Which is better? To learn a language slowly or quickly? This may seem like a dumb question to you. If it does, then you've already made up your mind, which means that you're not being open-minded.
If, however, you are one of the people who are interested in hearing my view on this, then please keep reading.
I'm sure most people would say they want to learn a foreign language as quickly as possible. Even if I could convince them that there was a tradeoff, they'd gladly take the tradeoff. I know most language learners, though, wouldn't buy the tradeoff theory. They're the people who say there's no bad way to learn a language.
I'm not writing this post to try to convince anybody that they'll be doomed by using all those shortcuts and other 'bad for your health' techniques. I'm not even trying to convince you that you're better off learning slowly. I'm just here, expressing my thoughts.
I've read a few comments on the web with people saying that I could have learned more Chinese in 2 years than I did. You know, if I would have looked up all those words being used in the dramas then I would be able to understand everything they are saying by now. Right?
Not necessarily. First of all, it would have taken an incredible amount of effort to look up unknown words. Looking up the words means less time spent watching the dramas. Plus, it would have really worn me out. I'm quite certain I wouldn't have lasted if I had been doing that.
Secondly, having a lot of new words can be overwhelming. If you look them up right away, then the next time you either have to recall the translation(s) of the word or look it up again, or find your notes where you had written it down. You end up doing that so much that you create a reflex in your head, "Now what was the meaning of that word?"
Language learning is not about being able to translate every word into your own language. When you do that, you forget how to understand by observing what is happening. You become reliant upon your mental dictionary. Your other abilities are turned off and you wait for the answer instead of figuring things out.
Sure, learning a language by watching TV can be a slow process. I've never said it was quick. But for me, after about 1500 hours I wasn't sitting there trying to learn the language anymore. I could understand enough to be able to follow the dialogue well enough to know what was going on and to just enjoy the story. Of course I was enjoying watching long before that time because there are plenty of visual clues to make things comprehensible.
While I slowly pick up new words, I get a massive amount of repetition to words and phrases that I've already learned. I always want to strengthen my base before piling more on top. The stronger you are with the basics, the better you can learn more advanced language. That's the way I look at it.
It takes time for the brain to sort a language out, and the more input you've given your brain, the better it can do it's job. I don't believe that a foreign language can be taught. Not even that you can teach yourself a foreign language. Rather than a conscious, deliberate process, I believe it's subconscious (or unconscious, if you prefer) process.
Despite all of you hard work, maybe you can still learn a language, but not until you've given yourself enough exposure to it. So if you're not in a hurry, why go through all the hard work? Just put in the time the easiest way you can. The easier it is for you, the more time you'll put into it.
I believe the slower process (meaning unforced) will, in the end, produce the best results. The best result is to become a native-speaker. Yes, I want to become a native-speaker. Is that too much to ask?
>>>
ReplyDeleteSecondly, having a lot of new words can be overwhelming. If you look them up right away, then the next time you either have to recall the translation(s) of the word or look it up again, or find your notes where you had written it down. You end up doing that so much that you create a reflex in your head, "Now what was the meaning of that word?"
Language learning is not about being able to translate every word into your own language. When you do that, you forget how to understand by observing what is happening. You become reliant upon your mental dictionary. Your other abilities are turned off and you wait for the answer instead of figuring things out.
<<<
Sorry, but all of that is total bull. If that really were so I wouldn't be able to understand, let alone write in English. It's a nice theory but it just doesn't hold water.
phyrex, when writing in a foreign language, you have all the time in the world. So even if you are mentally translating words you can still write a sentence. Why don't you come up with another unrelated argument that doesn't contradict something I wrote?
ReplyDeleteKató Lomb, one of the all time great polyglots and a simultaneous translator, made a similar point. If you can puzzle out the meaning of a word from its context, then that word will be more likely to stick with you. I forget the precise reasoning, but I think it was that learning from context will make you more engaged, which will help you remember. That doesn't happen as much if the definition is just served up to you ready made.
ReplyDeleteShe was talking about reading, I believe, but I suppose the same principle would apply to television dramas.
(Her book is a fantastic read, by the way. It's available for free--legally I gather--on the Net. Find the link in Wikipedia.)
Then let's skype and we'll see if there's a gap in which I translate back and forth before I answer. I assure you, even with all the dictionary help I've gotten over the years, I'm just as comfortable with English as with my native language. I don't bear you any ill will, quite the opposite, it's just that your assumptions simply aren't true..
ReplyDeleteSAT Vocabulary 1.1: Should I read a lot or memorize?
ReplyDeleteby Audrey from SesameWords
Believe it or not, the answer has something to do with compound interest (hence the photograph).
Reading is unquestionably the best, most important, and most effective way to learn vocabulary.
The entire question becomes somewhat simpler when you realize one major principle: memorizing words produces a linear increase in vocabulary, whereas reading lots of books produces a cubic or even exponential increase in vocabulary.
In other words, reading gives you compound returns on the time that you spend. That's it. That one rule alone makes all of these patterns clear.
That's why memorizing works better in the short term, and reading works better in the long term.
Why? Well, it should be obvious why memorizing words produces a linear increase in vocabulary. You're just adding words at a more or less constant rate. (Actually, this is an oversimplification: you do become much faster at memorizing words over time. But still, the effect is nothing like the cumulative effect of reading.)
Reading produces a cubic or exponential gain in vocabulary for at least two main reasons:
1) As you read, you become a faster reader--even three to four times as fast over time. That means you're exposed to three to four times as many words. So reading a lot not only helps you learn words, it triples or quadruples the rate at which it's possible for you to learn words. Get it?
2) As you read a lot, you become a better reader, which makes reading more fun, which makes it much more likely that you will occasionally read for pleasure, or at least be able to finish all of your assigned reading for school without cutting any corners. This means that you are not only learning more words per hour, you are also learning words for more hours in the day.
These observations show what educational scientists and researchers have also suggested:
ReplyDeleteIn his studies of first graders, Allington (1984) found that the total number of words read during a week of school reading sessions ranged from a low 16 for one child who was classified as a poor reader to a high of 1,933 for a child classified as a good reader. Commenting on these findings, Stanovich (1986) noted: “The average skilled reader reads approximately three times as many words in the group reading sessions as the average less skilled reader” (p. 380). Similarly, Nagy and Anderson (1984) estimated that
the less able and motivated children in the middle grades might read 100,000 words a year while the average children at this level might read 1,000,000. The figure for the voracious middle grade reader might be 10,000,000 or even as high as 50,000,000. If these guesses are anywhere near the mark, there are staggering individual differences in the volume of language experience, and, therefore, opportunity to learn new words. (p. 328).
There's a lot else that goes in to it but I'm getting boring, I know, so I'll stop.
Understanding this simple principle--that memorizing words produces a linear increase in vocabulary, whereas reading lots of books produces a cubic or even exponential increase in vocabulary--makes a lot of other stuff clear.
Take a look at the generic graph of linear vs. cubic growth above. (This is not a graph of actual vocab acquisition rates; it's just a visual aid.) Let's take the x-axis to be the amount of time you invest, and the y-axis to be the number of words you know. The red line illustrates the rate at which you can learn words through memorization. The green line is the (approximate) rate at which you can learn words by reading. When you're not very far out on the x-axis (like if you have only a few days or weeks to learn words), you might be better off memorizing, at least as far as vocab acquisition goes. But before too long, the green line starts to *skyrocket*. That's why you need to get on the reading train, even if you are a nonnative speaker.
This exponential growth curve explains how it’s possible for some students to know extremely difficult SAT words like “machinations” and “gibbering” without memorizing anything. These words are, respectively, the 32,802nd and the 42,728th most common words in current English (according to data from the British National Corpus).
ReplyDeleteMichele Hernandez, one of the most successful college counselors in the country by some measures, has this to say about vocabulary and SAT scores:
Every time I have seen a student with an 800 Verbal score, there has been confirmation through the application that the student is a reader—teachers mention it, the student often talks about loving literature from a young age and reading a lot throughout middle school and high school, and guidance counselors allude to it. No amount of test-taking preparation can earn you an 800 verbal score, because that requires a lifetime devoted to reading (Hernandez 157).
I have encountered students online recently who say that they have gotten perfect 800’s without being lifelong readers, but I have never met any in person. Tom Fischgrund’s survey of perfect-scoring SAT students found that they spent an average of 9 hours a week reading for school and 5 hours a week reading for pleasure, compared to an average of 5 hours a week reading for school and 4 hours reading for pleasure.
In the short term, memorization has a valuable, even essential, role to play in vocabulary acquisition. It usually beats out reading—just as a linear growth will usually beat out an exponential equation in the short term.
In the long term, though, reading consistently will produce a vocabulary gain many, many times larger than vocabulary memorization alone.
Keith, please send me your email, I have some Japanese LL materials for you.
ReplyDeleteThe best method is whatever method works for *you*. Some people quit if the learning takes too much time commitment, others quit if their progress is too slow. Find what works for *you*!
ReplyDelete