Quote:
Originally Posted by Rusty
Thanks for the support, Tacuba.
|
You're most welcome.
What I find fascinating about the article is that for a long time there have been proponents of "exposure based" language learning. Linguists such as Stephen Krashen have long argued that languages are not "learned" but rather "acquired" as a result of massive aural exposure to the target language, in much the same way as all children learn their native languages. However, Krashen argued that the optimal learning environment is one where the person learning is in a conducive atmosphere (low stress) and also is receiving
comprehensible input. In fact, Krashen argues that acquisition takes place in a "comprehensible input + 1" situation, where 1 is material that is just beyond the student's level of understanding. Sulzberger is taking the input hypothesis to the extreme saying that the input doesn't even have to be comprehensible. However the article doesn't state whether comprehensible input is better that incomprehensible, but it seems as if Sulzberger is saying that just listening is enough, and that after that the innate functions of the brain take over and the connections are formed naturally.
This coincides with a story I read last year on another language forum regarding a person who wanted to learn Spanish and did nothing but watch telenovelas for several hours a day, five days a week. If I remember correctly, all the person used as a study aid was a dictionary. Aside from that, no grammar, no teacher, no language program...nothing...just the telenovelas. If the anecdote can be believed, the person tested at high intermediate in conversation and listening skills after six months.