Cainntear wrote:He didn't invent anything. He didn't create anything. He told people to do something a particular way, and practically nobody even tried doing what he actually said. And yet here we are, years later, a bunch of clearly intellectually capable individuals talking as though anything that looks slightly similar to what he did is somehow "his invention". There have been parallel texts since no later than 196 BC. There has been simultaneous reading and listening since the invention of recorded sound (Linguaphone started on wax phonograph cylinders, before even the invention of the gramophone).
I think for most the revolutionary part was listening to L2 while reading L1. This generally seems counter-intuitive.
Most people who talk about L-R in positive terms here do so as an activity that is only one part of a larger system of learning: "I do L-R and add new vocabulary into Anki for revision" is not "the L-R method", because the L-R method is L-R and nothing else; "I do L-R with passages taken from my textbook" is not "the L-R method", because the L-R method is authentic native texts with authentic native voice recordings.
I see LR as a method to enjoy literature in the original without waiting until you are ready. So I agree that these aren't really LR, that's closer to LWT/LingQ. Subtitles are also not LR. Technology allows for many ways to listen while following the matching text (original, translated or both), so not making the distinction feels like a step backwards.
Cainntear wrote:His supporting data is "it works for me"
Also for some forum members and some people from Poland. (btw, my impression was that siomotteikiru is not a man)