After 70 years of learning languages, here are 5 things Steve wishes he knew when he started:
5 Likes
I believe that listening (Comprehensible Input) is really important, but in my humble opinion, you canĀ“t just learn -properly- a language only through that. I think we do have to, at a certain point, do some things which we donĀ“t like in order to progress. Yes, we are understood and being able to communicate is our main goal, but -from my perspective- I feel annoyed when I say āderā and not ādemā, and so forth.
Writing and speaking (a few short sentences) at the early stage can be really beneficial for it. And I do recommend it even more when you are learning a similar language. ThatĀ“s how I have stopped mixing languages like Portuguese and Spanish; and thatĀ“s also how I am getting better at German.
ItĀ“s only my perspective, which might be bs to someone else. And thatĀ“s okey.
6 Likes
Youāre not alone, research has shown that input alone is insufficient, we need to do some output. In fact output is a key component of the learning process.
Output helps test oneās recall and understanding, as well as highlight gaps. And it doesnāt have to be output as part of a discourse with another person. Talking to oneself, or writing down sentences is beneficial. Output can of course be checked using online tools.
Mr Kaufmann has methods that work for him. And I seem to recall that he learnt Japanese and Chinese using one on one tuition. Iāve tried some of his methods, they didnāt work so well for me, they may work well for others.
3 Likes
Being able to read a book in the new language or understand a podcast can be the only goal. Being able to speak the new language is not everyoneās goal.
9 Likes
Steve does encourage speaking, just not in the beginning of the learning process.
4 Likes
Output is required for learning, but it doesnāt have to be speaking with someone else. It can take the form of talking to oneself, or building and writing out sentences which are then checked with an online tool or AI. When I did classes in French, back in the Jurassic era, part of the lesson with our teacher, who incidentally was a famous French novelist, was to write out simple phrases. 35 years later and I rediscover the usefulness of that simple exercise. I find that with input alone, it often goes in one ear and out the other.
There is a lot to be said for not forcing conversation. There are language teaching methods that require speaking from the outset. That idea fills me with dread. The problem is that language learning is not a sequence of well defined steps i.e. learn X, then Y then Z. Rather you get an impression of X, then Y, then Z, and it doesnāt really make sense until much later. At least that is my experience.
4 Likes
Input drives output, but when youāre ready for output, youāve got to go for it.
āSteve Kaufman
That sounds right to me. I donāt think anyone argues that input is sufficient for output. I would say input is necessary for output, but input alone wonāt get you to output.
5 Likes
This is one of Steveās best videos. TLDW:
-
It doesnāt have to be difficult. What seems difficult now will become easier if you continue exposing yourself to the language.
-
We need lots of repetition. Itās about repeatedly exposing yourself to the material so your brain can form new connections.
-
Itās all about content. The journey is lots of repetition at the beginning then more and more exploring the language to find more content.
-
We donāt need to memorize grammar rules.
-
Input drives the ability to speak.
Good stuff!
3 Likes
A simple example i think is the Alphabet. When i just read about and listened to the Alphabet several time without speaking, it didnāt do much.
The moment i started speaking (singing output) along everyday. it got internalize in a week. I also used ANKI. (Input still comes before output since i had to listen/read before outputing.)
Not sure why, maybe the speech muscle get trained and that creates more connections, pathways in the brain to support the thing that was learned through input. Maybe more connections helps with recall.
2 Likes
I have read 2.6 million words of input (almost all literary novels and short stories) with less than 5000 words of output. I keep improving my speed and comprehension. Iām now reading Proust.
I make small forays into output and thatās getting better too. I know Iām learning French wrong by some standards, but I donāt worry about it. At this point I know the rest will come as long as I stick with it.
There are many ways to learn a language. This is mine.
5 Likes
Each polyglot has their own method, so I donāt see why we should be any different.
1 Like
Sure. However, you seemed rather emphatic earlier about input that sounded beyond your own experience. My point is that input alone can take one quite far, though not magically to output.
It occurs to me you spoke of input going from one ear out the other. If you meant input as listening I would quite agree, especially with French, which is very hard to hear properly.
I should be more specific about my method ā Intensive Reading, not really Comprehensible Input either. I jumped into novels early and when I started, it was 60-70% Unknown Words. I just hacked my way through.
I take notes of all the words and phrases I donāt know and their translations. Plus general notes about grammar and words. Iāve filled 16 Moleskine notebooks this way. According to research writing things down by hand helps reinforce memory. It does seem to work.
2 Likes
ItĀ“s scientifically proven, yes! Not only with language learning, but with everything. ItĀ“s one of those things people avoid nowadays, and they are missing out on such an important tool. ThatĀ“s why, to me, the ācomprehensible inputā theory by itself (just listening 1+1) doesnĀ“t make much sense; even more so since we are adults and have a huge advantage over kids (no, we do not learn the same way).
2 Likes
Yes, my own experience is that input alone does not work and the Krashen theory is nonsense.
I refrained from commenting on your case because I didnāt know the details.
Yes Iām not surprised that writing things down helps significantly. You are in effect doing a form of output, forcing yourself to notice everything, rather than allowing it to go in one ear and out the other.
What you are doing is not so different from what I did in evening classes with several French organisations about 35 years ago. There is a lot to be said for study and hard work.
True. I often take notes on subjects I try to learn, but I seldom review the notes.
Iām glad weāre getting to understand each other better.
I respond strongly to Kaufmann and Krashen because they give me permission to learn by reading what I want, without the baggage of the usual grammar-first textbooks, and to let me absorb the language rather than force-feed it.
But considering it further, you are right. I am inspired by Krashen but I am not doing true (i+1) Comprehensible Input (CI).
I think Krashen is describing the L1 language acquisition of a child. Which is well and good and applies to adults. But adults can also use adult abilities to expedite they process. And they should.
Steve Kaufmann is a Krashen fan, but he is not a CI purist. He says, sure, do CI, but, if you are so moved, notice things, read about them in a grammar book, think about them.
I would argue further that tools like LingQ change the game by taking the friction out of dictionary lookup or getting audio, which makes my adult hybrid approach far more doable.
2 Likes
That is something I find a bit odd, but not a criticism of you. When I first learnt French at school, 40 years ago, I donāt think we ever used a grammar book, I cannot recall even seeing one. We had little stories, with vocabulary and simple grammar explanations as and when needed. And we had tape recordings of French people talking.
I canāt help feeling that many CI adherents, create this false idea that ātraditionalā language learning is based around learning grammar, and they do this in order to market their products.
There are countless language learning methodologies, some of which are sometimes termed natural methods because they are supposed to emulate the way we learn our L1. In truth research has shown that children learn their L1 using both input and output, and often just memorise phrases. So the Krashen theory, and several others, isnāt emulating our L1 acquisition.
That is my view too, LingQ makes it easier to absorb input,
People should just use what works. Essentially language learning consists of learning some words and constructions, and automatising recognition and output. Thereās countless ways to do that.
1 Like
You are not alone 
Even in my Latin classes in school grammar was only one aspect of learning the language, and Latin isnāt taught in school in order to speak it.
In English, French which some of my friends took or Spanish which is taught nowadays in some schools, grammar is not the main theme and especially at the beginning.
The Grammar-Translation-Method that people are refering here to is what has been used when teaching Latin and Ancient Greek in order for the students to be able to translate ancient text as precisely as possible, and only for that. A matter for which beeing able to speak or to understand the spoken language is irrelevant, as the languages arenāt spoken nowadays anyway, but having a precise understanding of the grammar is crucial.
This has nothing to do with how languages are taught that should be actively used for communication and based on my dive through several scientific papers on this matter, it has never been an official doctrine anywhere in the western world. So if a teacher does this, then most likely out of incompetence.
I have no opposition of beeing convinced of me beeing wrong, though. So if anyone has something that shows that this has been the intented way of teaching a language in school anywhere, fire away.
1 Like