Sae wrote:Cainntear wrote:No, it is because your interpretation is highly literal and doesn't include any implications at all that you later go on to list as being implied by the definition.
You asked how I defined it. So I gave what I understood the meaning of those words displaced from any context means. But I keep context and any implied meanings to come from that separately.
But again: it seems to me pretty clear that it doesn't imply what you say it does. Now maybe that doesn't mean that it isn't clear implication to many, but simply that it isn't clear implication to
everyone. My father's view as a teacher was that if one kid doesn't understand an explanation, he has to make it clearer. I've always had the view that it's my responsibility as a writer to spend more time on my writing to avoid being misinterpreted, and that if I have to say "that's not what I meant", that's me accepting culpability and not accusing the other for failing to understand. Now of course, given current circumstances, I'm likely to underexplain myself on some topics and repeat myself on others. I'm aware of that and try to take it into account. I'm not really saying that I have a problem with how you use it; just that I see the fact that you use it as a problem because it is something that I know can be misinterpreted.
But it's not implied. The term comprehensible input denotes a reified concept -- a "thing". It's a thing, so it's not dependant on context in most people's minds. When you say that material that acts as input and is understood is not "comprehensible input", that like using the term "person" and expecting people to realise you mean a person of a particular ethnicity and religion because it's "implied" by some feature of the context. "Comprehensible input" doesn't make any reference to the context, so you cannot presume that everyone is aware of the intended context.
But I also see people use "comprehensible input" as a term whilst deviating from Krashen's concept. So I've taken that into consideration in how I understand the term. And relating to what you say further down, I have also heard it said that as a criticism to Krashen that comprehensible input was already being used. So I end up thinking of the term applying to how the same basic thing has been used outside of Krashen's scope.
Well the problem is that people have misunderstood. Krashen invented the term. People say "Krashen didn't invent anything new" and people have taken that onboard as "*Krashen didn't invent comprehensible input"... he did. He invented the term to describe anything that fits into his framework and exclude everything that didn't. I repeatedly rail against the notion that he didn't invent the term, because you if you say something that is factually incorrect, you undermine your own argument -- anyone you argue against will fixate on the thing you're wrong about and conclude that the things you're actually right about are also wrong.[/strike]
Scratch that, I decided to prove my claim by searching Google Scholar for the term. I searched for uses up to an including 1984, and everything still referred to Krashen. I found the earliest Krashen reference being 1978 so looked for references up to and including that year.
Genuine references to it were pretty few and far betweenNo, strike
that. An alledged 1968 reference links to a scanned paper published in 1992. 1955 is really 2004. 1957 is an ad for a 2016 conference. 1973 is what appears to be a PowerPoint presentation that mentions all of Krashen's main theories. Then we've got things that are incorrectly dated by a chapter number or a year. (Modern English wasn't spoken in 12 or in 7!) The term is not used nominally in a 1975 paper that says "the visual message clearly is the most comprehensible input in scenic quality determination" where not only is it "the input which is most comprehensible", but it's talking about visual perception of real places, not language.
I can't find a single source that used the term before Krashen to refer to reading material for language learners, or even for listening material. Krashen reified reading "at your level" by giving it a name, and he didn't stop there -- he
deified it. Thou shalt not read grammar books. Thou shalt not use dictionaries. This is the word of the Comprehensible Input.
I wasn't saying that you were blaming, but that it results in blaming. What I should have said, though, was that it results in learners feeling blamed -- that's what I really meant. If you talk in a way that presumes you are understood, there are three groups of listeners: those that understand; those that misunderstand (i.e. think they've understood but haven't); and those the don't understand (and know they don't). The third group may well feel threatened by your implication that they should understand and experience a sense of "blame". The second group may well start to realise that they're in the third group when discussion focuses on what you actually mean, and then you've got the worse problem of "ego-defence" when they refuse to accept the actual meaning and start to defend their misunderstanding. I believe I've seen exactly this happening on this very forum, and I'm absolutely certain I've seen it on various places across the internet.
I feel this is kind of an ungenerous leap.
You asked if I felt people understand what I mean when I say it. And my answer was basically a "yes" and followed with "I figure people understand the same".
This is just because I hadn't ever felt misunderstood saying it nor have I felt I've misunderstood other people using it. But it's not something you're going to know until somebody says or does something that indicates they've misunderstood (or that you're misunderstood). But it's hard to accommodate for it until you know somebody has misunderstood.
I have personally witnessed people talking at cross-purposes because they have different unspoken preconceptions. They each don't know that the other person hasn't understood. Or if they do realise that, they say "that's not what I meant", shifting the responsibility for the misunderstanding to the recipient of the message rather than the author of it.
And this just feels true for anything. If say, I was a teacher or trying to teach somebody something, then I would perhaps make extra steps to confirm and ensure students understand it. But in a conversation, to confirm people have understood would get patronising and I feel there would be an onus for a person to ask if they didn't understand or if there is a misunderstanding then people clarify, accept they happen, not be judgmental about it and move on.
The thing is, in a real face-to-face conversation it happens organically and automatically. When we have an exchange of messages in a pub, we take brief turns and there's a rapid iteration towards mutual comprehension.
That doesn't work on the internet. If we were to exchange brief messages that weren't responded to for hours, we would lose our train of thought, because we wouldn't be in the same headspace. So we have to explain ourselves a bit more -- heck, I've had times here where I've disagreed with someone very knowledgeable and they've had a go at me for stating something they already know, and I've also had times here where someone
else has had a go at me because they
don't have enough background information to understand what I'm saying.
It's a tough line to manage -- how do you both keep the conversation comprehensible to the layperson while not offending the person you're responding to by seemingly talking down to them?
The logical conclusion of managing that is a polarising discussion manner -- stay shallow, and stop trying to convince people who don't agree with you. And why should you? Being
wrong is the same as
being bad! Wrong people must be stopped. But I would say that I'm a democrublican who wants to detroy the country.
...which brings me back to the fact that the term CI was invented by Krashen to assert ownership over something which teachers were already doing: giving out reading material "at the students' level" or "appropriate to the students' level". When I've said this before I've had people insisting that it's actually "slighty above the students' level" because the level is "n" and the CI is "n+1", so Krashen has been very successful in placing the idea that what everybody did before him was wrong and too simple, when in reality good teachers would do the right thing and make it just the right level of difficulty.
I know that other language methods already do/did what Krashen has coined a term for. It's why I said
"Because as far as I see it, non-Krashenite methods still adopt a level of comprehensive input ".
And I have heard it said that comprehensible input already existed as a criticism to Krashen. To me, it's just a descriptive term and I don't carry the baggage of Krashen with it, because my exposure to it didn't come from watching and learning about Krashen, that's come later. I just want to use a term to describe what I mean, communicates it and not then be tied to the politics of language learning, and I didn't until I entered this thread.
It's someone who calls himself a Krashenite. I find it really helps identify pseudoscience when people who have a fundamental disagreement with the core philosophy still name themselves as following it.
How is "refold" different from the much-maligned grammar translation method?
I feel like their method employs elements of both grammar translation and comprehensible input. At least going by what I've read with their method and their recommendation of tools & how to use them. It sounds like they're employing elements of both.
Except the marketing tends to repeatedly
refer to Krashen and then implies that they are innovating by improving on Krashen. I haven't seen references to other people in the SLA field or any recognition that they're simply reintroducing common practices that Krashen has dismissed.
Yes, there is some disillusionment on some of the traditional ways of learning if we're referring to how language is taught in schools,
The problem is that placing the blame on a core philosophy and then proposing an alternative ignores that good teachers do well with a philosophy that suits them, and bad teachers do badly regardless of the philosophy.
Maybe in this respect, a shake up is needed and I understand that's what Krashen tried to, but maybe not in the right way or with all of the right answers and maybe not representing things correctly either.
Do we give certain national leaders credit for trying to do the right thing, or do we hold them responsible for the harm their actions have caused...?
But I don't discredit traditional learning methods, or mainstream ones because they obviously have merit if people are learning to speak a language with them, but I specifically think how it's taught in school sucks and it's no fault of the teacher IMO, well except in the case they do suck, which was true of some of my other teachers.
One of the big problems with methodology in schools is a "tick the boxes" philosophy. Krashen's comprehensible input was once the flavour of the month in schools. Good teachers would be criticised for doing stuff that actually worked rather than stuff the hierarchy claimed *would* work. This is the same today. "Why ar you doing things that actually interest your students? Don't you know that John Dow (1995) said that the sort of stuff you're doing wouldn't interest your students, and that they would be interested by the stuff we've bought that your students groan at instantly as soon as you pull the book out?"
To me the 'right' method is always the one that keeps you motivated, feels achieveable and gives results - it could be slower but if the faster method is at the compromise of motivation, then the a faster method will only last as long as willpower does.
Except that learning fast is intrinsically motivating -- fast learning means fast results. How can something be fast but not motivating? If it inspires frustration, it's forcing the learner to swim upstream -- yes, you develop big muscles, but you're doing unnecessary work.
However, I have insight to how I learn in general and I'd say my brain and thought processes are probably more chaotic that most people's to the point I question whether I should get tested for something like ADHD.
And here's the thing... it seems to me that the language learning community is far less neurotypical than many other pastimes. I hypothesise that this means the non-neurotypical types are being successful not because of the superficial methodology, but because of what they do to
augment the methodology -- how they "fill the gaps". That's why I'm always trying to get through the superficial and ask folk what they *really* do. What is the successful Krashenite's brain doing when they're reading "comprehensible input"? Are they just absorbing the correct meaning or are the actively reasoning about what it could mean?
So it has taken some level of experimentation to see what helps stick and what doesn't. Hence my "pick & choose". And it mostly ends up benefitting from methods that encompass "learn by doing" and reading, listening & watching as forms of comprehensive input are forms of 'doing' or well, using language. But I also learn by following writing prompts, by practicing conversation, by playing games etc. But if I hone in and focus on one way, it ends up being monotonous and thus unengaging.
I.e. it's really complicated, and people who try to oversimplify get a nice simple message that is easy to understand and that makes them popular.