Sorry, Ossicone, we weren't taught to learn the articles with the words.
Sorry, I assumed teachers weren't that shit. That could be the root of this whole ridiculous argument.
The majority of foreign language teachers (especially outside of schools and universities, but also there) are didactically untrained native speakers.
Chandith wrote:I think you do not quite understand, what is meant with "learning the article together with the word".
Because doing so IS what actually circumvents the problem of remembering the articles.
I know exactly what it means.
Well, apparently, you don't. Because here you say:
This is useless
Learn the articles together with the words.
But later, in the same post you say:
So when I say:
A large part of language learning is repetition.
For some things working it out is helpful, but this is not one of them.
Considering the articles are pretty important they should be stated directly.
Der Hund, der Hund, der Hund!
It is me giving actual useful
advice on how to memorize the articles.
So, you say "Learning the article together with each word"
but "Repeating the article together withe the vocable"
, as if they were two different things. This looks to me, like you don't realize, that these two things are one and the same
, just differently worded, which implies, that you have a wrong understanding, either of the first, the second, or of both of them.
Maybe you confuse "Learning the article together with each word"
with "Learning the gender together with each word"
. The latter would really be obvious (because gender is a property of each word) and useless, because it doesn't tell you how
to learn the gender.
Ossicone wrote:I never actually said learning the articles together was a bad thing.
You called it useless on certain occasions ... useless
(like: wasting your learning time) to me.
Ossicone wrote:Chunking is a good concept to apply to this. However students still run into the problem of the articles having no inherent meaning to them. Because of this they have no proper feedback to tell them when they're wrong.
Yes, apparently you really don't understand what learning an article together with the word, as if it were part of the vocable, really is about.
The students have no proper feedback to tell them when the article is wrong? This is about learning the article as part of
the vocable! How do you get feedback on the correctness of any part
of the remembered/repeated vocable? You compare it to the vocable entry in your book/flashcard/dictionary/whatever! If you try to remember the German word for "dog", and you remembered "Hund"
, how do you know that it really is "Hund"
and not "Land"
? How is this different from not knowing if it is "der Hund"
or "die Hund"
The articles have no inherent meaning to the students? How does any part of a one-lexeme vocable have any more inherent meaning than the article? How does the "Hu"
part of "Hund"
have any more inherent meaning than "der"
has in "der Hund"
All your brain has to do is learning one syllable (consisting of two to three phonemes) additionally with every noun you learn.
Ossicone wrote:I could just as easily remember 'dog' as 'die Hund' as I could 'der Hund.' I've seen this happen all the time.
Then you weren't really treating it as inherent part of the vocable. Or do you also just as easily remember "Diele"
(floorboard) as "Derle"
Or let's look at it like this:
Imagine that German wouldn't have any articles. Instead all German nouns in nominative singular would end with one of three possible syllables: -o, -a, -um:
the tree = Baumo
the table = Tischo
the dog = Hundo
the lamp = Lampa
the bag = Tascha
the candle = Kerza
the house = Hausum
the plate = Blechum
the wheel = Radum
If you would learn these vocables, would you learn the word stem "Hund-"
separately from the ending "-o"
? No! You would learn "Hundo"
, and later, when building a sentence, you would segment "Hundo"
if required by the grammar (for example if the "-o"
-words would take "-õno"
when used as object of the sentence: "Hundõno"
But, is there any more effort needed to learn a word if the "-o"
is a grammatical affix instead of it simply being part of the lexeme itself? How does it take more effort to learn "Hundo
" instead of apollo
? (I specifically(!) mean effort at the stage of remembering and repeating the vocabulary)
And now, when only considering the effort to learn end repeat the vocabulary: Does it make any differences when the grammatical morpheme is not a bound affix but an unbound adposition?
Yet again: NO! It does make a difference later in sentence construction, because it is not morphological and/or syntactical the same. But during the learning of the vocabulary it too means only one additional syllable to learn.
I alway find it funny when people say: "Well language X has gender as well, but there I can deduce the gender form the ending of the word."
Well, what they actually did, was learning the nominative-singular morpheme for each gender together with each word
. You can do the exact same thing
with German, only that you learn an unbound adposition instead of a bound affix with every word. And, as the affix or adposition has only grammatical function and makes no difference in the meaning of the vocable, one can learn it just as one would learn any other part of the vocable (meaning: every other part of the wordstem).
It is a difference in grammar, but it is not
a difference in the number of "things to learn"
with every word. And therefore also no difference in the effort
to learn each word.