to Tom,
Tom, you are a strong proponent of the phonetic alphabet and phonetic transcription. So it seems that in the case of pronunciation you don't think that input alone is enough for a learner to speak well. The knowledge of the English phonetic system is of great help to him/her. It prepares them to analyze what they hear - this audio input they get. Your recommended method of learning pronunciation allows for something more than input alone. In one of your articles you wrote:
"an r should be pronounced only in American English. No r is heard in British English". This is a rule, isn't it?
On the other hand, when it comes to learning grammar, you draw the line at using rules. How's that?
In my opinion, there are many good rules, which, if well formulated, would help learners analyze English sentences which they encounter in their learning process.
to Krzysztof Cichy,
Acquisition of the first language is a far cry from learning a foreign language.
If you really wanted to learn like a child, you'd have to start from babbling, which is one of the earliest language acquisition stages. You'd also need to be younger than 12-14 years old or, according to some scientists, even younger than 5.
What is meant by "learning like a child" ?
I see some problems with this phrase.
A child has nothing else to do. It can spend its days absorbing language. It doesn't go to work, it doesn't do homework, and it doesn't do housework. It can focus its mind on language only.
How can Krzysztof Cichy learn like a child? Can he stop studying or working? Can he spend all his days absorbing English sentences? My guess is that he cannot.
Krzysztof Cichy once wrote to me that my method of learning Norwegian is similar to the way a baby learns its first language:
http://www.antimoon.com/norsk/method/language_instinct.htm
Perhaps it is "similar". But it is different. The differences follow:
I am not exposed to Norwegian every day. There are days when I do nothing about Norwegian. And when I deal with Norwegian, it's rarely more than two hours. But a child is exposed to language every day, all day long.
I rely on my knowledge of other languages: English, German. A child doesn't know other languages.
I mostly read and a child only listens. The difference is crucial because I can interrupt reading and come back to the sentence that I don't understand. I can re-play my input. I can read one sentence again and again and think about it for a long time. And all the time the sentence is written clearly before me. My input is precise - it's written very clearly on paper. But a child's input is "hanging in the air", it disappears very quickly.
to Allisha:
<<<<
Your recommended method of learning pronunciation allows for something more than input alone. In one of your articles you wrote:
"an r should be pronounced only in American English. No r is heard in British English". This is a rule, isn't it?
On the other hand, when it comes to learning grammar, you draw the line at using rules. How's that?
>>>>
Yes, this is what I recommend.
I don't understand the question "How's that?".
(BTW, what you quoted is not a rule -- it's the description of a phonetic symbol.)
<<<<
In my opinion, there are many good rules, which, if well formulated, would help learners analyze English sentences which they encounter in their learning process.
>>>>
I know I learned a lot through reading WITHOUT grammar rules.
In any case, I'm not saying learners should avoid grammar rules at all costs. I'm just saying that rules are a lot less important than input.
I am learning German and I do not plan to read about the rules of German grammar. I may figure out some rules on my own (through reading and analyzing example sentences), but I'm not going to memorize rules or do grammar exercises. I'm focusing on example sentences.
To Lenneberg:
I don't understand why I should be so young to learn a foreign language in a way a child does. Do you think that we lose the ability to learn by listening/reading and then imitating what we've heard/read? When does it happen? Is it possible that it doesn't happen?
My opinion is that we don't lose this ability. We can forget it if we don't use it - in this case it's a sort of a latent ability. I believe we can wake it up and use it maybe not exactly like a child but in a similar manner. For example we can be more conscious in perceiving new structures. When we see a new phrase or structure that we want to remember we can write it down and repeat afterwards (e.g. with the help of SuperMemo) - a child doesn't do it but we can.
To Michal:
I wouldn't say that a child spends its days only absorbing language. A child does many other things e.g. plays, sleeps (much more than adults) and lies unproductively. I agree, however, that it can spend much more time learning a language than e.g. I can. Therefore, adults have to be more aware of what they learn to reach the efficiency of a child.
I think that the differences you describe make your process of learning Norwegian more effective. Your input is "precise" as you say and it compensates for the smaller amount of time that you can devote to learning.
to Krzysztof Cichy,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I don't understand why I should be so young to learn a foreign language in a way a child does. Do you think that we lose the ability to learn by listening/reading and then imitating what we've heard/read? When does it happen? Is it possible that it doesn't happen?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
E.H. Lenneberg is an author of the book "Biological Foundations of Language". He believes that language is an innate behavior, just like walking. He also believes that there is a 'critical period' for the acquisition of this behavior. This critical period roughly starts at the age of 2 and ends at puberty (12-14). Why at puberty? - Because this is when lateralization of the brain is normally completed, and lateralization is a process by which the two hemispheres develop specialized functions. Once lateralization is over, the brain loses its plasticity and language acquisition becomes difficult, if at all possible. The implication of this fact is that if you are after puberty, your ability to acquire a foreign language is very limited ('acquire' means 'learn effortlessly like a child'). In other words, acquisition is replaced by conscious learning, which requires considerable time and effort. Proponents of the critical period hypothesis also claim that if you start learning a foreign language after puberty, your have small chances to be ever as good as native speakers of this language.
Lenneberg believes that the critical period ends at puberty but there are scientists, for example Krashen, who claim that it happens even earlier - at the age of 5.
Krashen shortens the critical period but he also believes that under certain conditions it is possible to learn like child, even long after puberty. So there is a spark of hope ;-)
I am glad that there is a knowledgeable linguist writing for our fourm. Thank you, Lenneberg! (or whatever your name will be next time) :-)
To Lenneberg:
I think the hypothesis that lateralization is responsible for the loss of the ability to acquire a language is very interesting. Has anyone conducted experiments to prove it? E.g. in some sort of brain diseases the process of lateralization doesn't happen (or isn't completed) - has anyone tried to check if such people have better language skills?
I agree that we can't learn a foreign language exactly like children but we can benefit from the fact that we know that children learn a language effectively. I think that we can make some of the parts of our learning process similar to children's. I especially mean example sentences - children get a lot of these and I think that if we get more example sentences too, we will learn more too. I agree that our process has to be conscious and requires much effort. However, if we learn e.g. by reading a book that we like, the effort won't be torture and it can give us pleasure and motivation. From my own experience of learning English I can say that I have never had such pleasure and motivation from learning by swotting grammar rules. I think that if we learn by example sentences we will speak and write more fluently (using a grammar rule slows it down). If we learn by grammar rules we will never learn to speak and write well.
This is my understanding of the phrase "learn like child" - I am not suggesting that if we want to learn a foreign language we should take a year off and try to imitate children's language acquisition (However, it would be an interesting experiment if someone did it ;-)
I just see similarities between learning by example sentences and learning like child.
to Krzysztof:
"learn like A child" -- you copied Lenneberg's mistake, who wrote "...under certain conditions it is possible to learn like child...". :-)
Did you imitate the phrase consciously (did you wonder about the lack of article), or did you internalize it unconsciously?
Lenneberg hints at the possibility of learning like a child even after the critical period. In Lenneberg's own words, there is a "spark of hope" for adult learners that they can learn as effectively as children.
Lenneberg, what is exactly the spark of hope that you mention?
Personally, I see the spark of hope in something that I call: the equivalent of a child's language learning instinct. It is an ability that an adult can have and that makes language learning effective.
The child's language learning instinct is a physiological phenomenon which is believed to disappear completely after the critical period. But this instinct can be perceived as a particular set of abilities rather than a physiological phenomenon. We could discover what those abilities are and develop them in adult learners from scratch, on a different physiological basis.
In other words, I'm thinking of reproducing the formal properties of the instinct and implementing them anew in the adult brain. If it is possible, then we don't need to worry that the physiological foundation for the instinct disappears. We could recreate what it takes to be an effective language learner.
To Tom:
I think I could have been tired and so I mixed: "learning like a child" and "learning like children" :-)
Maybe reading Lenneberg's mistake played a role too. This would mean that I should "Be careful, this forum can damage my English" ;-)
BTW, "learning like child" (without a determiner) sounds really awful! ;-)
to Krzysztof:
You wrote "learn like child" twice, and since you weren't aware of it, this may support the hypothesis that input can influence output in an unconscious way. In this case, "bad input can lead to bad output".
The "tiredness explanation" is weak at best. You made no other mistakes. Just this one (twice).
Maybe I should use this situation as an argument in my discussion with Jeff Hook in
http://www.antimoon.com/forum/2002/41.htm. :-)
