It’s true that nowadays it is probably easier to find materials in languages other then English. However, finding implies usually that one has searched. I would assume that when asking Germans they may not necessarely think of foreign languages as important for career in general, but of English as important if you want to go into an academic field for example. Latin is usually considered useful when aiming for a medical career or when aiming to become a lawyer or judge. In summary it is more interesting for people of high education, though. People aiming for a training occupation probably consider foreign languages irrelevant.
One could argue that students that attent private schools have a different social background and that the higher educational level of their families and surroundings that is the requirement for a job that allow the parents to pay those schools may have a non-neglectable effect, too. This may also be true in regards to social skills and their self-confidence.
It is a persisting issue that different parts of cities are inhabitated by different social classes and this is also true for the schools. I don’t know to which extent this is or has been the case in the UK, but in Germany this is a serious issue. At least from my perspective.
That doesn’t mean that smaller classes (and better educated teachers) would be beneficial, though.
I’m sure that there is quite a bit of truth in your post. However, bear in mind that privately educated students in Britain are encouraged and taught to debate, to express and defend their opinions. That is part of the education. That just did not exist in my school, and realistically it can’t in a large class. A colleague gave up teaching, he said it was crowd control. An old friend gave up teaching in a state school, and went private, as he said that state school children cannot express themselves. Apparently a huge factor for a child’s development is their peers, more so than their parents. A private school has better discipline, better facilities, children have rowing clubs, sports clubs, gyms, and other facilities. They create a more nurturing environment. Apparently many wealthy families are not a healthy environment, they send their children to private schools to get rid of them. After all, their parents are busy making money. As for intelligence, I’ve worked alongside and for hundreds of privately educated people. They as a group weren’t brighter than the rest. But they always did far better than might be expected given their intelligence. Some were not bright at all.
And yes we have parents who move house so that their children can go to a better state school. No doubt more middle class children in a school improves the grades.
I was useless at school until at age 16 we had small classes. Only then did a teacher speak to me, and treat me as a human. I started working and getting top marks.
Krashen is about teaching classes in school, so it is graded on how well the average student learns in such a school class. Krashen is not about solo self-teaching using the internet, and there is no reason to assume that CI is the best method for that.
That matches my experience. I aways watch Chinese dramas with Chinese sub-titles. Without the sub-titles, I often don’t know what words are being spoken. Actors regularly omit sounds or slur sounds.
My opinion is that native speakers use their understanding of word and phrase meanings to "auto-correct " any missing or blurred sounds, which only an advanced listener can do.
That is how computer recognition of spoken English works. For decades it failed to identify sounds in the sound stream. It only started working when it switched to a “pattern matching” method, comparing the input sound stream to a huge database of the sounds of words and phrases.
Even if the sounds are clear, French is not phonetic. There is no direct translation from speech to writing. A linguist pointed out that many French verbs are spoken the same but spelled differently. For example “il parle, ils parlent, tu parles”.
I’m not quite as critical, but you raise a good point. If academics, are studying and evaluating solo language learning, I haven’t heard about it.
We are soloists on our own, coming up with our own techniques, experimenting and disseminating lore.
A couple months ago I watched “Valley Uprising” an indie documentary about a close-knit outlaw group of climbers who created advanced techniques for climbing Yosemite.
It would be great if we language learners had the real proven theory about how best to learn languages. We don’t. We have ideas. We have stories. But we’re all basically trying stuff, hoping to get up that towering cliff faster than the last crew.
The biggest reason of failure is giving up, so if you study interesting material first you are more likely to stick with it. If you study boring material, you’ll quit.
You can bang your head against the wall and you will eventually break it down or you can use a sledge hammer and do it in a reasonable amount of time. There are definitely slower ways and faster ways. I ask the question, why do it a slower way, if you have a choice, all things else being equal? You want to get to a fluent level to be able to enjoy native content, but this requires to get to a high level of competence. Why delay it? Just doesn’t make sense
There are definitely places in the language learning journey where you can get stuck and stop improving, even if you are still spending lots of time in the language. A common example of this are the immigrants who only know work-related language, but fail in other areas. They can’t talk about politics or watch movies or read books with competence, yet they continue spending massive amounts of time in the language over the years.
Yes, it matters what techniques and what order you do them in. Solely doing DuoLingo will just never get your there.
Well, if you do it, and it works for you, you know it works in at least one case. If your question is, how do we know which technique is more efficient, that’s a bit trickier. But really you just try it, hear experiences from others, etc. and go from there. You should be able to tell if there are large differences in efficiency (i.e. DuoLingo vs. dual subtitles with Language Reactor) and then you can apply some logic. In the end, I don’t know what is the most efficient technique, but through a lot of trial and error, some advice from others, some logic, etc. I’ve found ways which work very well. And I’m quite happy with language techniques which work very well.
Krashen is interesting. I don’t know that he has said his theory is proven in so many words. I have at times seen him answer direct questions like a proper scientist, couching his responses in qualifications and caveats. Other times he’ll make sweeping statements, such as “We acquire language in only one way, when we understand it”, which sounds more like evangelism than a scientific conclusion.
As I joked about above, I have been reading some SLA studies, driven by some of the same questions as @jt23 poses in this post. There is too much to summarize, but here just one path I have followed with respect to Krashen you may find interesting:
Krashen’s Monitor Model is not a scientific theory, but rather a set of hypotheses, which includes the input hypothesis. In the field of SLA, he is undeniably influential, but Monitor model is not universally accepted as “proven”.
Bill VanPatten (BVP), a very pro-Krashen figure in the field of SLA, and Karen Lichtman wrote a paper in 2021 in which they state that the “Monitor Theory was widely criticized and dismissed…” but that some of the ideas are still being explored in SLA research today though, “unacknowledged and under new terminology.”
One of Krashen’s ideas that BVP claims is still being explored is the acquisition/learning distinction, in the form of implicit vs explicit learning/knowledge. Krashen said “Learning Does Not Become Acquisition." There does not appear to be causal evidence to support this. On the contrary, while there "is broad consensus that the acquisition of an L2 entails the development of implicit knowledge. However, there is no consensus on how this is achieved; nor is there consensus on the role played by explicit knowledge.” (R. Ellis, 2005)
BVP has echoed Krashen’s idea, saying there is “no known mechanism that can turn that explicit knowledge into the abstract complex mental representation we call language [or implicit knowledge]” In a recent paper, he limits that to mean there is no direct conversion internal to the learner. So, if you 1) explicitly study some words/grammar, 2) they help you understand input, and 3) you establish implicit knowledge through that input, he does not count this as conversion from explicit to implicit, because it is indirect.
#4 threw me for a loop when I first understood it. Rather than proving that “We acquire language in only one way, when we understand it”, they have defined it to be true by defining “Language” to mean this implicit knowledge acquired through comprehension.
To researchers trying to understand the details of the mechanisms of acquisition, this distinction may be very important. For the learner, it may be a distinction without a difference, as long as you are learning something through explicit learning that you will soon encounter in input. There is evidence to support the effectiveness of some deliberate study (e.g. SRS, Active recall, Grammar rules), even if that knowledge being assessed is explicit.
Though I understand why they do it, as a learner, hearing this distinction used by SLA researchers felt a bit like a dirty sleight of hand. However, it did resolve the conflict between what I have heard CI purists say about the ineffectiveness explicit study, and my experience (as well the experience of other language learners here, and even Steve K, Luca L and others who use primarily CI) of some targeted deliberate study being effective. Is it that confirmation bias on my part? I don’t know, but it appears no one else does, either. I have learned languages though, so rather than bang my head against the wall, I’d rather dive back into learning. “Once more unto the breach, dear friends…”
Edit: I do like both Krashen and BVP and think they have played a valuable role in both academic SLA and for us autodidacts, lest someone think I am attacking them. That is not my intent.
Yes he does at times sound like an evangelist or marketing guru. I have heard him say that research has proved various parts of his theory, or model, whatever we call it. But I have seen no specifics.
I can’t say I know the difference between a model, a set of hypotheses and a theory in this case. In general a model is something that one constructs that behaves like something else. Thus a neural network behaves in some respects like a brain, and by studying the model, we hope to gain insights into the brain.
I watched several lectures by BVP where he explained how the brain handles language. I was captivated until he revealed that he was putting forward Chomsky’s theory as if it were fact. I have two problems with this. Firstly he was putting forward a theory as if it were fact. Secondly, as far as I am concerned, Universal Grammar is a pile of manure.
I read a paper, I think it was much more recent, in which some researchers stated that Krashen’s hypothesis were broadly accepted, but with large caveats. So who knows what the concensus is.
I have problems with this idea. I have learnt the names of numerous birds in French, I did that explicitly. Does that mean I don’t know them? I know the latin names for hundreds of species of fungi which I have learnt explictly.
When we come to grammar, it gets more complex. Teaching someone a piece of grammar does not mean they can use it. There is a transition between knowing a piece of grammar in an academic manner, and understanding the underlying meaning, and hence being able to use it naturally.
There is another theory of language acquisition which equates it to learning to play an instrument. When one first tries to play a new song, one slowly works through the finger movements, until one can do them. Then one practices, and gradually it becomes automatic, and one can impose emotion and nuance on the song. Some claim that learning a language is similar. Certainly this approach can be used to improve pronunciation and grammar.
I suspect that both ideas contain some truth. Explicit study can help the brain remember grammar, which with time it comes to understand intuitively. It looks like we are on the same wavelength here, going by your comments below.
I’m sure he claims that his model is a general theory of second language acquisition, and not applicable only to groups of students in a class. But I’m only a layperson.
I have also come to the conclusion, from experience and reading, that the brain learns to recognise speech by pattern matching with a large degree of predictive matching. I’m sure you’ve had the experience in your native language, of thinking you heard someone say something, only to subsequently realise that the sentence was totally different. That is consistent with predictive pattern matching as opposed to decoding word by word in a precise manner
Where I disagree with you is your statement that only advanced learners can auto-correct speech. Right from the beginning, we are learning to translate audio signals into intelligible words, even when we don’t know some of the words. Spoken language is incredibly complex, if you look at a sound plot, you won’t see clean breaks between words, even in clear speech.
For over a year or so I listened to podcasts, usually for intermediate learners. They were a bit dull, but my recognition of spoken language slowly improved. I quite often found with input that although the language was at my level, in terms of grammar, vocabulary and speed of delivery (I was able to read a transcript), I barely understood it. Then I started listening to content on LingQ while reading the transcript. I did this regularly, and discovered that it was training my ear to map the sounds that I heard into actual words. Many YouTube experts claim that the secret to understanding spoken French is to learn contractions such as t’as faim rather than tu as faim. That’s simplistic nonsense. How do we distinguish le manteau élégant from le manteau et les gants ? The answer is context. French is full of homophony due to enchaînement for example. And l’aimant and les monts are not homophones, but they require a good ear to distinguish, especially if there is poor sound quality. I often hear something, scratch my head, then realise what it was. A trivial example would be to hear l’aventure but think that you had heard la venture, and then look up venture in a dictionary.
A well known and respected polyglot, professor Tim Keeley, recommends three exercises which he described in a YouTube video. Read a transcript. Listen to the audio while reading the transcript. Then listen to the audio like a baby would, without thinking, just letting it soak in. My knowledge of language learning is very limited compared to Professor Keeley, but it works for me. It is very important when doing the third task to not think when listening to the audio. Don’t stop to consider grammar, or translate a word. Doing so acts as a barrier to comprehension of the whole, even if in doing so you miss a word or two. I suspect you are a far more advanced language learner than me, so perhaps you have similar ideas.
On a personal note, my comprehension of spoken French is improving steadily. Will I be able to understand Louis de Funès films almost as well as I understand English films? I don’t know but that is my goal. At present I get some of the dialogue, but some sentences remain a mush. One year ago I would have understood almost nothing.
Your written English is extremely good, someone mentioned that you are not a native English speaker. I’m curious which methods you used to learn English, since they clearly work, and we are very much discussing learning methods.
I also wonder if gaoli is not a native English speaker, and hence how they learned the language as they too have excellent written English.
I agree – it is not only advanced learners. But the more advanced a learner is, the more they can do this. I’ve seen many learners (in a different forum) have a problem with spoken English.
This is what I mean. You couldn’t do it as well at the start of that year.
I agree. I even had a recent example of this.
Back in the 1980s, I studied Japanese a bit in my spare time. I never got anywhere – well, maybe I went from A0 to A1. I’ve never touched Japanese since then. Two weeks ago I found a video-podcast (through LingQ). Although many of the words were unknown to me, I understood things like “I think they were saying that…” and “I haven’t done it myself but…” and “that’s what I think. Do you agree?”
Just to say thanks! You are my kinda guy (or gal) and you are further down the SLA rabbit hole than I am. I welcome your comments.
People learn languages because our brains support the ability – language being absolutely essential for survival as human beings – no matter how we go about it.
Even taking the conventional grammar-based approach, people become fluent if they stick with it. Though I’m sure that includes much CI they don’t credit explicitly.
What the optimal balance between CI and explicit study might be, I have no idea. I don’t think anyone else does either – in general or on a personal basis.
With this topic I’m saying that I’ve given up trying to find the optimal approach to language learning. I’ve arrived at my tools and approaches, they might not be the best, but I do improve. I will modify them as seems necessary, but I keep going with the faith that as along as I stay in the language, I’ll get there.
I wasn’t trying to argue against you. In the end you are refering to a different country whose educational system and society I have no experience with. All I am saying is that it is just very easy to overlook aspects that seem unimportant although they aren’t or to exaggarate the impact of others. Of course my observations are both local and subjective, too.
If one difference between private and state schools in the UK is that debates and the expression of opinions is only encouraged on private schools, then I would expect this to have the effect you’ve expressed. In Germany this is possible on state schools, too, though. It mainly depends on the teacher, not the school form. We had a lot of debates on our school (not always because the teacher encouraged it, though ).
I never said anything about intelligence. But having higher educated parents means that they are more likely to be able to either help their children directly or indirectly by sending them to someone supporting them. Sport clubs and other freetime activities are an additional source for supporting the childrens development. Of course this is generalized. Not all higher class parents will support their children that way and not all lower class parents will be unable to support their children. It is just a tendency. But income and personal education are a limiting factor.
When it comes to private schools my experience is that they aren’t better then state schools here in Germany. The situation may differ in other countries, but I would assume that it mainly depends on the qualification and passion of the teachers working there, not the fact that they are private. But if those schools have a high reputation in society and better working conditions for teachers than state schools they may attract better personal.
I’m a native English speaker and I still don’t always know when to use who and whom, and I regularly hear people on the radio wrongly using whom, as it sounds educated. There are other things I get wrong. If your mistakes are ones we’d make, few will notice. I’m not sure what is hard about an if clause.
I bought up the “if-clauses” example for using grammer rules even after 40 years. To me, it seems to be a bit contrary to Stephen Krashen’s language aquisition hypothesis. Or do I miss something?
The Beat poet Lew Welch had a teacher at Reed College who explained that if someone answers the phone, “To whom am I speaking?”, that person is communicating, “I am a pedant.”
You probably have to be a bit more specific on what kind of mistake you tend to make when using the if-clause. I see it like LeifGoodwin, that it is not obvious what could be the difficulty here. But there is an indentical grammatical construct in my native language. So my guessing would be that in your native language such a construct may not exist and something else is used to express a similar meaning.
The issue with conditionals is probably the concordance of tenses. I’m a native English speaker but I too struggle with this across Indo-European languages. In English, you have a bunch of different tenses and moods to worry about: 1. If I were happy now, I would go to the store. (present subjunctive, present conditional). 2. If I am happy tomorrow, I will go to the store. (present indicative, future). 3. If I had been happy yesterday, I would have gone to the store. (past perfect, conditional perfect). Unfortunately you can’t just mix the tenses and moods around.
Hi all, my focus was not my difficulties with “if-clauses”, but that this is a construct for which my brain still refers to the “rule” - after 40 years! If I told this Stephen Krashen then he wouldn’t believe me. He would try to convince me that I won’t be able to think about grammer rules while talking. Still, sometimes I can! I think Stephen Krashen in general is right, but if grammer is fun it’s worth to have a look at it.
).