You know that your knowledge of a language is kind of like an iceberg
in the sense that most of what you know is beneath the surface.
I like analogies.
I think analogies give us a quick sort of snapshot sense of a particular
phenomenon, and I sometimes twist the analogy to suit what I'm trying to say.
Of course an iceberg is not similar to learning a language.
You know, an iceberg is basically fresh water that has calved, as they say, C
A L V E D, calf, you know, calf, calved off, uh, you know, glacier or something.
And because the, uh, freshwater is, is lighter than the
saltwater, it floats and...
but most of it is beneath the surface.
You see a little bit on the top and there's a lot below, and I see our
language knowledge the same way.
In other words, we have to have a lot of familiarity with the language, some
of which is passive vocabulary that we're able to recognize when we see it.
A lot more of it is vocabulary and familiarity that we have piled into our
brains through massive listening and reading, and is sort of the base out
of which will come eventually more and more passive vocabulary, and eventually
that smaller amount that we're actually able to use our active vocabulary.
Maybe a better analogy would be a tree.
So some trees have shallow roots, some trees have deeper roots.
Not always, but typically a deeper root could be deeper because
it's searching for nutrients.
Or, you know, different species of trees tend to have shallower or
deeper roots, and they have, you know, diagonal roots and typically, you
know, the, uh, the deeper the root system, the more the tree is able to
resist wind and so forth and so on.
Again, it's not comparable.
I prefer the iceberg analogy simply because the tree ends up being an
awful lot larger than the root system.
However, the idea is that too much of our language learning, sort of,
traditional instruction methods are aimed at that little amount that we can see.
So we try to get the student to produce the language and produce it correctly,
or we, even with ourselves, we're more concerned about what we're able to show
off, you know, the smaller part of the iceberg, and we don't give ourselves
enough credit for the size of that iceberg that we have underneath it.
Granted, my analogy doesn't work because the iceberg is the iceberg.
Once it's there, it's not growing underneath the water.
Whereas in language learning, you have this constant ability to increase the
size of sort of the below the surface familiarity, grasp, understanding
of the language, accumulation of bits of knowledge about the culture
of the language, about the history, and all of these things that are
growing underneath the surface, which may not immediately be reflected in
your ability to use the language.
But the stronger that below the surface, uh, knowledge familiarity is the stronger
the upper portion, the tree, to mix you know, our analogy, is going to be
because the portion that sticks up, the portion you can use, it's gonna fluctuate.
If you don't use the language for a while, you're gonna be not
as good at using the language.
Uh, but if you have that solid base, it'll come back very quickly.
I just wanna use this sort of as a quick analogy, although it doesn't
really hold true in all aspects.
This idea that if we focus more on what we have below the surface in our
language ability, if we accept the fact and give ourselves credit for
what we're building or what we have already built below the surface, then
we should be less concerned about what we're able to use when we need it.
Of course, we wanna be able to use it well.
And even if that little bit that sticks up that's visible is ugly or jagged or
rough around the edges, it doesn't matter.
That's what we got.
And if we continue using the bit that we can see then if we have a solid base
beneath us, we will gradually improve and we can just to totally mix analogies
here, we can sculpture that, uh, part that's visible, make it better, make
it smoother, make it more eloquent, eloquent, rather make it, you know,
more efficient in using the language.
But it all assumes, uh, that we have a solid base.
So I just wanted to leave that thought with you...
with you.
If you think of an iceberg, think of the idea that you need a solid and broad base,
some of which might be in the form of passive vocabulary, some of which might
just be in terms of having been exposed to so much of the language patterns
in the language, uh, bits and pieces around the language and the culture.
All of these things support the bit that we're able to use, and if we
have that solid base, we'll gradually get better and better at using that
visible portion of the iceberg.
I thought, I hope I haven't confused you with my mixed parables or mixed
analogies here, or mixed metaphors.
Bye for now.