The only way to fully internalize anything is to use it in conversation. You won't be able to say a sentence fluently on-the-go no matter how many times you've read or listened to similar sentences.

Thanks everyone for your (amazingly) fast and good replies, it's great to have such an active forum.

Wally Wrote:The whole point of sentences is to not consciously study grammar (or at least not to worry about memorizing rules; it's not so bad to read over grammar explanations if the goal is to get meaning from something you're trying to read). So, if doing these sentences on flashcards feels like you aren't focusing on grammar, yet you are still reading and understanding sentences, then you are doing it right.

That was one thing I was worried about, I do understand the sentences, but I was worried that I didn't think enough about the grammar rule that was introduced with that card in particular. So, thanks for dispelling my fears.

Right now I'm doing recognition cards for all the grammar points I take from Tae Kim's and production cards for those cards that are more complex and/or have kanji compounds that I haven't encountered before. I'll keep Tobberoth's advice in mind and employ a very high standard for passing the recognition cards and look for some example sentences on those grammar points from other sources as well (AAP or maybe the Dictionary of Basic Japanese Grammar, although they use many words that I'm unfamiliar with).

Tobberoth Wrote:The only way to fully internalize anything is to use it in conversation. You won't be able to say a sentence fluently on-the-go no matter how many times you've read or listened to similar sentences.

Not true. You absolutely *will* be able to internalize (define "fully", please), and speak, a sentence that you have listened to repeatedly (preferably while reading), and repeated, aloud, many times, with understanding. It goes without saying that conversation is a wonderful tool for internalization, but it's not an exclusive tool. In fact, until you have something internalized, you just plain are *not* going to have any "conversations".

At first reading, I had a similar reaction to Tobberoth's post. But I realized, as is evident in your post, it may just be a matter of semantics. Perhaps fully internalized doesn't just mean "grammatical competence that is fully acquired"; maybe it means "fully acquired with the ability to understand it many conversational contexts in various forms and the ability to speak it fluidly without thinking in many conversational contexts and various forms." In which case, I tend to agree.

There was a teacher who used a teaching method based on acquisition (comprehensible input) but she did not allow her students to speak in the language in class. She said they were to focus on listening and understanding only. Then at the end of the year she tested them with a speaking assessment. Their actual grammatical competence was the same as students of her other classes, but their confidence and overall flow was very low. They could speak but it was stilted because they hadn't used the language in speech. It appeared to her that speaking and using the language one is acquiring is important to making one a fluent speaker.

Perhaps this is what Tobberoth meant. What makes me think so even more is his second sentence which I believe is his definition of "fully internalized" or at least one big part of it.

Indeed. I do not consider a sentence fully internalized until it jumps up automatically in your head when you're talking Japanese. It's completely different from being asked "How do I say YYY" and you thinking about it and answering. It's the essence of fluency.

Reading and listening can do wonders for your comprehension but it won't make it come to you naturally when speaking just like that.

Tobberoth Wrote:Indeed. I do not consider a sentence fully internalized until it jumps up automatically in your head when you're talking Japanese. It's completely different from being asked "How do I say YYY" and you thinking about it and answering. It's the essence of fluency.

Reading and listening can do wonders for your comprehension but it won't make it come to you naturally when speaking just like that.

I did write that speaking is necessary. Somewhere in this forum I wrote that language acquisition is an athletic, as well as an intellectual, endeavor. The tongue is a muscle that must be trained, just like any other muscle. But internalization ultimately comes from repetition, and conversation is not an exclusive tool for that.

As for "fully internalized", I'll go even a step further. It's when someone in your native language asks you what 懐かしい means, and while you are terribly comfortable with the expression in Japanese, you have to grope for a few seconds before you can explain it in your native language.

What a coincidence! I just posted about this in my blog!

Tobberoth Wrote:Reading and listening can do wonders for your comprehension but it won't make it come to you naturally when speaking just like that.

Tobberoth, please don't think I'm picking on you (after the native/translated conversation), but I disagree with your absolute statements once again. Are you basing this on any study or on your personal experience. How do you *know* it? If it's only your experience, I'll offer mine as a counterpoint.
I'm French. I lived in the US for a year and a half, when I was six. After moving back to France, I read english books. Lots of them. But I never took any english classes (I studied german and spanish in school). I went back to the US for a couple of weeks when I was ten. I never practiced talking. At the most I would end up having an english conversation a couple times a year, when meeting foreigners. When I went to London to spend the summer (at age 22), I had no problem having adult conversations with the people I met and worked with. And I wasn't just using the grammar and vocabulary of a six year old. Same thing when I went back to the US at age 26.
In my experience, the words and structures I've been exposed to, whether by reading or watching movies, do pop up naturally when I speak.

Wally, I enjoy with your definition of "fully internalized". I think it is the beauty of learning in context, when words in your target language evoke a the experience of the word more than a precise meaning. The consequence is that, unless you train it specifically, it may sometimes be difficult to quickly translate a word from one language to the other, as this is not how your brain is working.

edit: typo

I wouldn't agree with Wallys definition since it's a much lower level. I can't really explain what 該当 means in English nor Swedish but I still understand it perfectly in Japanese. That doesn't mean it's in my active memory, there's no way it would pop up in conversation unless I needed to use exactly that word. It wouldn't come to me fluently and thus I can't count it as fully internalized. When you've never used a word in a conversation before, there's almost always the "ah, I can use that word" moment when you use it for the first time. It might not be based on a study, but it's not just my experience, I met tons of foreigners in Japan who has studied Japanese more than me yet spoke like children because they didn't have enough Japanese in their active memory (which is what I consider fully internalized). They understood my japanese just fine, they just couldn't speak like me, it took them longer to create sentences and they fell back to basic vocabulary very often.

Tobberoth Wrote:It might not be based on a study, but it's not just my experience, I met tons of foreigners in Japan who has studied Japanese more than me yet spoke like children because they didn't have enough Japanese in their active memory (which is what I consider fully internalized). They understood my japanese just fine, they just couldn't speak like me, it took them longer to create sentences and they fell back to basic vocabulary very often.

And you believe it is because they did not practice speaking enough, but how can you be sure? I could just as well say that they didn't read enough. I don't disagree with all that you are saying. My point is only this: I think that the language you are exposed to will pop up in your conversation without having to actively practice it. Like Wally, I believe repetition is key. It may not be the only or the best or the fastest way to spoken fluency, but your sentence excluded the possibility of a (non-practiced) transition from passive to active. My experience says otherwise.

nyquil Wrote:

Tobberoth Wrote:It might not be based on a study, but it's not just my experience, I met tons of foreigners in Japan who has studied Japanese more than me yet spoke like children because they didn't have enough Japanese in their active memory (which is what I consider fully internalized). They understood my japanese just fine, they just couldn't speak like me, it took them longer to create sentences and they fell back to basic vocabulary very often.

And you believe it is because they did not practice speaking enough, but how can you be sure? I could just as well say that they didn't read enough. I don't disagree with all that you are saying. My point is only this: I think that the language you are exposed to will pop up in your conversation without having to actively practice it. Like Wally, I believe repetition is key. It may not be the only or the best or the fastest way to spoken fluency, but your sentence excluded the possibility of a (non-practiced) transition from passive to active. My experience says otherwise.

And Mr. Khatzumoto of AJATT says the same thing, claiming to have become fluent in Japanese in an environment where having a conversation in Japanese rarely, if ever, happened.

But courses for horses, to reverse the old saw. Anyone who has ever even dabbled in educational theory understands that different people learn in different ways. So the key is for each individual to grok what works for himself/herself, and then get on with it.

Wally Wrote:

nyquil Wrote:

Tobberoth Wrote:It might not be based on a study, but it's not just my experience, I met tons of foreigners in Japan who has studied Japanese more than me yet spoke like children because they didn't have enough Japanese in their active memory (which is what I consider fully internalized). They understood my japanese just fine, they just couldn't speak like me, it took them longer to create sentences and they fell back to basic vocabulary very often.

And you believe it is because they did not practice speaking enough, but how can you be sure? I could just as well say that they didn't read enough. I don't disagree with all that you are saying. My point is only this: I think that the language you are exposed to will pop up in your conversation without having to actively practice it. Like Wally, I believe repetition is key. It may not be the only or the best or the fastest way to spoken fluency, but your sentence excluded the possibility of a (non-practiced) transition from passive to active. My experience says otherwise.

And Mr. Khatzumoto of AJATT says the same thing, claiming to have become fluent in Japanese in an environment where having a conversation in Japanese rarely, if ever, happened.

Actually, he has admitted to speaking tons of Japanese with Japanese exchange students etc. Speaking is a completely different skill than reading and writing, it's just impossible to speak fluently without even trying. Take my English as example, look at my writing. My conversational skill isn't even CLOSE to this level.

It really makes little sense to believe that a skill is randomly gained without training. Just like looking at tons of pictures won't make you a good painter.

Tobberoth Wrote:Speaking is a completely different skill than reading and writing, it's just impossible to speak fluently without even trying. Take my English as example, look at my writing. My conversational skill isn't even CLOSE to this level.

While I fully agree that it's different than reading, it's not -that- different from writing... And if your mind works a certain way, you're practicing 'speaking' the whole time your learning, but inside your head. If you also have a tendency to speak things out loud as well, so much the better.

So you -can- learn to speak Japanese without ever having spoken to someone else in Japanese... It's going to be a longer, harder road... But it's possible. Arguing that it's impossible is not going to convince anyone to give it up... You're more likely to spur them on to trying and wasting valuable time.

It just makes a lot more sense to listen to people's advice and find some Japanese speaking partners.

Ok, probably output is very important. But if we weight the importance of output and input, input would comprize with 98% of the efficacy, output would be 1% and more 1% to unknown factors.

It is not that you can or not become fluent from input only.

It is that the best way to achieve fluency is to focus 98% of your effort on input.

980 hours of input and 20 hours of output have much better effect than 500 hours of input and 500 hours of output.

I don't need someone to converse with in order to produce Japanese. I think in Japanese in my head a lot, and I've definitely been getting better at it by reading and studying.

mentat_kgs Wrote:Ok, probably output is very important. But if we weight the importance of output and input, input would comprize with 98% of the efficacy, output would be 1% and more 1% to unknown factors.

I agree with you, but I think your numbers are skewed. 98% is very very high for input.
If you can read 98 words out of a 100 word document, great -- you can understand it very well, but if you can only fluently use 2 of them, that's not very useful.

Of course, fluency can mean different things to different people. Are you fluent if you can explain complex topics using simple words (because you don't know the tough ones), and you can do this day and night without thinking about it?
Or is fluency being able to understand a lot more of the big words, knowing what they mean, even if you can't talk about it?

I can watch dramas and understand the vast majority of what is going on. When I have to talk about what happened, I can explain what happened, but I know that I probably won't use the right words. I'm still considered 'one of the better ones' in class.

Tobberoth Wrote:

Wally Wrote:

nyquil Wrote:And you believe it is because they did not practice speaking enough, but how can you be sure? I could just as well say that they didn't read enough. I don't disagree with all that you are saying. My point is only this: I think that the language you are exposed to will pop up in your conversation without having to actively practice it. Like Wally, I believe repetition is key. It may not be the only or the best or the fastest way to spoken fluency, but your sentence excluded the possibility of a (non-practiced) transition from passive to active. My experience says otherwise.

And Mr. Khatzumoto of AJATT says the same thing, claiming to have become fluent in Japanese in an environment where having a conversation in Japanese rarely, if ever, happened.

Actually, he has admitted to speaking tons of Japanese with Japanese exchange students etc. Speaking is a completely different skill than reading and writing, it's just impossible to speak fluently without even trying. Take my English as example, look at my writing. My conversational skill isn't even CLOSE to this level.

It really makes little sense to believe that a skill is randomly gained without training. Just like looking at tons of pictures won't make you a good painter.

My goodness. Who said anything about 'random'? I believe the main point being argued here was a contention that conversation was the absolute only way to fluency. Most seem to believe that it is one of several possible avenues.

Wally Wrote:

Tobberoth Wrote:

Wally Wrote:And Mr. Khatzumoto of AJATT says the same thing, claiming to have become fluent in Japanese in an environment where having a conversation in Japanese rarely, if ever, happened.

Actually, he has admitted to speaking tons of Japanese with Japanese exchange students etc. Speaking is a completely different skill than reading and writing, it's just impossible to speak fluently without even trying. Take my English as example, look at my writing. My conversational skill isn't even CLOSE to this level.

It really makes little sense to believe that a skill is randomly gained without training. Just like looking at tons of pictures won't make you a good painter.

My goodness. Who said anything about 'random'? I believe the main point being argued here was a contention that conversation was the absolute only way to fluency. Most seem to believe that it is one of several possible avenues.

Very much so, but we are talking FULLY internalized. By fully, I mean 100%. If I can read a word and understand it, that's good. But I wouldn't be satisfied until I can also use it fluently. I'd say conversation is the absolute only way to get fluent because if you've never conversed, you won't be fluent. Reading is of course just as important, more important even, but speaking can't be skipped. You might be extremely good, but not fluent. Fluency entails reading, writing, listening AND speaking. I wouldn't call myself fluent if I was missing any of those aspects. Like mentat said, speaking is what you focus the least on and it's usually what you do last. You don't output words you haven't heard. You usually don't hear words (and understand them) without having read them first. Speaking is that final usage which clicks the words into FULL internalization.

I have another quick question. When you encounter a new compound, do you normally look up whether it is on/on, kun/on, on/kun, kun/kun etc. or do you just ignore that and learn the pronunciation as a whole?

Hinode Wrote:I have another quick question. When you encounter a new compound, do you normally look up whether it is on/on, kun/on, on/kun, kun/kun etc. or do you just ignore that and learn the pronunciation as a whole?

You don't have to, just a little bit of studying and you'll be able to tell from a glance whether it's on or kun.

Normally, I just learn the pronunciation as a whole. In my opinion, knowing whether a reading is 音読み or 訓読み won't help you memorise the word. But you could if you really wanted to - and like T said, pretty soon you'll be able to recognise the difference between kun and on.

This is an answer to Tobberoth's response to me in another thread.

You give your reasons for being skeptical of my claims. One is logical:

Tobberoth Wrote:It would be illogical to assume that one can learn something without training it. It's pure deduction.

I have to say that I would be careful about using a "logical deduction" as simplified as this one as a reason to doubt someone's experience: life cannot easily be captured by simple logic. Moreover, I don't see why it is illogical (my point was about something i could *do* without having trained it, and at this level of abstraction, there are obviously many things we can do without training). And finally, I'll note that Heisig suggests people train recognition 'keyword to kanji' since the reciprocal skill, 'kanji to keyword', will then be gained (without being trained). (I'm paraphrasing from memory.)


The other reason you give is a supposition which is actually a little beside my point:

Tobberoth Wrote:but I'm going to say that if I heard you talk English for the very first time and had a conversation with you, I would probably hear that you've had no training in it.

This is not a reason, it is basically saying that you don't believe me, because you don't believe me. Note however that what you say is not exactly related to the point I was trying to make, and to the specific quote of yours I put in my message. In the same way, the last part of your message is largely irrelevant.

To recap, you said that it was impossible "to say a sentence fluently on-the-go no matter how many times you've read or listened to similar sentences", and I explained that this was not my experience, rather very much the contrary: "In my experience, the words and structures I've been exposed to, whether by reading or watching movies, do pop up naturally when I speak". I was just taking exception to your absolute statement. I maintain this exception.

There is an army of people that can speak languages without ever practicing output.

I'm one of them. It happened with English and now it is happening with Japanese.
Also I know many more people doing that.

It's not a question of belief. it is a fact.

And yes, my numbers are skewed.
It is not possible to account it perfetly, but probably 1% for speaking practice is already way too much.

For japanese I've read far more than 30000 sentences.
Right now, only my sentences deck account for more than 3000 sentences.

Also, I've listened far more japanese that I have read.

I'll take some lifetimes to do the same with output.

Just to comment on the statement Mr T said about painting. While it's true that looking at a painting won't make you good at art, watching a master painter (how) who narrates as he works (why) for an extended time may make you good, or in the very least, put you ahead of the curve.

Mentat_Kgs Wrote:There is an army of people that can speak languages without ever practicing output before.

I'm one of them. It happened with English and now it is happening with Japanese.
Also I know many more people doing that.

It's not a question of belief. it is a fact.

Depends on what one considers output, but I tend to agree. Unfortunately I'm the artistic type so you'll have to take my consideration with a grain a salt (whatever that means).

nyquil Wrote:This is an answer to Tobberoth's response to me in another thread.

You give your reasons for being skeptical of my claims. One is logical:

Tobberoth Wrote:It would be illogical to assume that one can learn something without training it. It's pure deduction.

I have to say that I would be careful about using a "logical deduction" as simplified as this one as a reason to doubt someone's experience: life cannot easily be captured by simple logic. Moreover, I don't see why it is illogical (my point was about something i could *do* without having trained it, and at this level of abstraction, there are obviously many things we can do without training). And finally, I'll note that Heisig suggests people train recognition 'keyword to kanji' since the reciprocal skill, 'kanji to keyword', will then be gained (without being trained). (I'm paraphrasing from memory.)


The other reason you give is a supposition which is actually a little beside my point:

Tobberoth Wrote:but I'm going to say that if I heard you talk English for the very first time and had a conversation with you, I would probably hear that you've had no training in it.

This is not a reason, it is basically saying that you don't believe me, because you don't believe me. Note however that what you say is not exactly related to the point I was trying to make, and to the specific quote of yours I put in my message. In the same way, the last part of your message is largely irrelevant.

To recap, you said that it was impossible "to say a sentence fluently on-the-go no matter how many times you've read or listened to similar sentences", and I explained that this was not my experience, rather very much the contrary: "In my experience, the words and structures I've been exposed to, whether by reading or watching movies, do pop up naturally when I speak". I was just taking exception to your absolute statement. I maintain this exception.

Well, your counter to my first reason is valid even though I disagree. There might be other areas where training isn't needed, but output isn't one of them (my experience tells me) because of all the people I know who has been exposed to tons of Japanese yet speaks it badly because they aren't used to it. The second one isn't because I never meant it as a reason, I was explaining what I meant, my point being that there might be a difference in definition here. You're saying that you could speak English without any output practice. I'm saying that you won't become fluent in conversation without conversing.

When you go keyword -> kanji, you see the keyword which makes you think of a story which makes you realize the bushu and thus you remember the kanji. When you see the kanji you see the radicals, thus remember your story and therefor the keyword. It only works because it's the exact same thing you've been training, just from different ends. Input and output is however completely different. You see a sentence and understand it, you don't create it. It's a different action all together. When you see a sentence in a book, you have quite some time to analyze it and understand it. You can reread parts you didn't get perfectly until you had the full picture. It's completely different when outputting, it has to be done really fast and there's no sentence already there to help you.

Training output helps in conversation. Did you write on forums etc while in France? That would certainly transfer to conversational ability (although not all the way, there's still a big difference in outputting fluently and fast in a conversation and outputting slowly with the ability to edit in a chat or on a forum).

I respect mentats opinions and his experience. I would love to hear him speak myself in a conversation so I know what to expect though since my definition of fluency in conversation is vital here. I'm not saying you will read Japanese for years and then have a conversation and just... stand there, without being able to say anything. I'm just saying that the ability to talk needs to be trained because it's a completely different skill from understanding.