One of the most fascinating things about this topic is, we don’t know what a word is, yet we use them all the time! 
LingQ vocabulary count is very different from what I believe most linguists use. But I don’t really care. I’ve gotten used to the tools, and know that I prefer articles that have 10 or less new lingQ words per minute. I don’t go around saying I know 10,000 russian words, because that’s about as useful as saying I’m fluent. It could mean anything.
That being said, it would be interesting to test people, whose word levels are “up to date” in lingQ (per Julz), to determine their CEFR in reading and listening. I don’t believe the 6 levels of the avatar stats correspond to the CEFR levels. It would be nice to test more than that, but I don’t think any meaningful conclusions could be drawn from graphing lingQ words vs speaking/writing CEFR. There is too much going on outside of lingQ to make that meaningful imo.
Without testing, I don’t see the point of doing statistics. But I’m interested in hearing what other people think they’re going to learn from them.
I don’t generally think the known words count means much. I think of it more as a motivational tool. For that reason, I suggest making it more motivational by having it give crazy astronomically high numbers. Each new word I set as known should count as 50 known words on the stats. Each day that I do some work on LingQ, I should get as a present 5000 new known words. This way, after starting a new language, I will be on 50.000 known words after a few days. I can’t think of anything more motivational.
I consider the “known words” count to be an important statistic. I explained how it is arrived at. If you delete non-words, the count is accurate, based on our definition of what a word is. Beyond that, it is up to each learner to decide how to use this statistic. For me, it is a meaningful measure of my activity and progress in a language.
I think a lot of the disagreement stems from not knowing what the interlocutor really knows of a language, and from the fact that just reading a lot isn’t enough. You have to practice grammar, practice pronunciation, and put yourself into situations where talking occurs. So for example, if someone who has merely read and listened a lot is commenting on whether or not the word count is meaningful, that isn’t the same as hearing the opinion of someone who has read and listened a lot, but who has also practiced gramar and pronunciation, and tried to talk a lot.
For managing a massive input environment, word count as used at LingQ is a perfect innovation, that serves as a meaningful measure of progress.
For me, it is also a meaningful measure of my activity and progress in a language. I just don’t think it is a meaningful measure of my known words.
First of all, I don’t believe that you have to practice grammar or practice pronunciation, unless you enjoy doing so. You will get enough practice naturally while you speak. Speaking with our tutors here, where you get a report containing the words and phrases that gave you difficulty, is an excellent way to start speaking. To speak well you need to speak a lot. The known words count is an excellent measure of your potential in the language.
Assuming that you use LingQ properly, your known words count should reflect the degree to which you have listened to and read in your target language, and therefore your vocabulary and familiarity with the language. These are the factors that will determine your ability to have meaningful conversations in the language, in other words to practice the structure and the pronunciation of the language.
Another way to be assured that the word count on LingQ is a meaningful metric, is to observe how it correlates with languages you know. My Spanish is far superior to my French, and it was no trouble at all to race upwards in the Spanish word count.
@Steve, I’ve watched a hundred or more of your videos, and I know that you don’t believe in practicing grammar. In some of your videos you suggest using grammar books as ways to expose yourself to patterns: compare the exercise with the answer key, etc. I believe that actual practice is essential, but, I don’t know of any rhetorical way to resolve the matter. I just don’t think reading and talking are enough. Without some structural work, your talking will just be rubbish, IMO. I know mine is, in German!!! lol Anyway, people are free to emphasize different aspects. That’s why this is better than school. In school, it’s One Size Fits All! But yes, I think you have to get in there and work the patterns, and the exceptions. And there’s no reason why it shouldn’t be enjoyable. You get the pleasure of putting new patterns into your brain. No need to fear work!
I don’t want to make Colin feel bad or anything, so I hope I’m not speaking out of turn, but I recall a thread in which he mentioned having tremendous trouble expressing anything even after some years of LingQ work. I’m paraphrasing of course, but my gut reaction is, he’s not doing enough structure and output work. I would look to that.
“I don’t want to make Colin feel bad or anything, so I hope I’m not speaking out of turn, but I recall a thread in which he mentioned having tremendous trouble expressing anything even after some years of LingQ work. I’m paraphrasing of course, but my gut reaction is, he’s not doing enough structure and output work. I would look to that.”
You must have me mixed up with somebody else. I only started using LingQ back in December. I only started learning German a year ago and I have very little trouble expressing myself on most topics that I have interest in.
I am told that I make few grammatical mistakes when I speak German. When I speak, I often have trouble expressing myself if the topic is unfamiliar to me, but this is usually due to a lack of experience talking about this subject and a lack of vocabulary and has nothing to do with a lack of grammar.
Oh.
Anyway, if you ask me, which nobody did (lol), LingQ is a great system for encouraging and managing “massive input” (as Steve puts it). But I see no reason to abandon structure. Take the comparison: When people seek to become doctors, they aren’t enjoined to ‘just absorb’ the structure of anatomy and physiology. No. They must sit their tuckus in the chair until they know the seven layers of this, and the arrangement of that, and this is inside of something else, and the hormones cause this, and the electrolytes are needed for that, etc etc. If they can’t hack it, they must go and settle for being psychiatrists, where they can just make it up as they go along! lol Anyway structure is beneficial and real, so why not make the attempt?
-
I remember the post you are referring to. It was not Colin, but another user I will not name who somehow has around 100,000 known words, yet an inability to speak. It turned out she had never really tried to activate her vocabulary.
-
Who ever said anything about discarding structure/grammar entirely? I learned using lingq, along with the occasional glance at a grammar book. I just took an advanced French grammar class for foreigners (my first ever class) here in France, and somehow outgrammered most of the other students there, including several French majors from good British Unis who were in the midst of doing their year abroad.
Oh okay, not Colin. Yes I think a conscious effort must be made to activate. Out-go.
Your point 2 reminds me of Steve’s video, about knowing something before you learn it. Which he got from some Eastern sages. So your massive exposure to French gives you ample experience upon which to build the grammar. It’s a great combination.
“2. Who ever said anything about discarding grammar entirely?”
I certainly didn’t. When I started learning German, I did four months at a language school intensively learning nothing but grammar. At the end of that time, I could have debated Noam Chomsky on technical linguistics issues and won. I still couldn’t speak much and I couldn’t understand a thing anybody said to me, but I found this knowledge of grammar very useful anyway. I don’t know if it was the most efficient way to learn the language though.
I think Colins German is amazing in this short time!
I have always had the same experience. People who learn intensively with LingQ speak after a short time in a very natural way. But those who study hard, write for hours or cram grammar exercises, do not speak after years in a natural way.
j;-)
creimann,in my view, language is not like science. It is not something you learn academically, with structure and experiments. It is not a matter of understanding concepts. It is a matter of acquiring habits, something you just get used to through exposure and eventually lots of usage. Most learners of English who get the third person singular present tense wrong when they speak, understand the concept.
I also read grammar books, often, but not in the hope of retaining anything, but in the hope that it will help me notice the patterns of the language what I’m reading and listening.
Your approach is different, understood. However, I don’t think you can see that others “have to” do what you like to do.
I think there’s a trap either way. One can pin one’s hopes on immersion, or on grammar books. But some combination is needed. The genius of LingQ is not that it obviates the need for studying grammar, but that it brings some order to the chaos of immersion.
Studying grammar, which I do, is not the same as practicing grammar or doing exercises, which I don’t do. But in the end it is up to each person to decide what they enjoy doing and what works for them.
@creimann - agreed. I have seen videos and listened to people who have focused on listening and reading, and claim to do very little grammar study. Compared to a saturation (balanced) learner, their vocabulary is a little more extensive, but their grammar decidedly worse. They also tend to struggle a little more, and appear less smooth, which I attribute to less time spent on conversation…probably nothing to do with grammar. Basically, if you want to have good grammar, study and practice grammar at some point. If you don’t care, then ignore this advice.
Once again about the lingQ word count. Yes, you can use it to tell that you have made progress. For example, if it says 10,000, you probably know twice as many words as when it said 5,000. And you can use it to help you choose appropriate articles to read and listen too. But you can’t use it to tell you how close to your goal you are, because you can’t tie it to the real world, CEFR level, etc. This is why I suggest testing users.
Here is Krashen’s view on the relative unimportance of grammar instruction instruction with some references to research.
http://www.sdkrashen.com/articles/teaching_grammar_why_bother.pdf
Success in language learning depends on the attitude of the learner, the time spent with the language and the attentiveness the learner. Therefore, it is difficult to compare the effectiveness of different techniques, since we usually don’t know enough about the different learners’ attitudes, time spent, and degree of effectiveness. So I think it is best to focus on doing those tasks which we most enjoy doing. This keeps us motivated. This ensures that we spend enough time. Probably this also heightens our attentiveness to the language.
I am closer to Krashen in terms of what I like to do. That is how we have designed LingQ. I do review grammar, but I don’t do exercises. If I enjoyed doing exercises, I would do them. I don’t think my language learning suffers because I don’t grammar exercises.
The important thing about input-based learning, is that it creates the potential for us to become good speakers. It builds up our familiarity with the language, or ability to understand, and our vocabulary. Ultimately, however, in order to speak well we have to speak a lot.
The known word count at LingQ is relevant to the CEFR levels. For each level there is certainly a minimum vocabulary level required. I refer to passive vocabulary. These passive vocabularies are not enough to attain the CEFR levels, they just make it possible. As to how many known words would be needed for each level in the CEFR, we would have to do a study it to determine that.
I agree regarding CEFR. The best way to get a reasonable correlation is testing, imo. But there is an easier/less accurate way. Use “active” vocabulary levels established for CEFR (assuming these exist). Compare them to active vocabulary levels predicted by the LingQ word number. The hard part is estimating the word families type of vocabulary levels given the LingQ word number. This can probably be estimated by a simple ratio. And you could probably assume active vocabulary is 50% of passive vocabulary.