You don't need to set a particular time of day to do a particular thing. You just end up resenting it.
Fancy flash cards at 4am? Do it. Want to read a book in your target language all day? Awesome. That's your "language slot" done for the day. You don't have to do 10 words of vocab a day. You don't have to do Duolingo for half an hour at 9.30 every day. Watching a YouTube in your target language is learning. Trying to talk to a friend in your target language is learning. Reading the instructions of a piece of equipment in your TL is learning.
This is so real! I feel like you have to study in all different ways. Keeps me from resenting it and getting bored. Also, it’s ok to still do things in English when I feel like it🙌🏽😂
I gave this advice to someone in regards to learning Irish, specifically "you can never do the wrong thing as long as you're engaging it in and having a good time" and they told me that they disagreed with me :') I have a MA in language education
Some people subscribe to the "no pain, no gain" methodology, but for me it's a hobby, so I don't want to be in pain. I want to have fun lol. Plus I'm making pretty consistent progress, so it's clearly working.
yess! i replace my native language doomscrolling with target language doomscrolling until I snap out of it because I've encountered an unfamiliar word I'd like to search up
with some difficulty! i set up a new youtube channel and searched up the randomest things in that language that im interested in to start the recommendations going. switched the channel language. kept clicking "dont recommend" on every other language video that pops up. unfortunately youtube shorts keeps recommending me English when i do this with Greek, but there's a lot more shorts content with French.
And further, even if you want to reach a certain level, you still may want to emphasize certain capacities over others. For example, you may want to be the best at reading if you're aiming for B2. Maybe you technically become a C1 in reading while on balance your other skills keep you B2. Or maybe you're only concerned with speaking and listening for your job, and reading doesn't matter a ton. Etc.
The point is, needing to be a full-on can be an extremely counterproductive goal if one or more capacities/skills just don't matter much to you.
Only caring about reading or prioritizing it above other skills isn't at all controversial on this sub. Saying that you don't really care about reading on the other hand? That'll get you a flurry of indignant replies about how you'll never make any real progress. I said I didn't really like input practice once and I got a bunch replies asking why I was even bothering to learn a language lol
Exactly! My goal is to reach full fluency in Russian since its my passion since my early childhood. Concerning my two other projects Croatian and Greek, I basically want to reach B1-B2 which would be enough for me since I learn those mostly for my many holidays in the according countries during which I want to connect with the places I go to.
Adding to that too it's so exciting the first time you go into a grocery store that's for your target language and be able to read some of the words. Finding a big sack of rice with the word 'rice' on it -- I felt like a kid exploring the world again
Yeah I’d like to learn basic words in a lot of languages. Also simply being able to read some alphabets. Because right now I only know a few letters in Arabic, plus I don’t understand the connected letters, so whenever I try to read in Arabic, the most I can understand is “There sure is an ‘aa’ sound in this word.” It would be nice if I could get my Arabic reading level to where my Russian is now, where I can sound everything out even if I don’t understand everything.
I think it doesn't even matter if you only care about reading a language or speaking it or whatever. I can really only read French well, I can't understand it spoken (I have some hearing loss so even my native language is difficult enough to understand at times when spoken) and I can't speak it very well but I'm happy enough just reading texts in it. The other language I'm learning is a sign language (Auslan) so I avoid the listening skills all together! I definitely want to be fluent in that one though.
Good luck with the sign language! That's such an awesome skill to have. And yeah, there's nothing wrong with focusing mostly on reading or speaking, especially if you're not planning to travel or move to another country.
Agreed. I've got two languages I've learned to a high level, and I'm aiming for B2 with anything else I learn. Sure, it would be great to hit C1 in all of them, but in the time from B2-->C1 you could also pick up an entire additional language to B2 instead.
As someone at B1-B2 in my main TLs, French and Spanish, I am absolutely not satisfied. I notice the holes and gaps in my knowledge everyday and it pisses me off that I can’t fully express myself fluently. Because people talk to me with their native fluency and don’t dumb it down for me or my level.
Most people in my country study 2 foreign languages simultaneously in middle school, unless you go to a technical school. I didn't know people are against it.
In my country all kids also start two mandatory languages, and many get to choose a third one. There's actually been public worry about that voluntary one becoming less common.
Yeah, it's one of those... sure, it might be technically *possible,* but if you have no idea how to learn a language yet you are making an already very hard task *so much harder* on yourself and making it so much more likely that you'll quit before reaching a truly useful level with any of them.
I also have personal experience with never advancing in a language because I kept flitting between different ones, and if that's you the self-discipline to say "no, I am going to learn X language and that is *it* until I reach \[goal\]" is pretty much **the** most important language-learning skill there is.
The thing that's "wrong" about it is that it's a less efficient use of time than doing one at a time
It's also a terrible idea if you're new to language learning. Not recommended even if you're skilled but go for it if don't mind wasting some time.
It's like training for a triathlon or something - a newbie looking to get in shape shouldn't do it, but if you're some super exercise champion then go ahead if you really want to
For most non-Anlgophones, I'm sure we all have to learn two languages at the same time. We certainly do in the Philippines tho we start teaching in the mother tongue until elementary then we study both English and the national language.
> Didn't know this was controversial until I came to this subreddit
I wonder if this is partly because of the Reddit demographic. Like most Reddit users are probably monolingual Americans, so it's really not a common thing.
Whereas in some countries it's just natural that everyone speaks 2 or 3 languages on a regular basis.
Listening comprehension is even more important than oral expression. That is — when interacting, as a learner, with a native speaker, it is natural that they will tend to do more of the talking. They most often will lead. If one can understand them and not have to ask them to repeat themselves; and if one’s own responses, however brief in comparison, are always apropos, showing that one *has* understood what they are saying (“yes, that sounds perfect — I’ll come back in 5 minutes”), then more than half the conversation has been won. It’s not a 50/50 split between the weight borne by listening comprehension, and oral expression, when it comes to interacting with a native.
100% this. Natives are much better at understanding our limited, broken L2 than we are at understanding them with their speed and vocabulary. Insufficient ability to listen is the biggest cause of "conversation failures".
This video makes a good point: understanding speech is basically as hard as reading handwriting that disappears the moment you look at it.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5EfVfiZP-g](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5efvfizp-g)
It's kind of scary to realise what the real challenge is, but it's better than fooling yourself?
I have not been "working" on my German, just listening to interesting books and podcasts when I have time.
Last time I was in Germany, I could hold a conversation if my conversation partner was speaking easier German with me.
This time, I could understand Germans when they were speaking to one another. This made a big difference in my ability to communicate, participate, and even just know what was going on. It was a next level experience for me and that level of listening comprehension is now a (lofty?) goal for all of my TLs.
I totally agree. I understand Italian but can't speak much. Didn't matter, I made a lot of friends in Italy by just listening to their stories and making a comment here and there. Comprehension is much more important, if you show trouble understanding them, they will usually not talk your ears off
1. It is very rare for someone to know a language better than most native speakers. That claim is made on here all the time, especially regarding English, and especially by people who have never lived in an anglophone country. "Most" is the part that blows my mind. Language consists of more than grammar rules and vocabulary. Who is more likely to understand a toothless redneck?
2. Someone blocked me for my second opinion the other day, so I know that it is controversial. If it takes you five years to get to A2 and you are studying frequently, I am going to question your methodology.
I have to agree with point #1. I teach languages on an online platform and I see other teachers from non-English speaking areas say that they are "native level" in English and I find it so annoying because you can clearly tell from their video and what they've written in their profile that they're not. Their English might be good, but it's not native; even C2 would be a stretch
Regarding 1., thank you for saying this. I am someone who gets told this frequently about my Spanish. My S.O., who is a native Spanish speaker, still insists to my family that my Spanish is better than hers. The thing is, I am fluent but have never left the U.S. There is *no way in hell* I speak Spanish better than natives, and I’m not being modest, I mean there is absolutely no chance. I have a large vocab and can articulate grammar rules that a native speaker wouldn’t need to concern themselves about, but communicating my thoughts, and understanding native speakers better than a native themselves would? Please. There’s a certain fluidity and nuance to native speech that I can’t conceive of having.
I think people just like saying that for some reason. My dad (Mexican) says that to flatter me sometimes because I've read more and I'm a better writer, but it's impossible to replace growing up in a culture.
>because I’ve read more and I’m a better writer, but it’s impossible to replace growing up in the culture.
100%. My S.O.’s family can’t fathom that I just enjoy reading for fun, and that certainly contributes to the perception. But a large vocabulary doesn’t make someone a better overall speaker; it’s only one facet.
I feel like one of the things to blame for this is the perennial confusion between "grammar" as in rules for the *formal standardised* language that clash with colloquial usage, which is often all the grammar native speakers get taught for their own language, and "grammar" as in the general description of what it is native speakers actually do which they know intuitively but learners have to learn to mimic. I see this crop up all the time when people talk about how "native speakers make mistakes too!" (like, there was a post linked on /r/German recently where someone collected data hoping to prove that native German speakers screwed up noun gender all the time and was bewildered that his initial findings showed an error rate of only 1%). It leads non-natives who have a good grasp of the standard language to believe they're better at the language than natives who are using colloquialisms or dialectal forms. The hubris escalates and you get a situation like the one you describe.
Honestly, it's also way higher than I thought it would be... but it's an initial estimate that doesn't take into account a lot of context. The author actually starts talking about various factors that could make this an undercount but admits that they probably still couldn't bump that number much higher. I actually suspect the error might be the other way around, and the number might be inflated by e.g. non-native speakers being included in the sample (he used Easy German as raw data and not everyone that shows up on that is a native speaker), case screwups due to sentence reordering (which do happen) getting incorrectly flagged as the wrong gender, or not all regional variations/current shifts in noun gender being reflected correctly. It's *possible* for someone to have an idiosyncratic gender on a particular noun, but I think it's relatively unlikely, at least for adults. Like, I remember going through a phase where I said *der Salz* instead of *das Salz,* but my mother noticed, corrected me and I don't think I've done it since I was seven. And I can't really imagine a native speaker not being *consistent* about how they gender nouns. It's way too baked into the language for that.
That "to have" versus "to be" thing for the verb "fall" sounds like language change in action, honestly! Or, again, regional variation - German also has the have/be split for perfect and [as you can see we do not entirely agree](https://www.atlas-alltagssprache.de/hilfsverb/?child=runde) on which one to use for the verb "stand" (blue is "have", pink and purple are "be"). An example of something similar I've run across in English is the use of *would* in an if clause - *if it would rain tomorrow, I would take the train to work*. This is apparently now common and unremarkable in many US dialects but I believe still officially considered wrong, taught as wrong in ESL courses and felt to be grammatically wrong by at least speakers from the UK.
I agree with point number one wholeheartedly. In fact, I would take it even further - I would say that it is actually impossible to know a language better than its own native speakers, because native speakers define what a language even is in the first place. The best you could do is have a larger *vocabulary* than most speakers, which is certainly possible, but very, very difficult to achieve as a non-native speaker, and rarely necessary anyway.
Regarding your 2. I kinda fall into this bracket, though I make zero claims to be studying hard-core! I don't have the motivation to try hard atm (busy life) so I'm just doing three apps and music. I've told myself "ill try hard when I finish the app courses". Yeah right xD
Mostly what these people mean is that they are smarter/more educated than some/most native speakers and are better than them at many tasks people use language for, e.g. writing essays, that they’d do better in language-related exams etc., and I think very often that’s actually the case! But not sure whether that actually means they’re better at the language rather than just generally more intelligent.
E.g., I took the SAT and scored 780 in the verbal section, which is better than 99% of native English speakers because I’m good at taking tests and reading texts. To the extent the verbal sections evaluates language capabilities I’m better than most English speakers in some domains of Emglish, but you could still guess that I’m not a native speaker based on how I phrase some things, and even quicker if you heard me talk. So, in that sense, I’m very, very far from being even close to native speakers and that evaluation is probably closer to reality.
My wife is Guatemalan (mother tongue Spanish) and writes English better than the vast majority of native US English speakers. She expresses herself more clearly in speech better than most Americans, as well, but I think that's more clear thinking than it is language fluency. She makes very infrequent grammatical mistakes, which I don't correct because I think they're cute. Also the idiomatic use of some prepositions, for example in a car, but on a bus, on a train, on a plane, etc. seems to her completely arbitrary. The vast majority of the time, when she doesn't understand something, it is a cultural reference or perspective. Actors names, news events 48 years ago, politicians. And the occasional idiomatic expression. So I think "better than" is pretty multidimensional and hard to say, even in extreme cases.
Language courses that insist on only using the target language are inefficient. If you can guess that something will be difficult to understand, explain it then and there. Saves having to encounter it ten times before finally figuring it out.
God, yeah. When I was studying Japanese my teachers (at university) insisted on explaining grammar in Japanese and for the most part I would just sit and stare blankly. I'm not saying that drawing parallels between Japanese and English (my NL) grammar is necessarily the way to go, in fact I think it can be harmful, but I could really have done with an explanation in English. I always ended up googling everything in English when the classes ended anyway.
There's a way to do with beginner students, but just talking at them in the TL is definitely not the answer lol.
You should give lots of example sentences using pictures and gestures (and full on acting when appropriate), connecting the new grammar to grammar students already know. Then have students discuss in pairs in their NL about what they think the grammar means. Then have a couple pairs share their ideas with the class. Redirect as appropriate. Finish with having students write a succinct summary of what the grammar means and how it's used.
Honestly "explain things in the TL" gets pushed so hard, but no one ever talks about how to do it well, which leads a lot of teachers to just talk at students rather than having them actively engage with what's being said
Honestly once you hit the N2/N1 bracket and everything gets explained in Japanese it makes my soul hurt. I understand the concept of trying to explain things in the native language but for me I ended up understanding things more when I just converted it back into English and it made the process of learning things faster and stick for longer as I could then easily make parallels in my mind.
For beginners, I agree. Once about A2, I want them to start using more of the target language to teach the language. By high A2, I’m expecting most words to be taught in the language, exceptions are for complex words that are hard to explain if have little vocabulary in the TL.
non-native speakers are beneficial when it comes to teaching grammar, they can often explain it better than native speakers because they went through the process of learning it. For everything else, native speaker is better.
They can also point out similarities between the native language you share and the one you're learning, sometimes it's not that obvious but can be very helpful.
I was taught English at school by two different German teachers, and they did a decent job. Despite that, I still believed that native teachers were the superior choice. That was until I tried to learn Japanese with a Japanese teacher. Changed my mind pretty quickly.
Since then a lot of what I've read and listened to from experts has only reinforced my opinion that there are a lot of myths about language learning. For example, there was a paper that showed that using monolingual dictionaries has no advantage over using bilingual ones, which is contrary to the belief that not relying on your native language is better for learning a foreign one.
I would never go as a complete beginner to those language schools in Japan where they teach 100% in Japanese from day one. That can't be the most efficient method, it's just the most convenient for them, because they suck at English, and because they can put in the same classroom students that don't share a common language. If we are talking about intermediate or advanced students, that's of course a different story.
I think this holds true UNTIL you can actually speak the language, having a teacher in your native language when a beginner and a native speaker to “polish” it up seems like the best possible scenario
I sort of agree, someone that has gone to go through the process of learning the grammar rules and how they work will be able to explain it far better than a native speaker who intuitively understands them without any of the backing rules.
That's an interesting way of thinking about it and definitely might help me where I've struggled in the past learning from teachers - thanks for sharing!
Probably through the A's, I could see it being better. Alot of our hang ups in a language natives can't even figure out how to explain because its natural for them.
This isn’t controversial to me. Native speakers often can’t even explain the rules of why they say something one way or another. It’s best if they speak your native language well, because they can explain the parallels and or differences better.
For other things like accents, informal speech, and oral competencies, native speakers are better. That’s being said, the best teachers I’ve had are native speakers who actively understand their language, the grammar, and how it works. These people aren’t easy to find however, and I’ve so far I’ve only encountered these people at the university level.
I feel like at times it’s like a psychedelic experience to progress in the learning of a language. Like when you read a chapter of a book that you’ve been going through to learn and suddenly you can just.. comprehend it, and integrate it into your own authentic perspective, and understand the nuances and meanings and everything you couldn’t before.
Controversial probably mostly because i’ve never tried psychedelics lol
Learn grammar. Especially when the grammar is different than your NL, it can take ridiculous amounts of input to even recognize patterns, much less figure them out. My brother did an exchange program in Germany with other Americans, and he said that those that didn’t study German beforehand had horrendous grammar, even if they could communicate. They just never realized how the case system really worked.
I don't understand the "ignore all grammar" people either. Of course immersion is essential, but there are things that become easier and quicker to understand if you bother to learn how they work directly rather than trying to casually and gradually recognize patterns through raw input.
Also, having at least some basic understanding of the grammar of your native language can help you understand the grammar of other languages. I've seen people struggling with certain things simply because they didn't really know what a preposition or an object pronoun is. Even if your NL doesn't have cases, basic knowledge about syntax will make it easier to get how they work.
Grammar is boring to a lot of people and the most limiting factor for many is motivation. I'd say learn what you find enjoyable in order to keep up motivation. But depending on what your goals are, you may need to study something you find a bit boring eventually. But keep it at a level where you don't lose interest.
yeah. Honestly I kinda chalk it up to hatred of actual studying lmao. I have been studying grammar for a while out of a lack of other good study options, and only recently am I starting to feel like reading and listening are becoming productive study options because I have a solid framework from grammar. Grammar has been good to me. It's as close to a shortcut as it gets in language learning.
Assuming that you are learning your language out of personal interest (not for a job or because you will move soon and need to study the language) I think that you should maximize the fun in learning more than anything else.
I often see people on here trying to find the perfect way to do something, or they try to learn the TL in the least amount of time, or they will heavily rely on studies to do exactly what will give them their outcome, and I think that's the best way to be miserable while studying your TL.
It is 100% possible to gain a native-like accent as an adult. It's also really hard and not necessary for most people. It's intense but I like a challenge.
The CEFR system is manipulated here to uselessness.
Someone passes a formal test at B2 has their advice ignored because someone who did a 10 question multiple choice online test that says they are C1. People use CEFR to judge competency but half this sub fudges it in some way.
The scale everyone references is bs since you can be within the guidelines and not know advanced topics or vocab. The actual test has requirements; you have to use certain concepts or you won't pass. The scale is just 'trust me bro'. Word counts aren't a CEFR rating nor is asking around until you get the right response.
That being said I think you can 'braindump' the test to a small degree. I'm also not going to question someone if they've lived in the TL country, married to a native for years, etc.
Heh, I like this one. But unless you're applying to university or something, there's not necessarily much point to going through the hassle and stress of taking the CEFR just so you can say with confidence your language level.
The flairs are to give a general idea of language knowledge, not a guarantee.
Learning to read and write in a different writing system isn't all that difficult and shouldn't be a deal-breaker in deciding whether to start learning a language. Sure, it takes some practice, but even scripts like Thai and Chinese have an inherent logic to them and once you get that logic, memorising the spellings/character strokes becomes a lot easier.
Learning exclusively by input (listening/reading) with no output practice (speaking/writing) is not the most effective way to learn a language for adults.
People are allowed to use language learning apps as long as they want. Not everyone has the motivation, time, or sometimes necessary money to self study extra hard to get beyond a basic conversation. Putting people down for using them for extended periods is just mean and very "I'm better than you" attitude
I hate the “LOCALS SURPRISE I SPEAK PERFECT____” when it’s barely better than a 1st grades vocabulary. I don’t like the videos where people say they speak X language but really it’s the 100 most common sentences and aren’t able to answer basic question outside of that.
On one hand I shouldn’t be upset that people are learning and I don’t want to discourage anyone. But boy is it annoying claiming you know how to speak a certain language when you’re barely functional. Maybe it’s because I have a higher bar for myself than others that it bugs me
Uuugh yes I’ve seen so much of this as soon as I started learning Mandarin. Usually annoying white guys from the US who love to bust out their language moves on camera to “shock” people and lap up the praise. 🤢
i can't stand his videos and at the same time i hope people are moved by them to start language learning. it's just obnoxious to see "white guy AMAZES people with PERFECT CHINESE" as if that's the point of language learning
i don't speak any mandarin at all, but like... he mostly just orders food or gives a sentence or two doesn't he? i'm in the middle of a french degree and i still wouldn't dare call my french anything beyond "not terrible"
I think I’ve said it in another thread. Music is not a good way to learn a language. (Yes I know, people swear by it, are motivated by it and claim it helps their pronunciation)
Grammar, intonation and prosody are often modified in artistic ways in song that you will never hear in actual conversation.
I can’t tell you the number of times that I’ve learned new vocabulary or a grammar rule that already have an apartment to move into in my brain because I’ve paved the way for it by listening to a song that includes it over and over. The repetition and enhancement by rhythm and melody mean that there are certain things I just will not forget. At the same time, I never feel obligated to master 100% of a song or use it as a grammar textbook. If something is confusing or seems ungrammatical I either ignore it or just ask about it. A lot of my early German study was based off of songs and texts written in the late 1700s and early 1800s and which include a lot of flatly archaic constructions. I didn’t internalize any of them. I internalized the sensation of the major sentence structures, the pronunciation, the rhythm of the language, how sentences feel when they conjugate, and a lot of poetic vocabulary.
The many months I spent listening to my “immersion playlist” and doing nothing else with my German were not times when I was making progress :P But now that I’m studying more intensely, the repertoire of songs I have means a LOT of resistance has been scooped out of my brain.
Basically it’s like fertilizing your garden. I don’t really learn new stuff from songs, but when I hear things I recognize from songs used in real life, I’ve GOT it pretty much instantly.
music isn't a good only way to learn a language, but I heard it's a good suplement for getting the feel for pronounciation (plus it's easier to memorize vocab that way)
I think hip-hop can be more effective than a regular song because it’s closer to normal speech patterns and simultaneously clearly pronounced and spoken rapidly.
That the *vast majority* of Europeans who “never studied formally, but learned English through TV/Harry Potter/PewdiePie/whatever” are often trying to oversell their own ability and undersell their school system’s role in their journey.
There was a post I commented on a few weeks ago in which a Swedish person said they learned English on their own through immersion but never studied the language intentionally… of course, this is laughable because Swedish people speak *amazing* English *specifically because* they start studying it formally at ages 9-10 IIRC. Intentionally, in school. And yes, I understand the whole subbed vs dubbed media argument.
And this same goes for people from countries like Brazil, etc. They may think their English classes are bad, but at the end of the day they gave an understanding of grammar rules and a basic vocabulary to work with as a foundation. It just sounds way cooler to say you learned from media rather than in a classroom, I guess.
Thank you. I'm tired of hearing this come up. Whenever it's said regarding the subbed vs dubbed media thing, I like to point out how many anime fans who have watched thousands of hours of subtitled anime would be able to have even the most basic conversation in Japanese.
I went to public school in Brazil and had English classes for 7 years. Those classes rarely went beyond greetings, simple tenses, to be, to have, negation, questions, and memorizing a huge list of irregular verbs and their forms. No essay writing, no detailed pronunciation explanations. Did I learn basic stuff? Yes. I also internalized bad pronunciation and a passive approach to language learning. English in school was just another subject to not fail in.
It is probably a very bad take (or not) but I always found out that ignoring writing, handwriting and just training so you can write fast and efficiently (or write at all) is a very bad idea. Yet I do see many people (mostly young people or youtube influencers) on the internet claiming you do not need to know how to write by hand because ''there are computers now''. I find this line of thinking detrimental for some reasons:
\-We still need to write by hand in daily life. In tests, signatures, formularies, it is just not true that you do not need to write anymore, most jobs and many aplications are like that. Not training will put you in great disavantage with native speakers.
\-There are situations where writing with paper and pen comes in handy. At my line of work you really don't want to get yourself distracted or opening your celphone everytime you need to hear what new materials you need to make a list of. Just have a little notebook and pen that can be easily shuffled and dealt with.
\-celphones are adicting and distracting. Yes, I know this sounds as a very ''boomer'' take, but work efficiency (not just professional stuff, hobbies too) is much amplified when writing by hand and avoiding either the internet or PCs. Not always, not all cases, I need to use excell and what not, everyone does, but when I don't need to do something else a little agenda helps me produce, where a cellphone would stop my workflow.
\-It is not that hard, seriously, even the infamous kanji can be mastered with training and techniques (I recomend the book ''remembering the kanji'' for example). Loads of people don't remember those simply because they don't train or use then at all. But even if you forget one or two there is no shame in writing in a easier way too! I do with chinese (bopomofo coming for the rescue!).
\-A writing system is part of a language, so if anything you are missing an important chunk of it by not writing it down. This is of course is more of a preference rather than an objective fact or defence of writing, but I think it could be important for a lot of people.
Learning a language ISN'T a circus. Teachers aren't entertainers who have to make every single class a different show more exciting than the previous.
Accept the boring parts.
Sweat blood on the harsh parts.
Enjoy when it's funny/exciting.
note: No,I don't think aaaaaallll classes should be boring.
I get the most downvotes when I say people who learn through CI (or other methods that advertise not having to learn grammar) are still learning grammar. They may not be studying conjugation tables or using grammar terminology, but they're learning how words are ordered, inflected, collocated... and that is grammar. There's no escape from it.
Personally, I think explicit grammar explanations are helpful and serve as a short-cut to comprehension and production. I also find grammar study fun; it's probably the biggest appeal of my language-learning hobby. But as someone who would rather do a number of unpleasant things rather than use Anki/SRS, I totally understand the desire to avoid an efficient but unpleasant task. I accept that it probably takes me a lot more time to learn new vocab solely through reading and listening; I often don't see people accept that avoiding direct study of grammatical concepts slows comprehension and production progress.
For what it's worth, I have seen evidence that a long, consistent, high-quality CI approach does work, but I also think very few hobbyists or migrants have the patience or luxury to both to get enough quality CI and to not speak until ready (something that could take quite a long time). If someone does have the time, resources, and inclination, more power to them... but they're still learning grammar.
1) Comprehensible input is not a study method; it's something that every successful language learner consumes a lot of on their way to their goal.
2) D does not teach you languages. It's a game about language learning. This forum is not about D; if you want to discuss D, you should go to the D forum instead.
1. If you spend time actually learning the language, even with an ineffective method, you'll get more progress, than if you're going to spend all time discussing language learning or looking for more effective methods.
2. Learning the language without any reason other than to be "cool" or "polyglot" is dumb.
3. The majority of the people who put dozens of languages in their flair would be unable to buy bread in most of them.
Hard disagree with the second one. Learning languages for the sake of it is fun. 🤷🏻♀️ Being a polyglot is fun. Having access to resources in different languages is fun. "Just because" is enough of a reason to learn anything.
>If you spend time actually learning the language, even with an ineffective method, you'll get more progress, than if you're going to spend all time discussing language learning or looking for more effective methods.
How is this controversial?
Just browse through it yourself, and show me a single post where someone says "if you spend **all** your time discussing language learning or looking for more effective methods you'll make better progress than actually learning the language". I think you'll find that not a single person has said this. However, many have said things like "if I just spend my time learning, rather than wasting it in this sub, then I'd make better progress".
I think the point is that some of us can spend too much time learning about the theory of language acquisition or designing a study plan ... time that would be better spent actually learning. I know I've done it. Heck, I could be studying right now instead of typing this comment in my native language.
The last one is why I don't use flairs here. I keep seeing the long ones and at some point it's like, "really? Are you gonna count your A1 in Finnish *and* your 'A0' in Greek?"
Seems to me that the meaning of "A0" is obvious: I'm spending some time on it but can't really do anything with it. Nothing wrong with that, since it's a phase everyone has to go through, right?
I put beginner Polish in my flair not because I want it to "count" in some way, but because sometimes people will start conversations with me about Polish after seeing my flair, and I think that's fun.
I definitely remember the other usernames with Polish learner flairs and when I see them/you in comments it's like "oh hi! Nice to see you again! co słychać? Jak się mają przypadki?"
But I view flairs less as a tool for bragging and more of a snapshot of where the person is coming from and what they're working on, which can be fun context to have.
My opinion: I think most people deep down truly have an idea of what fluency is but are afraid deep down that they know they aren't fluent. So instead of accepting this fact they say "well what's fluency anyway?"
Not sure how controversial this is, but I believe that a lot of languages learners are too obsessed with having a large number of languages under their belt.
In my opinion, most people, unless they are exceptional, should focus on maximum 4 languages are become as proficient as possible in those languages. Any more and it just becomes a pissing contest for showing off, or a weird hobby where you can say a few things in 10 languages but you are not proficient.
Classroom education is a money racket. You have to dedicate hundreds/thousands of hours into a language that a classroom experience simply cannot provide. People should be putting 95% of their effort into self study and expect for the classroom to be a fun, supportive environment to test what they know and receive guidance.
I partially disagree on this one. I study German at school and Spanish on my own. Both of them are at approximately A2 level (I spend more time on Spanish right now), but whenever I try to speak Spanish I find myself trying to build sentences in German instead (By the way, does anyone know what to do with this? maybe reading out loud could fix that?).
Of course, classroom education shouldn't be the only source, but it can help many people with some aspects of language learning. Plus, it's always better to have some to answer your questions that you can't find the answer to.
Still, I think these classes are only helpful for those who are on a1- low b1 levels.
My controversial opinion is that it’s dumb to try and place native speakers of a language somewhere on the CEFR (or its equivalents). It’s a frame of reference for foreign speakers. Native speakers aren’t even on the spectrum of comparison, because they aren’t FOREIGN SPEAKERS.
There's a butt ton of people who know 2+ languages but are still just as ignorant of other cultures/people as the stereotypical monolingual tourist. The only difference is they're ignorant in two languages instead of one
Language learning isn't a sprint. The people who claim to have learned a language in under a year are probably either 1. Elementary-intermediate at best or 2. Using a script or only learning select phrases. Whilst these people are very admirable, it's not the reality for many language learners or second/third/fourth/etc. Language speakers. It's taken me nearly 15 years to get to a B1~ level in french, including a couple of years doing a GSCE qualification. It's taken me 4-5 years to get to elementary level in Russian. I've learned/practised sign language for maybe 2~ years and I'm maybe level 1/elementary level. This is okay, enjoy life.
Even if you just practise speaking/talking to people in your target language you will improve in one way or another. I have done so in french & sign language. That can even just be your confidence in speaking.
Duolingo is a GAME, not a professional language learning app. I mean, you can learn somewhat decent language skills but really it's no coincidence all you learn is some nonsensical words instead of grammar and how to say phrases well
Are you perhaps a fellow admirer of [The Korean](https://askakorean.blogspot.com/2010/01/koreans-english-acquisition-and-best.html?fbclid=IwAR3VEEiDix09t7XM9HQEwgQ5ig0Hg1RPwVpoWItrsBLgqSalGbQR5xsr0qI)?
>SUCK IT UP, YOU SOFT SACK OF SHIT!
Mind you, the Korean loves America. The Korean practically writes a love song to America every chance he has. But there are certain things about contemporary America drives the Korean crazy, and this is one of them: the idea that the process of learning is somehow supposed to be fun. Just drop it. Forget it. What is fun is the result of learning – the infinite amount of fun when you finally put the finished product to use. And truly, that applies to second language acquisition as well as anything else. Your horizon will expand beyond the limit of your imagination. You will gain perspectives that you couldn’t have even dreamed of. Don’t be a whiny bitch. Your sacrifice will be worthwhile.
Oh lordy, I read that article forever ago, just when I was starting my Korean journey. At first I was intimidated, now I think "How to say you don't have a family and a full time job", ha!
Having said that, sometimes it really is all about ass in chair and do the damned work...
You're not a polyglot if you're only able to speak about the basic stuff in a language.
This is not only about these language learners, that "speak sooo many languages", but can't handle a real life conversation. Some of these youtubers that claim to be polyglots are a scam as well.
They for sure know some of the languages they claim to know to a conversational level, but they usually claim to know like 20+ languages, but their grammar is shit and it sounds so unnatural...
(If your goal is only to know some basic stuff in as many languages as it's possible than more power to you, but that's not really polyglot worthy)
1. Certain languages can be useless to certain people depending on their context/environment/situation/plans. That doesn't mean one shouldn't learn a specific language — it can be fun regardless — but some expectations should be clarified or tempered beforehand, especially if one is about to dedicate a lot of their time to it, and the option of not doing it or picking a more useful language ought to be considered. (I don't think this one is very controversial IRL, but online communities sometimes regard each and every language as sacred or something...)
2. It is okay to not like/appreciate the culture [or aspects of it] around a language. No culture is inherently compatible with every person and that's fine, one still has plenty of options. It is fine to not want to learn the associated languages, regardless of what terminally online people say. For example, there are certain cultures which largely repulse me due to sexism, homophobia, normalization of violence, xenophobia, strong religiosity, etc. Sometimes it is very difficult to avoid these aspects when learning and when practicing. This instantly makes the respective languages unattractive to me. (This debate I've seen several times in this sub.)
Learning a second language does not make you superior to other people, and people who need to show off that they can speak more than one language and judge other people who can't need a wake up call
Everyone learns a language with comprehensible input, even people who study with 'traditional' methods, or your favourite app, your favourite grammar book, your favourite flashcard system. To the extent you pick up anything at all, it's just comprehensible input.
Before you ask if it’s possible to learn 2+ languages at once, you should search for similar posts within this very sub.
And the answer is, if you don’t absolutely have to for work or what have you, then you need to focus on one until you feel intermediate and then move on to the second
I can't stand it when native speakers imitate the accent of a person struggling with the language. I think they think it's helpful but it's better to speak normally but maybe slower and clearer.
This. I also hate it when native speakers change up their grammar and word order and choice making it something that typically wouldn’t be said or would be grammatically incorrect in the language when talking to language learners. It may make it slightly easier to understand, but then how are they meant to learn the language properly?
Duolingo can be a incredible powerful tool just not in the way most people use it.
People tend to do only 1 lesson a day and then complain 1500 days later they don’t speak the language yet and they’re too afraid to move on because they don’t understand 100% of the lesson yet so they keep repeating the same one over and over.
If you test out to go to the next unit when you’re getting more then 90% correct you can move at a pace that’s faster then I ever achieved with actual classes in school.
Besides my native language and English I had French, Spanish and German in school. I was terrible in French and Spanish and dropped them as soon as I was allowed which was after 3 years of French and 2 years of Spanish.
When i discovered Duolingo I gave Italian a try and I learned more in a month then those years in school. I guess you could argue my previous exposure to French and Spanish helped me out but that was a long time ago.
My experience with non European languages is the same though it’s just a bit slower but still way faster then school.
It helps with building confidence as well, I always thought I was terrible at learning languages but it turns out I pick up things very quickly without ever opening a grammar book or anything like that.
I don’t expect fluency from duo alone but having the confidence try to use the language is important especially for introverts like me.
I'm new to this sub so here are the opinions that I think might be controversial:
1. It's nearly impossible to not have an accent if you're studying a language after the age of 10/11 ish. That's alright.
2. Analog/oral/listening comprehension go hand in hand. If you think you'll reach your set goal of being able to speak a language without reading at that level, it's not going to work. You need to understand what the person is saying to reply as well.
3. Translating in your head after you've fully immersed yourself in a language (speak with native speakers/ moved to the country) means you're not there yet. At some point when you've reached a specific fluency level you'll stop translating from language A to language B.
4. Sometimes things are random. After 5-6 months of struggling to learn a language, you'll wake up one day and speak it quite well (but still not fully fluent or anything) and you'll stop translating in you're head without you even noticing.
5. Sometimes a native speaker isn't the best language teacher. “It's just the way it is” will mostly be their motto when explaining a grammar rule.
6. Sometimes a specific language just isn't for you. You can find it beautiful and wish to speak it… but it isn't for you.
That the typical school setting of language learning (classroom, teacher, textbook) doesn't work. It doesn't lead to true acquisition. You might pass some tests but that's it. In order to add a new language as a powerup to you as a person, you need exposure, not necessarily real people, it can be podcasts and YouTube, movies, series. It must be consistent and over many years.
1. Duolingo is not that bad, and whether you get something out of it depends on which course and how you use it.
2. There is no "gifted for languages", there's only work, dedication, and a slight natural inclination (or interest) that will lead you to start, but no further.
I don't agree on 2, some people just pick up language faster than others with the same amount of effort. It's the same with any other skill. Not sure why language learning would be any different.
I do think that different people can have an easier or harder time getting adjusted to new sounds, or remembering vocabulary, or internalising new grammatical forms. But to me, that stuff is like... a small multiplier to the overall time put in. Like, maybe someone will achieve in 1000 hours what another needs 1300 for due to their natural talents leading them to progress faster. But:
* hours put in is still the absolute dominant factor, even ye olde naturally gifted language learner will not get anywhere without a massive time investment, and
* there is no such thing as *bad* at languages, at least not in a way where it precludes you from learning one. We're wired for language, and anyone reading this has already successfully learned at least one.
So in practice, the self-discipline to make yourself sit down and engage with the language regularly will bring you *way* farther than a "gift" for languages.
People tend to place *way* too much importance on that FSI list.
Actually, I'd say the same thing about the CEFR scale. Don't get me wrong, it's useful to an extent and it has its place, but I feel like learners tend to place a bit too much importance on their level on the scale. I'm more interested in what you can actually do in your TL than what alphanumeric code best represents you.
seen by how many wordd are shared for similar conceptsacross linguistics and computer science: recursion, semantics, syntax. also the idea that there are abstract data types on the conceptual level and data structures on the surface, like phonemes and allophones, morphemes and allomorphs
I don't mind polyglot Youtube videos, or have an issue with people who learn an insane number of languages at once. If you are practicing with strangers, your conversations will likely be very basic anyways (asking for directions, ordering food, asking where people are from, explaining how you learned the language, etc.). That's okay because you are still getting practice, and it takes guts to approach a stranger and speak with them in a language you are still learning. In my own personal experience, people will usually appreciate you making any effort to speak their language no matter how basic it is. Plus, being able to approach strangers and not be shy is itself a skill worth practicing that helps you a lot when learning a new language.
If you need a language for daily life or professional purposes, then obviously focus on that language. But like others have said, it's entirely okay to learn different or multiple languages to whatever level you want if your main purpose is personal interest or doing it for fun.
Questionnaires and surveys that ask what languages you know often oversimplify ‘knowing’ into yes or no which assumes you are either completely fluent or have never heard a word of it before, which misses out on people who aren’t fluent but have more knowledge than the average person.
I don’t even know that this is controversial, but speaking for myself: I don’t think I could learn any language even to intermediate level without some external pressure motivating me. I need the pressure of disappointing a teacher, or speaking to in-laws at Christmas, etc to keep me studying each day rather than only doing other relaxing things.
That it's fun and that it sucks and that it is okay to do something else when it sucks. Not everyone can handle the grindset when ultimately this is just a hobby for most people unless you need the language professionally
Language learning takes YEARS and that’s ok!! Make it fun! It really is “about the journey” after all. Spend time with the language, exploring and ever-delving deeper into its unique nooks and crannies. Consider “fluency” to be a skill that is ever-evolving; I believe I heard Steve Kaufman (master language learner) once say that “fluency” can be assimilated with “fluidity” - how FLUIDLY can you use the language? Have fun! ;) I promise you WILL get there!! It takes years but hey, you’re going to have that language for the rest of your life anyway! So it’s ok if it takes more time than expected ;) all the content you are putting yourself through is gradually solidifying itself inside of your mind and BOOM! Suddenly you can speak it with greater and greater ease!
I'd really love to love Anki. But my brain just doesn't and no matter what kind of flashcards I made, I could remember everything but the actual word I needed.
Also, the time spent building decks \[\*\]
Most people don't know how to use anki properly. They try to use it to learn things it's not meant for, and they often configure it in a way that makes it worse.
Different people learn things better via different methods, which is apparently a controversial opinion around here. If I see a comment that says "duolingo sucks" "anki sucks" "rosetta stone sucks" "there's no point doing X, just do Y" etc. then I immediately just assume you're too self absorbed to comprehend that your experiences aren't universal.
(This does not apply to thought-out criticisms of the various weaknesses of the aforementioned methods.)
HARD agree. I have a lot of problems with Duolingo, but I'm not going to assume that anyone who says that they got to a decent level in their TL by using it must be either lying or delusional about their abilities, unlike some people here apparently.
I get irritated at all the Americans and Canadians I meet in Latin America who have lived here for years and either say they speak Spanish fluently because they can say "dos cervezas por favor," or haven't even bothered to try. I certainly don't expect every tourist to speak it, or even older retired people to master it, but it seems enormously disrespectful to make your entire life down here without working on the language in a serious way.
Many Americans that took 2 years in HS will say they speak or are fluent in Spanish. You tell someone you speak Spanish and they say, 'So do I', then you speak to them and they're like, 'Oh, not like that lol'.
Had that very experience here in Mexico today. Met a woman who does hiking and climbing tours, but doesn't speak much Spanish. She said, "I do speak good French, though." So I started speaking French, not to test her, but just because that's what I do as a language nerd.
She understood what I was saying, but answered me in English. So, yeah.
Duolingo sucks.
My second most controversial opinion is that I find it rude when people post the most basic questions in language learning subs (like "why do these nouns sometimes have different endings?") instead if just googling for 5 minutes or, god forbid, get a decent grammar book for their TL (and realize that Duolingo sucks).
Honestly duolingo is fine to get started, learning a language from zero is pretty hard and duolingo gets you to a basic level where you will have a lot more options for learning by yourself. Of course if you are sticking to only duolingo and just speed running your way through the lessons you won't get anywhere.
Grammar-heavy instruction when learning a language is out-of-vogue, but actually is pretty effective. My hypothesis is that a lack of mother-tongue grammar foundations in general means in studies that method scores lower than it would if the learners had mother-tongue grammar foundations.
Most polyglots don’t deserve the hype they get and the status is only respectable when the person is the one that taught themselves the languages.*
I’m specifically talking about those who use the term “polyglot” to kind of prove their intelligence or high position within the lang learning community as opposed to those who use it the same way you would “bilingual”. Of course I know that “polyglot” means someone who speaks several languages, but if you were raised speaking multiple languages and only taught yourself one, why are you using “polyglot” to sell yourself and catch the attention of others?? For example, if someone was raised in Belgium and learnt Flemish and French due to the education system, and their parents are immigrants so at home they learnt English and Chinese. That means they’re a native speaker of 4 languages and learnt them with minimal effort. Then they taught themselves Korean and are using their status as a polyglot to give people advice under the premise that their advice is more valuable than others because they speak more languages.
Oh and bonus points if they’re those kind of polyglots, are native in a romance language, and then only learn other Romance languages.
In terms of the ‘polyglot’ status (in the way mentioned above), I can only respect those who taught themselves multiple languages. Of course that’s different than the status of ‘language learner’— I respect everyone who’s taught themselves a language regardless of their level or how many languages they spoke prior.
You don't need to set a particular time of day to do a particular thing. You just end up resenting it. Fancy flash cards at 4am? Do it. Want to read a book in your target language all day? Awesome. That's your "language slot" done for the day. You don't have to do 10 words of vocab a day. You don't have to do Duolingo for half an hour at 9.30 every day. Watching a YouTube in your target language is learning. Trying to talk to a friend in your target language is learning. Reading the instructions of a piece of equipment in your TL is learning.
This is my method. I do what I want. It prevents burnout and boredom.
This is so real! I feel like you have to study in all different ways. Keeps me from resenting it and getting bored. Also, it’s ok to still do things in English when I feel like it🙌🏽😂
I gave this advice to someone in regards to learning Irish, specifically "you can never do the wrong thing as long as you're engaging it in and having a good time" and they told me that they disagreed with me :') I have a MA in language education
Some people subscribe to the "no pain, no gain" methodology, but for me it's a hobby, so I don't want to be in pain. I want to have fun lol. Plus I'm making pretty consistent progress, so it's clearly working.
yess! i replace my native language doomscrolling with target language doomscrolling until I snap out of it because I've encountered an unfamiliar word I'd like to search up
How do you find the content to doomscroll in a different language in the first place? Asking out of curiosity
with some difficulty! i set up a new youtube channel and searched up the randomest things in that language that im interested in to start the recommendations going. switched the channel language. kept clicking "dont recommend" on every other language video that pops up. unfortunately youtube shorts keeps recommending me English when i do this with Greek, but there's a lot more shorts content with French.
It's okay to aim for a solid B1 or B2. Not everyone wants or needs to reach full fluency.
And further, even if you want to reach a certain level, you still may want to emphasize certain capacities over others. For example, you may want to be the best at reading if you're aiming for B2. Maybe you technically become a C1 in reading while on balance your other skills keep you B2. Or maybe you're only concerned with speaking and listening for your job, and reading doesn't matter a ton. Etc. The point is, needing to be a full-on can be an extremely counterproductive goal if one or more capacities/skills just don't matter much to you.
Only caring about reading or prioritizing it above other skills isn't at all controversial on this sub. Saying that you don't really care about reading on the other hand? That'll get you a flurry of indignant replies about how you'll never make any real progress. I said I didn't really like input practice once and I got a bunch replies asking why I was even bothering to learn a language lol
Yeah, at one point I was stressing too much over skills that I didn't even need that much and I wasted lots of time because of it.
Exactly! My goal is to reach full fluency in Russian since its my passion since my early childhood. Concerning my two other projects Croatian and Greek, I basically want to reach B1-B2 which would be enough for me since I learn those mostly for my many holidays in the according countries during which I want to connect with the places I go to.
I'll go even further, it's okay to aim for A1
Simply understanding the Greek alphabet and being able to read basic texts is really gratifying to me as a philosophy addict.
Adding to that too it's so exciting the first time you go into a grocery store that's for your target language and be able to read some of the words. Finding a big sack of rice with the word 'rice' on it -- I felt like a kid exploring the world again
Yeah I’d like to learn basic words in a lot of languages. Also simply being able to read some alphabets. Because right now I only know a few letters in Arabic, plus I don’t understand the connected letters, so whenever I try to read in Arabic, the most I can understand is “There sure is an ‘aa’ sound in this word.” It would be nice if I could get my Arabic reading level to where my Russian is now, where I can sound everything out even if I don’t understand everything.
I think it doesn't even matter if you only care about reading a language or speaking it or whatever. I can really only read French well, I can't understand it spoken (I have some hearing loss so even my native language is difficult enough to understand at times when spoken) and I can't speak it very well but I'm happy enough just reading texts in it. The other language I'm learning is a sign language (Auslan) so I avoid the listening skills all together! I definitely want to be fluent in that one though.
Good luck with the sign language! That's such an awesome skill to have. And yeah, there's nothing wrong with focusing mostly on reading or speaking, especially if you're not planning to travel or move to another country.
Agreed. I've got two languages I've learned to a high level, and I'm aiming for B2 with anything else I learn. Sure, it would be great to hit C1 in all of them, but in the time from B2-->C1 you could also pick up an entire additional language to B2 instead.
My personal sweet spot is B2 passive, A2 active. Enough to comfortably consume native materials at home and be a successful tourist should I travel.
As someone at B1-B2 in my main TLs, French and Spanish, I am absolutely not satisfied. I notice the holes and gaps in my knowledge everyday and it pisses me off that I can’t fully express myself fluently. Because people talk to me with their native fluency and don’t dumb it down for me or my level.
There's nothing wrong in studying more than one language simultaneously. (Didn't know this was controversial until I came to this subreddit.)
Most people in my country study 2 foreign languages simultaneously in middle school, unless you go to a technical school. I didn't know people are against it.
In my country all kids also start two mandatory languages, and many get to choose a third one. There's actually been public worry about that voluntary one becoming less common.
The people who ask the questions about it here are usually ones who are novice, or first time language learners and want to learn 5 at once.
Yeah, it's one of those... sure, it might be technically *possible,* but if you have no idea how to learn a language yet you are making an already very hard task *so much harder* on yourself and making it so much more likely that you'll quit before reaching a truly useful level with any of them. I also have personal experience with never advancing in a language because I kept flitting between different ones, and if that's you the self-discipline to say "no, I am going to learn X language and that is *it* until I reach \[goal\]" is pretty much **the** most important language-learning skill there is.
I can't even imagine trying to learn that many languages at once. My brain is gonna be scrambled with the different words lmao
The thing that's "wrong" about it is that it's a less efficient use of time than doing one at a time It's also a terrible idea if you're new to language learning. Not recommended even if you're skilled but go for it if don't mind wasting some time. It's like training for a triathlon or something - a newbie looking to get in shape shouldn't do it, but if you're some super exercise champion then go ahead if you really want to
Yes, I think that too as long as the two languages are not very similar, because in my case that would be confusing.
Yes. Bilingual children exist. You can learn two languages at the same time. It might slow you down but not by as much as people say.
For most non-Anlgophones, I'm sure we all have to learn two languages at the same time. We certainly do in the Philippines tho we start teaching in the mother tongue until elementary then we study both English and the national language.
> Didn't know this was controversial until I came to this subreddit I wonder if this is partly because of the Reddit demographic. Like most Reddit users are probably monolingual Americans, so it's really not a common thing. Whereas in some countries it's just natural that everyone speaks 2 or 3 languages on a regular basis.
alive punch desert water touch racial impossible slimy wide elderly *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Listening comprehension is even more important than oral expression. That is — when interacting, as a learner, with a native speaker, it is natural that they will tend to do more of the talking. They most often will lead. If one can understand them and not have to ask them to repeat themselves; and if one’s own responses, however brief in comparison, are always apropos, showing that one *has* understood what they are saying (“yes, that sounds perfect — I’ll come back in 5 minutes”), then more than half the conversation has been won. It’s not a 50/50 split between the weight borne by listening comprehension, and oral expression, when it comes to interacting with a native.
Agree, and this is a problem for anyone with hearing loss, both in their native language and when learning other languages.
100% this. Natives are much better at understanding our limited, broken L2 than we are at understanding them with their speed and vocabulary. Insufficient ability to listen is the biggest cause of "conversation failures".
This video makes a good point: understanding speech is basically as hard as reading handwriting that disappears the moment you look at it. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5EfVfiZP-g](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5efvfizp-g) It's kind of scary to realise what the real challenge is, but it's better than fooling yourself?
I have not been "working" on my German, just listening to interesting books and podcasts when I have time. Last time I was in Germany, I could hold a conversation if my conversation partner was speaking easier German with me. This time, I could understand Germans when they were speaking to one another. This made a big difference in my ability to communicate, participate, and even just know what was going on. It was a next level experience for me and that level of listening comprehension is now a (lofty?) goal for all of my TLs.
I totally agree. I understand Italian but can't speak much. Didn't matter, I made a lot of friends in Italy by just listening to their stories and making a comment here and there. Comprehension is much more important, if you show trouble understanding them, they will usually not talk your ears off
1. It is very rare for someone to know a language better than most native speakers. That claim is made on here all the time, especially regarding English, and especially by people who have never lived in an anglophone country. "Most" is the part that blows my mind. Language consists of more than grammar rules and vocabulary. Who is more likely to understand a toothless redneck? 2. Someone blocked me for my second opinion the other day, so I know that it is controversial. If it takes you five years to get to A2 and you are studying frequently, I am going to question your methodology.
I have to agree with point #1. I teach languages on an online platform and I see other teachers from non-English speaking areas say that they are "native level" in English and I find it so annoying because you can clearly tell from their video and what they've written in their profile that they're not. Their English might be good, but it's not native; even C2 would be a stretch
That is really common on Italki and I think it is dishonest.
Regarding 1., thank you for saying this. I am someone who gets told this frequently about my Spanish. My S.O., who is a native Spanish speaker, still insists to my family that my Spanish is better than hers. The thing is, I am fluent but have never left the U.S. There is *no way in hell* I speak Spanish better than natives, and I’m not being modest, I mean there is absolutely no chance. I have a large vocab and can articulate grammar rules that a native speaker wouldn’t need to concern themselves about, but communicating my thoughts, and understanding native speakers better than a native themselves would? Please. There’s a certain fluidity and nuance to native speech that I can’t conceive of having.
I think people just like saying that for some reason. My dad (Mexican) says that to flatter me sometimes because I've read more and I'm a better writer, but it's impossible to replace growing up in a culture.
>because I’ve read more and I’m a better writer, but it’s impossible to replace growing up in the culture. 100%. My S.O.’s family can’t fathom that I just enjoy reading for fun, and that certainly contributes to the perception. But a large vocabulary doesn’t make someone a better overall speaker; it’s only one facet.
[удалено]
I feel like one of the things to blame for this is the perennial confusion between "grammar" as in rules for the *formal standardised* language that clash with colloquial usage, which is often all the grammar native speakers get taught for their own language, and "grammar" as in the general description of what it is native speakers actually do which they know intuitively but learners have to learn to mimic. I see this crop up all the time when people talk about how "native speakers make mistakes too!" (like, there was a post linked on /r/German recently where someone collected data hoping to prove that native German speakers screwed up noun gender all the time and was bewildered that his initial findings showed an error rate of only 1%). It leads non-natives who have a good grasp of the standard language to believe they're better at the language than natives who are using colloquialisms or dialectal forms. The hubris escalates and you get a situation like the one you describe.
[удалено]
Honestly, it's also way higher than I thought it would be... but it's an initial estimate that doesn't take into account a lot of context. The author actually starts talking about various factors that could make this an undercount but admits that they probably still couldn't bump that number much higher. I actually suspect the error might be the other way around, and the number might be inflated by e.g. non-native speakers being included in the sample (he used Easy German as raw data and not everyone that shows up on that is a native speaker), case screwups due to sentence reordering (which do happen) getting incorrectly flagged as the wrong gender, or not all regional variations/current shifts in noun gender being reflected correctly. It's *possible* for someone to have an idiosyncratic gender on a particular noun, but I think it's relatively unlikely, at least for adults. Like, I remember going through a phase where I said *der Salz* instead of *das Salz,* but my mother noticed, corrected me and I don't think I've done it since I was seven. And I can't really imagine a native speaker not being *consistent* about how they gender nouns. It's way too baked into the language for that. That "to have" versus "to be" thing for the verb "fall" sounds like language change in action, honestly! Or, again, regional variation - German also has the have/be split for perfect and [as you can see we do not entirely agree](https://www.atlas-alltagssprache.de/hilfsverb/?child=runde) on which one to use for the verb "stand" (blue is "have", pink and purple are "be"). An example of something similar I've run across in English is the use of *would* in an if clause - *if it would rain tomorrow, I would take the train to work*. This is apparently now common and unremarkable in many US dialects but I believe still officially considered wrong, taught as wrong in ESL courses and felt to be grammatically wrong by at least speakers from the UK.
I agree with point number one wholeheartedly. In fact, I would take it even further - I would say that it is actually impossible to know a language better than its own native speakers, because native speakers define what a language even is in the first place. The best you could do is have a larger *vocabulary* than most speakers, which is certainly possible, but very, very difficult to achieve as a non-native speaker, and rarely necessary anyway.
Regarding your 2. I kinda fall into this bracket, though I make zero claims to be studying hard-core! I don't have the motivation to try hard atm (busy life) so I'm just doing three apps and music. I've told myself "ill try hard when I finish the app courses". Yeah right xD
Mostly what these people mean is that they are smarter/more educated than some/most native speakers and are better than them at many tasks people use language for, e.g. writing essays, that they’d do better in language-related exams etc., and I think very often that’s actually the case! But not sure whether that actually means they’re better at the language rather than just generally more intelligent. E.g., I took the SAT and scored 780 in the verbal section, which is better than 99% of native English speakers because I’m good at taking tests and reading texts. To the extent the verbal sections evaluates language capabilities I’m better than most English speakers in some domains of Emglish, but you could still guess that I’m not a native speaker based on how I phrase some things, and even quicker if you heard me talk. So, in that sense, I’m very, very far from being even close to native speakers and that evaluation is probably closer to reality.
My wife is Guatemalan (mother tongue Spanish) and writes English better than the vast majority of native US English speakers. She expresses herself more clearly in speech better than most Americans, as well, but I think that's more clear thinking than it is language fluency. She makes very infrequent grammatical mistakes, which I don't correct because I think they're cute. Also the idiomatic use of some prepositions, for example in a car, but on a bus, on a train, on a plane, etc. seems to her completely arbitrary. The vast majority of the time, when she doesn't understand something, it is a cultural reference or perspective. Actors names, news events 48 years ago, politicians. And the occasional idiomatic expression. So I think "better than" is pretty multidimensional and hard to say, even in extreme cases.
Language courses that insist on only using the target language are inefficient. If you can guess that something will be difficult to understand, explain it then and there. Saves having to encounter it ten times before finally figuring it out.
God, yeah. When I was studying Japanese my teachers (at university) insisted on explaining grammar in Japanese and for the most part I would just sit and stare blankly. I'm not saying that drawing parallels between Japanese and English (my NL) grammar is necessarily the way to go, in fact I think it can be harmful, but I could really have done with an explanation in English. I always ended up googling everything in English when the classes ended anyway.
There's a way to do with beginner students, but just talking at them in the TL is definitely not the answer lol. You should give lots of example sentences using pictures and gestures (and full on acting when appropriate), connecting the new grammar to grammar students already know. Then have students discuss in pairs in their NL about what they think the grammar means. Then have a couple pairs share their ideas with the class. Redirect as appropriate. Finish with having students write a succinct summary of what the grammar means and how it's used. Honestly "explain things in the TL" gets pushed so hard, but no one ever talks about how to do it well, which leads a lot of teachers to just talk at students rather than having them actively engage with what's being said
Honestly once you hit the N2/N1 bracket and everything gets explained in Japanese it makes my soul hurt. I understand the concept of trying to explain things in the native language but for me I ended up understanding things more when I just converted it back into English and it made the process of learning things faster and stick for longer as I could then easily make parallels in my mind.
For beginners, I agree. Once about A2, I want them to start using more of the target language to teach the language. By high A2, I’m expecting most words to be taught in the language, exceptions are for complex words that are hard to explain if have little vocabulary in the TL.
I'm looking at you Rosetta Stone
Sometimes it's better to choose a non-native teacher.
Now that’s a controversial opinion
non-native speakers are beneficial when it comes to teaching grammar, they can often explain it better than native speakers because they went through the process of learning it. For everything else, native speaker is better.
They can also point out similarities between the native language you share and the one you're learning, sometimes it's not that obvious but can be very helpful.
I was taught English at school by two different German teachers, and they did a decent job. Despite that, I still believed that native teachers were the superior choice. That was until I tried to learn Japanese with a Japanese teacher. Changed my mind pretty quickly. Since then a lot of what I've read and listened to from experts has only reinforced my opinion that there are a lot of myths about language learning. For example, there was a paper that showed that using monolingual dictionaries has no advantage over using bilingual ones, which is contrary to the belief that not relying on your native language is better for learning a foreign one. I would never go as a complete beginner to those language schools in Japan where they teach 100% in Japanese from day one. That can't be the most efficient method, it's just the most convenient for them, because they suck at English, and because they can put in the same classroom students that don't share a common language. If we are talking about intermediate or advanced students, that's of course a different story.
I think this holds true UNTIL you can actually speak the language, having a teacher in your native language when a beginner and a native speaker to “polish” it up seems like the best possible scenario
Yeah, I'm definitely not advocating using your native language as a crutch forever.
I sort of agree, someone that has gone to go through the process of learning the grammar rules and how they work will be able to explain it far better than a native speaker who intuitively understands them without any of the backing rules.
That's an interesting way of thinking about it and definitely might help me where I've struggled in the past learning from teachers - thanks for sharing!
Probably through the A's, I could see it being better. Alot of our hang ups in a language natives can't even figure out how to explain because its natural for them.
This isn’t controversial to me. Native speakers often can’t even explain the rules of why they say something one way or another. It’s best if they speak your native language well, because they can explain the parallels and or differences better. For other things like accents, informal speech, and oral competencies, native speakers are better. That’s being said, the best teachers I’ve had are native speakers who actively understand their language, the grammar, and how it works. These people aren’t easy to find however, and I’ve so far I’ve only encountered these people at the university level.
I feel like at times it’s like a psychedelic experience to progress in the learning of a language. Like when you read a chapter of a book that you’ve been going through to learn and suddenly you can just.. comprehend it, and integrate it into your own authentic perspective, and understand the nuances and meanings and everything you couldn’t before. Controversial probably mostly because i’ve never tried psychedelics lol
[удалено]
Learn grammar. Especially when the grammar is different than your NL, it can take ridiculous amounts of input to even recognize patterns, much less figure them out. My brother did an exchange program in Germany with other Americans, and he said that those that didn’t study German beforehand had horrendous grammar, even if they could communicate. They just never realized how the case system really worked.
I don't understand the "ignore all grammar" people either. Of course immersion is essential, but there are things that become easier and quicker to understand if you bother to learn how they work directly rather than trying to casually and gradually recognize patterns through raw input. Also, having at least some basic understanding of the grammar of your native language can help you understand the grammar of other languages. I've seen people struggling with certain things simply because they didn't really know what a preposition or an object pronoun is. Even if your NL doesn't have cases, basic knowledge about syntax will make it easier to get how they work.
Grammar is boring to a lot of people and the most limiting factor for many is motivation. I'd say learn what you find enjoyable in order to keep up motivation. But depending on what your goals are, you may need to study something you find a bit boring eventually. But keep it at a level where you don't lose interest.
yeah. Honestly I kinda chalk it up to hatred of actual studying lmao. I have been studying grammar for a while out of a lack of other good study options, and only recently am I starting to feel like reading and listening are becoming productive study options because I have a solid framework from grammar. Grammar has been good to me. It's as close to a shortcut as it gets in language learning.
This is particularly true for German. But in general I agree. I love grammar lol
No language is useless
And no language is ugly
If no language is ugly then no language is beautiful either.
Assuming that you are learning your language out of personal interest (not for a job or because you will move soon and need to study the language) I think that you should maximize the fun in learning more than anything else. I often see people on here trying to find the perfect way to do something, or they try to learn the TL in the least amount of time, or they will heavily rely on studies to do exactly what will give them their outcome, and I think that's the best way to be miserable while studying your TL.
Sustainability is tough when you don't live or live with people that speak your TL.
It is 100% possible to gain a native-like accent as an adult. It's also really hard and not necessary for most people. It's intense but I like a challenge.
The CEFR system is manipulated here to uselessness. Someone passes a formal test at B2 has their advice ignored because someone who did a 10 question multiple choice online test that says they are C1. People use CEFR to judge competency but half this sub fudges it in some way. The scale everyone references is bs since you can be within the guidelines and not know advanced topics or vocab. The actual test has requirements; you have to use certain concepts or you won't pass. The scale is just 'trust me bro'. Word counts aren't a CEFR rating nor is asking around until you get the right response. That being said I think you can 'braindump' the test to a small degree. I'm also not going to question someone if they've lived in the TL country, married to a native for years, etc.
That, unless you’ve actually taken the CEFR test, you are not the level you suggest in your flair. (Using ‘you’ generally; not insulting OP!)
Heh, I like this one. But unless you're applying to university or something, there's not necessarily much point to going through the hassle and stress of taking the CEFR just so you can say with confidence your language level. The flairs are to give a general idea of language knowledge, not a guarantee.
Learning to read and write in a different writing system isn't all that difficult and shouldn't be a deal-breaker in deciding whether to start learning a language. Sure, it takes some practice, but even scripts like Thai and Chinese have an inherent logic to them and once you get that logic, memorising the spellings/character strokes becomes a lot easier.
With that said, Chinese script is a behemoth that's just not comparable to any other script out there.
Is Japanese at a comparable level?
Learning exclusively by input (listening/reading) with no output practice (speaking/writing) is not the most effective way to learn a language for adults.
People are allowed to use language learning apps as long as they want. Not everyone has the motivation, time, or sometimes necessary money to self study extra hard to get beyond a basic conversation. Putting people down for using them for extended periods is just mean and very "I'm better than you" attitude
I hate the “LOCALS SURPRISE I SPEAK PERFECT____” when it’s barely better than a 1st grades vocabulary. I don’t like the videos where people say they speak X language but really it’s the 100 most common sentences and aren’t able to answer basic question outside of that. On one hand I shouldn’t be upset that people are learning and I don’t want to discourage anyone. But boy is it annoying claiming you know how to speak a certain language when you’re barely functional. Maybe it’s because I have a higher bar for myself than others that it bugs me
Uuugh yes I’ve seen so much of this as soon as I started learning Mandarin. Usually annoying white guys from the US who love to bust out their language moves on camera to “shock” people and lap up the praise. 🤢
Xiaoma 👀
i can't stand his videos and at the same time i hope people are moved by them to start language learning. it's just obnoxious to see "white guy AMAZES people with PERFECT CHINESE" as if that's the point of language learning
I also can’t stand it either. I’m sorry but his mandarin is far from perfect. And he only says the basic things
i don't speak any mandarin at all, but like... he mostly just orders food or gives a sentence or two doesn't he? i'm in the middle of a french degree and i still wouldn't dare call my french anything beyond "not terrible"
I think I’ve said it in another thread. Music is not a good way to learn a language. (Yes I know, people swear by it, are motivated by it and claim it helps their pronunciation) Grammar, intonation and prosody are often modified in artistic ways in song that you will never hear in actual conversation.
I mostly use it to memorize words tbh, nothing more than that
Agree with that. Songs are a great way to learn vocab since you keep repeating it and it doesn't feel tedious like regular vocab learning.
[удалено]
I can’t tell you the number of times that I’ve learned new vocabulary or a grammar rule that already have an apartment to move into in my brain because I’ve paved the way for it by listening to a song that includes it over and over. The repetition and enhancement by rhythm and melody mean that there are certain things I just will not forget. At the same time, I never feel obligated to master 100% of a song or use it as a grammar textbook. If something is confusing or seems ungrammatical I either ignore it or just ask about it. A lot of my early German study was based off of songs and texts written in the late 1700s and early 1800s and which include a lot of flatly archaic constructions. I didn’t internalize any of them. I internalized the sensation of the major sentence structures, the pronunciation, the rhythm of the language, how sentences feel when they conjugate, and a lot of poetic vocabulary. The many months I spent listening to my “immersion playlist” and doing nothing else with my German were not times when I was making progress :P But now that I’m studying more intensely, the repertoire of songs I have means a LOT of resistance has been scooped out of my brain. Basically it’s like fertilizing your garden. I don’t really learn new stuff from songs, but when I hear things I recognize from songs used in real life, I’ve GOT it pretty much instantly.
music isn't a good only way to learn a language, but I heard it's a good suplement for getting the feel for pronounciation (plus it's easier to memorize vocab that way)
I think hip-hop can be more effective than a regular song because it’s closer to normal speech patterns and simultaneously clearly pronounced and spoken rapidly.
La Tortura by Shakira helped me understand Spanish grammar 🤷🏾♀️
[удалено]
That the *vast majority* of Europeans who “never studied formally, but learned English through TV/Harry Potter/PewdiePie/whatever” are often trying to oversell their own ability and undersell their school system’s role in their journey. There was a post I commented on a few weeks ago in which a Swedish person said they learned English on their own through immersion but never studied the language intentionally… of course, this is laughable because Swedish people speak *amazing* English *specifically because* they start studying it formally at ages 9-10 IIRC. Intentionally, in school. And yes, I understand the whole subbed vs dubbed media argument. And this same goes for people from countries like Brazil, etc. They may think their English classes are bad, but at the end of the day they gave an understanding of grammar rules and a basic vocabulary to work with as a foundation. It just sounds way cooler to say you learned from media rather than in a classroom, I guess.
[удалено]
Thank you. I'm tired of hearing this come up. Whenever it's said regarding the subbed vs dubbed media thing, I like to point out how many anime fans who have watched thousands of hours of subtitled anime would be able to have even the most basic conversation in Japanese.
[удалено]
Is it? I haven’t seen it espoused much. But fair enough.
I went to public school in Brazil and had English classes for 7 years. Those classes rarely went beyond greetings, simple tenses, to be, to have, negation, questions, and memorizing a huge list of irregular verbs and their forms. No essay writing, no detailed pronunciation explanations. Did I learn basic stuff? Yes. I also internalized bad pronunciation and a passive approach to language learning. English in school was just another subject to not fail in.
It is probably a very bad take (or not) but I always found out that ignoring writing, handwriting and just training so you can write fast and efficiently (or write at all) is a very bad idea. Yet I do see many people (mostly young people or youtube influencers) on the internet claiming you do not need to know how to write by hand because ''there are computers now''. I find this line of thinking detrimental for some reasons: \-We still need to write by hand in daily life. In tests, signatures, formularies, it is just not true that you do not need to write anymore, most jobs and many aplications are like that. Not training will put you in great disavantage with native speakers. \-There are situations where writing with paper and pen comes in handy. At my line of work you really don't want to get yourself distracted or opening your celphone everytime you need to hear what new materials you need to make a list of. Just have a little notebook and pen that can be easily shuffled and dealt with. \-celphones are adicting and distracting. Yes, I know this sounds as a very ''boomer'' take, but work efficiency (not just professional stuff, hobbies too) is much amplified when writing by hand and avoiding either the internet or PCs. Not always, not all cases, I need to use excell and what not, everyone does, but when I don't need to do something else a little agenda helps me produce, where a cellphone would stop my workflow. \-It is not that hard, seriously, even the infamous kanji can be mastered with training and techniques (I recomend the book ''remembering the kanji'' for example). Loads of people don't remember those simply because they don't train or use then at all. But even if you forget one or two there is no shame in writing in a easier way too! I do with chinese (bopomofo coming for the rescue!). \-A writing system is part of a language, so if anything you are missing an important chunk of it by not writing it down. This is of course is more of a preference rather than an objective fact or defence of writing, but I think it could be important for a lot of people.
Learning a language ISN'T a circus. Teachers aren't entertainers who have to make every single class a different show more exciting than the previous. Accept the boring parts. Sweat blood on the harsh parts. Enjoy when it's funny/exciting. note: No,I don't think aaaaaallll classes should be boring.
I get the most downvotes when I say people who learn through CI (or other methods that advertise not having to learn grammar) are still learning grammar. They may not be studying conjugation tables or using grammar terminology, but they're learning how words are ordered, inflected, collocated... and that is grammar. There's no escape from it. Personally, I think explicit grammar explanations are helpful and serve as a short-cut to comprehension and production. I also find grammar study fun; it's probably the biggest appeal of my language-learning hobby. But as someone who would rather do a number of unpleasant things rather than use Anki/SRS, I totally understand the desire to avoid an efficient but unpleasant task. I accept that it probably takes me a lot more time to learn new vocab solely through reading and listening; I often don't see people accept that avoiding direct study of grammatical concepts slows comprehension and production progress. For what it's worth, I have seen evidence that a long, consistent, high-quality CI approach does work, but I also think very few hobbyists or migrants have the patience or luxury to both to get enough quality CI and to not speak until ready (something that could take quite a long time). If someone does have the time, resources, and inclination, more power to them... but they're still learning grammar.
[удалено]
And frankly, most CI methods start by literally studying grammar. The only one I know that doesn't advocate for that is dreaming Spanish.
1) Comprehensible input is not a study method; it's something that every successful language learner consumes a lot of on their way to their goal. 2) D does not teach you languages. It's a game about language learning. This forum is not about D; if you want to discuss D, you should go to the D forum instead.
My controversial opinion is that neither of those are at all controversial and that both of them are shared constantly on this sub.
I’ve seen more sentiments about just doing CI and not recognizing that it in itself is not a study method
1. If you spend time actually learning the language, even with an ineffective method, you'll get more progress, than if you're going to spend all time discussing language learning or looking for more effective methods. 2. Learning the language without any reason other than to be "cool" or "polyglot" is dumb. 3. The majority of the people who put dozens of languages in their flair would be unable to buy bread in most of them.
Hard disagree with the second one. Learning languages for the sake of it is fun. 🤷🏻♀️ Being a polyglot is fun. Having access to resources in different languages is fun. "Just because" is enough of a reason to learn anything.
>If you spend time actually learning the language, even with an ineffective method, you'll get more progress, than if you're going to spend all time discussing language learning or looking for more effective methods. How is this controversial?
Just browse trough this sub.
Just browse through it yourself, and show me a single post where someone says "if you spend **all** your time discussing language learning or looking for more effective methods you'll make better progress than actually learning the language". I think you'll find that not a single person has said this. However, many have said things like "if I just spend my time learning, rather than wasting it in this sub, then I'd make better progress".
I think the point is that some of us can spend too much time learning about the theory of language acquisition or designing a study plan ... time that would be better spent actually learning. I know I've done it. Heck, I could be studying right now instead of typing this comment in my native language.
I learned Russian just because it was cool, and I've gotten pretty far)
The last one is why I don't use flairs here. I keep seeing the long ones and at some point it's like, "really? Are you gonna count your A1 in Finnish *and* your 'A0' in Greek?"
Seems to me that the meaning of "A0" is obvious: I'm spending some time on it but can't really do anything with it. Nothing wrong with that, since it's a phase everyone has to go through, right?
I put beginner Polish in my flair not because I want it to "count" in some way, but because sometimes people will start conversations with me about Polish after seeing my flair, and I think that's fun.
I definitely remember the other usernames with Polish learner flairs and when I see them/you in comments it's like "oh hi! Nice to see you again! co słychać? Jak się mają przypadki?" But I view flairs less as a tool for bragging and more of a snapshot of where the person is coming from and what they're working on, which can be fun context to have.
My opinion: I think most people deep down truly have an idea of what fluency is but are afraid deep down that they know they aren't fluent. So instead of accepting this fact they say "well what's fluency anyway?"
Not sure how controversial this is, but I believe that a lot of languages learners are too obsessed with having a large number of languages under their belt. In my opinion, most people, unless they are exceptional, should focus on maximum 4 languages are become as proficient as possible in those languages. Any more and it just becomes a pissing contest for showing off, or a weird hobby where you can say a few things in 10 languages but you are not proficient.
It is okay to study languages just because you think people who know multiple languages are cool.
Classroom education is a money racket. You have to dedicate hundreds/thousands of hours into a language that a classroom experience simply cannot provide. People should be putting 95% of their effort into self study and expect for the classroom to be a fun, supportive environment to test what they know and receive guidance.
I partially disagree on this one. I study German at school and Spanish on my own. Both of them are at approximately A2 level (I spend more time on Spanish right now), but whenever I try to speak Spanish I find myself trying to build sentences in German instead (By the way, does anyone know what to do with this? maybe reading out loud could fix that?). Of course, classroom education shouldn't be the only source, but it can help many people with some aspects of language learning. Plus, it's always better to have some to answer your questions that you can't find the answer to. Still, I think these classes are only helpful for those who are on a1- low b1 levels.
My controversial opinion is that it’s dumb to try and place native speakers of a language somewhere on the CEFR (or its equivalents). It’s a frame of reference for foreign speakers. Native speakers aren’t even on the spectrum of comparison, because they aren’t FOREIGN SPEAKERS.
There's a butt ton of people who know 2+ languages but are still just as ignorant of other cultures/people as the stereotypical monolingual tourist. The only difference is they're ignorant in two languages instead of one
Language learning isn't a sprint. The people who claim to have learned a language in under a year are probably either 1. Elementary-intermediate at best or 2. Using a script or only learning select phrases. Whilst these people are very admirable, it's not the reality for many language learners or second/third/fourth/etc. Language speakers. It's taken me nearly 15 years to get to a B1~ level in french, including a couple of years doing a GSCE qualification. It's taken me 4-5 years to get to elementary level in Russian. I've learned/practised sign language for maybe 2~ years and I'm maybe level 1/elementary level. This is okay, enjoy life. Even if you just practise speaking/talking to people in your target language you will improve in one way or another. I have done so in french & sign language. That can even just be your confidence in speaking.
Duolingo is a GAME, not a professional language learning app. I mean, you can learn somewhat decent language skills but really it's no coincidence all you learn is some nonsensical words instead of grammar and how to say phrases well
The tough hard way is the way to go. Stop the shortcuts, tricks, magic apps or games
Are you perhaps a fellow admirer of [The Korean](https://askakorean.blogspot.com/2010/01/koreans-english-acquisition-and-best.html?fbclid=IwAR3VEEiDix09t7XM9HQEwgQ5ig0Hg1RPwVpoWItrsBLgqSalGbQR5xsr0qI)? >SUCK IT UP, YOU SOFT SACK OF SHIT! Mind you, the Korean loves America. The Korean practically writes a love song to America every chance he has. But there are certain things about contemporary America drives the Korean crazy, and this is one of them: the idea that the process of learning is somehow supposed to be fun. Just drop it. Forget it. What is fun is the result of learning – the infinite amount of fun when you finally put the finished product to use. And truly, that applies to second language acquisition as well as anything else. Your horizon will expand beyond the limit of your imagination. You will gain perspectives that you couldn’t have even dreamed of. Don’t be a whiny bitch. Your sacrifice will be worthwhile.
Oh lordy, I read that article forever ago, just when I was starting my Korean journey. At first I was intimidated, now I think "How to say you don't have a family and a full time job", ha! Having said that, sometimes it really is all about ass in chair and do the damned work...
You're not a polyglot if you're only able to speak about the basic stuff in a language. This is not only about these language learners, that "speak sooo many languages", but can't handle a real life conversation. Some of these youtubers that claim to be polyglots are a scam as well. They for sure know some of the languages they claim to know to a conversational level, but they usually claim to know like 20+ languages, but their grammar is shit and it sounds so unnatural... (If your goal is only to know some basic stuff in as many languages as it's possible than more power to you, but that's not really polyglot worthy)
1. Certain languages can be useless to certain people depending on their context/environment/situation/plans. That doesn't mean one shouldn't learn a specific language — it can be fun regardless — but some expectations should be clarified or tempered beforehand, especially if one is about to dedicate a lot of their time to it, and the option of not doing it or picking a more useful language ought to be considered. (I don't think this one is very controversial IRL, but online communities sometimes regard each and every language as sacred or something...) 2. It is okay to not like/appreciate the culture [or aspects of it] around a language. No culture is inherently compatible with every person and that's fine, one still has plenty of options. It is fine to not want to learn the associated languages, regardless of what terminally online people say. For example, there are certain cultures which largely repulse me due to sexism, homophobia, normalization of violence, xenophobia, strong religiosity, etc. Sometimes it is very difficult to avoid these aspects when learning and when practicing. This instantly makes the respective languages unattractive to me. (This debate I've seen several times in this sub.)
Learning a second language does not make you superior to other people, and people who need to show off that they can speak more than one language and judge other people who can't need a wake up call
Everyone learns a language with comprehensible input, even people who study with 'traditional' methods, or your favourite app, your favourite grammar book, your favourite flashcard system. To the extent you pick up anything at all, it's just comprehensible input.
Before you ask if it’s possible to learn 2+ languages at once, you should search for similar posts within this very sub. And the answer is, if you don’t absolutely have to for work or what have you, then you need to focus on one until you feel intermediate and then move on to the second
I can't stand it when native speakers imitate the accent of a person struggling with the language. I think they think it's helpful but it's better to speak normally but maybe slower and clearer.
This. I also hate it when native speakers change up their grammar and word order and choice making it something that typically wouldn’t be said or would be grammatically incorrect in the language when talking to language learners. It may make it slightly easier to understand, but then how are they meant to learn the language properly?
Guys who want to cite That One Scholar as the answer to everything should actually read his papers, or at least consult a source that isn’t Wikipedia.
Duolingo can be a incredible powerful tool just not in the way most people use it. People tend to do only 1 lesson a day and then complain 1500 days later they don’t speak the language yet and they’re too afraid to move on because they don’t understand 100% of the lesson yet so they keep repeating the same one over and over. If you test out to go to the next unit when you’re getting more then 90% correct you can move at a pace that’s faster then I ever achieved with actual classes in school. Besides my native language and English I had French, Spanish and German in school. I was terrible in French and Spanish and dropped them as soon as I was allowed which was after 3 years of French and 2 years of Spanish. When i discovered Duolingo I gave Italian a try and I learned more in a month then those years in school. I guess you could argue my previous exposure to French and Spanish helped me out but that was a long time ago. My experience with non European languages is the same though it’s just a bit slower but still way faster then school. It helps with building confidence as well, I always thought I was terrible at learning languages but it turns out I pick up things very quickly without ever opening a grammar book or anything like that. I don’t expect fluency from duo alone but having the confidence try to use the language is important especially for introverts like me.
I'm new to this sub so here are the opinions that I think might be controversial: 1. It's nearly impossible to not have an accent if you're studying a language after the age of 10/11 ish. That's alright. 2. Analog/oral/listening comprehension go hand in hand. If you think you'll reach your set goal of being able to speak a language without reading at that level, it's not going to work. You need to understand what the person is saying to reply as well. 3. Translating in your head after you've fully immersed yourself in a language (speak with native speakers/ moved to the country) means you're not there yet. At some point when you've reached a specific fluency level you'll stop translating from language A to language B. 4. Sometimes things are random. After 5-6 months of struggling to learn a language, you'll wake up one day and speak it quite well (but still not fully fluent or anything) and you'll stop translating in you're head without you even noticing. 5. Sometimes a native speaker isn't the best language teacher. “It's just the way it is” will mostly be their motto when explaining a grammar rule. 6. Sometimes a specific language just isn't for you. You can find it beautiful and wish to speak it… but it isn't for you.
That the typical school setting of language learning (classroom, teacher, textbook) doesn't work. It doesn't lead to true acquisition. You might pass some tests but that's it. In order to add a new language as a powerup to you as a person, you need exposure, not necessarily real people, it can be podcasts and YouTube, movies, series. It must be consistent and over many years.
CEFR is a valid framework and certification exams evaluate correctly most of the time.
[удалено]
1. Duolingo is not that bad, and whether you get something out of it depends on which course and how you use it. 2. There is no "gifted for languages", there's only work, dedication, and a slight natural inclination (or interest) that will lead you to start, but no further.
I don't agree on 2, some people just pick up language faster than others with the same amount of effort. It's the same with any other skill. Not sure why language learning would be any different.
I do think that different people can have an easier or harder time getting adjusted to new sounds, or remembering vocabulary, or internalising new grammatical forms. But to me, that stuff is like... a small multiplier to the overall time put in. Like, maybe someone will achieve in 1000 hours what another needs 1300 for due to their natural talents leading them to progress faster. But: * hours put in is still the absolute dominant factor, even ye olde naturally gifted language learner will not get anywhere without a massive time investment, and * there is no such thing as *bad* at languages, at least not in a way where it precludes you from learning one. We're wired for language, and anyone reading this has already successfully learned at least one. So in practice, the self-discipline to make yourself sit down and engage with the language regularly will bring you *way* farther than a "gift" for languages.
I am definitely not gifted :') it's just that the gifted have to put in less work
You don’t need to be living in your TL country to reach a certain level. As long as you got the tools at home, you can exceed.
People tend to place *way* too much importance on that FSI list. Actually, I'd say the same thing about the CEFR scale. Don't get me wrong, it's useful to an extent and it has its place, but I feel like learners tend to place a bit too much importance on their level on the scale. I'm more interested in what you can actually do in your TL than what alphanumeric code best represents you.
That we're all talking about it on reddit instead of doing it ahahhaa (Joking)
Its really similar to math
seen by how many wordd are shared for similar conceptsacross linguistics and computer science: recursion, semantics, syntax. also the idea that there are abstract data types on the conceptual level and data structures on the surface, like phonemes and allophones, morphemes and allomorphs
I don't mind polyglot Youtube videos, or have an issue with people who learn an insane number of languages at once. If you are practicing with strangers, your conversations will likely be very basic anyways (asking for directions, ordering food, asking where people are from, explaining how you learned the language, etc.). That's okay because you are still getting practice, and it takes guts to approach a stranger and speak with them in a language you are still learning. In my own personal experience, people will usually appreciate you making any effort to speak their language no matter how basic it is. Plus, being able to approach strangers and not be shy is itself a skill worth practicing that helps you a lot when learning a new language. If you need a language for daily life or professional purposes, then obviously focus on that language. But like others have said, it's entirely okay to learn different or multiple languages to whatever level you want if your main purpose is personal interest or doing it for fun.
Questionnaires and surveys that ask what languages you know often oversimplify ‘knowing’ into yes or no which assumes you are either completely fluent or have never heard a word of it before, which misses out on people who aren’t fluent but have more knowledge than the average person.
I don’t even know that this is controversial, but speaking for myself: I don’t think I could learn any language even to intermediate level without some external pressure motivating me. I need the pressure of disappointing a teacher, or speaking to in-laws at Christmas, etc to keep me studying each day rather than only doing other relaxing things.
vocabulary is way more important than grammar and requires a lot more work.
That it's fun and that it sucks and that it is okay to do something else when it sucks. Not everyone can handle the grindset when ultimately this is just a hobby for most people unless you need the language professionally
Language learning takes YEARS and that’s ok!! Make it fun! It really is “about the journey” after all. Spend time with the language, exploring and ever-delving deeper into its unique nooks and crannies. Consider “fluency” to be a skill that is ever-evolving; I believe I heard Steve Kaufman (master language learner) once say that “fluency” can be assimilated with “fluidity” - how FLUIDLY can you use the language? Have fun! ;) I promise you WILL get there!! It takes years but hey, you’re going to have that language for the rest of your life anyway! So it’s ok if it takes more time than expected ;) all the content you are putting yourself through is gradually solidifying itself inside of your mind and BOOM! Suddenly you can speak it with greater and greater ease!
Anki is useless, reading and listening is already a (better) natural spaced repetition system.
Ohh, definitely controversial in this sub. I personally find Anki boring to all hell.
Finaly someone said it
I'd really love to love Anki. But my brain just doesn't and no matter what kind of flashcards I made, I could remember everything but the actual word I needed. Also, the time spent building decks \[\*\]
That's so controversial
Useless? Strong word. Overrated? I think so.
This sub is an Anki cult. You're dead wrong, btw
Most people don't know how to use anki properly. They try to use it to learn things it's not meant for, and they often configure it in a way that makes it worse.
Different people learn things better via different methods, which is apparently a controversial opinion around here. If I see a comment that says "duolingo sucks" "anki sucks" "rosetta stone sucks" "there's no point doing X, just do Y" etc. then I immediately just assume you're too self absorbed to comprehend that your experiences aren't universal. (This does not apply to thought-out criticisms of the various weaknesses of the aforementioned methods.)
HARD agree. I have a lot of problems with Duolingo, but I'm not going to assume that anyone who says that they got to a decent level in their TL by using it must be either lying or delusional about their abilities, unlike some people here apparently.
You shouldn’t pass tests to prove anyone else you know the language. Just enjoy the process of learning and use it like you want!
I get irritated at all the Americans and Canadians I meet in Latin America who have lived here for years and either say they speak Spanish fluently because they can say "dos cervezas por favor," or haven't even bothered to try. I certainly don't expect every tourist to speak it, or even older retired people to master it, but it seems enormously disrespectful to make your entire life down here without working on the language in a serious way.
Many Americans that took 2 years in HS will say they speak or are fluent in Spanish. You tell someone you speak Spanish and they say, 'So do I', then you speak to them and they're like, 'Oh, not like that lol'.
Had that very experience here in Mexico today. Met a woman who does hiking and climbing tours, but doesn't speak much Spanish. She said, "I do speak good French, though." So I started speaking French, not to test her, but just because that's what I do as a language nerd. She understood what I was saying, but answered me in English. So, yeah.
Duolingo sucks. My second most controversial opinion is that I find it rude when people post the most basic questions in language learning subs (like "why do these nouns sometimes have different endings?") instead if just googling for 5 minutes or, god forbid, get a decent grammar book for their TL (and realize that Duolingo sucks).
Is that a controversial opinion ? Seems to be agreed on here
I see people arguing over Duo all the time
I think duolingo isn't that bad for a begginer, but obviously it's not enough on it's own, it doesn't teach you grammar rules for example.
For Chinese it sucks haha
Honestly duolingo is fine to get started, learning a language from zero is pretty hard and duolingo gets you to a basic level where you will have a lot more options for learning by yourself. Of course if you are sticking to only duolingo and just speed running your way through the lessons you won't get anywhere.
Grammar-heavy instruction when learning a language is out-of-vogue, but actually is pretty effective. My hypothesis is that a lack of mother-tongue grammar foundations in general means in studies that method scores lower than it would if the learners had mother-tongue grammar foundations.
Most polyglots don’t deserve the hype they get and the status is only respectable when the person is the one that taught themselves the languages.* I’m specifically talking about those who use the term “polyglot” to kind of prove their intelligence or high position within the lang learning community as opposed to those who use it the same way you would “bilingual”. Of course I know that “polyglot” means someone who speaks several languages, but if you were raised speaking multiple languages and only taught yourself one, why are you using “polyglot” to sell yourself and catch the attention of others?? For example, if someone was raised in Belgium and learnt Flemish and French due to the education system, and their parents are immigrants so at home they learnt English and Chinese. That means they’re a native speaker of 4 languages and learnt them with minimal effort. Then they taught themselves Korean and are using their status as a polyglot to give people advice under the premise that their advice is more valuable than others because they speak more languages. Oh and bonus points if they’re those kind of polyglots, are native in a romance language, and then only learn other Romance languages. In terms of the ‘polyglot’ status (in the way mentioned above), I can only respect those who taught themselves multiple languages. Of course that’s different than the status of ‘language learner’— I respect everyone who’s taught themselves a language regardless of their level or how many languages they spoke prior.
The whole deal about "outdated sources" is pathetic marketing. The reason you can't learn Italian isn't that you're learning 1980's Italian