The Grand Pre-Outputlian Input Hypothesis

beneficii   Sun Aug 19, 2007 3:17 am GMT
Simply put, if you cannot understand a phrase/word when spoken to you normally by native speakers without surprise, you should not be producing it as input. If you cannot pick it out from a normal-paced conversation where you are listening intently and it is not out of the blue, then you should not be producing it as output, because you would not be doing it right, because you wouldn't be able to hear a native speaker say it. If you can't hear a native speaker say it, then you cannot reproduce it because your perception of it would be different from a native speaker's.
Guest   Sun Aug 19, 2007 7:37 am GMT
Who is the author of above mentioned hypothesis?

Please rephrase your above post again. I am not sure where you are getting at. Use simple and clear language. Thanks.
Guest   Sun Aug 19, 2007 8:25 am GMT
I can give a new meaning to a phrase and it will be understood from the context.
beneficii   Sun Aug 19, 2007 6:37 pm GMT
It is stating that you need to be able to pick your phrase out of something said by a native speaker that you're listening to and are following--you need to be able to do this before you should begin speaking the phrase yourself.
Guest   Sun Aug 19, 2007 6:50 pm GMT
Not neccessary. Nowadays a dictionary is a thorough one. It provides you a lot of fixed phrases that one can learn and identify them in their reading or listening that way they can reinforce it in their long term memory.
beneficii   Sun Aug 19, 2007 6:50 pm GMT
Guest,

<< I can give a new meaning to a phrase and it will be understood from the context.>>

Hmm? If you're wondering why this grand hypothesis describes a phenomenon known as "pre-outputlian input," you should look at each of the terms involved. "Pre-" means before; "output" means stuff that comes out; "-lian" is an adjectival modifier; and "input" means stuff that comes in. So, you can put it together. Also, I'm not giving new meaning to a phrase, as the phrase had never existed before. I searched the Internet, but no results came up.

Anyway, violating this hypothesis means that you're going to end up giving degenerate output.
beneficii   Sun Aug 19, 2007 6:53 pm GMT
Guest,

<< Not neccessary. Nowadays a dictionary is a thorough one. It provides you a lot of fixed phrases that one can learn and identify them in their reading or listening that way they can reinforce it in their long term memory.>>

I can understand what you're saying in that a new phrase can be learned from reading the dictionary. What I'm saying is that if you could not hear a native speaker say that phrase in a conversation where you are listening intently and where it's not completely out of the blue, then you should not yet use it, because your perception of it with regards to pronunciation or usage is still not quite the same as a native speaker's perception of it. If you would then use it in that situation, then you would be giving deviant output which could reinforce bad habits. That's all I'm saying (this is derived from Antimoon's theories). You can still learn things in picking them up from the dictionary, but you need to make sure you would be able to pick it out in conversation first.
Guest   Sun Aug 19, 2007 7:02 pm GMT
Beneficii, darling
We understand what you're saying perfectly; it is you who do not understand what we are saying.
And Antimoon theory is crap.
Jeff Hook is my man:
http://www.antimoon.com/forum/2002/41.htm
beneficii   Sun Aug 19, 2007 7:06 pm GMT
Guest,

Hold on. Which guest are you? Have you posted in this thread before? If so, as what guest (what did you say?)?
Guest   Sun Aug 19, 2007 7:43 pm GMT
"I can give a new meaning to a phrase and it will be understood from the context."
This is what I've said. It means that language is a living thing and I or anybody else can slightly change the meaning of a phrase (or word) and everybody will be able to understand a new meaning from the context. This actually happens all the time (slang), then from time to time there's a revision of standard (formal) language and this changes are being considered.
It is an answer to: "because your perception of it would be different from a native speaker's." My point is: my perception can be different than yours but it doesn't necessarily mean that it's wrong. And even if I make a huge mistake ("degenerative output") you would still probably be able to understand me from the context.
And I agree with other Guest (about dictionary). I really think that you're wrong about it and Antimoon theory is very much wrong.
Of course you should learn and learn some more and practice and listen and talk and reflect but you should never be afraid to make a mistake, it's just a process of learning and a part of life.
With respect.
beneficii   Sun Aug 19, 2007 7:59 pm GMT
OK, so we have at least 2 different people posting under the same name here ("Guest"). Right, that is true. For example, "pre-outputlian input" is my invention, but I'm a native speaker. Would a non-native speaker with little input produce a similar pattern of inventions, or would their inventions sound somehow wrong and convoluted to a native speaker? Native speakers do invent, but their inventions do still somehow sound "right" to other native speakers, while the many varied (and prolific, as a percentage of total output produced by them, compared to the percentage of native speakers' output) inventions of non-native speakers often sound awkward or not quite being to the level of a native speaker.

This is something that I think might be missed in this regard. Before you can invent, you must first have such an amount of input that you can develop an intuition of what sounds right and what doesn't, so you can apply it to your inventions. For example, Shakespeare had such a conception of the language, he was able to invent without sounding like a crazy person.

I do not have more time at the moment to continue typing, but I shall respond to your and John Hook's comments in a few hours. (Namely about how you figure out how the output you've been producing is erroneous.)
beneficii   Mon Aug 20, 2007 1:15 am GMT
OK, basically, if you're wanting to learn a language to perfection, sitting back and seeing how native speakers actually do it before opening your mouth is probably the best way.
Guest   Mon Aug 20, 2007 8:38 am GMT
<OK, basically, if you're wanting to learn a language to perfection, sitting back and seeing how native speakers actually do it before opening your mouth is probably the best way. >

Still not enough, I have watched over 150 hollywood movies, several sitcoms and documentaries before opening my mouth. Yet I try to hold a conversation with Americans -- they force me to repeat myself or simply say that "I can't understand you."

How long should we observe native speakers speaking the language and then start using the language? It coud mean anything from one year to 20 years.
beneficii   Mon Aug 20, 2007 10:51 am GMT
I don't know then. Maybe you're just retarded, or maybe the antimoon.com people and all others like them are frauds. Or something like that, I don't know. Who knows.
beneficii   Mon Aug 20, 2007 11:03 am GMT
Or maybe yet: You still have not had sufficient input. Let's see, assuming your number of 250 videos is not an exaggeration, you've had probably 250 * 90 minutes worth of input for 22,500 minutes or 375 hours. It also depends on how you handled that input and stuff. You know? Like, you know?

BTW, your English on the forum is perfect, almost too perfect....