@dooo, I’m perfectly happy to take my audience into account. What I objected to was your condescending tone, not the fact that you didn’t understand the analogy (if in fact you didn’t). I grew up with music, and I don’t know what it’s like to not be able to play or understand music. I thought my analogy was self-explanatory, but that may very well not be the case for people who have no background in music. If it was unclear, or if you or someone else would like more information to understand the analogy, they are free to ask.
It was not my intent to “prove” a point, or “argue” it, especially to your satisfaction.
Taking it a bit further, I grew up studying classical music (and began university in music school), so I think that there is also a comparison to be made between the way classical music is often studied and the grammar-based approach to language learning. A lot of classically-trained people end up with a good analytical understanding of music, as well as the ability to read and understand (and perform), but they have a poor ability to express themselves freely - in short, they can’t improvise (or “speak”).
This points is not really related to language learning, but I think classical-trained musicians are closer to Shakespearean actors. They express a wide range of things very well through complicated material. The difference is that Shakespearean actors still (I assume) receive regular dramatic training where they practice improvisation and whatnot.
But anyway, when I started getting into language learning, the difficulties with the traditional approach to language learning immediately reminded me of the problems that have become widespread in classical music training.
bortrun “I’m perfectly happy to take my audience into account… …I thought my analogy was self-explanatory,” I encourage you to make fewer assumptions like this.
bortrun "your condescending tone, "
Well my tone could be construed as hopeful as well. Just as your tone can be construed in many ways.
ed: bortrun “I’m perfectly happy to take my audience into account… …I thought my analogy was self-explanatory,” I encourage you to make fewer assumptions like this.
ed: Isn’t it self-evident?
Sweet lord, man. Or is this some sort of joke that is going over my head?
Well it had to be a joke. You’d have to be a pretty bad teacher/tutor to say something like ‘Isn’t it self-evident?’ to a student’s question about an expression.
To answer: No. Language as a whole and, by extension learning language, is so obviously multifaceted as to resist useful analogy. There are too many aspects to it: comprehension, production, all the skills and systems. I do like Steve’s “walking through the forest” analogy for noticing language:
"If I go for a walk in the forest, I do not want to be forced to recount every plant that I saw, or to describe the paths that I took. Each time I walk in that forest I will notice some old friends and discover something new. I will enjoy familiar walks, and also enjoy challenging myself with new trails, even steep and arduous ones. "
