3 ms·

I'm a former military linguist who was trained to learn Arabic. I've always disliked and distrusted Duolingo (and before that, Rosetta Stone), for providing pe

I'm a former military linguist who was trained to learn Arabic. I've always disliked and distrusted Duolingo (and before that, Rosetta Stone), for providing people the basics (which they do just fine) but making it seem like fluency is always just one more upgrade or lesson around the corner while not-so-subtly implying that it's your fault that you're not there yet. Even for the most talented learners of languages it takes many, many more hours and types of exposure that these apps cannot achieve. For Arabic, for instance, the military gave us 88 weeks of full-day instruction with native speakers, in addition to homework. And that's all just to achieve basic reading/listening fluency. And many of the people who start the program (and have passed an aptitude test even to start the program) do not complete it. Like I said, it's as good as anything to start, but it's the marketing of it as the complete package that irks me.

barrell 2y ago
> while not-so-subtly implying that it's your fault that you're not there yet It's disappointing to me how many people try learning a language with Duolingo, do not succeed, then just "accept" that they're "bad with languages" and "can't learn them".
- jghn 2y ago
  I use Duo every day, but understand and accept its limitations. It's free, it fits into my schedule, and I do move forward albeit slowly. After about 2 years with my language I'm able to read at around an A2/B1 level. Listening is hit or miss in the A1/A2 level. It depends a lot on the speaker. But I can't speak at all, clearly my brain hasn't rewired itself to think on the fly like that. But that's fine. For me.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
landosaari 2y ago
[dead]
watwut 2y ago
Duolingo own marketing does not claim they teach up to fluency. I never seen anyone claim that duolingo can, should or did teach up to fluency. I have seen people claim that duolingo made them able to consume simple content or have basic conversation (usually they claim it about Spanish which is the longest course).
- oglop 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - watwut 2y ago
    That is literally what every physical language school or textbook for beginners have in the materials ... and literally none of them teaches up to fluency. Maybe because I had experience with language learning, but it would not occur to me that "learn language" in a headline should imply that.
    - djeastm 2y ago
      >it would not occur to me that "learn language" in a headline should imply that That's because you've been marketed-to by beginner's courses your whole life, probably. Like I said, this goes back to things like Rosetta Stone, or Berlitz before that, etc. etc. They all have done the same business model. Suck people in with the ambiguity of "learn a language" (and all the sweet social capital it will give you!) teach you a few touristy words and phrases without any way of telling you if your pronunciation is way off (AI might help in the future, but it isn't there yet), and happily blow sunshine up your you-know-what about how well you're doing. If you can't tell, I'm a bit cynical about general audience language apps.
      - watwut 2y ago
        I think that you have unrealistic expectations. Math books have "learn math" on them. Physics books have "learn physics" on them. Drawing books have "learn drawing" on them. You do not expect to be at PhD level after reading them. There is no reason to make exception for language learning. And even there, real life courses have "learn English" or "learn Spanish" on them. Literally none of them can make you fluent. Also, fluency is super far reaching goal. It is absurd as a benchmark. You will reach fluency only after you consumed huge amount of content, wrote a lot of text and spoken with people for hundreds of hours. Which beginner, intermediate or advanced resources you learned on the way does not matter much. > If you can't tell, I'm a bit cynical about general audience language apps. I learned two foreign languages up to fluency - enough to be able to use them in work, life, internet, to converse with people, use them to learn new things.

barrell 2y ago

> while not-so-subtly implying that it's your fault that you're not there yet It's disappointing to me how many people try learning a language with Duolingo, do not succeed, then just "accept" that they're "bad with languages" and "can't learn them".

jghn 2y ago
I use Duo every day, but understand and accept its limitations. It's free, it fits into my schedule, and I do move forward albeit slowly. After about 2 years with my language I'm able to read at around an A2/B1 level. Listening is hit or miss in the A1/A2 level. It depends a lot on the speaker. But I can't speak at all, clearly my brain hasn't rewired itself to think on the fly like that. But that's fine. For me.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

landosaari 2y ago

[dead]

watwut 2y ago

Duolingo own marketing does not claim they teach up to fluency. I never seen anyone claim that duolingo can, should or did teach up to fluency. I have seen people claim that duolingo made them able to consume simple content or have basic conversation (usually they claim it about Spanish which is the longest course).

oglop 2y ago
[flagged]
- watwut 2y ago
  That is literally what every physical language school or textbook for beginners have in the materials ... and literally none of them teaches up to fluency. Maybe because I had experience with language learning, but it would not occur to me that "learn language" in a headline should imply that.
  - djeastm 2y ago
    >it would not occur to me that "learn language" in a headline should imply that That's because you've been marketed-to by beginner's courses your whole life, probably. Like I said, this goes back to things like Rosetta Stone, or Berlitz before that, etc. etc. They all have done the same business model. Suck people in with the ambiguity of "learn a language" (and all the sweet social capital it will give you!) teach you a few touristy words and phrases without any way of telling you if your pronunciation is way off (AI might help in the future, but it isn't there yet), and happily blow sunshine up your you-know-what about how well you're doing. If you can't tell, I'm a bit cynical about general audience language apps.
    - watwut 2y ago
      I think that you have unrealistic expectations. Math books have "learn math" on them. Physics books have "learn physics" on them. Drawing books have "learn drawing" on them. You do not expect to be at PhD level after reading them. There is no reason to make exception for language learning. And even there, real life courses have "learn English" or "learn Spanish" on them. Literally none of them can make you fluent. Also, fluency is super far reaching goal. It is absurd as a benchmark. You will reach fluency only after you consumed huge amount of content, wrote a lot of text and spoken with people for hundreds of hours. Which beginner, intermediate or advanced resources you learned on the way does not matter much. > If you can't tell, I'm a bit cynical about general audience language apps. I learned two foreign languages up to fluency - enough to be able to use them in work, life, internet, to converse with people, use them to learn new things.