There is only one “secret” I’ve found to learning a new language and that is to keep moving forward.
I am over two years into Russian - the third language I have attempted to learn. (Achieved conversational fluency in German, and some limited fluency in Spanish some years ago.) So, I now know very well what works for me.
My advice to the many who have questions about how to learn a language: absorb all the advice you can, try that advice out, and don’t hesitate to note what works for you and then keep at it. Not everything you hear will work.
I’ve reached near fluent comprehension of spoken French thanks in large part to LingQ, and 100% due to the methods advocated by Steve Kaufmann and others. The method does work.
I aim to do the same in German.
The app is brilliant, although sometimes I get very frustrated with the serious bugs.
LingQ lacks structure and it took me over six months to figure out a way to use it with German that works for me. I didn’t have much luck with the spaced repetition system or the sentence mode whereby one does exercises on the current line. I didn’t like the beginner material in German including the short stories. I now import very simple YouTube videos.
This of course might be different for other people, perhaps some of you love the SRS or the sentence mode exercises, or the short stories. I do find it a bit odd that LingQ promotes exercises that go against Steve Kaufmann’s recommendations.
I don’t know whether it promotes them or simply enables them for those that want them. I rarely use them, but sometimes it’s nice to review a vocabulary list.
Steve did once reply to me on YouTube that they provide methods that he does not use as some people like them. I would like to know how effective each tool is, but I guess that’s hard to measure without spending a lot of money.
(automatic translation from Italian… sorry but I still can’t write in English… I’m afraid of making too many mistakes)… so… my story: I studied English in Italy like all Italian high school students… badly… just grammar. Over the years I have tried and tried again to get back to English… but always with the same methodology “Open the grammar book”… A month ago (only a month ago!), in complete relaxation, with a different mindset I said “Let’s try lingQ”… after a few weeks I discovered that I had a decent amount of words that I already knew, that I was able to read and listen in English (content designed for a B1… but ok)… . and this gave me serenity and made me understand that the path designed by LingQ is the right one (at least for me)! I’m doing what I’ve never done in years of studying English at school: total immersion in listening and reading… no grammar but searching content (books, podcasts, post) that engages me, that I like… and I see the results… and this makes me feel good. I no longer see English as a subject, but as a journey. It will take hundreds of hours of listening and reading… great… but at least I know what works (LingQ for me)… and what doesn’t!.. Well… I’ve FAITH
If you read my earlier post, you will see that I did try out the tools and they didn’t work. I was wondering if they are effective in general i.e. for other people. However, no-one else has chimed in with their experiences.
The line mode exercises and SRS essentially immitate the Duolingo method as used by Duolingo, Busuu, Babbel etc. Linguistic research suggests that these methods are much less effective than large amounts of comprehensible input.
I used to like the certainty that doing exercises provided, and found CI unsettling. I have a feeling this is a common experience.
Thank you for posting Antonio, it’s great hearing about someone finding a method that works for them. In my opinion, trying to learn English by studying grammar is a total waste of time. Even native speakers don’t know the grammar. LOL
That’s what learning grammar will do to a person’s confidence. I’m English, and I strongly believe that if you wrote in English without using auto translation, I’d understand it just fine, and I wouldn’t care at all about any mistakes you made.
@antoniogiglio Well, B1 is actually already pretty decent. Especially if you can understand the spoken language, which is actually the harder part in English imho. The best way for gaining confidence in the language is if you try to use it. Everybody is afraid of making mistakes when still at the early stages of learning something. This isn’t neccessarely a bad thing - at least it’s better then the opposite. And if people have problems understanding what you are posting, you can always use automatic translations as a fallback. You can also use the writing exchange option. Post something there and get corrected by natives. If you take a look at what people post in your mother tongue you will easely see that many of them are making mistakes. Maybe that helps with you anxiety
@LeifGoodwin I would assume that the efficiency of different learning methods depend on the learner and the purpose of learning the language, too. So stating that one method is better then another one for everyone and in any case is most likely nonsense. And it is also a matter of the ability to execute it. Comprehensible Input requires that you have resources that both are comprehensible and interesting. Depending on the language and personal interests this might be problematic, especially as a beginner.
I personally don’t use the SRS stuff, but restrict to importing content and translating it and listening to the audio while reading. In addition to that I watch series in my target language and do some grammar studies. For me personally the most important aspect probably is to vary the amount of time I invest into those activities or more precisely, how I weight it. So sometimes I only read without spending much attention to listening, sometimes I do a lot of grammar while sometimes none etc…
I also invest time into dealing with aspects of the language I don’t need to know, like Hanja (chinese characters) or the history of the region the language is spoken in. For me motivation is an important, if not the most important aspect of learning. I can learn very fast if I am motivated, but if I am not I learn almost nothing no matter how hard I try. The specific method is secondary to me.
But that is a very personal thing, imho. In the end you can only try out several things and see what works for you personally. What does it matter whether it works for everyone else?
Maybe sometimes, but grammar has become short-hand in language learning for ineffective learning techniques. Not all grammar instruction is created equal. I prefer to use the term “learning how a language works,” since “grammar” has become practically a four-letter word these days.
I spent 8 weeks in a university course last year for Russian - 8 hours a day five days a week - that took a “grammar approach” to learning the language. It saved my sanity. There’s too much going on in Russian not to understand what you’re seeing and hearing as soon as possible. Why not have a road map to go on rather than to wander about in the desert for years?
Also: my better understanding of Russian grammar has very little to do with my sometimes self-consciousness about speaking properly. It’s no different than desiring to choose the right word at the right time.
I referred to spaced repetition tools, which means the vocabulary review. The problem is that it works with single words.
I have used Anki for single words, which is the same thing, and it doesn’t really work for me. A simple word or word phrase such as le merle or le Trouble Obsessionel Compulsif is fine as the meaning is one to one with English. But a word such as filer or monter is too complex and for me such words are best learnt in context. So I create my own list of phrases, such as Il a monté une société.
I’d rather not make such a statement without evidence.
As an aside, Duolingo boast that their method is more effective than a university course, so yes they do make a claim that you would consider nonsense.
My guess is that beginners who have never studied a second language need some guidance. The problem I have with the Duolingo method is the false claims. It takes huge amounts of input to learn a language. It is hard work. Duolingo and related courses just don’t have enough content.
Incidentally finding CI that is interesting is not hard in major languages such as French. In my opinion of course.
I think that it makes sense to find out which methods are effective for most people, and which are not, and which are significantly less effective.
That’s why I wrote that I assume it. It is just my impression I got over time, not only in regards to language learning. Whether this is true or not, I don’t know for sure (and never claimed to do).
You seem to agree.
We can agree on this. As written, “depending on the language”.
I get that. But for such a discussion you have to be sure that such categories exist. Maybe there are methods that generally work better for most people, and some that generally yield bad results for a vast majority. But what if not?! It’s a discussion about the consequences of a thesis that first needs its premise proven.
Considering what I have read here in the forum and what I’ve seen elsewhere in regards to how people approach language learning (and learning in general) it seems to me that different people make different experiences with the various methods. But if there are scientific studies that prove the superiority of certain methods, I would be interested to read them.
And just to avoid misunderstandings: “What does it matter whether it works for everyone else?” wasn’t meant as a statement to neglect the necessity or benefit of scientific studies on the matter of effective language acquisition. What I’ve tried to express is that as an individual learning a language, the value of a method lies in how much it works for you. If it works for you, the method doesn’t become worse just because others don’t consider them useful and vice versa. So if studies show a method to be super good, for god sake, try it out. But if you find that it isn’t working for you, don’t tie to it. And if people discuss a method and some of them are heavely opposing its usefulness while others find it useful, you are probably better of trying it out instead of just relying on what one of the faction claims.
They have done studies that show that Duolingo is more effective than university courses for beginners. I don’t dispute those. They make further claims which I dispute. Some methods used by Duolingo go against known results from learning research.
There are plenty of studies relating to learning. For example:
Regular testing dramatically improves recall. If pupils are tested several times during a lesson on the information presented, they perform much better in the long term.
Blitzing one topic is less effective than studying a range of topics. So don’t do one hour on one area of a language, then one hour on a second, and one hour on a third. Do 20 minutes on each, alternating between topics.
One’s native language can and does interfere with learning. It is quite possible to understand the meaning of a sentence without understanding all of the grammar, due to redundancy for example. As far as I know this is never addressed by Stephen Krashen et al.
These are just a few observations from research.
Well known polyglots use different methods, but I suspect there are some methods none use. I would be very surprised if any used Duolingo or similar. I know some such as Richard Simcott have tried Duolingo.
You’re getting very serious. I was simply wondering which methods the experienced learners use, and which methods they avoid. I prefer to hear about other experiences, rather than intellectualise.
But does he do the exercises in sentence review? I use sentence review for German, but not the exercises. I discovered empirically that they don’t work for me.
I wasn’t at all, sorry if it felt like that. I just got the impression that my original post may seemed like I was neglecting the question you ask or its validity. I just wanted to clarify that this is not the case.
In regards to what I tend to avoid (not that I am an experienced user): SRS, just because it is boring.
What I like to do is to vary my study approaches from time to time, because it is unboring The last hour I spend asking ChatGPT to list some words containing specific syllables (that connect to a specific meaning, chinese loanwords) and wrote them down by hand. Don’t know how to continue from this point yet, but I figure something out.
In regards to the studies I would probably have to search some myself. Unless you have some specific ones in mind, than I would be happy if you could link them. I have searched some in regards to Krashen, as I tried to understand why lots of people are so obsessed about him (just as you mention him). I got the impression that none of his thesises where new nor ever throughoutly verified.
Regarding your examples
That actually sounds reasonable. I wonder whether having new vocabulary reappearing in a text one’s reading counts as testing, as you have to recall it. I never consider to test myself during lessons, so probably worthwhile testing out to see what happens.
Always funny how loanwords differ from the original meaning (Blitz = lightning). However, how the time is subdivided could still be individually different. Alternating the topics should keep the motivation up, though.
To be honest, I am not sure what you are trying to say. More precicely, how the first sentence connects to the second one. These seem to be two completely different statements.
I am quoting from memory from books that I have read which discuss learning.
I have the impression that Steve Kaufmann greatly admires Krashen and his theory, and that influences a lot of people. Krashen’s theories are also a good way to market LingQ.
Me too. In interviews Krashen and his collaborators often claim that the theories have been proven. I have the impression that they are drawing conclusions that go beyond the evidence.
Krashen would have us believe that we hear comprehensible input, and over time we naturally learn the language. The problem with that is that when we hear a target language, we tend to make assumptions based on our own native language. In other words, our native language interferes with our learning the target language. This is made worse by the fact that we can often understand the meaning of a phrase without correctly understanding the grammar.
To take an example of transfer from pronunciation, most English and Germans speakers, when speaking French, will use stress timing, which is incorrect as French is syllable timed. They have taken the timing of their own language and applied it to French, without realising it.
As an example of grammar transfer, an English speaker might say Je l’ai caché de Jean and not Je l’ai caché à Jean, as they transfer their own grammar to French. That same person hearing the second form will understand it as there is enough information to infer the correct meaning. They might even think they heard the incorrect form. Thus hearing the correct form might not lead them to learn it. This is a weakness in the idea of comprehensible input leading to perfect acquisition naturally. In practice the learner needs a high level of awareness and observation, and maybe even a teacher, professional or otherwise.
Apologies if this is getting a bit boring, or stating the obvious.
The last hour I spend asking ChatGPT to list some words containing specific syllables (that connect to a specific meaning, chinese loanwords) and wrote them down by hand. Don’t know how to continue from this point yet, but I figure something out.
Always funny how loanwords differ from the original meaning (Blitz = lightning). However, how the time is subdivided could still be individually different. Alternating the topics should keep the motivation up, though.