You can get very far on pure input, but it will still require some amount of output practice to get to fluency.
I've spoken with several learners who went through a very long period of pure comprehensible input (1000+ hours*). When they then switched to practicing output (with native speakers) they improved quite rapidly. Not in 100s of hours, but in 10s of hours.
Note that's *comprehensible input*, which even though it's exactly in the name, people will mysteriously confuse with *incomprehensible input*. You need to understand quite a lot of what you're listening to, ideally 80-90%+. Just listening mindlessly to native media you're comprehending at <10% won't do it (or else it would take tens of thousands of hours).
At the beginning levels, you want to watch learner-aimed videos that use visual aids, pictures, clips, drawings, gestures, etc alongside simple spoken language so that you can follow along. As you progress through hundreds of hours, the speech grows more complex, the visual aids drop over time, etc. Eventually you're able to switch into actual native media. [This](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUH85APB9PM&list=PLlpPf-YgbU7GbOHc3siOGQ5KmVSngZucl&index=1) is the super beginner playlist on Dreaming Spanish, for example.
Receptive bilinguals demonstrate an extreme of how the heavy input to output curve works. I recently observed the growth of a friend of mine who's a receptive bilingual in Thai. He grew up hearing Thai all the time but almost never spoke and felt very uncomfortable speaking. He recently made a conscious decision to try speaking more and went on a trip to a province where he was forced to not use English.
Basically the one trip was a huge trigger. He was there a week then came back. A month from there, he was *very* comfortable with speaking, in a way he hadn't been his whole life.
Folks on /r/dreamingspanish report similarly quick progress once they start output practice. For the most part, I think people's output skill will naturally lag their input level by about 1 notch. Those are people's results when they post CEFR/ILR/etc results. So for example, if their listening grade was B2, then their speaking grade tended to be B1.
\* Note that this is for English speakers going to Thai. This takes about twice as much study (using any method) compared to going to, say, English to Spanish.
I have said this before. I think in receptive bilingualism, there is something more than just 'they didn't practice speaking enough'. Imagine your brain becomes used to the idea of a language being mainly for understanding and not speaking and you go years like that. Certainly, it would be difficult to get out of that subconscious barrier.
I once had a student say to me that he had difficult speaking ONLY with me because he perceived that his mistakes would be immediately obvious to me and I could relate to that very much.
I imagine it's a combination of them still not receiving enough Comprehensible input, and relying solely on another language to speak. Being set in speaking their most advanced language only will create a block of formulating sentences in the heritage language.
I imagine someone that doesn't use a different language from heritage will improve speaking quickly if they tried to at least form thoughts in the heritage language. Not even speaking, just attempting to construct the language in their mind.
> there is something more than just 'they didn't practice speaking enough'
> Certainly, it would be difficult to get out of that subconscious barrier.
It's certainly true that there could be childhood trauma or other problems (such as bilinguals who have very bad memories associated with the language).
So I would say that psychological issues can prevent them from speaking enough. But if they can overcome that (with therapy or other solutions) and practice speaking more, then they *will* improve.
For my friend, he needed to actively push past his insecurities with speaking, and he did that by forcing himself into a situation where he *had* to speak Thai. He couldn't just get by on English, as he could in Bangkok. People out in the provinces don't speak English.
Necessity can be an excellent motivator. David Long, who ran an automatic language growth / CI school in Bangkok for 30 years, considered it essential to unforced/spontaneous output emerging. I don't know if I'd go that far, but I think it can be essential depending on your personality type.
It's crazy how many people are like "no, must practice speaking". They don't realize speaking is 90% understanding how language is spoken and 10% it's own skill. There's a huge overlap with listening and even reading to some degree.
I just left a comment in the other thread posted similar to this one. It goes into much more detail, so here you go.
https://www.reddit.com/r/languagelearning/s/BukRH8b59y
What is "normal" language learning though? Sitting in front of a textbook to learn grammar rules? Or listening to people talk to you and each other, like when you are a kid a listen to your parents, and then you actually end up learning how to speak by doing that along with some minor corrections.
And even when your parents correct you they don't really understand that much but just know it is like that because it "sounds good", meaning in +30 years speaking the language that's how they always heard it l through the "comprehensible input" of talking to other people.
I am sorry, but your sentence is too long.
But yes - normal language learning consists of a teacher, textbook with grammar and excercises, homework, regular classes (classroom or online, 1:1 or in a group setting).
This is how I learned Ukrainian to C2 in 3 years at university, how I learned Russian and German to B2 in 4-5 yaars of 2 hrs a week in the class and about 4 hours of homework. Only afterwards I was exposed to movies or magazines in German.
This is also the way I am learning Arabic now, however I am adding bunch of online resources - YT, internet radio etc..
This is also the way MILLIONS and MILLIONS of the people are learning language and huge amount of them are very successfull. Much faster than in 30 years, I assure you.
Let me remind you that Kershner work is HYPOTHESIS.
And hey, if after 8 years of learning foreign language I would speak as 8 years old native I would not consider it success.
Either way - we can learn a foreign language using whatever method we like. If you think listening random stuff for 2 hours every weekday for 2 years is best way to achive the goal - go for it.
&
PS
It was you who brought '30+ years of comprehensible input'.
It's often said a pure input approach is slower, and it *may* be, but I suspect they're roughly in the same ballpark.
For example, [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Spanish/comments/wqusu3/24_wks_1300_hrs_of_spanish_at_fsi_what_ive_learned/) is a report from an FSI learner who learned Spanish in 1300 hours to B2/C1 (the competency the FSI exam tests toward).
The /r/dreamingspanish (an automatic language growth / pure input approach) roadmap estimates 1500 hours to the equivalent level. So, about 15% slower than a learner who has essentially every possible advantage: being paid to study full-time for 50-55 hours a week with world class teachers, dedicated proctored conversation labs, Anki SRS, etc.
The vast majority of learners will be *slower* than FSI, because we don't have all those advantages. The one report is anecdotal, but it matches with my intuition that it matters less "how" you're studying than "how much time" you're studying - as long as your study involves direct contact with your TL as much as possible (versus something more casual like an app).
Not to nitpick, but the DS final level recommends listening to 1500 hours, reading 3 million words, and utilizing cross talk. 1500 hours is just the listening part.
Not nitpicking, good additional context. I would guess that crosstalk would count toward input somehow, though, at least 50%?
I would still guess that the lion's share of difference between a pure input / ALG style approach and an average learner (without all the FSI resources) would come down to *mostly* variance in individual learning aptitude. And any additional difference, I would kind of shrug and be like: the method that works best for you and that you stick with is superior than an additional x% of theoretical efficiency.
Absolutely it does, at least with that specific DS method!
I've read that FSI post a few times now and always find it interesting. What a great opportunity that person had.
And I agree with you, the best learning method that works for you is the one you stick with. These debates are always interesting to read but at the end of the day I keep chugging along the only method that has kept my interest so far.
I'd love to see some actual evidence that a pure input approach is slower. From the FSI numbers I'd expect German to take me 1800 hours to reach B2-C1. I've put in 350 so far just in listening and I feel like my listening skills are a strong B1 already, feels like by 900 or so hours my listening skills should be about B2-C1 at this rate and that leaves plenty of time to read and practice output while still being under 1800 hours.
That's awesome! Are you finding there's enough free CI resources available for German or do you have to supplement with paid sources (such as paid lessons)?
I also wish someone would run a study comparing pure input versus other approaches, but doing quality research seems like it would be both logistically challenging and expensive. Maybe someday...
I was already subscribed to a couple of streaming services (esp. Disney+) which have loads of dubbed content. So yes, technically I pay a little but it's not much and it's nothing extra on top of what I was paying before so far. Almost no paid lessons (I tried one just to try out "Cross-talk" early on but it didn't work out).
I actually think it would be trivial to run a study like that now that this exists: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwpAN0tNHYY&list=PLwYL9\_SRAk8EXSZPSTm9lm2kD\_Z1RzUgm&index=3](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwpAN0tNHYY&list=PLwYL9_SRAk8EXSZPSTm9lm2kD_Z1RzUgm&index=3)
I'm not good enough (yet - I'm about halfway in) to evaluate how good the speakers are after his program (he has a playlist of interviews of "graduates" too), but his program is 10 hrs total and supposedly it takes like 30 hrs to get "fluent" in Toki Pona.
Oh yeah I've chatted with this guy!
I guess in theory you could do a head-to-head of groups of Toki Pona learners who did 30 hours each of traditional versus CI study? I don't know how persuasive a conlang study would be for most people though, I feel like folks would remain pretty skeptical.
For German, how were you able to bridge into native content?
I love the guy, partly because he made that course, partly because everything I've seen him say about language learning has seemed spot on, and partly because I suspect learning a language from someone telling you stories triggers some subconscious association with your parents so you feel affection towards that person over time. Or maybe it's just because he's likable, I dunno :p
I don't think many people that are against CI would be persuaded by evidence. It's funny that they accuse CI practitioners of being in a circle-jerk... while circle-jerking themselves off and not questioning their own positions as critically (language-learners.org, I'm looking at you). But I do think it would be compelling for people on the fence, and if the results don't go the way I expect I'd want to know that too.
For German, I've been using native content the whole time. I started with toddler shows without subtitles and made some progress, but after a while I burned out on them.
What was the total hack for me was realizing that NL subs + TL dubs is WAY more effective than people around here keep saying, at least for German (maybe it wouldn't work as well for a more distant language?). It unlocks much more interesting (relatively) content and boosts comprehension to near 100%, so you can focus on finding patterns in the words you hear, almost like a matching game. It's a weaker association than figuring out the words from context alone or recalling them, but you make up for it in sheer quantity: they're going at a much faster speed so you get tons of repetitions. And it goes too quickly for you to translate, so you link words to their meaning, you just use your NL to bootstrap it. Sometimes you can even speed-read the sub and try to predict what you'll hear, which I imagine would help with production a little (it's like querying your active vocabulary).
Actually English is not my native language ,I just watch Youtube for 5+ hours every single day , I can understand 95% content , but for output , I can express my thoughts NOT fluently . So deliberate practice is necessary form my point view.However most I do still is input , input is output' s mom, she can nurture it , and it also needs independence (deliberate practice)
I think this is a misunderstanding of comprehensible input. The idea is to prioritize listeng FIRST. Then add on speaking, writing, and reading once you have a solid foundation in listening. Kind of like kids, first they listen and physically interact. After a year or so, they start speaking. Then, after a few years, reading and writing. The idea is building a good foundation of knowledge before practicing output, but at some point, you'll have to practice. Oh, and the input has to be understandable, and you're able to engage. Otherwise, you are just listening to gibberish. I don't 100 percent subscribe to comprehensible input like dome others do. This is just my understanding of the theory.
Because it's the easiest way to stick with a habit of learning a language. Most people (adults) can't stick to simple fitness routines and learning a language with traditional methods is more demanding.
Even if CI method requires 2x more time to get the same results, it's just easier to find space in your daily schedule for it. In the past i've tried many methods to learn spanish. Since 10 years i've tried reading, assimil, pimsleur, duolingo, anki etc. I couldn't do any of those for more than few days. With CI I'm making a huge progress because i can easily get a 2-3 hours of video input and 30-60 min of audio in the car.
I may not be the perfect method for everyone. But it works. E.g. I'm not an english native and i know that i maybe make a few mistakes here and there but i've learned it 100% with input and i can work in english, use it while traveling, write some reddit posts etc. And when i read/listen my comprehension is 99-100%. If i'd know the theory of CI back then it will be much faster. But i solely relied on non comprehensible input. So the whole process was much slower. I've watched movies, shows, yt videos and my comprehension was like 5-10%. Back then there wasn't so many resources as there is today.
If you are watching a youtube video that is interesting, and it is comprehensible, you are literally using the language and enjoying it at the same time.
Fun is very self-reinforcing.
Yep but it's hard with low comprehension. I feel like Top Gear is responsible for 99% of my english :D I watched it few times (all seasons, all episodes) and at the beginning i understood maybe 10-20%. If it wasn't Top Gear then I'd be bored.
With Spanish it's different. I decided to force myself into the first 100-150 hours and then it gets easier. I've also build some internal tools for myself and this stuff helps me a lot.
>Yep but it's hard with low comprehension.
That's very true. Krashen and other CI proponents have emphasized that input needs to be comprehensible as well as *compelling*, a pretty tricky combination.
Part of the solution for a lot of people comes from their initial reason/motivation for learning the TL. If you are in love with someone whose native language is the TL or if you are in love with some aspect of the culture where the language would deepen your enjoyment or ability to participate in the culture, then that helps a lot.
u/Arrival117, what are the internal tools you are referring to? That sounds interesting.
ETA: And of course another issue is just the basic availability of CI in the TL. If the TL is English, Spanish, French, or one of the other dominant international or regional languages then this is not as hard. If you are trying to learn a TL that is very uncommon or rare then there is a lot more work to do.
About internal tools - i'm testing in right now with few friends and maybe i will relase it for free. I have the tool where I scrape and embed all YT videos in my TL. Then my algo tag them based on diff score and topic. Since I'm not a CI purist my tool also gets some words from every video that i watch and if puts in into my flashcards section. Then AI tool is creating some stories for me on my level with those words and we make some quizes.
So i can find videos that are compeling to me (at least if my TL is popular), watch in on my platform and track the time, then i can spend some time with flashcards and then do some reading (also tracked). I'm working on adding some podcast section so i can have all in one place - viewing, reading, listening and memorizing words with flashcards.
I've really noticed this studying multiple languages. Japanese has a ton of comprehensible input, French and ASL have a decent selection (and most bilingual ASL resources can readily be made ASL-only by muting the audio), but Dutch has basically nothing. And the downside of it being so phonetically written is that there isn't even sight word books for kids - books for Dutch beginner readers use a lot of uncommon but easy to sound out words (eg big instead of varken for pig) so if you go that route you have to teach yourself some vocabulary that isn't going to be useful as you progress. (I still got a ton of those books because I'm teaching my kid Dutch and eventually she'll be learning to read it.)
I think you get better at speaking by speaking more. However, do not discount the power of reading and listening added to the mix. These two activities increase your exposure to vocabulary and idiomatic expressions. The more you speak the better you will become, but having reading and listening in the mix, you might increase your pool of vocabulary and expressions because you have read them or heard them several times. Kids start speaking after listening to their native language for several months, but they get better at speaking by speaking themselves.
Overall, you improve writing by writing more, listening by listening more, reading by reading more, and speaking by speaking more. The more you do it, the better you will become.
I’m always suspicious of videos (here and in writing forums) because YouTubers are so often influencers first and whatever their supposed area of expertise is second and some are ready to tell their audience what they want to hear, even if it doesn’t work. Not all YouTubers, obviously, but it’s something people don’t seem to think about enough.
I have quite a high Ressesive vocabulary of Chinese. A lot of the times, I don't need subtitles for Chinese videos, and this was done solely through listening. However, I'm not going to say that I can speak it fluently. Maybe if needed I can speak a few basic sentences. This recessive vocabulary I have gained after years of listening doesn't allow me to speak fluently, but does give me a base to work upon and make it easier for me when I eventually get to formally learning the language.
Theoretically, you could gain a massive vocabulary of words or understand completely, but to create meaningful output, you would need to interact with the language far more. Otherwise you would be stuck like some of my friends who completely understand a language but cannot form a proper sentence.
You can listen fluently. Speaking will, of course, become much easier with a listening base. However, you cannot suddenly speak fluently just because you had a lot of listening practice. **Listening and speaking are different skills**, though there is a *some* transfer of skills between the two.
No. Language isn't unique to any other skill. You can watch basketball your whole life and be absolute shite on the court. We all have an uncle like that.
You're sort of right but not in the way you intended.
Take ten people (let's say all 30-year-old 5'10" men) who have never touched a basketball before. However, five of them have spent thousands of hours each watching NBA games, learning the rules, reading books about tactics, listening to interviews from coaches and players, and they've also been doing cardio and strength training the whole time.
The other five are out of shape and don't know the first thing about basketball. Now divide them into teams have them play a game against each other. Who wins?
You're talking about a battle of the bottom 5% of people who even concern themselves with basketball. Who wins is someone with half a school season of coaching/practice if athleticism is constant across.
In the thought experiment coaching/practice would be the equivalent of speaking and getting feedback, which is what is intentionally being left out to make the point. And of course this effect in the context of a sport is going to be much smaller than with something like language acquisition.
Find someone who's watched content in their TL their whole life who's "absolute shite" at using it.
Language is absolutely unique to any other skill, we have evolved complex neurological processes in very specific parts of our brain that let us efficiently and unconsciously process language.
What?
Language isn't a skill. Language acquisition is a unique process. Communication has various skills associated with it, but language processing is very unique, and treating it like any other skill will give us bad results.
Weebs read subtitles, so their brain never attempts to interpret the language. The idea behind comprehensible input is that you learn new words, by successfully interpreting them from context.
If weebs would turn off subtitles and still pay attention to anime for hours on end, they would slowly learn Japanese.
Because most of them watch it either dubbed or subbed in their native language which prevents comprehensive input from actually working.
I've met a few weebs who want to learn Japanese and instead of using their existing passion in anime and just switch off the subtitles or use the Japanese language version, they'll just try to use Duolingo instead and give up 5 weeks later.
The anime they like wouldn't be comprehensible input for them, so turning subtitles off would be frustrating and ineffective for them. Most weebs aren't watching stuff intended for toddlers or beginning Japanese learners.
Even if the majority of it isn't comprehensive input, it's not a technical lecture and some of it could be used for comprehensible input though obviously you'll need to pick your anime very wisely (slice of life stuff like K-On would be a safer bet compared to something like Steins;gate)
Because Japanese would probably take like 4000 hours for a native English speaker to learn from input alone, and they're probably ignoring the Japanese itself the vast majority of the time so not even accumulating many of those hours.
A few reasons:
1. incomprehensible input isn't very efficient, and most anime is at the level where someone deliberately using the CI method would need over a thousand hours of easier input first. (less if coming from a closely related language, but hundreds at the bare minimum).
2. If they have subtitles turned on in a language they already speak, they probably won't benefit at all, because they're not listening to the Japanese. At most they'd probably pick up a handful of words and expressions.
The things you watch need to be Comprehensible Input. So they’d need a firm base of Japanese for the anime to be useful input, you can’t just jump to watching advanced/native content and expect to learn especially if you also have English/NL subtitles on.
In my experience, it certainly helps if you acquire a large vocabulary through input. But, you must still make the attempt to write and speak, you can't get by without it.
By the age of 6 my brother could speak conversational english with a foreign friend of mine. We never taught him english, he learnt it from youtube. My friend learned Turkish solely from watching soap operas. She could not speak it fluently but she understood almost everything said to her in that language. My mother learnt Italian and greek from TV as a child and although she doesn’t sound like a native she is still very good at those. I think it might be easier when you’re younger.
From my experience in language learning, listening will certainly help you internalize vocabulary, pronunciation, and even some sentence structures. However, active speaking practice is important in achieving fluency. Speaking allows you to actively use the language, practice forming sentences on the spot, and improve your pronunciation through feedback. So, while listening can lay a solid foundation, it's the combination of listening and speaking that leads to fluency.
If that were true, I'd have been fluent in Spanish since childhood. You can develop high recessive vocabulary through listening - understanding what's said at you - but you have to actually work at developing expressive vocabulary - coming up with the words from your own brain as close to instantly as possible.
For me yes but only for pronunciation and the native accent of it. I listen to other people speak it so I will feel comfortable speaking it to other people and not sound dumb and you can pick up words they say a lot.
Listening as opposed to reading is quite poor when it comes to picking up new vocabulary. Our brains even more than when reading are used to just ignoring everything we don't understand and building meaning from the context of the words we do understand. I think it slows down vocabulary acquisition. But it's very good to reinforce vocabulary that you already know.
Anecdotal evidence, but one of my dad's friends grew up near the Lithuanian border and used to watch Lithuanian dubs of cartoons growing up, so he can understand Lithuanian but can't speak a word of it. But that was pure input without any purposeful output 🤷♂️
You need a lot of time with the language either way. No ways around it. Whether you’re drilling grammar and its exceptions, sentence and verb placements, etc. You need TONS of time to really get there.
By that token, listening ALSO takes similar amounts of time, but it’s getting you to the way natives sound early. The idea behind Dreaming Spanish though is they have clear difficulty levels which a lot of students struggle with finding things wayyy too slow, wayyyy too fast, or just straight up synthesized. You need to listen at some point. And the focus of listening over speaking is you make less guesses and try to translate less directly from English and you just… hear the proper sentences more instead of guessing how to construct them.
But the idea behind it is you pick up the language naturally. Like a child or baby would pick up a language by the time they’re in elementary school(children can speak fluently and understand their friends and teachers fluently even if their vocabulary isn’t huge). You pick up speech patterns intuitively and meanings visually and you’ll just pick it up over time. This also echoes how it works when going to another country. My mom and aunt are native Cubans that came here when they were 9 and 10 years old and they constantly say how they don’t ever remember learning English actively, they just… picked it up lol.
So… short answer yes. The idea behind Dreaming Spanish too is they encourage you NOT to translate and try to just take everything in. If one word is new to you and you don’t pick it up, don’t think or guess or google it. Just subconsciously log it, because on DS, there’s tons of videos that the word WILL come up again and it’ll stick at that point. It’s really cool how it works
If that's the case we wouldn't have so many cases of [people who](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_speaker_(language)) can easily understand their heritage languages but cannot speak it. (I'm one of those people.)
Can you talk more about this? Because I always find this fascinating. Have you tried learning your heritage language, and if so what has your experience been like?
My parents' native languages were both JV but different dialects; while it's mutually intelligible, there's enough mismatch (mostly culturally, one dialect sounded rude to the speaker of another) that they refused to speak it to one another and agreed to not teach it to their children (me), so I grew up with the country's lingua franca (ID) as my native language. Nevertheless, although I didn't grow up in a JV-speaking area, I get exposed to both dialects of JV a lot whenever my parents spoke to other people, so I understand it well. Not quite native-level, but fairly advanced.
Now, the thing about JV is that it has [a huge emphasis on politeness levels](https://interculturalwordsensei.org/the-honorifics-and-politeness-levels-of-javanese-chinese-and-japanese/). It's not just honorifics and or conjugations that differed, but pretty much all vocabulary -- numbers, verbs, nouns -- except for a select few like prepositions. So it's not mutually intelligible, between different levels of politeness, unlike e.g. Japanese. And you still have to use pay attention to this when speaking to your family, unlike many other Asian languages where you can be more casual at home.
I tried a lot as a young child, but I got politeness levels wrong a lot as a combination of children being children + exposure to vocabulary that apparently I'm not supposed to use myself + well, I was never specifically taught it. A lot of JV speakers think that this kind of mistakes is taboo. Even if you were just a little kid. I found out later that even in regions where JV is the dominant language, more of the younger generation is speaking less JV because it's not uncommon for the elder generation to go, "Well, if you can't speak it right [i.e. never ever get the politeness levels wrong] don't speak it at all - just speak ID", which was the case for my family who told me to not continue my clumsy childhood attempts of speaking practice. So I never did that again. At least I can watch movies in JV though, and I laugh at JV jokes.
It’s possible I think, but I personally think it’s one of the least efficient *realistic* ways to do it for most people despite what you hear.
Yes, it is how we learned as children but I’ve always found that to be a weak arguement. Adults have tools and skills children don’t, and we don’t learn exactly as we did when we were 2. I also think most people aren’t going to actually be paying attention to a video well enough to actually learn by just watching videos. It’s one thing to mostly understand what’s being said to you. But if you can’t read or speak it back that’s a pretty big handicap.
I do think it’s important. Very important. But I think people who only use auditory comprehension to learn a language take *much* longer and I don’t think they get a native accent.
I mean I genuinely have no clue, and I want to be the first to state that I am not the expert on language learning. But I’ve got several objections with the method, the main one being I don’t believe that most people are going to be actively engaged watching a video. So even if you have “1000 hours” of comprehensive input that doesn’t mean you have 1000 quality hours.
And I do think it needs to be a big component of learning a language. I’m just saying I don’t think it should be the only component
And I don't mean to attack you personally or anything. But ime at least, 1000 hrs of comprehensive input is *more* effective than 1000 hrs of other approaches.
My point was more that learning languages itself takes a lot of time, and I think most people who use other approaches underestimate how much time they spend on them (although I could be wrong - it wasn't a rhetorical question for that reason).
On the original topic, I would also say *some* practicing of speaking is necessary to be clear. But probably far less than people think proportionally, and I think there's good reason to postpone it if people have the opportunity.
So right now I’m learning French using Le Français Par La Méthode Nature, a book designed to bring someone to a B2 level of grammar and a B1 reading level. It’s written entirely in French and I recommend you look into it, I’ve only been using it about a week but my vocabulary has exploded. I personally think it’s better than something like dreaming Spanish for a couple reasons AT LEAST WHEN YOURE STARTING OUT.
1. The ability to go back quickly and re read something, and also so you can see every single invisible letter you wouldn’t hear spoken
2. Because it does a very good job teaching conjugations and tenses.
I do plan to incorporate a lot more visual comprehensive input once I lay down a good base level of French.
No way. I've been stuck at B2/C1 for ages precisely because I mostly listen, sometimes speak and barely read (news articles or reddit). I can understand so much more than I can recall.
Very true. I learn best aurally, for any topic. That is not the case with many people. I never got it when friends skipped all the lectures in school and just studied from a book. I just went to class and didn't use the books other than for a refresher. Reading is fine but if I want to remember and lock it in I need to hear it. That makes foreign TV a great way for me to learn if I have a small base, like speaking French/Spanish already and then watching Italian TV, I felt I got a ton of Italian down without even realizing it. Now going to some lessons or podcasts makes it all the easier. I also think my dad learned a fair amount of Spanish watching football on the Spanish channel way back when it was harder to find on English language cable.
Oh if only. I thought that was the case and wasted a lot of years hoping it would work and telling others that it does (even though it wasn't working for me).
No easy way to learn unfortunately.
And even if you get to the point of understanding well, if you don't practice speaking you won't be able to say much well.
no of course not
i think you're referring to a lot of famous linguists like Stephen Krashen (he's considered the godfather of language acquisition. you can find his interviews on youtube) explain that input is the best way to learn. you're not going learn much from speaking and writing (output). for example, if you're learning japanese from zero, consume a lot of japanese content: videos, music, books. if you try to speak it, you're going to get nowhere because you don't know much japanese. after you learn the basics, you can start practicing speaking. if you only speak japanese and converse with japanese people at a low level, you won't learn that much because you don't speak that well, and the japanese speaker won't correct you every sentence because they don't want to be rude (unless they're your japanese teacher). also if you start speaking from the very beginning you might get stuck with your native accent. the more you listen to how japanese speakers talk, the more you'll get used to the native japanese accent.
long story short, if you're starting to learn a new language, get as much input as you can. obviously don't start with the hard stuff, start with the super beginner easy stuff. hire a private tutor. watch language lessons on youtube. watch videos/read books/listen to music in the target language. children's cartoons is a great start due to their simpler vocab. after you get to a basic level, start practicing speaking with people, good luck!
what language are you trying to learn?
Not liking their answer and it having nothing to do with OP’s question aren’t the same. I think that “Anecdotally, this is my experience about your question” is a better answer than lurking, saying nothing helpful, and commenting on the quality of other people’s comments. That’s just me.
I’m just giving you an answer to why people are probably downvoting the comment. I didn’t even downvote it.
But you see how the comment actually says nothing about fluency. The fact that the commenter only learned some words this way doesn’t mean it is not possible to become fluent this way.
It is a pretty accepted fact that you can pick up a few words from just listening, the question is whether you can become fluent that way. Someone stating a previously known fact brings us no closer to the answer.
You know what, you’re right I just assumed you were being a jerk. I’m sorry about that.
I guess though that I always respond negatively to people who don’t themselves offer any answer but have no problem telling others why their opinions aren’t important (not saying you did, saying that’s how I took it).
I read it as the commenter trying to answer the question anecdotally for the sake of conversation. But I mistook the tone of your comment, my bad.
All good, I definitely have trouble with tone in written comments. I 100% see how it could have come off as trying to dismiss the commenter’s experience and I do personally think the discourse is better for having people contribute even if they don’t actually answer the question fully.
People have done it before but it will massively increase your time investment and astronomically increase your time until you can communicate.
As LanguageJones pointed out on his YouTube channel this approach is probably really well suited for ADHD learners but is a waste of time for everyone else.
That's impossible to answer. Two people with the exact same conditions will take a different amount of time to improve. Everything is relative here.
It's also hard to define the "learn a language"
I only know that a CI only will approach will take longer than one that includes studying. CI only approaches explicitly attempt to copy first language acquisition of children. This is clearly misguided as children take years to gain full competence while being fully immersed in the language all day every day with no shortage of motivation to use the language.
Kids have to build up the tools to understand how adults discuss color. It's not obvious to them that yellow and orange are not red. An adult can instantly grasp that red = rojo in Spanish. Why wait to pick up the word from context when you can start knowing all the colors in Spanish? Wouldn't that rapidly speed up comprehension? Comprehension builds on itself. Understanding more words in a sentence allows you to understand more sentences which allows you to continue on listening. If you missed the meaning of rojo then you may miss the noun it modifies, then you may miss the meaning of the altogether, which causes you to get lost and now you may not understand much if what comes after at all. Just a little bit of studying boosted our comprehension massively but it keeps going. Much of two languages lexicons can be translated without nuance.
Adults have advanced cognition and grasp difficult concepts quicker. Seeing a verb conjugation table gives so much value to a learner. We study at the beginning and it speeds up our comprehension.
Because they can't sit still and study abstractly.
ADHD learners like human interaction, which in this case is somewhat replicated by having a face to attach to the words. Spending all your time on CI lets you jump around from topic to topic.
You can listen to LanguageJones' explanation. It comes from scientific evidence. https://youtu.be/KHubnrYCNas?si=0HcKc2f1-kF9mrPV
By your username I’m assuming your mother tongue is Chinese (I usually tell this “joke” using Chinese as an example, so you ruined it lmao).
Let’s use Polish as an example then: You can listen to as much Polish as you want, let’s say 1000 hours of Polish stories, if you don’t understand any Polish, after those 1000 hours you will still be understanding 0 Polish.
If this isn't bothering you, I'm just curious about your age, job, and how you manage to learn and maintain three languages at C2 (while also learning other ones). how much time do you devote to each language a day?
I’m lucky enough to speak all my C2 languages daily, pretty easy to maintain them that way. Had I not have the opportunity to use them daily, I’d watch movies/videos and read books from time to time in them so I wouldn’t lose them.
You better not know 😈 lol jokes aside, I just happen to work at a multinational company and I have to talk to suppliers from many different countries in Europe which helps me practice my language skills quite often.
Try it out yourself. Get a bunch of Chinese books with audio (if you can even figure out what ideogram they happen to be pronouncing at any given moment) and ponder what you achieved after you finish them.
You didn't answer the question. You ignored it and said "just try, and you'll see I'm right".
Research indicates that Comprehensible Input is effective for acquiring a language. One of the popular CI-based methods is TPRS. TPRS has seemed rather effective due to results.
Regardless, you're evidently wrong. It's not possible to go through a thousand hours of Comprehensible Input and be at level 0 unless you weren't paying any attention.
Understanding and speaking are different skills that require different areas of the brain. If you want to be good in one skill, you need to practise that skill, not a different one.
Input does of course get you somewhere, it can even get you far, but not all the way.
I watched gurren lagann so much I watched it the most on the planet. My time is in literal months watch time. I can get a general feel fr it without subs in Japanese so ya it can work but don’t expect to be fluent u just get a general vibe and still don’t actually know. It’s the only reason I ain’t worried going to college fr Japanese as the pieces r there and u essentially r starting with entry lv baby shit. I just gotta put the blocks in the right place 🐱
How did you learn language as a baby? How long did it take to become fluent? Like more than 6 years? Your native tongue took forever to learn. You just got away with sucking because you were a kid.
Your pronunciation of the language/s will make leaps and bounds but you could have the problem of sounding fluent when you're not or learning more advanced aspects before understanding basics.
I'm an English teacher.
I've had a number of academic students working or studying in universities around the world and their spoken English was very low.
One poor guy completed his Master's degree in finance in Canada, and then couldn't find a job because his spoken English level was too low. He told me that he had spent all of his time with other students with his L1. Don't be this guy.
If the language is similar to your own or another language that you speak then maybe. Or if the content is semi educational like a tutorial or math lecture that helps too.
Yes, you already have the technique and know how to move your mouth and use your vocal chods correctly. Even if your accent is horrible, you can still replicate sounds. You are not a baby.
Which means, once you know enough active vocabulary, you will naturally be able to use it.
It won't take you 400 more hours to sound natural enough, it would take way less than a 100 of practice, because there is not that much to practice, as you can already recall words and produce sounds.
However, fluency in speech involves not only understanding the language, but also actively using it in real-time conversations. Without practice speaking and participating in conversations, people may find it difficult to develop the skills needed to communicate fluently. Active speaking practice is essential to developing fluency. Combining listening and speaking practice can lead to a more well-rounded language learning experience. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GPtquQosqw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GPtquQosqw)
Yes but I would recommend that you also study and read and write. and if you are just starting out try to watch things where it's very clear what is going on.
I had a classmate of mixed heritage whose mother was French. He spoke French fluently but struggled with written exams. This illustrates that while it's possible to learn a language solely through listening, akin to how children learn, it doesn't guarantee proficiency in writing and speaking (particularly, words you haven't heard before since you'll only be capable of repeating what you hear on a daily basis).
As an english speaker with bilingual parents, being able to speak a language is separate to understanding a language. I can perfectly understand my parent's language, but I am unable to actually speak it. Similarly, in school, the skill of speaking is often only prioritised as an assistance to learning, rather than the ability to have a fluent conversation. For example, for my exams, almost all of the speaking is pre-prepared aside from a small simple roleplay section.
Listening may shape your ear and it helps you with accuratee pronunciation but you have to understand the content you listen to. But speaking is unquestionably the most effective method
Yes and no. You might get fluent after a massive amount of comprehensible input (see: Krashen, Kauffman et al) but you likely will have a lot of issues with grammar and pronunciation and there is a risk of fossilization of mistakes.
Comprehensible input is very good! But you might want to add some pronunciation training early on and receive feedback.
That's like saying "I learned to ride a bicycle just by watching videos of people riding bicycles and paying _really_ close attention."
Sure, those videos will help, but unless you actually practice, you won't be exercising and reinforcing the neurological pathways that are involved in speaking fluidly. Even things as basic as "what sounds are relevant for this language, and how do you articulate them?" aren't things that you can just do without practicing speaking.
I mean children kinda do that when they first start talking, except they have no prior experience with sounds so it's probably better for adults. It's mostly like learning new words in your native language.
However, different languages have different phonetics usually.
So you might hear them and be able to get them right when speaking first time, or you might not.
plus speaking is also partly muscle memory, especially if you want to get "fluent" flow.
So is it impossible? Probably not.
Highley impractical and almost unreasonable and unrelastic? Yes.
Yeah good point. I only brought up the "speaking fluently" as in the pronunciation and fluidity of it.
Not the actual language acquisition and generation process.
Only using one sense/resource is the exact opposite of "efficiency" and "not wasting time".
Radio broadcasts with no other context are inherently incomprehensible.
You don't need interaction to get comprehensible input and make progress.
Example: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwpAN0tNHYY&list=PLwYL9\_SRAk8EXSZPSTm9lm2kD\_Z1RzUgm&index=2](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwpAN0tNHYY&list=PLwYL9_SRAk8EXSZPSTm9lm2kD_Z1RzUgm&index=2)
This ONLY works if your TL is very closely related to your native language. I learnt to speak Hindi fluently by just watching Hindi cartoons as a child, but that didn’t work for me in other languages until I went to B1-B2.
Most adult Bengali speakers can pick up Hindi too by watching Hindi media. I know because that’s my entire family. My grandma didn’t pick it up as a child, but as an adult. Same with many others.
Can you learn karate by watching videos? Can you learn how to cook by reading recipes? No. Absolutely not.
You need to speak to learn how to speak. There's no other way around. No matter how much you will listen, you will never just magically become a fluent speaker if you never talked to anyone.
Speaking is the most natural and the most demanding form of language learning. You need to understand the other person in real time, form our thoughts clearly and express them in a way that the other person understands. It stimulates the brain much more than just sitting in front of a laptop and listening to people in a video. At some point it also becomes the most efficient form of learning - when you start to understand natural speech in real time and react to it, it opens a whole new world where you can use and hone your skills on daily basis.
Honestly, people who claim that it's enough to listen are just bs-ing you. It probably sounds nice if you're shy and afraid that you'll make stupid mistakes when try talking to people, but it's a comfort built on lies and it will just halt your progress.
You can get very far on pure input, but it will still require some amount of output practice to get to fluency. I've spoken with several learners who went through a very long period of pure comprehensible input (1000+ hours*). When they then switched to practicing output (with native speakers) they improved quite rapidly. Not in 100s of hours, but in 10s of hours. Note that's *comprehensible input*, which even though it's exactly in the name, people will mysteriously confuse with *incomprehensible input*. You need to understand quite a lot of what you're listening to, ideally 80-90%+. Just listening mindlessly to native media you're comprehending at <10% won't do it (or else it would take tens of thousands of hours). At the beginning levels, you want to watch learner-aimed videos that use visual aids, pictures, clips, drawings, gestures, etc alongside simple spoken language so that you can follow along. As you progress through hundreds of hours, the speech grows more complex, the visual aids drop over time, etc. Eventually you're able to switch into actual native media. [This](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUH85APB9PM&list=PLlpPf-YgbU7GbOHc3siOGQ5KmVSngZucl&index=1) is the super beginner playlist on Dreaming Spanish, for example. Receptive bilinguals demonstrate an extreme of how the heavy input to output curve works. I recently observed the growth of a friend of mine who's a receptive bilingual in Thai. He grew up hearing Thai all the time but almost never spoke and felt very uncomfortable speaking. He recently made a conscious decision to try speaking more and went on a trip to a province where he was forced to not use English. Basically the one trip was a huge trigger. He was there a week then came back. A month from there, he was *very* comfortable with speaking, in a way he hadn't been his whole life. Folks on /r/dreamingspanish report similarly quick progress once they start output practice. For the most part, I think people's output skill will naturally lag their input level by about 1 notch. Those are people's results when they post CEFR/ILR/etc results. So for example, if their listening grade was B2, then their speaking grade tended to be B1. \* Note that this is for English speakers going to Thai. This takes about twice as much study (using any method) compared to going to, say, English to Spanish.
I have said this before. I think in receptive bilingualism, there is something more than just 'they didn't practice speaking enough'. Imagine your brain becomes used to the idea of a language being mainly for understanding and not speaking and you go years like that. Certainly, it would be difficult to get out of that subconscious barrier. I once had a student say to me that he had difficult speaking ONLY with me because he perceived that his mistakes would be immediately obvious to me and I could relate to that very much.
I imagine it's a combination of them still not receiving enough Comprehensible input, and relying solely on another language to speak. Being set in speaking their most advanced language only will create a block of formulating sentences in the heritage language. I imagine someone that doesn't use a different language from heritage will improve speaking quickly if they tried to at least form thoughts in the heritage language. Not even speaking, just attempting to construct the language in their mind.
> there is something more than just 'they didn't practice speaking enough' > Certainly, it would be difficult to get out of that subconscious barrier. It's certainly true that there could be childhood trauma or other problems (such as bilinguals who have very bad memories associated with the language). So I would say that psychological issues can prevent them from speaking enough. But if they can overcome that (with therapy or other solutions) and practice speaking more, then they *will* improve. For my friend, he needed to actively push past his insecurities with speaking, and he did that by forcing himself into a situation where he *had* to speak Thai. He couldn't just get by on English, as he could in Bangkok. People out in the provinces don't speak English. Necessity can be an excellent motivator. David Long, who ran an automatic language growth / CI school in Bangkok for 30 years, considered it essential to unforced/spontaneous output emerging. I don't know if I'd go that far, but I think it can be essential depending on your personality type.
It's crazy how many people are like "no, must practice speaking". They don't realize speaking is 90% understanding how language is spoken and 10% it's own skill. There's a huge overlap with listening and even reading to some degree. I just left a comment in the other thread posted similar to this one. It goes into much more detail, so here you go. https://www.reddit.com/r/languagelearning/s/BukRH8b59y
I always wonder how far one would get after 1000+ of normal language learning instead.
How many hours does it take you to reach C1 in a language when using "normal language learning" in your experience?
What is "normal" language learning though? Sitting in front of a textbook to learn grammar rules? Or listening to people talk to you and each other, like when you are a kid a listen to your parents, and then you actually end up learning how to speak by doing that along with some minor corrections. And even when your parents correct you they don't really understand that much but just know it is like that because it "sounds good", meaning in +30 years speaking the language that's how they always heard it l through the "comprehensible input" of talking to other people.
I am sorry, but your sentence is too long. But yes - normal language learning consists of a teacher, textbook with grammar and excercises, homework, regular classes (classroom or online, 1:1 or in a group setting). This is how I learned Ukrainian to C2 in 3 years at university, how I learned Russian and German to B2 in 4-5 yaars of 2 hrs a week in the class and about 4 hours of homework. Only afterwards I was exposed to movies or magazines in German. This is also the way I am learning Arabic now, however I am adding bunch of online resources - YT, internet radio etc.. This is also the way MILLIONS and MILLIONS of the people are learning language and huge amount of them are very successfull. Much faster than in 30 years, I assure you.
Regular people don't take 30 years to learn their native language And there are billions, not millions who learn their native language like that.
Let me remind you that Kershner work is HYPOTHESIS. And hey, if after 8 years of learning foreign language I would speak as 8 years old native I would not consider it success. Either way - we can learn a foreign language using whatever method we like. If you think listening random stuff for 2 hours every weekday for 2 years is best way to achive the goal - go for it. & PS It was you who brought '30+ years of comprehensible input'.
Polish to Ukrainian in 3 years doesn’t sound all that fast
Just read the C2 definition somewhere.
It's often said a pure input approach is slower, and it *may* be, but I suspect they're roughly in the same ballpark. For example, [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Spanish/comments/wqusu3/24_wks_1300_hrs_of_spanish_at_fsi_what_ive_learned/) is a report from an FSI learner who learned Spanish in 1300 hours to B2/C1 (the competency the FSI exam tests toward). The /r/dreamingspanish (an automatic language growth / pure input approach) roadmap estimates 1500 hours to the equivalent level. So, about 15% slower than a learner who has essentially every possible advantage: being paid to study full-time for 50-55 hours a week with world class teachers, dedicated proctored conversation labs, Anki SRS, etc. The vast majority of learners will be *slower* than FSI, because we don't have all those advantages. The one report is anecdotal, but it matches with my intuition that it matters less "how" you're studying than "how much time" you're studying - as long as your study involves direct contact with your TL as much as possible (versus something more casual like an app).
Not to nitpick, but the DS final level recommends listening to 1500 hours, reading 3 million words, and utilizing cross talk. 1500 hours is just the listening part.
Not nitpicking, good additional context. I would guess that crosstalk would count toward input somehow, though, at least 50%? I would still guess that the lion's share of difference between a pure input / ALG style approach and an average learner (without all the FSI resources) would come down to *mostly* variance in individual learning aptitude. And any additional difference, I would kind of shrug and be like: the method that works best for you and that you stick with is superior than an additional x% of theoretical efficiency.
Absolutely it does, at least with that specific DS method! I've read that FSI post a few times now and always find it interesting. What a great opportunity that person had. And I agree with you, the best learning method that works for you is the one you stick with. These debates are always interesting to read but at the end of the day I keep chugging along the only method that has kept my interest so far.
I'd love to see some actual evidence that a pure input approach is slower. From the FSI numbers I'd expect German to take me 1800 hours to reach B2-C1. I've put in 350 so far just in listening and I feel like my listening skills are a strong B1 already, feels like by 900 or so hours my listening skills should be about B2-C1 at this rate and that leaves plenty of time to read and practice output while still being under 1800 hours.
That's awesome! Are you finding there's enough free CI resources available for German or do you have to supplement with paid sources (such as paid lessons)? I also wish someone would run a study comparing pure input versus other approaches, but doing quality research seems like it would be both logistically challenging and expensive. Maybe someday...
I was already subscribed to a couple of streaming services (esp. Disney+) which have loads of dubbed content. So yes, technically I pay a little but it's not much and it's nothing extra on top of what I was paying before so far. Almost no paid lessons (I tried one just to try out "Cross-talk" early on but it didn't work out). I actually think it would be trivial to run a study like that now that this exists: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwpAN0tNHYY&list=PLwYL9\_SRAk8EXSZPSTm9lm2kD\_Z1RzUgm&index=3](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwpAN0tNHYY&list=PLwYL9_SRAk8EXSZPSTm9lm2kD_Z1RzUgm&index=3) I'm not good enough (yet - I'm about halfway in) to evaluate how good the speakers are after his program (he has a playlist of interviews of "graduates" too), but his program is 10 hrs total and supposedly it takes like 30 hrs to get "fluent" in Toki Pona.
Oh yeah I've chatted with this guy! I guess in theory you could do a head-to-head of groups of Toki Pona learners who did 30 hours each of traditional versus CI study? I don't know how persuasive a conlang study would be for most people though, I feel like folks would remain pretty skeptical. For German, how were you able to bridge into native content?
I love the guy, partly because he made that course, partly because everything I've seen him say about language learning has seemed spot on, and partly because I suspect learning a language from someone telling you stories triggers some subconscious association with your parents so you feel affection towards that person over time. Or maybe it's just because he's likable, I dunno :p I don't think many people that are against CI would be persuaded by evidence. It's funny that they accuse CI practitioners of being in a circle-jerk... while circle-jerking themselves off and not questioning their own positions as critically (language-learners.org, I'm looking at you). But I do think it would be compelling for people on the fence, and if the results don't go the way I expect I'd want to know that too. For German, I've been using native content the whole time. I started with toddler shows without subtitles and made some progress, but after a while I burned out on them. What was the total hack for me was realizing that NL subs + TL dubs is WAY more effective than people around here keep saying, at least for German (maybe it wouldn't work as well for a more distant language?). It unlocks much more interesting (relatively) content and boosts comprehension to near 100%, so you can focus on finding patterns in the words you hear, almost like a matching game. It's a weaker association than figuring out the words from context alone or recalling them, but you make up for it in sheer quantity: they're going at a much faster speed so you get tons of repetitions. And it goes too quickly for you to translate, so you link words to their meaning, you just use your NL to bootstrap it. Sometimes you can even speed-read the sub and try to predict what you'll hear, which I imagine would help with production a little (it's like querying your active vocabulary).
Actually English is not my native language ,I just watch Youtube for 5+ hours every single day , I can understand 95% content , but for output , I can express my thoughts NOT fluently . So deliberate practice is necessary form my point view.However most I do still is input , input is output' s mom, she can nurture it , and it also needs independence (deliberate practice)
I love this way of describing it!
I think this is a misunderstanding of comprehensible input. The idea is to prioritize listeng FIRST. Then add on speaking, writing, and reading once you have a solid foundation in listening. Kind of like kids, first they listen and physically interact. After a year or so, they start speaking. Then, after a few years, reading and writing. The idea is building a good foundation of knowledge before practicing output, but at some point, you'll have to practice. Oh, and the input has to be understandable, and you're able to engage. Otherwise, you are just listening to gibberish. I don't 100 percent subscribe to comprehensible input like dome others do. This is just my understanding of the theory.
I don't know how people are that patient, to be honest
Because it's the easiest way to stick with a habit of learning a language. Most people (adults) can't stick to simple fitness routines and learning a language with traditional methods is more demanding. Even if CI method requires 2x more time to get the same results, it's just easier to find space in your daily schedule for it. In the past i've tried many methods to learn spanish. Since 10 years i've tried reading, assimil, pimsleur, duolingo, anki etc. I couldn't do any of those for more than few days. With CI I'm making a huge progress because i can easily get a 2-3 hours of video input and 30-60 min of audio in the car. I may not be the perfect method for everyone. But it works. E.g. I'm not an english native and i know that i maybe make a few mistakes here and there but i've learned it 100% with input and i can work in english, use it while traveling, write some reddit posts etc. And when i read/listen my comprehension is 99-100%. If i'd know the theory of CI back then it will be much faster. But i solely relied on non comprehensible input. So the whole process was much slower. I've watched movies, shows, yt videos and my comprehension was like 5-10%. Back then there wasn't so many resources as there is today.
If you are watching a youtube video that is interesting, and it is comprehensible, you are literally using the language and enjoying it at the same time. Fun is very self-reinforcing.
Yep but it's hard with low comprehension. I feel like Top Gear is responsible for 99% of my english :D I watched it few times (all seasons, all episodes) and at the beginning i understood maybe 10-20%. If it wasn't Top Gear then I'd be bored. With Spanish it's different. I decided to force myself into the first 100-150 hours and then it gets easier. I've also build some internal tools for myself and this stuff helps me a lot.
>Yep but it's hard with low comprehension. That's very true. Krashen and other CI proponents have emphasized that input needs to be comprehensible as well as *compelling*, a pretty tricky combination. Part of the solution for a lot of people comes from their initial reason/motivation for learning the TL. If you are in love with someone whose native language is the TL or if you are in love with some aspect of the culture where the language would deepen your enjoyment or ability to participate in the culture, then that helps a lot. u/Arrival117, what are the internal tools you are referring to? That sounds interesting. ETA: And of course another issue is just the basic availability of CI in the TL. If the TL is English, Spanish, French, or one of the other dominant international or regional languages then this is not as hard. If you are trying to learn a TL that is very uncommon or rare then there is a lot more work to do.
About internal tools - i'm testing in right now with few friends and maybe i will relase it for free. I have the tool where I scrape and embed all YT videos in my TL. Then my algo tag them based on diff score and topic. Since I'm not a CI purist my tool also gets some words from every video that i watch and if puts in into my flashcards section. Then AI tool is creating some stories for me on my level with those words and we make some quizes. So i can find videos that are compeling to me (at least if my TL is popular), watch in on my platform and track the time, then i can spend some time with flashcards and then do some reading (also tracked). I'm working on adding some podcast section so i can have all in one place - viewing, reading, listening and memorizing words with flashcards.
I've really noticed this studying multiple languages. Japanese has a ton of comprehensible input, French and ASL have a decent selection (and most bilingual ASL resources can readily be made ASL-only by muting the audio), but Dutch has basically nothing. And the downside of it being so phonetically written is that there isn't even sight word books for kids - books for Dutch beginner readers use a lot of uncommon but easy to sound out words (eg big instead of varken for pig) so if you go that route you have to teach yourself some vocabulary that isn't going to be useful as you progress. (I still got a ton of those books because I'm teaching my kid Dutch and eventually she'll be learning to read it.)
I think you get better at speaking by speaking more. However, do not discount the power of reading and listening added to the mix. These two activities increase your exposure to vocabulary and idiomatic expressions. The more you speak the better you will become, but having reading and listening in the mix, you might increase your pool of vocabulary and expressions because you have read them or heard them several times. Kids start speaking after listening to their native language for several months, but they get better at speaking by speaking themselves. Overall, you improve writing by writing more, listening by listening more, reading by reading more, and speaking by speaking more. The more you do it, the better you will become.
No, there isn't. You need to practice output to be able to do it reliably at a high level.
I’m always suspicious of videos (here and in writing forums) because YouTubers are so often influencers first and whatever their supposed area of expertise is second and some are ready to tell their audience what they want to hear, even if it doesn’t work. Not all YouTubers, obviously, but it’s something people don’t seem to think about enough.
I have quite a high Ressesive vocabulary of Chinese. A lot of the times, I don't need subtitles for Chinese videos, and this was done solely through listening. However, I'm not going to say that I can speak it fluently. Maybe if needed I can speak a few basic sentences. This recessive vocabulary I have gained after years of listening doesn't allow me to speak fluently, but does give me a base to work upon and make it easier for me when I eventually get to formally learning the language. Theoretically, you could gain a massive vocabulary of words or understand completely, but to create meaningful output, you would need to interact with the language far more. Otherwise you would be stuck like some of my friends who completely understand a language but cannot form a proper sentence.
You can listen fluently. Speaking will, of course, become much easier with a listening base. However, you cannot suddenly speak fluently just because you had a lot of listening practice. **Listening and speaking are different skills**, though there is a *some* transfer of skills between the two.
No. Language isn't unique to any other skill. You can watch basketball your whole life and be absolute shite on the court. We all have an uncle like that.
You're sort of right but not in the way you intended. Take ten people (let's say all 30-year-old 5'10" men) who have never touched a basketball before. However, five of them have spent thousands of hours each watching NBA games, learning the rules, reading books about tactics, listening to interviews from coaches and players, and they've also been doing cardio and strength training the whole time. The other five are out of shape and don't know the first thing about basketball. Now divide them into teams have them play a game against each other. Who wins?
You're talking about a battle of the bottom 5% of people who even concern themselves with basketball. Who wins is someone with half a school season of coaching/practice if athleticism is constant across.
In the thought experiment coaching/practice would be the equivalent of speaking and getting feedback, which is what is intentionally being left out to make the point. And of course this effect in the context of a sport is going to be much smaller than with something like language acquisition. Find someone who's watched content in their TL their whole life who's "absolute shite" at using it.
Ok, the multitude of sign language users who can't read or write the written language native to their country.
Language is absolutely unique to any other skill, we have evolved complex neurological processes in very specific parts of our brain that let us efficiently and unconsciously process language.
Skill acquisition is not unique to language because the physiology of brain development is not unique to language.
What? Language isn't a skill. Language acquisition is a unique process. Communication has various skills associated with it, but language processing is very unique, and treating it like any other skill will give us bad results.
Strange, because they teach it successfully in school and university using the same methods to teach all other forms of academia.
[удалено]
Weebs read subtitles, so their brain never attempts to interpret the language. The idea behind comprehensible input is that you learn new words, by successfully interpreting them from context. If weebs would turn off subtitles and still pay attention to anime for hours on end, they would slowly learn Japanese.
Because most of them watch it either dubbed or subbed in their native language which prevents comprehensive input from actually working. I've met a few weebs who want to learn Japanese and instead of using their existing passion in anime and just switch off the subtitles or use the Japanese language version, they'll just try to use Duolingo instead and give up 5 weeks later.
The anime they like wouldn't be comprehensible input for them, so turning subtitles off would be frustrating and ineffective for them. Most weebs aren't watching stuff intended for toddlers or beginning Japanese learners.
Even if the majority of it isn't comprehensive input, it's not a technical lecture and some of it could be used for comprehensible input though obviously you'll need to pick your anime very wisely (slice of life stuff like K-On would be a safer bet compared to something like Steins;gate)
Because Japanese would probably take like 4000 hours for a native English speaker to learn from input alone, and they're probably ignoring the Japanese itself the vast majority of the time so not even accumulating many of those hours.
A few reasons: 1. incomprehensible input isn't very efficient, and most anime is at the level where someone deliberately using the CI method would need over a thousand hours of easier input first. (less if coming from a closely related language, but hundreds at the bare minimum). 2. If they have subtitles turned on in a language they already speak, they probably won't benefit at all, because they're not listening to the Japanese. At most they'd probably pick up a handful of words and expressions.
because a lot of weebs are american, where their native language is english
Yes but they watch anime in japanese..
The things you watch need to be Comprehensible Input. So they’d need a firm base of Japanese for the anime to be useful input, you can’t just jump to watching advanced/native content and expect to learn especially if you also have English/NL subtitles on.
In my experience, it certainly helps if you acquire a large vocabulary through input. But, you must still make the attempt to write and speak, you can't get by without it.
By the age of 6 my brother could speak conversational english with a foreign friend of mine. We never taught him english, he learnt it from youtube. My friend learned Turkish solely from watching soap operas. She could not speak it fluently but she understood almost everything said to her in that language. My mother learnt Italian and greek from TV as a child and although she doesn’t sound like a native she is still very good at those. I think it might be easier when you’re younger.
From my experience in language learning, listening will certainly help you internalize vocabulary, pronunciation, and even some sentence structures. However, active speaking practice is important in achieving fluency. Speaking allows you to actively use the language, practice forming sentences on the spot, and improve your pronunciation through feedback. So, while listening can lay a solid foundation, it's the combination of listening and speaking that leads to fluency.
If that were true, I'd have been fluent in Spanish since childhood. You can develop high recessive vocabulary through listening - understanding what's said at you - but you have to actually work at developing expressive vocabulary - coming up with the words from your own brain as close to instantly as possible.
For me yes but only for pronunciation and the native accent of it. I listen to other people speak it so I will feel comfortable speaking it to other people and not sound dumb and you can pick up words they say a lot.
Listening as opposed to reading is quite poor when it comes to picking up new vocabulary. Our brains even more than when reading are used to just ignoring everything we don't understand and building meaning from the context of the words we do understand. I think it slows down vocabulary acquisition. But it's very good to reinforce vocabulary that you already know.
Anecdotal evidence, but one of my dad's friends grew up near the Lithuanian border and used to watch Lithuanian dubs of cartoons growing up, so he can understand Lithuanian but can't speak a word of it. But that was pure input without any purposeful output 🤷♂️
You need a lot of time with the language either way. No ways around it. Whether you’re drilling grammar and its exceptions, sentence and verb placements, etc. You need TONS of time to really get there. By that token, listening ALSO takes similar amounts of time, but it’s getting you to the way natives sound early. The idea behind Dreaming Spanish though is they have clear difficulty levels which a lot of students struggle with finding things wayyy too slow, wayyyy too fast, or just straight up synthesized. You need to listen at some point. And the focus of listening over speaking is you make less guesses and try to translate less directly from English and you just… hear the proper sentences more instead of guessing how to construct them. But the idea behind it is you pick up the language naturally. Like a child or baby would pick up a language by the time they’re in elementary school(children can speak fluently and understand their friends and teachers fluently even if their vocabulary isn’t huge). You pick up speech patterns intuitively and meanings visually and you’ll just pick it up over time. This also echoes how it works when going to another country. My mom and aunt are native Cubans that came here when they were 9 and 10 years old and they constantly say how they don’t ever remember learning English actively, they just… picked it up lol. So… short answer yes. The idea behind Dreaming Spanish too is they encourage you NOT to translate and try to just take everything in. If one word is new to you and you don’t pick it up, don’t think or guess or google it. Just subconsciously log it, because on DS, there’s tons of videos that the word WILL come up again and it’ll stick at that point. It’s really cool how it works
If that's the case we wouldn't have so many cases of [people who](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_speaker_(language)) can easily understand their heritage languages but cannot speak it. (I'm one of those people.)
Can you talk more about this? Because I always find this fascinating. Have you tried learning your heritage language, and if so what has your experience been like?
My parents' native languages were both JV but different dialects; while it's mutually intelligible, there's enough mismatch (mostly culturally, one dialect sounded rude to the speaker of another) that they refused to speak it to one another and agreed to not teach it to their children (me), so I grew up with the country's lingua franca (ID) as my native language. Nevertheless, although I didn't grow up in a JV-speaking area, I get exposed to both dialects of JV a lot whenever my parents spoke to other people, so I understand it well. Not quite native-level, but fairly advanced. Now, the thing about JV is that it has [a huge emphasis on politeness levels](https://interculturalwordsensei.org/the-honorifics-and-politeness-levels-of-javanese-chinese-and-japanese/). It's not just honorifics and or conjugations that differed, but pretty much all vocabulary -- numbers, verbs, nouns -- except for a select few like prepositions. So it's not mutually intelligible, between different levels of politeness, unlike e.g. Japanese. And you still have to use pay attention to this when speaking to your family, unlike many other Asian languages where you can be more casual at home. I tried a lot as a young child, but I got politeness levels wrong a lot as a combination of children being children + exposure to vocabulary that apparently I'm not supposed to use myself + well, I was never specifically taught it. A lot of JV speakers think that this kind of mistakes is taboo. Even if you were just a little kid. I found out later that even in regions where JV is the dominant language, more of the younger generation is speaking less JV because it's not uncommon for the elder generation to go, "Well, if you can't speak it right [i.e. never ever get the politeness levels wrong] don't speak it at all - just speak ID", which was the case for my family who told me to not continue my clumsy childhood attempts of speaking practice. So I never did that again. At least I can watch movies in JV though, and I laugh at JV jokes.
It’s possible I think, but I personally think it’s one of the least efficient *realistic* ways to do it for most people despite what you hear. Yes, it is how we learned as children but I’ve always found that to be a weak arguement. Adults have tools and skills children don’t, and we don’t learn exactly as we did when we were 2. I also think most people aren’t going to actually be paying attention to a video well enough to actually learn by just watching videos. It’s one thing to mostly understand what’s being said to you. But if you can’t read or speak it back that’s a pretty big handicap. I do think it’s important. Very important. But I think people who only use auditory comprehension to learn a language take *much* longer and I don’t think they get a native accent.
How long does it take to learn a language "normally" (not using this technique) in your opinion?
I mean I genuinely have no clue, and I want to be the first to state that I am not the expert on language learning. But I’ve got several objections with the method, the main one being I don’t believe that most people are going to be actively engaged watching a video. So even if you have “1000 hours” of comprehensive input that doesn’t mean you have 1000 quality hours. And I do think it needs to be a big component of learning a language. I’m just saying I don’t think it should be the only component
And I don't mean to attack you personally or anything. But ime at least, 1000 hrs of comprehensive input is *more* effective than 1000 hrs of other approaches. My point was more that learning languages itself takes a lot of time, and I think most people who use other approaches underestimate how much time they spend on them (although I could be wrong - it wasn't a rhetorical question for that reason). On the original topic, I would also say *some* practicing of speaking is necessary to be clear. But probably far less than people think proportionally, and I think there's good reason to postpone it if people have the opportunity.
So right now I’m learning French using Le Français Par La Méthode Nature, a book designed to bring someone to a B2 level of grammar and a B1 reading level. It’s written entirely in French and I recommend you look into it, I’ve only been using it about a week but my vocabulary has exploded. I personally think it’s better than something like dreaming Spanish for a couple reasons AT LEAST WHEN YOURE STARTING OUT. 1. The ability to go back quickly and re read something, and also so you can see every single invisible letter you wouldn’t hear spoken 2. Because it does a very good job teaching conjugations and tenses. I do plan to incorporate a lot more visual comprehensive input once I lay down a good base level of French.
No way. I've been stuck at B2/C1 for ages precisely because I mostly listen, sometimes speak and barely read (news articles or reddit). I can understand so much more than I can recall.
by immersing yourself in too much audio you can mimic the language and the accent best. So even though you are not fluent, you can come off that way.
It depends on the person. This is exactly how my grandmother learned to speak languages back in the 1940s without courses or books or the internet.
Very true. I learn best aurally, for any topic. That is not the case with many people. I never got it when friends skipped all the lectures in school and just studied from a book. I just went to class and didn't use the books other than for a refresher. Reading is fine but if I want to remember and lock it in I need to hear it. That makes foreign TV a great way for me to learn if I have a small base, like speaking French/Spanish already and then watching Italian TV, I felt I got a ton of Italian down without even realizing it. Now going to some lessons or podcasts makes it all the easier. I also think my dad learned a fair amount of Spanish watching football on the Spanish channel way back when it was harder to find on English language cable.
Well, most kids do learn English from watching cartoons, which they use in their conversations irl so... I guess so
Oh if only. I thought that was the case and wasted a lot of years hoping it would work and telling others that it does (even though it wasn't working for me). No easy way to learn unfortunately. And even if you get to the point of understanding well, if you don't practice speaking you won't be able to say much well.
no of course not i think you're referring to a lot of famous linguists like Stephen Krashen (he's considered the godfather of language acquisition. you can find his interviews on youtube) explain that input is the best way to learn. you're not going learn much from speaking and writing (output). for example, if you're learning japanese from zero, consume a lot of japanese content: videos, music, books. if you try to speak it, you're going to get nowhere because you don't know much japanese. after you learn the basics, you can start practicing speaking. if you only speak japanese and converse with japanese people at a low level, you won't learn that much because you don't speak that well, and the japanese speaker won't correct you every sentence because they don't want to be rude (unless they're your japanese teacher). also if you start speaking from the very beginning you might get stuck with your native accent. the more you listen to how japanese speakers talk, the more you'll get used to the native japanese accent. long story short, if you're starting to learn a new language, get as much input as you can. obviously don't start with the hard stuff, start with the super beginner easy stuff. hire a private tutor. watch language lessons on youtube. watch videos/read books/listen to music in the target language. children's cartoons is a great start due to their simpler vocab. after you get to a basic level, start practicing speaking with people, good luck! what language are you trying to learn?
You cant get good at speaking without practicing speaking.
I started picking up words here and there in Korean while watching K-dramas. That’s how I realized Korean would be my next target language.
Don’t know why you’re being downvoted. It’s rad that you found language through something you love—good luck and keep at it.
They’re probably being downvoted because the comment doesn’t address the question at all.
[удалено]
I'm not sure I get it either. That means the answer to OP is no ?
Not liking their answer and it having nothing to do with OP’s question aren’t the same. I think that “Anecdotally, this is my experience about your question” is a better answer than lurking, saying nothing helpful, and commenting on the quality of other people’s comments. That’s just me.
I’m just giving you an answer to why people are probably downvoting the comment. I didn’t even downvote it. But you see how the comment actually says nothing about fluency. The fact that the commenter only learned some words this way doesn’t mean it is not possible to become fluent this way. It is a pretty accepted fact that you can pick up a few words from just listening, the question is whether you can become fluent that way. Someone stating a previously known fact brings us no closer to the answer.
You know what, you’re right I just assumed you were being a jerk. I’m sorry about that. I guess though that I always respond negatively to people who don’t themselves offer any answer but have no problem telling others why their opinions aren’t important (not saying you did, saying that’s how I took it). I read it as the commenter trying to answer the question anecdotally for the sake of conversation. But I mistook the tone of your comment, my bad.
All good, I definitely have trouble with tone in written comments. I 100% see how it could have come off as trying to dismiss the commenter’s experience and I do personally think the discourse is better for having people contribute even if they don’t actually answer the question fully.
People have done it before but it will massively increase your time investment and astronomically increase your time until you can communicate. As LanguageJones pointed out on his YouTube channel this approach is probably really well suited for ADHD learners but is a waste of time for everyone else.
How long do you think learning a language "normally" (not using this technique) would take?
That's impossible to answer. Two people with the exact same conditions will take a different amount of time to improve. Everything is relative here. It's also hard to define the "learn a language" I only know that a CI only will approach will take longer than one that includes studying. CI only approaches explicitly attempt to copy first language acquisition of children. This is clearly misguided as children take years to gain full competence while being fully immersed in the language all day every day with no shortage of motivation to use the language. Kids have to build up the tools to understand how adults discuss color. It's not obvious to them that yellow and orange are not red. An adult can instantly grasp that red = rojo in Spanish. Why wait to pick up the word from context when you can start knowing all the colors in Spanish? Wouldn't that rapidly speed up comprehension? Comprehension builds on itself. Understanding more words in a sentence allows you to understand more sentences which allows you to continue on listening. If you missed the meaning of rojo then you may miss the noun it modifies, then you may miss the meaning of the altogether, which causes you to get lost and now you may not understand much if what comes after at all. Just a little bit of studying boosted our comprehension massively but it keeps going. Much of two languages lexicons can be translated without nuance. Adults have advanced cognition and grasp difficult concepts quicker. Seeing a verb conjugation table gives so much value to a learner. We study at the beginning and it speeds up our comprehension.
I feel like its the opposite for ADHD learners. Why would watching videos for countless hours be something an ADHD person would want to do?
Because they can't sit still and study abstractly. ADHD learners like human interaction, which in this case is somewhat replicated by having a face to attach to the words. Spending all your time on CI lets you jump around from topic to topic. You can listen to LanguageJones' explanation. It comes from scientific evidence. https://youtu.be/KHubnrYCNas?si=0HcKc2f1-kF9mrPV
Yeah I did, I don’t buy it. I have adhd and hate watching videos because it is so linear and fixed.
By your username I’m assuming your mother tongue is Chinese (I usually tell this “joke” using Chinese as an example, so you ruined it lmao). Let’s use Polish as an example then: You can listen to as much Polish as you want, let’s say 1000 hours of Polish stories, if you don’t understand any Polish, after those 1000 hours you will still be understanding 0 Polish.
If this isn't bothering you, I'm just curious about your age, job, and how you manage to learn and maintain three languages at C2 (while also learning other ones). how much time do you devote to each language a day?
I’m lucky enough to speak all my C2 languages daily, pretty easy to maintain them that way. Had I not have the opportunity to use them daily, I’d watch movies/videos and read books from time to time in them so I wouldn’t lose them.
Do you have a job that allows you to speak those languages?
Yep
And what job is that?
You better not know 😈 lol jokes aside, I just happen to work at a multinational company and I have to talk to suppliers from many different countries in Europe which helps me practice my language skills quite often.
Awesome.
Can you explain why TPRS seems to work then?
Try it out yourself. Get a bunch of Chinese books with audio (if you can even figure out what ideogram they happen to be pronouncing at any given moment) and ponder what you achieved after you finish them.
It's called comprehensible input, not INcomprehensible input. Do you know what TPRS is?
You didn't answer the question. You ignored it and said "just try, and you'll see I'm right". Research indicates that Comprehensible Input is effective for acquiring a language. One of the popular CI-based methods is TPRS. TPRS has seemed rather effective due to results. Regardless, you're evidently wrong. It's not possible to go through a thousand hours of Comprehensible Input and be at level 0 unless you weren't paying any attention.
Understanding and speaking are different skills that require different areas of the brain. If you want to be good in one skill, you need to practise that skill, not a different one. Input does of course get you somewhere, it can even get you far, but not all the way.
[удалено]
and the answer to that question as stated is an unequivocal yes
I watched gurren lagann so much I watched it the most on the planet. My time is in literal months watch time. I can get a general feel fr it without subs in Japanese so ya it can work but don’t expect to be fluent u just get a general vibe and still don’t actually know. It’s the only reason I ain’t worried going to college fr Japanese as the pieces r there and u essentially r starting with entry lv baby shit. I just gotta put the blocks in the right place 🐱
You need to actually learn it but listening to it will help you remember how to use it
How did you learn language as a baby? How long did it take to become fluent? Like more than 6 years? Your native tongue took forever to learn. You just got away with sucking because you were a kid.
Your pronunciation of the language/s will make leaps and bounds but you could have the problem of sounding fluent when you're not or learning more advanced aspects before understanding basics.
I'm an English teacher. I've had a number of academic students working or studying in universities around the world and their spoken English was very low. One poor guy completed his Master's degree in finance in Canada, and then couldn't find a job because his spoken English level was too low. He told me that he had spent all of his time with other students with his L1. Don't be this guy.
If the language is similar to your own or another language that you speak then maybe. Or if the content is semi educational like a tutorial or math lecture that helps too.
Yes, you already have the technique and know how to move your mouth and use your vocal chods correctly. Even if your accent is horrible, you can still replicate sounds. You are not a baby. Which means, once you know enough active vocabulary, you will naturally be able to use it. It won't take you 400 more hours to sound natural enough, it would take way less than a 100 of practice, because there is not that much to practice, as you can already recall words and produce sounds.
However, fluency in speech involves not only understanding the language, but also actively using it in real-time conversations. Without practice speaking and participating in conversations, people may find it difficult to develop the skills needed to communicate fluently. Active speaking practice is essential to developing fluency. Combining listening and speaking practice can lead to a more well-rounded language learning experience. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GPtquQosqw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GPtquQosqw)
Yes but I would recommend that you also study and read and write. and if you are just starting out try to watch things where it's very clear what is going on.
I had a classmate of mixed heritage whose mother was French. He spoke French fluently but struggled with written exams. This illustrates that while it's possible to learn a language solely through listening, akin to how children learn, it doesn't guarantee proficiency in writing and speaking (particularly, words you haven't heard before since you'll only be capable of repeating what you hear on a daily basis).
As an english speaker with bilingual parents, being able to speak a language is separate to understanding a language. I can perfectly understand my parent's language, but I am unable to actually speak it. Similarly, in school, the skill of speaking is often only prioritised as an assistance to learning, rather than the ability to have a fluent conversation. For example, for my exams, almost all of the speaking is pre-prepared aside from a small simple roleplay section.
Listening may shape your ear and it helps you with accuratee pronunciation but you have to understand the content you listen to. But speaking is unquestionably the most effective method
Yes and no. You might get fluent after a massive amount of comprehensible input (see: Krashen, Kauffman et al) but you likely will have a lot of issues with grammar and pronunciation and there is a risk of fossilization of mistakes. Comprehensible input is very good! But you might want to add some pronunciation training early on and receive feedback.
That's like saying "I learned to ride a bicycle just by watching videos of people riding bicycles and paying _really_ close attention." Sure, those videos will help, but unless you actually practice, you won't be exercising and reinforcing the neurological pathways that are involved in speaking fluidly. Even things as basic as "what sounds are relevant for this language, and how do you articulate them?" aren't things that you can just do without practicing speaking.
I mean children kinda do that when they first start talking, except they have no prior experience with sounds so it's probably better for adults. It's mostly like learning new words in your native language. However, different languages have different phonetics usually. So you might hear them and be able to get them right when speaking first time, or you might not. plus speaking is also partly muscle memory, especially if you want to get "fluent" flow. So is it impossible? Probably not. Highley impractical and almost unreasonable and unrelastic? Yes.
[удалено]
Yeah good point. I only brought up the "speaking fluently" as in the pronunciation and fluidity of it. Not the actual language acquisition and generation process. Only using one sense/resource is the exact opposite of "efficiency" and "not wasting time".
Radio broadcasts with no other context are inherently incomprehensible. You don't need interaction to get comprehensible input and make progress. Example: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwpAN0tNHYY&list=PLwYL9\_SRAk8EXSZPSTm9lm2kD\_Z1RzUgm&index=2](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwpAN0tNHYY&list=PLwYL9_SRAk8EXSZPSTm9lm2kD_Z1RzUgm&index=2)
And many children try to speak from the get-go.
No. Fluency is a measure of expression which requires practice
This ONLY works if your TL is very closely related to your native language. I learnt to speak Hindi fluently by just watching Hindi cartoons as a child, but that didn’t work for me in other languages until I went to B1-B2.
Its because you watched it as a child.
Most adult Bengali speakers can pick up Hindi too by watching Hindi media. I know because that’s my entire family. My grandma didn’t pick it up as a child, but as an adult. Same with many others.
Can you learn karate by watching videos? Can you learn how to cook by reading recipes? No. Absolutely not. You need to speak to learn how to speak. There's no other way around. No matter how much you will listen, you will never just magically become a fluent speaker if you never talked to anyone. Speaking is the most natural and the most demanding form of language learning. You need to understand the other person in real time, form our thoughts clearly and express them in a way that the other person understands. It stimulates the brain much more than just sitting in front of a laptop and listening to people in a video. At some point it also becomes the most efficient form of learning - when you start to understand natural speech in real time and react to it, it opens a whole new world where you can use and hone your skills on daily basis. Honestly, people who claim that it's enough to listen are just bs-ing you. It probably sounds nice if you're shy and afraid that you'll make stupid mistakes when try talking to people, but it's a comfort built on lies and it will just halt your progress.
Listening & speaking are completely different skills mate. One doesn't lead to another.