Dr. Bill VanPatten: How To Learn Languages (According To Science)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 14 чер 2024
- Bill's website: www.billvanpatten.net/
Bill Van Patten, a former professor of linguistics, discusses the misconceptions people have about language learning. He emphasizes that language is not a set of rules that can be learned from textbooks, but rather an abstract and complex system that is acquired through exposure to meaningful input. He explains that language acquisition involves the gradual construction of a language system in the brain, which is influenced by the data and patterns observed in the environment. Speaking and output, while important for communication, are not the primary drivers of language acquisition. Bill also addresses concerns about making mistakes and fossilizing incorrect patterns, noting that second language acquisition is influenced by external factors and individual differences. In this conversation, Bill VanPatten and Loïs Talagrand discuss various topics related to language learning. They touch on the importance of exposure and comprehensible input, the role of teachers in language acquisition, the power of reading in language learning, and the impact of age on language learning. Bill emphasizes the need for time on task and motivation in language learning, and dispels the misconception that age is a barrier to language acquisition. He also shares insights into his transition from academia to fiction writing.
00:00 Introduction to Bill Van Patten and his background in language learning
02:06 The divide between traditional language learning approaches and input-based approaches
04:02 The misconception that language can be learned through rules and textbooks
06:31 The gradual construction of a language system through exposure to input
10:53 The evolution of language acquisition over time
22:50 The role of textbooks as 'baby teeth' in language learning
28:30 The importance of bootstrapping into meaning through vocabulary acquisition
30:29 The role of speaking in language learning and its limitations
37:18 Leakage from the first language system in second language acquisition
38:35 Exposure and Comprehensible Input
50:58 Redefining the Role of Teachers
57:07 The Power of Reading
01:10:40 Dispelling the Myth of Age
01:14:46 From Academia to Fiction Writing
So great to see you back in the SLA realm, Profesor VanPatten! You're the best! Love the analogies that you gave during this talk.
Regarding reading: one of the more interesting benefits of having an expansive vocabulary in your native language when learning a foreign one (if they are closely related) is that there are such an extraordinary amount of cognates and semi-cognates, though they don't always have the exact same meanings. You can absorb so much additional vocabulary. So, for example, if you know the very uncommon and antiquated english word "exigency", which means "demand", then the spanish word "exigente" and "exigir" become almost instantly recognizable. Another example is the spanish word "sanguinario" which resembles "sanguinary" in english.
Same in French. Limpide, infraction, exiger, lucide are words with English cognates, there are so many more.
It's good to have a latin based language as your mother tongue, but mine is far different from any language. It obstructs a lot. You guys have a serious advantage in English.
You are right! I haven’t seen it in that way
Yes, common words change most or those used frequently. Especially those that are not nouns.
Less common words tend to be the same in different languages but maybe less used in one language than another.
Je suis becomes I am and not recognisable.
J’ai becomes I have also not recognisable but when used as vous avez you can imagine you have indicating chance or a common root for French and English.
Table is the same in both and a common noun unchanged.
If you look at a dictionary of ancient French you find welcome which has been lost for the French but not the English.
Even languages using different letters can have eery similarities best seen often in names John and Ivan not the best example but others are closer.
I've started translating the most "big" words in my English vocab to Spanish. Yes, basic Latin roots. 👍
From all that I am learning about how language classes are conducted, I have to say I was so very lucky to have the high school Spanish teachers I had. Sure, we had textbooks to get us started on vocabulary, but the entire class was held in Spanish. Those of us who participated, acquired the language vs. learned the language. They made the language so fun and interesting that students mostly wanted to participate. We talked, read, saw short movies, or whatever she could fit into the class period. We had pen pals from Spanish speaking countries, so that we could practice our Spanish, and they could practice their English. That experience inspired me to continue on with language acquisition my whole life. Thank you to the wonderful teachers I had back in the 80s, before too many non-teachers got involved in how and what children learn in school! (and I know that's a subject for another day.)
A language can only be aquired by using the language (passively and eventually actively). Grammar, word lists, translations, images, etc. are just TOOLS to make the language more accessible and comprehensible.
Amazing interview! I agree with everything the (former) Professor said. It would be fantastic another clip together with both Dr. Bill and Prof. Krashen
Thanks for making videos like that and showing scientific evidence of learning language👍 please make more of kinds of this things
I find output (speaking and writing) helpful for learning not because the process itself teaches me but because it easily points out my weaknesses and what I don't know.
Which in turn allows me to focus on those weaknesses when I go back to input
And how do you know if you make mistakes? I read my writings from a couple of years ago and they are a mess 😅
Edit: I find spellcheckers unreliable and when I talk to people, they rarely correct me, even if I tell them to.
@Dennis_LearnGeek For speaking, I talk to a tutor so they point it out. For writing, I get every sentence corrected by chat gpt.
But I usually know I'm making a mistake in the moment because my brain will blank on the right word or I'll struggle with the grammar.
@@SilverThreads Ok, fair enough. I still would be cautious with chatgpt though. I can imagine that it might tell you that a sentence is perfectly correct, but in reality a native speaker would never say it like that.
If only the comprehensible input advocates would make the simple distinction between explicit and implicit knowledge a lots of confusion could've been avoided. Explicit knowledge (acquired by means of explicit instruction) is how most learners start to learn any new skill, and once they get better this knowledge becomes internalized and the skill becomes automatic so you don't have to think anymore about how to go about doing what you learned, you just know it intuitively. So when the comprehensible input advocates argue that one doesn't rely on explicit knowledge of rules as a way of showing the inefficiency (or redundancy) or explicit study of grammar they are simply mixing up different things, which renders the whole argument fallacious. Of course in the beginning stages of learning explicit knowledge of rules is not yet enough to make a person fluent, but this is simply because the rules have not been yet internalized and the person has not yet perfected his skill. This applies to learning any activity imaginable - at the beginning learners are very slow, inefficient, make mistakes and so on. But does this show that explicit instructions are useless? (in the form of teachers or textbooks) Not in the least. Now it is possible to learn many skills by just observing how it is done and doing it oneself via trial and error. For example you can imagine someone trying to learn the rules of chess by observing chess games. But is this the most efficient method? And will it make you a better chess player compared to someone who's learned the rules from a textbook? It doesn't follow at all. Similarly with language learning, there's no yet any empirical support for the idea that it's more effective or efficient to learn grammar purely trough input. This is still a pure conjecture as far as I'm aware, and is most probably completely wrong given the proven effectiveness of traditional learning methods, both in language learning and other fields.
What makes you think that when it comes to language learning explicit knowledge can transfer to implicit knowledge?
From what I understand, language cannot be directly compared to motor skills, such as tennis or driving, in which people get explicit instruction in order to improve their performance. Motor skills produce relatively simple brain activity compared to language competence. This is likely because motor skills (moving our body parts in a repetitive and systematic way) is a far older evolutionary development than complex language, which we only see in humans.
Given that language is a 'full brain' neurological experience, it's plausible that the pathways to transfer explicit into implicit knowledge aren't available for language skills in the same way they are for motor skills.
@@jesse_ledesma If you watch the interview with Paul Nation on this channel you'll hear him mention some research that confirms, at least in the case of vocabulary knowledge, that explicit knowledge transfers to implicit knowledge. But even without studies, everyone who's been to school knows this from experience. You start by explicit instruction, then you practice until it becomes automatic. That's how children learn things like math. It would be extremely implausible to believe that language is somehow excepted from this extremely general rule.
Also keep in mind that Krashen and his crew don't ever cite any empirical evidence to prove that explicit knowledge can't transfer to implicit knowledge when it comes to language. Their argument is always something like: because fluent speakers don't consciously monitor their speech it somehow follows that explicit knowledge is useless for language learning. And I tried to show in my previous comment why this line of reasoning is fallacious.
@@Fafner888
The debate on the transfer between explicit and implicit knowledge hasn't been settled. We still need further research to conclude to what extent (or if at all) that transfer is possible. And the most compelling research will come from brain scans, once the technology becomes cheaper and more efficient.
Paul Nation's work isn't without criticism, like every academic. For example, Jeff McQullian cites much research to argue against Paul Nation, especially in relation to vocabulary acquisition. Much of the research McQuillian discusses shows that implicit learning outperforms explicit in the long-run.
Neurologically speaking, mathematics is different to language competence. Our brain is hardwired to absorb and process language. We do it mostly unconsciously all throughout our life. That cannot be said for mathematics, which is mostly an explicit, conscious process. To put simply, not everyone can do maths, or history, or chess, or driving, or swimming, or coding, but everyone can do language.
The 'no transfer' position claims that explicit knowledge only helps in the short term, after which it is forgotten unless repeatedly reviewed, and that during that time, implicit knowledge can accumulate in the background. This dual process gives the illusion of transfer, when in fact no transfer has taken place. One set of knowledge has been replaced by another.
Please forgive my ignorance, but, intuitively, is it not a bit of both? The French teach their kids grammar by rote and they spend a lot more time on the language than other countries do
You're making something that's very simple very complicated by overthinking it. Language learning takes time but it's not complex or particularly difficult.
Minute 59: Fiction has been found to increase empathy levels in two peer-reviewed studies I’ve read. Nonfiction had no effect on empathy levels. Given that mirror neurons, which make empathy possible, support intellect and adaptation, I would argue that fiction enhances intellectual pursuits as much as the knowledge we glean from nonfiction.
Very interesting. I agree that the key is to learn enough words to bootstrap the language. Once you can listen to real speech, learning accelerates dramatically as I found with French. It’s no longer work, it’s fun. I am learning German, and after almost 18 months I am not even lower intermediate. The problem I have is learning vocabulary as it is so different from English. Learning words on flashcards does not work, they don’t stick. Listening to as many simple dialogues as possible works, but it’s slow.
Regarding accent, maybe someone cannot get a native level accent, but there are techniques to improve one’s accent and anyone can learn these techniques. Adults make assumptions when they speak, and often do not notice realise it. For example English speakers of French almost always adopt English timing. Syllabic timing, which is used in French, can be taught, assuming the student wants to learn.
Do you have a single world or a sentence/phrase on the flashcard? For me learning an isolated world is a few times harder then a sentence.
@@mickymadfree I agree. I use Anki for German, but mostly with sentences. Words usually don’t stick, but sentences do, and they teach context and grammar too. It’s odd because with French I can use Anki for single words, such as L’effraction which means the breaking and entering, or La volière which means the aviary.
Great job segmenting the video, very helpful!
This was great! Thank you.
Thanks for this! Very insightful
Very informative interview , thank you!
loved this interview
This is great. Thank you. Using Dreaming Spanish right now.
A likely reason for some people sounding native and some people not has to do with personal views and importances on specific identities. There has been research that says that Arabic dialects more or less don't have to be mutually intelligible due to the number of differences between them, but they are, the research argued, because they consider themselves a part of a larger community.
Having good feelings about things drives a lot in human life even including the immune system and recovery, so obviously in something so deeply central to our personalities, feeling and importance should be playing a huge role behind the scenes. Our unconscious mind does so much work behind the scenes choosing what to remember and what to forget and what importance to put on things we learn and experience.
Thanks, this was a really interesting interview.
I'm an ESL teacher. The claim that students should not worry about mistakes and bad pronunciation is wrong. Although such defects disappear over time, they _will_ persist in a foreign language. Even worse: Mistakes and mispronunciations become ingrained over time, and it becomes almost impossible to correct them because mistakes are too ingrained, too ossified. So students should be concerned about all this from the get-go; otherwise, they will accrue a lot of mistakes, become very sloppy, and it will all ossify. It's gonna be too hard to get rid of it later on. I guess that's why some people claim it's impossible to have native level pronunciation, usage, etc. However, it's an erroneous view. The ossified mistakes--that's what prevents people from getting perfect pronunciation and usage. Wrong patterns are transferred from the first language to the second, and the student is often unaware of this process. Ergo, he or she is doomed to always speak with an accent, usage mistakes, and pronunciation mistakes, even after living among native speakers for 20 years. However, if a student pays attention to wrong pronunciation and mistakes and works towards getting rid of them, he or she may even attain a native level competence at least with pronunciation and common vocabulary. The same applies to lower level students. It starts there! Don't learn everything the wrong way and don't let it get ossified in your brain. I understand this linguist doesn't really care about his French but some students do.
Excellent information, my friend, especially the role of the brain in SLA that we do not have control over. Bill mentioned there are no patterns. Do you know what he means by this?
When the Italian government decided to make English rather than French compulsory for high school students, they had the problem of what to do about all the French teachers. The solution they found was to send letters to all the French teachers to tell them that they were now English teachers. The problem with most compulsory language classes is that a large section of the class are learning next to nothing. You can't get away with giving these students zero on their exercises, so you have to develop a weird system where you can pretend that all participants are progressing: with the familiar result of people graduating from high school having done years of English but unable to say 'Hello' or 'Thank you'.
English is by far the most studied language in the world.
Unfortunately in many countries the "teachers" of English themselves don't have language proficiency beyond intermediate.
Teachers who themselves are total failures won't teach their students much.
I personally have a cousin that learned Hindi from her dad, English from her mom and Spanish from her nanny all before she was 8 years old, then moved to another country and picked up that language. I guarantee she didn't spend hours in front of a board learning grammar. She simply absorbed them all as that is how the brain functions.
Well, that says more about her "gift" on learning languages than the methodologyused. I have a nephew that plays all musical instruments by ear. His sister doesn't play any. They both were exposed to music as kids.
Best time to learn another language - 7yo
I think Stephen Krashen's input hypothesis has a lot of merits. However, I believe there are some things that are missing from that hypothesis. Some things do not add up. For instance, Krashen says you need to have 95% or more content to be comprehensible. But observing infants or young children who emigrate and are thrown into a school where a new language is spoken, it seems to me that these people are not exposed to highly comprehensible input.
In addition, Krashen doesn't make a distinction between written and spoken content. I do not think a person who is exposed to largely written content can become fluent in that language.
Is there such thing as too much comprehensible input in a day? Is there a point where we get so much that we just can’t learn anymore in the course of a day? So whether someone gets exposure for 6 hours a day as opposed to 10 hours, does it really matter?
I would say yes, too much input and even output, there's always going to be a thing of too much of a good thing. You can plateau with every learning method out there, some days you can do more or less than others. Just saying use a scientific method to learn discounts the way the mind works the mind is not a computer, even computers malfunction, it cannot recall and store as efficiently as a machine. You cannot always gauge where you're at and polyglots tend to overestimate their abilities, rarely do they underestimate their skills. They tend to want to try to achieve things quickly without realizing the time it takes to really be comfortable parsing through so much material in order to be able to communicate in a foreign material. There is a lot of buzzwords regarding methods and self-congratulatory back patting in this community. People can be just as dogmatic and unproductive as the traditional language learning community and are always trying to sell you the next foolproof gimmick.
Stressing the brain for more hours would need more focus breaks to de-stress. Studying more needs to be made more fun to endure.
I could not speak Irish after finishing school all I had was a few words and that was about all , so I went to an Irish speaking area with other learners who were far more advanced than me after one week with no English and Irish all day and late in to the night in the pub I was speaking Irish not very good but still I was speaking, so to answer your question you can not get enough input from people because it makes you think in the new language and forget the old after one week when someone speaks your old language you will not understand them because you will be expecting them to be speaking the new language, but if you are getting your input from UA-cam you then can only do a few hours a day
But people say there are only 174k words?
I've watched several videos with Dr VP. He knows his study very well and I believe his concepts have an important hierarchical position in language learning. However, I find his information difficult to apply to my language learning. Just my humble opinion. Any positive thoughts would be appreciated.
Let's be language specific.
What works best for English (ESL) or European languages may be different for Asian languages.
Also, English speakers in general have ZERO need to learn any other languages.
Any second language requires time commitment that will never result in any meaningful financial gain.
In other words, it's a waste of time.
@@Alec72HD I appreciate your honesty. I've worked at hospitals big and small. For the last 10 years, orderlies are mainly hired based on a second language--Spanish or Vietnamese. The official interpreter services are very cumbersome.
Children get at least 10 to 20 million words of input by the time they are 5 years old.
It is really difficult to learn a language with less than 1 million words of input. I have yet to see a textbook with even 500,000 words!
Where did you get the figure 20 Millon from
@@liambyrne5285 It is an estimate.
One article states 'Research tells us that children who hear at least 40 million words or more in the first four years of life develop early conversational skills, learn to read on time, do better in school, and have more communication opportunities in the future. '
The National Library of Medicine says 'The average child recorded by Hart and Risley (1995) heard about 7.3 million words of speech a year'
@@liambyrne5285 It is an estimate. The National Library of Medicine states ' The average child recorded by Hart and Risley (1995) heard about 7.3 million words of speech a year,...'
@@stevencarr4002 yes but what about children that can speak unrelated languages, 3 hours a day for 5 years is enough to get the child fluent in the new language,
Linguist: I practically learn a language like everybody else😂😂😂
57:38 yes, Loïs 😂 But, seriously, Bill is right, there’s certain ‘jeu de mots’ that one simple cannot get outside of fiction! Well, maybe history 😊 (and yes, I am joking about history)
As an autodidact polyglot, I can only say that he is a very clever fellow. In short, 😅😂😂
Loïs, great interview and all sir, but you've gotta be a bit more expressive during your interviews 😅 Like using facial expressions or something just to indicate your interest, otherwise you look very disinterested... 😅 no offense intended here, just something that stood out while watching this.
The doctor gives two reasons people quit improving in a language 1. they reach a proficiency that is "good enough" for their purposes 2. "leakage" of structure or phonetics etc from their native language.
Eh... 2 describes the features of 1. It's not a separate reason. Anyone who wants to will notice a difference, figure it out, and change it. And those who don't want to put that much effort into it don't.
My job consists of noticing differences and suggesting changes to the learner.
But more often than not, that doesn't work. The REAL job is identifying the type of processing that is "leaking," that is, causing non-English type things to show up in their English.
For instance, "a lot of [noun]" is rendered "a lot [noun]" by some students regardless of the number of times they hear or read the correct form UNTIL somebody like me asks them how they translate that phrase to their native language. Spanish speakers who exhibit this mistake invariably say "muchos."
A good translation in terms of meaning, but absolute trash, evidently, when it comes to reproducing the phrase "a lot of" with three words. So, i give them a three-word Spanish to remember it by, and that particular mistake disappears in about 48 hours.
My job is to change the cost-benefit calculations that their brains are constantly doing. Missing the word "of" every now and then doesn't do them perceptible harm, so they put very little attention into changing it. But when I offer them an easy fix, they implement it immediately.
No wonder this guy decided to quit teaching. He never figured out what to do about leakage. I hope his writing career goes a little better.
32
I think there is "only" 250,000 words in a dictionary and apparently you only use 10,000 of them ,if that. I maybe wrong.
Hi Lois! Could you please modify your thought experiment? It seems like everyone feels they can learn a language to a decent level in a year with no commitments. Let's put them to the test and say that they now have only 2 hours per day to do it
I asked a similar question in the interview I'm going to post next week!
@@loistalagrand Thank you man! I'm telling everyone about these interviews, doing what I can to get you more subs and views because it's legendary what youre doing
Thanks!@@jamescampanella5776
I have just 1000 to 1300 words in English.
Guys, you need to learn text books about SLA and research. I completely disagree, and science does too. Input isn't king. When you read or listen, you focus on meaning, when you speak, you focus on form. You can't do these things together because of a lack of resources. There's a lot of research out there about it. You never speak if you only use input! And you can read a lot of books and never speak because you concentrate only on meaning. Grammar works! I don't need to wait for magic. I can learn rules and use them immediately. But first, you need to learn them by practicing your production - output.
It doesn't work.
Rules you know explicitly don't "translate" (pun intended) into fluency or even correct usage of them.
Grammar rules have to become implicit, where you feel the language and it "sounds" wrong if you make a mistake.
I speak a second language as a native.
I once knew some textbook rules, but I have long forgotten them.
BUT...
I will AGREE with you on one condition.
Learn the grammar of your second language without using your first language in any way.
Just like native speakers do in grammar school.
Then it is very useful.
@@Alec72HD explicit knowledge -> proceduralization -> automatization.
Fluency is automatization. Studies show this.
You forgot grammar because of automatization.
There are a lot of examples in SLA research that show people living in English speaking countries a long time or immersed into a foreign language don't acquire grammar completely, for example, don't put 's' for 3d person in Present Simple or something.
You need to speak and that someone corrects you and you speak correctly again. It's a conscious process. Not implicit. This is why they make mistakes. They don't have someone who corrects them all the time like parents do for your native language when you are little
@@redstorm474
In the US,
Immigrant kids do acquire grammar "completely" and become native speakers of 2 languages.
Most Immigrant adults usually don't care, they keep using their native language throughout the day and only use English occasionally.
@Alec72HD kids have corrections from adults. Adults don't have. There's no magic. Without practicing and being aware, you never acquire a language. No matter whether you're a kid or an adult. And kids do practice and repeat after adults a lot as they grow up. More of that, they learn their language in school then. 11-12 years!!!
@@redstorm474
Incorrect.
Kids in immigrant families don't learn any English at home, not from the parents anyway.
Other kids (native speakers) don't go out of their way to correct mistakes of immigrant kids.
Even kids who don't have any friends and just watch content in English and listen to school lectures in English will develop proper English.
Again, no one is following some immigrant kid correcting their mistakes.
Kids learn a second language so perfectly because they don't have a psychological barrier that adults have.
What psychological barrier you may ask ?
Adults have a very DOMINANT native language that interferes with parallel development of a second language.
There are ways for adults to achieve similar state of mind, to become as receptive as a child in acquiring a second language.
I personally did that in about 6 months.
But that's a different story.
Can someone someone summarize the video?
Input, Input, Input
Output and grammar study are useful and essential but have a much lower importance in the acquisition process.
Language acquisition follows a certain order and you need to be patient and let it happen.
@@acroflyer6790 thank you só muchhh
Can someone share key takeaways from the video
- "yo vivir hacia uno casas"
-- aaah, este vato no habla español, gimme your wallet now, poo toh!
You lost me with your pronoun discussion. Using object pronouns when you should use subject pronouns and vice versa sounds ignorant.
Bill is a fascinating guest but the first 20 minutes of this interview (pronouns!) went way way waaay off the rails.
I really liked that part, I think it seemed specific but offered very important information about how language acquisition works as a whole
@@user-ic4ce8xb5vI agree. He showed how textbook rules just don’t work.
I love Lois but this is the most boring interview ever ….all I got from this is his braggadocio….
34:38 extremely eye-opening!
That’s me with my English! It’s good enough to survive in Canada for the past 24 years. LOL But I really wanna sound more native-like in Spanish this time around.
Lois you are very cute, I would love to meet you.
I turned this crap interview off after seven minutes because he’s talking in a bunch of mumbo-jumbo jargon that makes no sense. Get people in interviews that actually have real world examples.