I have been working my way through the lessons in course 3 but I decided to do something different before finishing the last few lessons. I went back to the early lessons in course 3 and listened to the lessons again but I mute the speech when the English is spoken. All I do is to listen to the Welsh and repeat it. While listening to the Welsh I imagine what the words mean rather than translate them into English. I feel it helps to reinforce the lessons and when I go back to the normal way of using the lessons I feel it has made the lessons easier to complete. Anyone else tried this out?
Sāmae Les?
I have to say that repeating the Welsh is not the same as producing the Welsh from a prompt in English, and does not have the same neurological effect. If this works for you, then fair enough, but I personally would not recommend it generally. The course method has been very carefully designed by Aran to maximise its effectiveness in getting you to produce Welsh naturally and quickly, and I would say its better to use the course that way. Others may not agree with my view, but I will leave it to them to state their case.
Nevertheless, you are obviously doing very well with the course, and are not afraid to experiment, which is really great. I commend you and look forwards to hearing of your successes; and I wish you the very best in mastering this beautiful and inspiring language.
Hwyl,
Stu
Shw mae, lestaylor! Iām sure you will find SSiW a great way of learning Welsh! Iāve tried to learn Welsh through books and lessons, and found SSiW head and shoulders above everything in getting me into the Welsh speaking world! I must say I combined it with speaking to people in Welsh, which is the best way of doing it, so I canāt say whether the way you say is of any use. I would say doing the course as it is got me to speaking Welsh to people in a short time! (I also combined it with reading a lot in Welsh, but that is less important.)
Where do you get this information from? As I say, SSiW is the best course I know (and I should know, Iāve followed a few ;-)). It may well be true, but as I say, where do you get the information from?
Sāmae Owain? Dw iān gobeithio boā chdiān iawn!
I got the information from speaking with Aran about the theories behind the SSi course structure, and then reading some of the material he recommended on neuroscience and brain plasticity (1). But to me, the effect that Les is looking for (not translating) is what the unique SSi listening exercises were developed for; the main lessons are all about producing Welsh, and you are not producing Welsh if you repeat what the female/male voice provided. It is that act of producing that forms connections and mappings in the brain.
Hwyl,
Stu
(1) āThe Brain that Changes Itselfā by Norman Doidge, is particularly inspiring.
Oh, as I said, I know from experience, from constantly being being aware of my increasing ability to have conversations with different Welsh people, that SSiW works. In the same way I also know from experience that doing other things with it works better. I would also think myself producing language is better than just copying.
The way you stated it, it sounded like you knew the SSiW method had been scientifically tested in some way- it sounded more than your opinion, as it were.
I may well have a look at your suggested literature to see how much that is the case.
1 Like
Heia Owain,
Hopefully, this is exactly that kind of thing that may be happening when Aran spends some months at the university in Caerdydd, next year I believe.
Hwyl,
Stu
PS One of my favourite things in the Doidge book is the quote Neurons that fire together wire together.
I see. Thatās a good thing, actually!
After having a quick look at that Norman Doidge book, I was a bit worried at reviews calling into question a shaky evidence base and lack of references from peer-reviewed journals! But even if that is true -(and I have no idea whether it is- if you enjoyed it, it probably canāt be that obviously so!)- even if it is true, if it is not particularly about SSiW learning, then that doesnāt matter a jot.
Glad you enjoyed it, but Iāll hold off on buying it (that is just me, of course!)
Owain,
The book reference wasnāt a plug for the book as such. The fact that people can recover damaged brain function having suffered from a stroke would appear to me to be good evidence for brain plasticity. The stories in his book are presented in an anecdotal form, it is true, but to my mind, the idea that the adult brain is immutable cannot be right. The process of learning Welsh (the first time I have properly learned a language through to being able to function in that language) has been fascinating, rewarding and successful - indicating to me that the basis of the method (production) is sound.
Hwyl,
Stu
As I have said on many occasions, on this forum and outside it, I know from experience (and trial and error!) that SSiW is the best Welsh course there is.
2 Likes
Any chance of a link?
The only reference to reviews on Wikipedia is:
[quote]The book enjoys mostly positive reviews amongst many readers and currently has an average rating of 4.22 out of 5 at goodreads.[4]
The New York Times gave a mostly positive review of the book.[5]
However the The International Journal of Psychoanalysis published a negative book review essay critical of Doidgeās writings. The review claims that neuroscience is irrelevant to the study of psychoanalysis.[6][/quote]
Iām more interested in neuroscience than pyschoanalysis (which is not to say the latter is without strong practitioners, some of whom (eg Daniel Siegel) would disagree strongly about the importance of neuroscience in the field.
I canāt imagine whoād review Doidge negatively - itās an excellent piece of work, and often referenced by leading neuroscientists.
With regards to the neurological difference between repetition and production - we have a lot of evidence (which is why Iām extremely comfortable offering it as a general proposition), apart from actual fMRI scans (which may not yet be detailed enough) - with luck, as Stu says, this will change at some point.
Interesting discussionā¦ But just to go back to the original question, personally I think it sounds like quite a good idea.
As the others said, SSIW is undoubtedly the best set of core materials available for learning Welsh, and as such should be used according to the instructions. But after a certain point, many people want to supplement the lessons with additional activities - and I think what youāre suggesting sounds quite useful if youāre enjoying it. (And have already completed the lessons in the normal way.)
Sometimes when I switch on a lesson in the middle, I hear a long sentence of Welsh and donāt fully understand it at first. I think listening to them without the English would be good listening practice. And I think practising pronounciation sometimes without having to think up the sentence under time pressure can help with sounding more natural. Sometimes I pause the lessons and just practise an awkward sentence so it slips off the toungue a bit better (or a bit less awkwardly!)
I donāt think Iāve got a device with a mute button though, so canāt be tempted to try out the methodā¦
Sure, Netmouse, once you have done lessons, experimentation is fine. But the listening practises are designed to support pretty much what Les describes, as far as I can see 
Hwyl,
Stu
I sure donāt like these new smiliesā¦
I donāt think they made listening practices for course 3, though. (Which I thought was a bit of a shame actually, although I certainly didnāt manage to do them anything like daily for the other courses).
Yeah, I would have liked Cwrs 3 practices too, but technical issues means they are probably not going to happen, I understand.
Hwyl,
Stu
Well, we havenāt done yet - mostly because I think that post-Course 3 people should be jumping in with Level 1 and getting to those new, much more challenging and valuable listening exercisesā¦ 
1 Like
OK, boss, on the case!
I havenāt got stuck into Level 1 very seriously yet, partly because I keep switching between North and Southā¦ (Iām finding that quite interesting, and Iām not in a hurry to get throught the materials any more).
1 Like
Sure!
The reviews I were referring to were by random anonomous individuals on Amazon rather than Goodreads or Wikipedia- certainly not from any respectable journals! Just seemed to be a lot of stuff like this from various reviews-
āSome of the education-related material was based on one particular programme. When looking at the references, all the evidence seemed to come from one source, and was not published in peer-reviewed journals (i.e. had not been scrutinised by the scientific community). About the highest level of publication appeared to be a poster presented at a conference.ā
āThis is an interesting and readable book, and it clearly has created a lot of interest in the subject. It covers a range of topics relating to neural plasticity, which is not quite such a new topic as the author would have us believe. The strength of the book is the writing style and how accessible it is.
However, I would urge readers to approach this book with a degree of caution, or dare I say take it with a pinch of salt. What the author fails to do is apply any real level of critical appraisal to the material he covers. Some of the material covered has a substantial evidence base, some of it has a shaky evidence base, some has no evidence base whatsoever and is pure conjecture. If I take the example of constraint-induced therapy, originating from a psychologist called Taub, which I went away and read up on quite extensively following the claims made in this book. This is a treament for hemiplegia following stroke, whereby the good arm is constrained for several hours each day, thus forcing the person to use their bad arm. The logic behind this is that this will prevent learned non-use and also facilitate some cortical remapping, so that that control of that arm is taken over by in-tact brain areas. When you look at the evidence, a lot of which is pretty good quality research, this is not anything like the panacea that Doidge presents it to be. There are only a proportion of patients this works for, it is still unclear what the best protocol for its use is, and there is a lack of evidence for it producing lasting, long-term gains. A recent Cochrane review concluded that there was not enough evidence to say clearly whether it was effective or not, so the jury is still out.ā
āHowever, the book is somewhat spoiled by the over-congratulatory tenor of the prose, and the over-enthusiastic application of these ideas to every aspect of human behaviour. It is ironic that he spends so much time lambasting the ālocalizationalistsā (bizarrely portrayed as a kind of establishment mafia hell-bent on stifling research) for over-extending their ideas whilst he undertakes similar mental gymnastics in his attempts to demonstrate that every condition - from autism to pornography addiction - can be wholly explained by brain plasticity.ā
āAnd this is where the book ultimately falls down as a science book. In many cases he asserts āfactsā to support his hypotheses which are simply wrong - facts which the rather poorly referenced and constructed end-notes are silent on. The chapter on sexuality is particularly cringeworthy, as he trots out a number of bizarre assertions, social commentary and outdated Freudian concepts to build his arguments, apparently unaware of the rich depth and detail of research in this area which in some cases contradicts his hypotheses.ā
āA couple of minor gripes: thereās a bit too much description of experiments as ābrilliantā rather than saying why theyāre brilliantā
Important to remember these are just reviews from random people, of course! From a quick scan of reviews rather than an in depth look. And they could well be rubbish. And all the reviews seemed to say it was a good, readable book.
However, I have no issue with Mr Doidge! His book may well be marvellous. I just wanted to know where the evidence for something not having the same neurological effect came from, as it were.
I mean, you start properly learning a language when you start trying to speaking it - thatās an opinion which is backed up by experience! Combining listening to what someone is saying to you in Welsh, trying to understand and responding with Welsh of your own.
Iām just someone who usually wants to know where stuff is derived from when terms as as specific as āneurological effectā are used, especially when concerned with the advantages of a particular part of the course (say, the listening courses as opposed to what the original poster was doing, or listening to Radio Cymru.)
To me at least, it implies scientific studies, so good for stu for providing what he knows on the subject! Very interesting, as netmouse said.
Anyhow, all I know is that the course works, and works very well. Scientific methods and bases are most interesting, however, so thanks for the info!
[edit - Mind you, now having had two positive reviews from people whose views I know I can respect, I may well see if it is in the library next time I am in there!]
However, having posted rather derogatory reviews of the work by random people, I think it is only fair that I provide a direct link to the New York Times review as a counterweight!
I couldnāt find many accessible reviews from scientific journals (the International Journal of Psychoanalysis one seems to be behind a āpay wallā (is that the term?))
The closest I could find was this one from Chris McManus of the UCL - not in depth, and not praising it too much, but certainly not as derogatory as the above reviews!
Just in case anyone is interested, as I have no interest in only posting bad stuff about his book, of which I know absolutely nothing!
Aha - yes, those reviews look dodgy to me - thereās a certain strain of Amazon reviewer who clearly gain validation from giving critical reviews to popular work. The commentary on his evidence is absurd - his notes and references section runs to over 80 pages - while the kind of shifty strawman silliness that he presents anything as a panacea is just, er, silly.
On the Amazon listing Iām seeing, āThe Brain That Changes Itselfā has got 68 five star reviews compared to a total of 6 1/2/3 stars. Where the 5 star reviews sound sane, Iāll always take that kind of weight - and am pleased to be able to add my voice to them.
Neurologically speaking, since you can repeat a word without having any understanding of it, itās fairly clear that producing it (from a prompt in a language speak) is going to involve some variation in the neural circuitry from echoing - but it isnāt something that has been tested in the necessary detail yet. I think itās also going to be interesting to see what kind of imaging evidence we can get for the impact of spoken production from prompt and/or echo leading to a greater total of neural activity (I suspect that the circuits for the specific movements of the mouth get connected to the circuits involved in understanding and memory).
I read a very interesting paper recently which commented on the neuroscience of language as being the poor cousin of neuroscience, because many of the larger steps in neuroscience research have come from animal experimentation, which was an intriguing point. Thereās a sea of interesting stuff out there to find and test in our understanding of language acquisition
Oh, I put little or no emphasis on Amazon reviews, it was just the only thing I had at the time!
I canāt speak of the book, I havenāt read it. (yet!)
And as I said, the reviews did say it was a good, readable book. A lot of the reviews making the points I quoted gave it a good star review.
As I say, I havenāt read the book, I have no knowledge of it, so I can not pass opinion on it!
But it does seem that there are people (such as Chris McManus in the review above) who are not completely convinced by it.
Ie, there are people educated in the subject who would review Doidge negatively.
This is not to do him down- in fact, if this were not the case, I would be more worried! There will always be differing opinions on such things. It is healthy for science, healthy for thinking, healthy for all sentient beings.
I donāt think that anyone is saying that just parroting words without understanding them leads to an understanding of language. Otherwise parrots would be marvelous linguists. (Maybe they are, and they are just waitingā¦ ;-))
Anyhow, the way this thread has gone, I have got in over my head in a discussion of Doidge (Not complaining, just saying that that is how it is!) So, unless and until I read more of his work and about it, I shall retire from this.
But thanks to yourself and stu for the valuable information!
[Edit- and possibly (probablyā¦certainly!) what you say about the āpopularā stuff is true. Itās always a tight-rope walk to go between presenting science in a popular way and not cutting off the āpuristsā as it were, as the series āY Cosmosā showed! Nothing wrong with being popular and informative (just saw an episode of āThe Cosmosā with Carl Sagan yesterday - some purists didnāt like it, but it inspired a lot of scientists and was very informative! (but as I say, havenāt read the book, so just talking generally on that point!)]
(thank god, didnāt have to go into curly brackets thereā¦)
1 Like