6 ms·

> Listening comprehension, IMHO is the last skill to develop in learning a foreign language. [...] The first phase of language learning is mostly theory. Mostl

> Listening comprehension, IMHO is the last skill to develop in learning a foreign language. [...] The first phase of language learning is mostly theory. Mostly vocabulary and grammar. The second phase is mostly reading, reinforcing the theory, forming a good understanding of how the language is used. Additionally writing things, chatting and the like. Third phase is immersion with speaking and listening. To clarify: This is the way skills develop when people extensively study but barely learn a foreign language, the way typically happens in classrooms. It is a cruel method with poor results. All of the actual learning of the language per se happens from listening to (or reading) comprehensible input, which should start from day 1 (yes this takes considerable effort for teachers to implement). Front-loading explicit study of grammar is a total waste of time. Memorizing atomized vocabulary words is also relatively ineffective. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Input_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Input_hypothesis

EliRivers 7y ago
Front-loading explicit study of grammar is a total waste of time. I am far more competent in written Japanese than spoken, both reading and writing it, essentially through understanding grammar. "Total waste of time" seems a harsh appraisal.
- jacobolus 7y ago
  If you take two novices and dump one into arbitrarily extensive grammar lessons for 2 years, and the other into spending a couple hours per day listening (i.e. actively focusing attention on trying to understand what is being said) to the language for 2 years, at the end the first person won’t speak the language and the second person will. The first person is going to learn something, but it’s not an efficient use of their time if the goal is language fluency. If you want to learn to read, then by far the most effective use of time is to practice reading, with whatever minimal bootstrapping is necessary up front to start reading very basic material. This is not just speculation. There has been a ton of scholarly research on this topic.
  - tasogare 7y ago
    >spending a couple hours per day listening [...] to the language for 2 years, at the end the first person won’t speak the language and the second person will. It doesn’t work like that. For the student to make any progress he need to be able to understand most of the things in the speech (this is called comprehensible input, and the theory is both applicable to listening and reading). That’s why there are people living in foreign country for years yet cannot speak or understand the language at all. Also it’s kinda stupid to say that language learning must be either grammar/voc learning or listening: it needs to be both. Classes are needed because they make portion of listening material comprehensible, which is impossible by listening only.
    - jacobolus 7y ago
      > (this is called comprehensible input, and the theory is both applicable to listening and reading) Notice the link I put in my first comment. Yes, the more comprehensible the early exposure, the faster the student will advance at the beginning. If content is too advanced learning will be much slower. It would be great if more language teachers and curricula put more significant effort into developing hiqh-quality materials aimed at being largely comprehensible to complete beginners. Many extant materials and courses do a very poor job at this. > there are people living in foreign country for years yet cannot speak or understand the language at all. Learning a language takes consistent deliberate effort. > kinda stupid to say that language learning must be either grammar/voc learning or listening: it needs to be both Grammar lessons have low marginal value for language learners, and are by no means necessary. Many people learn a foreign language without any formal grammar instruction whatsoever.
      - bayesian_horse 7y ago
        Yes, formal grammar instruction is optional. But it does accelerate things. I mean, it may depend on your goals. If you are focused on communicating, and don't actually intend on using the language efficiently and competently, then maybe formal grammar is a waste of time. Otherwise you need to have this information. You have a choice to get it in a systematic way or to decipher it on your own.
SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
That doesn't really pass the smell test for me. Even native speakers of a language in its native country are explicitly taught grammar and vocabulary in school. I could believe the Wikipedia article's weaker claim, that there's an extra step between instinctively remembering "了 is the perfective particle" and being fluent in the perfective aspect. But the idea that explicit instruction is useless, that consciously knowing grammar won't help you acquire it at all, seems obviously wrong.
- jacobolus 7y ago
  > Even native speakers of a language in its native country are explicitly taught grammar and vocabulary in school It is not that there’s no value whatsoever in formal study of grammar. It might come in handy if you want to be a linguist, an editor, a high-level writer, a lawyer, or the like. If students want to take a grammar course in high school or college that seems okay with me. It just doesn’t teach basic language fluency. Native speakers don’t start studying grammar until they have had 10+ years of full-time experience with the language. And anecdotally, the students who spend a lot of time reading independently don’t really need the grammar lessons (they already have a subconscious understanding of what is or isn’t grammatical, and the typical school grammar lesson is very slow and obvious for them), and the students who don’t spend any time reading independently and regularly speaking with educated adults would get more value out of instead spending the time reading or listening to someone read. YMMV.
  - pas 7y ago
    Grammar for learning a second language is helpful. Helps you to understand how to map what you want to say, and what you heard/read. That said, brute force practice work reeeeally well for language. And naturally people will build a kind of internal grammar anyway. But knowing what is what can help with that too.
  - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
    But I don't follow the basic assumption that the way native speakers become fluent is particularly effective. No matter how much explicit instruction helps, native speakers couldn't learn basic fluency that way, because there's no way to deliver explicit instruction to a baby.
flomble 7y ago
> Front-loading explicit study of grammar is a total waste of time. I completely disagree, partly because studying grammar is an effective shortcut to making input more comprehensible. If I memorise the verb conjugations for Spanish verbs, for example, I now understand more information about every sentence (e.g. omitted verb subjects and tense/mood information). It will still be necessary to listen and read extensively in order to internalise the formation and meaning of the verb forms, but it skips a lengthy process of reverse engineering. Ditto for producing your own sentences, which I think is also fundamentally important for learning a language. > Memorizing atomized vocabulary words is also relatively ineffective. This is absolutely true; when using flashcards or spaced repetition, it is vastly better to have a full sentence with the target word blanked out compared to only having the definition.
james_s_tayler 7y ago
>Front-loading explicit study of grammar is a total waste of time. Memorizing atomized vocabulary words is also relatively ineffective. Self studied Japanese to fluency that way. AJATT method but largely concentrated on front loading all the grammar in 4 months then built 10k vocab over the following year. Worked like an absolute charm.
ximeng 7y ago
I self-studied Chinese mostly using Skritter (skritter.com) for spaced repetition of vocabulary and found it effective. The problem with learning via listening is the availability of suitable material. I estimate you need around 20k of common words, characters and phrases for understanding a large variety of vocabulary for everyday use (e.g. watching television, reading newspapers, daily conversation, business discussions, books, songs, poetry, etc.). This takes a considerable amount of time to commit to memory, so doing it efficiently is important - at 2000 hours a year, this is two years of memorising 5 items an hour, which is ambitious. While learning, it is necessary to take into account the fact that the same word might be used in different ways in different contexts. I agree grammar is relatively irrelevant from a wider perspective - there's just not that much of it compared to vocabulary, and an intuitive understanding is fine for the most part. However it is also typically taught at a beginner level with basic vocabulary and varied sentence structures, which are useful in themselves (not "a total waste of time"). Understanding the terminology also makes using reference materials easier in some cases. In practical terms then, carefully graded tuition and listening practice might be the ideal, but in practice this is an expensive route for most people when you are looking at two years of full-time learning. Realistically drilling vocabulary will get you a long way towards understanding native materials (e.g. movies with subtitles), and allows you to self-study by looking up definitions in the native language. It also allows this to happen relatively cheaply, as you can study yourself. You're not going to get to fluency without a wide vocabulary, and from a vocab / time unit level, drilling vocab is not a bad way to get there.
usaar333 7y ago
One problem with comprehensible input methods (like what Rosetta Stone does?) is that it can be extremely boring as an adult and ultimately demotivating. Studying grammar can be fun - and it feels like an accomplishment to be able to say some pretty complex things in Chinese. Sure my listening isn't that great.. but on the other hand being limited to a two year old's conversation ability isn't particularly enticing. Also, fwiw, reading and listening is a way different skill... Thanks to the ability to rewind when reading
- bayesian_horse 7y ago
  In my opinion it takes years to be able to comprehend random sentences uttered by native speakers, in pretty much any language. It just takes a brain that amount of time to short-cut and organize all the information in an efficient enough manner.
bayesian_horse 7y ago
I've heard the idea that somehow "front-loading" doesn't work. For one thing, it does. I have done it, repeatedly. I have rarely heard people have success without devoting a lot of time on "front-loading". You have to learn the grammar rules somehow. If you want to do it through assimilation, as supposed to somebody telling you how it works, well, that's possible but takes a lot longer and is more error prone. I'm not saying you shouldn't do "output" exercises. I'm just saying that in order to learn information, you better receive it somehow. And you can receive that information either in an orderly fashion ("front-loading") or in a random incomplete fashion. You can't guess your way through language learning.

EliRivers 7y ago

Front-loading explicit study of grammar is a total waste of time. I am far more competent in written Japanese than spoken, both reading and writing it, essentially through understanding grammar. "Total waste of time" seems a harsh appraisal.

jacobolus 7y ago
If you take two novices and dump one into arbitrarily extensive grammar lessons for 2 years, and the other into spending a couple hours per day listening (i.e. actively focusing attention on trying to understand what is being said) to the language for 2 years, at the end the first person won’t speak the language and the second person will. The first person is going to learn something, but it’s not an efficient use of their time if the goal is language fluency. If you want to learn to read, then by far the most effective use of time is to practice reading, with whatever minimal bootstrapping is necessary up front to start reading very basic material. This is not just speculation. There has been a ton of scholarly research on this topic.
- tasogare 7y ago
  >spending a couple hours per day listening [...] to the language for 2 years, at the end the first person won’t speak the language and the second person will. It doesn’t work like that. For the student to make any progress he need to be able to understand most of the things in the speech (this is called comprehensible input, and the theory is both applicable to listening and reading). That’s why there are people living in foreign country for years yet cannot speak or understand the language at all. Also it’s kinda stupid to say that language learning must be either grammar/voc learning or listening: it needs to be both. Classes are needed because they make portion of listening material comprehensible, which is impossible by listening only.
  - jacobolus 7y ago
    > (this is called comprehensible input, and the theory is both applicable to listening and reading) Notice the link I put in my first comment. Yes, the more comprehensible the early exposure, the faster the student will advance at the beginning. If content is too advanced learning will be much slower. It would be great if more language teachers and curricula put more significant effort into developing hiqh-quality materials aimed at being largely comprehensible to complete beginners. Many extant materials and courses do a very poor job at this. > there are people living in foreign country for years yet cannot speak or understand the language at all. Learning a language takes consistent deliberate effort. > kinda stupid to say that language learning must be either grammar/voc learning or listening: it needs to be both Grammar lessons have low marginal value for language learners, and are by no means necessary. Many people learn a foreign language without any formal grammar instruction whatsoever.
    - bayesian_horse 7y ago
      Yes, formal grammar instruction is optional. But it does accelerate things. I mean, it may depend on your goals. If you are focused on communicating, and don't actually intend on using the language efficiently and competently, then maybe formal grammar is a waste of time. Otherwise you need to have this information. You have a choice to get it in a systematic way or to decipher it on your own.

SpicyLemonZest 7y ago

That doesn't really pass the smell test for me. Even native speakers of a language in its native country are explicitly taught grammar and vocabulary in school. I could believe the Wikipedia article's weaker claim, that there's an extra step between instinctively remembering "了 is the perfective particle" and being fluent in the perfective aspect. But the idea that explicit instruction is useless, that consciously knowing grammar won't help you acquire it at all, seems obviously wrong.

jacobolus 7y ago
> Even native speakers of a language in its native country are explicitly taught grammar and vocabulary in school It is not that there’s no value whatsoever in formal study of grammar. It might come in handy if you want to be a linguist, an editor, a high-level writer, a lawyer, or the like. If students want to take a grammar course in high school or college that seems okay with me. It just doesn’t teach basic language fluency. Native speakers don’t start studying grammar until they have had 10+ years of full-time experience with the language. And anecdotally, the students who spend a lot of time reading independently don’t really need the grammar lessons (they already have a subconscious understanding of what is or isn’t grammatical, and the typical school grammar lesson is very slow and obvious for them), and the students who don’t spend any time reading independently and regularly speaking with educated adults would get more value out of instead spending the time reading or listening to someone read. YMMV.
- pas 7y ago
  Grammar for learning a second language is helpful. Helps you to understand how to map what you want to say, and what you heard/read. That said, brute force practice work reeeeally well for language. And naturally people will build a kind of internal grammar anyway. But knowing what is what can help with that too.
- SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
  But I don't follow the basic assumption that the way native speakers become fluent is particularly effective. No matter how much explicit instruction helps, native speakers couldn't learn basic fluency that way, because there's no way to deliver explicit instruction to a baby.

flomble 7y ago

> Front-loading explicit study of grammar is a total waste of time. I completely disagree, partly because studying grammar is an effective shortcut to making input more comprehensible. If I memorise the verb conjugations for Spanish verbs, for example, I now understand more information about every sentence (e.g. omitted verb subjects and tense/mood information). It will still be necessary to listen and read extensively in order to internalise the formation and meaning of the verb forms, but it skips a lengthy process of reverse engineering. Ditto for producing your own sentences, which I think is also fundamentally important for learning a language. > Memorizing atomized vocabulary words is also relatively ineffective. This is absolutely true; when using flashcards or spaced repetition, it is vastly better to have a full sentence with the target word blanked out compared to only having the definition.

james_s_tayler 7y ago

>Front-loading explicit study of grammar is a total waste of time. Memorizing atomized vocabulary words is also relatively ineffective. Self studied Japanese to fluency that way. AJATT method but largely concentrated on front loading all the grammar in 4 months then built 10k vocab over the following year. Worked like an absolute charm.

ximeng 7y ago

I self-studied Chinese mostly using Skritter (skritter.com) for spaced repetition of vocabulary and found it effective. The problem with learning via listening is the availability of suitable material. I estimate you need around 20k of common words, characters and phrases for understanding a large variety of vocabulary for everyday use (e.g. watching television, reading newspapers, daily conversation, business discussions, books, songs, poetry, etc.). This takes a considerable amount of time to commit to memory, so doing it efficiently is important - at 2000 hours a year, this is two years of memorising 5 items an hour, which is ambitious. While learning, it is necessary to take into account the fact that the same word might be used in different ways in different contexts. I agree grammar is relatively irrelevant from a wider perspective - there's just not that much of it compared to vocabulary, and an intuitive understanding is fine for the most part. However it is also typically taught at a beginner level with basic vocabulary and varied sentence structures, which are useful in themselves (not "a total waste of time"). Understanding the terminology also makes using reference materials easier in some cases. In practical terms then, carefully graded tuition and listening practice might be the ideal, but in practice this is an expensive route for most people when you are looking at two years of full-time learning. Realistically drilling vocabulary will get you a long way towards understanding native materials (e.g. movies with subtitles), and allows you to self-study by looking up definitions in the native language. It also allows this to happen relatively cheaply, as you can study yourself. You're not going to get to fluency without a wide vocabulary, and from a vocab / time unit level, drilling vocab is not a bad way to get there.

usaar333 7y ago

One problem with comprehensible input methods (like what Rosetta Stone does?) is that it can be extremely boring as an adult and ultimately demotivating. Studying grammar can be fun - and it feels like an accomplishment to be able to say some pretty complex things in Chinese. Sure my listening isn't that great.. but on the other hand being limited to a two year old's conversation ability isn't particularly enticing. Also, fwiw, reading and listening is a way different skill... Thanks to the ability to rewind when reading

bayesian_horse 7y ago
In my opinion it takes years to be able to comprehend random sentences uttered by native speakers, in pretty much any language. It just takes a brain that amount of time to short-cut and organize all the information in an efficient enough manner.

bayesian_horse 7y ago

I've heard the idea that somehow "front-loading" doesn't work. For one thing, it does. I have done it, repeatedly. I have rarely heard people have success without devoting a lot of time on "front-loading". You have to learn the grammar rules somehow. If you want to do it through assimilation, as supposed to somebody telling you how it works, well, that's possible but takes a lot longer and is more error prone. I'm not saying you shouldn't do "output" exercises. I'm just saying that in order to learn information, you better receive it somehow. And you can receive that information either in an orderly fashion ("front-loading") or in a random incomplete fashion. You can't guess your way through language learning.