not intend to change them. And I will not argue with you about them further.

I don't think it's right that you misuse established linguistic terms in order to express your opinions.

Let's review.

FSI wrote:

According to the comprehensible input model of language learning - which Assimil and FSI both impart, though the former more exclusively than the latter -

It makes no sense to say that a program uses more comprehensible input than another. They all use it in different ways, and as they progress, different input becomes comprehensible.

FSI wrote:

what is important isn't output, ie speaking, so much as input - ie, reading and listening.

This is based on the Natural Approach. You keep plugging Krashen, so you should know this.

I have nothing against Assimil. If you had said something like "it uses a more passive learning approach than FSI" or "it more closely follows the natural approach than FSI", I wouldn't be bringing this up.

1 person has voted this message useful

FSI
Senior Member
United States
Joined 6157 days ago
550 posts - 590 votes

Speaks: English*

Message 123 of 191

13 July 2007 at 1:52pm | IP Logged

Keith wrote:

FSI wrote:

It's the same with an audio course. If it's 4 hours of new material, you'll learn far more from it over 5 or 10 reviews than you'd learn from a 6 hour course where half of the course is spent reminding you of what you've already learned.

Hey, isn't that the Pimsleur method!? They spend half the course on reminding you of what you are supposed to be learning.

I think the advantage of Assimil is that the audio is completely in the target language. People who compare the number of hours don't seem to know this. Pimsleur and FSI courses are more than half in English.

Exactly what I was thinking of. And yes, if the material is wholly in the target language, rather than in a mix of target and teaching, it's far more conducive to learning to think in (and understand) the language.

Here's what Ardaschir said about that:

Quote:

First and foremost, I edit the tapes by getting rid of all the gaps so that I obtain at least two hours of solid and continuous narrative in the target language only. I then shadow this tape repeatedly until I begin to grow familiar with the pronunciation and intonation, and until I have figured out as much as I can of what is being said on my own. Then I turn to the book and shadow while reading the teaching language so that I understand globally what I have been saying. Slowly I switch to shadowing while reading the target language so that I learn to read it. Each day I go through the notes of several lessons to catch the fine points. When I have done them all, I then write or type out the target language lessons in their entirety, sometimes several times. In other words, I thoroughly internalize the contents of both books and tapes. I know that I am "done" when I can successfully "play" the advanced lessons through my brain while I am taking a shower. Depending on the difficulty of the lesson, I might have to listen to the tapes hundreds of times, and likewise repeatedly review the book. However, by taking a chunk of the language like this and peeling it layer by layer like an onion so that you come to ever greater understanding of how it works, this rarely grows boring, and when it does, I am advanced enough to move on. With "easy" languages, I can then generally cope fully with both texts and all sorts of conversation, with "difficult" languages I then go through systematic grammatical exercises and begin reading primers.

Quote:

I never said I didn't like FSI. In fact, I openly acknowledged that there are many different styles of learning, and that FSI might be very well suited to some people. I myself taught myself Spanish very successfully many long years ago using the FSI course, so I know that it works quite well. However, having devloped considerably more experience, I "fault" it for including instructional language on the tapes, which prevents the mind from switching entirely to target language, and I simply find the drills to be boring and unnecessary. However, I can see why you find similarities between "my" method and the FSI method - after all, they both center around the use of taped materials. However again, there are very great differences, and some subtelties that you either missed or, more likely, I did not stress in my earlier posting.

1) I do not simply "listen," I "shadow." "Shadowing" means that you say what you hear instantaneously (rather than in a pause thereafter, as in the FSI methods), preferably while in motion, at least while pacing your room, but ideally while walking in the woods.
2) I "understand" in progressively deeper layers, i.e., systematically deeeper and deeper.
3) I do not consciously try to memorize the texts. Rather, I switch my consciousness to the target language while I am learning and try to keep it there, replaying or rather rehashing the dialogues until I intuitively know their content.

1 person has voted this message useful

Farley
Triglot
Senior Member
United States
Joined 6890 days ago
681 posts - 739 votes

1 sounds
Speaks: English*, German^B1, French
Studies: Spanish

Message 124 of 191

13 July 2007 at 2:06pm | IP Logged

Seth wrote:

What I am interested in here is the most efficient and quickest way to gain competency in speaking a foreign language.

Aren’t we all.:)

Seth wrote:

Seriously, if your argument is that X has worked in the past, therefore anything additional is "just salt," then we really should abandon a large portion research in applied psycholinguistics. Unless you say that the salt really is important.

I was trying to make reference to Ardaschir’s “add salt to taste” analogy, so yes salt is very important. No salt – no taste – no effect.

1 person has voted this message useful

Farley
Triglot
Senior Member
United States
Joined 6890 days ago
681 posts - 739 votes

1 sounds
Speaks: English*, German^B1, French
Studies: Spanish

Message 125 of 191

13 July 2007 at 2:27pm | IP Logged

leosmith wrote:

It makes no sense to say that a program uses more comprehensible input than another. They all use it in different ways, and as they progress, different input becomes comprehensible.

That was more or less in mind what I was thinking. Regardless of the course you still assimilate the language through a series of phrases. I put a little more stock in the “language as behavior” approach opposed the “natural methods” and that you need to practice an awful lot of input and output to master a language, but I think that you can accomplish that without drills. The Assimil method uses a heavy dose of translation, both target to instructional and back. Apart from shadowing you can methodically read your way through the text, visualizing as you go. Really I don’t think I’d call the method passive or natural.

Edited by Farley on 13 July 2007 at 2:27pm
1 person has voted this message useful

frenkeld
Diglot
Senior Member
United States
Joined 6741 days ago
2042 posts - 2719 votes

Speaks: Russian*, English
Studies: German

Message 126 of 191

13 July 2007 at 2:49pm | IP Logged

Seth wrote:

Seriously, if your argument is that X has worked in the past, therefore anything additional is "just salt," then we really should abandon a large portion research in applied psycholinguistics.

Innovations are always welcome, and both FSI and Assimil are innovative in their own way. Both seem to work for quite a few people. If reserch can support that fact, great, and if not, it's not worth its salt.

1 person has voted this message useful

Seth
Diglot
Changed to RedKing’sDream
Senior Member
United States
Joined 7022 days ago
240 posts - 252 votes

Speaks: English*, Russian
Studies: Persian

Message 127 of 191

13 July 2007 at 3:37pm | IP Logged

Well, maybe... In spite of everything I have said, I still insist you can't argue with results--whether or not they're validated by research. And if Assimil really works for someone, then I'm not going to try and convince them to give it up at all. I have seen it work less than perfectly for me (at least in less-than-familiar languages), I have seen research which supports my arguments for why I think it doesn't work too well for me, and I know what does work well for me. I'm satisfied.

If someone really loves how Assimil works and is making real progress, then I congratulate them. Seriously.

1 person has voted this message useful

frenkeld
Diglot
Senior Member
United States
Joined 6741 days ago
2042 posts - 2719 votes

Speaks: Russian*, English
Studies: German

Message 128 of 191

13 July 2007 at 3:45pm | IP Logged

Seth wrote:

I have seen it work less than perfectly for me (at least in less-than-familiar languages)

I would suspect the insufficient amount of grammar explanations as the problem with more difficult languages. All this figuring out grammar from examples must have its limitations when the length of the course is basically the same for all languages.

Seth wrote:

I have seen research which supports my arguments for why I think it doesn't work too well for me ...

I would be very interested in a brief summary of that research and how you believe it relates to your own experiences.

Edited by frenkeld on 13 July 2007 at 5:09pm

1 person has voted this message useful

This discussion contains 191 messages over 24 pages: << Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next >>

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 6.7969 seconds.