5 ms·

That seems like an extremely inefficient way of learning a language, and does not match at all my experience nor the experience of the people I know fluent in m

That seems like an extremely inefficient way of learning a language, and does not match at all my experience nor the experience of the people I know fluent in multiple languages, and it seems to go straight against a common advice which is to speak and practice early and often, as 'producing' language is much more efficient to learn it than 'consuming' it. What makes you think 15000 hours of listening would improve anything, more than spending those 15000 hours on any other activity ? And do you have any specifics results that could give credit to your theory ? For reference, it is estimated that for hard languages, ~2200 hours of practice is required : https://linguapath.com/how-many-hours-learn-language/ https://linguapath.com/how-many-hours-learn-language/

ag315 4y ago
No, bobajeff is correct. The vast majority of language acquisition occurs through input and exposure to the language via reading and listening. Trying to speak when you have no grasp yet of the grammar and vocabulary is not an efficient use of time, plus you don't have a good grasp of the sounds early on. You're better off gaining comprehension before you try to start speaking--if you actually look at the experiences of someone like Benny Lewis, who is well known for his "speak early and often" approach, you'll note that it was only effective for him with languages he already had a decent background with, or that were reasonably close to English.
knubie 4y ago
This is a common misconception. It probably does not match your and others' experience simply because it is conventional wisdom, and most people are taught to do this. But just because most people do something a certain way does not make it the most efficient way. There are a number of reasons why you would want to focus on input early on. For starters, with very little exposure to a language, you have very little idea of what it is supposed to sound like. Not just pronunciation but word choice, grammar, and phrasing as well. So when outputting early you will make your best effort attempts, which are almost certainly going to be incorrect. Odds are these poor "best effort" attempts will stick as muscle memory and continue to be bad habits well into fluency, if you make it that far. I'm sure you've encountered many foreign speakers in English that are very fluent but have poor pronunciation or use incorrect grammar. I've never heard that "producing" a language is more efficient to learning it than "consuming" it. How can you learn anything by producing it without having "consumed" it first? That's not learning, that's inventing, and you don't want to be in the business of inventing language unless you're William Shakespeare. If you're interested in learning more about this idea, check out Stephen Krashen's Input Hypothesis [0]. In particular this quote from the Wikipedia article is salient: > Talking (output) is not practicing. Krashen stresses yet again that speaking in the target language does not result in language acquisition. Although speaking can indirectly assist in language acquisition, the ability to speak is not the cause of language learning or acquisition. Instead, comprehensible output is the effect of language acquisition. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Input_hypothesis#Input_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Input_hypothesis#Input_hypothe...
- bongobingo1 4y ago
  I think more importantly, most people find the _communication_ part exciting. Listening to 1000h of $LANG language podcasts is dramatically less enjoyable than the sense of cultural connection you get from conversation. That's all muddied by AI/programmed learning (how much connection do you get from Duolingo?) now but I think the kernel is still true. People largely learn languages to talk, not to listen, it's no wonder things are structured that way and good luck trying to sell people otherwise.
  - allisdust 4y ago
    Not if it is a movie or a tv series. Best (enjoyable) way would always be to watch something you like in a language you want to learn with subtitles for a longer term. Things like binge watching won't work though because the brain gets tired and tunes out.
    - bongobingo1 4y ago
      IMO subtitles are not that effective as you brain just stays in read-mode and you don't actually process any of the spoken language. When most languages grammar are not 1:1, so hearing "house red is mine" but reading "my house is red" isn't helpful - more true with real sentences that tend to have more than 4 words in them. Language listening skills require a fair amount of attention and focus. Though I do think there is value in watching tv series or movies you've already seen in another language _without_ subs. You're able to focus more on the dialog and pair it against your knowledge of the story structure without getting distracted. You can't only do that however, which I don't think you're suggesting. You need to have studied the language to know what words you can pick out/know/dont know.
      - nemetroid 4y ago
        I think the person you're replying to means subtitles in the target language.
        4y ago
bobajeff 4y ago
I was guessing about about 15,000 hours I just think it has to be a lot time. I'm sure speaking helps most people who study languages simply by exposing them to more input more frequently then they would otherwise be exposed to. I just don't think it is as efficient as focusing on listening first. It will lead to having an accent, grammer issues and pauses to think about how to say things. That being said good luck finding any program that doesn't focus on speaking early.
- nemetroid 4y ago
  I think there's some merit to your argument, that there's some minimal level of understanding that's required before speaking becomes meaningful, but that your time estimate is off by two orders of magnitude. Working in Sweden, where tech companies speak English internally, I've been able to follow the language learning journeys of quite a few people (including some using the strategy "don't bother"), and the people who end up the best speakers (with regard to accent, grammar and vocabulary) are invariably those who try to speak the language as much as possible as early as possible. Yes, they will have a strong accent in the beginning, but it goes away with time (though accents rarely disappear entirely). The native English speakers who've lived in the country for twenty years without speaking much Swedish daily still have strong accents.
  - bobajeff 4y ago
    Yes I also believe my estimate is off. Regardless you should have a good understanding of the language before speaking it so you won't fall into the issues of adapting new words and grammer to your current one. You also should have it be exposed to you through experience vs try to memorize definitions or you'll have to pause frequently to remember how to say things. But that may not be that realistic for most at least not without a accommodating and capable tutor.
DoryMinh 4y ago
I have to disagree. The only two benefits of making output early is 1) to have more comprehensible input from interculators, and 2) to have constructive feedback. If you have neither of these, benefit of producing output is questionable.

ag315 4y ago

No, bobajeff is correct. The vast majority of language acquisition occurs through input and exposure to the language via reading and listening. Trying to speak when you have no grasp yet of the grammar and vocabulary is not an efficient use of time, plus you don't have a good grasp of the sounds early on. You're better off gaining comprehension before you try to start speaking--if you actually look at the experiences of someone like Benny Lewis, who is well known for his "speak early and often" approach, you'll note that it was only effective for him with languages he already had a decent background with, or that were reasonably close to English.

knubie 4y ago

This is a common misconception. It probably does not match your and others' experience simply because it is conventional wisdom, and most people are taught to do this. But just because most people do something a certain way does not make it the most efficient way. There are a number of reasons why you would want to focus on input early on. For starters, with very little exposure to a language, you have very little idea of what it is supposed to sound like. Not just pronunciation but word choice, grammar, and phrasing as well. So when outputting early you will make your best effort attempts, which are almost certainly going to be incorrect. Odds are these poor "best effort" attempts will stick as muscle memory and continue to be bad habits well into fluency, if you make it that far. I'm sure you've encountered many foreign speakers in English that are very fluent but have poor pronunciation or use incorrect grammar. I've never heard that "producing" a language is more efficient to learning it than "consuming" it. How can you learn anything by producing it without having "consumed" it first? That's not learning, that's inventing, and you don't want to be in the business of inventing language unless you're William Shakespeare. If you're interested in learning more about this idea, check out Stephen Krashen's Input Hypothesis [0]. In particular this quote from the Wikipedia article is salient: > Talking (output) is not practicing. Krashen stresses yet again that speaking in the target language does not result in language acquisition. Although speaking can indirectly assist in language acquisition, the ability to speak is not the cause of language learning or acquisition. Instead, comprehensible output is the effect of language acquisition. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Input_hypothesis#Input_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Input_hypothesis#Input_hypothe...

bongobingo1 4y ago
I think more importantly, most people find the _communication_ part exciting. Listening to 1000h of $LANG language podcasts is dramatically less enjoyable than the sense of cultural connection you get from conversation. That's all muddied by AI/programmed learning (how much connection do you get from Duolingo?) now but I think the kernel is still true. People largely learn languages to talk, not to listen, it's no wonder things are structured that way and good luck trying to sell people otherwise.
- allisdust 4y ago
  Not if it is a movie or a tv series. Best (enjoyable) way would always be to watch something you like in a language you want to learn with subtitles for a longer term. Things like binge watching won't work though because the brain gets tired and tunes out.
  - bongobingo1 4y ago
    IMO subtitles are not that effective as you brain just stays in read-mode and you don't actually process any of the spoken language. When most languages grammar are not 1:1, so hearing "house red is mine" but reading "my house is red" isn't helpful - more true with real sentences that tend to have more than 4 words in them. Language listening skills require a fair amount of attention and focus. Though I do think there is value in watching tv series or movies you've already seen in another language _without_ subs. You're able to focus more on the dialog and pair it against your knowledge of the story structure without getting distracted. You can't only do that however, which I don't think you're suggesting. You need to have studied the language to know what words you can pick out/know/dont know.
    - nemetroid 4y ago
      I think the person you're replying to means subtitles in the target language.
      - 4y ago

bobajeff 4y ago

I was guessing about about 15,000 hours I just think it has to be a lot time. I'm sure speaking helps most people who study languages simply by exposing them to more input more frequently then they would otherwise be exposed to. I just don't think it is as efficient as focusing on listening first. It will lead to having an accent, grammer issues and pauses to think about how to say things. That being said good luck finding any program that doesn't focus on speaking early.

nemetroid 4y ago
I think there's some merit to your argument, that there's some minimal level of understanding that's required before speaking becomes meaningful, but that your time estimate is off by two orders of magnitude. Working in Sweden, where tech companies speak English internally, I've been able to follow the language learning journeys of quite a few people (including some using the strategy "don't bother"), and the people who end up the best speakers (with regard to accent, grammar and vocabulary) are invariably those who try to speak the language as much as possible as early as possible. Yes, they will have a strong accent in the beginning, but it goes away with time (though accents rarely disappear entirely). The native English speakers who've lived in the country for twenty years without speaking much Swedish daily still have strong accents.
- bobajeff 4y ago
  Yes I also believe my estimate is off. Regardless you should have a good understanding of the language before speaking it so you won't fall into the issues of adapting new words and grammer to your current one. You also should have it be exposed to you through experience vs try to memorize definitions or you'll have to pause frequently to remember how to say things. But that may not be that realistic for most at least not without a accommodating and capable tutor.

DoryMinh 4y ago

I have to disagree. The only two benefits of making output early is 1) to have more comprehensible input from interculators, and 2) to have constructive feedback. If you have neither of these, benefit of producing output is questionable.