Krashen crashes his future (makes mistakes in Spanish)

[Iversen]

I'm not really worried about the harsh judgments of Krashen's Arabian skills. Votes from a random and undefined mass of forum users (including some crackpots and others who don't know anything about the subject themselves) are worthless. Like the lists of the '10 best' something which some media excel in churning out - without specifying who made the list, and what background that person has (or persons, if the list has been compiled by a team).

I'm more worried about Krashen's lifelong crusade against formal learning. So if he at last has come to the conclusion that formal studying isn't as bad as he thought it was then it's progress - ok, belated progress, but still progress. And I can understand his doubts about grammar studies without simultaneous study of text samples (beyond the example phrases used in every grammar book). But if his stance now is that studies of comprehensive texts or speech always should come before the grammar studies then he has only moved half the way. The grammar studies (at a suitable level, of course) should come already while you are trying to make heads and tails of genuine (and comprehensible) text passages. And one way of making texts comprehensible is of course to use bilingual texts, but Krashen doesn't seem really to consider that possibility.

[Ezra]

I watched the whole video. It seems to be a very good way to learn a language like the Arabian dialect, presented in the video, which has no writing system.

[Random Review]

My own personal view: is this the best approach to learning a language? Given a lot of free time and a fair bit of money, quite probably. For ordinary people with limited time and funds, probably not (though I think you definitely do need a lot of CI at some point).

In what sense is the effectiveness of comprehensible input limited by time and money in a way that, say, a communicative approach isn't? Learning a language will require a lot of time regardless of approach. In fact, I'd say that the communicative approach is much more limited by lack of acces to a tutor than an input-based approach.

Am I missing something? Maybe there's a third or fourth option I'm not considering.

He does attack a straw man at one point in this video, though. He gives an example of terrible error correction when demonstrating why error correction doesn't work. Yes, Stephen, you are right: that sort of error correction is not only pointless but counterproductive... and also a million miles away from what good teachers do.

Are you talking about j'ai allé* > je suis allé (37:40)? If I may ask, what would you consider a good example of error correction?

I think if you do it by having someone describe pictures to you, it could be difficult. You either need a patient friend with a whole lot of free time, or you have to pay a tutor. However, you can do CI on your own by watching easy TV shows, shows you’ve already seen before in another language or by doing LR.

And I do all of those things already, dude. It took me a year and a half to reach a point where I could do that in Chinese, though. The real power of CI IMO comes if you can do it first like this guy. However that's a whole other debate.

I was talking about doing CI from the beginning. You just have to find something easy enough, like Peppa Pig, to watch. Or you can use LR. It’s actually meant to be used from the beginning. I prefer to mix CI and traditional methods like a textbook or a good FSI course, but you could do CI first and then use a textbook to get a better understanding of the grammar.

I think it depends on the target language, mate. My various experiences with Spanish and German make me think that what you suggest would definitely be possible for English speakers with a Romance or Germanic language. Perhaps it would even be possible for a language like Indonesian. It would not work for a language like Chinese or Arabic. As a matter of fact I am binge watching precisely Peppa pig right now in Mandarin and, after (by now) a little over two years learning the pronunciation, a fair chunk of the grammar (far more interesting and challenging than its reputation suggests) and a vocabulary of a couple of thousand words (oral), it is perfect for me. It is a really funny show, I think a lot of people who don't like it must be missing the humour.

That was what interested me most about this guy's video: it was a from scratch method for learning with CI that works with opaque (to English speakers) and difficult languages like Mandarin and Arabic. Previously the only ones I had heard of were ALG and Bakunin's hybrid of ALG and Growing Participator.

[Cavesa]

I definitely agree with Random Review's and Iversen's points, thanks for bringing them up.

I'd say the main problem with the method description in the video is, that it doesn't show CI works, it shows that moving abroad for a few months with a lot of paid tutors works. I am convinced that many other approaches would work just the same, if you put in the same huge amounts of time and money.

Vast majority of learners cannot do that. We need methods, that work within our budget and time limitations. And, that's where some of the traditional approaches are so helpful, because they save time, and one book is always cheaper than many hours with a tutor.

That's my main problem with some of the CI enthusiasts, and also some of the communicative approach enthusiasts. As soon as they condemn such extremely useful things as the grammar books or flashcards, they are advocating spending many more hours of time and much more money on learning the same amount of content instead. Which makes language learning less accessible and less efficient.

[aaleks]

<...>the traditional approaches are so helpful, because they save time, and one book is always cheaper than many hours with a tutor.

That's my main problem with some of the CI enthusiasts, and also some of the communicative approach enthusiasts. As soon as they condemn such extremely useful things as the grammar books or flashcards, they are advocating spending many more hours of time and much more money on learning the same amount of content instead. Which makes language learning less accessible and less efficient.

For me they do not save time -- textbooks, flashcards. I actually had to unlearn most of the things I'd learned from textbooks. And if I learn words faster, or at least not slower without using flashcards, why should I use them? There was the time when I thought that textbooks were supposed to save time, or that had I used them from the beginning my English would've been better by now/then, and so on. Life has proved me wrong. Of course, I'm speaking only about myself -- my limited experience. I'm not going to argue that for some (maybe even most?) learners using so called traditional approach would be a more effective way to learn a language but not for me. But at the same time I wouldn't use exactly the same approach as in the video, either. Not only because I don't not have the resource for hiring native tutors, or moving to a country of the language but on top of that I find it as boring and tedious as learning a language with textbooks, flashcards, and other effective methods.

[Cainntear]

In what sense is the effectiveness of comprehensible input limited by time and money in a way that, say, a communicative approach isn't? Learning a language will require a lot of time regardless of approach. In fact, I'd say that the communicative approach is much more limited by lack of acces to a tutor than an input-based approach.

The communicative approach is dead -- the "TEFL approach" isn't genuinely following the communicative approach. The problem with CI in terms of time is that if you don't start with the rules, it takes you longer to get to be able to use them. You need a lot of exposure to be able to learn something from input, because you've got to see it enough times and in enough settings to get a feel for it.

In the late 1800s/early 1900s, similar "natural" and "direct" methods were popular, but they went out of fashion because they weren't compatible with people's learning timetables.

True communicative approach has a similar problem in that it avoids explicit grammar instruction entirely and expects learners to intuit the rules through a combination of exposure and recycling of language.

If you do conscious grammar study, though, you can gain first exposure to the rules and patterns as rules and patterns -- this means that you have them to hand without having to see hundreds of examples first, and you can use input and exposure to improve and refine your understanding of the grammar.

[Kraut]

Angela Friederici is one of the leading experts on language acquisition. She recommends syntax/grammar priority:

http://gocognitive.net/interviews/langu ... ore?page=1

http://parisdescartes.libguides.com/neu ... ie_accueil

https://forum.language-learners.org/vie ... 14&t=10210

[StringerBell]

If you do conscious grammar study, though, you can gain first exposure to the rules and patterns as rules and patterns -- this means that you have them to hand without having to see hundreds of examples first, and you can use input and exposure to improve and refine your understanding of the grammar.

I don't understand why this always has to turn into a "there is only one right way to learn a language for everybody". Just because I learn best through CI first and then studying some grammar once I have a feel for the language and enough vocabulary to actually apply those grammar rules to doesn't mean that everyone has to do it that way. The "grammar first" strategy never worked for me; I tried it several times and it produced nothing but frustration. Clearly it works for you, though. Why not just agree that there are different ways to approach language learning and people can choose what works for them?

[El Forastero]

As you know, there is no gemination in Spanish.

Indeed, there is. When you want to put prefix like "in" or "en" and the next word begins by an N. The N sound is double, each syllable has an N.

Innecesario: Unnecesary
Innegable: Undeniable
Ennegrecer: Turn Dark
Ennoblecer: To Ennoble

[tarvos]

Yes, but I don't think that that negation is actually pronounced in the geminate way, as it is done in Italian.