Krashen and "Krashenite"

General discussion about learning languages
Kraut
Black Belt - 2nd Dan
Posts: 2599
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2017 10:37 pm
Languages: German (N)
French (C)
English (C)
Spanish (A2)
Lithuanian
x 3204

Re: Krashen and "Krashenite"

Postby Kraut » Tue Jul 20, 2021 11:03 am

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... ears_later

Was Krashen right? Forty years later
Karen Lichtman PhD, Bill VanPatten PhD
First published: 24 June 2021


Abstract

In the late 1970s and early 1980s, Stephen Krashen developed Monitor Theory—a group of hypotheses explaining second language acquisition with implications for language teaching. As the L2 scholarly community began considering what requirements theories should meet, Monitor Theory was widely criticized and dismissed, along with its teaching implications. What happened to these ideas? We argue that many of them have evolved and are still driving SLA research today—often unacknowledged and under new terminology. In this essay, we focus on three of Krashen's five fundamental hypotheses: The Acquisition-Learning Distinction, The Natural Order Hypothesis, and The Input Hypothesis. We argue that these ideas persist today as the following constructs: implicit versus explicit learning, ordered development, and a central role for communicatively embedded input in all theories of second language acquisition. We conclude with implications for language teaching, including a focus on comprehensible input and communication in the classroom.
2 x

User avatar
luke
Brown Belt
Posts: 1243
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2015 9:09 pm
Languages: English (N). Spanish (intermediate), Esperanto (B1), French (intermediate but rusting)
Language Log: https://forum.language-learners.org/vie ... 15&t=16948
x 3631

Re: Krashen and "Krashenite"

Postby luke » Tue Jul 20, 2021 11:39 am

Kraut wrote:https://www.researchgate.net/publication/352710658_Was_Krashen_right_Forty_years_later

Was Krashen right? Forty years later
Karen Lichtman PhD, Bill VanPatten PhD

In this video, Cesar Requena, Mexican professor, discusses Bill VanPatten's hypothesis. It's part of a series on psycholinguistics in Spanish. The goal of the series is to help guide other foreign language teachers in curriculum design, based on current research.

2 x

Cainntear
Black Belt - 3rd Dan
Posts: 3468
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2015 11:04 am
Location: Scotland
Languages: English(N)
Advanced: French,Spanish, Scottish Gaelic
Intermediate: Italian, Catalan, Corsican
Basic: Welsh
Dabbling: Polish, Russian etc
x 8659
Contact:

Re: Krashen and "Krashenite"

Postby Cainntear » Wed Jul 21, 2021 7:46 am

Kraut wrote:https://www.researchgate.net/publication/352710658_Was_Krashen_right_Forty_years_later

Was Krashen right? Forty years later
Karen Lichtman PhD, Bill VanPatten PhD
First published: 24 June 2021

It seems a rather odd argument.

Krashen made a big noise about a lot of ideas other people had previously discussed, and a lot of research effort has gone into showing why he's wrong, and the research hasn't shown him right, but we haven't seen that "the fundamental ideas involved" (NB: which he didn't actually invent) are wrong, and an updated, modified model adapted by innumerable teachers and researchers since is vastly superior to what he was saying in the 80s, therefore we owe him an "intellectual debt" and he should not be regarded as a mere historical point...?
1 x

User avatar
luke
Brown Belt
Posts: 1243
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2015 9:09 pm
Languages: English (N). Spanish (intermediate), Esperanto (B1), French (intermediate but rusting)
Language Log: https://forum.language-learners.org/vie ... 15&t=16948
x 3631

Re: Krashen and "Krashenite"

Postby luke » Wed Jul 21, 2021 11:11 am

Cainntear wrote:
Kraut wrote:Was Krashen right? Forty years later
Karen Lichtman PhD, Bill VanPatten PhD

It seems a rather odd argument.

Standing on the shoulders of giants may not apply here, but the notion of a mental representation for language in my head makes a lot more sense than a grammatical compute device. Not suggesting that anyone said there's a "grammatical compute device" in humans, although a few famous linguists do use the word "device" in their theories.

Mental representation seems to be a better fit for high level language, as opposed to "language-like behavior", in my humble, uninformed opinion.

Not that grammar isn't perhaps extremely useful for some learners, and helpful to most language learners at times.

For me, Krashen and VanPatten are proponents of a more tools based, individualized, bottom up approach to language learning as opposed to a notion like, thou shalt learn thy present tense before the future as there canst be no future without a present.

So, in the big picture, Krashen and VanPatten are more "feed the masses" figures and no longer wanted to go along with the program just because everybody said it was right.


For me, the most helpful attitude when learning something difficult is to listen to others and try to see where they are right, as opposed to where they're not.
1 x

Cainntear
Black Belt - 3rd Dan
Posts: 3468
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2015 11:04 am
Location: Scotland
Languages: English(N)
Advanced: French,Spanish, Scottish Gaelic
Intermediate: Italian, Catalan, Corsican
Basic: Welsh
Dabbling: Polish, Russian etc
x 8659
Contact:

Re: Krashen and "Krashenite"

Postby Cainntear » Wed Jul 21, 2021 12:04 pm

I have to say, I'm struggling to see how any of this relates to anything I said.
luke wrote:For me, Krashen and VanPatten are proponents of a more tools based, individualized, bottom up approach to language learning

Krashen is a proponent of a very specific way of working and not a general "tools based" approach. I can't see how you can describe it as any more "bottom up" than other language teaching styles.
as opposed to a notion like, thou shalt learn thy present tense before the future as there canst be no future without a present.

...except that one of Krashen's hypotheses is the natural order hypothesis, and he's frequently used to justify not teaching particular language points "too early"

For me, the most helpful attitude when learning something difficult is to listen to others and try to see where they are right, as opposed to where they're not.

Yes. But it doesn't mean we should actively promote someone who is mostly wrong, just so that people can look for where they are right. VanPatten's argument was that we should be talking about Krashen more, when I think Krashen is already discussed too much. The ideas can be discussed by talking about them without Krashen -- the ideas existed before him and were extended after him by others. Talking about Krashen too much does more to convince people to believe the things he said that were wrong than to critically examine the points where he was right.
4 x

User avatar
luke
Brown Belt
Posts: 1243
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2015 9:09 pm
Languages: English (N). Spanish (intermediate), Esperanto (B1), French (intermediate but rusting)
Language Log: https://forum.language-learners.org/vie ... 15&t=16948
x 3631

Re: Krashen and "Krashenite"

Postby luke » Wed Jul 21, 2021 1:33 pm

Cainntear wrote:I'm struggling to see how any of this relates to anything I said.
luke wrote:For me, Krashen and VanPatten are proponents of a more tools based, individualized, bottom up approach to language learning

Krashen is a proponent of a very specific way of working and not a general "tools based" approach. I can't see how you can describe it as any more "bottom up" than other language teaching styles.

Sorry about that. It didn't make sense for my quote to include yours. I was trying to shift tangentially to VanPatten, but he and the other guy probably could be lumped together, in that VanPatten builds off the work of others.

By "tools based, individualized, bottom up approach", I meant, "let the student choose their own book or media". My understanding is that both of them support the notion I've just put in quotes.

Krashen's glass may be more than half empty, but he pointed in the direction of the liquid refreshments.

Please note, my understanding of VanPatten is limited to that series of videos I linked to above.

I noticed this yesterday:
FSI Basic Spanish Volume 2 Page 23.33 wrote:This section includes several miscellaneous irregular verbs which show very little pattern similarity to other irregular types.
...
Though all these changes can be described, as above, by noting the individual modifications in each irregular form, it is usually more profitable for a student to use and memorize each irregular form as if it were a new vocabulary item, until the verb forms can be related through meaning and distribution, rather than their variance from regular patterns. In other words, these patterns have to be mastered in and of themselves; very limited transfer to similar forms will be possible.

And what does that have to do with anything?

If one thinks beyond what is on the paper in the quote, the linguist who wrote suggests that certain verbs vary so much that perhaps they are best learned, not as "this is all the same verb" - although it is - but rather as a small body of interconnected linguistic fragments that may later congeal, but for some (perhaps most) students, they don't have to worry that "I fall" and "we fall" are the same verb with different spellings. In the real world, there's a difference and it's okay that the student's mental representation permits this.

Similarly, with vocabulary, many words have multiple meanings, different registers, different colocations, etc. The "individualized, bottom up" notion seems to fit in here as well. Only a few are gifted or patient enough to turn a new word from a dictionary into a fully formed "mental representation" that matches that of the author(s) of the dictionary entry.

If you're interested in the vocabulary angle I'm referring to, check out the videos on vocabulario on that professor's YouTube channel.


But I don't want to debate. You're a professional and I'm just trying to offer my perspective.

And please understand that I'm not saying you're wrong on anything.

Just trying to explain in a general way to anyone who is reading. The quote was just a convenience and probably an error. Can I blame my mouse for that too? ;)
4 x

Kraut
Black Belt - 2nd Dan
Posts: 2599
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2017 10:37 pm
Languages: German (N)
French (C)
English (C)
Spanish (A2)
Lithuanian
x 3204

Re: Krashen and "Krashenite"

Postby Kraut » Wed Jul 28, 2021 8:07 pm

A long discussion on reddit following this statement by an anti-Krashenite:

https://www.reddit.com/r/languagelearni ... r_of_jeff/

I was pretty goddamn appalled by how bad it was, and I was further taken aback by the fact that there were children in the audience to whom he was communicating his language learning BS. I was actually pretty damn disturbed that he was telling children that it's impossible to study language in school, that you can only learn it by relaxing and listening to people, and it is impossible to learn proper pronunciation. I was also frustrated that, as a full-time faculty member, he basically got the school to pay for him to travel to Egypt to 5-weeks, dick around, and make a video about how useless language classes are. It's basically some hippy Stephen Krashen-esque stuff that was disproved in the 80s.




not sure why you’re being downvoted for saying learning languages requires at least some intentional effort... Just anecdotally, I learned a large amount of vocabulary growing up in a Spanish speaking household. I could understand a fair amount of conversational Spanish as a result. wasn’t until I grabbed a grammar book and properly taught myself how to use object pronouns etc that I was able to start having conversations beyond basic things like “pass me the dressing.” I‘ve been around Spanish my whole life. Telenovelas on the TV, salsa on a record player, etc. But the fact is I did not speak it enough when I was a kid to be properly fluent. And only now that I’m putting forth intentional effort is my ability progressing. I’m sorry but you don’t just magically absorb a language by forcing yourself to listen to it. You need to learn vocabulary and grammar to understand what is being put out (and more importantly - to be able to use it yourself), especially if you have a very limited background with the language. This is just my two cents — I am in no way an academic professional on language acquisition; merely giving my advice as a heritage speaker who already had a very strong foundation in the language but saw 0 progress until I began intentionally studying.

Last edited by Kraut on Thu Jul 29, 2021 1:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
2 x

User avatar
leosmith
Brown Belt
Posts: 1341
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2016 10:06 pm
Location: Seattle
Languages: English (N)
Spanish (adv)
French (int)
German (int)
Japanese (int)
Korean (int)
Mandarin (int)
Portuguese (int)
Russian (int)
Swahili (int)
Tagalog (int)
Thai (int)
x 3102
Contact:

Re: Krashen and "Krashenite"

Postby leosmith » Thu Jul 29, 2021 3:43 am

It's basically some hippy Stephen Krashen-esque stuff that was disproved in the 80s.
Is that the guy who used to say "Come on downtown and stay with me tonight. I got a pocket full of Krashenite"?
1 x
https://languagecrush.com/reading - try our free multi-language reading tool

User avatar
Iversen
Black Belt - 4th Dan
Posts: 4768
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2015 7:36 pm
Location: Denmark
Languages: Monolingual travels in Danish, English, German, Dutch, Swedish, French, Portuguese, Spanish, Catalan, Italian, Romanian and (part time) Esperanto
Ahem, not yet: Norwegian, Afrikaans, Platt, Scots, Russian, Serbian, Bulgarian, Albanian, Greek, Latin, Irish, Indonesian and a few more...
Language Log: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=1027
x 14962

Re: Krashen and "Krashenite"

Postby Iversen » Sun Aug 01, 2021 8:40 am

luke wrote:If one thinks beyond what is on the paper in the quote, the linguist who wrote suggests that certain verbs vary so much that perhaps they are best learned, not as "this is all the same verb" - although it is - but rather as a small body of interconnected linguistic fragments that may later congeal, but for some (perhaps most) students, they don't have to worry that "I fall" and "we fall" are the same verb with different spellings. (...)

Similarly, with vocabulary, many words have multiple meanings, different registers, different colocations, etc. The "individualized, bottom up" notion seems to fit in here as well. Only a few are gifted or patient enough to turn a new word from a dictionary into a fully formed "mental representation" that matches that of the author(s) of the dictionary entry.


In a strict bottom-up approach you would be spending years trying to pick up fragments. And this would be idiotic because you could use a grammar book to connect those fragments and fill out some holes. On the other hand the strict top-down approach (i.e. learning every aspect of something from a grammar book or dictionary) has the problem that it doesn't suit the way our memory works - you need to see things as they are used in real situations. One the other hand, getting acquainted with something at the theoretical level will make it much easier for you to make sense of all the confused stuff you find 'out there'. So in other words, both strict bottom-up and top-down are inefficient, you need a combination.

I have written somewhere in this thread that children learn their languages from isolated fragments (they can't read grammars or dictionaries, and parents may not be good at explaining things). In the case of highly irregular verbs like "to be" that would mean that they aren't learnt as one single verb, but more like several verb forms which are used in specific circumstances. With time the kids may realize that all the forms form one big lump - the verb "to be". On the other hand "fall" and "falls" are probably learnt from the start as one verb 'with a difference'. And then they learn to add the -s when speaking about single things or persons. but not when there are more than one. And then they learn that this isn't done for things that happened yesterday.

OK, this is possible, but a peek in a dictionary might clear things up so that you don't have to solve riddles yourself. Why invent the wheel when you can buy one?

As for words with a whole lot of uses: once you have memorized the 'core' meaning it will be easier to add secondary meanings and idioms etc. later. Trying to learn the whole lot in one fell sweep is not the smart way to do things. Use the tools (dictionaries, grammars) because they make it easier to learn from the real world afterwards. And use the real world to find out what you need to learn from the tools. And forget about Krashen.
8 x

User avatar
luke
Brown Belt
Posts: 1243
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2015 9:09 pm
Languages: English (N). Spanish (intermediate), Esperanto (B1), French (intermediate but rusting)
Language Log: https://forum.language-learners.org/vie ... 15&t=16948
x 3631

Re: Krashen and "Krashenite"

Postby luke » Sun Aug 01, 2021 11:34 am

Iversen wrote:
luke wrote:If one thinks beyond what is on the paper in the quote, the linguist who wrote suggests that certain verbs vary so much that perhaps they are best learned, not as "this is all the same verb" - although it is - but rather as a small body of interconnected linguistic fragments that may later congeal, but for some (perhaps most) students, they don't have to worry that "I fall" and "we fall" are the same verb with different spellings. (...)
Similarly, with vocabulary, many words have multiple meanings, different registers, different colocations, etc. The "individualized, bottom up" notion seems to fit in here as well. Only a few are gifted or patient enough to turn a new word from a dictionary into a fully formed "mental representation" that matches that of the author(s) of the dictionary entry.


In a strict bottom-up approach you would be spending years trying to pick up fragments. And this would be idiotic because you could use a grammar book to connect those fragments and fill out some holes.

Thank you for using the word "idiotic" to describe my approach. Now I'm seeing how well the moniker "idiot savant" fits me, even if "savant" is a stretch. :)

But I love the way you're introducing this. There's a difference between first language acquisition and second language learning/acquisition. Children are doing the first. If you're an older child or adult, you have to use some combination of learning and acquisition.

And if I get the drift of your closing statement, which I'm repositioning here, for continuity of the overall topic:
Iversen wrote:And forget about Krashen.

The detractors are saying "it can't be all acquisition if your not a child anymore. Even if you are a child, you might do well with some learning.

And on Kraut's reddit quote above in the second paragraph, about the "heritage Spanish non-speaker until I cracked a book". There, something akin to the "affective filter" was in play. I.E., Spanish was perhaps perceived as a low-prestige language not spoken by his/her peers. Or his parents weren't very talkative or something. Something was there that he didn't learn how to speak it. Could have even been parental pressure. Abuelita (grandma) can't speak English, but you have to. Of course we're nice to our live-in abuelita and speak to her in the language that she speaks, but she's older and we respect our elders. (And by the way, your parents and abuelita use Spanish as a code language when we're talking about you and we don't always want you to understand what we're up to).

I'm not trying to defend Krashen. Just that there's at least some truth in some of his ideas.

Iversen wrote:On the other hand the strict top-down approach (i.e. learning every aspect of something from a grammar book or dictionary) has the problem that it doesn't suit the way our memory works - you need to see things as they are used in real situations. On the other hand, getting acquainted with something at the theoretical level will make it much easier for you to make sense of all the confused stuff you find 'out there'. So in other words, both strict bottom-up and top-down are inefficient, you need a combination.

A brilliant conclusion AND it gets to the crux of Krashen criticism. Thank you, thank you, thank you!

Iversen wrote:I have written somewhere in this thread that children learn their languages from isolated fragments (they can't read grammars or dictionaries, and parents may not be good at explaining things). In the case of highly irregular verbs like "to be" that would mean that they aren't learnt as one single verb, but more like several verb forms which are used in specific circumstances. With time the kids may realize that all the forms form one big lump - the verb "to be". On the other hand "fall" and "falls" are probably learnt from the start as one verb 'with a difference'. And then they learn to add the -s when speaking about single things or persons. but not when there are more than one. And then they learn that this isn't done for things that happened yesterday.

On the button again, as per usual. A very good clarifying response and exactly what I meant to say, at least "to be" being a better example in English. I was thinking "to fall" (caerse but didn't want to clutter up the post with a verb I still haven't mastered. (you don't say to some fella me gusta a ti, unless you want to get hit. You say something like "you fall well with me" if you mean "you're cool". And I don't know all the proper conjugations either). It also happened to be one of the verbs presented in the unit I took the FSI quote from. (But FSI never gets into the "you fall well with me" and barely touches on darse cuenta, although it's great for so many other things).

Instead, I was drawn back to childhood memories of finding out that those various conjugations of "to be" were all the same word, at least as far as grammar was concerned. I was sick a lot at that time and never got the point of why grammar was even a subject. Seemed like a difficult subject that had only theoretical applications in the real world, as opposed to something like arithmetic, which helped you know how many comics you could buy, and know how many comics at 12 cents versus 25 cents you can buy with the money in your pocket, or which comics you can buy next week when you get your allowance. Arithmetic definitely has applicability. But grammar? Subject, predicate, that wasn't [i]too[i] bad. Then they just started piling on more complications on something that seemed unnecessary in the first place.

So again, thank you for bringing that up, because the "s" ending or "fall, fell, falls, fell" was not really difficult to grasp as a child in English. But the technical folks and teachers and those with distant maternal languages see learners struggle with something that seems easy to a native speaker.

Iversen wrote:OK, this is possible, but a peek in a dictionary might clear things up so that you don't have to solve riddles yourself. Why invent the wheel when you can buy one?

I love dictionaries for clearing things up and bringing new perspectives. They're fantastic. And I have the utmost respect for your approach, which you seem to use so naturally. Dictionary envy.

Iversen wrote:As for words with a whole lot of uses: once you have memorized the 'core' meaning it will be easier to add secondary meanings and idioms etc. later. Trying to learn the whole lot in one fell sweep is not the smart way to do things. Use the tools (dictionaries, grammars) because they make it easier to learn from the real world afterwards. And use the real word to find out what you need to learn from the tools.

Thinking maybe you're keyboard failed you in that last sentence. Did you mean "real world"? Not certain, because we're talking about dictionaries and words. But I was talking about comic books, and that's "real world" when you're a kid. That's how my dad learned to read. He was kept home from school a lot.

But you might have meant exactly what you typed, and if so, please clarify. The idiot needs more help.

Oh, and could you comment on another clarifying thing? Is your preferred first grammar a simple short book in a language you know well? Or do you man-handle a comprehensive grammar like you do a dictionary?
2 x


Return to “General Language Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: nathancrow77 and 2 guests