My favourite language-learner, Matt vs Japan, and my favourite linguist, Stephen Krashen, uploaded an interview together a few days ago. I highly recommend watching this - it felt incredibly relieving in many ways. Here are the main arguments put forward in the video:
There are two systems: Language Acquisition and Language Learning.
Language Acquisition is the way a child naturally learns their native language - subconsciously understanding implicit meaning through comprehensible input (listening and reading materials that are slightly above their current level of ability).
Language Learning is the way we typically learn languages as adults - through formal instruction, grammar, rules, explicit explanation.
This reminds me of something I was talking to my mum about today. I mentioned that many native speakers of English will use ‘was’ as 1st person conditional, instead of ‘were’ - for example “If I was a millionaire” vs “If I were a millionaire”. I asked my mum: “Which one do you think is correct? If more and more people keep saying ‘was’ instead of ‘were’, when does ‘was’ become the correct version?” and she said “It doesn’t matter, because we all know what the speaker means.” I think this illustrates the value of communicating meaning (acquisition) over having perfect form (learning).
Input is reading and listening (while output is speaking and writing). When we say that language acquisition is done through comprehensible input, this means that the input is slightly above your current level.
The ideal input is both comprehensible and compelling (interesting). Matt points out that unfortunately for most beginners and some intermediate learners, most input that is comprehensible, is boring (like kid’s shows), and most input that is compelling (like adult’s shows) is too hard to comprehend.
The Monitoring Hypothesis explains the influence of learning on acquisition. Acquisition is the utterance initiator, while learning/monitoring plans, edits, and corrects.
According to Krashen, the role of monitoring is minor, being used only to correct deviations from “normal” speech and to give speech a more ‘polished’ appearance.
- Over-users monitor all the time.
- Under-users have done zero “learning” (explicit learning of grammar, rules, etc.) and rely solely on subconscious knowledge acquired naturally.
- Optimal users monitor appropriately.
Apparently, extroverts typically under-monitor, and introverts and perfectionists typically over-monitor. I definitely fall into the second category. Just a few days ago in my iTalki German session, I realised my tendency to avoid using words I can’t explicitly remember learning, and that this has turned out to be my downfall.
We speak better when we feel that we belong in ‘the club’
I can go on a tangent in German to someone else in my C1 German class with complete confidence, but by no means can I do this with a native speaker. Stephen Krashen argues that this is because we identify as part of the same group - we are friends (as we’ve had many years of classes together) and we are learners of German.
- If I were to speak with a native speaker, my German would be worse.
- If I were to speak with a stranger (who is not a native speaker, like me), my German would still be worse, because I’m not familiar with them.
When we are aware of the fact that we do not belong to the same group as the other person, we automatically tend to make more mistakes.
My boyfriend is a native speaker of Serbian, and so are his parents and many of our friends. So, I don’t belong to their club. On the other hand, I am most familiar with my boyfriend, so I can speak with him in Serbian most easily. Next, I can speak with his friends most easily, because we belong to the same age group. I find it hardest to speak with older adults (in their 50s and 60s). This is when I make the most mistakes; this is when I ‘freeze’.
To be honest, I think this hypothesis is more an indication of how we feel most comfortable in general around those with whom we have more in common, and therefore experience more nervousness in general, the more different/unfamiliar a person is to us. It is this nervousness that causes us to be more hyper-aware of ourselves, over-monitor, and therefore ‘freeze’ or make more mistakes.
Input is more important than output
Both Stephen and Matt agree that input is more important than output, with Stephen describing output as more of a demonstration of language that has already been acquired through input, rather than a method of language acquisition.
With this being said, Matt also believes that output has still been quite helpful for him in improving his fluidity and retrieval of his acquired Japanese. I’ve had the same experience with output, especially in writing.
Stephen, on the other hand, after prioritising input, has been able to go several years without speaking French or German, but they still remain his ‘best’ languages, and he has no problem producing them at a whim. He admits he has no opinion nor evidence to support whether output aids in acquisition or not.
TL;DR The main things Stephen Krashen wants you to take out of this are:
1. Interesting and self-selected comprehensive input (reading materials and TV shows/movies/videos) are the best way to acquire a language.
2. Language acquisition (where the priority is communicating meaning) is more valuable than language learning (where the priority is correct form, applying rules correctly, etc.)
These are all, of course, theories. You can agree with them, or disagree with them. You can choose to try to implement these methods, or choose not to. Do what works best for you!
dededos
2087
annaxmalina
yousharknotpass
turnnoffyourmind
pixelskylines
jacobvanloon
blakekathryn
