Be careful, this forum can damage your English.

Many users of the Antimoon's forum write incorect sentences.
If you want to discuss something on this forum you have to write something.
If you are a learner it is very possible that you will make many mistakes.
This can damage your English.
http://www.antimoon.com/other/writingdamage.htm
If you make a mistake on this forum it is possible that someone will copy your mistake.
This formum can produce mistakes in English.

If you are good at English and you read this forum, you read many incorrect sentences.
This can damage your English.

This is my last words on this forum.
I'm not good enough to write here.
I'll come back when I improve my English.

I advise learners who are not able to write correct sentences not to write on this forum.

It's true ,that this formum can damage leaners' English english. BUT this forum is for people who learn English. How can thay avoid mistakes at all? They can avoid writting until they learned English better.
But at some moment they will begin to write and will be making mistakes
(less or more). This is ievitable. And what it means : this forum is useless and nobody (excepting people, who know English perfect and need not this forum) can post messages on this forum ?

Michal suggests a simple solution to this paradox: Never make mistakes! Here is what he says:

It is close to the truth that I have never written an incorrect English sentence.

I knew many grammatical structures and I used only those that I knew. My sentences were similar to sentences which I knew to be correct. I followed good examples, so all my sentences were good.

In the beginning, I could write only very simple sentences, but all the simple sentences were correct. Then as I advanced, I added more and more complicated structures, and again all my sentences were correct.

Because of this approach, I was never reinforcing bad habits. I never had any bad habits! From the beginning, I copied only correct sentences. With every sentence that I wrote, I reinforced my good habits.

I can not write good English and I normally make many mistakes so this habbit will become my permanent habbit.
If we compare the message of micha stainlaw wojcik,he is quite right.
but I want to get comment from Tom .
whether should I write here on this forum or not. Its upto him.

I couldn't disagree more strongly with Michal Stanislaw Wojcik. (Aleksey, I see you're here, so here is a good example of "Wow!") "Wow! That name of yours is so similar to the name of the forum co-founder, Michal R. Wojcik, that I think these opinions which you express may worry him. I'm sure he wouldn't wish anyone to think he believes what you are saying.") (Asad, "Hello" to you, too.)

I encourage any learners of English to USE their English here, to PRACTICE! You can do nothing better for yourselves! Any learners who are not afraid to make mistakes, who will USE their English, and who will continually PRACTICE will SUCCEED!

Jeff Hook
New Jersey, USA

To Mohammed Asad Khan:
Read carefully.
Michal Stanislaw Wojcik is not a webmaster of Antimoon.
Notice a difference between Michal Ryszard Wojcik and
Michal Stanislaw Wojcik.

Jeff Hook encourages every English learner to write here. Many English learners make a lot of mistakes in their writing. I want to focus on those learners in my discussion with Jeff Hook.

I see a problem with letting such people write. I worry that it is harmful for their English. I worry that the more incorrect sentences they write, the more they are stuck in their habit of writing such sentences.

One solution would be to stop writing at all. Then at least they wouldn't reinforce their mistakes. But then how should they ever improve? I feel that I must offer them something instead.

I'm thinking of developing a method for correct writing in spite of the bad habits that one has. One solution is suggested by Tom is his new topic: How to quickly learn to write in a foreign language:
http://www.antimoon.com/forum/2002/42.htm

Another solution is "very hard work". I imagine that it is possible to re-design one's English knowledge and throw all those mistakes out of one's head. But these are just phrases and I understand that I am not really offerng a solution.

Perhaps Jeff Hook could solve the problem by correcting the mistakes of regular forum participants. Jeff would point out their mistakes and offer solutions. They would append those corrections to their SuperMemo collections or they would repeat those corrections in some other way.

Jeff, please take up the discussion which I started in:
http://www.antimoon.com/other/writingdamage.htm

I don't understand your idea that through PRACTICE one can SUCCEED. I worry that through practice (read: making lots of mistakes), one is only becoming fluent in incorrect writing (read: lack of success).

to Mohammed Asad Khan:

I can see an improvement in your writing. The English of your recent posts is much better than that of your first email messages to me. I wonder what you have been doing. I wonder what has helped you with your English. How are you learning English now?

You still make a lot of mistakes but I believe that a great number of them could be avoided if only you wrote more carefully. Please consider my advice that follows.

You can use a spell-checker while composing a message. This will make sure that at least you don't have spelling mistakes. And there's another thing that you could be more careful about - proper punctuation and a proper use of capital letters. You see, every English sentence should begin with a capital letter.

Believe me, your messages will immediately look much better if only you take care of those small things like spelling, punctuation, and the use of capital letters.

And one more thing. Perhaps you could spot many of your mistakes if you read your messages carefully from the beginning before sending them to the forum. I usually re-read my messages and I often discover some mistakes. You could try the same.

To Michal RYSZARD Wojcik:

It seems I created the impression that I believe practice alone is sufficient to assure a student of success. I merely attempted to stress my belief that practice is a "sine qua non" of success, and that no student is likely to succeed without it. I see perfectionism as often so inhibiting language students that it virtually assures their failure.

To me "practice" does NOT mean mindless repetition of error! How could that provide any benefit for any student?! Implicit in my exhortation of students to practice is the assumption that they do so in good faith and that they've studied! I also assume they strive to develop a self-critical capacity, and that, as they make that effort, they compare their "output" with reliable templates and with what they've learned, to see if they're using the language correctly.

I see many students who absolutely refuse to open their mouths, and/or who react with shock when I ask them to write. It seems axiomatic to me that a language student must study, to be sure, but that the student must also practice what has been studied.

How can students achieve fluency without using what they've studied?

I see study and practice as linked. In my opinion, no students who only study without practice will ever achieve fluency, as they'll never develop a sense of confidence in the use of the new language. Their use of that new language will always remain awkward and mechanical. However, it seems no students who only practice but who never study will ever achieve fluency either, as they'll never perceive their own errors, nor will they ever correct those errors. I'm certainly not advocating some impulsive "headlong rush" into a new language, whereby learning is only subconscious, autonomic, and unaffected by the student's conscious mind.

I confess I don't hold an advanced degree in ESOL. However, I'm suspicious of much of what I read about the supposed process of "fossilization" or of "reinforcement" of errors. I think much of the current reigning dogma of this field, at least here in the US, is quite strange. For example, we're urged to take a "communicative" approach and to eschew the use of formal grammar, which you yourself acknowledged is often useful. (I suspect much of this results from the instructors' own ignorance of formal grammar!)

Part of the current dogma seems to be some strange behavoristic belief that students are mindless automatons who can't control themselves, and who might be profoundly harmed by practice, because, like robots, they would head off endlessly on some destructive tangent from which they could never divert. I simply can't understand this.

This general attitude is evident elsewhere in modern society. Psychiatry, for example, is largely biochemical and pharmaceutical now. There's little role seen for the will, or for the intervention of the conscious mind.

You said:

"I see a problem with letting such people write. I worry that it is harmful for their English. I worry that the more incorrect sentences they write, the more they are stuck in their habit of writing such sentences."

How does this occur? How do such students become "stuck"? Are we assuming they are such poor students that they can't or that they WON'T compare what they've written with, as I inelegantly put it, "a reliable template"? Are we assuming that they can't or that they WON'T compare what they've written with what they've been taught about proper usage? Are they incapable of developing the ability to detect their own errors and to correct them?

What better method is there for showing students their errors than asking them to write? When they've committed themselves to a text they must confront their errors. Indeed, many students are reluctant to write precisely for this reason, because they fear their writing will be erroneous, and they don't wish to embarrass themselves. I see that as inimical to their success. I say to them, "Don't hesitate to write, and don't fear your errors; welcome them! USE them to ascertain where you are strong and where you are weak! Then study and practice again!" Isn't such a method appropriate for "auto-didacts"?

I see a good student of English as a person who is capable of self-critisim and of self-correction. I see conscientious practice as essential for such a student's development of fluency. I do not see that student as mindlessly and hopelessly running down a track, diverting more and more from correct usage with each additional word he or she speaks or writes, and completely incapable of changing direction!


Jeff Hook

(This should be my last contribution for a little while, becaue I fear I've done far more harm than good!)


To Michal Ryszard Wojcik:

I omitted from my last bombast any mention of the skill levels of students or of the inappropriateness of excessive student ambition.

I think it must be acknowledged that students should attempt to learn a new language by acquiring skills in a logical sequence. Student ambition is commendable, but as correct as I may have been in pointing out the danger of perfectionism, and the necessity of overcoming that inhibition, I must also admit that excessive ambition can also demoralize students. Many impatient students fiercely wish to speak and to write fluently, but they must understand "first things first." Students should not attempt to communicate at a level which requires far more fluency and far more skill than they've obtained. To "push" themselves is good, but to "push themselves" too much may guarantee they become discouraged if they fail. (In the Ancient Greek myth Icarus' wax wings melted when he flew too close to the sun... However {and I say this with friendly, bantering intent, not with sarcasm} he didn't "get stuck" on the sky!)

If an ambitious student is churning out voluminous text which is full of errors that student must be reminded that he's exceeded his grasp. A competent instructor would be able to return the student to a more appropriate level for further work, without discouraging him. That further work would entail additional instruction in the basic skills which the student hadn't mastered, study by the student, practice by the student, further evaluation of the student by the instructor, planning of an appropriate further course by the instructor, and so on.

I think you're correct: students must begin at the beginning. They must concentrate their efforts on acquiring the most basic skills first, and they must then build on those initial skills. Their progress must be methodical and they must follow a logical course of study.

Students who are teaching themselves must be careful to follow a logical, graduated sequence of study, and they must carefully study and practice at each level. They must achieve mastery before they advance. They must develop a self-critical/self-corrective capability.

If students have developed their self-critical/self-corrective capabilities, and if they are studying and practicing in good faith, then I think a willingness to use what they're studying, and A WILLINGNESS TO ERR are assets. I think the inhibition which results from perfectionism is a liability.

Jeff Hook

I promise; this is one last comment addressed to Michal Ryszard Wojcik, again in a friendly, respectful spirit:

You wrote

"to Mohammed Asad Khan:

I can see an improvement in your writing. The English of your recent posts is much better than that of your first email messages to me. I wonder what you have been doing. I wonder what has helped you with your English..."


Do you think maybe he's been PRACTICING? Hah!


Jeff Hook

Jeff, do you mind if I chime in?

<<<<
I see many students who absolutely refuse to open their mouths, and/or who react with shock when I ask them to write.
>>>>
Perhaps your students are reacting appropriately. Perhaps they've absorbed so little input that it's ridiculous to ask them to produce sentences.

I am learning German. I attended German classes (4 hrs a week) for four years. I absolutely refuse to open my mouth, and I would react with shock if a teacher asked me to write a composition on a specific subject.
I only write short e-mail messages. It takes me 30 minutes to write 8 sentences. I try to verify my sentences with Google and with dictionaries. I leave my thoughts unspoken, whenever writing them would exceed my ability.

<<<<
How can students achieve fluency without using what they've studied?
>>>>
Practice is necessary, but I feel its importance is played up too much in schools. In classes, students are asked to produce sentences all the time. But they have no foundation from which to derive their output. Input is being ignored, contrary to the obvious truth that "you don't learn a language by speaking it; you learn by listening to it".

<<<<
Part of the current dogma seems to be some strange behavoristic belief that students are mindless automatons who can't control themselves, and who might be profoundly harmed by practice, because <...>.
I simply can't understand this.
>>>>

1. Students' brains produce sentences on the basis of the input they have received. (Sometimes they may produce sentences by means of applying grammar rules, but not all the time.)

2. Input is received by reading and listening.

3. When you write or say something, you also read it or hear it.

4. When students write or say incorrect sentences, they also read them or hear them.

5. Their brains receive the incorrect sentences as input, and are prone to produce incorrect output based on those sentences.

Tom:

I'm certainly happy to see you "weigh in" at your own forum, which you've created! (It's a forum to which you graciously invited me, although I fear I've done so much damage that I intend this as my "swan song," at least for a while!)

We clearly are experiencing a difference of Weltanschauungen here. As a classroom instructor who is only beginning what I hope will be a long (and distinguished?!) career, and who still lacks extensive academic qualifications, I admit I'm not nearly as conversant with the dogma which I've disparaged as I hope to be. (It's ironic, isn't it, that I hardly demonstrate the impeccable professionalism to which I referred in another thread here, when I posited the benefit a student derives from attending such a teacher's classes! Oh well...) However I do know it's almost dogma here in USA ESOL practice that each lesson must offer students instruction AND practice in each of the "Four Language Skills" (yes, the phrase sounds like an example of the "numbered" propaganda from the PRC in days gone by...). Those skill are Listening, Speaking, Reading, and Writing.

I see there's another American instructor who's participating here, and I suspect he may be much more competent than I, so I defer to his judgment on this point. Even if he asserts there's no consensus here in this regard, I think he'll admit most ESOL instructors are taught to incorporate instruction AND practice in ALL four skills, in EACH of their lessons, almost "ab initio."

The "bona fides" of neither of us should be in doubt. We could "proceed in stages" here, as might occur in an adversarial debate, with each of us cynically attempting to gain tactical "debating" advantage over the other, without any thought to the substance of the arguments which we're making, much less without respectfully giving each other reasonable credit. "To proceed in stages" in that way would entail focusing on each other's last statement in a fully tactical way, even though we might know very well what was meant, that we were misrepresenting the other's assertion, and that the common interpretation of the assertion was at variance with what we were offering. That would be the essence of "bad faith," wouldn't it? We'd merely be attempting "to score debating points" on each other and any readers of our discussion would lose interest and turn away in disapproval.

We could circle each other as if we were two boxers, attempting to "out maneuver" each other, but I think of this as a friendly, collegial discussion rather than as a boxing match or as a debate. Thus it shouldn't be necessary for me carefully to clarify, for example, that I don't expect an eloquent short story, full of masterfully-engineered complex grammar and recondite vocabulary, from students who are absolute beginners. I think you'll grant me that it's obvious any speech and any writing which I ask students to produce will be commensurate with their "skill levels." This might mean students at the absolute beginning level are asked only to produce the simplest spoken and written sentences, in which they would attempt to use the elementary grammar forms which they are learning, and in which they would deploy the rudimentary grammar which they're acquiring.

I'll assume your comment that

"Perhaps your students are reacting appropriately. Perhaps they've absorbed so little input that it's ridiculous to ask them to produce sentences."

isn't a "snide" suggestion that I've failed in my responsibility to teach them. I must respectfully disagree with your assertion (an assertion which you make, by the way, wholly without any mention of this topic of a "calibration" of output to skill level) that it could be "ridiculous" to expect beginning students to produce any speech or text. Again I stress: students are asked to "produce" ONLY what they CAN. The expectation that students are expected to produce output arises from a legitimate, sincere pedagogical philosophy to which many ESOL/EFL instructors subscribe. You may not share that philosophy. You well know that mischaracterizing an assertion with which you disagree is both sophistic and ignoble, so I'm sure this isn't what you're doing. I'm sure you're not exaggerating my belief that students should be expected to "produce" in order "to hold it up to ridicule."

You say:

"I am learning German. I attended German classes (4 hrs a week) for four years. I absolutely refuse to open my mouth, and I would react with shock if a teacher asked me to write a composition on a specific subject.
I only write short e-mail messages. It takes me 30 minutes to write 8 sentences. I try to verify my sentences with Google and with dictionaries. I leave my thoughts unspoken, whenever writing them would exceed my ability."

This is a lucid and eloquent expression of the QUINTESSENCE of PERFECTIONISM! I can assure you with complete confidence that very many (if not most) USA ESOL instructors, most of whom are far more competent than I, would nearly "fall off their chairs" to read this! This is ANATHEMA in their teaching philosophies. It is incomprehensible that a student would sit in a foreign-language class for four hours a week FOR FOUR YEARS (!!!) and would REFUSE to speak or to write at all within that protracted period of time.

I also feel confident that your description of your "cryptographic" approach to the composition of German E-mail messages would "horrify" most American ESOL instructors. I think they would regard the behavior which you describe as the antithesis of what they'd hope to help you achieve after FOUR YEARS. I think they'd see you as an ideal example of a student who was "paralyzed by perfectionism" and who had not achieved fluency. I can't imagine you'd argue my comment about your achievement of fluency, because the language use which you describe seems to me to be the opposite of fluency. However, to tell you the truth, based on what I've come to know of you, and of your surpassing abilities, I'm shocked to see you indicate this behavior, and I'm sure that, indeed, if you "pushed yourself over the hump" and compelled yourself to USE your German, by PRACTICING, your output would be excellent, as one would expect from someone of your ability. To be sure, it might not be PERFECT, but "so what?!" I'm sure you'd acquire superior fluency in very short order, as you clearly have that ability.

You state:

"I leave my thoughts unspoken, whenever writing them would exceed my ability."

I detect moral pride in this assertion. I'm glad you're pleased to be able to make this statement of your fidelity to your philosophy, and I don't "gainsay" your gratification. ("Whatever floats your boat," we say in a somewhat sardonic idiom, although I don't wish to adopt that tone with you.) However I question the EFFECT of this loyalty to principle. You're perfectionistically "crafting" an eight-sentence German E-mail message for half an hour, shuttling between the keyboard and the dictionary. I do not think this is a result which most American ESOL instructors would be proud to claim for their students after four years of study. Having observed you for some months now, and knowing you very well to be intellectually GIFTED, I am confident your four years' study of German was impeccable. I'm sure no student could have studied more painstakingly than you did.

I must also respectfully remind you that my students, who aren't studying EFL, idly or otherwise, but who are desperately attempting to function in a foreign language and in a foreign culture to both of which they hope to acclimate as soon as possible, simply don't have the luxury of remaining silent when they feel incapable of speaking perfectly. THEY'RE LIVING IN AN ENGLISH-SPEAKING SOCIETY, THEY'RE EMPLOYED HERE, THEY MUST FEED THEIR FAMILIES, AND THEY MUST PAY THEIR BILLS! THEY MUST SPEAK ENGLISH, WHETHER IT'S "PERFECT" OR NOT!

You say:

"Practice is necessary, but I feel its importance is played up too much in schools. In classes, students are asked to produce sentences all the time. BUT THEY HAVE NO FOUNDATION FROM WHICH TO DERIVE THEIR OUTPUT. Input is being ignored, contrary to the obvious truth that 'you don't learn a language by speaking it; you learn by listening to it'."

Tom, "REALLY..." For someone of your intellect to "stoop" to this rhetorical tactic is most unseemly. This (as you well know) is sheer sophistry! How can you claim the students "have no foundation from which to derive their output"?! I won't indulge my impulse to blurt out emotionally a characterization of this type of gross misstatement. You must know very well how "far of the mark" you are in this ..... statement. Any competent instructor (and I readily concede I'm hardly a paragon of the type) will devise a logical sequence of instruction whereby students learn "first things first." The students begin with the most elementary "units of instruction" and they proceed from there, in a logical sequence. They only advance when they've achieved mastery of the last lesson which has been presented to them, and they only learn the vocabulary and the grammar which are appropriate for their "skill level" at any given stage in this process.

The "foundation" from which they "derive their output" is the instruction which they've been given by their instructor. I wish at this juncture to assert a belief which may seem outlandish to you, Tom: The students have MINDS! I don't see them in wholly BEHAVIORISTIC terms. (With respect to my lamentable typographic error in the spelling of that word last night: My spelling is imperfect as I'm loath to compose my contributions to this forum in my own word processing file, and then to post them here, for fear of a formatting clash. Hence I'm "flying blind" here, or "performing without a net" and I have no Spell Check engaged as I compose these messages. Some defects "hide" during my proofreading.)

I expect students to THINK about what they experience in class, to STUDY it, to LEARN it, to PRACTICE it, and to strive to MASTER it. I expect my students to function as ACTIVE rather than as PASSIVE learners.

I don't see their minds as passive "tabulae rasae" of soft wax, in which some classroom experiences are behavioristically imprinted. I see my students as active intellects, as competent learners, and I encourage them to participate in their own acquisition of English language skills. I tell them I I can't teach them English, but neither can the greatest teacher they might ever find. I tell them no teacher can do more than merely HELP THEM LEARN English, that they must study and they must practice.

You speak in some detail of the phenomenon of learning in a way which suggests you fully subscribe to the popular "somatic" interpretation of learning which is based on the emphasis of the brain "qua" "learning organ" and which seems unconcerned about the mind. You speak (not by presenting your assertions as your personal opinions or as scientific hypotheses, but as FACT) about "Students' BRAINS" (not their MINDS) producing sentences, and about students' BRAINS "receiving input" by reading and listening.

If I wished to display my sarcasm (which I certainly don't, in view of my marginal professional competence, which makes me very vulnerable, and in view of my inability to compete with your far-superior intellect) I'd unburden myself of the comment that your students remind me of the type of "crash dummies" which are used by automobile manufacturers to test automobiles' crash-worthiness! I can see those very students, "humanoid organisms" that they are, seated in ranks and rows in the classroom, in complete silence, their BRAINS absorbing INPUT. Good grief, what an unappealing scenario! A class of "crash dummies" is not what I undertake to teach, nor do I think I'm teaching a class of tape-recorders.

You're much more capable intellectually than I am. I suspect you're far better educated than I am. You have achieved, by the way (by whatever means), a superb command of the English language. You're also much younger than I am. (Hey, and while I'm at it, you're probably much BETTER LOOKING than I am, what the heck...) Your comparative youth may explain why you seem fully to accept this current "brain as a learning organ" "somatic" interpretation of the language-learning process. (I'll not "put a spin on that" and say, "why you're completely in the thrall of...")

I may be incompetent, uneducated, a charlatan, a vile mountebank, and even, as Michal puts it: "a CRIMINAL," but I respectfully decline to march to the beat of that drum. I don't see learning as a somatic, behavioristic process. I see it as a process in which the students' conscious minds, their intellects, their free wills, and their moral characters are all engaged. I see students not as "tabulae rasae," but as active participants, and I see myself as their assistant, their facilitator, and their guide, not as their autocrat. (Heaven help me, I lack the professional competence to assert myself so forcefully! Perhaps I'll be more of a despot in the future, when I may be less inclined to brook opposition.)

One final comment: You and Michal must understand, that with all your abundant intellectual gifts, you may be much better endowed than many of the students who visit your site. I freely confess you are BOTH FAR superior to ME. I'm assuming this site and this forum are offered to the world in a sincere effort to offer assistance and to disseminate your own language-learning beliefs. A legitimate entrepreneurship also seems evident. I'm assuming this site and this forum are not offered out of hubris, and that you are not motivated, by some inexplicable arrogance or by some desire for self-aggrandizement, to prove your superiority to the world, even if that entails "brow beating" beginning students who (to their CREDIT in my humble, uninformed, and flawed opinion) have the "moxie" to post their contributions to this forum.

I could object to your imposition of what I consider to be an inappropriate perfectionism on them, but I assume they agree with that Weltanschauung, and, if they don't, they'll go elsewhere. I'm no entrepreneur. However, I think I might tend to see such visitors as "customers," and I think I might be disinclined to tell them, "you can't shop at this store." That may not accurately characterize your reaction to them at all. Indeed, you offer them the entire balance of your site for their self-improvement, and you might only be urging them, in the best of good faith, and with sincere concern for their welfare, to withhold their contributions to the forum before you think they're ready. I merely wish to advise you that some visitors to this site might fail to understand your motives (consider "the language factor, and all"), and might make some erroneous assumptions about them.

Jeff Hook

<<<<
(It's a forum to which you graciously invited me, although I fear I've done so much damage that I intend this as my "swan song," at least for a while!)
>>>>

What damage are you talking about? I find your messages very valuable. You might make them shorter, though. ;-)

<<<<
I must respectfully disagree with your assertion that it could be "ridiculous" to expect beginning students to produce any speech or text.
>>>>

For instance, I find it ridiculous that learners who have not even read a single book in English (or an equivalent number of pages) may be asked to write a composition about their vacation, a restaurant review, a letter to a friend, etc.

<<<<
Again I stress: students are asked to "produce" ONLY what they CAN.
>>>>

I was merely trying to draw your attention to the possibility that learners may be reluctant to speak because they're not sure how to say something -- so if they tried to speak anyway, they would have to make up phrases and grammar structures. In such a case, I say it is a bad idea to twist their arms.

BTW, I am not making any statements about your English classes.
In every class that I attended, students were asked to produce what they couldn't produce correctly.

<<<<
It is incomprehensible that a student would sit in a foreign-language class for four hours a week FOR FOUR YEARS (!!!) and would REFUSE to speak or to write at all within that protracted period of time.
>>>>

Well, I had to speak, otherwise I would have failed the course.
I refuse to speak now, because I haven't learned anything about German phonetics, and I don't want to reinforce my current bad way of pronouncing German words.
I write simple sentences in German occasionally (slowly and carefully).

<<<<
if you "pushed yourself over the hump" and compelled yourself to USE your German, by PRACTICING, your output would be excellent, as one would expect from someone of your ability.
>>>>

The way I am now, I can tell when I might make a mistake in a German sentence.
I could start writing quickly and carelessly, with a lot of mistakes. After some time, I'd have both correct and incorrect sentences in my head. I could no longer trust my intuition. I could be sure I'm writing a correct sentence, but the sentence could in fact be wrong.

<<<<
I am confident your four years' study of German was impeccable. I'm sure no student could have studied more painstakingly than you did.
>>>>

I took German classes in high school. I studied enough to get an A, no more.

<<<<
THEY'RE LIVING IN AN ENGLISH-SPEAKING SOCIETY, THEY'RE EMPLOYED HERE, THEY MUST FEED THEIR FAMILIES, AND THEY MUST PAY THEIR BILLS! THEY MUST SPEAK ENGLISH, WHETHER IT'S "PERFECT" OR NOT!
>>>>

I agree that the situation of your students is different from my situation.

<<<<
How can you claim the students "have no foundation from which to derive their output"?!
>>>>

I claim that from my experience attending classes.
The classes I went to provided very little input (example sentences), yet they expected a lot of output. The result was that people were (rightly)reluctant to produce sentences, and when the teacher forced them, they made a lot of mistakes.

A frequent pattern: The teacher presents a grammar rule and one example sentence. Next thing you know, you're supposed to fill in the right tense in ten exercises... Naturally, the only way you can ever do that is by using the grammar rule, since you have developed no intuition from reading that one example sentence. So you somehow muddle through the exercises. The next day, you forget the grammar rule. Net result? You've learned almost nothing.

<<<<
You speak in some detail of the phenomenon of learning in a way which suggests you fully subscribe to the popular "somatic" interpretation of learning which is based on the emphasis of the brain "qua" "learning organ" and which seems unconcerned about the mind. You speak (not by presenting your assertions as your personal opinions or as scientific hypotheses, but as FACT) about "Students' BRAINS" (not their MINDS) producing sentences, and about students' BRAINS "receiving input" by reading and listening.
>>>>

I don't care how you choose to label my humble model of language acquisition. I can't say whether I subscribe to the "popular somatic interpretation of learning", because I don't know what it is.

The difference between "brain" and "mind" is not important in the description of the model. My assumption is that language acquisition occurs through input. If you assume that, it follows that making mistakes can result in the "reinforcement of mistakes". That is what I demonstrated in my previous message.

<<<<
I can see those very students, "humanoid organisms" that they are, seated in ranks and rows in the classroom, in complete silence, their BRAINS absorbing INPUT. Good grief, what an unappealing scenario! A class of "crash dummies" is not what I undertake to teach, nor do I think I'm teaching a class of tape-recorders.
>>>>

I think what bothers you so much about this "scenario" is that it makes the teacher redundant. If you learn by reading books, watching movies, using SuperMemo, etc. you don't need a teacher. You don't even need a class or the classroom.

<<<<
Indeed, you offer them the entire balance of your site for their self-improvement, and you might only be urging them, in the best of good faith, and with sincere concern for their welfare, to withhold their contributions to the forum before you think they're ready.
>>>>

I want learners to post in the forum. I don't want to offend visitors by saying "You make too many mistakes. Go away." But I'm genuinely concerned that people may be reinforcing their own mistakes by posting here.

This website sometimes boggles my mind, here everyone has different page, Tom has sifferent page, Jeff has different page, Alisha has different page, Michal has different page and so forth, but, there is no one who is agreed on the same page about a specific topic.

To Michal Ryszard Wojcik:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I can see an improvement in your writing. The English of your recent posts is much better than that of your first email messages to me. I wonder what you have been doing. I wonder what has helped you with your English. How are you learning English now?

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

You saw only one improvement in my writting, well, perhaps you are right, I have not been improving my English as I should be. And my answers are very simple regarding on your questions.

- When I joined this website, I guess I visit here almost everyday and changed my previous tactics to learn English. I start "hitting my text books" for reading purpose and point out new "expressions" when I read them during reading.

- I start " Listening " English news channels such as CNN and BBC.

- I have just bought a "good dictionary" i.e English to English. It provides a clear definition of a word, several sentences to understand where this word is often used. "A clear picture" of a word as I consider.

- When I was At school, I used to dictionary " English to Urdu " after time went on and I got some useful information about the usage of dictionaries and someone told me that I should have gotten a dictionary of " English to English " words. Moreover, Both dictonaries were not up to the mark, they gave only meanings words to words, this picture is not good enough to use a word according to the right situation. personally, I feel that leraners ought to buy "a good dictionary", It is very essential, here " good dictionary " means " Give good enough sentences, a complete definition and some extra informations about phrases which may related in. "

- I abstain from learning grammar rules, they are normally being freaked out.
Learning, re-calling and using grammar rules just a "severe headache " which especially I can not afford. So I'm just " hitting books " with full of dedication. I repeat some lines again and again until I get them their meanings.

I want to "wind up" my All my present leaning process into 3 steps:

- " Hitting books " As a result, find out new "expressions." Read "sophisticated" sentences "many many times" until I make them "un-sophisricated."

- " Trying to Attach with dictionary as strong as "elfee" or " Glue"
I mean " to concern dictionary whenever I find a complicated word.

- " Listening" English news channels, half hour - 1 hour or more than that
but I spend regularly.

In my case, " Listening news channels are much easier than watching English movies." I don't understand the conversations of actors and actresses except some "individual expressions."

I'm pretty sure that " I get 75% of the main themes" from reuters messages.
when I litsen to " News Channels." but this thing does not happen in case of understanding movies.

to Jeff :
I'm not practicing of any grammar rules, just getting " kick backs " and following my above steps. that's it.

Overall, I feel that " reading and listening " both help so much to Improve English and a " good dictionary " reveals an " incredible revloutions " of improving English. If you learn a word with " right pronunciation ", of course,
you will speak good English under the limitations in your own native accent.

mistake : Tom has different page.
different page means ( understanding, feelings , thoughts).

to Jeff :

I must recoganize your " sense of humour" and ofcourse your " written English"

to michal :

- I must re-read my messages before posting right on the forum.

- spell checking.

- Punctuation.