Valddu wrote:I found this surprising since this seems to go against the comprehensible input theory I’ve been reading so much about and incorporating into my studies over the last year. The younger brother has lots of input as part of his day-to-day, but rarely needs to speak. As a result, that skill is comparatively weak. I would have thought that this isn’t possible—the constant comprehensible input should automatically develop output that is grammatically correct to other native speakers.
Is this a fluke? Or does this an example of how comprehensible input can only take you so far?
Not a fluke. What really happened is that in his environment, his need for output was focused on a language continuum of the two languages that was heavily weighed to one of them. If you spend any time around bilingual communities this is quite common, particularly when the parents focus on one local language.
Does this negate Krashen's theory?
Yes, no, maybe? It's a bit of a mishmash whether 1) acquisition requires meaningful
interaction 2) and for it to be meaningful
If you think Krashen's theory means that one will learn to speak well
just from hearing and never producing, then yes, it really invalidates CI, since many people can have relatively advanced listening and understanding ability without the ability to speak.
If you consider his theory to focus on acquisition
and not production, then CI works out, the person in your example has acquired the language (they understand it). As far as I've read, and I'm no expert, it doesn't state that you do not need speaking practice to be productive. It's just that being productive isn't a large part of acquiring the language.
Personally, I think this is partially wrong. I truly believe that the act of speaking, echoing and repetition has a positive impact on the subconscious acquisition. I know I'm able to create better "hooks" simply by a) increasing sensations (input, visual clues, sound, touch, and production