3 ms·

Very intriguing! Any links you can share on this theory? A quick Google search gave me an overview, but I don’t see how this is particularly useful for second l

by _xnmw 4y ago

Very intriguing! Any links you can share on this theory? A quick Google search gave me an overview, but I don’t see how this is particularly useful for second language acquisition.

mumblemumble 4y ago
The big take-away is that explicit study of grammar rules, and even vocabulary to some extent, is kind of a waste of time. They encode information in a format and region of the brain that generally isn't accessible to the areas that are used in fluent communication. The way our brains have evolved to build up a functional language model is by observing lots and lots (and lots) of examples of the language being used for communication. Which implies that, even from the very beginning, graded readers, level-appropriate dialogues, etc. should be the foundation of a language study program and not, as most language instruction courses and apps make it, just a little bit of icing on top. The primacy of input is also kind of a big deal, and, at least for me, it took a long time before I was willing to let go of forced production exercises such as "translate this sentence into your target language". Perhaps in part because they're so endemic to language learning resources. You can't abandon them without also abandoning Duolingo and most formal classroom programs. But the problem with these kind of practice exercises is, we now know that it's normal for there to be a long delay between when someone can comprehend a grammatical structure, and when they can use it in a natural setting. (Anyone with kids over a certain age should be familiar with the phenomenon.) Forced production relies on - and reinforces - that aforementioned misplaced encoding, and there's a mountain of research demonstrating that skill in performing those sorts of exercises simply doesn't correlate with the development of communicative fluency. Tangentially, the transformer architecture that's taken natural language processing by storm has some interesting similarities to the leading model among SLA researchers for how language is represented in the human brain. Which isn't the monitor model itself, but might hint at a mechanism for a few parts of the model. Acquisition order, for example.
- djmips 4y ago
  Given you eureka moment, besides what you didn't do (as you outlined), what did you do to increase your second language real world examples with feedback? Did you try immersion?
  - mumblemumble 4y ago
    "Immersion" is a tricky word that I don't feel comfortable using without qualification. What I like to do is spend at least an hour a day reading, listening to podcasts and audiobooks, or watching videos. A good day for me is a day when 100% of my media consumption for entertainment purposes is happening in my target language. And that really is it. I don't really bother soliciting explicit feedback. I suspect that it's potentially harmful because it can trigger the affective monitor. I've also encountered some SLA researchers saying the research indicates that it's not actually helpful. I'm becoming increasingly enamored of Bill VanPatten's conceit that, in a language learning context, there's no such thing as errors, there are only differences between the learner's interlanguage and their target language. Which is something that should be embraced as a natural and essential part of the process rather than a problem that needs explicit correction. So what I do instead is just pay attention to whether successful communication has happened. When getting input, that means I'm focused on whether I understood the content or not. I want it to be a little bit difficult, enough so that I'm not getting bored, but not so difficult that I feel I'm really straining to comprehend. (There's nothing scientific to that, it's just personal taste.) When I'm having a conversation with somebody, I'm just interested in whether or not I am having a successful interaction. In a sense, what I'm trying to do is set up a feedback loop that optimizes for pure enjoyment, which, for me, seems to be a very good proxy for learning effectiveness. To that end, I don't really intend to shit on Duolingo and practice exercises and whatnot. A lot of people enjoy those approaches to language learning, and the single most important thing is that you enjoy what you're doing.

by _xnmw 4y ago

Very intriguing! Any links you can share on this theory? A quick Google search gave me an overview, but I don’t see how this is particularly useful for second language acquisition.

mumblemumble 4y ago

The big take-away is that explicit study of grammar rules, and even vocabulary to some extent, is kind of a waste of time. They encode information in a format and region of the brain that generally isn't accessible to the areas that are used in fluent communication. The way our brains have evolved to build up a functional language model is by observing lots and lots (and lots) of examples of the language being used for communication. Which implies that, even from the very beginning, graded readers, level-appropriate dialogues, etc. should be the foundation of a language study program and not, as most language instruction courses and apps make it, just a little bit of icing on top. The primacy of input is also kind of a big deal, and, at least for me, it took a long time before I was willing to let go of forced production exercises such as "translate this sentence into your target language". Perhaps in part because they're so endemic to language learning resources. You can't abandon them without also abandoning Duolingo and most formal classroom programs. But the problem with these kind of practice exercises is, we now know that it's normal for there to be a long delay between when someone can comprehend a grammatical structure, and when they can use it in a natural setting. (Anyone with kids over a certain age should be familiar with the phenomenon.) Forced production relies on - and reinforces - that aforementioned misplaced encoding, and there's a mountain of research demonstrating that skill in performing those sorts of exercises simply doesn't correlate with the development of communicative fluency. Tangentially, the transformer architecture that's taken natural language processing by storm has some interesting similarities to the leading model among SLA researchers for how language is represented in the human brain. Which isn't the monitor model itself, but might hint at a mechanism for a few parts of the model. Acquisition order, for example.

djmips 4y ago
Given you eureka moment, besides what you didn't do (as you outlined), what did you do to increase your second language real world examples with feedback? Did you try immersion?
- mumblemumble 4y ago
  "Immersion" is a tricky word that I don't feel comfortable using without qualification. What I like to do is spend at least an hour a day reading, listening to podcasts and audiobooks, or watching videos. A good day for me is a day when 100% of my media consumption for entertainment purposes is happening in my target language. And that really is it. I don't really bother soliciting explicit feedback. I suspect that it's potentially harmful because it can trigger the affective monitor. I've also encountered some SLA researchers saying the research indicates that it's not actually helpful. I'm becoming increasingly enamored of Bill VanPatten's conceit that, in a language learning context, there's no such thing as errors, there are only differences between the learner's interlanguage and their target language. Which is something that should be embraced as a natural and essential part of the process rather than a problem that needs explicit correction. So what I do instead is just pay attention to whether successful communication has happened. When getting input, that means I'm focused on whether I understood the content or not. I want it to be a little bit difficult, enough so that I'm not getting bored, but not so difficult that I feel I'm really straining to comprehend. (There's nothing scientific to that, it's just personal taste.) When I'm having a conversation with somebody, I'm just interested in whether or not I am having a successful interaction. In a sense, what I'm trying to do is set up a feedback loop that optimizes for pure enjoyment, which, for me, seems to be a very good proxy for learning effectiveness. To that end, I don't really intend to shit on Duolingo and practice exercises and whatnot. A lot of people enjoy those approaches to language learning, and the single most important thing is that you enjoy what you're doing.