4 ms·

Additionally, apart from Pimsleur, language courses are structured very differently from how one first learns to speak.

brobinson 11y ago
I think Michel Thomas' courses are vastly different from every other method, too, including Pimsleur. No reading/writing, only verbal communication... it's awesome.
GolDDranks 11y ago
Pimsleur is a child of it's age; a so-called audio-lingual method that has its roots in Skinnerian behaviorism. I think no language acquisition researcher takes it seriously any more. Check This out for a modern viewpoint: https://youtu.be/X1LRoKQzb9U https://youtu.be/X1LRoKQzb9U
- surement 11y ago
  I see what you mean, but I've learned several languages using Pimsleur and native speakers are almost always shocked at how well I can speak their language.
  - ksenzee 11y ago
    That's still n=1. It might just be that you're particularly good at language acquisition, and you'll succeed no matter what method you use.
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      Or just particularly receptive to the method: X is the best method for me to learn a language is a very different proposition than X is the best method for people in general to learn a language.
      - surement 11y ago
        > Or just particularly receptive to the method If this is true, then my anecdotal experience is still evidence against this: > I think no language acquisition researcher takes it seriously any more
        dragonwriter 11y ago
        Actually, "X works particularly well compared to other methods for one person" (even if demonstrated -- which your experience does not do, though it is one of many possible interpretations of that experience) is not evidence against "No language acquisition researcher takes X seriously".
        surement 11y ago
        you originally said > X is the best method for me to learn a language if this statement is true, then it is evidence that researchers should not dismiss it. This: > X works particularly well compared to other methods for one person is not the same statement.
    - surement 11y ago
      One can still reason when presented with an anecdote.

I think Michel Thomas' courses are vastly different from every other method, too, including Pimsleur. No reading/writing, only verbal communication... it's awesome.

GolDDranks 11y ago

Pimsleur is a child of it's age; a so-called audio-lingual method that has its roots in Skinnerian behaviorism. I think no language acquisition researcher takes it seriously any more. Check This out for a modern viewpoint: https://youtu.be/X1LRoKQzb9U https://youtu.be/X1LRoKQzb9U

surement 11y ago
I see what you mean, but I've learned several languages using Pimsleur and native speakers are almost always shocked at how well I can speak their language.
- ksenzee 11y ago
  That's still n=1. It might just be that you're particularly good at language acquisition, and you'll succeed no matter what method you use.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    Or just particularly receptive to the method: X is the best method for me to learn a language is a very different proposition than X is the best method for people in general to learn a language.
    - surement 11y ago
      > Or just particularly receptive to the method If this is true, then my anecdotal experience is still evidence against this: > I think no language acquisition researcher takes it seriously any more
      - dragonwriter 11y ago
        Actually, "X works particularly well compared to other methods for one person" (even if demonstrated -- which your experience does not do, though it is one of many possible interpretations of that experience) is not evidence against "No language acquisition researcher takes X seriously".
        surement 11y ago
        you originally said > X is the best method for me to learn a language if this statement is true, then it is evidence that researchers should not dismiss it. This: > X works particularly well compared to other methods for one person is not the same statement.
  - surement 11y ago
    One can still reason when presented with an anecdote.