I didn't respond to the last sentence because I didn't think there was much to say about it. I simply disagree with it. I believe that book learning leads people to think too much
about the language while they're trying to use and comprehend it, rather than just accept it for how it is. This slows down the cognitive processes and results in people who reach old age without ever being able to speak the language fluidly. A combined approach does help to offset this a bit, but I think it would still be best to avoid book learning entirely (that is, grammar explanation and vocab lists, not actual books in the language).
Quote:To use your previous comparison with how native Japanese learn kanji, it is mostly through exposure and actual use, not a rigidly structured study system. When are we to choose between native style and a structured approach? As my final sentence in my previous post stated, a mix of both is the best solution for a second language learner.
Well, let's look at how the Japanese wind up using kanji. Most Japanese adults can read about 2200 kanji without trouble, but can't write more than 1200, despite being exposed to them their whole lives. Something about their approach isn't working. On the other hand, they have little trouble using or comprehending spoken words. Clearly there is a difference between learning vocabulary and grammar, and learning kanji, and I touched on that a bit in my previous post.
One more reason for why Japanese can learn kanji pretty well without an approach like Heisig is that they already have the meanings and readings tied together before they start learning kanji, and only need to connect these to the characters' forms, foreigners are faced with connecting all three parts of the kanji puzzle. Indeed, I think that an illiterate person who spoke Japanese fluently and had no interest in writing it but wanted to learn to read would get little value from the Heisig approach.
Quote:While you are free to believe what you want about how the ability to learn languages changes with age, what you said goes against the current consensus in linguistic scientific understanding. Unless you are a published phd, I'd go with them instead of you. There are of course preconceptions you spoke of that can come with age, but those are a separate hurdle.
Language acquisition is categorically difficult (some say impossible) to measure, which makes any findings of that sort suspect. On top of that is the large factor of self-fulfilling prophecies. If a person grows up being told that babies have a "special" ability to learn languages that they lose past the age of two, then naturally they will have a mental block when someone tells them to pick up something intuitively. That is, unless someone convinces them otherwise. In fact, I was that way for a long time until I realized that it wasn't true. I would think that this factor is rarely taken into account in such studies.
My friend told me a while ago that if you haven't learned to pronounce a rolled R by the time you reach puberty, you never will. Yet I learned to do so at the ripe old age of 22. This doesn't prove anything about my main point, but it does show that scientific findings are not always to be trusted about what an adult can and can't do.
Edited: 2007-09-27, 1:24 am