Basically... no one online who's policing what's pure ALG or not is putting themselves out there to prove what they say with their own results. The ALG schools are, in that you can find teachers to ask about the ALG program (like David Long). But of course, when you find actual student results they tend to be B2 (which is great! Excellent results! Just not "like a native speaker" like marketed). I personally would recommend Not doing ALG unless you are doing an ALG school/program (and if you are - there are people you can find on youtube and reddit Thai subs sharing their experiences so far so you can see what to expect).
Dreaming Spanish has a lot of people sharing their experiences and results, so I personally find the Dreaming Spanish Roadmap useful if you're planning to use it as a self study plan, and want to do mainly extensive listening to comprehemsible input as your study activity. You can see on youtube and reddit many people who share their experiences during each Level in the roadmap, and get an idea of what's worked for people and what's realistic.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality✓ Free Actions
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
i know my posts discussing ALG are niche. Lol so niche. Just... like... if you ever run into 'automatic language growth' theory online or in person, I think it's useful to know it is 1. just a theory made by Marvin Brown, a Thai teacher, based on his own learning experiences and his students. 2. It's not really done perfectly by anyone, except for maybe some Thai ALG school students (for the students who choose to approach learning exactly as ALG theory recommends). 3. There are a few people online who are trying to do ALG theory as strictly as possible. Aside from reddit user whosdamike and Comprehensible Thai ALG student David Long, I have not seen anyone document or share their experience with ALG in depth. Pablo Roman has discussed his experiences with ALG in learning Thai, so you can hear his results for yourself. His experience definitely informed his design of the Dreaming Spanish Method (which he refers to as "the OG Immersion Method" and some DS learners have called 'comprehensible input method/CI Method").
Dreaming Spanish has some things in common with ALG, such as recommending students WAIT to speak and wait to read until they have a solid mental understanding of the pronunciation and sounds of the language, and teaching entirely with Comprehensible Input Lessons with only visuals to communicate meaning (no translations, no explanations), and recommending students to do extensive watching/listening of CI Lessons and Learner Podcasts, and then transition to extensive watching/listening/reading to materials for native speakers that they can understand, as their understanding improves. Dreaming Spanish also recommends not analyzing the language and translating in your head, which is in ALG. But Dreaming Spanish is much less strict with it's recommendations, saying it's fine to look up a word if you're confused and it would help you understand the material, and to speak and read earlier if you need to for life situation reasons, or just really want to.
I think in the long run, more lax study approaches like Dreaming Spanish are going to catch on. ALG is not done strictly in the Thai schools that teach in that manner - while they recommend students don't speak early, and don't read explanations of how Thai works or use translations, many of their students do speak (since they often live in Thailand) and have studied Thai with explanations and translations before finding the ALG Thai classes. Some students go through ALG Thai classes and attempt to do ALG strictly, like Pablo Romano and David Long.
I think there's use in trying to stick with ALG theory if you're doing an ALG lessons program - it's how the school recommends you will have the Most Likely chance of success and best outcome with the lessons they teach. Just like there's use in trying to stick to any study program's advice - their advice is what they are most confident will result in the outcome you came to them for and are hoping they'll deliver. That said, if you take out all the theory... if you aren't a nerd like me who's into reading about language learning research and different teaching methods...
ALG has some suggestions on how to think/approach the material you're engaging with - which you can take or leave. The actual teaching method though? That is simply Comprehensible Input Lessons (that use visuals and no explicit translations), and extensive watching/listening to material made for learners, then later materials you understand that are made for native speakers. That's all the ALG lessons are. And you can find CI Lessons free for many languages on youtube, or on Comprehensible Input Wiki. So you are free to try out the recommendations ALG gives and make your own study plan and decide for yourself what's useful to you.
As far as I can tell, ALG's teaching method would work. CI Lessons work - they're used in ESL programs in my country and work great, and they work for classes made up of students with various native languages so they're extremely useful if translations aren't a useful option to teach students who speak 70+ native languages (that's the situation in my city). Extensive Listening works great - Learner Podcasts are PLENTIFUL, and help build up listening skills and review things you've learned, if you pick podcasts you can understand the main idea of (aka are comprehensible input to you). So it makes sense a teaching program entirely made up of those things, would work. It would teach vocabulary, grammar, and since all lessons are audio-visual or audio, then their strongest skill would b listening skills. So the student would still need to go practice speaking, practice writing, and practice reading outside of those lessons, if they want competency in all 4 language skills.
I think any teacher or website that's building a course based on this set up would work fine, for learning knowledge of the language and building listening skills. Provided they actually provide enough hours of lessons for beginner, intermediate, and advanced. Provided they include a broad enough vocabulary and variety of grammar in those lessons. Outside practice will still need to be done for speaking, writing, reading. Just like with any program that exclusively has 1 type of learning material (such as a reading heavy textbook program would likely need to be supplemented with speaking, writing, listening practice).
I think outside of Thai ALG classes, Automatic Language Growth is not going to catch on. Because a few of the people that are doing it for other languages, are just so intense about it and the way they talk about it tends to turn people off.
I think that's why things like Dreaming Spanish market themselves as the 'comprehensible input method' instead of ALG - one, because Dreaming Spanish is less strict than ALG, and two, because the main strategy of the Dreaming Spanish method is to watch comprehensible input lessons that use visuals to explain what the lessons mean (extensive listening to things you understand), until you can understand regular materials for native speakers and continue learning with those. With the special addition to 'not speak for 600-1000 hours' and 'not look at translations and explanations' which is what Dreaming Spanish gets from ALG which it's based on.
Dreaming Spanish is, as I mentioned, less strict than ALG. And of course it's less strict... in the end the goal of teachers is to TEACH their students! And any way a student can successfully learn is GOOD ENOUGH. Plenty of people use Dreaming Spanish in plenty of ways, and most are successful if they stick with it. So Dreaming Spanish's creator Pablo, I don't think cares deeply if students are 'purist' about following his advice or if they use the Dreaming Spanish CI lessons while also doing other things. I think, like most good teachers, he just hopes they are successful and learn to do what they want to do.
Actual ALG schools are ALSO less strict than the enthusiasts online. ALG World has interviewed students, and many of their thai students studied other ways, or continue to study other ways afterward, and speak early since they students are often living in Thailand. ALG has a few students they interviewed who stuck to the ALG directions fairly well, and they had good results. And there's people like whosdamike on reddit who's trying to stick to ALG for Thai, while taking ALG CI Lessons, he's having good results so far. Pablo Romano, founder of Dreaming Spanish, tried sticking to ALG directions for Thai as he wanted to test out the ALG theories.
I think Pablo did designed his Dreaming Spanish method to be less strict, because he was focusing on 'good practice' advice to recommend students do for success - it's pointless to mention ALG believes students have 'permanent damage' from studying explicitly if the students you plan to teach OFTEN have prior explicit study of Spanish. Better to just tell your students 'please wait 600-1000 hours before trying to speak, to help give you the best chance to have a good mental model of the sounds of the language before speaking and ingraining habits' while also telling them 'if you have to speak, speak.'
Because of how Dreaming Spanish Method is written, and the varied results amongst people who've done it, it's the best proof of how 'comprehensible input lessons with no translations and explanations' and then 'extensive listening to comprehensible input' work for a study plan, regardless of what else a person does and how they 'think' about the language when studying. I'd say the results are overwhelmingly positive, almost all students succeed at getting a B2 or higher listening skill, and their strong listening skills and strong understanding of the language to help them reach solid reading, speaking, and writing skills within a few hundred hours of practice for each of those other skills.
Because Dreaming Spanish is more lax than ALG, has an hours roadmap, and is able to be done all over the world as the lessons are videos, it has a much bigger pool of 'successful students who've completed the program' than ALG World (Thai) or any other ALG-based study program I've seen. ALG World is the only other well known ALG-based study program, and all they have is a few anecdotal stories from students. Not very convincing - although I would say ALG Thai classes work, because they are enough hours of well designed CI Lessons from beginner to advanced difficulty, and we've seen CI Lessons success with Dreaming Spanish so ALG Thai students should be having similar success.
No one can say if strict ALG adherence gives significantly better results on a broad scale, compared to Dreaming Spanish's 'extensively watch/listen to CI Lessons, and then use material made for native speakers you understand' which tons of people's experience has shown does work. We know it works, regardless of how people use it, whether they also use translations/explanations or not, whether they speak immediately or wait, whether they think consciously about language features or not. We know it works for most people, at least to develop listening skills and a foundation of language knowledge. (Weak spots of Dreaming Spanish are, of course, that learners have to figure out how to practice reading, speaking, and writing on their own for a few hundred hours until those skills catch up to their listening skills).
I think ALG is going to be lost to time. An idea Marvin Brown had, that a few people read into, and some Thai programs adopted as their study programs. I think it's lasting impact will be an increase in language teachers making Comprehensible Input Lessons - which I think is a good thing, as they're great as either main lessons or supplemental practice.
I think ALG has added to the idea of 'waiting to speak' which other study plans like Refold also made popular. But also we are in the age of the internet, where plenty of people are shy to speak to others, but the demands of listening to/watching/reading something are much less daunting. So I think we'd see an increase in the idea to 'wait to speak' for at least a while, in more study plans, no matter what. Outside of in person classes and necessity, people are just not forced to practice speaking early so many people will probably Prefer to wait to speak - speaking is embarrassing, is scary, and involves exposing yourself mistakes and all to another person.
TLDR: I read Marvin Brown's book and his theory of Automatic Language Growth, and because of how people online talk about it I do not see it ever getting more mainstream. I think it has led to an increase in teachers making Comprehensible Input Lessons, and encouraging students to practice more hours, which has been a net positive though.
Semi Related rant below.
(It frustrates me that people call it 'comprehensible input method' because... every fucking language learning study plan EVENTUALLY includes some fucking comprehensible input, and comprehensible input is not JUST CI Lessons, it's also everything you understand! From fucking textbook dialogues with translations, to graded readers, to shows, to conversations, to tutoring sessions, literally comprehensible input is just "input you understand." Whereas DS Method is primarily Comprehensible Input Lessons with no translations provided, until you can comprehend media for native speakers and conversation sessions without translations then you use those to keep improving. But that's another topic).
Xiaogua Chinese on youtube is also marketing herself/her lessons as 'comprehensible input method' which really means, simply, using Comprehensible Input Lessons designed for learners where the meaning is conveyed with visuals (not translations), and encouraging learners to use materials made for native speakers they understand eventually, and talk with native speakers eventually, to keep learning. That's all it is: extensive watching/listening to stuff you understand, with no translations or explanations. of course, it's not as marketable, to explain WHAT exactly the method is... because then people could just go do it on their own, or find other teachers that make CI Lessons, or ask a tutor to do CI Lessons with them, and they wouldn't need the specific teacher marketing the method. (I think Dreaming Spanish and Xiaogua Chinese would still be successful, even if learners understood exactly what 'comprehensible input method' is, and how it's just an existing language learning strategy that's existed for ages. It's just... it's really simple, and I get them not breaking down to learners what exactly the lesson design is, because that's more explaining than typically learners wish to know).
I don't know why ALG enthusiasts shoot themselves in the foot by saying "it will make you like a native speaker" when 1. People will immediately try to prove if that claim is wrong 2. They're not making money from ALG courses so it's not like there's a profit motive to claim something so extreme. 3. Marvin Brown's book... does not say most adults will get results like native speakers, I read his book... it says most adults WON'T get perfect results. 4. Most people don't want to commit to doing a study plan that they feel is lying to them about the results they'll get.
If you are a teacher trying to sell ALG courses, then I'd see the reason for downplaying the idea of permanent damage Marvin Brown mentions - caused by any concious analysis of any language. You can't get paid if you undermine your own marketing ploy to convince people to try your teaching method... banking on the hopes that by the time the student has realized they Wont achieve native like fluency, they'll be invested enough to use the language for their personal goals (and take more classes if they need to for their goals). But if you're not a teacher trying to sell a product... there is no reason to claim ALG will result in native speaker fluency for an adult. (It just makes me feel like these people didn't read Marvin's book... which they probably didn't, I'm kind of a nerd that way, delving into whatever I can find, I assume what they think of ALG is based on ALG Schools marketing - which is where that exageration comes from).
I have realized there's very few people actually doing Automatic Language Growth as Marvin Brown made it, pretty much only Thai AUA and ALGworld and Comprehensible Thai (on youtube) and their related school/teachers. So if you aren't studying Thai then you probably won't run into pure ALG lessons/study program unless you make it yourself. Pure ALG is only going to be reasonable when doing a program, if you happen to already be in an ALG school. I have found very few people doing pure ALG on their own, outside of ALG programs, and few have posted results and experiences. (So if you wish to read/hear about experiences, David Long on youtube who did ALG Thai, and a few other youtubers and redditors doing ALG Thai, are the best resource).
Dreaming Spanish is not purely ALG according to certain ALG enthusiasts, but it is the closest thing you'll find that's hugely popular in the English speaking sphere. Dreaming Spanish is welcoming even if you have taken classes before, and even if you still use other study methods alongside it. So I do recommend it if you like it. With the caveat you Remember that for goals involving listening, reading, speaking, writing, you DO eventually need to do things to practice all of those goals. Dreaming Spanish Roadmap mentions starting to read and speak at Level 6 of the roadmap, and anecdotally learners on r/dreamingspanish mention eventually reading 1-3 million words, speaking 200 hours, and working with a tutor/friend or a WritingStreak writing group for practicing writing in prep for B2 or C1 tests. So if you plan to reach goals in all 4 skill areas, eventually you will want to do those things too.
(And I would say that most people who have done Dreaming Spanish who are going viral lately for 1000-2000 hours and can't speak well, probably just haven't practiced 200 hours speaking yet, or have not read 1-3 million words yet. I'd argue a lot are actually A2-B1 level already in speaking even before 200 hours of speaking practice, but since a lot of people claim they'll "speak as well as a native speaker" they're getting torn to shreds online, because A2-B1 - or even B2 to C1 after 200+ hours of speaking - is not as good as a native speaker. I think Dreaming Spanish changed it's roadmap as it now has B2 level skills as it's Level 7 description. But certain ALG enthusiasts love to say perfect pure ALG results in speaking as well as native speakers, and then those enthusiasts say Dreaming Spanish is NOT pure ALG enough and that's why the results are imperfect. But B1 is fucking GREAT for never having spoken before, and B2 after 200 hours of speaking practice is excellent as far as I'm concerned. Dreaming Spanish roadmap is 1500 hours for B2, and FSI Estimates 1200 hours for B2 in Spanish when accounting for 40 hours a week - self study and class time - at 30 weeks. Those estimates are in the same ballpark. Expect it to take 1000-2000 hours to get to B2 in Spanish no matter what route you take to study.)
And don't get me started on the purist ALG enthusiasts... I read Marvin Brown's book. And I honestly think he did NOT guarantee you would become as good as a native speaker! I think the ALG schools may market themselves using such language though, so maybe that's where the misunderstanding comes from - and David Long in particular did pure ALG, runs an ALG Thai school, and definitely claims he speaks as well as a native... though I'm not sure. I've seen other anecdotal reports of students who did ALG Thai school, and they got B2 active skills results (C1 comprehension) in around 2000-3000 hours - Pablo Roman, and ALGWorld blog posts. Not "results like a native speaker," B2-C1 level. I think Marvin Brown himself... himself... thought any adult learner could NOT learn to speak as well as a native, due to all the years they've learned about grammar in their native language and in other languages. I think Marvin Brown's theory of permanent damage and a learning ceiling, was based on his own experience of fossilized mistakes and things he could not stop mentally thinking about before speaking/could not spontaneously produce. Basically, I think Marvin Brown did not claim any adult learner could learn to speak just like a native speaker... I think he said theoretically IF you did ALG perfectly, and had no prior experience analysing languages then maybe you could get the best result possible. But almost all adults have done grammar revision on essays in school, so they already have a ceiling on the results they can achieve, according to his theory. Maybe Brown's ALG school claimed it could give students "native speaker like results" and it's false marketing is still plaguing ALG theory. I'm going to say... probably. Hey if a school says THEY can give you native like results, sure do it if you want to spend your money, and hold the school accountable if the results are worse than they claimed. But if you're doing ALG on your own? Expect B2 overall results if you do the hours they recommend, then speak for a couple hundred hours after you feel ready to speak (after 1000 hours of listening), read a lot once you've done a lot of listening, and practice writing once you are practicing speaking. Expect realistic results - B2. Not "as good as a native speaker," and you can't be let down later.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality✓ Free Actions
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
I'm feeling like a hater again. As much as I like ALG, and exploring the anecdotal results for myself and others... there's been no broad studies ALG's theory ideas are correct. (Just like many language learning theories, even many popular and commonly used theories).
I saw someone discouraging someone else from learning Chinese, unless they did a pure ALG approach to learning.
:/ and like. :c :(
While sure, pure ALG will probably get you to your goals with the language, it is not the only way to your goals.
Example of other study approaches ALSO being enough to learn Chinese for one's goals:
Will Hart is an example of someone who studied more traditionally (he used textbooks, anki, and also did extensive activities since every learner Eventually Does once they can understand some stuff - which is comprehensible input)
I've heard his speech. It's fine, it sounds good to me. He speaks Chinese well enough to talk with Dashu Mandarin (which has to be around HSK 6 ToT)
I am just. Really annoyed when someone says "oh X way to learn is the ONLY WAY THAT WILL WORK." Not true. There's so many examples of people who learned Other Ways, in a variety of ways, who also achieved their goals.
(Note: is ALG the only way to have no fossilized damage, and full spontaneous ability to talk about anything without having to ever mentally translate? In theory yes ALG claims it does. But ALG also predicts nearly EVERYONE will have a ceiling on their language learning ability, from prior damage explicitly studying/analyzing any languages in their life, so ALG predicts all learners with ceilings - so nearly all people - will still make some fossilized mistakes, and still have some degree of needing to mentally translate/think about how to say something occasionally. So ALG's claims of what it can achieve if followed perfectly, are unachievable for nearly all people, since nearly all people have prior damage and ceilings. Even according to ALG theory itself, you'll likely have some fossilized mistakes and need to occasionally think before being able to say something. Also - not all people will care greatly if they have those occasional issues. Also - large amounts of comprehensible input, after analysis of language/explicit study, seems to correct the majority of such production issues for most people.)
My point is: please don't avoid learning a language just because someone says "you're doing it wrong" or "your study plan won't work." I promise, as long as you keep consistently studying some new stuff regularly, and practicing understanding what you'ce studied regularly, you will make progress. Period.
A big issue I have with ALG, and that many people have, is it's idea of a 'ceiling' in how fluent you can get. This ceiling is affected by: how much you analyze the language as you listen, how much explicit study you do that involves analyzing the language (so grammar explanations and translations), how much you've analyzed ANY language. So any explicit study in any other language, would cause a lower ceiling for ALL languages you'll ever learn.
Marvin Brown, the person who made ALG, theorized that his own interest in linguistics, his urge to analyze language, put a 'ceiling' on his own ability to learn languages. This ceiling is related to 'permanent damage,' which is the idea in ALG that any analyzing of language creates permanent damage in your abilities in the language - no matter how much comprehensible input you get, you'll never be able to surpass the limits of the ceiling, caused by permanent damage, and will have to do other things to work on compensating for permanent damage. So by this, it means if you have a ceiling, you'll never be able to become AS fluent as native speakers. The average ceiling is 95%, so according to ALG you will never get more than 95% as fluent as native speakers. Permanent damage would be something like fossilized pronunciation mistakes, or fossilized grammar mistakes, where you always have to consciously think how to pronounce the word or say the grammar point and can never do it 'spontaneously' correctly.
The thing about 'ceilings' and 'permanent damage' is... for nearly all people, being as fluent as a native speaker is not necessarily their goal. Also, nearly ALL people have permanent damage, and therefore a ceiling limit to how fluent they can get, if they've at any point even explored learning another language. According to ALG, even if all they did was analyze their own Native Language a lot - like what is a verb, what word ending patterns match to what grammar points - even that kind of analysis in one's native language may cause a ceiling to learning other languages to fluency!
We know that MANY people pass B2 and C1 tests every year in languages they're studying, and according to ALG many or all of those people have 'ceilings' for how fluent they can get.
So any ceiling you have, any permanent damage you have, is not going to be an obstacle to achieving C1 in a language if that is your goal. Achieving C1 is entirely possible, regardless. There is no test to see how fluent you are compared to a true native speaker, and so we cannot really determine if the ceiling has any significant effect. We could make a guess that 'permanent damage' and 'ceilings' have to do with how well a person can spontaneously speak in a language without thinking about it, versus having to think internally about how to express themselves before speaking. This distinction will not stop anyone from doing all the things they want to do in a language. It just means, to some degree (probably a small one) you might continue to have to think-before-speaking in languages you learn, and never achieve the ability to fully spontaneously speak in all areas in a language you learn.
The most we can say is that standardized tests for language levels exist, and ceilings do not prevent people from achieving all standardized language test levels which exist.
Let's say that again: ceilings do not prevent people from achieving all levels of standardized test levels. Permanent damage does not prevent people from doing ALL things they'd like to do in a language.
At the most, permanent damage would only mean for some items people may be less spontaneous and have to think more before being able to express themselves the way they want.
Dreaming Spanish has a ton of learners, with a majority of them having prior experience learning Spanish - so they have permanent damage and ceilings according to ALG. Most Dreaming Spanish learners have similar success, and reach B1, B2, and C1 around similar amounts of hours. So any prior 'permanent damage' and any 'ceiling' they have is not preventing learners from the levels of fluency they can test and confirm.
My point with all this is: even if ALG is right about permanent damage and ceilings, it doesn't appear to matter for a majority of people's goals in a language. It may matter for the rare person, who wants to be able to spontaneously perfectly express themselves in the language they're learning (which wow! I can't even do that at all times in my native language!), but since nearly ALL people WILL have permanent damage... it's an unachievable goal. Since damage is caused any time you anaylze language, and we've all probably taken at least 1 language class, or analyzed the language in essays or books in our native languages, we ALL have permanent damage and ceilings. So aspiring to learn a language in a way that somehow avoids a ceiling, is already a lost cause. You probably already have a ceiling, according to ALG.
I personally think the 'ceiling' and 'permanent damage' only matters in the ALG theory, to explain why learners have fossilized mistakes sometimes. In Marvin Brown's specific case, since his theory of ALG is based on his own experiences, I think these concepts were his own way of trying to determine why he could study languages for years and still have some fossilized mistakes, and some aspects of expressing himself where he could not do it spontaneously. So my point I suppose is - I don't think it really matters whether ALG's theory about the ceiling and permanent damage is real or not. Because of how ALG theory defines a ceiling and permanent damage, nearly ALL people will have ceilings and permanent damage. So everyone is already starting from a position where they apply (if those concepts exist), and therefore should not worry about them.
