Many focus on acquisition of language merely to meet personal goals or objectives, as mundane as anime or music. One might find himself within whimsical approaches of learning grammar for namesake or dire need to find his other self in a language or a perhaps a less common goal like the predefined academic objective presented by someone with a fancy name and title. But what really, is the importance of language learning if not for one's own personal leanings? But what would he accomplish if all his objectives were met simply for his own whims, and not for academic necessity? What, really, is the difference between linguistics, the scientific study of language, and the hobbyist learning of languages?
Linguistics is the analysis of the acquisition of language and the key elements to be understood and is supposedly best acquired in an academic setting. Language Learning is a bit more vague and open-ended and occasionally sold online but works and is cost effective, often touted as if the end point were already reached upon clicking some link. Thus the common differentiation between the two separates one's sudden apprehension of an unknown language between his steady development within the language is thus a simple distinction between elemental bottom-up motivation of development and generalized top-down motivational acquisition, often interfered by externalized value which moves more deeply into the senses of extrinsic and intrinsic growth. Common in society to praise or degrade someone upon which a point is reached, thus to purify language desire and allow intrinsic perception.
The difference between touting and selling the idea of fluency and the analysis of the key elements of the language is thus a matter of the structural motivation symbols resultant of one's personal perception and hobbies but not of external imposition by another individual who wishes to imbue the true path to fluency. Thus what I would like to see more in the language learning community is a more uniform, definite understanding of the process of language development, and not a marketable and presentably clear vision of one's lack of understanding. Thus there must be a clearer understanding of the levels of which a person meets while still allowing leeway for personal creativity in development.
What is the correct way to view one's level in a language? As opposed to the argument of what fluency is, by what means can we view language levels. Food for thought, and according to your field of study perceptual of preferences -- this can go so much deeper.
Keywords: JLPT; Paul Nation
Linguistics is the analysis of the acquisition of language and the key elements to be understood and is supposedly best acquired in an academic setting. Language Learning is a bit more vague and open-ended and occasionally sold online but works and is cost effective, often touted as if the end point were already reached upon clicking some link. Thus the common differentiation between the two separates one's sudden apprehension of an unknown language between his steady development within the language is thus a simple distinction between elemental bottom-up motivation of development and generalized top-down motivational acquisition, often interfered by externalized value which moves more deeply into the senses of extrinsic and intrinsic growth. Common in society to praise or degrade someone upon which a point is reached, thus to purify language desire and allow intrinsic perception.
The difference between touting and selling the idea of fluency and the analysis of the key elements of the language is thus a matter of the structural motivation symbols resultant of one's personal perception and hobbies but not of external imposition by another individual who wishes to imbue the true path to fluency. Thus what I would like to see more in the language learning community is a more uniform, definite understanding of the process of language development, and not a marketable and presentably clear vision of one's lack of understanding. Thus there must be a clearer understanding of the levels of which a person meets while still allowing leeway for personal creativity in development.
What is the correct way to view one's level in a language? As opposed to the argument of what fluency is, by what means can we view language levels. Food for thought, and according to your field of study perceptual of preferences -- this can go so much deeper.
Keywords: JLPT; Paul Nation