Input, output, and "language hacking techniques" (short cuts?).

In my view, there are three divergent approaches to language learning, divergent in terms of their emphasis or principal focus. This is true whether we learn in the classroom, online or on the street. One approach focuses on input, another on output, and a third on what I would call short cuts and some people call language hacking techniques. These techniques include grammar study, studying vocab lists and phrase books, heavy use of Flash Cards,"deconstructing the language", memory techniques and so forth.

Any successful language learning program uses some of all three approaches. Where proponents of different approaches disagree is on the emphasis.

As many of you know, I favour an emphasis on input. The input should be interesting and meaningful for the learner, although this is harder to do for beginners. I believe that the preponderance of input based activities is just natural to the way we use language, even our own. In any conversation, especially if there are more than two people involved, we mostly listen. If we add to that our listening to radio, and television or classroom lectures, and then toss in reading, that wonderful human invention that enables us to communicate with the thoughts and ideas of people we do not know, in places, cultures and even eras, that are removed from our own little world, we are mostly consumers of input, not producers of output. This is the same when we learn a language.

I see three circles. One is large and represents input. This is where we acquire familiarity with a language, get to know its words and structure naturally. We prepare our brain for the language, so that the bits and pieces, grammar rules, or words and phrases can stick, eventually. We acquire this input from reading and listening to things that matter to us. These can be a novel, a newspaper article, a story, or a short content item from a beginner's book. Talking to native speakers is a great source of meaningful input. It has relevance and credibility. It is, however, usually harder to arrange as a beginner, unless it is with a teacher, since we are not able to say much. On the other hand input activities are easy and inexpensive to do. We can listen or read while on a train, or listen while doing the dishes or going for a run. We can use dead time for our learning.

The next circle is much smaller and sits inside the first circle. It is the output circle, speaking and writing. That is where we train ourselves to use the words and phrases of the language that we learn passively from input. This is also a great way to discover our gaps, and start to notice them better when we listen and read. Our volume of output grows as we acquire more words and phrases from our input activities. At the beginner stage, is difficult to engage native speakers in conversation unless they are good friends or teachers. It is often easier to start by writing, but that requires a lot of discipline. Our desire to produce output usually grows as we acquire more familiarity with the language, more words and phrases, and want to try these things out with other people. We usually know when we want to produce output.

The third circle sits inside the second circle and is a little smaller than the output circle. We spend less time here, but check in every now and then. Books with lists of words and phrases, or grammar rules, are, to me, hard to understand and remember until we have had enough input. I have tried learning from phrase books as a beginner and I could not remember them, because I had no context. The same is true of grammar rules. However, once I have had a lot of exposure to the language through interesting and meaningful input activities, these phrase books and grammar rules are easier to use. They can help me fill in gaps in my knowledge.

Language learning is still largely a matter of finding a way to enjoy the process. The golden trinity of Attitude, Time on task, and Attentiveness are the keys. Obviously if we enjoy learning, we will have a good attitude, put in the time and remain alert to the language. Different people enjoy different ways of learning.

What I have outlined here is how I like to learn, and this approach is at the core of LingQ. I wanted to set this out, before I move on to a discussion of Benny's recent review of LingQ and then move on to review Benny's site, "fluency in three months."

Posted via email from Lingosteve's place

Comments

[Friedemann]

Learning Chinese has really taught me that in order to speak you need to listen, even if this sounds paradoxical. Comprehension and vocabulary is everything. My biggest frustrations are always the moments when I don't understand and not the moments when I don't find the right words myself. Comprehension is the most important benchmark to gauge my progress. This is an interesting realisation given that most people would judge language skills based on active command of the language alone,

Friedemann

[Street-Smart Language Learning]

Steve, I think your method isn't the most efficient way to learn accurate grammar. See my full response here. (As an added bonus, you'll also get to see yourself as a sumo. Feel free to replace "katana Steve" with "sumo Steve" in the title row above.)

[Dale]

Steve,

I very emphatically don't want to speak for either you or Benny. I hope if anything I have to say here misrepresents either your position or his that one or both of you will correct me. However, the more I follow the discussion the two of you are having about the points on which you differ, the more strongly I am impressed by the importance of the things on which you agree.

You both consider conversations with native speakers to be important. You seem to focus on the input received from the speaker. Benny, on the other hand, appears to emphasize feedback and correction on his output. The common ground that I see between you is meaningful exposure to the same communication environment that a native speaker lives in. That is, moving beyond artificial content created for students.

[David]

Overall I'm 100% in agreement with what Steve says (I appreciate all the great stuff that you put out on this blog), but he's missing one essential point that all beginners struggle with: how to learn HOW to learn a foreign language.

A lot of abuse has been thrown towards Benny, but he has one thing (in my opinion) right: that in order to learn one's FIRST foreign language, one must be fully immersed. This permits the pupil to be fully engaged in thinking 100% in the other language. After this initial immersion in one language, afterwords the learner knows how it feels, and can imitate and motivate himself/herself to do this with the third/fourth/fifth language etc. It may have been awhile since Steve learned his first language, but it is MUCH more challenging. I had 6 years of French, and then went to France and completely immersed myself in the language. Only in France did my thoughts go completely into French and my learning accelerated exponentially. Afterwords I was able to learn Spanish in a year, an now I'm learning Russian rapidly without needing to travel, because I can simulate this "immersion of input" in my own country.

You all may disagree, but I wanted to throw my two cents in.

[FluentCzech]

@Dale: The way I see it, the different between Steve and Benny isn't just about input vs output, but also about claims for time required to reach fluency. Benny claims his method gets you there quickly, and Steve raises his eyebrow at this, saying it takes years to be able to hold a decent conversation. Asking Benny for evidence his shortcut has worked for him tends to make him defensive, and this makes others somewhat skeptical of his claims.

[Steve Kaufmann]

David, You make an excellent point, but most language learners will not have that opportunity. So what to do?

FluentCzech, It does not take years, and I have not said that it does, but I agree that Benny does get defensive or at least evasive when asked for proof that his methods work for him, let alone others.

[Steve Kaufmann]

Streetsmart,

I read your post and I am sorry but it makes no sense to me. I find that I cannot get the grammar rules into my head without first getting the exposure.

In which language(s) do you have this higher degree of accuracy, which you feel you need?

You refer to some unknown sources who have criticized my German, yet you admit cannot judge my German (probably 7th in order of proficiency of the languages I speak) despite having studied the language.

No way. Input and vocabulary over grammar rules, anytime, at least in my experience.

[Steve Kaufmann]

Dale, I will elaborate on my differences with Benny and they are substantial.

[Amelia]

I think in the very beginning stage one can put almost equal emphasis on both input and using “short cuts.” I couldn’t agree more on getting a lot of input, but I’ve found certain hacks invaluable for building a fundamental vocabulary and getting a grasp on very basic grammar.

They seem to give you a faster way to get some traction in the language so more of your available sources for input (live conversations, radio, TV, etc.) are meaningful to you.

That input, and I’d say output to a certain extent, then reinforces what you’ve learned so you no longer need to rely on some mnemonic device to remember it.

[Street-Smart Language Learning]

Steve,

First I should probably be clearer about what it means to "get it in your head". I don't mean that you need to have it mastered, or that you need to have it memorized. I completely agree that that will most easily happen after lots of exposure. But anyone who picks up a grammar and reads that "estar" becomes "estoy" when "yo" is the subject already has it in their head to some degree, and that's the minimum you'd need to do to get it in your head. As I'm sure you're not saying that you can't get that in your head, I presume we're talking about different things.

The language in which I'm closest to the degree of accuracy that I seek is Japanese. I've been putting the most effort into that, because I use it day in and day out at work, and need the accuracy more urgently than in any other language (and, frankly, that need is causing my other languages to suffer). But even in Japanese, I feel I need more work. I would presume that your argument here would be that the input I'm getting is leading to my improved grammar, and I won't disagree that that's contributing, but whenever I come across something that doesn't fit into my understanding of how Japanese grammar works (extremely polite forms that I'm not accustomed to using come to mind), I dig until I understand how the rule works. That makes it much easier to understand it a second time. If I didn't get it the first time and didn't look it up, the second exposure would just be another puzzle.

And I'm definitely not saying that grammar is the only thing you focus on. When I've employed my approach, it typically takes me two or three weeks before I'm hardly spending any time on grammar at all. So you say "input and vocabulary over grammar rules", and I say "spend a few weeks getting the grammar into your head, then exposure and vocabulary over grammar rules".

I believe the sources criticizing your German were mentioned by you yourself in some post or video. I did a quick look for it on your site, but I couldn't find the specific reference(s) that I recalled. The context was you saying something in German, someone making a big fuss about your incorrect cases, and you saying it was no big deal because you could communicate in German. I'm actually with you on all that; you need to get out there and start using the language, regardless of whether you're even close to being correct in your speech. That said, I think another point where you and I differ is that I think you should systematically try to fix your grammar, whereas my understanding of your approach is to just get it as it comes to you via input, filling in the gaps when you feel like it. (Correct me if that's wrong.)

[Steve Kaufmann]

I constantly refer to grammar books, a little at the beginning and thereafter quite often reading the same rule or looking at the same table. I do not try to nail anything down.Eventually it all sticks. I have always said so. It is just that my point of emphasis is input.

I am actually quite accurate in my use of language, and constantly try to get more accurate. Expanding vocabulary is one of the best ways of achieving greater accuracy.

[Steve Kaufmann]

Amelia,

As I said

"Any successful language learning program uses some of all three approaches. Where proponents of different approaches disagree is on the emphasis."

[Katie]

Output is input. I enjoyed Street Smart's blog post, and will bookmark his blog as well. I love this stuff!

[Steve Kaufmann]

Output is speaking and writing,input is reading and listening. They are not the same.

When you speak, though, you are likely to also have to listen, that is why it is a good idea to make sure you understand before you start speaking. This is the advantage of focusing on a lot of input independently of speaking, in order to prepare for discussions, in order to make them more meaningful.

But no, Katie, there is no amount of doublespeak that can make output and input the same thing.

[Katie]

Output ≤ Input

[john]

You know I'm all for the idea of "hacking" a language or taking short-cuts. But honestly I don't really see any of these short-cuts. I see techniques for memorizing phrases and vocabulary...

and that sound all too exciting for words.

[Street-Smart Language Learning]

Input from an external source and output to an external target are both input as far as getting the info into your brain. They burn different paths to the information you're trying to learn, and different exposures to the same pieces of information will lead to a higher ability to recall such pieces of information. Calling it doublespeak is probably not unfair, but output is input.

You'll definitely get no argument from me that vocabulary is king. If you tally up all of the individual pieces of information that comprise a language into a pie chart, vocabulary is going to have by far the biggest slice of the pie.

And with your last comment, I'm beginning to wonder if our positions on grammar are closer than I originally thought. Let me ask you a few questions:

1. When you start a language, how and to what extent do you review the grammar?
2. When you encounter grammar you don't understand, how and to what extent do you systematically try to figure it out? Every time? Sometimes?
3. What do you do when whatever you do in 2 is taking a very long time to stick in your head? (German cases are an instance of this for me; I needed (and, thanks to not using German frequently, now again need) to take steps beyond just getting exposed to them and reviewing my grammars to get them down.)

[Steve Kaufmann]

I meant that output can only use words and phrases that you have already acquired in some way through input. On the other hand, actually producing the language is a different skill from passively taking it in.

But both have a similar reinforcing value, the effect of causing neurons to fire together and build the neural networks necessary to improve in a language,I think.

1) I have never started a language with LingQ. I have usually bought a little starter book Teach YOurself, or Collquial and followed it, and then moved on to other content. I tend to skim the explanations and devour the little dialogues. I then refer back to the book from time to time. I do not try to understand or remember the explanations. In future, if the language is Dutch, or Czech or a language related to one I already know, I think I will just dive in, and only refer to grammar explanations later. If it is Turkish, I may still start with the starter book and CD and do LingQ in parallel.

2) Rarely look things up. It is usually when I am writing or speaking that I will look up a declension table of something. On the other hand I will from time to time review a short grammar book, to see if things make more sense. I do not retain much, but I think it helps to make me more attentive.

3) When I was studying German on my own, I spent a fair amount of time trying to get the declension tables into my head. I was unsuccessful and now rely on having heard it so often and hope for the best. The same with Russian. I do save phrases in LingQ which feature the cases that cause trouble. I have tagged words and phrases for their case endings and reviewed them as a batch. I try to be attentive to these. I occasionally review the tables but find that the benefits are very short term. Mostly I try to notice them while listening and reading and hope for the best when I speak.

[Steffen]

Hey everyone.

Since the question of Steve's German came up and since this is the only language I am able to comment on ( ;) ) I was curious and wanted to hear Steve's German myself.
Using this video as my reference:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvD-_ALCT0w
I would make the following judgment:
Steve's pronounciation is of course not without accent but clearly understandable to me.
Grammarwise he has his small share of grammatical mistakes from time to time of course but those are this kind of mistakes that usually do not prevent one from being understood. I am mainly referring to the endings of verbs or nouns in the different cases, tenses etc.
Sometimes he uses unusual words because (I guess) he is using a phrase that is more common in English than in German. Still quite understandable.

To sum it up:
Steve is definitely able to communicate his thoughts in German. That being said, I guess he could polish his German with a bit of practice easyly.

[Tommy]

Dear Mr. Kaufmann,

I really do find your ideas interesting and valuable, which I why I recently have been checking and reading your blog. In this particular case, though, I do think that the input-ouput-shortcut model is a little simplistic.

I'm sure you would agree that every input must be precedented on another's output. Rather than elevating "input" to the status of supreme importance ("the largest circle"), I believe we should learn to think critically in all our languages about what the input we are consuming, digesting, and expelling. The attention which input needs is one of criticism and questioning.

Also, are there not songs and poems and prayers stuck in your head since childhood? What makes the lyrics stick, while the parental lectures and sermons enter one ear and exit the other? Input is, by itself, an insufficient and vague concept; what is imporant and productive is, rather, the filtered input which engages our senses and elicits a response or ouput. Who can decide the proper content but ourselves? Learning may very well be, neither concentric nor embedded circles, but an infinite feedback loop, a living shapeless cloud of whizzing inputs and ouputs, rules and exceptions, lessons and experiences.

And what about internal dialogue?

[Street-Smart Language Learning]

@Damian: "Study some grammar so I know what to expect. Listen to some audio and hear structures I don't fully understand. Go back to a grammar to understand why things were formed in certain ways, and so on." Your approach sounds like mine.

@Steve: A few points...

- I agree with Courtney on the grammar terms. They're totally unnecessary, and I'm perfectly content to avoid them. Whether you like to get into the grammar terms is probably a separate question to be decided among the pro-grammar folks, so I'd drop that from this discussion altogether. So it's not "terms and rules", it's just "rules".
- I'd drop the subjectivity of "love/hate" as well. What you're asking is how we objectively approach grammar, so there's no need to cloud the waters with something subjective like that. To take myself as an example, I don't feel like I love grammar at all but besides that I largely fall into your "grammar lover" box. The crux of the issue is from where do you primarily learn the grammar at the outset: materials that seek to directly explain grammar rules, or from input.
- I also like Damian's gradation approach. The most extreme position would be from 100% grammar-explaining materials until the grammar's satisfactorily understood, and then and only then moving on to other things. The other extreme would be 100% exposure, never looking at anything that tries to explain the grammar. So you might set up the poll as 100:0, 75:25, 50:50, 25:75, 0:100. Perhaps it'd be more interesting to just let everyone set their own division and then plot that on a chart.

And I'd be happy to defend the pro-grammar position in a "clinch".

@David Hamberlin: I'm definitely on the pro-grammar side of things, but I'm strongly with Steve in that vocabulary is king. As I've noted before, if you tally up all of the individual pieces of information that comprise a language into a pie chart, vocabulary is going to have by far the biggest slice of the pie. So even if you tackle a good chunk of grammar up front as I prefer to do, grammar is still just a short prelude to the real work of learning vocabulary and phrases.

[Street-Smart Language Learning]

I somehow managed to post the above on the wrong blog post... Redirecting...