@nfera In regards to boosting reading speed via Language Reactor et. al., while I can see the benefit for learning a language comparable close to you native one, or a language you know well and use as translation language, I find this approach very hard for my Korean learning. I used it with text only, so without the neccessity to “keep up” so to speak, but due to the completely different syntax and grammar it was often very hard for me to connect specific words of the translation to the words in the original text. And once you pass the basic level and have sentences that use several grammars, you get the same problem there, unless you already know the grammar by heart.
In addition, Korean sentences can become really long, in which case they are usually split up into several sentences in the translation, as they would be unintelligable or at least bad style otherwise. (An example from an early intermediate text (roughly translated as far as I remember it): Furthermore I am writing these words to you to let you know that I would be really pleased if you could share some helpful tips with me regarding some recent occurences that took place in my life regarding my love life).
In difference the approach worked relatively well in regards to Spanish, which is relatively close to German and English grammar and syntax wise.
However, besides the quantity I would assume that the quality of the reading plays an important role, too. So while I agree that the downtime due to the, uhm … improve-worthy LingQ UI is something that slows down the learning process, I wouldn’t rely on the number of words read only. Having a translation available means that a lot of what translation is accompanied with, the correct application of sentence analysis and grammatical structure as well as taking into account the context, is more or less taken off your shoulders.
When I applied a similar method while learning Spanish - reading the sentence, trying to understand the rough meaning, then looking at the translation to countercheck and procede on to the next sentence - I didn’t really came to the impression that I learned significantly faster. In the end this may be subjective and also a matter of how long such a method is applied.
I am still confused, though, how CI fits into the picture. If you use material that is comprehensible, thus having an amount of unknown words that doesn’t hinder your understanding of the content, what do you need LingQ or any sort of translation for? Just read or listen to the text. It’s odd that a software that mainly serves as a convenient way to look up and store translations for words (a.k.a. dictionary) has such a high percentage of CI fans.
This, 100%. This week I’ve read over 50,000 words on LingQ. Why? The book I’m reading is simply captivating. Every day I do a little Ukrainian grammar. Why? Because I enjoy doing a little, but doing too much bores me. I speak once a week with a tutor on Italki. Why? That’s fun and energizing. More would be difficult to fit in my schedule and cost too much.
It’s been almost 3 years, and I’m still learning this language because I do that which captivates my attention. Closing in on Advanced 1 here and starting to feel closer to B2 every day. Maybe 6 months away. Staying interested is the key optimization, in my opinion.
I can’t comment on this. Though there are two main areas I’ve noticed where sentence translations start to fall apart (as in become harder to use):
Too many unknown words or grammar in the one sentence. It is ideal that there is only one unknown in the sentence, so you can quickly skim the translation to find it. If you have more than one unknown in a sentence, it can start to become difficult to know which unknown word connects to which translation. Ideal is one unknown, two is alright, three and above start to become complex.
Sentences are too long. It just means there is more text to scan to find the definition you’re looking for. But the main reason is long sentences are more likely to have more unknown words or grammar in them, so it goes back to point one. If you have a sentence of 100 words, if you only have one unknown, then you have a very high level for the material you’re reading and I question why are you using sentence translations at all.
Additionally, if you have a lot of subclauses in a sentence, then it’s just confusing anyways. Even native speakers find sentences with many subclauses in them confusing.
In terms of me, I consider the theory that you can become fluent in a language solely from comprehensible input alone to be just bollocks. The obvious examples are people who understand a language fluenty, but can’t speak it. There are many of these people in the world. The German language example are those people who live in the mountains in Switzerland and Austria, who understand High German perfectly (that is, the prestige variant of German) as they watch television in the language, but can’t speak it. Instead, when they try and speak, their dialect (a different variant of German) comes out of their mouth. Though, they are not the only people. It’s not uncommon for me to hear “I understand X language, but can’t speak it,” where X language is the native language of one of their parents or family members or friends. This is enough to prove that the comprehensible input theory that you can become fluent in a language solely from it alone is false. As for comprehensible input as one of the methods/tools to learn to understand a language, it definitely works. However, I generally don’t consider it very efficient, namely as the content isn’t particularly comprehensible as it could be. But in my above-stated version of it, which I’ve personally used myself, it really is very powerful.
As to why there are so many comprehensible input fans on the LingQ forums, I could only guess that it’s partly led by Steve Kaufmann’s promotion, who draws these people to the software in the first place. From that, I’d say many people have different definitions of what it actually is - theory to fluency, technique, etc. For instance, some people seem to claim that “LingQ makes incomprehensible input comprehensible” (through the use of a dictionary). The definition comprehensible input’ really depends on who’s using it, yet most people assume their definitions are the same.
I’d never seen anyone refering to High German as “the prestige variant”. It is just the standard used in Germany. I would assume that most countries have such a standard (or several, depending on history).
However, it is usually possible to understand people who speak a different german dialect, even though it might take some time. A friend of mine’s brother went to a different place in Germany and his father in law speaks a very intensive version of the local dialect. When we went to visit them I was not able to understand a single word of what he was saying. At the second day the problem was more or less gone, since we we’re talking a lot and I got used to it.
I made a similar experience a while ago when I watched The Sympathizer with Robert Downey Junior (highly adviseable). It took me one and a half episode until I reached the point where I was able to understand what this guy was saying (in his role as a CIA agent, he plays four different characters, all having a different speaking style). Funny thing is that I found the vietnamese actors who spoke English with a rather strong accent the easiest to understand.
The prestige variant and the standard variant are often, but not always, the same. Prestige may change depending on social context, but some key indicators of prestige are phrases about a native speaker like, “He doesn’t speak English very well” and “She speaks bad English.” It’s generally used in a demeaning way to socially criticise someone for not speaking the prestige variant in a given situation.
You’ve obviously thought long and hard about your own methodology and what works for you.
For me the process of looking something up and writing it down improves recall, thus I do not worry about efficiency of look up.
I listen to native French content, and a wide range of subjects and speakers, with as many registers as possible e.g. formal radio presenter, political speech, interviews with acknowledged experts, radio debates, podcasts by untrained presenters on diverse subjects such as gardening and SpaceX, people in the street with regional accents, young people, uneducated people and so on.
I believe that output is crucial, simply writing down phrases and speaking to oneself is beneficial. That of course is contrary to the ideas of Krashen.
Yes I am familiar with the Direct Method, thanks to @Obsttorte, and subsequent reading. According to Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching, by Richards and Rodgers, it was developed in Boston in the late 1860’s by Sauveur, long before Krashen.
I think we have a problem with terminology. Comprehensible Input (CI) is a term introduced by Krashen as part of his theory of SLA. Thus when we refer to CI, we are implicitly referring to using his method, which states that we cannot learn explicitly or consciously, we must learn implicitly or subconsciously. You are using input, or partially comprehensible input, whichever term you prefer.
It seems that, at least in amateur linguistics, most people believe that Krashen invented learning assisted by large amounts of input, and that prior to Krashen everyone used rote learning and formal instruction.
The above all makes sense, it is why a week or two ago I started to use childrens picture books with my German studies. I’m sure what you describe has merit and I would love to have a personal tutor, but lack of funds prevents that, and my adverts for an unpaid German servant have received no replies.
Learning is of course a complex process that is enhanced by images, context, background sounds such as bird song, and emotional triggers such as excitement, fear and surprise, and even smell. We remember events from decades earlier that are associated with strong emotions, and forget what we were doing before and after. I still remember the phrase Tu t’es fait tout mouillé which was said to me one day by the secretary in the Départment de Chime at L’université de Montréal 35 years ago. Memory is odd. I also have a memory from over 50 years ago of walking along a road and being assailed by the smell of fresh tar from a boiler contraption standing on the pavement.
I find that association and focus help long term memory storage of words, for example by picturing the object or action referred to, or doing a Google search for images of the object or action.
Some people use mnemonics, and they can be effective.
I am getting much better at remembering words, perhaps because I am using better techniques of memorisation.
In Britain we certainly had correct English, or the Queen’s English or Received Pronunciation, which were seen as both correct and prestigious, and regional forms were considered inferior, There is even an old BBC broadcast with a chap speaking strong Yorkshire, and a BBC chap ‘translating’ into BBC English for the benefit of the gentlefolk watching. Attitudes have shifted, and now regional accents are not looked down on.
I believe Germany and Austria are much more tolerant of regional dialects/languages. France is decidedly intolerant, I recently heard some French radio presenters mocking a guest’s accent after an interview.
This depends on the dialect. Although it is usually more common to make fun out of it but not to insult someone for using one. It can, of course, have a negative impact if a person you are relying on has a negative view of the region your dialect is associated to, for example when having a job interview. Although this isn’t the norm, I’d say.
I was probably more confused by the wording. “Prestige” sounds like we were talking about some elite style of language, only spoken by a few selected. The majority of people I’ve met all over Germany however either speak High German or have only a minor dialect … or are rather good at surpressing it.
The two things I love to learn are music and language, and what they share is a very complex logical sub-structure that must be assimilated via feel/intuition, and yet this intuitive assimilation can be helped along by periods of reflection upon and engagement with the logical sub-structure as such. I think this process of learning can be effectively improved with some sort of quasi-scientific, quantitative feedback loop, but that it cannot be ultimately mechanized, universalized, and measured. Improvement in passing on linguistic and musical traditions comes not by enslaving them to entirely quantitative evaluation, but by understanding the “tolerance of fit” between current quantitative methods and the underlying activity, and by the building up of a robust culture of transmission that incorporates not only techniques but also all sorts of embedded social intelligence. These are deeply human activities, which is what makes them so fascinating and motivating and rewarding.
What I’m trying to express is that the application of method is itself an art, and the reason why I think you are good at this @nfera is because you have an instinctive inclination to love the application of method as art, and not as an idol or ideology. What I aim to do is keep iterating, experimenting, and yes measuring, while never letting the external validation of measurement undermine my trust in my own ability to learn, and to learn how to learn, and yes to validate growth in those areas by self-examination and reflection. I appreciate stats, but don’t need a stat to validate everything I do.
Alas, Stephen Krashen used the word ‘comprehensible input’, which aptly refers to a particular type of input/content, but loaded all his baggage of an obviously incorrect theory on top of it.
I would say that Austria and Switzerland are more tolerant of their regional variants of German. The reason would be that these variants actually hold prestige in many situations. I think Germany is less tolerant to other variants (in general). I’ve heard stories from dialect speakers who were apparently told by Germans that they aren’t speaking High German, because they weren’t speaking the standard of High German in Germany. Though, I think High German still holds a particular prestige amongst the upper class, even outside of Germany. The variants spoken by educated, upper class people are much closer to High German from what I hear. I’m no expert on the matter though and these are just stories I’ve heard.
It’s interesting to note that the linguist Geoff Lindsey says that there are very few speakers of Received Pronunciation left. Even Prince William and Prince Harry don’t speak it. He also says that in Australia the strength of the Australian accent is measured by how far it is from RP. Here’s one of his several videos about RP:
I think of the adage: not everything of value can be measured and not everything measured is of value. It definitely makes it more challenging though, especially with very subtle differences or differences which take a while to see the results. xD
Note that both Austria and Switzerland have a much smaller population then Germany. So the chances that a German knows about a dialect and its speakers without ever having met any of those speakers is higher, and so is the chance that a negative image associated with a dialect is just adopted.
In general it isn’t the case that the upper class and lower class people speak different dialects. Lower class people usually have a smaller vocabulary and tend to use shorter sentences and a simpler way of speaking in general, similar to how the language of teenagers differ from that of adults who are twice as old or more. But that isn’t considered a dialect here in Germany. It is really a regional thing.
Especially the dialects spoken in Eastern Germany have a particulary bad image due to our history, the fact that the population in Eastern Germany only make up about on seventh of the overall population and that the major part of wealth and economic strength lies in the hands of Western Germans. This and the focus of our media on problems that arose from such issues in Eastern Germany, like a higher acceptance for extreme political parties, gives Eastern Germany, its population and therefore the dialects associated with it a rather bad reputation. This is accompanied by the effort of younger Eastern Germans to try to not let the dialect slip into the language of their children too much in order to avoid them to be easely identifyable as “Ossis” (how we call people in Eastern Germany).
Please people!!! If you are discussing something that concerns the German language, make sure you use the correct terminology. Don’t write “High German”, when you mean “Standard High German” or “Standard German”. “High German” is the term for the German dialects that lie in the ‘high’ part of the German language area, i.e. in the hills and mountains of the south and not in the north German lowlands. When I speak in my northeastern Austrian dialect, I speak High German. When I don’t speak dialect, I speak Standard German resp. Standard High German.
Yes, even native German speakers often get these terms mixed up. This misunderstanding is probably due to the fact that Standard German is based to a considerable extent on High German. But this is a website about languages, and therefore we should discuss at a higher level and make a clear distinction between the terms.
At least in Germany the term “Hochdeutsch” is used synonymous for “Standardhochdeutsch”, so the language as used in most literature and TV formats like the news. Actually, I’ve never heard the term “Standardhochdeutsch” before, to be honest. In Austria this may differ, and it seems the Swiss call it “Schriftdeutsch”, but stating that using the term “High German” is wrong doesn’t apply if the majority of native German speakers use the term in exactly that manner. If you say “Hochdeutsch” no German will think that you are talking about the Bavarian or any other southern dialect.
Considering that we are on a language website, as you pointed out correctly, I may remind you of the context sensitivity of languages. It was perfectly clear what was meant by everyone involved in the discussion. So maybe one exclamation mark in your first sentence would have been sufficient.
The term “Standard High German” is a technical term that exists in English (and we are discussing in English). It cannot be translated literally into German, because in German there is actually only the term “Standarddeutsch”. The only reason I used the term “Standard High German” alongside “Standard German” was so that I wouldn’t be scolded by the English speakers here for demanding precision in terminology on the one hand and not adhering to it myself on the other.
The fact that most Germans mean Standard German when they say “Hochdeutsch” does not change the fact that the term is wrong when discussing language and languages. In a linguistic context, “High German” means the southern German dialect continuum and not the standard language, regardless of how the majority of people use the word “Hochdeutsch” resp. “High German” in everyday speech.
@DJTembo I didn’t state that your are completely wrong. But it appears that everyone was aware of what was spoken of. And none of us (as far as I can tell) is an etymologist, nor is this an etymological congress. Actually most if not all of what was written in regards to that matter was purely anectodical.
You can demand us to use the “proper” term, of course, but most likely some people will fall back to the term “High German” simple out of what they are used to call it.
Except his comprehensible input is not comprehensible input, it’s partially comprehensible input. I do agree with your succint description of his theory, I could not have put it better myself.
I’m sure he’s right, though RP as such was never common, it was largely confined to the ruling elite and their sprogs. My late mother spoke RP having been privately educated. I would argue that the likes of William and Harry still speak with an upper class accent characteristic of the more expensive public schools, albeit not RP. I find their accents quite distant and condescending, especially William’s, it is an accent for talking to the subjects who should know their place.
I had always assumed that Germany was littered with dialects, and the Germans would revert to standard German when needs be. However, a little research suggests that the regional dialects are disappearing especially in larger towns and cities. An Austrian friend speaks his Austrian dialect, and I believe it is intelligible to standard German speakers. A Swiss friend speaks standard German. as well as Swiss German which is not intelligible to the Austrian.
Note that it’s best not to use the term lower class in British English, it might be taken as offensive. We might say working class for someone who is from a lower income background, or working in an unskilled or manual job such as bricklaying. We might also describe them as coming from a poorer socioeconomic group, or maybe even as being less well off. Definitely don’t call them peasants. My French teacher asked me if my father was a peasant ! He meant a smallholder i.e. a farmer with limited land. Peasant is an insult.
Yeah, we usually tend to say Arbeiterklasse here in Germany, too. Usually the people who try to avoid such offensive terms the most, however, are politicians who make laws that harm those people and upper class individuals who have resentiments against the very same. So to some degree the offensiveness is on purpose (semi-silent protest, so to speak ). I am not convinced that social or political issues can be solved via rebranding. But I digress.
If you mean the band, than yes. Why are you asking?
I stored peasent as a synonym for pawn/servant, so someone who works on a field and isn’t free, but not a slave. Not sure if this is true but I wouldn’t use it simply because I think of it as a medieval term (I only know it from games). The german term that I think of is Leibeigener, and I am definetely not going to call someone that.
It is just the standard used in Germany. I would assume that most countries have such a standard (or several, depending on history).
It was perfectly clear what was meant by everyone involved in the discussion. So maybe one exclamation mark in your first sentence would have been sufficient. 
