Moderator:Forum Administrators
kevin wrote:I would be careful with teaching a simplified, incorrect version of a language first. Unlearning is pretty hard, and it might be harder than just avoiding some kind of construction until you can learn it properly.
Ciarán12 wrote:I'd also be very interested in hearing if there are any methods out there that have ever tried to actually teach a simplified version of a language first (basically, intentionally teaching incorrect, simplified grammar) in order to bypass parts of the grammar that are too difficult to waste time learning given that simplifying them still results in intelligible speech.
Sorry for the essay!
Ciarán12 wrote:Another example might be how the genitive is used after compound prepositions, so that “the door” is “an doras” (nice and simple) but “beside/near the door” is “in aice an dorais” (where “an dorais” is the genitive singular). If you said “in aice an doras” it would be understandable, but wrong. But is it worth learning - a) what a genitive is, b) how to form the genitive in Irish (which is difficult because of declensions), c) what a compound proposition is and d) to remember that you need to use the genitive here - if all this just makes her give up on learning the language entirely?
kevin wrote:... everyone is different. What works for you might not work for me.
....So I think, the lesson to learn here is: Don't make assumptions about her learning style. She might learn best like you, or like me, or a completely different way. It might be best to just ask her?
kevin wrote:And in fact, given the examples you listed, you would be pretty sure to discourage me from continuing with Irish because that approach would completely frustrate me. I don't think I've given up a language because of grammar, but I have because it's too much work to learn all the vocabulary. It seems you're the opposite. Apparently you're okay with just learning set phrases without knowing the literal meaning, but it drives me crazy if I don't know what they "really" say.
kevin wrote: (And especially with Irish, all those cute periphrastic expressions were one of the things that really made me more interested in the language.)
kevin wrote:My second point is that I think there are many options between actively teaching incorrect Irish while pretending it's correct and explaining every grammar concept at work in a sentence in all details. There is a difference whether you actively teach something incorrect or whether you just don't correct every error. I feel that any information that you give should be correct, but it may be incomplete.
For example, I don't think there is any problem in telling her that "is féidir liom" is literally "is possible with me" without explaining every use of the copula or with saying "'is' is rather complicated, let's leave that for another day".
But I would never settle for "tá sé fear" for the moment because you feel the copula is too complicated, if you know what I mean.
kevin wrote:I think you would be doing her a disservice if you didn't mention that a genitive should be used here. This isn't some weird construction, but it makes perfect sense with a literal translation: "in proximity of". Yes, of course it needs a genitive. English has an "of" there and I'm sure you can find a Portuguese translation with "de"(?).
Now I agree that forming the genitive isn't obvious in Irish (and there are some other weird aspects of the Irish genitive), and if she gets the form wrong, you probably don't want to interrupt her every time. But you also don't want to teach her intentionally wrong sentences. Pretending that the nominative is right here (and in things like the progressive forms) would mean teaching bad habits that need to be unlearned later. It might be a bit different if she knows that a genitive is needed here and both of you agree not to correct her for now, but otherwise it would only be a trap for her.
IpseDixit wrote:I would use that method only if circumstances required that I be able to communicate in a language as quickly as possible. If there's no actual hurry, I don't see why it's so important for you to be able to start communicating so soon, even to the detriment of grammar. Wouldn't it be better to take her through the real Irish grammar right from the start, little by little without rushing?
Ciarán12 wrote:True, I will ask, though I'm not 100% sure she will know. I certainly didn't know the best way for me, and had I been asked two years ago I might well have responded just as you did. I've since had the experience of learning a different way and I can say the results are better, for me at least.
Again, I understand the impulse and I would have said the same thing myself before I learned Portuguese, but I've done it a different way this time and I'm far better at Portuguese than I am and anything else (or ever have been).
kevin wrote: (And especially with Irish, all those cute periphrastic expressions were one of the things that really made me more interested in the language.)
But Kevin, you, I and everyone here are language nerds, we like weird grammatical intricacies.
Languages are toys for us to play with. Unfortunately, in my experience, playing with them is fun but at the end of it you* can't actually have a decent conversation, so...
*I don't me you specifically, Kevin. I'm sure your Irish is very good
The "Tá sé fear" thing is an example of a tough choice here - that kind of sentence sounds very wrong, wrong enough that it would be hard to accept that even for a beginner, but the grammar necessary to learn it could get tricky, unless I can figure out a way to teach the copula in a more simplified, superficial way that makes it easier to use (even if it doesn't allow you use it in all it's copular, crazy-syntax-y gloria). I think there's probably a middle ground there.
Just to illustrate this point, I'll mention a difficulty I had with Portuguese: [...]
kevin wrote:That's true. But you can always try out both approaches and then decide which one works better (or which mix of both). If something starts to get frustrating, she'll know.
kevin wrote:Again, I understand the impulse and I would have said the same thing myself before I learned Portuguese, but I've done it a different way this time and I'm far better at Portuguese than I am and anything else (or ever have been).
I suspect the key is that you invested a lot more time into Portuguese. Or did I get the wrong impression there?
kevin wrote:You're also right that I would probably (have to) change my approach if my goal was to actually get fluent in Irish quickly. But I'm pretty sure I wouldn't stop being curious about the literal meaning of things. I feel it helps me to remember expressions rather than being an additional burden.
kevin wrote:But I've met enough Irish learners who aren't language nerds, but are interested in it for all kinds of different reasons, and almost all of them enjoy this kind of phrases and knowing their literal meaning.
kevin wrote:Yes, you are completely right that many of us usually prefer playing with a language rather than learning it properly. But that doesn't mean that everything we do is useless for learning a language and must be avoided.
kevin wrote:And thanks, but you know that my Irish isn't very good.
kevin wrote:Just to illustrate this point, I'll mention a difficulty I had with Portuguese: [...]
I can see your point, though I also feel that unlearning a wrong form of a specific word is easier than unlearning a complete construction or a grammatical concept.
Ciarán12 wrote:Certainly if you don't see it as an extra burden, or even as something helpful, that's great, do it. But to be honest I'm thinking less about the interesting stuff like periphrastic phrases and more about the monotonous memorisation of, say, declensions or conjugation tables.
I definitely agree it's useful, but I kind of this it's best learnt after you achieve basic fluency, rather than before.
..and I knew you'd say that!
Essentially, the priority is for them to speak, not to speak correctly. So if they are learning as much as they can handle for the moment, and in the course of a conversation they need to say something which falls outside the scope of what they are learning, then they should just say it however it occurs to them to say it and hope they are understood, and not try to incorporate the correct way of saying it and all the extra grammatical baggage that comes with it into their learning until later down the road.
IpseDixit wrote:I'd never ever teach someone something wrong
voron wrote:IpseDixit wrote:I'd never ever teach someone something wrong
When my friend from Turkey came here to Belarus for several months, I taught him the basics of Russian. I never taught him the cases, just words and phrases (when I told him anything about the grammar he wouldn't listen), and he creatively put them together saying things like "I from Turkey", "I work (a) cook" -- ignoring all the cases, but not because I taught him something wrong, just because he didn't know cases exist.
IpseDixit wrote:voron wrote:IpseDixit wrote:I'd never ever teach someone something wrong
When my friend from Turkey came here to Belarus for several months, I taught him the basics of Russian. I never taught him the cases, just words and phrases (when I told him anything about the grammar he wouldn't listen), and he creatively put them together saying things like "I from Turkey", "I work (a) cook" -- ignoring all the cases, but not because I taught him something wrong, just because he didn't know cases exist.
Letting a person make wrong assumptions about how a language works is still teaching something wrong if you ask me.
Ciarán12 wrote: Yeah, but the guy ended up speaking Russian.
Return to “General Language Forum”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests