Krashen and "Krashenite"

General discussion about learning languages
無限時間
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri May 26, 2023 9:10 pm
Languages: English
Japanese (N5-N4)
x 10

Re: Krashen and "Krashenite"

Postby 無限時間 » Sat May 27, 2023 11:06 pm

I honestly can't believe the paragraphs of debate here, I thought it wouldn't be controversial to say that Krashen inspired me when I started.


No one needs to focus on Krashen's work or whether or not he coined CI, it's quite frankly a pointless conversation especially when related to SLA.

If you want progress via SLA you just need hard work and fun. I think it's a pointless and quite crazy waste of time to debate how Krashen's CI is being used differently online, it doesn't matter just forget about Krashen and CI for a minute. We are here to learn languages so in my opinion getting obsessive over terminology and whether or not Krashen is or did this or that is a pointless discussion. Personally, I really think Krashen is someone that just pops into your head every now and then to remind yourself that anyone can learn a language through effort - that is how I use him, as that's what got me started. But do I care about the little things like Krashen's pile of research or any of his insanely pointlessly long interviews on YouTube?

No, I don't think anyone should. The only goal is to continually further the progress in the TL. There is no reason to think about Krashen anymore than that as the only one who will truly be able to find the best approach for language learning is the language learner themselves
0 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 3098
Contact:

Re: Krashen and "Krashenite"

Postby leosmith » Sat May 27, 2023 11:44 pm

無限時間 wrote:I honestly can't believe the paragraphs of debate here
Welcome to the forum.
If you want progress via SLA you just need hard work and fun.
According to who?
1 x
https://languagecrush.com/reading - try our free multi-language reading tool

User avatar
Le Baron
Black Belt - 3rd Dan
Posts: 3505
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2021 5:14 pm
Location: Koude kikkerland
Languages: English (N), fr, nl, de, eo, Sranantongo,
Maintaining: es, swahili.
Language Log: https://forum.language-learners.org/vie ... 15&t=18796
x 9384

Re: Krashen and "Krashenite"

Postby Le Baron » Sun May 28, 2023 12:57 am

Cainntear wrote:Well, here the key point is "no-one seems to have a name for it". You may be right, because outside of Krashen's hypothesese it's not really enough of a tangible "thing" to have a noun phrase attached to it. You may be wrong, because I have repeatedly used phrase such as "at your level" or "at an appropriate level". But you may be right, because I don't "have a name for it" -- I discuss the concepts. I think one of the biggest issues in the modern world is that having a name for something about it means people don't actually talk about ideas -- they insist that each other are using the name wrong.

My argument isn't that the name is being used wrong, but that using any name at all appeals to ignorance.


Merely having names for things doesn't close down discussions about their content. Between 2022 and now I've read a fair number of books (about 8) from the Routledge professional applied linguistics series on SLA and ESL. All of them use and discuss the words 'comprehensible input' where they talk about it and discuss it fully, including surrounding issues of innate language acquisition and cognitive learning and a host of other ideas. It doesn't matter what the name is so long as people share the same terminology and know what is being referred to - and that would be to either critique, reject, or accept and employ it. In fact without a name there is nothing to which anyone could refer in order to confirm or critique. If you say Krashen's hypothesis is nothing, then I would find it difficult to know what exactly everyone is being misguided by and why Krashen is responsible for something that was supposedly already there.

Every book or journal article I have read up to now accepts the name 'comprehensible input' and that it is meaningful as a concept and that it is important for SLA even if it can also be left to interpretation as to how to gauge and apply it. I don't find that at all unusual. I think even if Krashen's name were to be banished from all the literature and never mentioned again the name 'comprehensible input' as I outlined it's two main features above would remain as a correct description of the sort of input required for SLA. None of all that bothers me at all in relation to Krashen, I just think his rejection of grammar consultation is incorrect.
3 x

User avatar
Le Baron
Black Belt - 3rd Dan
Posts: 3505
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2021 5:14 pm
Location: Koude kikkerland
Languages: English (N), fr, nl, de, eo, Sranantongo,
Maintaining: es, swahili.
Language Log: https://forum.language-learners.org/vie ... 15&t=18796
x 9384

Re: Krashen and "Krashenite"

Postby Le Baron » Sun May 28, 2023 1:07 am

無限時間 wrote:If you want progress via SLA you just need hard work and fun.

I think what would bother people is that once you're asked to explain 'hard work and fun' they'd need something in the form of advice that they could use. What is the 'hard work' bit and what is the 'fun'?
無限時間 wrote:Personally, I really think Krashen is someone that just pops into your head every now and then to remind yourself that anyone can learn a language through effort - that is how I use him, as that's what got me started. But do I care about the little things like Krashen's pile of research or any of his insanely pointlessly long interviews on YouTube?

Well why wouldn't you? What is it that actually 'got you started'? Hopefully not the stuff you don't care about in his pile of research, because if I were you I'd want to think about whether something someone said which seemed like a good idea, really had something going for it in the long-term. You don't have to pull his research apart, but you should probably think about it, especially if going around telling about it!
2 x

User avatar
Saim
Blue Belt
Posts: 676
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2015 12:14 pm
Location: Rheinland
Languages: Native: English
Others: Catalan, Serbian, Spanish, Polish, Hungarian, Urdu, French etc.
Main focus: German
x 2314

Re: Krashen and "Krashenite"

Postby Saim » Sun May 28, 2023 7:32 am

Regardless of whether it's used in SLA research, on the internet the term CI has gotten so wrapped up in broscience and random unrelated methodologies that I've also moved away from using it. I prefer the terms "meaningful exposure", "extensive activities", "material you understand most of" and "implicit learning" (depending on what exactly you're referring to), because they're actually a lot clearer in practice.
Last edited by Saim on Mon May 29, 2023 4:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
6 x
log

شجرِ ممنوع 152

User avatar
Le Baron
Black Belt - 3rd Dan
Posts: 3505
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2021 5:14 pm
Location: Koude kikkerland
Languages: English (N), fr, nl, de, eo, Sranantongo,
Maintaining: es, swahili.
Language Log: https://forum.language-learners.org/vie ... 15&t=18796
x 9384

Re: Krashen and "Krashenite"

Postby Le Baron » Sun May 28, 2023 11:04 am

Saim wrote:Regardless whether it's used in SLA research, on the internet the term CI has gotten so wrapped up in broscience and random unrelated methodologies that I've also moved away from using it. I prefer the terms "meaningful exposure", "extensive activities", "material you understand most of" and "implicit learning" (depending on what exactly you're referring to), because they're actually a lot clearer in practice.

Yes, I agree with this. It has become a layman's buzzword attached to whatever interpretation some internet guru gives to it. As such it spoils it. However it would probably be better to reclaim it than relinquish it. Like Cainntear remarked further up (or even another thread?) the words 'hypothesis' and 'theory' are very often treated in a cavalier way with little distinction. And rdearman pointed out the erroneous common currency of 'factoid'. I think all these should be addressed in use.

The problem with denoting ideas which require a good deal of further explanation is that none of the names ever really encapsulate their full or exact definitions. Implicit learning (or listening) which is a good enough name, would also need some explanation once it is addressed, as: 'not explicit or immediately discernible...' and 'not immediately conscious learning'. For all its misuse CI by using 'comprehensible' does indicate input material that is understood or able to be grasped, and any further clarification is in the detail.
3 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 8657
Contact:

Re: Krashen and "Krashenite"

Postby Cainntear » Sun May 28, 2023 11:19 am

無限時間 wrote:I honestly can't believe the paragraphs of debate here, I thought it wouldn't be controversial to say that Krashen inspired me when I started.

If I said I couldn't beleive the paragraphs of opinion in your posts and say that things that you personally clearly find important are "pointless", would you, or would you not, feel offended by that?

So please consider how your messages may come across as an insult to others. You are effectively telling us to shut up because we're idiots and wrong -- that's the message, whether you realise it or not.

No one needs to focus on Krashen's work or whether or not he coined CI, it's quite frankly a pointless conversation especially when related to SLA.

No. It is not pointless. I have tried to be very clear on what the point is, but here it is in a nutshell: the term CI is misleading because it causes people to have pointless arguments when people Google it, "discover" Krashen, and then keep "correcting" people by repeatin Krashen's essentially discredited ideas. Talking about CI is harmful to debate and discussion.

If you want progress via SLA you just need hard work and fun.

The teacher needs to do hard work -- the student shouldn't need to. Hard work and fun are often opposed to each other.
I think it's a pointless and quite crazy waste of time to debate how Krashen's CI is being used differently online, it doesn't matter just forget about Krashen and CI for a minute.

Yes. Stop saying CI. Problem solved.
We are here to learn languages so in my opinion getting obsessive over terminology and whether or not Krashen is or did this or that is a pointless discussion.

It is not.
The only goal is to continually further the progress in the TL. There is no reason to think about Krashen anymore than that as the only one who will truly be able to find the best approach for language learning is the language learner themselves

If you don't want to think about Krashen, why are you posting in a thread entitled Krashen and "Krashenite"?
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 8657
Contact:

Re: Krashen and "Krashenite"

Postby Cainntear » Sun May 28, 2023 12:19 pm

Le Baron wrote:
Cainntear wrote:Well, here the key point is "no-one seems to have a name for it". You may be right, because outside of Krashen's hypothesese it's not really enough of a tangible "thing" to have a noun phrase attached to it. You may be wrong, because I have repeatedly used phrase such as "at your level" or "at an appropriate level". But you may be right, because I don't "have a name for it" -- I discuss the concepts. I think one of the biggest issues in the modern world is that having a name for something about it means people don't actually talk about ideas -- they insist that each other are using the name wrong.

My argument isn't that the name is being used wrong, but that using any name at all appeals to ignorance.


Merely having names for things doesn't close down discussions about their content.

Not entirely, but it does close minds. For example, consider the phrase “we’re a republic, not a democracy", which is a little too popular in the US at the moment.

These things are not opposites, but the abstract concepts have become taken as opposite by voters, because the nominalisation of "republican" and "democrat" has led to a shortcut in thinking, and many Republican voters are therefore viewing the concept of democracy as counter to their self identity. Which is pretty mental, but it's just how humans think.

Between 2022 and now I've read a fair number of books (about 8) from the Routledge professional applied linguistics series on SLA and ESL. All of them use and discuss the words 'comprehensible input' where they talk about it and discuss it fully, including surrounding issues of innate language acquisition and cognitive learning and a host of other ideas.

Well on one hand, the ESL industry has kind of extended Krashen's ideas because they justify a market dominated by native speakers who aren't actually thinking particularly deeply about their language.

I also don't think that you've really defined what it means, which is kind of my point. Using the term but not defining it doesn't help people who haven't read any definitions, because they end up being forced to assume a meaning. The problem with undefined technical terms is that they get dragged into the vagueness of colloquial terminology... and I'm not sure, but I reckon I could start a heated debate with you about what a "bun" is! ;)

If we use a technical term with people who are not familiar with its defined meaning, we lead them to assume they know what it means, because ego defence means they have to assume that they know what it means... but they don't.

It doesn't matter what the name is so long as people share the same terminology and know what is being referred to - and that would be to either critique, reject, or accept and employ it.

There is plenty of evidence that they don't, and that's my point -- we are not referring to the same thing as each other.
In fact without a name there is nothing to which anyone could refer in order to confirm or critique.

And yet this thread spends a lot of time with people disagreeing over what the term actually refers to. I ascertain that if we cease to use CI the way Krashen defined it, then we are opening the problem that we are not in fact sharing terminology because we aren't in fact referring to the same thing.

Every book or journal article I have read up to now accepts the name 'comprehensible input' and that it is meaningful as a concept and that it is important for SLA even if it can also be left to interpretation as to how to gauge and apply it. I don't find that at all unusual. I think even if Krashen's name were to be banished from all the literature and never mentioned again the name 'comprehensible input' as I outlined it's two main features above would remain as a correct description of the sort of input required for SLA.

If people were to start making correct descriptions instead of lazily using the term CI without saying what they're actually talking about, that would be a Very Good Thing, because then people would understand each other.

Le Baron wrote:
Saim wrote:Regardless whether it's used in SLA research, on the internet the term CI has gotten so wrapped up in broscience and random unrelated methodologies that I've also moved away from using it. I prefer the terms "meaningful exposure", "extensive activities", "material you understand most of" and "implicit learning" (depending on what exactly you're referring to), because they're actually a lot clearer in practice.

Yes, I agree with this. It has become a layman's buzzword attached to whatever interpretation some internet guru gives to it. As such it spoils it. However it would probably be better to reclaim it than relinquish it. Like Cainntear remarked further up (or even another thread?) the words 'hypothesis' and 'theory' are very often treated in a cavalier way with little distinction.

That's aperfect example of the way technical terms can become corrupted by colloquial use. Even if CI has a meaningful definition, it's far too commo for it to be used in a fuzzy pseudo-technical way.

The problem with denoting ideas which require a good deal of further explanation is that none of the names ever really encapsulate their full or exact definitions. Implicit learning (or listening) which is a good enough name, would also need some explanation once it is addressed, as: 'not explicit or immediately discernible...' and 'not immediately conscious learning'. For all its misuse CI by using 'comprehensible' does indicate input material that is understood or able to be grasped, and any further clarification is in the detail.

Exactly the problem. People uncritically take a name as denoting a fairly concrete "thing", and it short-circuits critical thinking, because the existence of "thing" cannot be questioned.

I find "implicit learning" pretty dangerous because it is so far from being self-descriptive that people often misunderstand it. People talk about "explicit learning" as being synonymous with "active learning", which they uncritically follow by equating "implicit learning" with "passive learning"; the existence of the term "active learning" makes people presuppose that "passive learning" must also exist. But the core feature of "active learning theory" is that all learning is active in that your brain must be active to learn -- there is no passive absorption of knowledge.

Adjective+noun nominalisations are very popular because they're very quick to say and you don't really have to think. They aren't good because you don't have to think, so it's easy to use them wrong.
Last edited by Cainntear on Sun May 28, 2023 1:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
0 x

User avatar
Le Baron
Black Belt - 3rd Dan
Posts: 3505
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2021 5:14 pm
Location: Koude kikkerland
Languages: English (N), fr, nl, de, eo, Sranantongo,
Maintaining: es, swahili.
Language Log: https://forum.language-learners.org/vie ... 15&t=18796
x 9384

Re: Krashen and "Krashenite"

Postby Le Baron » Sun May 28, 2023 12:52 pm

Cainntear wrote:Not entirely, but it does close minds. For example, consider the phrase [url=https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/10/republic-democracy-mike-lee-astra-taylor.html]“we’re a republic, not a democracy",
which is a little too popular in the US at the moment.

These things are not opposites, but the abstract concepts have become taken as opposite by voters, because the nominalisation of "republican" and "democrat" has led to a shortcut in thinking, and many Republican voters are therefore viewing the concept of democracy as counter to their self identity. Which is pretty mental, but it's just how humans think.[/quote]
Yes I know this problem, similar to the people who reason: the Nazis were 'national socialists' therefore socialists therefore socialism is nazism. However I can't fight all battles or control the compromised reasoning of every last blockhead. So it's always a piecemeal affair. All information dissemination and understanding is a battle. All discussion of ideas is eventually more than just names and quick definitions, but time is a premium and reach is difficult. Classification and brevity is always a risk, but can and should be enough to begin a discussion.

I never assume that a discussion is on settled terms where everyone is on the same page. Coming from economics it's something to expect all the time where there is not only competing academic discussion, but also a deeply-embedded 'common sense' layman's version you have to compete against. So terminology is also a first-stop discussion; not necessarily disposing of terms unless they're really useless, but defining and explaining them.

'Comprehensible input' does not seem to me an 'incorrect' name, nor one which specifically obfuscates anything. There is discussion to be had about its employment/deployment and what it might mean. Way beyond that though, for me at least, the discussions should revolve around the common claims that to 'acquire' you just 'listen passively and read and all eventually becomes clear'. And this approach with regard to effective and structured teaching, because it misleads people into traps where they hold to ideological principles of not investigating explicit structural understanding for fear of upsetting the magic acquisition process. That discussion is always worth having.
0 x

User avatar
Le Baron
Black Belt - 3rd Dan
Posts: 3505
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2021 5:14 pm
Location: Koude kikkerland
Languages: English (N), fr, nl, de, eo, Sranantongo,
Maintaining: es, swahili.
Language Log: https://forum.language-learners.org/vie ... 15&t=18796
x 9384

Re: Krashen and "Krashenite"

Postby Le Baron » Sun May 28, 2023 12:53 pm

Cainntear wrote:Not entirely, but it does close minds. For example, consider the phrase [url=https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/10/republic-democracy-mike-lee-astra-taylor.html]“we’re a republic, not a democracy", which is a little too popular in the US at the moment.

These things are not opposites, but the abstract concepts have become taken as opposite by voters, because the nominalisation of "republican" and "democrat" has led to a shortcut in thinking, and many Republican voters are therefore viewing the concept of democracy as counter to their self identity. Which is pretty mental, but it's just how humans think.

Yes I know this problem, similar to the people who reason: the Nazis were 'national socialists' therefore socialists therefore socialism is nazism. However I can't fight all battles or control the compromised reasoning of every last blockhead. So it's always a piecemeal affair. All information dissemination and understanding is a battle. All discussion of ideas is eventually more than just names and quick definitions, but time is a premium and reach is difficult. Classification and brevity is always a risk, but can and should be enough to begin a discussion.

I never assume that a discussion is on settled terms where everyone is on the same page. Coming from economics it's something to expect all the time where there is not only competing academic discussion, but also a deeply-embedded 'common sense' layman's version you have to compete against. So terminology is also a first-stop discussion; not necessarily disposing of terms unless they're really useless, but defining and explaining them.

'Comprehensible input' does not seem to me an 'incorrect' name, nor one which specifically obfuscates anything. There is discussion to be had about its employment/deployment and what it might mean. Way beyond that though, for me at least, the discussions should revolve around the common claims that to 'acquire' you just 'listen passively and read and all eventually becomes clear'. And this approach with regard to effective and structured teaching, because it misleads people into traps where they hold to ideological principles of not investigating explicit structural understanding for fear of upsetting the magic acquisition process. That discussion is always worth having.
0 x


Return to “General Language Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Tumlare and 2 guests