Krashen and "Krashenite"

[Le Baron]

Am I correct that this is what makes him controversial, and if so, could someone point me to a quote of him advocating against production?

Have a look at that latest video where he's talking to (at) Noam Chomsky. It was posted here recently. He claims he has become great at output merely by reading books at home.

[lysi]

So, I've seen Krashen mentioned a bunch but I don't know anything about him. "Lots of input good" is pretty uncontroversial and I can't think of anyone on this forum who would say "lots of input bad". So, I'm not sure exactly what he's said that is controversial. Does he advocate an input-only regimen, meaning that he discourages speaking or writing drills? That would definitely not be something I would agree with, although seeing as I don't have a PhD in linguistics or education (or in anything, to be fair) I can't make an academic response against it.

Am I correct that this is what makes him controversial, and if so, could someone point me to a quote of him advocating against production?

Krashen is controversial online because what he claims concerns the universal. He's not a polyglot saying about what his advice for learning languages is, he's saying that, fundamentally, any time put towards studying grammar has been completely wasted (in that explicit knowledge has no effect on implicit knowledge), and that any time spent outputting was only useful indirectly (in that it gave you input from your conversation partner).

He's controversial in SLA research because of his polarizing opinions and unsubstantiated claims.

[Deinonysus]

Thanks Le Baron and lysi for the explanations! I also found this sentence from the Wikipedia page on Input hypothesis: "Understanding spoken and written language input is seen as the only mechanism that results in the increase of underlying linguistic competence, and language output is not seen as having any effect on learners' ability." It isn't sourced but I'll assume that it's accurate, and apologies if it isn't.

Now again, I do not have a PhD in linguistics or education so I can't provide an academic refutation of this, but I have to say that it makes no sense to me and goes against everything I have experienced as a learner.

Shut down the conservatories. Want to be an opera singer or concert pianist? Don't practice your scales, just listen to a ton of music and you'll be ready for the big time! Want to be an NBA player? Don't bother practicing lay-ups, just get a season pass on ESPN! Want to be a chess grandmaster? Don't bother learning opening theory or solving puzzles, just watch Twitch streams all day!

I am a classically trained singer and I have to say that producing the sounds of a new language requires just as much training, drilling, and muscle memory as any other task like learning to sing or play piano. I work very hard on my pronunciation and I've had very good responses to it. Icelanders have told me they were shocked that a foreigner could correctly pronounce words like Gull or Eyjafjallajökull. On my first Xhosa lesson, out of dozens of different sounds my teacher only corrected me on one. The French are notorious for switching to English when they hear an anglophone accent, but I have never had that happen and I don't recall a French speaker ever misunderstanding anything I've said or asking me to repeat myself, let alone switching to English. Do I have some sort of special magical throat? Nope. Am I making it all up for internet attention? I'd say no but that's just what someone who's making it all up for internet attention would say so you'll need to trust me.

The truth of the matter is, my success with pronunciation comes because I drill sounds over and over until I can consistently get them to sound right. When I did Pimsleur Icelandic I didn't just respond once to each sentence; if something didn't sound exactly right I'd repeat it over and over until it did, and maybe later in the day I'd still be muttering some particular problem words. I had been practicing Xhosa sounds, especially the clicks, for weeks before my lesson, and it was not my first time trying to wrap my head (and tongue) around it. I've also done my best to practice my French pronunciation as well as I could, and I think it's good now but I know I have a lot of improvements left to make before I'm truly confident in my pronunciation.

In the case of Icelandic and Xhosa, I did not spend hundreds or thousands of hours listening to native materials, and in fact I have not listened to much at all. Instead I focused on specific sounds and practiced them over and over until I had something that sounded correct in my muscle memory. In the case of French, I have had a lot of input and I can read it pretty fluently, but I can't speak it nearly as confidently as I can speak German, even though my German vocabulary isn't nearly as strong and I haven't had as much input. I think the reason is that since German is more closely related to my native English, it's a bit more comfortable to pronounce so I don't need to make as drastic of a change from my native accent.

Another counterpoint is that there are many people who have had thousands of hours of comprehensible English input who do not speak perfect English. They may have fossilized grammatical mistakes, they may not be able to distinguish between important minimal pairs, or they might not have the confidence to say much at all, and yet they can understand everything an English speaker says perfectly. They are already way past the point of diminishing returns on input and no further amount will do them any good. I think that if you truly want to get your pronunciation as close to perfect as possible, you need to drill the correct sounds (hearing and producing them) and get them into your muscle memory, just like you would do if you were learning an instrument.

[lysi]

I am not really that interested in the research litterature. However I've been greatly influenced by Steve Kaufmann, and the massive input approach has been beneficial for me, because I was a too intellectual learner. I used to believe that I could learn a language by reading through a textbook and maybe do some exercises. That didn't work, because a lot of listening is essential - in that way the new language becomes automatic, and it's easier to remember a word that I have heard.

I think you need a good balance. Textbooks, reading, listening, exercises. Only input is not sufficient.

I agree. You can choose to ignore the research, but the thing is that if Krashen is right, then all of us must just be wrong, and Krashen being right is certainly the impression you'd get based on his popularity and the complete absence of any criticism towards him (well, elsewhere). Arguelles got caught up with this a bit in one of his videos, if I recall correctly, where he mentioned Krashen and he pointed out how, since Krashen was such a renowned researcher, the way that he had been studying languages the entire time was just incorrect (though he continued to give his advice based on his personal experience), or at least that's what I inferred. But he's not wrong and neither are we, the research is on our side (or, better put, not on Krashen's).

Thanks Le Baron and lysi for the explanations! I also found this sentence from the Wikipedia page on Input hypothesis: "Understanding spoken and written language input is seen as the only mechanism that results in the increase of underlying linguistic competence, and language output is not seen as having any effect on learners' ability." It isn't sourced but I'll assume that it's accurate, and apologies if it isn't.

Wikipedia is very Krashenite. The page on his hypotheses doesn't even have any criticism besides some guy named Wolfgang Butzkamm who I've honestly never even heard of. The only real criticism on his page is this:

The most popular competitors are the skill-building hypothesis and the comprehensible output hypothesis.[9]

And the quote is from Krashen himself from 1989. Compare this to the wikipedia page for comprehensible output, where more words are put towards Krashen's criticism of it than the actual theory itself or it's history. Looking at the page history, the page was created in 2008 and it's basically been untouched since. They literally just made the page to criticize it.

[Pikaia]

I was listening to the first episode of the Inner French podcast yesterday, and it covered some of Krashen’s ideas. The podcast creator is not a Krashen worshipper, but Krashen’s ideas have influenced his own.

The one bit of the podcast that made me bristle was a claim that an introverted personality is a hindrance to language learning because the introvert brain tends to inhibit itself. I wonder, is this a mischaracterization? Or is Krashen one of the many extroverts who think introverts are broken?

[jmar257]

The one bit of the podcast that made me bristle was a claim that an introverted personality is a hindrance to language learning because the introvert brain tends to inhibit itself. I wonder, is this a mischaracterization? Or is Krashen one of the many extroverts who think introverts are broken?

I mean, I think that's a fair statement with the caveat that it depends on one's goals. If you want to be a Professor Arguelles type that is primarily learning to read I don't think it's a hindrance, but if you want to have some kind speaking proficiency (which is typically a big goal of language learners in general) I could see how it definitely could be a hindrance. I'm somewhat introverted myself (although not socially awkward or overly shy--I feel that distinction gets lost at times) and it's probably harmed my progress in that I can content myself with language study by reading or doing some other study on my own--which is good, but my speaking lags way behind other skills because I haven't felt the burning need to go converse much. And I tend towards overthinking as introverts are wont to do, I believe. I don't think that means Krashen thinks introverts are broken, however.

As far as Krashen's theories themselves, they seem good on the face (at the highest level, i.e., input good). It seems he sometimes lacks the rigor he should as an academic and I think the idea that one solely needs input is a bit crazy, but I don't necessarily care about the academic side of SLA, personally--just how I can better learn languages. Input has been a great boon but I can't ever imagine doing away with courses...

[Pikaia]

I’m only okay with the statement that introverts are wont to overthink things if it is immediately followed by a statement to the effect that extroverts are wont to underthink things.

[Le Baron]

I'm also an introvert (and it was extreme when at school). However necessity has later forced me into doing things I wouldn't have chosen to do. As an introvert it's easier to redefine and redraw your boundaries and goals, so you tell yourself: 'I'm only really interested in reading Spanish or Russian' or whatever. When in fact your inner burning desire is to speak it just as much as anyone else.

I'm still an introvert, you can't change who you are that easily (and shouldn't have to), but some of it really is about breaking out of the comfort zones and safe spaces where you won't fail or be caught off guard. There is an element of control within introversion...at least in my experience.

[smallwhite]

Would and how would Krashen’s theories apply to our L1?

[Le Baron]

Would and how would Krashen’s theories apply to our L1?

Well he falls into line with Chomsky in the view that grammar is universalised and internal and doesn't need to be explicitly taught. Unfortunately he also thinks this is entirely true for L2 acquisition.