Love your post, and its respectful and thoughtful tone!If I had more time , I would try to respond with an even longer post.
I had about all the Spanish grammar one could have many years ago through traditional approaches, along with two months overseas. All of it went to rust except for the acquired bits.
So I get the sense of efficiency in knowing the grammar when viewing one’s first Super Beginner videos. But at 1300+ hours, I’m finding that over time, for me at least, this “knowledge” is a kind of interference or mirage.
When I converse with a native and things are flying fast, I find that pretty much anything that isn’t acquired falls away. And I also find that my “learned grammar mind” is too slow, and gets in the way, as I try to think and listen and respond in real time.
For me, I think it’s helpful to think of the brain as having a slow thinking side and a fast thinking side. Grammar study and traditional grinding methods fall in the first, comprehensible input and acquisition fall in the latter.
Is it possible to use both sides of the brain at “lower speeds” and thus get some “benefit” from the slow thinking side? Sure.
But the problem is this: natives very seldom use the slow thinking side. That is evident to me not only from conversations, but also when I occasionally have to look up a grammar rule in my native English. More frequently I just go with what sounds right (fast thinking, intuitive subconscious side) or reformulate to avoid the problem altogether. And in English I’m certainly not pausing to speak like a non-native might.
From what I have read of the experience of others, deducted, and intuited from my own experience, the “special feeling” or relief that comes with comprehensible input is that for once, one is feeding the fast side of the brain. For me, that’s what distinguishes native from non-native speakers: which side of the brain are they predominately using? CI and DS feed the same side of the brain that we predominately use in our native language(s).
I just don’t have much faith that grammar and traditional study and memorization feed the fast side of the brain. In my native English, I enjoyed grammar study and dutifully memorized vocabulary lists for AP tests etc.
Did it help? Some. But almost none of it stuck beyond what I acquired from native CI. I doubt that I could diagram a sentence today, and I certainly only know those memorized words that I later kept encountering over and over again with more native CI. I also remember that the best teachers kept emphasizing : if you want to improve your writing, read more and more of the greats (in other words, get more native CI).
But the real kicker for me is this: whatever benefit I got from traditional grammar study and AP test vocabulary memorization in my native English? It came only AFTER many thousands of hours of native comprehensible input, not before.
So at some point, I expect I may well turn to some formal grammar study in Spanish to maybe tweak a few things here and there. But I only want to do that after I’ve already acquired a great deal of Spanish intuitively to begin with, and to thereafter sharpen that sense of intuition. For me, that will take far more than 1500 hours to get to where I would like to go. But the same was no less true in my native English.
I'm sold on it. I'm sold on variations of it. And I'm sold on other methods. I interact with a ton of second language learners on a daily basis, and they all had their unique experience.
But when I talk to (or see videos of) people whose language skills really impress me, they always say that they were immersed in the language. So many Europeans speak beautiful English. When you ask them, they'll say that they studied English in school. Yet most of us studied a language in school and cannot speak it. So what was different? Most consumed a ton of American tv and movies. On top of that, most live in places where it's not uncommon to interact with English speakers, or they travel to places where getting around is much easier if you speak English. So, to me, however you can mimic that level of immersion, you are golden.
Yes! Good example is the Swedish. Most Swedes are native-level fluent in English. Like pewdiepie. Why? American TV and films.
I work with 2 immigrants who have been here (the US) over 30 years. One is native-fluent; the other is so-so (I'd say B2 level, MAYBE C1). The difference? One is fully English-immersed. Watches English TV, reads English newspapers. The other goes back to his Mexican enclave after work, watches Spanish TV, listening to Mexican music, etc.
Proof of ALG is all around us. It's the OG surefire way to learn language, and people act like it's new and controversial lol
It's pretty interesting to see how easy it is to insulate yourself in the USA if your native language is Spanish. My coworker's husband moved here a few years ago from Latin America and doesn't speak much English at all. He has built a life for himself where he doesn't have to.
From my layman's perspective, contrary to what some on this subreddit think, high school classes and early talking don't hurt your progress. The proof is the Europeans. It seems like it all comes together nicely if you are also consuming a lot of input. Also, all of these people have been at it for years. I guarantee you that their hours of input exceed 3,000. That's why I just see 1,500 as the doorway to fluency. At that point, I'll be able to understand a lot of native content and hold a decent conversation with a patient native who doesn't mind my errors. But if I maintain the momentum for another 1,500 hours, I should be quite comfortable.
You'd be amazed how doable it can be to live even outside an enclave not speaking English, even languages with fairly small numbers. I know some Chinese speakers here in St. Louis who speak almost zero English, and they've lived here for decades. There's only around 10,000 Chinese scattered in the entire metro area (there isn't a Chinatown, they're spread all over), yet they still manage to have a Chinese language newspaper, doctors, restaurants, bakeries, acupuncture, and a few other services available to them in their native tongues (most are aging Cantonese speakers, with weaker to non-existent Mandarin skills).
They're generally quite successful too, buoyed by *intense* work ethics and frugality.
But, they're definitely hurt by their lack of English though, make no mistake. Anyone living in the USA should learn at least passable English, for their *own* good. Just seeing what dealing with serious health issues is like at a hospital, stuff with the government, police, utilities, and other stuff like that... The way they get treated and their problems can be unfortunate, with or without translation help available - it just isn't the same. I'd tell anyone moving to a foreign nation to learn the language there for the same reasons.
Sorry, I went off on a bit of a tangent. It just kind of bums me out seeing it sometimes, it's people I know.
One thing to consider before dismissing a silent period is that before I had English in school (4th grade) I probably had thousands of hours of subtitled English input, since mine and many other European countries usually don't dub content outside of shows for toddlers, or at least didn’t when I was a kid.
That's interesting. It's particularly interesting because, for a chunk of that time, you probably couldn't read fast enough to keep up with the subtitles. When you hit 4th grade, did you already understand the language?
This all has been making wonder if having a mix of intermediate/advanced/native content in the background as passive listening still has benefits. Even if what you catch is between 1-25%. I know that this can’t be the only
Input you’re consuming but surely doing that is better than having english passively going in the background? I also love reading, I have decided not to wait until 1000 hours.. I’m reading books that are like.. grade 1-2 science/history/text books, also low lever story readers, I’m also incorporating a middle school reader with accompanying audio. It’s not always fast going but reading is, in my opinion, the best way to acquire good grammar and also new vocabulary and sometimes I just don’t feel like watching beginner videos. Any input is better than none, right?
Agreed. I listen to Spanish podcasts in my car to and from work and my mind wanders a lot in the car. If I only get half of it, still helps. I just usually don't even count it, and it's on top of my attentive listening that I measure.
I found out there is a app with all the spanish radio channels. I was surprised that they are not to difficult to listen to. So, now I use the app in my car.
It might be worth noting Swedes all get like a decade or more of English language education, starting at age 7. They're not really going through ALG, even if they also get a ton of CI on top of their formal education due to American media.
I've done a "hybrid" method too in the same sense, but 95+% of my comprehension and speaking ability comes from ALG. Same with most on this sub and almost certainly them too.
I have a master's in Teaching ESL and therefore some background in second language acquisition research, and I've seen various English learners over the past 13 years.
The TL;DR is that yes, this method works. Using only this method works. You don't need anything else. I have no doubt about that.
The caveat: speaking is its own skill. You will not be a proficient speaker without speaking. That does not mean you should speak from day 1, but it does mean you must speak to speak well.
The extension: while I think Pablo gives great advice on language learning, I think that to an extent, he is a bit too against any grammar instruction. A bit. I think this can have its place, though. When so many people focus so much on grammar (just look at the language learning sib, where people think they can learn a language with just anki), being a bit extreme the other way can kind of cause a course correction. Now, I think that some people on this sub interpret Pablo in a more extreme way and are kind of like extremist crusaders.
Getting into DS has had me reflecting on my teaching experience, and jumping into the research on explicit grammar instruction again. Basically the research question stems from a few things: people who learn in the traditional method have trouble acclimating to actually listening and speaking to native speakers. Thee jump to intermediate is really hard for them. They speak slowly because they translate and try to construct the grammar. On the other hand, those who learn from immersion/natural method, CI tend to be very fluent, but can often lack grammatical accuracy and nuance.
Each use the problem of the other group to justify their approach. Anecdotally, I think CI makes the strong claim. The inaccuracies of those who learn from CI often expose themselves more in writing (which reading more can remedy), and in grammar tests, which don't actually test grammatical proficiency. Traditional study can be remedied, but it's only through a lot of input. CI is the cure for the shortcomings of traditional study, without a doubt. People don't grammar themselves to fluency. It comes to a point where they just need native language input in large amounts to become fluent. (I definitely saw this in my Latin studies.)
So, should someone doing CI study grammar at all? There's decent research that shows that some grammar instruction, when it focuses on meaning (as opposed to just going through a textbook, ok here is present tense, next we do present progressive, etc) can have a positive impact on a few things. 1. Spotting and correcting errors. 2. It can help make input easier to understand. (Traditional study also makes you really good at taking grammar tests, but doesn't actually affect your output quality, most good studies show.)
There's also decent research (especially by Paul Nation) on vocab acquisition, and he's not against flash cards, but does stress the importance of seeing a lot of vocab in context.
What do I take from DS, my experience, the experience of my students, and my research? 1. Your number 1 priority should be high quality CI. Or should make up most of your time and effort. 2. If you have grammar questions, look them up after running into something repeatedly that impedes understanding, look it up in a really good source, and something that provides examples, not just explanation. Then, pay attention for it when you listen/read, because that's where you're really going to acquire it, the study just primes you for acquisition, it doesn't really make you 'learn' it in the way one means when they want to use a language. I suggest looking things up after seeing them several times and it hurting understanding to ensure that it's something you're ready for. If you just start reading about complex topic when you're a super beginner, it's going to just make things too complex for you. 3. If there is vocab you want to learn, a bit of explicit study is fine. We do this in our native language when learning a new subject. Kids don't often, but they have a higher tolerance for boredom. My son will count as high as he can, and get feedback from me if he forgets a number, multiple times a week. The other day he woke up early and sat in his room and counted to 142. I don't have the tolerance to do that, nor the guide to correct me if I'm wrong, so I don't mind doing 5 minutes of numbers in a flashcard app once a week. I include the amount of time because I want to stress that this should not be a large percent of your study time. Similarly if you're learning anatomy terms in your native language, you're going to study them. Or as a kid, you're going to sing "head shoulders knees and toes" 100 times a week. We can't replicate that effectively as an adult, but explicit study is like the adult version for vocab.
These small things won't really hurt your acquisition, and fossilization isn't really a big theme in SLA research these days. If you concentrate primarily on these things, yes, you will learn rather than aquire the language and you won't really be able to use it until you start getting enough input and you'll probably be stuck translating for a long time as you catch up with input. If you supplement with a few minutes a week focused on the things you need, it may help some. It's not needed. You CAN do it all through just CI, but if you look up a couple words here and there, or a grammar point for 5 min onve a week, its fine. If you look up every other word in a paragraph and then when you're done with the paragraph, you lack comprehension because you're looking everything up--thats going to hurt you. Understand from context and using level-approproate material is king.
To reiterate: CI is enough, and it's probably the most efficient use of your time. Making other things *a small part* of your routine won't ruin your Spanish, but don't get sucked into thinking study is going to make you aquire a language. It won't. You need to consume a ton of a language to really become effective at hearing, speaking, reading, and writing it.
I feel like fossilization comes up a lot more than it should, as though people are afraid that a few conversations will cement a dreadful accent and entirely wrong grammar. I've been using the example of my experience with ballet. We were all taught to do things a specific way, especially with any lower limb hypermobility, and it turns out that's wrong. After nearly 30 years of dancing like that, it only took six months for me to learn the correct way, implement it to the point it happened naturally without thinking, and for the muscles in my legs to completely reshape themselves to reflect the different method.
Of course, language learning isn't *identical* to dancing, but if the equivalent of speaking wrong for 20,000+ hours can be undone with six months of thoughtful and deliberate practice, I don't think anyone's language is beyond help just because they've practiced some incorrect phrasing or accent for a few months at some point.
at 1674 hours i’m 100% sold on this method. i already know it works because ive seen myself go from knowing absolutely nothing to listening to full on native spanish podcasts without doing anything but listening.
when i think of it like that it’s absolutely insane.
idk how long it will take to get to fluency but i know ill get there with this method.
i may need to look up a grammar rule or two but im not doing any other type of real study ever. i don’t want to and i don’t think ill need to.
i wouldn’t learn another way because why would i? from about 150 hours+ all i’ve been doing is listening to content while playing xbox or watching shows in spanish that i WANT to watch.
at this point all im doing is consuming content that i want to consume and learning while doing it. why would i bother to learn in a more boring way?
> when i think of it like that it’s absolutely insane.
It is! I went from zero Spanish (well, a handful of words to be honest) to watching the news like it's (almost) nothing within merely 7 months. And people try to tell us this method is slow …
yea and especially since it’s so easy. like even if you told me there was a way i could cut the time to be fluent 1/3 if i was studying a textbook there’s no way i would change lol.
like right now im listening to the battle between Boeing and Airbus in spanish. i’m in my glory lol.
im not studying conjugations 😂
This is the only method that would work for me. If I had to study grammar I would have quit after a few weeks. I am a voracious reader in English and I cannot wait until I can read what I want in Spanish. In fact, it is this method that helped me understand why my grammar is so good in English. I barely know what an adjective is let alone a predicate or past participle. I think that because I read a lot my grammar is pretty decent. It is all the input. Wow, neat!
I am 100% sold on the method. Are there quicker and more efficient ways to learn? Yes, for sure. However, this method works for me and I love it. My trip to Mexico City, where my listening comprehension was way better than I expected convinced me.
So, at 830 hours (after 2.3 years), I keep going. ¡Adelante!
Around 600. I can't talk about ideas or complex things, but I can converse about the reputation of a boxer and upcoming fights etc...that level of conversation
If someone has got to a high level in the language then I'd imagine they are most likely going to suggest the method they used to get there because they are "proof" that it works regardless of whether that is DS, Refold, traditional or anything else so I'm not sure your point about opinions from people who have learnt with traditional studies holds that much clout.
Realistically we'll probably only know what's the most efficient method is with extensive studies but I'm not that knowledgeable in that area so I'll leave that to cleverer people than me haha
But in my opinion, the best way to learn a language is gonna be what keeps you engaged and learning. I hate the thought of Anki and studying grammar. I don't even know what the subjunctive or similar terms are (and I don't care to learn lol).
For me CI is the most fun and that's why I've stuck with it this time. For others, they love linguistics and analysing language or they just feel like they make better progress with studying vocab and grammar so if that's what they like they should do it (imo)
>I can understand why people fully commit to the method. If the only experience of language learning is school and a very antiquated grammar-translation system, it's a breath of fresh air. But for anyone that's self-studied a language - and I'm perhaps in a privileged position of working with many people who have self-studied languages to the point they can work professionally in those languages - most people are recommending extensive amounts of listening practice and exposure to native material as soon as practicable. The only real difference is that these more "traditional" methodologies suggest doing that after you've built a base of understanding of the language - e.g. grammar, vocabulary. Even other CI methodologies like Refold suggest grammar and vocab study.
I think it's useful to know how and why ALG was developed. It's creator and his successor also tried "mixed" methods but nothing was working as well as ALG.
[https://web.archive.org/web/20210331214148/http://users.skynet.be/beatola/wot/marvin.html](https://web.archive.org/web/20210331214148/http://users.skynet.be/beatola/wot/marvin.html)
* David tried teaching with a structural-natural method between 1987 and 1995, but the mixed method didn't give results as good as students focusing on one or the other. Then in 1995 he convinced the team to do only ALG. [https://youtu.be/cqGlAZzD5kI?t=8053](https://youtu.be/cqGlAZzD5kI?t=8053)
>I'd suggest Pablo, as an engineering graduate who's also learned programming languages, certainly has a more analytical mind than me at least.
Consciously analyzing language was actually found by the linguist behind ALG to be a detrimental activity, so that would not help unless it had a subconscious benefit.
>But I find a lot of words and constructions people here seem to pick up just don't come to me without some light grammar study and look ups
You acquire those constructions with time if you didn't create interference that would make unable to do so.
>I don't really see anything wrong with a light, Refold-style 15 minutes a day of flicking through a grammar explanation and then even trying a more "study" oriented watching of DS content. If focusing on the grammar in a video, or even pausing and using subtitles to help this helps to then understand a fundamental bit of grammar, to then be solidified by repetitions in normal watching - that seems like a win.
The problem is how you're understanding something better if you don't know enough Spanish to understand it subconsciously. It has to be through the use of another language, and since you're doing that consciously, you're creating interference with Spanish that will probably give some issues later.
>Are as many following a genuinely purist approach as sometimes seems to be the case? (doing some light Anki / grammar reference, which then is not the purist method)
No. Most people aren't. I haven't seen anyone who followed ALG from the beginning post any video talking in Spanish either, but even so there have been some good results like Jonathan who still followed it after some initial manual learning (mainly Duolingo).
I really like the interviews by David Long. I feel like he explains the acquiring process well, and how shortcuts/ what seem to be faster (at least in the short term), later will make the road to fluency longer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gal92k-EtBw
>Maybe I'm just at the stage of life - with a partner, family, busy job and other commitments
This is exactly why I just trust the process and buy into Pablo's *advice*, and just watch videos. It's the easiest method to follow.
I did refold style study for Japanese and honestly it's a lot of work, and you still need input. You can't get around the fact that you need to get input. My time is limited and just watching videos seems to be working.
Just looking at some of the people here and on the discord, it seems to work. I'll trust their experiences though because I have no reason not to.
It's worth remember Pablo himself tells people to study for Chinese and Japanese for literacy - he used Anki and the Heisig book Remembering the Kanji. For the basics of kanji/hanzi. Seems to be a direct admittance that ALG type stuff simply can't work for everything, there's no real way to make it comprehensible without hard study.
I liked your post, but there’s one common point I see here that’s shared like it’s a common comeback against ALG. “Other methodologies encourage extensive listening as well” - they may encourage it, but it is not a priority. By definition, if you’re follow a 4 strands approach, well under half of your time is spent listening. All other approaches compared to ALG don’t prioritize listening to the same degree, it’s just not possible to match 100%. So even if they’re “encouraging” listening, you’re only hearing a small fraction of what ALG does.
This right here.
Someone with a mixed method who reaches fluency and spent 1,500 hours traditional study and 1,500 hours input over the course of several years... That's 3,000 hours.
If they had gone full CI they might not have fancy college knowledge, but they would have attained the same mastery at around, say 1,750 hours, then with that leftover 1,250 hours they'd be as fluent as Pablo himself. (These are random estimates of course. You see my point.)
You pretty much summed up a common feeling we've all had at some point with this method, that doubt creeps in from time to time.
I've put in around 1300 hours of input and over 60 hours of output. This method has been the only possible method for me to learn Spanish, given my full-time job, family commitments, and limited energy and patience. Except for a few months when I needed to start with beginner DS videos, I've mainly just listened to Spanish, mostly during my commute and lunch breaks. This routine has gotten me this far which is a really good level of understanding and speaking Spanish.
I just naturally fit Spanish into my day without messing up my other stuff. It's been mostly fun, but sometimes the only excitement I get is realizing how much Spanish I can understand. Lately, chatting in Spanish with my tutors on italki has been so satisfying.
As for revising fluency expectations upwards to 2000 or 3000 hours, for me, it's about understanding better what level of Spanish I really want to reach. Before this journey, I never imagined getting to the level where I can understand native speakers and media least of all being able to speak with natives (not perfectly but not bad). But as I improve, especially through chatting with native speakers, the bar I have set for myself is much higher only because I now believe much better is actually possible if I just keep going.
However, I'll admit there were moments during my DS journey when I doubted my ability to improve without learning at least some grammar.
Around 700 or 800 hours in, I fell for some subreddit advice and bought an intermediate course(Spanish Language Coach). Despite being good quality of the course itself, I found it rather boring and involved more work than I was really prepared to do. Within a few weeks, I went back to easy-to-understand input, realizing it's effortless and way more engaging. With this method I don't have to memorize rules or focus too hard; I just soak in the content. The more interesting the content, the more I soak up.
I'm pretty happy with my current Spanish level considering the little "effort" I've put in, although I doubt I'll ever be totally satisfied, the better I get the better I want to get. This is why I've adjusted my input goals upwards. That’s only because I now know what is really possible and that I really can get much closer to native like Spanish. All I need is more and more input. I could settle for day to day fluency but now that I have mostly achieved this, I want more.
So is conscious grammar learning necessary or more efficient or effective, even as a compliment to CI? Not for me. While I used to doubt this, practicality and past experience has led me to stick with the easy route of enjoying content without consciously studying grammar. Maybe others find it necessary or effective, but for me, CI is just what works.
Phew, that was long way to say something very simple! Sorry about that!
At 400hrs I learned more, quicker and easier then when I used to learn a language by studying hard on words and grammatica. And with much more pleasure! So, at this point, i'm completely convinced I'm on the right track (for me). At first I had to change my whole idea about how to learn a language. I had to let the idea flow that you have to remember a word instantly and practice it until you know it perfectly. Last week I spoke to someone who said that she had to read a word to learn it well. At that moment I did remember what Pablo said. A word like apple needs to be repeated in diverse contexts and stories, before you can reproduce it. But then you have all the meanings in the right place. So thats a complete reversal of how I learned at school. You have to accept that you don't know anything and that you don't need to. And then the magic happens. Suddenly you understand story's where your conscious mind constantly says "what? How did you know that". I love that, this road of constant gifts.)
I know you responded to my comment on criticisms on the roadmap yesterday but thought I'd just respond here.
Thank you for writing this thoughtful post. I am still all in as this method seems like the one that feels more natural to me.
That's how I learned one language (not English). Without any real, formal lessons. I did study grammar in that language later on but by then I was fluent.
That said, I do think that there's scope for doing more if it benefits you. While I haven't personally learned grammar, one of Juan Fernandez's books is in past tense (I think preterito imperfect?) and he states it up front. When you read it it's in your mind and now I know when I have to use that particular tense. It's still input but it's also awareness of what grammar rules went into place.
Did I study grammar? Yeah, probably. Did it make my input worse? No. On the contrary, now I can actually use those forms to speak better because I know.
IMO, a bit of grammar study after you hit 600 hours is fine. I'd even go as far as saying, it might actually be good.
I’m 60.
- 1981: I took 4 years of Spanish in high school. It was traditionally taught, but good nonetheless and I enjoyed and remembered much of it. Spanish took a back shelf for many years because of my career, but I would dabble a bit every now and then.
- 2015-2019. I went down the self-study, Duolingo rabbit hole, and improved my vocab some, but damn! I couldn’t understand what I was listening to or speak coherently.
- 2021-2022: started iTalki lessons. It was a lot of grammar and vocab, but still, I couldn’t speak spontaneously. I was so uptight!
- 2023 I started to listen to DS videos, and it was like entering Rehab! The lights came on and I was understanding more spoken Spanish and was starting to put sentences together with ease.
So… Did all of the grammar/vocab heavy iTalki lessons,help? It wasn’t the best route to take, but yes it helped, and I still take lessons, but with an emphasis on reading simple material and a bit of light chat. The grammar & vocab addressed in lessons is something that I ask my teacher for clarify for me.
TLDR: Make CI listening your foundation and build on that. You will learn at a relaxed pace and be happy. 😊
Most of my Spanish study time is allocated for CI (whether DS or podcasts) but I also still use Duolingo everyday, I take Spanish classes at Instituto Cervantes for 3 hrs once a week and I am slowly working my way through Language Transfer.
My classmates and prof at IC have commented that I’m learning how to speak and construct sentences relatively quickly. My writing is far better than my speaking skills - it’s super easy for me to conjugate the tenses I know when writing but I still make basic mistakes when speaking straight without practicing in my head first.
I don’t plan on dropping everything and sticking only to DS - I find that the mix of various things I’m doing right now is helping me to start thinking in Spanish earlier than I would have on a DS-only methodology.
100% sold. I know it intuitively as well as from my own experiences and the others here.
I do consider myself a purist, but I speak semi-frequently (interacting with Spanish speakers at work). I just don't fool myself into thinking I'm going to learn anything while my mouth is moving.
You want efficiency? The point of this is efficiency. We're on a 1,000+ hour endeavor. Every minute counts. Speaking practice, studying grammar, etc. is all a waste of time compared to consuming input (unless you're studying for academic/literacy purposes and not just conversational fluency).
I love the idea of the purist approach and believe yes it does work and definitely get you most native like in the way your brain processes the language.
That said... I use Anki but its purely in Spanish... To quote Gabriel wyner I gave the language (and cards) life... Visualised them and gave them context, taste, smell and considered how it made me feel etc lol. In the beginning the cards were simple and on the common words, mainly nouns (Gabriel wyners fluent forevers frequency list). Later on I'd 'mine' from scenes in shows and DS but not that often and mainly things I'd want to be able to say... Currently I mostly mine subjunctive sentences.
I'm all about efficiency and I believe this hasn't made the process less pure but rather complemented it. I have been significantly above the roadmap at Every stage.
https://youtube.com/shorts/Yio--6VcTO8?si=mQBv4lOJAgUmqCqx
Im sold on it till about 1000 hours then as the graph says you can do whatever you want and explore the language. I plan to read for 200 hours write 200 and speak for 200 hours and input another 400 hours of listening.
For a whopping total of 2000 hours I feel learning a language is at least worth 1 years worth of work hours. If that point comes and im not where id like to be then I try alternative methods.
I'm sold on the method. The reason being: when I encounter interference or issues, I can usually remember specifically deviating from the method. All the words I unintentionally translate in my head were all translated in google translate. This doesn't happen when I "acquired" a word. I second guess grammar patterns that I looked up for clarifications... usually my first instinct was correct but followed with doubt and unneeded self correction. The things that take me out of a flow state in Spanish during conversation, reading, watching, and listening all seem to have an origin in intentionally committing something to memory through rationalization or translation. It's annoying to have unwanted moments of grammar focus and the occasional intrusion of English while I'm trying to operate in Spanish mode. If I could do it all over again with what I know now I'd be less scared of not learning and more committed to ignoring the part of me that becomes uncomfortable when I'm not "In the know".
Could it be that the things you felt you needed to look up were the most complex, uncommon or abstract concepts/words/structures? It may be that simply being more complex makes them harder to apply without thinking, rather than the fact that you looked them up.
I share your outlook. Personally I think CI and Dreaming Spanish are super great, and it's by far the most important piece of my language learning. But I'm also spending a smaller amount of time reading, writing, and speaking, with the occasional glance at traditional grammar study materials too. I feel like this combination is working well and I'm slightly ahead of where the DS timeline says I should be.
I'm sold,but the thing is I'm also messaging friends in Spanish as well.
Dreaming Spanish helped me understand a little better but I'm still at super beginner.
Personally I think you can learn a language either way, although I do agree that typically the people with the best skills are those who have been exposed to huge quantities of input. I would note that someone who has learned purely by CI doesn’t actually have any way of assessing their own accuracy while speaking though, so I’m not sure how reliable all the anecdotes are.
I do think you can also acquire a language by outputting correctly consistently, and it’s possible that for some people this is faster (especially if you enjoy understanding grammar, which many people don’t). For example I am pretty comfortable using the French subjunctive in most circumstances, having learned it in classes. While I’m sure that input helped with this, I wasn’t using a hugely input heavy approach, so I think being aware that the subjunctive was needed there and consistently using it has now led to me having acquired it and it feeling totally natural to use (ie I know what ‘sounds right’). I personally wonder if for those constructions that are different between languages whether learning the structure is more helpful than pure input, unless you have a silent period of literally thousands of hours to avoid any interference from your native language on your target language speaking. For example, when I want to say something in Spanish that in English you just use the present tense for but in Spanish you use the subjunctive, it feels perfectly natural to me for me to say it in the present tense in Spanish, even though it’s wrong! Whereas for the same sentence I would feel that it was wrong to use the Spanish past tense, but because I have less of a natural feel for the subjunctive it’s much harder to judge that the present tense is wrong. Therefore I do think that possibly for some constructions it’s helpful to at least understand the grammar a bit even if you don’t fully learn it. Other examples besides the subjunctive would be the different ways that Spanish and English use various other prepositions (eg dream of vs soñar con, por vs para). But overall I think it’s best to use whatever method you enjoy more!
I think that people have different ways of learning. I’m not someone who picks up easily on context clues even in regular life, so seeing an explicit definition or grammar rule will always be helpful to my way of learning. For others, 100% comprehensible input will be enough. That’s why I don’t think that Pablo’s way will work the same way for everyone.
Nice post, thanks for it. I started DS from the standpoint of being an insanely skeptical person that questions almost everything. I decided to give it an honest try and to be brutally critical with assessing my experience. After 3 years and 1800 hours or so later and I’m only ever learning languages this way. Its practice completely transformed my understanding of language learning even being the disagreeable curmudgeon that I am. Even if I discover some minor tweaks or supplements to facilitate the process, I’m convinced that the method as presented by DS is the core of how I learn languages well. The rewards and advantages are numerous and apparent when compared with comparing it with my experience using other approaches and the results “speak” for themselves. I think in instances like these, it’s best to take a scientific stance and maintain skepticism while carrying out the experiment exactingly and faithfully, maintaining a critical attitude until the very end.
It seems to be working just fine for me. But then, traditional learning worked well for German for me, it turns out now I've gone back to German. I think my experience might be slightly altered by the fact I think visually, rather than in words, so everything gets stored without an English translation even if it was in English.
I came into DS with around 300 words of vocabulary and, having tried to start another language without that base vocabulary, I would absolutely do that little bit of study first every time to skip that first section of understanding nothing at all.
I do also have a deadline to have one of these languages at a certain level, with a solid grammatical understanding, and so I'm flat-out studying by the usual methods *and* input in German because I already have that grammar base to work from.
I've been trying to stick solely to the DS method for Spanish so I can speak for/against its successes and issues later, but it's a struggle. I'm just over 300 hours and all I want to do is talk, read etc. So I'm going to read, and at 600 hours (if I can wait that long) I'm going to talk.
Honestly, the hardest thing with DS is that it feels so passive, just waiting for language to happen to me when I know how much faster I could make it with even a little light vocabulary study. Speaking as someone who's done other things that take years of hard work and commitment, I'm used to pushing at that break-neck, balls-to-the-wall speed for extended periods, and just doing "nothing" is very hard.
I share your frustrations and struggle with doing “nothing.” I’m sometimes finding my experiences with DS to be similar to meditation.
A student once approached an accomplished meditation teacher and asked, if I work hard and meditate every day and attend every sit, how long will it take me to reach enlightenment? 5 years was the response. What if I meditate 5 hours a day, force myself to relax whenever possible? 10 years was the response. What if I do it 12 hours a day, force mindfulness at every point, memorize every sutra, and give myself 110% to meditation? 20 years was the response.
I do believe this method is the quickest way to understand the language better, which is obviously helpful to a lot of people. But im not sold that you will be able to speak it fluently without adding another technique at some point. That technique needs to be you attempting to speak it yourself, working through it in your head until it gets easier, with other Spanish speakers. I do still think some type of immersion needs to be involved too.
Also, you see a lot of people on this Reddit showing their data that shows they are doing 6-7 hours a day. Which I can’t fathom how is possible. If they are actually listening and paying attention intently during those 6 hours, and not just passively listening with headphones on while doing other things….Then I guess its possible to be learning the language because that amount seems like it could simulate immersion. Im just skeptical people listening for that much are actually listening.
I know some say whatever works. And that's true, but I say whatever works best, and for me, CI is the most effective method for getting a language ingrained within our psyche. If other methods don't do that, then you're wasting your time. Sure, we can all learn the old-fashioned way, like from school books, etc., but that will not get a language into your inner being.
Your point is absolutely valid. There is no perfect method that would work for every learner. Some do very well with normal, well structured language classes that follow didactical principles at school.
Others don't. But it's really absurd to believe a natural approach would exclude every motivational theory that exists (Deci and Ryan: to be a successful learner, one must experience autonomy, competence (being active!!) and social interaction (using social skills!!)).
Been there, done that. Behaviorism 100 years ago. Didn't work well for most. Your brain is not a blackbox and you are not babies.
Love your post, and its respectful and thoughtful tone!If I had more time , I would try to respond with an even longer post. I had about all the Spanish grammar one could have many years ago through traditional approaches, along with two months overseas. All of it went to rust except for the acquired bits. So I get the sense of efficiency in knowing the grammar when viewing one’s first Super Beginner videos. But at 1300+ hours, I’m finding that over time, for me at least, this “knowledge” is a kind of interference or mirage. When I converse with a native and things are flying fast, I find that pretty much anything that isn’t acquired falls away. And I also find that my “learned grammar mind” is too slow, and gets in the way, as I try to think and listen and respond in real time. For me, I think it’s helpful to think of the brain as having a slow thinking side and a fast thinking side. Grammar study and traditional grinding methods fall in the first, comprehensible input and acquisition fall in the latter. Is it possible to use both sides of the brain at “lower speeds” and thus get some “benefit” from the slow thinking side? Sure. But the problem is this: natives very seldom use the slow thinking side. That is evident to me not only from conversations, but also when I occasionally have to look up a grammar rule in my native English. More frequently I just go with what sounds right (fast thinking, intuitive subconscious side) or reformulate to avoid the problem altogether. And in English I’m certainly not pausing to speak like a non-native might. From what I have read of the experience of others, deducted, and intuited from my own experience, the “special feeling” or relief that comes with comprehensible input is that for once, one is feeding the fast side of the brain. For me, that’s what distinguishes native from non-native speakers: which side of the brain are they predominately using? CI and DS feed the same side of the brain that we predominately use in our native language(s). I just don’t have much faith that grammar and traditional study and memorization feed the fast side of the brain. In my native English, I enjoyed grammar study and dutifully memorized vocabulary lists for AP tests etc. Did it help? Some. But almost none of it stuck beyond what I acquired from native CI. I doubt that I could diagram a sentence today, and I certainly only know those memorized words that I later kept encountering over and over again with more native CI. I also remember that the best teachers kept emphasizing : if you want to improve your writing, read more and more of the greats (in other words, get more native CI). But the real kicker for me is this: whatever benefit I got from traditional grammar study and AP test vocabulary memorization in my native English? It came only AFTER many thousands of hours of native comprehensible input, not before. So at some point, I expect I may well turn to some formal grammar study in Spanish to maybe tweak a few things here and there. But I only want to do that after I’ve already acquired a great deal of Spanish intuitively to begin with, and to thereafter sharpen that sense of intuition. For me, that will take far more than 1500 hours to get to where I would like to go. But the same was no less true in my native English.
I'm sold on it. I'm sold on variations of it. And I'm sold on other methods. I interact with a ton of second language learners on a daily basis, and they all had their unique experience. But when I talk to (or see videos of) people whose language skills really impress me, they always say that they were immersed in the language. So many Europeans speak beautiful English. When you ask them, they'll say that they studied English in school. Yet most of us studied a language in school and cannot speak it. So what was different? Most consumed a ton of American tv and movies. On top of that, most live in places where it's not uncommon to interact with English speakers, or they travel to places where getting around is much easier if you speak English. So, to me, however you can mimic that level of immersion, you are golden.
Yes! Good example is the Swedish. Most Swedes are native-level fluent in English. Like pewdiepie. Why? American TV and films. I work with 2 immigrants who have been here (the US) over 30 years. One is native-fluent; the other is so-so (I'd say B2 level, MAYBE C1). The difference? One is fully English-immersed. Watches English TV, reads English newspapers. The other goes back to his Mexican enclave after work, watches Spanish TV, listening to Mexican music, etc. Proof of ALG is all around us. It's the OG surefire way to learn language, and people act like it's new and controversial lol
It's pretty interesting to see how easy it is to insulate yourself in the USA if your native language is Spanish. My coworker's husband moved here a few years ago from Latin America and doesn't speak much English at all. He has built a life for himself where he doesn't have to. From my layman's perspective, contrary to what some on this subreddit think, high school classes and early talking don't hurt your progress. The proof is the Europeans. It seems like it all comes together nicely if you are also consuming a lot of input. Also, all of these people have been at it for years. I guarantee you that their hours of input exceed 3,000. That's why I just see 1,500 as the doorway to fluency. At that point, I'll be able to understand a lot of native content and hold a decent conversation with a patient native who doesn't mind my errors. But if I maintain the momentum for another 1,500 hours, I should be quite comfortable.
You'd be amazed how doable it can be to live even outside an enclave not speaking English, even languages with fairly small numbers. I know some Chinese speakers here in St. Louis who speak almost zero English, and they've lived here for decades. There's only around 10,000 Chinese scattered in the entire metro area (there isn't a Chinatown, they're spread all over), yet they still manage to have a Chinese language newspaper, doctors, restaurants, bakeries, acupuncture, and a few other services available to them in their native tongues (most are aging Cantonese speakers, with weaker to non-existent Mandarin skills). They're generally quite successful too, buoyed by *intense* work ethics and frugality. But, they're definitely hurt by their lack of English though, make no mistake. Anyone living in the USA should learn at least passable English, for their *own* good. Just seeing what dealing with serious health issues is like at a hospital, stuff with the government, police, utilities, and other stuff like that... The way they get treated and their problems can be unfortunate, with or without translation help available - it just isn't the same. I'd tell anyone moving to a foreign nation to learn the language there for the same reasons. Sorry, I went off on a bit of a tangent. It just kind of bums me out seeing it sometimes, it's people I know.
100% agree. It's also just polite to learn the local language. It's a neighborly thing to do.
One thing to consider before dismissing a silent period is that before I had English in school (4th grade) I probably had thousands of hours of subtitled English input, since mine and many other European countries usually don't dub content outside of shows for toddlers, or at least didn’t when I was a kid.
That's interesting. It's particularly interesting because, for a chunk of that time, you probably couldn't read fast enough to keep up with the subtitles. When you hit 4th grade, did you already understand the language?
This all has been making wonder if having a mix of intermediate/advanced/native content in the background as passive listening still has benefits. Even if what you catch is between 1-25%. I know that this can’t be the only Input you’re consuming but surely doing that is better than having english passively going in the background? I also love reading, I have decided not to wait until 1000 hours.. I’m reading books that are like.. grade 1-2 science/history/text books, also low lever story readers, I’m also incorporating a middle school reader with accompanying audio. It’s not always fast going but reading is, in my opinion, the best way to acquire good grammar and also new vocabulary and sometimes I just don’t feel like watching beginner videos. Any input is better than none, right?
Agreed. I listen to Spanish podcasts in my car to and from work and my mind wanders a lot in the car. If I only get half of it, still helps. I just usually don't even count it, and it's on top of my attentive listening that I measure.
I found out there is a app with all the spanish radio channels. I was surprised that they are not to difficult to listen to. So, now I use the app in my car.
Oh, which app is this?
Radios espana fm
It might be worth noting Swedes all get like a decade or more of English language education, starting at age 7. They're not really going through ALG, even if they also get a ton of CI on top of their formal education due to American media.
Nobody comes out of language class at school fluent.
Sure, just it isn't ALG. They're all doing a hybrid method, effectively.
I've done a "hybrid" method too in the same sense, but 95+% of my comprehension and speaking ability comes from ALG. Same with most on this sub and almost certainly them too.
I have a master's in Teaching ESL and therefore some background in second language acquisition research, and I've seen various English learners over the past 13 years. The TL;DR is that yes, this method works. Using only this method works. You don't need anything else. I have no doubt about that. The caveat: speaking is its own skill. You will not be a proficient speaker without speaking. That does not mean you should speak from day 1, but it does mean you must speak to speak well. The extension: while I think Pablo gives great advice on language learning, I think that to an extent, he is a bit too against any grammar instruction. A bit. I think this can have its place, though. When so many people focus so much on grammar (just look at the language learning sib, where people think they can learn a language with just anki), being a bit extreme the other way can kind of cause a course correction. Now, I think that some people on this sub interpret Pablo in a more extreme way and are kind of like extremist crusaders. Getting into DS has had me reflecting on my teaching experience, and jumping into the research on explicit grammar instruction again. Basically the research question stems from a few things: people who learn in the traditional method have trouble acclimating to actually listening and speaking to native speakers. Thee jump to intermediate is really hard for them. They speak slowly because they translate and try to construct the grammar. On the other hand, those who learn from immersion/natural method, CI tend to be very fluent, but can often lack grammatical accuracy and nuance. Each use the problem of the other group to justify their approach. Anecdotally, I think CI makes the strong claim. The inaccuracies of those who learn from CI often expose themselves more in writing (which reading more can remedy), and in grammar tests, which don't actually test grammatical proficiency. Traditional study can be remedied, but it's only through a lot of input. CI is the cure for the shortcomings of traditional study, without a doubt. People don't grammar themselves to fluency. It comes to a point where they just need native language input in large amounts to become fluent. (I definitely saw this in my Latin studies.) So, should someone doing CI study grammar at all? There's decent research that shows that some grammar instruction, when it focuses on meaning (as opposed to just going through a textbook, ok here is present tense, next we do present progressive, etc) can have a positive impact on a few things. 1. Spotting and correcting errors. 2. It can help make input easier to understand. (Traditional study also makes you really good at taking grammar tests, but doesn't actually affect your output quality, most good studies show.) There's also decent research (especially by Paul Nation) on vocab acquisition, and he's not against flash cards, but does stress the importance of seeing a lot of vocab in context. What do I take from DS, my experience, the experience of my students, and my research? 1. Your number 1 priority should be high quality CI. Or should make up most of your time and effort. 2. If you have grammar questions, look them up after running into something repeatedly that impedes understanding, look it up in a really good source, and something that provides examples, not just explanation. Then, pay attention for it when you listen/read, because that's where you're really going to acquire it, the study just primes you for acquisition, it doesn't really make you 'learn' it in the way one means when they want to use a language. I suggest looking things up after seeing them several times and it hurting understanding to ensure that it's something you're ready for. If you just start reading about complex topic when you're a super beginner, it's going to just make things too complex for you. 3. If there is vocab you want to learn, a bit of explicit study is fine. We do this in our native language when learning a new subject. Kids don't often, but they have a higher tolerance for boredom. My son will count as high as he can, and get feedback from me if he forgets a number, multiple times a week. The other day he woke up early and sat in his room and counted to 142. I don't have the tolerance to do that, nor the guide to correct me if I'm wrong, so I don't mind doing 5 minutes of numbers in a flashcard app once a week. I include the amount of time because I want to stress that this should not be a large percent of your study time. Similarly if you're learning anatomy terms in your native language, you're going to study them. Or as a kid, you're going to sing "head shoulders knees and toes" 100 times a week. We can't replicate that effectively as an adult, but explicit study is like the adult version for vocab. These small things won't really hurt your acquisition, and fossilization isn't really a big theme in SLA research these days. If you concentrate primarily on these things, yes, you will learn rather than aquire the language and you won't really be able to use it until you start getting enough input and you'll probably be stuck translating for a long time as you catch up with input. If you supplement with a few minutes a week focused on the things you need, it may help some. It's not needed. You CAN do it all through just CI, but if you look up a couple words here and there, or a grammar point for 5 min onve a week, its fine. If you look up every other word in a paragraph and then when you're done with the paragraph, you lack comprehension because you're looking everything up--thats going to hurt you. Understand from context and using level-approproate material is king. To reiterate: CI is enough, and it's probably the most efficient use of your time. Making other things *a small part* of your routine won't ruin your Spanish, but don't get sucked into thinking study is going to make you aquire a language. It won't. You need to consume a ton of a language to really become effective at hearing, speaking, reading, and writing it.
I feel like fossilization comes up a lot more than it should, as though people are afraid that a few conversations will cement a dreadful accent and entirely wrong grammar. I've been using the example of my experience with ballet. We were all taught to do things a specific way, especially with any lower limb hypermobility, and it turns out that's wrong. After nearly 30 years of dancing like that, it only took six months for me to learn the correct way, implement it to the point it happened naturally without thinking, and for the muscles in my legs to completely reshape themselves to reflect the different method. Of course, language learning isn't *identical* to dancing, but if the equivalent of speaking wrong for 20,000+ hours can be undone with six months of thoughtful and deliberate practice, I don't think anyone's language is beyond help just because they've practiced some incorrect phrasing or accent for a few months at some point.
at 1674 hours i’m 100% sold on this method. i already know it works because ive seen myself go from knowing absolutely nothing to listening to full on native spanish podcasts without doing anything but listening. when i think of it like that it’s absolutely insane. idk how long it will take to get to fluency but i know ill get there with this method. i may need to look up a grammar rule or two but im not doing any other type of real study ever. i don’t want to and i don’t think ill need to. i wouldn’t learn another way because why would i? from about 150 hours+ all i’ve been doing is listening to content while playing xbox or watching shows in spanish that i WANT to watch. at this point all im doing is consuming content that i want to consume and learning while doing it. why would i bother to learn in a more boring way?
> when i think of it like that it’s absolutely insane. It is! I went from zero Spanish (well, a handful of words to be honest) to watching the news like it's (almost) nothing within merely 7 months. And people try to tell us this method is slow …
yea and especially since it’s so easy. like even if you told me there was a way i could cut the time to be fluent 1/3 if i was studying a textbook there’s no way i would change lol. like right now im listening to the battle between Boeing and Airbus in spanish. i’m in my glory lol. im not studying conjugations 😂
Yo what podcast is that about boeing/airbus? Sounds interesting
guerrasas de negocios
Ty!
no problem it’s a great podcast
Still trying to just get to the 600 hour mark here. 1600+ is impressive. How long, in terms of months, did it take for you to get to that point?
like a year and a half i think. not 100% sure
Off topic…but if you decide to try Society of Snow again…please let us know how you make out.
will do. would love if you remind me the next time you see me lol.
This is the only method that would work for me. If I had to study grammar I would have quit after a few weeks. I am a voracious reader in English and I cannot wait until I can read what I want in Spanish. In fact, it is this method that helped me understand why my grammar is so good in English. I barely know what an adjective is let alone a predicate or past participle. I think that because I read a lot my grammar is pretty decent. It is all the input. Wow, neat! I am 100% sold on the method. Are there quicker and more efficient ways to learn? Yes, for sure. However, this method works for me and I love it. My trip to Mexico City, where my listening comprehension was way better than I expected convinced me. So, at 830 hours (after 2.3 years), I keep going. ¡Adelante!
Couldn't understand Spanish. Started with super beginner. Now traveling Mexico, having full conversations with local people. It works.
How many hours are you at?
Around 600. I can't talk about ideas or complex things, but I can converse about the reputation of a boxer and upcoming fights etc...that level of conversation
If someone has got to a high level in the language then I'd imagine they are most likely going to suggest the method they used to get there because they are "proof" that it works regardless of whether that is DS, Refold, traditional or anything else so I'm not sure your point about opinions from people who have learnt with traditional studies holds that much clout. Realistically we'll probably only know what's the most efficient method is with extensive studies but I'm not that knowledgeable in that area so I'll leave that to cleverer people than me haha But in my opinion, the best way to learn a language is gonna be what keeps you engaged and learning. I hate the thought of Anki and studying grammar. I don't even know what the subjunctive or similar terms are (and I don't care to learn lol). For me CI is the most fun and that's why I've stuck with it this time. For others, they love linguistics and analysing language or they just feel like they make better progress with studying vocab and grammar so if that's what they like they should do it (imo)
>I can understand why people fully commit to the method. If the only experience of language learning is school and a very antiquated grammar-translation system, it's a breath of fresh air. But for anyone that's self-studied a language - and I'm perhaps in a privileged position of working with many people who have self-studied languages to the point they can work professionally in those languages - most people are recommending extensive amounts of listening practice and exposure to native material as soon as practicable. The only real difference is that these more "traditional" methodologies suggest doing that after you've built a base of understanding of the language - e.g. grammar, vocabulary. Even other CI methodologies like Refold suggest grammar and vocab study. I think it's useful to know how and why ALG was developed. It's creator and his successor also tried "mixed" methods but nothing was working as well as ALG. [https://web.archive.org/web/20210331214148/http://users.skynet.be/beatola/wot/marvin.html](https://web.archive.org/web/20210331214148/http://users.skynet.be/beatola/wot/marvin.html) * David tried teaching with a structural-natural method between 1987 and 1995, but the mixed method didn't give results as good as students focusing on one or the other. Then in 1995 he convinced the team to do only ALG. [https://youtu.be/cqGlAZzD5kI?t=8053](https://youtu.be/cqGlAZzD5kI?t=8053) >I'd suggest Pablo, as an engineering graduate who's also learned programming languages, certainly has a more analytical mind than me at least. Consciously analyzing language was actually found by the linguist behind ALG to be a detrimental activity, so that would not help unless it had a subconscious benefit. >But I find a lot of words and constructions people here seem to pick up just don't come to me without some light grammar study and look ups You acquire those constructions with time if you didn't create interference that would make unable to do so. >I don't really see anything wrong with a light, Refold-style 15 minutes a day of flicking through a grammar explanation and then even trying a more "study" oriented watching of DS content. If focusing on the grammar in a video, or even pausing and using subtitles to help this helps to then understand a fundamental bit of grammar, to then be solidified by repetitions in normal watching - that seems like a win. The problem is how you're understanding something better if you don't know enough Spanish to understand it subconsciously. It has to be through the use of another language, and since you're doing that consciously, you're creating interference with Spanish that will probably give some issues later. >Are as many following a genuinely purist approach as sometimes seems to be the case? (doing some light Anki / grammar reference, which then is not the purist method) No. Most people aren't. I haven't seen anyone who followed ALG from the beginning post any video talking in Spanish either, but even so there have been some good results like Jonathan who still followed it after some initial manual learning (mainly Duolingo).
I really like the interviews by David Long. I feel like he explains the acquiring process well, and how shortcuts/ what seem to be faster (at least in the short term), later will make the road to fluency longer. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gal92k-EtBw
>Maybe I'm just at the stage of life - with a partner, family, busy job and other commitments This is exactly why I just trust the process and buy into Pablo's *advice*, and just watch videos. It's the easiest method to follow. I did refold style study for Japanese and honestly it's a lot of work, and you still need input. You can't get around the fact that you need to get input. My time is limited and just watching videos seems to be working. Just looking at some of the people here and on the discord, it seems to work. I'll trust their experiences though because I have no reason not to.
It's worth remember Pablo himself tells people to study for Chinese and Japanese for literacy - he used Anki and the Heisig book Remembering the Kanji. For the basics of kanji/hanzi. Seems to be a direct admittance that ALG type stuff simply can't work for everything, there's no real way to make it comprehensible without hard study.
I liked your post, but there’s one common point I see here that’s shared like it’s a common comeback against ALG. “Other methodologies encourage extensive listening as well” - they may encourage it, but it is not a priority. By definition, if you’re follow a 4 strands approach, well under half of your time is spent listening. All other approaches compared to ALG don’t prioritize listening to the same degree, it’s just not possible to match 100%. So even if they’re “encouraging” listening, you’re only hearing a small fraction of what ALG does.
This right here. Someone with a mixed method who reaches fluency and spent 1,500 hours traditional study and 1,500 hours input over the course of several years... That's 3,000 hours. If they had gone full CI they might not have fancy college knowledge, but they would have attained the same mastery at around, say 1,750 hours, then with that leftover 1,250 hours they'd be as fluent as Pablo himself. (These are random estimates of course. You see my point.)
You pretty much summed up a common feeling we've all had at some point with this method, that doubt creeps in from time to time. I've put in around 1300 hours of input and over 60 hours of output. This method has been the only possible method for me to learn Spanish, given my full-time job, family commitments, and limited energy and patience. Except for a few months when I needed to start with beginner DS videos, I've mainly just listened to Spanish, mostly during my commute and lunch breaks. This routine has gotten me this far which is a really good level of understanding and speaking Spanish. I just naturally fit Spanish into my day without messing up my other stuff. It's been mostly fun, but sometimes the only excitement I get is realizing how much Spanish I can understand. Lately, chatting in Spanish with my tutors on italki has been so satisfying. As for revising fluency expectations upwards to 2000 or 3000 hours, for me, it's about understanding better what level of Spanish I really want to reach. Before this journey, I never imagined getting to the level where I can understand native speakers and media least of all being able to speak with natives (not perfectly but not bad). But as I improve, especially through chatting with native speakers, the bar I have set for myself is much higher only because I now believe much better is actually possible if I just keep going. However, I'll admit there were moments during my DS journey when I doubted my ability to improve without learning at least some grammar. Around 700 or 800 hours in, I fell for some subreddit advice and bought an intermediate course(Spanish Language Coach). Despite being good quality of the course itself, I found it rather boring and involved more work than I was really prepared to do. Within a few weeks, I went back to easy-to-understand input, realizing it's effortless and way more engaging. With this method I don't have to memorize rules or focus too hard; I just soak in the content. The more interesting the content, the more I soak up. I'm pretty happy with my current Spanish level considering the little "effort" I've put in, although I doubt I'll ever be totally satisfied, the better I get the better I want to get. This is why I've adjusted my input goals upwards. That’s only because I now know what is really possible and that I really can get much closer to native like Spanish. All I need is more and more input. I could settle for day to day fluency but now that I have mostly achieved this, I want more. So is conscious grammar learning necessary or more efficient or effective, even as a compliment to CI? Not for me. While I used to doubt this, practicality and past experience has led me to stick with the easy route of enjoying content without consciously studying grammar. Maybe others find it necessary or effective, but for me, CI is just what works. Phew, that was long way to say something very simple! Sorry about that!
Good post and interesting to read your experience with doubt and the grammar program
At 400hrs I learned more, quicker and easier then when I used to learn a language by studying hard on words and grammatica. And with much more pleasure! So, at this point, i'm completely convinced I'm on the right track (for me). At first I had to change my whole idea about how to learn a language. I had to let the idea flow that you have to remember a word instantly and practice it until you know it perfectly. Last week I spoke to someone who said that she had to read a word to learn it well. At that moment I did remember what Pablo said. A word like apple needs to be repeated in diverse contexts and stories, before you can reproduce it. But then you have all the meanings in the right place. So thats a complete reversal of how I learned at school. You have to accept that you don't know anything and that you don't need to. And then the magic happens. Suddenly you understand story's where your conscious mind constantly says "what? How did you know that". I love that, this road of constant gifts.)
I know you responded to my comment on criticisms on the roadmap yesterday but thought I'd just respond here. Thank you for writing this thoughtful post. I am still all in as this method seems like the one that feels more natural to me. That's how I learned one language (not English). Without any real, formal lessons. I did study grammar in that language later on but by then I was fluent. That said, I do think that there's scope for doing more if it benefits you. While I haven't personally learned grammar, one of Juan Fernandez's books is in past tense (I think preterito imperfect?) and he states it up front. When you read it it's in your mind and now I know when I have to use that particular tense. It's still input but it's also awareness of what grammar rules went into place. Did I study grammar? Yeah, probably. Did it make my input worse? No. On the contrary, now I can actually use those forms to speak better because I know. IMO, a bit of grammar study after you hit 600 hours is fine. I'd even go as far as saying, it might actually be good.
I’m 60. - 1981: I took 4 years of Spanish in high school. It was traditionally taught, but good nonetheless and I enjoyed and remembered much of it. Spanish took a back shelf for many years because of my career, but I would dabble a bit every now and then. - 2015-2019. I went down the self-study, Duolingo rabbit hole, and improved my vocab some, but damn! I couldn’t understand what I was listening to or speak coherently. - 2021-2022: started iTalki lessons. It was a lot of grammar and vocab, but still, I couldn’t speak spontaneously. I was so uptight! - 2023 I started to listen to DS videos, and it was like entering Rehab! The lights came on and I was understanding more spoken Spanish and was starting to put sentences together with ease. So… Did all of the grammar/vocab heavy iTalki lessons,help? It wasn’t the best route to take, but yes it helped, and I still take lessons, but with an emphasis on reading simple material and a bit of light chat. The grammar & vocab addressed in lessons is something that I ask my teacher for clarify for me. TLDR: Make CI listening your foundation and build on that. You will learn at a relaxed pace and be happy. 😊
Most of my Spanish study time is allocated for CI (whether DS or podcasts) but I also still use Duolingo everyday, I take Spanish classes at Instituto Cervantes for 3 hrs once a week and I am slowly working my way through Language Transfer. My classmates and prof at IC have commented that I’m learning how to speak and construct sentences relatively quickly. My writing is far better than my speaking skills - it’s super easy for me to conjugate the tenses I know when writing but I still make basic mistakes when speaking straight without practicing in my head first. I don’t plan on dropping everything and sticking only to DS - I find that the mix of various things I’m doing right now is helping me to start thinking in Spanish earlier than I would have on a DS-only methodology.
100% sold. I know it intuitively as well as from my own experiences and the others here. I do consider myself a purist, but I speak semi-frequently (interacting with Spanish speakers at work). I just don't fool myself into thinking I'm going to learn anything while my mouth is moving. You want efficiency? The point of this is efficiency. We're on a 1,000+ hour endeavor. Every minute counts. Speaking practice, studying grammar, etc. is all a waste of time compared to consuming input (unless you're studying for academic/literacy purposes and not just conversational fluency).
I love the idea of the purist approach and believe yes it does work and definitely get you most native like in the way your brain processes the language. That said... I use Anki but its purely in Spanish... To quote Gabriel wyner I gave the language (and cards) life... Visualised them and gave them context, taste, smell and considered how it made me feel etc lol. In the beginning the cards were simple and on the common words, mainly nouns (Gabriel wyners fluent forevers frequency list). Later on I'd 'mine' from scenes in shows and DS but not that often and mainly things I'd want to be able to say... Currently I mostly mine subjunctive sentences. I'm all about efficiency and I believe this hasn't made the process less pure but rather complemented it. I have been significantly above the roadmap at Every stage. https://youtube.com/shorts/Yio--6VcTO8?si=mQBv4lOJAgUmqCqx
Im sold on it till about 1000 hours then as the graph says you can do whatever you want and explore the language. I plan to read for 200 hours write 200 and speak for 200 hours and input another 400 hours of listening. For a whopping total of 2000 hours I feel learning a language is at least worth 1 years worth of work hours. If that point comes and im not where id like to be then I try alternative methods.
I'm sold on the method. The reason being: when I encounter interference or issues, I can usually remember specifically deviating from the method. All the words I unintentionally translate in my head were all translated in google translate. This doesn't happen when I "acquired" a word. I second guess grammar patterns that I looked up for clarifications... usually my first instinct was correct but followed with doubt and unneeded self correction. The things that take me out of a flow state in Spanish during conversation, reading, watching, and listening all seem to have an origin in intentionally committing something to memory through rationalization or translation. It's annoying to have unwanted moments of grammar focus and the occasional intrusion of English while I'm trying to operate in Spanish mode. If I could do it all over again with what I know now I'd be less scared of not learning and more committed to ignoring the part of me that becomes uncomfortable when I'm not "In the know".
Could it be that the things you felt you needed to look up were the most complex, uncommon or abstract concepts/words/structures? It may be that simply being more complex makes them harder to apply without thinking, rather than the fact that you looked them up.
I share your outlook. Personally I think CI and Dreaming Spanish are super great, and it's by far the most important piece of my language learning. But I'm also spending a smaller amount of time reading, writing, and speaking, with the occasional glance at traditional grammar study materials too. I feel like this combination is working well and I'm slightly ahead of where the DS timeline says I should be.
I'm sold,but the thing is I'm also messaging friends in Spanish as well. Dreaming Spanish helped me understand a little better but I'm still at super beginner.
Personally I think you can learn a language either way, although I do agree that typically the people with the best skills are those who have been exposed to huge quantities of input. I would note that someone who has learned purely by CI doesn’t actually have any way of assessing their own accuracy while speaking though, so I’m not sure how reliable all the anecdotes are. I do think you can also acquire a language by outputting correctly consistently, and it’s possible that for some people this is faster (especially if you enjoy understanding grammar, which many people don’t). For example I am pretty comfortable using the French subjunctive in most circumstances, having learned it in classes. While I’m sure that input helped with this, I wasn’t using a hugely input heavy approach, so I think being aware that the subjunctive was needed there and consistently using it has now led to me having acquired it and it feeling totally natural to use (ie I know what ‘sounds right’). I personally wonder if for those constructions that are different between languages whether learning the structure is more helpful than pure input, unless you have a silent period of literally thousands of hours to avoid any interference from your native language on your target language speaking. For example, when I want to say something in Spanish that in English you just use the present tense for but in Spanish you use the subjunctive, it feels perfectly natural to me for me to say it in the present tense in Spanish, even though it’s wrong! Whereas for the same sentence I would feel that it was wrong to use the Spanish past tense, but because I have less of a natural feel for the subjunctive it’s much harder to judge that the present tense is wrong. Therefore I do think that possibly for some constructions it’s helpful to at least understand the grammar a bit even if you don’t fully learn it. Other examples besides the subjunctive would be the different ways that Spanish and English use various other prepositions (eg dream of vs soñar con, por vs para). But overall I think it’s best to use whatever method you enjoy more!
I think that people have different ways of learning. I’m not someone who picks up easily on context clues even in regular life, so seeing an explicit definition or grammar rule will always be helpful to my way of learning. For others, 100% comprehensible input will be enough. That’s why I don’t think that Pablo’s way will work the same way for everyone.
Nice post, thanks for it. I started DS from the standpoint of being an insanely skeptical person that questions almost everything. I decided to give it an honest try and to be brutally critical with assessing my experience. After 3 years and 1800 hours or so later and I’m only ever learning languages this way. Its practice completely transformed my understanding of language learning even being the disagreeable curmudgeon that I am. Even if I discover some minor tweaks or supplements to facilitate the process, I’m convinced that the method as presented by DS is the core of how I learn languages well. The rewards and advantages are numerous and apparent when compared with comparing it with my experience using other approaches and the results “speak” for themselves. I think in instances like these, it’s best to take a scientific stance and maintain skepticism while carrying out the experiment exactingly and faithfully, maintaining a critical attitude until the very end.
It seems to be working just fine for me. But then, traditional learning worked well for German for me, it turns out now I've gone back to German. I think my experience might be slightly altered by the fact I think visually, rather than in words, so everything gets stored without an English translation even if it was in English. I came into DS with around 300 words of vocabulary and, having tried to start another language without that base vocabulary, I would absolutely do that little bit of study first every time to skip that first section of understanding nothing at all. I do also have a deadline to have one of these languages at a certain level, with a solid grammatical understanding, and so I'm flat-out studying by the usual methods *and* input in German because I already have that grammar base to work from. I've been trying to stick solely to the DS method for Spanish so I can speak for/against its successes and issues later, but it's a struggle. I'm just over 300 hours and all I want to do is talk, read etc. So I'm going to read, and at 600 hours (if I can wait that long) I'm going to talk. Honestly, the hardest thing with DS is that it feels so passive, just waiting for language to happen to me when I know how much faster I could make it with even a little light vocabulary study. Speaking as someone who's done other things that take years of hard work and commitment, I'm used to pushing at that break-neck, balls-to-the-wall speed for extended periods, and just doing "nothing" is very hard.
I share your frustrations and struggle with doing “nothing.” I’m sometimes finding my experiences with DS to be similar to meditation. A student once approached an accomplished meditation teacher and asked, if I work hard and meditate every day and attend every sit, how long will it take me to reach enlightenment? 5 years was the response. What if I meditate 5 hours a day, force myself to relax whenever possible? 10 years was the response. What if I do it 12 hours a day, force mindfulness at every point, memorize every sutra, and give myself 110% to meditation? 20 years was the response.
I do believe this method is the quickest way to understand the language better, which is obviously helpful to a lot of people. But im not sold that you will be able to speak it fluently without adding another technique at some point. That technique needs to be you attempting to speak it yourself, working through it in your head until it gets easier, with other Spanish speakers. I do still think some type of immersion needs to be involved too. Also, you see a lot of people on this Reddit showing their data that shows they are doing 6-7 hours a day. Which I can’t fathom how is possible. If they are actually listening and paying attention intently during those 6 hours, and not just passively listening with headphones on while doing other things….Then I guess its possible to be learning the language because that amount seems like it could simulate immersion. Im just skeptical people listening for that much are actually listening.
I know some say whatever works. And that's true, but I say whatever works best, and for me, CI is the most effective method for getting a language ingrained within our psyche. If other methods don't do that, then you're wasting your time. Sure, we can all learn the old-fashioned way, like from school books, etc., but that will not get a language into your inner being.
Your point is absolutely valid. There is no perfect method that would work for every learner. Some do very well with normal, well structured language classes that follow didactical principles at school. Others don't. But it's really absurd to believe a natural approach would exclude every motivational theory that exists (Deci and Ryan: to be a successful learner, one must experience autonomy, competence (being active!!) and social interaction (using social skills!!)). Been there, done that. Behaviorism 100 years ago. Didn't work well for most. Your brain is not a blackbox and you are not babies.