Studying Danish has taught me that the pronunciation difficulties I found were due to the discrepencies I found between reading and listening. For example this letter, ø, can be pronounced in 3 different ways. And for a learner, the differences can be difficult to hear. So, I started paying more attention to "the sounds" and less to "the letters". I improved by imitating what I was hearing; sort of like playing an instrument by ear instead of reading music. Both are great skills, bit I prioritized what I needed the most.
I had the benefit of learning Norwegian at university, so I was taught how the Danish language influenced Norwegian (Dansk->Riksmål->Bokmål/Nynorsk). I was lucky and happened to fall into learning Norwegian because it was the only Scandinavia language my college offered. However, I've seen it for years since then, that if you want to learn multiple Scandinavian languages, that you should learn Norwegian first because one written standard looks like Danish, another written standard approaches Icelandic and Faroese, and it sounds like Swedish. I lived in Sweden for a year after university and can actually comprehend spoken Swedish better than Norwegian, even today more than a decade later. Anyways, I do understand the pain you are going through, so I thought I would give you a gift, in case you've never seen it yet. And if you have, it always brings a laugh. Værsågod og kamelåså: th-cam.com/video/s-mOy8VUEBk/w-d-xo.htmlsi=bsPUdAVJ20JEQ_I_
I am also learning Danish (with very modest goals, to get to a mid-B1 conversational level). As you've pointed out, Danish is very non-phonetic, so that listening becomes an even more essential aspect of learning. I'm not a fan of language apps, but for Danish I found Mango Languages (web app) good for getting started (sorry if mentioning specific apps is not permitted), along with a very old 'nature method' (target language only) text and a 1960's edition of 'Hugo Simplified System - Danish in Three Months'. Obviously, the old texts don't have accompanying audio. But all three resources, including the online app, have phonetic representations of what you're hearing or reading. Even with listening, it's sometime unclear what you're actually hearing, and the phonetic spellings are a big help for that. This is just my experience, and may not suit others learning preferences. BTW, very interesting series of interviews. THANK YOU.
"Chunks" or "language chunks" is another word or term that I have heard used to describe those groupings of words that just go together in languages, like prepositional phrases, colloquialisms, and the like. @loistalagrand, I think I remember you asking in this interview if there are maybe more "chunks" than there are words. I don't think there necessarily is, but there are just a lot of them, especially when you start thinking of all of the different word combinations. A fun one in English is the difference between someone who is "on the go" and someone who is "on the run". "He's always on the go" implies that person is always busy, but not necessarily hectically, while "She's on the run again" implies this person is evading the authorities (and not for the first time).
Thanks a lot for these interviews - these are really insightful! I also would love to see a scientific discussion between the "input only camp" and a more diversified approach. E. g. a discussion between Jeff McQuillan and Paul Nation.
Can't help but think of superlearning that developed i think in bulgaria during the Cold War. if memory serves one thing they were doing was developing personas for classroom use. So alongside this discussion also the importance of affect and sociolinguistic factors, and there's so much more and more and more in language learning. I laughed when he said learning vocab is unlimited or like a mountain.
Friends has been studied because it's been used as a resource to learn English for a long time, by a lot of people. It was an interesting case study. It also has a lot of material, as it's a long running series, it features different speakers, with different voices and styles, and topics that might interest young adults more than what kids shows talk about. But there's nothing unique about it, it's just statistics working. Someone made a comparison between Friends and Spongebob, and there's not a huge difference in terms of vocabulary learned. The video is called "Can Kids TV Create Fluency in Another Language?" by One Word at a Time, here on youtube. Recommended!
Bonjour Loïs. I have been favorably impressed by the academic expertise of your guests as well as the intelligent conversations presented in these videos. They are truly interesting and helpful, so thanks very much. I have a question. Are there compiled lists of learning resources such as graded texts and TV series for different languages? I am struggling to break out of intermediate French and I think that a couple of good French sitcoms, roughly equivalent to "Friends" in complexity, would be extremely helpful.
I'm glad you are enjoying the interviews. I have created a page (recently) where I listed some of the best resources for learning languages: subscribepage.io/lois-talagrand
Why do we keep looking at language or language learning as "input" and "output?" It is more than that and I expect to see experts to simply go deeper. In developmental psychology when you look at L1 language acquisition it is referred to as "reception" and "expression." As a human being we have the choice to not listen to someone who is talking or we might daydream while we are reading, which limits language reception even though it is still directed at us as "input." The same can be said with our "output." An example, would be repetitive conversations that are nothing more than filler or in L2 language study with a Pimsleur lesson or shadowing, which tends to be a lot of parroting and not true expression.
I have the simplest method of language learning that is not based on science: do what you feel like as much as want. It's worked for me. Using "input" and "output," old computerese terms explains nothing and are a charade to make it sound and look scientific (why not just say "read" and "listen" and "speak" and "write" - we aren't computers). There is one, and only one, ingredient that determines the success of language learning (as well as anything else): MOTIVATION.
But, given two individuals who are already motivated, wouldn't you agree that the individual who follows science-based methods would get better results?
I wrote two books on how to learn a foreign language, and I run an online academy that teaches six languages. In my opinion, we need to consider input and output based on how similar the foreign language is to our own. If the foreign language is very distant from our mother tongue, we need to put more effort into output. However, if the foreign language is quite similar to our mother tongue, we can reach a certain level of fluency through input alone. One more thing, I never recommend using flashcards. It's hard work to learn a foreign language, contrary to what many people think.
@@spiderlandslint Learning another language through flashcards is like studying scattered pieces. To use a word you've learned from flashcards in a complete sentence, you need to learn it again. This means you're working twice on the same word. One more thing, we can connect new information to previous knowledge more effectively if it has a special meaning. The words on flashcards don’t carry specific meaning; they’re just isolated names. So, if you really want to use flashcards, I recommend using complete sentences or even short passages, not just individual words. I use Anki often, but I never add single words. Another tip: if you focus on sentences that truly matter to you, rather than every sentence you come across, your efficiency will increase significantly.
😅according to this woman i cant understand french youtube at 99% comprehension. Output is not necessary.... because ive never done any. It is necessary to output better, though. The guy you interviewed who talked about transfer appropriate processing understood how memory works. Anyway, output is helpful but neither necessary nor sufficient for comprehension. Im not an input fanatic...just lazy with no need to speak.
@@loistalagrand Among other things, She said: "However as the level increases I think output becomes something that you cannot live without and I think that that's going to be for example the dividing line between someone who can achieve let's say an intermediate level of knowledge and say, C1 [level of knowledge]" Using the word "knowledge" is a red flag to someone who has studied cognition, but taking that word at face value, my internal "knowledge of French" is extremely high and I've never outputted. // Regarding Transfer Appropriate Processing--you get good at what you do. Language is not special in that regard. It is a set of skills. To understand more, you need to spend your time understanding. To output better you need to spend your time outputting (and understanding what you are outputting, which is why it is a bit of a dependent skill).
@@loistalagrand The way she talked during the entire interview didn't fill me with confidence. Bill VanPaten was more in line with how I think. So perhaps I'm biased. But there is no way to know because the necessary research to answer even the most basic and fundamental questions second language learners want to know about efficiency.... isn't there. Anyway, thank you very much for making these interviews happen!!! Now if only a government would spend the money to do proper studies rather than repackaging the same classroom experiences that have failed student for generations (based on which expert's advice, is what I always ask..).
I see where you’re coming from but I think she may have misspoke and that this is a matter of semantics more than anything. To give an anecdotal example, I’m fairly positive that I know more than a handful of people in my life who understand Finnish better than I do but they hardly ever output it. When they speak, it is heavily accented, clunky, and unnatural sounding despite being relatively grammatically sound. I also see this with many people I meet who live in countries where nearly all the music, media, and internet material consumed is in English- but in their daily life, they rarely actually have to speak it, and it’s the same story as above. Another few I can think of is there are some language-focused TH-cam channels (usually ran by professors) who undoubtedly have a great knowledge and understanding of a handful of languages, but poor pronunciation and output. When it comes to reaching a C1/C2 certification of a language, speaking is a massive part of that. And the only way to get better is by outputting. You literally have to train new muscle movements in your mouth and throat, learn how to achieve the proper timbre of the language, ect. Sorry to leave you a whole essay here, but it is something I’m sorta passionate about because there seems to be a growing amount of enthusiasts who seem to believe that outputting any time before 1,000+ hours of input is the ultimate sin.
Studying Danish has taught me that the pronunciation difficulties I found were due to the discrepencies I found between reading and listening. For example this letter, ø, can be pronounced in 3 different ways. And for a learner, the differences can be difficult to hear. So, I started paying more attention to "the sounds" and less to "the letters". I improved by imitating what I was hearing; sort of like playing an instrument by ear instead of reading music. Both are great skills, bit I prioritized what I needed the most.
Thanks for sharing!
I had the benefit of learning Norwegian at university, so I was taught how the Danish language influenced Norwegian (Dansk->Riksmål->Bokmål/Nynorsk). I was lucky and happened to fall into learning Norwegian because it was the only Scandinavia language my college offered. However, I've seen it for years since then, that if you want to learn multiple Scandinavian languages, that you should learn Norwegian first because one written standard looks like Danish, another written standard approaches Icelandic and Faroese, and it sounds like Swedish.
I lived in Sweden for a year after university and can actually comprehend spoken Swedish better than Norwegian, even today more than a decade later.
Anyways, I do understand the pain you are going through, so I thought I would give you a gift, in case you've never seen it yet. And if you have, it always brings a laugh. Værsågod og kamelåså:
th-cam.com/video/s-mOy8VUEBk/w-d-xo.htmlsi=bsPUdAVJ20JEQ_I_
I am also learning Danish (with very modest goals, to get to a mid-B1 conversational level). As you've pointed out, Danish is very non-phonetic, so that listening becomes an even more essential aspect of learning. I'm not a fan of language apps, but for Danish I found Mango Languages (web app) good for getting started (sorry if mentioning specific apps is not permitted), along with a very old 'nature method' (target language only) text and a 1960's edition of 'Hugo Simplified System - Danish in Three Months'. Obviously, the old texts don't have accompanying audio. But all three resources, including the online app, have phonetic representations of what you're hearing or reading. Even with listening, it's sometime unclear what you're actually hearing, and the phonetic spellings are a big help for that. This is just my experience, and may not suit others learning preferences. BTW, very interesting series of interviews. THANK YOU.
@@Martin.T.C Thanks for sharing!
to be fair, the danish vowels are very difficult to master
@loistalagrand Your're doing a great job with those science based and language Professors's-proof video!
Thanks!
"Chunks" or "language chunks" is another word or term that I have heard used to describe those groupings of words that just go together in languages, like prepositional phrases, colloquialisms, and the like.
@loistalagrand, I think I remember you asking in this interview if there are maybe more "chunks" than there are words. I don't think there necessarily is, but there are just a lot of them, especially when you start thinking of all of the different word combinations.
A fun one in English is the difference between someone who is "on the go" and someone who is "on the run". "He's always on the go" implies that person is always busy, but not necessarily hectically, while "She's on the run again" implies this person is evading the authorities (and not for the first time).
Excellent discussion. This will change how I study German. Thank you.
I'm glad!
Thanks a lot for these interviews - these are really insightful! I also would love to see a scientific discussion between the "input only camp" and a more diversified approach. E. g. a discussion between Jeff McQuillan and Paul Nation.
Can't help but think of superlearning that developed i think in bulgaria during the Cold War. if memory serves one thing they were doing was developing personas for classroom use. So alongside this discussion also the importance of affect and sociolinguistic factors, and there's so much more and more and more in language learning. I laughed when he said learning vocab is unlimited or like a mountain.
I am thinking of doing this, but I don't know if the guests would enjoy debating on video.
Friends has been studied because it's been used as a resource to learn English for a long time, by a lot of people. It was an interesting case study. It also has a lot of material, as it's a long running series, it features different speakers, with different voices and styles, and topics that might interest young adults more than what kids shows talk about.
But there's nothing unique about it, it's just statistics working.
Someone made a comparison between Friends and Spongebob, and there's not a huge difference in terms of vocabulary learned.
The video is called "Can Kids TV Create Fluency in Another Language?" by One Word at a Time, here on youtube. Recommended!
Thanks for sharing!
Bonjour Loïs. I have been favorably impressed by the academic expertise of your guests as well as the intelligent conversations presented in these videos. They are truly interesting and helpful, so thanks very much. I have a question. Are there compiled lists of learning resources such as graded texts and TV series for different languages? I am struggling to break out of intermediate French and I think that a couple of good French sitcoms, roughly equivalent to "Friends" in complexity, would be extremely helpful.
I'm glad you are enjoying the interviews. I have created a page (recently) where I listed some of the best resources for learning languages: subscribepage.io/lois-talagrand
Why do we keep looking at language or language learning as "input" and "output?" It is more than that and I expect to see experts to simply go deeper. In developmental psychology when you look at L1 language acquisition it is referred to as "reception" and "expression." As a human being we have the choice to not listen to someone who is talking or we might daydream while we are reading, which limits language reception even though it is still directed at us as "input." The same can be said with our "output." An example, would be repetitive conversations that are nothing more than filler or in L2 language study with a Pimsleur lesson or shadowing, which tends to be a lot of parroting and not true expression.
Great point
Thank you for such insightful video!
Glad you enjoyed it!
I have the simplest method of language learning that is not based on science: do what you feel like as much as want. It's worked for me. Using "input" and "output," old computerese terms explains nothing and are a charade to make it sound and look scientific (why not just say "read" and "listen" and "speak" and "write" - we aren't computers). There is one, and only one, ingredient that determines the success of language learning (as well as anything else): MOTIVATION.
But, given two individuals who are already motivated, wouldn't you agree that the individual who follows science-based methods would get better results?
Making it up.
At the end is she saying a problem with 3rd person 's'.
She said it several times. I've no idea what it is?
In English, you are supposed to say he eat"s", as opposed to he eat. This is what she is referring to.
I wrote two books on how to learn a foreign language, and I run an online academy that teaches six languages. In my opinion, we need to consider input and output based on how similar the foreign language is to our own. If the foreign language is very distant from our mother tongue, we need to put more effort into output. However, if the foreign language is quite similar to our mother tongue, we can reach a certain level of fluency through input alone. One more thing, I never recommend using flashcards. It's hard work to learn a foreign language, contrary to what many people think.
why
@@spiderlandslint Learning another language through flashcards is like studying scattered pieces. To use a word you've learned from flashcards in a complete sentence, you need to learn it again. This means you're working twice on the same word.
One more thing, we can connect new information to previous knowledge more effectively if it has a special meaning. The words on flashcards don’t carry specific meaning; they’re just isolated names. So, if you really want to use flashcards, I recommend using complete sentences or even short passages, not just individual words. I use Anki often, but I never add single words. Another tip: if you focus on sentences that truly matter to you, rather than every sentence you come across, your efficiency will increase significantly.
I never watched sitcoms. Didn’t grow up with television.
There definitely are some great sitcoms for learning languages.
😅according to this woman i cant understand french youtube at 99% comprehension. Output is not necessary.... because ive never done any. It is necessary to output better, though. The guy you interviewed who talked about transfer appropriate processing understood how memory works. Anyway, output is helpful but neither necessary nor sufficient for comprehension. Im not an input fanatic...just lazy with no need to speak.
I'm not sure whether I understand. What is it that Dr. Dóczi that you don't agree with?
@@loistalagrand
Among other things, She said: "However as the level increases I think output becomes something that you cannot live without and I think that that's going to be for example the dividing line between someone who can achieve let's say an intermediate level of knowledge and say, C1 [level of knowledge]" Using the word "knowledge" is a red flag to someone who has studied cognition, but taking that word at face value, my internal "knowledge of French" is extremely high and I've never outputted. // Regarding Transfer Appropriate Processing--you get good at what you do. Language is not special in that regard. It is a set of skills. To understand more, you need to spend your time understanding. To output better you need to spend your time outputting (and understanding what you are outputting, which is why it is a bit of a dependent skill).
@@michaeld3223 I'm not sure, but I think she meant "knowledge" in terms of output.
@@loistalagrand The way she talked during the entire interview didn't fill me with confidence. Bill VanPaten was more in line with how I think. So perhaps I'm biased. But there is no way to know because the necessary research to answer even the most basic and fundamental questions second language learners want to know about efficiency.... isn't there. Anyway, thank you very much for making these interviews happen!!! Now if only a government would spend the money to do proper studies rather than repackaging the same classroom experiences that have failed student for generations (based on which expert's advice, is what I always ask..).
I see where you’re coming from but I think she may have misspoke and that this is a matter of semantics more than anything.
To give an anecdotal example, I’m fairly positive that I know more than a handful of people in my life who understand Finnish better than I do but they hardly ever output it. When they speak, it is heavily accented, clunky, and unnatural sounding despite being relatively grammatically sound.
I also see this with many people I meet who live in countries where nearly all the music, media, and internet material consumed is in English- but in their daily life, they rarely actually have to speak it, and it’s the same story as above.
Another few I can think of is there are some language-focused TH-cam channels (usually ran by professors) who undoubtedly have a great knowledge and understanding of a handful of languages, but poor pronunciation and output.
When it comes to reaching a C1/C2 certification of a language, speaking is a massive part of that. And the only way to get better is by outputting. You literally have to train new muscle movements in your mouth and throat, learn how to achieve the proper timbre of the language, ect.
Sorry to leave you a whole essay here, but it is something I’m sorta passionate about because there seems to be a growing amount of enthusiasts who seem to believe that outputting any time before 1,000+ hours of input is the ultimate sin.