what is importantest

[Unregistered]

Dear teachers,

I am learnig english for 10 years and think that could be better after so long time. I do my best but feel something is missing maybe I am not talent. What is importantest in learning english. Please advise me on it.

 

[susiedqq]

What is important?
What is more important?
What is the most important?

It is practice. :lol:

 

[EnglishRyan]

You need to speak as often as you can to native English speakers. You also need to listen carefully to what they say to you and how they say it.

Have you ever heard a native English speaker say importantest?



Good luck!

Ryan

 

[Offroad]

A teacher from the US told me every learner must follow (rigorously) this sequence:

1. listening
2. talking
3. reading
4. writing

If you don't, you probably will hurt your learning process, your fluency will not be even in your dreams. Probably spending lots of money, wasting time, getting even older and the process even longer and boring.
!
If you can't speak, you can do NOTHING.
!
!

 

[engee30]

A teacher from US told me every learner must follow (rigorously) this sequence:

1. listening
2. talking
3. reading
4. writing

If you don't follow that sequence, you probably will hurt your learning process, your fluency will not be even in your dreams. If you can't speak, you can do NOTHING.

I couldn't agree more, unfortunately for me. I started with option #4 and ended with option # 1, which makes me hardly speak, let alone think, in English. Understanding others talking to me is another concern of mine, I'm afraid. :-(

 

[Offroad]

Forget text books, focus on listening, do it many many times. It's simple. Don't get worried about grammar rules, get fluency first.

What's most important for a student, to be able to talk fluently or to be a "writer" who can't understand anything what people say?

 

[engee30]

Forget text books, focus on listening, do it many many times. It's simple. Don't get worried about grammar rules, get fluency first.

What's most important for a beginner, to be able to talk fluently or to be a "writer" who can't understand anything people say?

There's some kind of exception to what I wrote before. Watching my favourite sport on TV, that is to say football, doesn't make me confused at all. I know exactly what the commentator wants to convey by saying he put the ball in the back of the net, or the ball deflected, or he's back defensively. So what you're saying holds true for me - the more I listen, the more I understand. :up:

 

[Offroad]

the more I listen, the more I understand. :up:

as time goes by, you will get closer to what people say, that language will be in your mind much sooner that you can even imagine, so, you will able to talk without thinking, effortlessly. Just listen carefully what they say many times and repeat it. However make sure that you can understand it, it has to be understandable or you will be wasting your time. Still dificult?? find something easier, easy now? Good, practice every single day.
That's fluency. Make it fun.
You don't need grammar on this stage. Forget it, have fun. It has to be easy for all that who want to speak fluently.

 

[riverkid]

If you can't speak, you can do NOTHING.

I'm not sure that Marcio realizes just what a truly profound statement it is that he's made. Then again, maybe he does.

A person who can interact in a language has an intuitive grasp of the actual rules of the language, a grasp of so many tiny little nuances, things that someone who has only studied it, even for years, will never have.

Time after time we come across ESLs who ask about this rule or that rule and by focusing too narrowly on the rule, they really can't see the forest for the trees. Language is not a thing that can be figured out. If we had to figure out our language before we could use it, then we'd all still be doing primitive signing.

[Well, the adults would. Children would take the primitive signing babble of the adults and in a generation move it into a full fledged language, all without understanding what they had done.]

The same thing happens to teachers, even teachers who are native speakers. They get so hung up on rules, often totally fictitious ones, that they can't see the natural language that they use on a daily basis.

There's a reason, a mighty good one, why no culture teaches their young 'uns to read and write before they can speak.

 

[banderas]

right, so what do you do when you aim to learn a foreign language, let's say polish? do you go to Poland with no clue about basic grammar and just immerse yourself in that language?

 

[riverkid]

right, so what do you do when you aim to learn a foreign language, let's say polish? do you go to Poland with no clue about basic grammar and just immerse yourself in that language?

I thought twice about posting this out of fear that it might offend. That was not my intention. I don't have a quarrel with any type of learning and I have great respect for all who apply themselves diligently to any learning experience. I know though, from long experience, that some methods are not as effective as others.

If you have the opportunity, Banderas, yes, that's exactly what you do. If you don't, you have to settle for other alternatives.

 

[Offroad]

right, so what do you do when you aim to learn a foreign language, let's say polish? do you go to Poland with no clue about basic grammar and just immerse yourself in that language?

exactly, that's the natural way of learning. Lots of successful people have learnt like this. They don't worry...

- Should I use 'in', 'at', or 'on'?

This is NOT good, this can hurt your learning skills, you can do it like a native does, just do it, there's no thinking, no translation, no delay.

Nothing, nothing is more efficient than being abroad, no rule, no grammar, just immerse yourself in that country's culture.
.

 

[banderas]

I thought twice about posting this out of fear that it might offend. That was not my intention. I don't have a quarrel with any type of learning and I have great respect for all who apply themselves diligently to any learning experience. I know though, from long experience, that some methods are not as effective as others.

If you have the opportunity, Banderas, yes, that's exactly what you do. If you don't, you have to settle for other alternatives.

The point I was trying to make is that before going abroad and immersing one should learn basic grammar to make the process of learning more effective, if you know what I mean. I met many people who experienced a complete immersion and had a hard time abroad. So I do not say: learn only from books, I say use both methods;-)

 

[Offroad]

So I do not say: learn only from books, I say use both methods;-)

If you already can speak well, that's it. You need some books in order to improve your skills. If you passed the TOEFL exam, good, I am trying too, well, if you did, an advanced grammar book is pretty useful. BUT, if you can't speak, if you can't understand what people say, well... a book is totally useless. Be humble :-D and back to the basics, I mean, listening.

 

[riverkid]

The point I was trying to make is that before going abroad and immersing one should learn basic grammar to make the process of learning more effective, if you know what I mean. I met many people who experienced a complete immersion and had a hard time abroad. So I do not say: learn only from books, I say use both methods;-)

I agree, Banderas.

I've seen those people and I've been there myself. It's a scary experience, especially for adults who try to hard to think things thru instead of just concentrating on the sounds, the rythms, the situation.

Children don't do this and they're much much much better language learners. Adults can never hope to approach the language learning ability that children have but they'd do well to emulate some of the things kids do.

I should say that there are different types of immersion experiences also. Picking the best one is important. Just being around native speakers doesn't help a great deal, especially at the beginning. You need people who realize the problems, people who are willing to ensure there is a rich enough context, even if this is done unwittingly. For this the best is living in a family situation.

 

[riverkid]

Here we see that even a nonstandard use like importantest has a place in language.

Results 1 - 10 of about 3,490 English pages for "importantest"

The rules delineating how we make comparatives are hardly cast in stone. Long words like 'important' may well use more/most simply to reduce the stress on the tongue/mouth muscles.

We sometimes, not often but sometimes use words like this example to be cute, to draw attention to what we're saying.

"This is the most comfortablest chair I've ever sat upon."

These too are part of language. The language is ours to use. We don't always follow what's down on paper. What's written on paper about language hardly begins to cover it.

The Grammar Book: An ESL/EFL Teacher's Course, says, roughly paraphrased, that people think that everything about language has already been discovered but that actually that is quite far from the truth.

 

[Offroad]

The fact is that nobody needs a grammar book in order to speak properly, nobody, even an adult.

Of course, for an adult it is more difficult because he/she get worried/terrified about speaking, if someone talk to him/her, she/he will try answer quickly, that's the problem, probably will think about rules, 'is the past simple, continous tense'??
So, what would a child do in this case?
Nothing, if she can't speak, she just watches, listens carefully to what people are asking.

How the people from middle ages could speak English well? What about those ones who came from others countries to the GREAT ENGLAND, a land where people speak English properly?
Lots of immigrants go to the US every year, some work as taxi drivers, others as nannies, I mean, they work, no matter what they do. They can speak English well, and guess what? They can speak better than those ones who have graduated an English language Course (from university). How does this happen?

 

[jctgf]

Hi,
I am just a student.
Of course the more exposed to the language, the greater the chances of learning and speaking properly, but I don't think that some theory is totally unnecessary.
In my opinion, the one that takes some time studying the fundamentals, and then practicing a foreign language, has actually a higher probability of doing better, generally speaking, and will always have some advantage when finding themselves among natives or even trying to catch a bus in a foreign city.
Can you learn any English without speaking it? Of course not!
Can you learn a foreign language without a bit of theoretical study? I think so, but you will take a much longer time to get there.
jc

 

[riverkid]

Hi,
Can you learn a foreign language without a bit of theoretical study? I think so, but you will take a much longer time to get there.
jc

Hi JC. Being a student of a new language can easily give you a perspective that teachers who haven't learned a second language don't have.

When I first read this last statement, I found myself in complete agreement. However, after giving it some thought, I started to wonder. Of course, the manner you describe is the most common and it's very reasonable to think that extra study, book larnin', would be helpful. It has to be.

But I'd like to see a study done where students were put in two groups and one was only immersion taught, no visual contact with the target language at all, and the other was given the normal course of study, book and visual.

But the immersion group would have to be prepared, ie. told what to expect, warned of the difficulties they'd encounter and helped along the way. In other words, taught to be children again for the purposes of learning the language; taught not to have "adult" expectations.

If we plotted the success of both groups on a graph, I'd say that the book group's line of success would rise quite dramatically and the other group's line would remain quite flat for a period of time, how long I'm not quite sure.

But at some point, I think the immersion group's line would shoot skyward. Who would reach fluency first, I don't know, but it would be interesting.

In the real world, we're in agreement. Some book larnin' has to help.

 

[stuartnz]

But the immersion group would have to be prepared, ie. told what to expect, warned of the difficulties they'd encounter and helped along the way. In other words, taught to be children again for the purposes of learning the language; taught not to have "adult" expectations.

If we plotted the success of both groups on a graph, I'd say that the book group's line of success would rise quite dramatically and the other group's line would remain quite flat for a period of time, how long I'm not quite sure.

I like this, as it suggests a good mix, and matches my own very limited experience. Before a trip to an Italian-speaking country (fun trivia question - name a country other than Italy whose only official language is Italian), I spent 3-4 months in intensive book learning of the "teach yourself" variety. I studied as hard as I could, and then when I went, I chose to stay with people did not speak any English at all, not even "good morning." Those three weeks were exhausting mentally, but at the end of them, I had my first dream in Italian, without any English. I'm sure that the immersion accelerated the process, but I doubt I could have survived the immersion without the book learning first.

So, long story short: It's not one or t'other, it's both, although in the end the truth of the adage "use it or lose it" means that immersion probably helps more than books, overall.