If you are able to learn the words, how can it be possible that you cannot learn them through LingQ? Read text several times till you you dont need to click every word and translate. Each time you will need less and less translation. for me, it is enough to read 4-5 times. Some words were not memorized, it is not a problem. you need to understand 80-90 % of the text. Then, go to the next text. Several days later - return to the text and read it 1-2 times. Thats all. If you take texts with 30-35% of unknown words, you are able to read this text and learn in this way and enjoy the text
3 Likes
I started using LingQ in May 2023, so over a year ago. I read and listen one hour a day in French and one hour a day in German using LingQ. And I also listen to one hour of French each day outside LingQ. And in addition I spend half an hour a day using Anki for both languages.
I explained earlier why LingQs don’t work, but I’ll add more detail here.
In French and German I don’t for the most part like remembering single words, as single words are not useful. For example, if I learn suchen, I won’t be able to use the word, I need to learn nach Beiträgen suchen. And then there are words whose meaning changes according to context thus L’espion est à mes trousses means that the spy is following me. The derivation of the phrase is obscure, trousse is a small bag or box, such as a pencil case, learning that word won’t help. Similarly se réduire comme peau de chagrin means to shrink to the bone, in this case chagrin is believed to be a corruption of a different word, you need to know the phrase, Then we have simple words like tenir, and Je tiens de mon père has a quite different meaning to Je tiens à mon père. Then there are those damned prepositions (and lack of) after nouns that are so common in French e.g. Le camion benne and La citerne à eau. Hence LingQs are largely useless in my view.
In German LingQ does not handle phrasel verbs well, aufpassen is distinct from passen.
Then there is the fact that I used LingQs for months in German and found I wasn’t learning words. I discovered that in order to learn words, I need to focus, to notice, to pay attention. I can’t explain this, except to say that I recently changed the way I study German. I used the Krashen approach for a year, but got sick of tedious input, and not learning much. Words just didn’t sink in, unlike with French, I started using incomprehensible input, and studying it, taking it apart, analysing it, until it became mostly comprehensible. (I ignore advanced grammar and obscure words.) I focus on dissecting words, seeing connections. As a result I am learning words much faster. And it is much more enjoyable. With French, connections to English words are often very direct, with German connections are more hidden. Thus ungewöhnlich looks horrible, however un looks like un, gewöhn looks like it is related to wohnen (to live) and lich corresponds to ly, so I can piece that together and realise that it means unusual. You might not see that, but it works for me, and yes I am good at crosswords,
I have a good book by a polyglot, Alex Rawlings, who uses similar methods. In fact each polyglot has their own methods.
Whilst I respect and admire Steve Kaufmann’s incredible knowledge and experience, I do think he shouldn’t push his method as the best for everyone. There is no magic bullet, apart from the fact that you cannot achieve a high level in a second language without massive amounts of input.
1 Like
LingQ is excellent. I can sometimes remember words after only one hearing as long as I focus, attention is key. I just don’t like creating and using LingQs.
1 Like
I’m glad to hear you have found something that helps. Ukrainian is similar in that I also supplement LingQ with activities like this. For instance, I have a chart of prefixes for verbs of motion that I refer to from time to time, as well as charts on declensions, conjugations, etc. My language learning looks a lot like this: read a bunch (some in LingQ, some in paper books), listen a lot, do some grammar exercises occasionally, and speak with my Italki tutor.
So I am also not a pure Krashen disciple. Yet LingQ has been a huge cornerstone in my learning journey. Good luck with yours!
2 Likes
Going back to your LingQ’s statement that they don’t work. I sort of think I understand what you’re trying to say. To me, though, LingQ’s are inanimate…they don’t do anything other than hold on to some potential meanings and allow you to mark whether you know that word (for me in a passive sense), or not. I don’t do SRS or vocabulary practice with them. I don’t look at them without context (I usually work in sentence mode). LingQ as a whole (and I’m just talking about its function as an assisted reader) works…and it sounds like it works for you. We may use it in the same way (or different) but it works.
I copied the quote you said as I find it interesting. To me LingQ makes ANYTHING comprehensible. I read a sentence where I know 0% words. I click translate…it is now comprehensible. When you say you were using comprehensible input and the Krashen approach…are you meaning you were looking at text that is just slightly above your level? Like you understand almost entirely? And what do you consider as incomprehensible (like what percent of unknown words?). Was the former just because it was too boring? Or you simply just skimmed over vs. the more “dissected” approach you used? For myself I pretty much did the latter from the start. I want to read and listen to stuff that is interesting to me. If that means stretching to stuff that is 20% or more unknown or whatever, it makes no difference.
I guess I disagree too, that Steve pushes his method as best for everyone. If you watch his videos he does say certain things work or don’t work for him, but that for others they may. I think in his judgement an “input based” approach the best in terms of bang for your buck but doesn’t exclude other things if people find them of use and clearly he goes beyond LingQ for tutoring/conversation (or within the set of LingQ tutors, but aside from the base function of the tool).
And this is it…this is basically what Steve says…or at least what I’ve always understood his viewpoint to be from his videos.
Glad you’ve found a good way for yourself to learn languages!
3 Likes
My approach is pretty similar to what @LeifGoodwin described. It’s probably caused by me beeing a mathematician, and he iirc a programmer/computer engineer. I would say that people with our professions tend to think in structures and are therefore requiring said structures in order to comprehend. (This might sound like a disadvantage, but it means that we can see structures where others can’t, too. So a two-sided coin).
I personally don’t make overhelmingly much use of the LingQs either. I click on new words and either select a translation if it’s fitting or type one myself, but I don’t do this for all words. Due to the nature of the Korean language I am learning each word can have dozens of different forms, and after three or four I tend to become tired of creating the LinQ, especially as it is much more often the case that I have to create it manually or at least have to modify the suggestions. This means that at the end of a lesson a lot of words get marked known that I don’t know. But I don’t bother. If I come across one of those forms later on in a different text I can still add a translation if needed.
When I read his post I immediately thought that he might have overlooked the s. 
1 Like
If you don’t use the lingq’s much, how is using lingq better than just using Google Translate or another app to translate text? (I’m not disagreeing, I’m just curious.)
I wouldn’t mind if you did, as I don’t base my decision on other peoples opinions. But I haven’t understood it that way, either way, so don’t bother.
I use LingQ mainly for convenience. Looking up single words in order to get their meaning, which I sometimes do, too, is very time-consuming compared to just clicking on a word. This has to do with how I use LingQ. I am not reading a sentence and than looking at the translation of the whole text. I have a more step-by-step approach. In addition, Google Translate isn’t the most robust approach with eastern asian languages (this means, it often creates nonsense). Although with Korean it isn’t as problematic as with Japanese for example. Still, it often creates wrong translations. And not using the LingQ’s much in my case means relatively. In absolute numbers it still sums up, as the texts I am working with usually have a 20-30% unknown words count.
My approach is
- read a sentence and try to understand its meaning (don’t translate)
- if there are unknown words, I look them up
- if I am still unable to understand the meaning I start translating the sentence (word by word, I keep the word order, something I would suggest to all of you German learners
, it helps getting used to it) - if I still don’t get it I use Google Translate for the whole sentence and than go through the sentence again to see how the translation arose from the source
Note that Korean is extremely grammar heavy. So even if you know all the words this doesn’t mean you understand the sentence. In addition, they tend to throw in overly long sentences, too (not only in the written language, I also noticed that in K-Dramas, podcasts and street interviews). So you can easely encounter sentences with 30+ words. Google Translate tend to split those into 3-5 sentences. With such a length identifying the words and grammatical structures when the two languages in question share a completely different syntax isn’t helpful, imho. In addition, a lot of the Korean Grammar doesn’t neccessarely have a counterpart in German, because they are either refering to politeness, or there are several grammars with similar meaning whose nuances aren’t represented in German, as we don’t make such distinctions (at least not via grammar).
2 Likes
That makes sense. Yes LingQ works incredibly well.
I was following the actual Krashen method, using input that was ~90% intelligible, and learning grammar and meaning from context. Note that he says that you cannot transfer explicit knowledge to implicit knowledge. In other words, you must learn unconsciously.
Firstly it got very very boring, secondly I was seeing very little new vocabulary, and thirdly I wasn’t learning the vocabulary that I saw, mainly because new words just don’t come up again for ages, For the Krashen model to work, you need massive amounts of graded material that gradually introduces and uses new words. Such input does not exist, except perhaps in some courses. And many people have suggested that the Krashen method is very inefficient. I believe that learning explicitly (consciously) is much more efficient in the early stages e.g, to B1.
In German I now listen to input where I understand at most 50% of the words, but almost nothing of the content, because I don’t understand the key words e.g. die Anhörung and beschuldigen. I also ignore the advice to not learn explicitly (or learning in Krashen’s terminology) and not study grammar.
In French I tend to understand 90% or more of the content, though sometimes the meaning of a phrase might not be deducible from the constituent words.
I’ve only watched ten or so of his videos. He does indeed mention other methods, However, he does often say that you cannot learn a language and you should not study grammar. He has also interviewed Krashen and accepted everything that he said, with no sense of criticism or disagreement.
I trained in theoretical physics, which means I have a way of thinking that annoys a lot of non scientists. When a theory says X and Y, I assume it means X and Y. Non scientists tend to assume that it can mean X and Z.
Krashen makes numerous clear statements which include don’t learn explicitly, use comprehensible input (which he doesn’t define clearly), learn words and grammar implicitly etc. Many people idolise Krashen’s model, but don’t actually follow it. I think the one aspect that is universally accepted is the need for massive amounts of input. Was Krashen the first to make that suggestion? If so, it’s a huge contribution in my non specialist view. And to be honest the Krashen method does largely work, in my case anyway, for French where I am least B2 i.e. upper intermediate. I still have to look up words, as I cannot usually infer the meaning. Perhaps that is a failing on my part.
1 Like
I trained and worked for many years in theoretical physics, not so different from maths. I rather admire Stephen Pinker, he comes across as a true scientist, able to distinguish between a model, and experimental evidence. Chomsky and Krashen confuse the two.
Yeah, that does sound boring. I jumped right in with novels that I found interesting from the get-go without any regard for % known vocabulary. Far more interesting and motivating. Getting sucked into several novels on LingQ has been a huge vocab booster for me. But I also did not go pure Krashen, and I have studied grammar on the side.
4 Likes
I like the idea of lingQ. However, everytime I try to use it I stumble upon yet another glitch - which takes the wind out of my learning endevour most of the time.
Thus, I would only recommend lingQ to someone who is much more computer savvy than I am.
Also, as regards to learning Arabic, it is not very useful before somebody is able to read well enough to guess at the meaning of words without vowels which is unlikely to happen before a year of learning.
Also, Arabic content is scarce and either boring or extremely difficult (because of the missing vowels). I understand this is up to the community and I would really like to add more public content but alas, so far I have not been able to figure it out.
I would be more inclined to recommend it for languages that are more close to my native European language. But then, I find, if I want to learn any of those (as a European) it is usually enough to grab some books, sit in the sun and start reading or watch some netflix/youtube.
No glitchy app needed to spoil the fun.
Tldr:
Essentially a good concept but you must be good with computers or it’s more trouble than it’s worth.
-Would not recommend it for Arabic before being able to read without Harakat (after a year or so).
-Would not recommend for anybody who is likely to have a nervous breakdown when confronred with unwieldy software and clumsy user interface.
3 Likes
Yep…does sound boring. I think there is a place for the 90+% comprehension for reading…but more at the intermediate to advanced stages where I see it as “fun” (assuming you have something that interests you) and as helping to speed up comprehension. Like you, with my usual content I’m often analysing and dissecting, albeit at a lower rate now in German since a lot of it is comprehensible for me. I think it’s good to have some time spent “pushing” the speed of reading/listening and comprehension. I’ve found reading and listening (which you mentioned earlier) to be helpful with that.
Not sure about the specific points of Krashen’s thesis other than “input” in a general sense. The unconscious stuff as you describe it does sound a little out there depending on what he explicitly means by it. I do think there is some component of learning that does seem to take place outside of the actual learning “environment”. Often when I’ve taken a bit of a break from the language (like a week or so), when i come back it feels like I understand so much more. So are the patterns and links in the brain solidifying. I don’t know.
He’s said don’t study it yeah, but that doesn’t mean don’t ignore it. He always says he gets a small grammar book for any language with lots of examples. I think his main point is that, at least for him, sitting around and actually studying a grammar book is a waste of time. That he’ll mostly forget it. I think that is true. Especially in the beginning. In the beginning if you start reading about this or that without really know much about the language it’s going to be all gibberish (even more than the language itself). Some basics may be in order, but really as it relates to seeing the examples themselves. Like I find it much better to come across something and if I question why it is this way…then look up in grammar, chatgpt, etc. I think the chance of grasping it may be better. I do feel that as I’ve become more advanced and intend to speak more that more grammar “study” or exercises might be useful.
I saw the interview. I don’t remember much about it, but they are buddy buddy and it isn’t like Steve’s a journalist that would be trying to poke holes in any theory or whatever. Just two friends talking about how they learn languages.
Thanks for the clarity on what you meant on things. Sounds to me like to some degree or methods have some similarities.
4 Likes
Thanks for the reply. I’m getting started with French and so far I’ve been doing a lot of word… by… word… translation. I think I’m almost ready to stop doing that.
LingQ has been an absolutely invaluable tool in my language learning journey. There are some problems, where its not great for a literal day 1 beginner, but once you learn a new alphabet by yourself, then maybe watch a couple youtube videos, you could start with LingQ. There a little jank, but it’s still worth the money, and I couldn’t/wouldn’t have learned a language basically any other way
3 Likes
We can learn explicitly, for example by reading information on a blackboard, and we are conscious that we are learning. We can also learn implicitly, or indirectly, where we are not directly aware or concious of learning. You watch a French TV show, and hear the word blaireau whenever a badger is present, and without realising it you learn the word for badger. You can learn grammar in the same manner.
A lot of language learning, maybe the majority, takes place implicitly i.e in the background without us being consciously aware of it. Exactly as you yourself have experienced.
How this occurs is somewhat of a mystery with many competing theories.
I suspect most of us would agree.
Old style grammar based teaching is out of fashion, though the German With Laura team still use that method. I wonder if anyone here has successfully used their materials. As an aside, I once downloaded their free guide. Then I got discounted offers for their course. Then I got an irate email from Laura ordering me to explain why I had not taken advantage of the amazing offer. Scary. 
1 Like
From a German teacher? That’s just too funny!
3 Likes
Hi!
I used LingQ for a year, enthusiastically at first but then less and less as I came to discover that, one after another, all the things I was excited about didn’t actually work. I tried really hard to like the program and to make it work for me; I figured out work-around after work-around,…, but when the English sentence translation broke, I threw in the towel.
What would it take? If everything worked as it should, I would definitely recommend LingQ again. In concept, it’s absolutely amazing and fantastic.
I know that there are ways that a person can still definitely learn a lot using this program. It’s still a great program for some people. It just doesn’t do what I needed.
2 Likes
What do you use instead?
I use the video feature which allows me to import and view preferred content and quickly look up the meaning of words and phrases while watching it. I have not found an alternative that works on iOS.
I believe that having interesting content is key. For me, that means buying ebooks from genres that really interesting and importing the content into LingQ. Epubor removes the protection, which allows me to copy and paste the chapters. It’s great that we can now import entire chapters without needing to break them up.
3 Likes