Mine would be,
A language app that helps you become fluent using content YOU love.
How about you?
Mine would be,
A language app that helps you become fluent using content YOU love.
How about you?
A language app that lets you in but never let you out with underhanded marketing. Just kidding. A little bit banter.
On a serious note, it has been 6 months. For sure, I have not achieved real fluency that I can claim If I am either speaking or writing fluently. However, when it comes to improving listening and reading abilities in German, I detected a little bit of improvement in terms of comprehending the language. Again, I have not read 2 million words as of yet so I reserve my judgment.
A language app that helps me not to feel alienated in times of a pandemic lockdown. It has been a good companion, so to speak.
Hi, Eric!
I would describe LingQ as follows:
LingQ is a flexible audio reader platform that allows autonomous learners to control the content and be more successful in learning a language!
In other words, entertainment, fun, interest, etc. are nice-to-haves, not must-haves. But making progress as an autonomous learner because you are able to control the content you digest is a necessity! This also means that successful learners are not addicted to fun, comfort, entertainment, and so on. They do whatever it takes to be successful ā¦
Or, if someone prefers catchy slogans without the addiction to fun and comfort
Have a nice weekend
Peter
A significant part of my life in the last decade - LOL
A daily priority goal
A tool that makes reading in a foreign language much easier, and allows one to comprehend content that would normally be out of reach.
I wouldnāt be able to read Game of Thrones in Portuguese without lingq. Itās ~15% unknown words which would make it a nightmare, but with lingq itās not a problem. Allowing me to tackle more difficult content and get to the interesting stuff much quicker than normal.
āDuolingoās annihilator (even though they didnāt need your help)ā
Yes, something like:
LingQ = Owl Eater.
RIP Duolingo Owl
.
Duolingo makes no sense to me, Iām glad I stopped using it. The only useful thing is the forum but then again, thereās other sites like HiNative to ask questions. Other than that, they just ask us to put words in the right order and translate (weird) sentences over and over again, and they have a premium subscription for that
I think that the best thing to do and what I tell everyone is to get subbed to the shortest Babbel sub in order to get the basics of grammar and stuff, then switch to LingQ. Being subbed to Babbel longer would be completely useless since after completing all the grammar main courses, the rest of the courses is just a bunch of vocabulary. Besides, although their grammar courses are amazing, their marketing sucks. They make us all pay the same price even though Spanish is available up to advanced while Swedish has been stuck at pre-intermediate for more than a year. Then, the rest of the courses is just a bunch of vocabulary. Iām glad I was able to grasp a one free month promo code and that month was more than enough.
TLDR: I think Duolingo is a bad version of Babbel and they both end up making us stagnate after a while.
Hi, Leoutre!
Yes, I agree. Duolingo is highly problematic for language learning.
"and they have a premium subscription for that "
Yes, when I saw this for the first time, I couldnāt stop laughing, because if the free version is already an educational messā¦ Youāre probably just paying for the good intention of Duolingoās founders (āfree language learning for the massesā). But, as we all know: āThe road to hell is paved with good intentionsā (even more so if you donāt know what youāre doing)
Babbel or (in my case) Busuu
Short grammar lessons as a complement to a massive immersion / exposure approach can be quite useful.
But, I wouldnāt start with explicit grammar instruction in second language acquisition over an extended period of time because we know from the translation-grammar (TG) approach in classical and modern languages that it tends to produce good grammarians, but not competent language users, i.e. good listeners, speakers, readers and writers.
At the (absolute) beginner stage (= the warm-up phase), a soft approach to grammar Ć la Michel Thomas or the Thinking Method (The Thinking Method Guidebook ā Language Transfer), introducing some basic syntactic patterns of the target language, is sufficient.
Have a nice Sunday
Peter
Hi there.
I have heard this criticism often, but I just do not get it. Duolingo is not about rearranging words in a certain order. That only happens if you chose to use it that way, using the word bank that can be easily deactivated. You can choose to deactivate it, so you have to type the whole sentence by yourself.
So basically it is a flashcard system, but with sentences, not with words. This allows a beginner to practice A1-A2 level active output and thus learn the grammar and vocabulary of that level, for free.
A language GPS that allows us to explore languages without (level) limits
Hello Peter,
I think one of the strongest features of Duolingo is that it is not a word-by-word translation process, and that it does allow to learn collocations. This is the difference between Duolingo (sentence flashcards) and other flashcard platforms (focused on words).
At least that has been my experience with the courses I took there, although admittedly they are not all of the same quality.
If you can only use a single tool for language learning, then LingQ is the best available.
Exactly!
Hi, jokojoko83!
I just checked my Duolingo languages (Spanish, French, Japanese and Latin) to see if anything has changed since I last visited about 2 years ago.
You are right, we need to be more precise here. What I meant to say is that Duolingo tries to teach you some basic vocabulary (mostly words, sometimes groups of words) that is often embedded in sentences about a specific topic (places, people, at home, at work, etc.). But they still highlight many āsingle wordsā that you have to translate within a sentence or without a sentence.
However, the main criticism remains: It is still a āpoor or inferiorā approach to learning an L2 because it fails in all four dimensions that are important for communication:
Speaking: Yes, you can repeat the words/phrases of the translation exercises like a parrot, but almost all learners who rely only on Duolingo would probably collapse in a short conversation with a native speaker.
Even the Duolingo guys themselves have failed in this regard:
āAfter six months of studying French with Duolingo, von Ahn demonstrated a lack of basic verb tenses when asked to describe his weekend in French, āmangling his tenses.ā Bob Meese, Duolingoās chief revenue officer, did not immediately understand the spoken question āĀæHablas espaƱol?ā after six months of Duolingo Spanish study.ā Duolingo - Wikipedia (highlighting by me).
Writing: I doubt that a learner who relies only on Duolingo for language learning is even capable of writing a short email of 10 sentences , for example, to a fictitious friend.
Grammar: Even Duolingoās grammar explanations are too superficial to be of much use.
In sum:
BTW: Free and useless is still useless
The Swiss Army Knife of language learning tools.
Although āCanadianā might be more accurate.
Hello Peter,
You have raised many interesting and valid points, especially about unconscious biases in my opinion.
Nevertheless, I do not think all of them are valid, allow me to explain.
Part of the critic is that Duolingo is āincompleteā. For example, Speaking and Listening are almost non-existent, clearly insufficient at any rate.
However I do not see how that invalidates any tool. It just means that the tool needs to be complemented. The same criticism could be made of almost any other tool, expect perhaps full immersion. For instance Lingqās active output tools are rather incomplete. I do not judge this to be a shortcoming, instead I think Lingq is the best programm at the core value it offers: helping users process passive input.
Just as I would not judge Lingq bad just because it does not include all possible aspects or features of language learning, I would not judge Duo (or any other tool) bad just because it is incomplete.
With respect to points 2 and 3, I am sure we can all gather anecdotal evidence of people failing with different methods. I only know thoroughly my own case. I learnt Russian (imperfectly) with Duolingo and I could communicate (admittedly rather poorly) with my Russian speaking relatives (mother-in-law, sister-in-law). Then I started using Lingqās ministories and enjoyed the ride ever since, certainly Lingq is better and it can potentially help you up to any level (including C2) way beyond any other tool.
Regarding writing and grammar, I thoroughly disagree. Those are the strongest features I think, that you get with Duolingo. You have to write sentences in a gramatically correct manner all the time, it is basically all you do.
Letās see about grammar. I think it is one of the best tools to practice grammar at A1-A2 level. I think this is the part where we differ the most. Let me elaborate.
Duolingo does not offer (almost) any grammar explanation. It just offers grammar practice. Again, this does not make it bad, just incomplete. They are supposed to be complemented.
By translating sentences you get grammar practice of several kinds at the same time: - morphological exercises (important in languages with declension or complex verbal systems), - syntaxis (especially important in languages with rigid word order), - different grammar structures of the sentence, in the cases where both languages tackle something in a different manner.
Examples from the French from Chinese course:
ä½ ä»¬å°ä¼åē½č”čé
é
ęµ·é²ć
ęęęÆļ¼ Vous boirez du vin blanc avec les fruits de mer.
Jāai achetĆ© une commode avec dix tiroirs.
ęęęÆļ¼ ęä¹°äŗäøäøŖęåäøŖę½å±ēęęć
大å¦ē们éåøøé«å
“č½č·ēčæåčåøå¦ä¹ ć
ęęęÆļ¼ Les Ć©tudiants ont Ć©tĆ© trĆØs heureux dāĆ©tudier avec cette professeur.
Tu dois cliquer avec la souris.
ęęęÆļ¼ ä½ åŗčÆ„ēØé¼ ę ē¹å»ć
Nous avons tous nos amis avec nous.
ęęęÆļ¼ ę们ęę们ęęēęååØčŗ«č¾¹ć
Je garde mon sac avec moi.
ęęęÆļ¼ ęęęēå
ēåØčŗ«äøć
Je regarde la tƩlƩ avec une grosse couverture.
ęęęÆļ¼ ęēēäøę”åč¢«åēēµč§ć
ęØę³č¦åę们äøčµ·å»åļ¼
ęęęÆļ¼ Voudriez-vous venir avec nous ?
I can provide more examples, but as anyone can see you never get a simple explanation of the word āavecā in this course. Instead, you are forced to learn that prepositions are actually similar to verbs in Chinese, you are forced to break down the functions that have collapsed into French āavecā (company, instrumental, etc) and use them in Chinese in a context-sensitive manner (just by translating the instrumental meaning of āavecā you get different translations, depending on how you use that specific object). This goes beyond practicing syntax and morphology, you need to restructure the sentence quite dramatically. I think this shows how Duolingo beats any (word) flashcard active-output system.
Regarding semantics: by translating sentences you certainly lack a broader context. Nevertheless the words are not presented in an isolated fashion, and the rest of words of the sentence provide enough context to choose which way you have to translate a specific word.
Examples:
Ich sitze am Steuer.
ŠŠµŃŠµŠ²Š¾Š“: ŠÆ ŃŠøŠ¶Ń Š·Š° ŃŃŠ»ŃŠ¼.
Ihm wurde geschrieben, dass er Steuern bezahlen muss. ā ŠŠ¼Ń Š½Š°ŠæŠøŃŠ°Š»Šø, ŃŃŠ¾ Š¾Š½ Š“Š¾Š»Š¶ŠµŠ½ ŃŠæŠ»Š°ŃŠøŃŃ Š½Š°Š»Š¾Š³Šø.
So you do not learn a one-to-one translation of āSteuerā, but you figure it out by context. The rest of the sentence is enough context to know when german āSteuerā is the steering wheel or the taxes.
Finally I am not sure whether collocations should be classified as a grammar or a semantic issue, but it is another of the strong points of Duo.
When translating a fairly simple sentence from Russian to German:
Wovon hƤngt das ab?
ŠŠµŃŠµŠ²Š¾Š“: ŠŃ ŃŠµŠ³Š¾ ŃŃŠ¾ Š·Š°Š²ŠøŃŠøŃ?
You not only learn the collocation of āabhƤngenā with āvonā, as well as the collocation of Š·Š°Š²ŠøŃŠøŃŃ and Š¾Ń; but you also practice the verbal conjugation and the declension of a pronoun.
**
In short, by translating each sentence, you practice active output tackling several grammar and semantic aspects:
Within A1-A2 level.
It is almost devoid of any Speaking / Listening value. Its content does not go further into B / C levels.
So I think it is incomplete, but very good at what it does provide.
Hi, Jokojoko83!
Unfortunately, the forum software doesnāt allow me to reply directly to your last comment, so I have to reply to my own last comment.
Anyway, regarding your points:
In other words, thereās a reason why, esp. in the West, there was a ācommunicative turnā in language teaching / learning in the 1980s, and why the grammar-translation approach was shunned. We shouldnāt behave in the digital world as if this communicative turn didnāt happen in the analog world before
āwe can all gather anecdotal evidence of people failing with different methodsā
Itās not simply āanecdotalā evidence that grammar-translation or a grammar-first/grammar-heavy method fail in communicative situations. This has been a constant theme in second language acquisition (SLA) research since the 1970s, especially since Krashen.
Again, this doesnāt rule out explicit grammar or translation exercises once and for all. It just means that the main focus should be on permanent and massive immersion/exposure (this, by the way, is also the main reason why bilingual teaching works so well in SLA in schools!).
Writing
Duoās main problem here is still its āa-communicationā and āa-contextualityā.
My point in this context is: Short deliberate practices on some topics of interest and relevance to a learner with (immediate) feedback from native speakers are far superior to Duoās a-contextual and a-communicative grammar translation exercises.
Co-textual information by embedding individual words in sentence structures isnāt enough because language learners need much more in oral and written communication, e.g. discourse markers / connectors, opening and closing structures, knowledge of the appropriate degree of formality / informality, etc.
As I said, take someone who has learned an L2 only with Duo (say after 12 months) and have them write a text of 10-15 sentences on any topic. The results will probably be pretty ādepressingā
Hm, thinking about it: My sister has been learning Spanish with Duo for more than two yearsā¦
In short:
Deliberate writing practices are great if you have a concrete communication situation, enough context and almost immediate feedback by native speakers. This is exactly where Busuu shines and Duo fails!
a) Are beginners using only Duoās grammar translation exercises really able to understand, for example, the subjunctive in Romance languages like French or Spanish without massive immersion and/or excellent grammar explanations?
Iām not sure, having already studied both Romance languages in university, but I really doubt it. Most would probably not even know what I mean by subjunctive
b) In general: Grammar(-translation) drills without communication situations, context, relevant topics, discourse markers, native speaker feedback mechanisms, etc. are probably only of āveryā limited use.
c) The a-contextuality / a-communication of Duoās drill structures also has a negative effect on language learnersā memory function, as itās very difficult to remember things, esp. frequent collocations, without the contextual and communicative embedding.
Have a nice day
Peter
An effective and motivating language app centered on gaining vocabulary through reading.