[sounddust]

I learned French in one year by hooking up a mic/mixer to my laptop (so that I could easily hear myself speak) and watching French DVDs with French subtitles, pausing after every sentence and repeating what was said.

I'd rewind the film and switch to English subtitles when I didn't understand a phrase. It takes about 6 hours per film at first, but becomes faster and faster as you learn more vocabulary/grammar and get used to the process.

It's best to use real French films, because it's important that the actor's mouth movements match their voice, especially when they're speaking fast.

I live in Paris now, and speak French fairly well with no American accent.

I also read bilingual books and memorized songs on the bus (pasted the lyrics into iTunes so they'd show up on my iPod when listening to the song).

[xccx]

Thanks. Very useful information here. Current theory (Krashen) says output or production happens naturally only after hundreds of hours of "comprehensible input". It's great to see contrary evidence. I'd love to know more.

[pradocchia]

I had a similar experience learning Chinese. Output did not follow comprehension.

The rule was never sleep without giving your brain something to work on. I spent an hour in the morning and an hour at night practicing the precise pronounciation of syllables, words and phrases, using tapes as a reference. There was little improvement during sessions, but noticeable improvement between them. Thus the rule about sleep.

As my pronunciation improved, so did my comprehension. I can't imagine it working the other way. Comprehension is passive, and no guarantee of accurate or even coherent production.

Following such a method you can learn a language in 6-12 months.

EDIT: I just read up on Krashen, and well, no, his theories are wrong. I wasted years on that crap. I doubt fluency is even possible with such a method. Just do what sounddust said and you'll be set.

EDIT2: The average person acquires fluency despite the Krashen method, rather than because of it. In my case, due to very poor audio recall, the Krashen method was a complete failure, so I was forced to experiment with other ways.

It turns out perception of foreign sounds is very weak in adults. We recognize a subset of possible sounds and toss out the rest, or munge it into something heavily accented. The repetition & production method compensates for this by making such sounds "real". Once they are real, the actual language follows more quickly.

EDIT3 (sorry): More on Krashen, from http://www.sk.com.br/sk-krash.html:

The only instance in which the teaching of grammar can result in language acquisition (and proficiency) is when the students are interested in the subject and _the target language_ is used as a medium of instruction.

This is so fucking wrong. The study of grammar is analytical. Language is the vehicle of analytic thought--if your proficiency in a language is weak, your level of analytic thought in that language is also weak. So if you want to study French grammar and you've only just started learning the language, by all means, study it in English.

Wow. So this is why the English-speaking world can't seem to learn a foreign language. Thank you xccx, you opened my eyes.

[xccx]

IMO English speakers don't learn other languages because they don't really need to. If they do need to, and try to learn with a weak method, then they experience frustration and emotional resistance. (Affective Filter)

For most people, analysis of how a language works is not meaningful. Just like for software users, most people don't care how a program works. They just want to use it.

For highly analytical mathematical minds, study of grammar can be effective. Krashen's research shows, however, that grammar study in classroom environments does not help the majority of students to achieve conversational fluency.

So I'm not saying you are wrong. But there's plenty of evidence to suggest that what works for you might not work for everyone.

Personally, I don't believe that human language is purely analytical framework for thinking. I do believe, strongly, that language is also physical, emotional and expressive. I mean, what is the first word out of a baby's mouth?

Just guessing, but I bet the experience that sounddust describes has less to do with grammar analysis, and more to do with personally relating to the stories in the films and songs. He gets input that A) he comprehends and B) he cares about.

Guessing again, I bet sounddust's success with early output results from practice within a safe environment, where he has no fear of sounding like an idiot. It's a much different experience that being surrounded by peers in a classroom and challenged by the teaching authority.

Further, since he's vocalizing expressions from authentic films and songs, he can mimic not only correct pronunciation, but also mimic expression with real gut feelings, like glad, sad or mad. Feelings are meaningful.

So I agree with you, pradocchia, that early output (expressive mimicry within a safe and playful environment) is useful: 1) it helps us to hear and understand the new language, and 2) it boosts our confidence so we can talk much sooner.

And to sounddust, please correct my wild guessing about what you experienced while learning French!

[pradocchia]

I used the study of grammar to help make sense of the phases and dialog I was practicing. It was explanatory, rather than prescriptive, and gave my analytic brain something to chew on while my non-analytical brain was busy digesting the language.

For example, Chinese sentence structure is Topic-Comment rather than Subject-Predicate. This little insight helped make sense of the sometimes odd phrasing that my mind had tried to cast as Subject-Predicate.

About the rest, though, I think you are trying to force good data into a broken framework. Krashen seems interested in the teaching of foreign languages. Thus the focus on student relaxation, comfort and interest--how do you ameliorate the school environment?

I'm interested in the study of foreign languages, which already assumes an interested student. Sounddust was determined to learn French. Play and safety seem beside the point.

This is the process of making a foreign language "real". It starts off like a chore and then becomes a meditation. I could have spent 3 hours per session once I got into the groove. I would have to stop myself after 60 minutes, because extra practice w/out sleep would do me no good.

I don't know how I would apply these methods to the classroom. I did TA a Chinese class once, and no I didn't try to apply the methods. Clock in, clock out. I would tell students about them, but who knows if anyone listened. It all sounded like black magic, and I sounded like a raving fool.

[sounddust]

Sorry for responding so late, but I just wanted to say that you're correct on all points above about my learning experience, including (and i'm reluctant to admit this) - the fear of sounding like an idiot (although I got rid of this quickly after actually moving to France, because you don't have a choice).

[pradocchia]

Unexpected (?) but very interesting. I've poo-poo'd some of the points you've just affirmed, perhaps from selective memory, so the anecdotal evidence is welcome.

I was also scared of sounding like a fool, and need privacy to practice.

[garply]

"Following such a method you can learn a language in 6-12 months"

Were you able to learn Chinese in 6-12 months? What's your mother language? I know a lot of Westerners who've learned Mandarin and no one achieved fluency in anything near a year. For someone whose mother tongue is near the Romance languages, I can see picking up another Romance language very quickly (I know Latin, Greek, and French and I can essentially understand Spanish even though I've never studied it). But I don't think an English speaker is going to pick up Arabic, Russian, or Chinese in under a year. I'm on year 7 of studying / speaking Mandarin, and I still have problems sometimes.

[pradocchia]

Mother language is English, and no, I didn't learn Chinese in 6-12 months. I studied 3 years in high school, 2 years in China, 3 years in college and another 2 years in grad school, so what's that 10 years all together.

High school was a wash, and living in China helped but I never made real progress till I hit upon this produce and repeat method. College and grad school were mostly classical Chinese and other dialects, so I'm not sure if that counts.

Were I to start Russian today, 6-12 months would be enough for a) no discernible accent and b) every day proficiency. But "pick up" is the wrong phase here. You aren't going to pick up a foreign language in 6-12 months with the immersion method. Look at what the grand OP did: 6-12 months of produce and repeat, followed by immersion. By the time he immersed himself, he had developed the faculties to process the stream of stimulus. That's a huge difference.