A language learners’ forum

Le Baron wrote:

luke wrote:Listen-reading is built around that mysterious notion of "acquisition".

That's true, yet you don't need to acquire your native language alongside or fool about with some book of it while listening to the audio of a book you are learning.

Some psycholinguists make distinctions between acquiring L1 (native language) and L2.

Le Baron wrote:

Aya with sentence simplification for clarification wrote:READ the translation a split second before the matching text in the recording reaches your brain and simultaneously attach that meaning to what you're hearing.

Matching written texts? Why?

Because iconic (visual sensory) memory is very short, less than 1 second.

Le Baron wrote:

luke wrote:If Juan, Vlad and Pierre can't read the text well enough, with enough extra mental bandwidth to be aware that the audio narration is expressing the exact same ideas in the language they want to learn AND mentally link their mental representation of what's happening RIGHT NOW in the text to what they're hearing RIGHT NOW, and keep that "what I'm hearing and what I'm reading are THE SAME" going, they aren't listening-reading.

Now that's interesting. Yet why? Why not listen to L1 and then immediately L2?

Because echoic (auditory sensory) memory is also very short - 3 or 4 seconds.

Listen-reading uses both of these short term memory systems simultaneously. They each have limited capacity. Reducing the load on these systems - ideally immersing into a flow state - allows the student to maintain the learning state longer.

Le Baron wrote:Shall we all agree to just leave it?

That makes sense. I've been learning more as we discuss it. Your questions are good. Especially that last one.

Experience - which is related to the word "experiments" - is often the best teacher. By learning these theoretical underpinnings and understanding the mechanisms through which listen-reading is meant to work, it may help one improve one's personal implementation of that process.

Not looking to settle anything, but happy to clarify a few genuine new points raised.

Le Baron wrote:Why not listen to L1 and then immediately L2?

I think this would be really helpful, actually, for a listening-only activity, though as luke mentions short term memory is a big factor. Ideally something that would repeat them sentence by sentence, with maybe an option for different patterns like L1, L2, L2, or L2, L1, L2. It works for stuff like the old glossika audio files, but it would be easier to focus if there was an interesting narrative. Its just that the format doesn't exist, so someone would have to take the time to create them, and if pre-prepared ones were made available it would be more limited in terms of selection. I've tried it with interleaving audiobook chapters, which kind of works, but requires a much higher language level to start with to remember such long chunks.

Le Baron wrote:Why not listen L1 audio and read L2 text.

I've tried this and it works too and a few other people including Alexander Argüelles have mentioned it. I've heard a few people refer to it as Reading-Listening whenever you're trying to learn the written language. I think its mentioned less commonly, because most people want to learn correct pronunciation first. The most obvious application is for things like learning Written Chinese from Spoken Mandarin, because knowledge of one doesn't automatically translate to knowledge of the other, so seeing them together first is helpful.

I built some files that used tts voices to speak first in English and then in Spanish.
It seemed to work OK. I didn't use it much. I was thinking of glossika when I made the files.

I tried "Reading-Listening" and had trouble, because I really wasn't paying enough attention to both streams. I may not have given it a good try.

It seems to me that it might be a good idea to alternate R-L and L-R a few times if you have a text that is interesting enough.

Using translation in your native language/preferable language while listening to audio in your target language. This is a really awesome part of the L-R system. Seriously, your understanding of the plot gets to improve exponentially. When the narrator's voice is merged with comprehension. Characters COME ALIVE.
I am done with Crime and Punishment as well as Notes from Underground in German. I really enjoyed both books thanks to L-R. This is my go-to method if books are really well written and gripping. My next book will be THE IDIOT.
Do you know any rival authors who come pretty close to Fyodor Dostoevsky when it comes to writing such plots?
He or she does not have to be Russian.

Le Baron wrote:Plus the fact that I am actually 'off sick' due to an unusual occurrence of back pain and a chest infection!

"off sick" vs "out sick" is apparantly a UK vs USA difference.

...so hospitalizations are an all-time peak now and of course a lot of staff are out sick so it's strange in the united states you you say out sick so i believe in the in the uk we always say off sick you always go off sick not out sick but it's it's the same it's this is the same it's the same difference i suppose

https://youtu.be/u2N0cP3A-qU?t=228

It doesn't make sense to me. It's short for 'off work sick'. If it's changed to 'out' it's 'out work sick' and that's nonsensical.

Is some of that the writer quoting someone else? It's devoid of punctuation and this UK character spelled hospitalisation with a 'z' ! I reject both Chambers and the Oxford dictionaries' attempts to make the UK public use 'z' in words like this. Happily it has largely failed and the public refuses to comply. Clearly French patterns cannot be driven out of the language.

In Chambers online if you spell such words without 'z' in a search it returns a failed search. If you do it with 'z' the definition offers 's' an an "alternative".

I've burned my paper copy.

Le Baron wrote:It doesn't make sense to me. It's short for 'off work sick'. If it's changed to 'out' it's 'out work sick' and that's nonsensical.

Is some of that the writer quoting someone else?

I think he prepares a script from various medical institutions published reports. In this case an american one

Le Baron wrote:It's short for 'off work sick'. If it's changed to 'out' it's 'out work sick' and that's nonsensical.

Not sure how this got in the Listen-Reading thread, but "out sick" can be thought of as "out of the office, sick". Maybe it's a regional expression. It's bigger than just "out of the office", it could be "out of the game", etc. If a responsible person isn't going to show up for work, they "call in" to say they won't be there. Maybe that's also related to 'out sick'. Le Baron called in, so he's out sick. An irresponsible person doesn't "call in". They're just "off (work) sick". Luke didn't call in. He's off sick.

luke wrote:Not sure how this got in the Listen-Reading thread, but "out sick" can be thought of as "out of the office, sick". Maybe it's a regional expression. It's bigger than just "out of the office", it could be "out of the game", etc. If a responsible person isn't going to show up for work, they "call in" to say they won't be there. Maybe that's also related to 'out sick'. Le Baron called in, so he's out sick. An irresponsible person doesn't "call in". They're just "off (work) sick". Luke didn't call in. He's off sick.

Good lord, you've painted me in a good light and made yourself out to be irresponsible! I had thought about this today, this morning in fact when I was drinking my coffee. Being out of the workplace.

ryanheise wrote:

thevagrant88 wrote:I'm using it with Japanese and one of the things I've found very helpful to make it more effective is writing down the entire sentence, passage, or phrase in a hyper-literal, word for word English translation to wrap my head around the different syntax. Vladimir Skultety calls this "cave man" speak and really makes the listening-reading method more approachable with a language that has such a different structure.

Even setting aside the L-R method, reversed word order is definitely a big obstacle just on its own and it probably manifests itself in a lot of different learning methods. Like you, I'm a fan of direct translations that try to preserve word order.

I remember hearing about a Korean textbook that basically started off written in English, but then quickly moved on to a variation of English that used Korean word order, but with English words. The idea was to get you used to the SOV word order while mentally still in your native language. After this transition, it then gradually replaced the English words by their Korean counterparts.

For example, instead of saying "Now, let's learn about Korean grammar."
It might instead say "Now, Korean Grammar about learn let's."
Then later on, it might say "Now, 한국어 Grammar about learn let's." (or perhaps some romanisation of it)

I have never seen this book in person, only heard of its concept, but this is the book I wish I had started with.

I've been thinking about this exact issue - SOV - caveman or Tarzan speak - and L-R or Shadowing and how the word order makes these methods less effective or a bigger and unnecessary mental exercise. When we talk about the success or utility of a method - the L1 and L2 matter. Is the method well structured for the language pair? Are there adjustments to be made just because it's Farsi that I'm learning.

I think the answer is often "yes".