Is consuming material that's beyond your "comprehensible input" level ever BETTER than understanding what you consume?

[Khayyam]

Based on my experience with German, and now with Persian, I'm of the opinion that there is likely never a time when consuming material that's beyond my "comprehensible input" level (like letting a radio show play when I can only understand 10% of the words) is a smarter approach than focusing on a much smaller bit of material and really learning it. If I'm nowhere near the point where I can understand conversational speech and I listen to an hour-long radio show, then even if I concentrate on it to the utmost, I won't have achieved much of anything at the end. other than to get a rough idea of what percentage of the words are in my vocab. Going beyond my comprehensible-input zone works well as an occasional test--it's fun and exciting to see that the number of words I know has increased since the last time I tried it--but I don't believe it increases my receptive ability much, if at all.

On the other hand, if I instead use that hour studying one paragraph (or, page, or chapter--depends on how difficult it is and how advanced I am), reading it multiple times, fussing over the toughest bits like sore teeth, repeatedly listening to a narrator read the passage, and doing my damnedest to be sure I understand every last word (even if a word is so strange that I have to stop and contemplate it for a minute or more to even begin to get the sense of it)--if I do all that, I'll have achieved something concrete, and made undeniable progress. I'll have taken a bit of text/audio that likely was in the incomprehensible-input zone an hour ago, and made it comprehensible. I'll know some new words--possibly just a few, but I'll really know them. The ones that tripped me up the most will likely be easier to remember in the future than the easy ones, since I'll have concentrated on them so hard.

Best of all--well, I don't actually know about best, but this is huge--I can now listen to the audio track any time I like (well, whenever I can devote a reasonable amount of attention to it) and mostly or entirely understand it. Of course each repetition is easier than the last, and there comes a point where understanding is effortless--or as effortless as it would be if I were listening to the same thing in English. Naturally, each repetition boosts my chances of recognizing all the words and phrases in the track the next time I see or hear them anywhere. Even if I only recognized 50% of them in the future (and I'm certain the true figure is far higher), I'd have made substantial progress.

From my POV, there appears to be no reason to deviate from this method at all until my reading-and-listening vocabulary is sufficiently large, and my general sense for the language sufficiently good, that the doorway to mass input naturally opens. When that happens, it's very obvious; I'll buckle down to process new stuff in my usual way, and I'll realize with delight that I can casually read or listen to the whole thing, or most of it. At that point, it's only natural to begin mass-inputting stuff I can actually understand. That's when my rate of progress begins to increase exponentially.

If there's a good argument against my position--that is, if there's a reason I would be wise to spend time exposing myself to material I don't understand (other than for an occasional progress test)--what would it be?

[Severine]

I would argue that it's never better (as in more effective from a learning perspective) to expose yourself to things beyond your ability to comprehend, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't do it if you wish to. Such exposure can still have value, and I think most of us learn for enjoyment, so there are other considerations besides optimizing learning rate.

For example, there are some days when it's hard to find time to sit down and study in a focused way. Having the radio on in the background won't necessarily impart any concrete knowledge of my target language, but it can be an enjoyable way to stay in contact with the language and expose myself to its sounds and rhythms.

Another example: I may be realistically unable to read my favourite novel in a certain language, but my enthusiasm might lead me to tackle it nevertheless. Is it an optimal use of my time? Objectively, no. But momentum in language learning requires an ongoing positive attitude toward the language, which is something an optimal progression curve cannot always deliver. If something delights me and won't actively sabotage my progress, that's usually reason enough for me.

[Khayyam]

I would argue that it's never better (as in more effective from a learning perspective) to expose yourself to things beyond your ability to comprehend, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't do it if you wish to. Such exposure can still have value, and I think most of us learn for enjoyment, so there are other considerations besides optimizing learning rate.

For example, there are some days when it's hard to find time to sit down and study in a focused way. Having the radio on in the background won't necessarily impart any concrete knowledge of my target language, but it can be an enjoyable way to stay in contact with the language and expose myself to its sounds and rhythms.

Another example: I may be realistically unable to read my favourite novel in a certain language, but my enthusiasm might lead me to tackle it nevertheless. Is it an optimal use of my time? Objectively, no. But momentum in language learning requires an ongoing positive attitude toward the language, which is something an optimal progression curve cannot always deliver. If something delights me and won't actively sabotage my progress, that's usually reason enough for me.

Great post. I've had similar thoughts many times about the importance of keeping the fire lit, and the tension between what's enjoyable and what's optimal.

I feel fortunate because my super-focused, repeat-it-'til-you're-numb approach is what pushes the dopamine buttons for me. It naturally leads to other kinds of highs, but it's addictive in its own right.

Re: Reading a novel you're not really ready for: I did exactly that with Harry Potter in German when I was a German beginner. It took forever and I was an ass to make the learning curve so steep, but I loved it so much, and was so proud of myself, that my motivation went through the roof. Starting with Assimil wouldn't have achieved that.

One of the main habits I have that keeps me hooked on languages--walking for hours at night while drinking coffee and listening to things--is quite terrible from an optimal-learning POV, since it means I sacrifice sleep. However, I never feel more in my proper element, more truly myself, than when I take those walks. I suspect that the level of motivation, and the sheer number of hours I've racked up, outweigh the brain-damping effects of sleep deprivation.

Thanks for the thought-provoking post.

[emk]

The "standard" advice I've heard given by schools and language teachers is "no more than 5 unknown words per page."

But the reality is that it's really hard to find books and media that are that close to my level. I have to work with what I can get, and until several years ago, that meant ordering DVDs from France and hoping they had accurate French subtitles. And then buying a region-free drive to watch them. So I don't think I ever got the luxury of following the "no more than 5 unknown words per page" advice during the B1 and B2 levels.

The lowest comprehension I've benefited from in French was:

• Reading: De la démocratie en Amérique by Tocqueville. I read this at a point where I solidly understood 70% of the sentences, could more-or-less guess 30% of the sentences, and was thoroughly confused by the other 10%. My comprehension improved over the course of the book!
• Watching: Buffy contre les vampires. I started season 1 with about 40% listening comprehension, and finished season 5 with something like 95% comprehension. But a big part of this was that I could read more than 40% of a transcript when I started. So I was converting slow reading skills into fast listening skills, not learning from scratch.

Honestly, I wouldn't go a lot lower than 40% comprehension, not if I had any choice. Extensive reading and listening relies on using the parts you do understand to figure out the parts you don't. And if you don't understand anything, well, you're going to have a rough time.

Another example: I may be realistically unable to read my favourite novel in a certain language, but my enthusiasm might lead me to tackle it nevertheless. Is it an optimal use of my time? Objectively, no.

This is a bit of a special case: If you know your favorite novel well enough, you'll understand it "artificially" well. Which can let you reach above your natural level—and then start to lock much of that knowledge in as you read.

[Severine]

I feel fortunate because my super-focused, repeat-it-'til-you're-numb approach is what pushes the dopamine buttons for me. It naturally leads to other kinds of highs, but it's addictive in its own right.

I think that a lot of people who succeed with languages have some version of this: a personal quirk or preference that aligns really well with language learning. I still believe that anyone can learn a language as an adult, but I can't deny that it'll probably be easier for someone who loves reading and pattern-finding than for someone whose greatest passion is silent, solitary fishing trips.

One of the main habits I have that keeps me hooked on languages--walking for hours at night while drinking coffee and listening to things--is quite terrible from an optimal-learning POV, since it means I sacrifice sleep. However, I never feel more in my proper element, more truly myself, than when I take those walks. I suspect that the level of motivation, and the sheer number of hours I've racked up, outweigh the brain-damping effects of sleep deprivation.

Thanks for the thought-provoking post.

As a fellow insomniac who adores late-night walks with an audio track, I have to say I'm impressed you manage to drink coffee at the same time!

[Khayyam]

The "standard" advice I've heard given by schools and language teachers is "no more than 5 unknown words per page."

But the reality is that it's really hard to find books and media that are that close to my level. I have to work with what I can get, and until several years ago, that meant ordering DVDs from France and hoping they had accurate French subtitles. And then buying a region-free drive to watch them. So I don't think I ever got the luxury of following the "no more than 5 unknown words per page" advice during the B1 and B2 levels.

The lowest comprehension I've benefited from in French was:

• Reading: De la démocratie en Amérique by Tocqueville. I read this at a point where I solidly understood 70% of the sentences, could more-or-less guess 30% of the sentences, and was thoroughly confused by the other 10%. My comprehension improved over the course of the book!
• Watching: Buffy contre les vampires. I started season 1 with about 40% listening comprehension, and finished season 5 with something like 95% comprehension. But a big part of this was that I could read more than 40% of a transcript when I started. So I was converting slow reading skills into fast listening skills, not learning from scratch.

Honestly, I wouldn't go a lot lower than 40% comprehension, not if I had any choice. Extensive reading and listening relies on using the parts you do understand to figure out the parts you don't. And if you don't understand anything, well, you're going to have a rough time.

Another example: I may be realistically unable to read my favourite novel in a certain language, but my enthusiasm might lead me to tackle it nevertheless. Is it an optimal use of my time? Objectively, no.

This is a bit of a special case: If you know your favorite novel well enough, you'll understand it "artificially" well. Which can let you reach above your natural level—and then start to lock much of that knowledge in as you read.

FIVE WORDS PER PAGE? That's just astounding to me--there've been many times when I could more or less understand a narrative despite there being far more than five new words per page. What's relevant, IME, is not so much how many of them there are, but how bunched-up they are. If you don't understand five words in a 10-word sentence, then you likely won't understand the sentence at all. But if you have 15 new words spread more-or-less evenly over a page, there's a good chance you can learn them from context.

Enough repetition of material that's far above your level can hammer it in--I've learned that for sure. It's just a question of whether it's better to spend the time hammering, or to read easier stuff that doesn't require it. I suppose you could hedge your bets by training both ways.

[Khayyam]

I feel fortunate because my super-focused, repeat-it-'til-you're-numb approach is what pushes the dopamine buttons for me. It naturally leads to other kinds of highs, but it's addictive in its own right.

I think that a lot of people who succeed with languages have some version of this: a personal quirk or preference that aligns really well with language learning. I still believe that anyone can learn a language as an adult, but I can't deny that it'll probably be easier for someone who loves reading and pattern-finding than for someone whose greatest passion is silent, solitary fishing trips.

One of the main habits I have that keeps me hooked on languages--walking for hours at night while drinking coffee and listening to things--is quite terrible from an optimal-learning POV, since it means I sacrifice sleep. However, I never feel more in my proper element, more truly myself, than when I take those walks. I suspect that the level of motivation, and the sheer number of hours I've racked up, outweigh the brain-damping effects of sleep deprivation.

Thanks for the thought-provoking post.

As a fellow insomniac who adores late-night walks with an audio track, I have to say I'm impressed you manage to drink coffee at the same time!

Okay, FINE, I usually don't drink it at the same time--I guzzle it and then walk. A man has his pride.

[Iversen]

You can debate whether 2 or 5 unknown words per page are the maximum for a comprehensible text, but actually only unknown words that really harm your comprehension are worth caring about (when you read extensively, that is - intensive study is another matter).

If you read a book about horticulture in a weak language then you may not know the bulk of the flower names - but maybe you simply don't care whether a certain flower in Romanian og Bulgarian is a daffodil or a forget-me-not or some kind of weird orchid or whatever. If you feel that it really matters then you should of course look it up, but maybe your dictionary weighs a kilogram and you are lying down reading in your bed - and then even five words to be looked up per page may be too much. On the other hand: if you are sitting in your armchair with a small dictionary within reach then five lookups pr page wouldn't be nearly as irritating. The only problem is that the kind of words that need to be looked up have a tendency not to be listed in small dictionaries,

The solution to reading too difficult stuff is of course to make the looking-things-up process easier - and using bilingual versions (even machine translated ones) is the best way to achieve that. The next best solution is to use popup dictionaries. And for texts on a screen you can easily get both things. However this doesn't solve the problem for those that still prefer to read books on paper, but maybe somebody already now sells handheld mini-scanners with inbuilt OCR and translation program. Anyway I feel that it's more logical to make the incomprehensible texts comprehensible than it is to continue to battle with them in their completely opaque state.

Why hammer your head against a locked door if you can find a key to open it?

[Khayyam]

You can debate whether 2 or 5 unknown words per page are the maximum for a comprehensible text, but actually only unknown words that really harm your comprehension are worth caring about (when you read extensively, that is - intensive study is another matter).

If you read a book about horticulture in a weak language then you may simply don't know to bulk of the flower names - but maybe you don't care whether a certain flower in Romanian og Bulgarian is a daffodil or a forget-me-not or some kind of weird orchid or whatever. If you feel that it really matters then you should of course look it up, but maybe your dictionary weighs a kilogram and you are lying down reading in your bed - and then even five words to be looked up per page may be too much. On the other hand: if you are sitting in your armchair with a small dictionary within reach then five lookups pr page wouldn't be nearly as irritating. The only problem is that the kind of words you need to look up have a tendency not to be listed in small dictionaries,

The solution to reading too difficult stuff is of course to make the looking-things-up process easier - and using bilingual versions (even machine translated ones) is the best way to achieve that. The next best solution is to use popup dictionaries. And for texts on a screen you can easily get both things. Of course this doesn't solve the problem for those that still prefer to read books on paper, but maybe somebody alread now sells handheld mini-scanners with indbuilt OCR and translation program.

I'm a printed-book diehard, and my solution (as I've probably mentioned an excessive number of times) is to first read (or just skim) a chapter while marking all the words I don't know, and then to make a list of translations of all those words, which I print out and refer to while rereading the chapter. I just read it over and over again while referring to my list, as many times as it takes until I don't need the list. I can have 30 new words per page, and this method works--it just takes longer, naturally.

The looking-up process sucks and is boring (especially compared to reading) any way you slice it, so I like to do all the looking-up for each chapter in one shot rather than break the reading flow to do it.

I would definitely try using an OCR scanner while reading my printed books if given the chance, but I wonder whether it would do as good a job at getting the new words into my long-term memory as my current method does. I tend to think that the things that make it a somewhat time-consuming pain--having to mark the words, having to type in each new word one at a time--improve my ability to remember the words later. Plus, it gives me satisfaction to have a physical list that I can wad up and throw away with a grin when I'm sure I don't need it anymore.

[kleene*star]

On the other hand, if I instead use that hour studying one paragraph (or, page, or chapter--depends on how difficult it is and how advanced I am), reading it multiple times, fussing over the toughest bits like sore teeth, repeatedly listening to a narrator read the passage, and doing my damnedest to be sure I understand every last word (even if a word is so strange that I have to stop and contemplate it for a minute or more to even begin to get the sense of it)--if I do all that, I'll have achieved something concrete, and made undeniable progress.

Can I just ask you what your definition of comprehensible input is? Because if you have to do all that to understand a paragraph (or a page or a chapter), then I wouldn't say it was particularly comprehensible for you.

Also, personally I don't think the number of unknown words is that big of a deal if you have a good online dictionary for that language, I've read texts where I basically had to look up half of the words, sure not all of them stuck in my mind afterwards, but like, who cares? A lot of words that you find in written texts are "big words" that nobody uses IRL anyway.

IMO, the real challenge is actually the grammar. You can look up an unknown word in the bat of an eye, whereas good luck finding the explanation for a grammatical construction that you've never seen before (sure, Google can help out here too, but it's not as straightforward).