At 16:38 in the video President Obama says, “We want children…learning about their language and learning about their culture.” This is wrong. We want them learning the language, not about it. We realize that the culture cannot be transmitted to new generations without some kind of vehicle – language.
At 20:00 the gentleman explains about thunderstorms in English vs. Lakota. It is interesting but cannot lead to any mastery of Lakota. We must provide comprehensible input with the learners focused on meaning. No explanations are needed. Thinking is not even needed – in fact it gets in the way.
From 23:10 to 23:15 the idea presented about Lakota teachers needing to know the grammar of their language reveals the crux of the entire problem. Those elders do not need to know anything about their grammar system. They only need to be able to speak it. This is revolutionary to some, but it is nonetheless true.
At 23:58 the fallacy of the importance of writing correctly is exposed. They need not write. Rather, they should read all they can.
At 24:35 the point is made that correctly written stories will help the children read is false. They can only read because they have listened so much.
At 24:50 a tragic statement is made: “For decades, most kids on the reservation have taken Lakota classes, yet the language continues to fade away.” This is simply explained. The children were forced into mental cognition in those classes, and were not permitted to simply listen and listen and listen to more to elders speaking to them about the rich cultural history of the people.
It is as if a massive mistake took place. What God designed has been meddled with, brought into the realm of mind, of thinking, where the research tells us that no language can be gained by thinking about it, but simply by focusing on messages. No blame. But now it must all return back to the natural process that it is.
At 25:20 we learn that only 30 min. per week is given to instruction. This is far from what is needed.
The point made at 25:50 is exact.
At 26:30 we see the teacher of Lakota providing non-comprehensible input. It is futile. No blame. No criticism.
At 26:50 the Lakota teacher says the truth: “Some days they just start speaking Lakota on their own.” Yes. Not forced. Not forced.
Then at 27:25 she says that they will fight the battle by speaking the language. This is not true. The implication is that the children who fail to spread the word, literally, will be culpable in some way in the failure of the language. This is too much to put on a child. How can they speak if they haven’t had sufficient input? It is like asking someone to make a building 100 stories high but giving them five bricks.
At 29:25 the teachers says in the language bowl, “You are going to finish sentences.” This puts inordinate pressure on the kids. More output. It cannot work. No blame.
At 30:00 the implication is that a breakthrough can only come if they all speak the language all the time that they can. This is not true. Only the elders and do this. How can the children speak the language? This really is a tragic moment in the narrative. Can newborns learn by practicing speaking all the time? No blame.
At 31:22 there is the implication that the children can be labeled “Lakota speakers”. They are not. They are children. The elders are the Lakota speakers. The children must listen to thousands of hours of interesting input before they can be called speakers of the language.
At 32:00 the 3-5 year old class’s use of time is better spent telling those kids stories. I think that class was focused on individual words and output of same by the kids. In terms of the research, this cannot work.
That man at 33:00 who rides the bus from Bismark is a champion. The way he talks to the little girl at the table holds the key. It is comprehensible input happening there. Teaching is the enemy. Teaching crowbars a process that is unconscious into one that is conscious and that it the disaster.
The conscious mind cannot learn a language. It must be done unconsciously using comprehensible input. People learn languages via comprehensible input, and not in any other way. If the reader has a problem with this, then tell me where I am wrong and be specific because I have just spent 40 years thinking about this topic 24/7 and my conclusion after teaching more than 35,000 classes is that people learn languages via comprehensible input.
At 34:00 the statement is made that the “kids have clocked more hours in listening to the Lakota language than anyone in her generation”. This is fantastic. Listening will save this language. Forced speech will do nothing.
At 34:45 Dave Hill is doing TPR. It is wonderful. But one can only do TPR so long before it gets boring. Like after about ten minutes. So now we have the Invisibles and Story Listening. It can save native languages, but how we can verify this statement unless somebody tests the premise?
Notice at 35:00 that only single words are being shared. Comprehensible input is not about the kids hearing single words but interesting words in context. We must change the single word, lists of words shiny ball pedagogy to one of flowing language that is rich context and not individual words. The Invisibles and Story Listening can do this.
At 36:15 the point is made that the kids are listening and responding (non-forced). This is of major importance. It is the way language is learned. It is contextual, not in pieces.
At 36:40 we see more TPR with the kids acting like they are running. The exciting new development is how the Invisibles and Story Listening and the One Word Images will expand on TPR to move towards rich, even compelling context.
More TPR and one word work at 37:15. And the kids look as if they are writing. I can’t tell. If they are writing it is too early and this attempt at teaching Lakota will fail. However, if they are drawing what they hear it is good, according to the research.
At 38:15 we learn that Didier Dupont was a philosophy professor in France. That is just badass.
At 41:00 we learn about the orthography and rules of the language, done by missionaries. All that is unnecessary in saving the language. Students can learn all that AFTER they have heard and start speaking the language after thousands of hours of comprehensible input.
At 41:30 the speaker from the Czech Republic is seen speaking fluently. It is important to say that there are few people like that. Not everyone can come in and do that. The challenge is to make it available to all the children and not the few who are so gifted that they can do it. The Invisibles and Story Listening bring the language it to all, with no effort, and not to the few. No criticism here – I am only wishing to make the point about a few motivated people not being enough to save the language overall.
Again, at 42:25 we are not hearing rich context but individual words. It doesn’t work that way. No blame.
At 43:00 they discuss recording all 22,000 words in the Lakota language for posterity. I favor doing so with stories. But the stories have to be understandable. That is the work at hand. Recording individual words is good, but using elders to do Story Listening on videotape is better. The devil is in the details in Story Listening. Kathrin Schectman in the link in the second of these articles on Lakota language reclamation has the answer.
At 43:14 the man explains some pronunciation detail. It cannot work. No blame. No criticism. Just saying here what the best research shows us.
The dubbing of Lakota language into the Berenstain Bears has three major fail points: (1) the culture is not authentic. Why import something from American culture when the Lakota culture (I am assuming it is still being handed down) can be used? It has more truth that way. More authenticity. (2) the speech is too fast. (3) The cartoon characters are not making eye contact with the Lakota children. But it is a good idea. It needs to be modified though. Why? Because if the input is not comprehensible, there can be no gains. Why use the Berenstain Bears when you can have better context, self-generated context.
At 45:35 labeling objects in the home is mentioned. It can’t work. It never works.
At 45:50 the alphabet is mentioned, and verb conjugation. This cannot work. Why conjugate verbs and have children answer questions about if they are brushing their teeth when we can get them listening to stories without having to speak before they are ready?
At 48:10 she says, “I would like to converse with my husband.” But we must make the point again, how can she converse if she is so busy all day to not hear the language in the quantities necessary. The reason the languages are disappearing is that people are not hearing them enough. They cannot speak until they have heard enough. And how much is enough? Far more than anyone has any idea or would care to admit.
48:48 – “Anything old isn’t cool.” This statement can be reversed. All it takes is for the children to experience success and not failure in their efforts to learn.
