Learning A Lot of Vocabulary: A New Idea About How It Happens

Lantian
August 03, 2007, 04:39 AM posted in General Discussion

TAKING THE TIME, PARALLEL LEARNING 

 

Does Cpod encourage and support this idea of parallel learning? Is it the key to learning A LOT of vocabulary without traditional memorization? Have the learning ideas in the article below been discussed in second-language acquisition academics?

Here are some key points in the article below.  

1. People learn 60,000 words without flashcards

2. Parallel exposure and a gestation period

3. Talking and reading are key

4. One needs harder words to settle the easier ones. 

Over time and on numerous occasions I have read in the Cpod posts of learners having frustration going from one level to the next. More often than not John P has asked learners to be patient and that going from one level to the next takes time, especially from say elementary to intermediate. 

When I read the article below, it sounded like the process that these learners were going thru was almost exactly the same as that described about young babies on their road to speech. For a long while, babies will just say 'ma ma and papa, give me" and then it seems like all of a sudden they explode into full sentences and a cacophony of new words.

What is interesting in the article is that researchers are now understanding better that the kids are working on vocabulary, somewhat in the background, for lengthy periods of time. It is only when they have a good level of comfort with a certain range of words, that those words spew out in an apparent torrent of language. Importantly the kids continue working on the next batch of words, it's a kind of learning in parallel.

 

Learning language formula

Exposure to a set of vocabulary over a constant protracted period of time (speaking and reading)

                              +

Time for the mind to figure out the words

                              +

Exposure to a new set of vocabulary over a constant protracted period of time

                              =

                        acquisition

 

Doesn't this sound to you like the Cpod levels? Everyone keep listening and working those exercises!! 

What I do think is not emphasized enough is that learners have to keep finding new ways and variations of the set of vocabulary for a long enough period of time to figure out meaning. The production then follows. To keep going though, there must also be exposure with the next 'higher' set of words. Till 60,000 becomes second nature.

 

Here's the article, your thoughts? New idea or same ol' same 'ol with a new ad campaign?

Note: Bolding and highlighting in the article below are mine. 

How baby babbles become talking tsunami

By LAURAN NEERGAARD, AP Medical Writer Thu Aug 2, 2:08 PM ET

WASHINGTON - It's called the "word spurt," that magical time when a toddler's vocabulary explodes, seemingly overnight.

New research offers a decidedly un-magical explanation: Babies start really jabbering after they've mastered enough easy words to tackle more of the harder ones. It's essentially a snowball effect.

That explanation, published in Friday's edition of the journal Science, is far simpler than scientists' assumptions that some special brain mechanisms must click to trigger the word boom.

Instead, University of Iowa psychology professor Bob McMurray contends that what astonishes parents is actually the fairly guaranteed outcome of a lot of under-the-radar work by tots as they start their journey to learn 60,000 words by adulthood.

If McMurray is right, it could have implications for parents bombarded with technology gimmicks that claim to boost language.

He thinks simply talking and reading to a child a lot is the key.

"Children are soaking up everything," he said. "You might use 'serendipity' to a child. It will take that child maybe hundreds of exposures, or thousands, to learn what 'serendipity' means. So why not start early?"

Sometime before the first birthday comes that first word, perhaps "mama." A month or so later comes "da-da." Now, it may seem like it took the baby almost a year to learn the first word and a month to learn the second. Not so. He'd been working on both the whole time, something scientists call parallel learning.

Up to age 14 months, on average — and how soon kids speak is hugely variable — words pop out here and there. Then comes an acceleration, and after they can say 50 or so words there's often a language explosion, sometime around 18 months, McMurray says.

What sparks the spurt? There are numerous theories centering around the idea that a toddler brain must first develop specialized learning tools, such as the ability to recognize that objects have names.

The new research doesn't negate those theories, but it suggests "we might be missing the big picture," says McMurray, who developed a computer model to simulate the speed at which 10,000 words could be learned.

He found that as long as toddlers are working to decipher many words at once — that parallel learning — and they're being exposed to more difficult words than easy ones, the word spurt is guaranteed.

Consider: Scientists know children learn through the process of elimination. If Mom asks, "Please pass me the plate," and the child sees a fork, a spoon and some round thing, by age 2 most will match the new word to the unknown object.

That fits with McMurray's model. As you acquire many words, the process of elimination for new ones becomes easier so that vocabulary accelerates.

Then he compared easy words parents use with babies to more sophisticated adult speech. There was faster early learning with exposure to simple words, but then new vocabulary slowed — only to speed up again with exposure to harder words.

"The work is extremely creative," said Dr. Janet Werker, a language development specialist at the University of British Columbia.

Her own research shows that some words are particularly difficult for toddlers, including rhyming words such as "bin" and "din." The new work shows that trouble won't stall overall learning.

"It suggests the fact that some words are more difficult to learn than others is part of what propels the vocabulary explosion," Werker said. "That's really insightful."

 

Profile picture
man2toe
August 03, 2007, 06:04 AM

自由聯想遊戲 藍天等於熱心

Profile picture
johnb
August 04, 2007, 04:13 AM

Lantian, haha, try telling my wife that.

Profile picture
johnb
August 03, 2007, 12:29 PM

Before starting at ChinesePod, I worked for 15 months as a Chinese-English translator for a Taiwanese translation company. My Chinese was OK before I started there, but skyrocketed afterwards. I actually didn't study that much during that period -- I was sort of sick of Chinese by the time I got off work -- but still my vocabulary expanded greatly by virtue of the sheer amount of Chinese I was reading each day. Anything with even middling frequency got repeated constantly, and eventually it stuck. That said, now that I'm not reading Chinese constantly, I'm back to a program of massive repetition. I believe that anyone, regardless of age, can learn a language to a "native" level so long as they put in just about as much work as a child does as he or she grows into adulthood in a language. The thing is, I took a long dang time to get to where I am in English, and I'm just not willing to wait that long for Chinese. :)

Profile picture
goulnik
August 03, 2007, 01:37 PM

FYI, here's the abstract and full-text article straight from the horse's mouth.

Profile picture
goulnik
August 03, 2007, 03:12 PM

4000 repetitions is what it takes, the more contexts the better. That's a lot of hours indeed, but no need for any grammar there, just suck up the patterns

Profile picture
aeflow
August 03, 2007, 03:35 PM

johnb, I'm not sure I agree with you. A child doesn't "put in work" to learn a language, it's effortless for them, it happens automatically. I'm sure their brains are doing a lot of work behind the scenes, but then again your brain does a lot of work behind the scenes every time you ride a bicycle or turn a doorknob. It's just not conscious or "effortful". By contrast, learning how to read (in your native language or any other) does take conscious effort, for children or anyone else. The result is, around 20% or more of the population, even in developed countries with free compulsory education, end up functionally illiterate (many countries claim near universal literacy, but that's often exaggerated as a matter of policy). On the other hand, ability to speak is absolutely universal except in rare cases of severe mental impairment. There's no such word as "speakeracy". Adults learning a foreign language are like children learning to read: nearly anyone can learn it, but they have to put in a lot of conscious effort. By contrast, children learning to speak really do have an innate gift for doing so. They learn to talk the way they learn to walk on two legs: it's something they were just meant to do. By the way, here's an interesting article: according to recent research, your ability to learn a foreign language depends on a structure in your brain called "Heschl's gyrus": http://health.enorth.com.cn/system/2007/07/30/001793619.shtml

Profile picture
lunetta
August 03, 2007, 10:37 AM

A very interesting article but also similar to thoughts I've seen expressed around Cpod before when discussing flashcards and learning characters. Still, as Lantian, I think it is important to stress the importance of different input-material. Some words and ways of expression are more common in the spoken language than in the written and vice versa, not to speak of all the other factors that may influence the choice of a particular wording. Another important factor which the article doesn't mention explicitly is context. We need to hear a word or phrase in context to be able to understand its meaning. Just hearing the word 'serendipity' hundreds of times will only put its sound in our brain and not its meaning. And the sound may not even be remembered because we don't have anything to remember it by.

Profile picture
goulnik
August 03, 2007, 04:13 PM

I agree with aeflow, except adults once were children too, and if you accept to let go, you can become one again. that take a fair amount of non-effort, and time, gets harder and harder with time, but it does work.

Profile picture
fp00n
August 03, 2007, 04:51 PM

I'd have to disagree with the idea that children have an "innate" ability for language. Their main advantages in learning language over adults isn't innate, but the fact that they have 2 full-time teachers - their parents (not to mention TV and then as soon as they're older - school). Psychologically, they also are not as afraid to make mistakes, and unlike adults, don't already know another language which gives them more free and creative license to experiment without having a pre-conceived idea of what language should be like many adults do. In fact, how long does it take for someone to develop their native language to an adult level? About, say 20 years to get all that vocab to talk about philosophy, politics, etc. Adults can learn a second language much faster, but are generally more impatient, which makes it feel like kids are so great at languages when it's not quite the case.

Profile picture
jimkahl
August 03, 2007, 05:11 PM

the article and discussion here is an interesting one and I'm sure the debate could go on about how easy/difficult it is to learn a language (native or otherwise). I have always believed that immersion is the best way to go (but that's MHO). I am definitely a newbie when it comes to Mandarin, but I have been downloading about 20 pod casts a day (of all levels) and listen to them while I am at work. At first when I would listen to anything above Elementary level, I would just shake my head and wonder if I would ever be able to pick it up. Now, after about two weeks of subscribing to CPod, I can listen to the Advanced levels and pick out words/phrases here and there that I know. I guess that would be something like the way a baby's brain functions when listening to adults. I know that in time I will be able to understand it, speaking and reading might be a little different story since I do not have daily access to someone with which I can converse (and correct my mistakes). I think that for me this is the best method at my disposal and am looking forward to many years as a faithful subscriber.

Profile picture
johnb
August 03, 2007, 09:20 PM

I don't think children have any innate abilities that adults don't, but they do have two great advantages: 1) a burning need to learn the language, as it's their only way to effectively communicate what they want/need to the people around them, and they have virtually no alternatives; 2) all the time in the world.

Profile picture
Lantian
August 03, 2007, 11:59 PM

Hi Johnb, We have as much time as they do. :)

Profile picture
Lantian
August 03, 2007, 04:10 PM

Hi Aeflow, I kind of disagree that children don't put in a lot of work in learning how to speak. If you watch kids carefully, they often go thru the same 'work' and 'challenges' that adult learners of language go thru. They often get frustrated at not being able to communicate. They have huge gaps of non-speech. They talk incoherently. They mix up words. Only those close to them understand what they mean. Etc. They also, however, are extremely engaged in acquiring their language. They ask questions, repeat things, experiment, and even hound those in their environment. Plus the environment supports kids thru a lengthy acquisition period, a luxury not often afforded to adults. Kids don't have to work! I think if many of these traits are adopted by adults, their acquisition of speech can also be quite effortless. I'm not saying that society and adult behaviors don't make that difficult, but I'm more inclined to view that nurture has a higher effect than the 'nature' which we as adults use as a crutch to not behave like wild, shouting, babbling kids! ;) What I liked about this researcher's ideas and the article is that it supports a greater acceptance of time and exposure for adults, and also that the acquisition of vocabulary is not a one-to-one flashcard memorization like process.