hasen wrote:I'm not bringing up another method, the L2 audio with L2 reading is the second part of this method. I also didn't see anywhere the method suggests to specifically try to read content way above your level...C2 level for beginners according to rdearman. You also don't need to use this method to learn how to read either, you can learn in the target language only...like you know, the way people who actually speak the language natively did.
I mean its pretty clear in the original write-up of the method is using novels written for adult native speakers as a beginner, so again its going to be tricky for you to meaningfully contribute to the discussion if you don't understand what the method being discussed actually entails and we have to re-type stuff to explain to you what's been written down in guides. And yes of course you don't need to use this method to learn to read, but this thread is for people who are considering when/how much it could/should be used. If you have stuff you want to and are able to read without this method, then of course you don't need to use this method to help.
hasen wrote:As for Assimil, there is an English translation which can be used however you like. You can use it as a reference if necessary, read it first or whatever. There's no need to try and absorb two languages at the same time. I personally want through Assimil for Chinese and French and never used the English at all. It's natural for us to 'home in' on one language only, which is why no-one ever learns anything from watching tv shows in their original language but with subtitles in their own language.
Sure you can study whatever, however you want, I only brought up Assimil as an example of people who do learn from listening to L2 audio with L1 text. I'm not making the case that this is the best or only way people should learn, only that people do in fact do this. As for subtitles versus L-R this has been addressed earlier, so I'm not going to repeat stuff and keep the discussion going in circles.
hasen wrote:I'm just giving my opinion on the method which is just as valid as anyone saying it is a good method. The reason we have all these different and interesting methods to learn languages in the first place is fundamentally based on the fact we found the methods used traditionally in schools to be flawed. If we were not to apply criticism to our own methods as well we'd be somewhat hypocritical.
In any case, several people have already criticised for example, watching movies as being less than perfect due to the non dialogue parts which don't serve as language input.
Informed criticism is important and helpful, a good example is Alexander Argüelles who tried Listening-Reading and said it didn't work for him because he kept trying to read ahead of the audio. Personally I think he could've gotten it to work if he did more troubleshooting, but his negative experience is informative and useful, and it would be interesting to know if factor like reading speed cause more difficulty for some people to use the method.
People here are criticizing watching movies in-so-far as you brought it up here and it doesn't substitute for the things Listening-Reading is trying to do. If there was a thread about using phrasebooks versus learning basic conversation from a tutor before traveling to a country it would be weird if I went into the thread and said to everyone there "I've never used phrasebooks, but I don't think you learn phrases from them, also you should watch cooking shows instead because you want to learn recipes for food you can make in your target language", and then when people discussing phrasebooks point out that people have learned phrases from phrase books and cooking shows don't teach all the phrases people need to travel, I call them hypocritical for criticizing cooking shows. Its not that people can't have preferences of learning from phrasebooks versus watching cooking shows, its that I wouldn't be providing any meaningful information in a thread about what phrase books can do versus alternatives trying to do something similar.
You of course can prefer any learning methods you want and share any relevant experiences, positive or negative that you have. It just seems like you don't have any experience trying the method out, or an understanding of what the method is trying to do. So as someone who uses this method to learn, and is interested in discussing pros and cons of when and how much in relation to regular reading, I'm not sure what to make of you offering your imaginations of what you think will happen when people use the method, and sharing language learning activities that don't substitute for what Listening-Reading tries to do. Except to keep repeating, that if you tried it your experiences would be more informative to the discussion, and if you want to discuss alternatives you should discuss more relevant ones. There is maybe an interesting discussion to be had about efficacy of context learning versus translations more broadly, but I think that would be general enough for a different topic (and its a topic that comes up all the time on forums for language learning discussions, so its not really new).
Anyways apologies if this meta-discussion has taken us further afield from the actual discussion. I just feel like every time I discuss Listening-Reading anywhere there's always someone who wants to guess how it works without having tried it.