
The chunking express: another approach to foreign-language learning - nopinsight
http://www.economist.com/blogs/prospero/2015/10/johnson-pedagogy
======
jtheory
This is a great approach -- don't just learn words (and string them together
in sequences taken from your native language... not likely to be right!);
learn common chunks that you can re-use everywhere.

There are still verb tenses that I haven't properly learned in French, but I
use them because I learned some chunks that use them. I'm not at ease with
using the tenses involved in "I should have ___ but I ___" \-- but I know the
chunks for that particular phrase without thinking about it (e.g., _J 'aurais
dû lui dire mais j'avais complètement oublié_) -- that's technically
conditional past then pluperfect.. which I had to look up just now; I don't
really know them! There are oddities with imperative form that I only really
know through chunks -- but "don't be afraid" ( _n 'aies pas peur_) is easy
even though it's irregular, just because I know that one.

And now they're less alien-feeling, so -- being comfortable with the chunked
versions -- I now have mental hooks that let me recognize similar conjugations
used on other verbs when I run into them.

------
mtdewcmu
Idiomatic expressions (like "come in handy") have to be learned as complete
pieces, because they're, well, idiomatic -- they can't be predicted from
simple rules. I remember studying Spanish idiomatic expressions in Spanish
classes I took years ago. Chunks, as described in this article, seem to be
perhaps somehow more general than idioms; evidently, chunks seem to span
across different languages and capture a broader range of constructs. However,
most of the examples given could be considered examples of idioms. Thus it's
not clear to me exactly how the two concepts differ in practice.

------
wodenokoto
The article says McWhorter keeps a list of essential chunks. I did a Google
search but came up empty handed.

Anyone know where it is?

~~~
mikekchar
It's actually not necessary to have such a list. Just buy a book with the kind
of language that you want to use (comic book are great because they are full
of dialog, but you could easily pick up a script for a play, for instance). It
will contain the essential chunks. How do I know? Because they are essential
;-)

I used to worry about "getting the basics", but there is a hypothesis called
the "natural order hypothesis" which states that you will naturally acquire
grammar in a specific order, no matter how it is presented:
[http://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/article/natural-
order](http://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/article/natural-order)

Lists are OK, but in order to create fluency you need to acquire the ability
to produce the idiomatically correct chunks without undue thinking. This
requires you to be exposed to the opportunities to use the language.

For example, you can easily just harvest example sentences from grammar text
books (and if you need to pass tests, this is the technique I would suggest),
but while you will be able to produce and understand that grammar, you will
still need to be exposed to a large volume of realistic usage of that language
to be able to select the idiomatically correct grammar in various situations.

The following has worked incredibly well for me (and for the students I was
teaching English to):

\- Buy a book you are interested in reading.

\- Work out the meaning of any sentence you can't understand (with a grammar
dictionary, or some people simply buy the book translated into their native
language).

\- Memorise the sentence meanings using flashcards (or better: spaced
repetition software -- anki is good, but for some reason they have a self
signed certificate on their site, which I haven't checked out yet, so I won't
link to it). Always drill from your native language to the foreign language.
Theory suggests that production is not that important for learning, but it is
very easy to fool yourself into thinking that you "know" a grammar point, when
you can only recognize it. Production is the test to show that you actually
know it.

\- If you are a very basic beginner (say less than 2-3000 words of
vocabulary), memorize basic vocabulary. After you get 3000 words or so, this
becomes less necessary.

\- Converse every chance you get. Read with all the free time that you have.
Watch TV (with subtitles until you can understand the language) when you are
tired of reading. This is essential because memorizing chunks will only leave
you with memorized chunks. You need to exercise your ability to comprehend the
application of those chunks.

\- You will also need to practice the physical skills of speaking. I have
found that singing pop songs works very well (I don't know if it would be
beneficial for languages with a lot of tones). You can also often find
websites with both spoken and written language. You can read along with the
speaker to get rhythm and facility with speaking. An audio book will also work
well if the language you are learning has audio books (some cultures do not
seem to be interested in them).

The main thing is being realistic about the speed that you can acquire
language. The average adult who has gone to university has well over 20,000
words of vocabulary (and probably 3,500 grammar points). The average child
acquires about 1000 words of vocabulary a year. The average child takes 15-20
years to acquire adult level proficiency (duh ;-) ). You can do it faster, but
there seems to be a limit to the speed you can do it. Expect to take at least
10 years for your first foreign language. Memorization and acquisition are
different. I seem to be able to memorize 1000 words of vocabulary per month
with spaced repetition software without strain. But it takes a considerable
amount of time for that vocabulary to settle in my brain. I have found that
alternating periods of hard study and fun application (say one month each) is
ideal for me. I have not had a chance to test it on other people, so YMMV.

~~~
bhrgunatha
That sounds like a very pragmatic approach.

> The main thing is being realistic about the speed that you can acquire
> language.... Expect to take at least 10 years for your first foreign
> language.

Nobody ever seems to mention this explicitly about language, nor the fact that
you need to apply yourself _consistently_ to the task over that time.

I think that's because it's off-putting to hear you won't achieve high level
language for a very long time.

The point is though, you can get yourself to a level of mutual understanding
within fairly short time (a few month to a year.) The rest of the time is
spent increasing vocabulary, improving grammatical understanding and learning
the myriad of unwritten grammatical (and often ungrammatical!) constructs and
idiomatic use that people _actually_ use to communicate.

~~~
mikekchar
There are some very unfortunate beliefs around language acquisition which
torpedoes people's attempts to learn language, I think.

One of the most damaging and prevalent beliefs is that memorizing 2-3000 words
of vocabulary will make you "fluent". When I taught English, my co-workers
would even tell their students this outright. But 2-3000 words gets you to the
level of a 3 year old child. Even 10,000 words will bring you up to the level
of a 8-10 year old only. If you further dilute your vocabulary with useless
words like "unemployment" and "discrimination" like they often do in schools,
you will have the working vocabulary of a 5 year old -- i.e., you can talk at
length about Pokemon (as long as you watch it over and over again), but not
much else.

"Communication" is such a tenuous concept. You don't need _any_ formal
language to communicate in a convenience store, for instance. Hand gestures
will do nicely. I had a friend who learned Japanese primarily by chatting up
girls at the train station. At first he communicated any way that he could and
slowly made progress. He supplemented that by reading science fiction novels
in Japanese. It's a crazy way to study, but was very effective (I should
mention that his success rate with the girls was absolutely dreadful).

