Is everyone WRONG about Stephen Krashen's 'comprehensible input' theory?

Language learning youtube is obsessed with Krashen's "comprehensible input" theory, but they don't always get the details or the context right. I clarify the background, and discuss whether it's all it's cracked up to be.

#languagelearning #comprehensibleinput #linguistics #polyglot #language #languages

[NeichoKijimura]

Comprehensible input -> Me -> Inconprehensible output

[seekthuth]

I will die on the hill of "the one, most simple, and by extension most crucial requirement for learning any language is enjoying your chosen method." It doesn't matter what the sciences say about it's efficacy, if you don't enjoy it, you won't be able to learn with it without some Very serious external pressures.

[davidsutton]

Now into my fifth decade of language learning, and currently starting a new language, I'll put my money on A + B + C + D, and not A or B or C or D alone. In other words, combining Comprehensible Input with Structured Analysis of Grammar, combined with Recall Speaking and Translating practice like Pimsleur, combined with working one-on-one with a tutor like on iTalki, is way better than any single method alone. Have fun, everyone!

[noahl]

It's interesting that when I went to read what Krashen actually wrote, he always seems to point towards that comprehensible input is a big *factor* in acquiring language and that instruction or "learning" almost always helps it along. In the examples he includes it's seems that the learners mindset plays a large role as well, ie. letting yourself make mistakes but not being too loosey goosey with the grammar either. At least that's what I took away from it!

[Storytelless]

When I discovered Krashen's theory (and I've listened to his full explanation so 5 things you listed aren't new for me) it helped me immensely. I studied english for years in school but barely could speak or understand content for natives. Then with his approach I improved in 2 years to the level when I worked with natives and read books in english with pretty no problems. Then the same story happened for french. In both cases I combined CI with traditional learning but with the emphathis on CI. Finally, as a russified ukrainian I struggled with ukrainian language for a while but large quantities of immersive reading really helped me and really fast to stop falling back to russian when I speak.

I do not have ADHD and I do not have it's traits.

[immersion]

massive amounts of input is absolutely recquired to achieve fluency and especially native fluency, and to make this process faster and more effiecient combining input with active learning such as shadowing, flash cards, etc. is definitely advisable.

[thenoblegnuwildebeest]

5:40 Would be very interested to see a video on errors children make when acquiring languages and how they compare across languages.

[jkdog]

I've been learning German for over 9 years, probably 5 of those years being semi serious in my pursuit to become better at the language. Memorizing song lyrics has been one of my greatest discoveries towards the advancement of my capabilities. Songs are written generally in the way that people speak. If you're in the car and singing a song that you know every word to, you can easily hear where you pronounce things differently from the artist. This helped my pronunciation so much. In addition to pronunciation help, any word I would learn through memorization of a song stuck in my brain much more than otherwise because of how obsessive I would be with memorizing. Every time I listen to a song I have memorized now, I am reminded of native speaker words/phrases/structures that may have otherwise fallen out of my active recall.

[keithkannenberg]

People love the idea of universal theories like "everyone learns in such and such way" or "X is the best method of doing Y". In my experience once you get out of the realm of basic physics the world isn't that black and white. I personally find comprehensible input to be a great method for language learning but I also find intensive study to be boring and demotivating in pretty much everything I've studied, not just languages. But I find that short bursts of grammar exploration or looking up specific words and phrases that I haven't deciphered yet from input greatly helps the process of "acquisition" (learning). From exposure to how friends learn things differently than me (in school or otherwise) I am pretty comfortable in thinking that not everyone learns/acquires/studies in exactly the same way. There may be universal principles that apply to everyone but in different degrees depending on one's personality and other experiences.

[Liam-hykz]

As an autistic/ADHD linguistics student, I would love if you could talk more about how neurodivergence relates to linguistics

[PL-ltwz]

Comprehensible input is part of immersion. That's why living in a community that speaks the target language is the quickest way to pick up a language. There is no perfect way or only one way to learn a language.

[Nancy-sjyg]

I am an "everything" language learner. I've been learning German for the past 8 years, on top of two years of high school German a million years ago. I restarted my German by taking formal classes, A2 - C1, which gave me a solid foundation. After that, and being kind of burnt out on grammar, I have been mostly relying on reading and watching videos, along with italki sessions. I do occasionally dive into grammar but spend most of my time on input. Seems to be working. I have noticed over the past few months vast improvement in both comprehension and speaking, so I think this is working for me. It irritates me when YouTube polyglots tell people "don't study grammar" or "don't study vocabulary, " or even "only learn vocabulary." We all learn differently. The most important thing for me is to have some fun with it so that i keep learning/acquiring.

[byronlopezellington]

I'd love to see that video on first language acquisition! Edit: Also the one(s) on universal grammar!

[Csndr]

As someone who got diagnosed autistic last year and has struggled to find a method of language learning to works for me this video EXPLAINS SO MUCH. Would love to hear more about neurodivergence and language development. My own was pretty irregular, which my parents initially chalked up to me also being bilingual. I apparently started speaking late, skipped over the single words phase and went straight to 3 word sentences. Then later when it came to learning to read I was put in remedial classes for half a year. Somehow I came out of those with an appetite for reading that had me reading above my grade level fairly quickly. I still read faster than most people I know.

[marilyn]

I have taught Spanish starting 40 years ago....so right when Krashen´s theories were really being put forth for secondary teachers. I have found that comprehensible input is indeed better for that casual learner who wants to "get by". Phrases come out much more naturally using this method so kids can speak and express themselves. However, that grammar component cannot be totally ignored! Interesting that I would often get kids in class whose parents/relatives spoke Spanish at home. Some were super fluent, some less so. Most of them would remark at some point in the year "Now I finally understand what my uncles and aunts are saying at Christmas parties". Or "Wow, now I understand why people say (insert phrase)....I never knew what it meant!" They didn't get that without the grammar component. So somehow, the brain needs the 2 learning methods, it seems.

[reggietkatter]

As far as facts about first language acquisition, it's what worked for everyone (with or without ADHD). Anecdotally as adults, it worked for me and a number of friends as well (using a resource called Dreaming Spanish for a few years). I'm able to watch, listen to and read native material and converse normally with native speakers and I achieved this without studying,

[Philoglossos]

I feel like you're leaving out that pretty much the entire literature at this point agrees in the non efficacy of grammar translation, and that while Krashen's particular model is controversial and unproven in many ways, the importance of input is not controversial. Some people might watch this video and come away thinking that it's not settled whether 'traditional' textbooks/classes are better or worse for acquisition, or that it greatly depends on the student, and that's just not reflected anywhere in the literature. I also think the discussion of ADHD is a bit misleading - while it's true that non engaging content/study is particularly difficult for many people with ADHD, it's not as though it isn't also more difficult for neurotypical people as compared to more engaging content/study. You almost make it sound like the 'ideal' study method for someone with ADHD might be categorically different than for someone without it, and there's just no evidence that's true.

[atfernando]

So I'm a believer (because I can't do scientific studies on my own) that traditional schooling is failing the entire language learning community. I feel schools, either in language schools or universities, etc, are more worried about behaviour and entertaining rather than actually doing something to make the student improve. I then encountered SK hypothesis and it seemed rather logical to me, an L2 English speaker who learned English by doing Youtube all day (I was in a bad place). So, I started thinking that the amount of content IS a major variable in language learning/acquisition. However, I always felt SK hypothesis fails or at least lacks in several points. 1. Comprehensible Input is HARD to get not only because there not much available but also because each person is different, have different levels and different interests, objectives, etc. So his comprehensible input is realistically impossible or almost impossible to find and you have to do with what you can find, (e.g. a children's picture dictionary). 2. I love reading, and I also think that's what got me my level when reading subtitles in my target language, but there are two problems, reading without knowing how it is pronounced is fatal. In English is almost suicidal. (That's why I recommend listening and reading in the same language so you can discover the sounds you're missing. But it's difficult in other languages apart from romance langauges)

So, yeah, I always felt there was more to the story, and this video helped me realized a bunch of other things.

I will say, though, that I practice translation, it's great. But, from Target language to Native/Acquired language. Not a single letter translated from native to target because you don't know how the target language works. It's like creating an opera from just 5 notes. And I hate how the entire language community, schools, etc are focused on producing the language. It's just stupid (IMHO). Sure, you WILL be able to communicate, but you will always have this rules engraved that don't allow you to actually share your thoughts. And I THAT'S where SK got it right, there is something else apart from learning rules. His solution, well, as I said it lacks the answer to how actually learn.

So what I do is this, translation Target->Native and grammar allows you to read more and more complex sentences or clauses or whatever you want to call it. Then, with copious amount of language exposition (Audio and reading), you'll understand more until at one point you start first immitating, then finally producing with feedback telling you where are your errors. This last part sounds a lot to what they do in schools but the main difference is that WITHOUT understanding the language almost to the point of advanced level, you can't start producing without thinking in your native language and translating native->target, and thinking in rules. I would, like SK, without prove, hypotethise that one will produce the language "without thinking" as it is intended to happen.

Well, that's my 2 cents. Thank you for the video.

[thedavidguy]

I decided to learn French after I retired and finally had sufficient time. I spent the first 6 months using traditional grammar focused textbooks and I did learn French grammar quite well. However I made very little progress on understanding spoken French and on speaking French. I did make significant progress on reading. At that point I watched an interview with Stephen Krashen and switched to focusing on input, primarily listening, but I did continue reading. My comprehension improved enormously and then my speaking followed suit. My speaking really improved greatly very quickly after a lot of listening. I don’t know if my knowledge of grammar was helpful, but I found an input heavy approach sped up my progress substantially. Now 7 years later I’m fluent in French according to several native speakers and my reading is very close to my level in English in both speed and comprehension. Of course I’m sure my vocabulary will always be larger in English. What I am happiest about is that my French friends say that my French is natural, that my way of speaking is native even though I have a foreign accent. I attribute that naturalness to massive amounts of input. On the other hand, my wife is also fluent in French and she learned the language from completely traditional grammar focused instruction. It’s clear that traditional methods work for some people, but I think input focused methods work for more people.

[lGalaxisl]

When I talk about grammar avoidance I always specifically mean grammar exercises. Finnish is my Target Language and I learn its grammar by first seeing the breakdown of a new grammar topic, and then reading many example sentenced where the grammar part is the only new thing to me. Combine that with spaced repitition and general reading & listening, and I will naturally run into the same grammar structure many times so that I acquire it. Works really well for B1 level and onwards. I also do something similar for new vocabulary

Point being, comprehensible input was a complete game changer for me, but it would never work as efficiently if I didn't combine it with grammar study and spaced repitition.