4 ms·

> Yes, it does work, according to various accounts I've seen, although 40 hours for a few months might not quite be enough (the usual figure is around 18 months

by derriz 5y ago

> Yes, it does work, according to various accounts I've seen, although 40 hours for a few months might not quite be enough (the usual figure is around 18 months of full-time immersion, and more is obviously better) Could you provide a reference to these studies or accounts? The original claim was a second language can be acquire by hundreds of hours of passive "experiencing". Your claim of 18 months full time is more like 6,000 hours if by full-time you mean all-day. This is more than an order of magnitude more than the original claim and 2 to 5 times more than then numbers I've seen in studies on how many hours it takes to achieve C1 level in a second language using regular teaching/learning techniques. There is significant variance depending on the the relationship between the learner's first language and the L2. So even if it worked (and I'm dubious - learning anything requires some effort/active practice) spending 7,000 hours of passive "experiencing" would be a hugely inefficient way to learn a language.

ehaliewicz2 5y ago
Perhaps we are having some miscommunication here. I don't know if the original poster was making a precise statement when they said "hundreds and hundreds of hours" anyway. >Could you provide a reference to these studies or accounts? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxYZvMByRjU&list=PLT9cfjU1ykbPfQL-woF8obgeagK1b_1Op https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxYZvMByRjU&list=PLT9cfjU1yk... I haven't watched any of these videos in a while so I don't remember which ones are good, and it's a lot to go through, sorry about that. But there are some accounts here of people who have followed "mostly-input" style methods. I don't think any of them are 100% passive input though, and I'm not sure anybody argued that is the best way to do it. I also seem to remember a study I found recently on whether uncomprehensible input works for language acquisition with very interesting results, but I cannot find it right now. >spending 7,000 hours of passive "experiencing" would be a hugely inefficient way to learn a language The efficiency really depends on if it's something you want to do or not, but I don't know if anybody is doing a full 12 hours a day (maybe some super hardcore people). I believe it's closer to 6, maybe 8 hours if you're very serious about it and have the time. >learning anything requires some effort/active practice Yes, you need to actually try to understand what you're listening to at least part of the time, maybe most of the time, which means you need to be actually interested in the content, otherwise you will get bored quickly. But passive listening while you are doing other things definitely helps in combination with active study. I'm not sure if we're using "passive" in the same way though. Actively focusing on, and trying to understand what you are listening to isn't what I'd call passive.

by derriz 5y ago

ehaliewicz2 5y ago

Perhaps we are having some miscommunication here. I don't know if the original poster was making a precise statement when they said "hundreds and hundreds of hours" anyway. >Could you provide a reference to these studies or accounts? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxYZvMByRjU&list=PLT9cfjU1ykbPfQL-woF8obgeagK1b_1Op https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxYZvMByRjU&list=PLT9cfjU1yk... I haven't watched any of these videos in a while so I don't remember which ones are good, and it's a lot to go through, sorry about that. But there are some accounts here of people who have followed "mostly-input" style methods. I don't think any of them are 100% passive input though, and I'm not sure anybody argued that is the best way to do it. I also seem to remember a study I found recently on whether uncomprehensible input works for language acquisition with very interesting results, but I cannot find it right now. >spending 7,000 hours of passive "experiencing" would be a hugely inefficient way to learn a language The efficiency really depends on if it's something you want to do or not, but I don't know if anybody is doing a full 12 hours a day (maybe some super hardcore people). I believe it's closer to 6, maybe 8 hours if you're very serious about it and have the time. >learning anything requires some effort/active practice Yes, you need to actually try to understand what you're listening to at least part of the time, maybe most of the time, which means you need to be actually interested in the content, otherwise you will get bored quickly. But passive listening while you are doing other things definitely helps in combination with active study. I'm not sure if we're using "passive" in the same way though. Actively focusing on, and trying to understand what you are listening to isn't what I'd call passive.