Tips for the plateau

[davideroccato]

@jt23

I question how well it gets to the details of grammar, sentence structure, word families and idioms without taking years and years.

@jt23 it doesn’t. My theory using this method is that it would be wrong to force you to anticipate things that would come naturally afterwards. If you pay attention on how our mind works, we cannot really pay attention to too many things at the same time. I can read the same page over and over and my mind would pay attention to different things, like vocabulary, or sentence structure, or orthography, or punctuation, or writing styles, etc. But not all at the same time, it depends on how we set our mind to operate. We are not multitasking even in the way we learn.
Sometimes we can have glimpses of different things but we can only pay attention and improve to things where we have a real knowledge.

We can start with vocabulary and basic grammar. Once our mind is accustomed to a certain amount of effort, we can increase things by maintaining the same amount of mental effort. We can start adding listening, for example. We increase vocabulary and listening capacity and we can start adding better comprehension of other things. Instead of studying all grammar at the beginning and do drills when we don’t have enough vocabulary, we can do the opposite, we can add grammar structures later and focus on more things, always maintaining the same mental effort.

As @S.I was saying about drilling cards, I believe it is a waste of time as we do that already by reading and listening without the stress to force our mind to learn something at all cost when it is not necessary. We will get there anyway if we keep working on the language.
When ready we can increase the level of difficulty but we will maintain the same level of mental effort and we will progress on every aspect of the language.

At some point, when we have a considerable amount of vocabulary, listening time, and we will feel comfortable with the language, it would be a lot easier and more productive to add more complex things. We don’t need to drill all collocations but the only ones that we don’t know already and that we might think we need. We can start writing more and solidify more complex grammar rules. We can speak better because we have a ton of vocabulary and it is only muscle training and a bit of speed capability. Everything will be faster once we have the biggest foundation of the language.

This is, btw, my idea on this method that I’m step by step learning. As I learnt the other languages in a different way, this is the first time I really practice this type of methodology and my ideas have step by step changed.

I still believe that grammar is necessary if we want to be able to write properly, and I think that writing properly is necessary if we want to speak correctly (not fluently, but correctly), and I think that as second language learners we should speak and write “clean”.

[jt23]

@davideroccato: I had to read your comment a few times, but I’d say we are playing in the same ballpark.

I’m not sitting down to work my way through the exercises in a grammar textbook. I did reach a point of comfort that I became motivated to learn how verbs work. So I am consciously studying some grammar – right now the conjugations of indicative tenses and figuring out participles.

This is more formal than what I imagined from Steve’s vagabonding description of language acquisition, but not bad.

[hiptothehop]

@jt23

When I started, I fell in love with the Krashen/Kaufmann comprehensible input method. I still think it’s great, but I question how well it gets to the details of grammar, sentence structure, word families and idioms without taking years and years.

I did see Krashen say once (I’m paraphrasing, maybe someone will know the reference) that deliberate study “can be effective insofar as it helps make input comprehensible.” Now, to me that seems a little self serving for his theory, because it subsumes any alternative activity, but it was interesting to note he made room for it.

I personally have experienced targeted deliberate study/practice linked to improvement, so whether that was from my improved understanding of input or the study itself doesn’t matter to me, because the action I must take is the same.

[GMelillo]

@hiptothehop

I did see Krashen say once (I’m paraphrasing, maybe someone will know the reference) that deliberate study “can be effective insofar as it helps make input comprehensible.” Now, to me that seems a little self serving for his theory, because it subsumes any alternative activity, but it was interesting to note he made room for it.

Ding ding ding!

I memorize conjugations and declensions. Then I read. I don’t translate. I read in the target language. The “traditional” work I do makes the input comprehensible. And so I bootstrap into meaningful literature much more quickly than if I learned the language from teachers arbitrarily limiting themselves to pointing at objects when they teach me. And so my vocabulary explodes. And so listening is easier, etc.

Basically Krashen/Kaufmann notice that there are problems with traditional classroom pedagogy, and then they subvert the whole paradigm of traditional study. It’s a political/moral program as much as anything else.

And it works because people love to hear that doing exactly what they want will give them the optimal result. And also because the suggestion to just do what you want is a decent approximation only because learning a language is a long term project and therefore staying engaged with the language for a long time is essential. But the theory itself is silly. People who get past the hobbyist stage of foreign language acquisition (no disrespect to hobbyists - languages are a great hobby) always end up doing some sort of deliberate practice.

And that transitions us to the plateau. If I suspected I was plateauing, I would find something challenging to do. But since I’m pretty much always looking for something challenging to do, I haven’t yet found myself plateauing.

[jt23]

@GMelillo, @davideroccato, @hiptothehop:

Thanks for your comments!

I know Krashen/Kaufmann provide a loophole beyond Comprehensible Input for more disciplined language study, but I assumed it was a very minor part of language acquisition for adults, that one could basically get there with massive listening/reading input.

I wondered if I was doing it wrong. I wondered if others were making it work.

As I understand now from your comments, those serious about learning a language do supplement with deliberate practice of conjugations and such.

[S.I]

Russian grammar is actually a good example of how badly works grammar studies in terms of time investment. Both natives and foreigners who came and live in Russian community (even from quite distant groups of languages like the Turkic one or Chinese) mostly learn the grammar much better just using and consuming the language and making mistakes and growing from this than those who study the grammar through formal studies trying to become literate and hoping that after this they’ll be able to speak correctly and understand everything. But I would expand on this endlessly if you’d allow me. Don’t allow me, have mercy

1st point:
Very little immersion and a lot of grammar studies doesn’t work. But very little grammar studies and a lot of immersion works fine if not great.
Even no grammar studies at all, but a lot of immersion, works better then the other way around.

2nd point:
Grammar knowledge isn’t operational. Like there’s a lot of biological and mechanical theory behind physical movements of body in sport or playing musical instruments, but in the end we just have to practice and hone (yes, deliberately) our movements, but not the theory behind them. And not within the very one session. In other words, we can’t perform the right action just by keeping in mind the right theory along performing.

(To add to this point, a remember Steve Kaufmann had an observation in his book, that athletes usually learn their TL faster and speak more fluently and naturally than academics do. I also had the same observation. I often listen to various podcasts with academics of the highest level who, some time ago, came to an English speaking country. And ocasionally I listen to different sportsmen like teniss-, football- and whatnot-players or even martial art athletes who had the last piece of their grey matter beaten out of the head. And they still speak more natural English. I would assume, that raw practice works better than formal studies.)

3rd point:
There’s a tendency among grammar learners to believe they can construct phrases and sentences once they’ve mastered the grammar like it’s some kind of Lego. Along those same lines ,they tend to take the grammar prescriptevely. Neither the first nor the second one have much to do with the reality.

Btw, If they had, then language could be easily parsed algorithmically by computers on the human level, but it can’t. It’s where Chomskiy’ theory and initial intention of Steven Wolfram’s system failed badly. But Neural Networks with their brute-force highly greedy algorithm thrive.
For non-technical people: greedy means like almost no algroithim at all, you just consume the next bit of information and look at all the connections it has, and then the next, and then the next until you’ve devoured the entire Internet) Then at some point this speaking human-like property just “emerges” within those GPT models, But there’s no linguistic theory behind this algorithm, it just consumes all it can reach and then uses people to get feedback of how it produces the language.

Steelmanning the case for grammar point:
If grammar studies help me to make the content comprehensible then why not.
Occasionally I’d read some grammar and then pay attention while reading or listening to something, but usually it’s just to validate my observations from reading or listening about the grammar itself. Usually, the understanding of some grammatical form comes to me from repeatedly coming across this form within a clear context, not from the fact that there’s such a rule in the grammar book with a plain explanation of its structure.

At the beginner stage, the very basic explanation of grammar also helps to more quickly engange in the simplest forms of content.
But I would always prefer any other way to make the content comprehensible. Like clear context of the material I read, expressive intonations of a narrator, appropriate level for me and so on.

In the end, those are just my points against grammar studies. For me, taking them too seriously is just a bad time investment from any angle I look at it.

[jt23]

@S.I: Thanks for your thoughtful response!

I am a programmer and I am aware of how neural nets work. I did make that connection when I started listening to Kaufmann and Krashen. Just absorb massive input and let my brain sort it out. Sounded great!

Clearly it does work, at least to a point. I was excited by my beginner progress. However, after four months I really wanted to know how verbs worked for both reading and speaking.

Given all the conjugations, tenses, and moods, not to mention irregular verbs, it seemed like it would take forever to absorb with pure input.

Perhaps I’m too impatient. But I worked out a scheme for verbs that covers regular verbs and with a few extensions covers most irregular verbs too. It wasn’t that much work and I feel much better about verbs.

I don’t mean to be pushy but what does it look like when you acquire, for instance, all the forms of “to have” so you can recognize them when you read and generate them when you speak?

[S.I]

@jt23

what does it look like when you acquire, for instance, all the forms of “to have” so you can recognize them when you read and generate them when you speak?

The forms of “to have” were a part of the very basic grammar course, but usually it looks like, first while reading and listening a lot, I notice that some word looks differently in various cases, then question grows, and when I’ve almost get “where and how” I’d quickly google about this word just once. After this point the honing process begins. I mean, even after the first two stages of noticing and googling, this is not enough to be proficient in the correct usage of this word, but now it’s something related to my flow of the natural interest. But not in advance.

Though you mentioned irregular verbs and for such things I consider deliberate drilling being the case, as they’re finite and need to be taken as they just are. But, probably, also… not in advance. First they have to hook my interest.

For things like sentence structures the “how it would be correct” question pops up mostly when I have to produce the language. But, honestly, I feel like I’m far from even starting to master this part really, because for some time I want to focus on the general corpus or sense of the language, that is “how they talk about this, talk about that, what idioms there are, what words”. I like analogies, so it’s like in order to have a hairstyle, I first have to grow hair. Too late for real hair I guess :]

[davideroccato]

The problem is that we don’t learn in the same way.
For example, if I have a machine in front of me, I read the instructions first and then I operate it. Other people just operate it and figure it out. We both learn different things about the machine and eventually we both get there but the starting point is different. There are pros and cons about both but at the end, we improve the way our brain is wired.

So, some people are able to figure out grammar structure by just reading and listening, others, like me, prefer to read grammar here and there to joggle the mind on understanding it.

In my case, when I want to learn some grammar, it is better if I read some rules first to “get inspiration” or a sort of boost to understand the structure, as my predisposition is the one mentioned on the approach with a machine written above. It is just faster. For others might be the opposite.

The main problem I see it is grammar has been a poor attempt on understanding how a language work from the first “missionaries” (with poor results and countless exceptions) and now we have to learn a flawed system.

For example, a funny thing, the same structure below (identical meaning) it is considered wrong in Italian and correct in Spanish.

(Italian) A me mi piace
(Spanish) A mì me gusta

When I was a teenager, always arguing with teachers, I disagreed about that rule to be incorrect because for me it was just a natural part of the speech. So, I used to say to teachers something like: “what about if when I speak I make a tiny pause, like if there was a comma between me and mi, does it become correct?”. Of course, it does!

Then I learnt Spanish, and that in that language was correct! Go figure!

The problem is that now we have “contaminated” languages with these structures that are not correct and we have to make double effort to integrate both. Plus, we don’t have the courage to admit it, erase all the nonsense and create a better grammar system!
IMHO.

[S.I]

I agree. This are just my current understanding, I don’t defend it, just state why it’s this way.

@davideroccato

The main problem

Regarding this and the following about grammar, I mentioned in one of my points, that many people are used to view the grammar to be prescriptive. And (for me) that is the problem. At school we’re taught that there’s right and wrong. But it’s should be rather “common” or “uncommon”, because first goes the language that evolves through use, and only after that linguists state, that this structure is the most common here and there and that structure’s the most common among the other population or in other dialect here and there. Sometimes those records update, btw.

But such a relativistic view is too complex for the majority, so they need to know is this “right” or “wrong” for dog sake!
So my approach is just to take it easy. The more content I process, the more common (therefore up to date)-grammar I’d pickup.

[ericb100]

@jt23

Perhaps I’m too impatient. But I worked out a scheme for verbs that covers regular verbs and with a few extensions covers most irregular verbs too. It wasn’t that much work and I feel much better about verbs.

I don’t mean to be pushy but what does it look like when you acquire, for instance, all the forms of “to have” so you can recognize them when you read and generate them when you speak?

P.S. I use “you” here not directed at you, but in the sense of “one does this”, or “one does that” .

You just start to recognize them…even just from the very first letter. Usually in this situation you have maybe enough context to guess at it. You also may have seen patterns for the rest of the word in other words (even the irregular types) such that you may know if it’s past/present/etc. If not, you just look it up. You don’t don’t necessarily need to set aside time to drill all the conjugations of “to have”. From time to time, if I look up a certain verb and am curious about some of the conjugations I’ll bring up the reverso conjugation dictionary in LingQ and just look them over. BTW…this is not to say that drilling is a bad thing. If you feel it helps you, by all means, do it. A lot of people get value from it.

Output-wise…again, you will start to understand the patterns, and you’ll come across them over and over, so even a word that you have gone through the conjugations in practice before, you should be able to reasonably guess. It might be wrong (especially if it is irregular), but probably someone will understand you. Or maybe you check back later if you aren’t confident. No rule against looking things up! Kaufmann does the same thing. I think his point, and it makes sense to me, is that you look up these things when they are most useful…like when you come across the word, or a particular grammar question. Look it up then. Don’t necessarily go and “pre-study” by learning the grammar FIRST. Then it may not solidify as you have no basis necessarily to understand the grammar concept, and no personal example to link it off of.

So Kaufmann has never said ignore grammar and the like. I haven’t read enough Krashan to know, but I’ve watched every single one of Steve Kaufmann’s videos and his only suggestion is not to worry about deliberately studying grammar. Don’t ignore it…just look it up when it suits you or when you are curious about something you just saw. Perhaps then, the concept will stick better.