無限時間 wrote:I'm not a Krashenite so don't lump me in with them.
You did it yourself. It's like quoting the pope and feeling offended if people assume you're a catholic.
galaxyrocker wrote:無限時間 wrote: It's also kind of odd to act like Krashen's comprehensible input advice can't be interpreted as "more comprehensible input = good." That's a conclusion anyone could come to. There's no debate about that - no matter who you are the more you do to understand (learn grammar, vocab, learn the writing system, etc.) the more you will understand, so I think in that sense not only does it encourage people it is the opposite of bad and ineffective.
That is why I like it, although aside from that I'm not into looking at his other stuff. I think anyone could come to the same interpretation of comprehensible input
And all of that attitude was around
before Krashen. Most 'traditional' study materials are loaded with comprehensible input, Krashen didn't suddenly invent the notion of it as people try to claim.
Whether he invented "the notion" or not, I'm pretty certain he invented
the term.
My objection to the term is that it was created by him, and using the term itself is therefore an invitation to a pointless exchange between those who want it to mean something that Krashen didn't mean when he invented the term and those who think it must by definition mean what Krashen himself said.
I personally believe that this only ends up poisoning the well and giving Krashen undue influence -- as I said, his impact factor is increased because people only cite his papers to say "I don't mean what Krashen means" when defining the term "language acquisition", and this would end up the same way: Krashen's writings on CI would become more cited if other people used the term differently from him as they'd be forced to say "I don't mean what Krashen means".
I challenge anyone to give a definition of "comprehensible input" that (a) is different from Krashen's and (b) doesn't even mention him.
[edit]Oh yes, and... (c) mentions someone else who is himself or herself not a Krashenite cos they use it too.
What Krashen claims is that CI is the only way to learn a language. There's not a single SLA researcher I know of out there who would argue you don't need CI and lots of it; to attribute that to Krashen is to misunderstand and misinterpret what he says as well as what most other SLA researchers say as well.
I'm struggling to find anything through Google Scholar that mentions CI in a way that denies the term as referring to anything other than Krashen's thinking, eg:
I have personally never, as far as I am aware of, seen the term CI used divorced from Krashen's views about it in academic literature. I have seen people online trying to use the term as though it does not refer to Krashen's thinking, and I have seen that this always results in Krashenites responding that that's not what Krashen means.
Using the term CI is therefore counterproductive. Krashen has taken a woolly peudoscientific definition and tried to reify it with a seemingly objective term. This Is Not Good.