Seems lingq approach has some studies to back it up

Is it just me or is this what Steve has been saying all along? Maybe some things are different, but it seems that this study shows that a ton of input is the best way to learn a new language. Only outputting when you feel ready and somewhat comfortable.

I found it interesting read. Hopefully some of you do as well.

I totally agree with the article… i am trying to improve my english, and from my experience i can state that the conventional way doesn’t work. I mean school, in which you are forced to study and repeat constantly new learnt words and so on… definetly that’ s not way. I experimented ling and I notice that is a much valuable way to let new words come naturally to myself, as the article says. I listen,read, match new words, do exercises and than again lister and read. Eventually i put the lesson on my mp3 and I listen to it again and again… in that way words that i couldn’ t understand just 30 minutes before now are totally comprehensible to me so i i am feeling that the language is entry in my brain
Of course for some points, like grammar i think a good school basis have to be done, however at the end what we memorize is what comes naturally to ourselves.

“Speaking doesn’t cause language acquisition; rather, the ability to speak is the result of comprehensible input.”

This is a good quote, which will probably make the usual trolls here at lingq a little anxious and cranky.

Speaking gets you engaging with the language, noticing the language, reflecting on the language, elaborating with the language, and let’s you receive listening feedback.

But flapping your gums doesn’t cause language acquisition. You don’t learn anything new just by shooting your mouth off. The acquisition comes from listening and reading.

A key point that is missing in the article is that, for non-natives living in an environment that is not rich in your target language, the opportunity cost of output often far outstrips any benefit you might get from receiving listening feedback during this process.

I’ve always believed what Steve had said simply because he showed results. I didn’t agree with everything, but I decided to follow what he was doing because that was the only way I knew.

Yes, after reading the article, I guess he was saying it all along, but Steve’s ‘evidence’ was simply anecdotal and he even explicitly said this. “This works for me” “This may not work for you” etc.

This is 30yo Krashen.

Regarding his input hypothesis, since we’ve discussed this before here, I’ll just make a quick summary. Just about everyone agrees that tons of input is needed to acquire a language. What very few agree with is Krashen’s assertion that “learning” a language (which includes output, grammar studies, vocabulary memorization, etc) doesn’t help with acquisition.

Learning activities clearly improve your language skills, so I think what the experts are really arguing about is the definition of language acquisition. Personally, I don’t see how your could define acquisition in such a way that learning activities don’t affect it, but if that sounds like a fun challenge to you, enjoy!

“This is 30yo Krashen.”

And here I was thinking I was reading a WP article referencing studies, by many people, with dates including: 2003, 2009, 1998, 2000, 1967, and 2009.

Stephen Krashen shows up in the comments, as a 71 year old. Maybe he has a time machine?

You are best advised to read those comments as they head off a lot of your usual strawman arguments.

"Krashen’s assertion that “learning” a language doesn’t help with acquisition. "

Speaking of your usual strawman arguments, I must have missed that quote in there? Perhaps you could point me to it? - or, at least, explain this by writing us up some long tirade?

1 Like

lol at the strawman accusation - it’s all over the internet old buddy. Here is Krashen’s “Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning”

In it he argues that learning cannot become acquisition. It was published in 1981, so you were right. 34 years old not 30.

He demonstrates that a certain type of learning has little or no benefit in acquisition.


*grammar practice and explanations, metacognition, performance feedback, and output are of minimal or no value

*drills and any other kind of output practice don’t work

*learners’ speaking the target language does not help learners acquire it, and often slows acquisition

edit - Also classic that you think the age of a researcher is somehow relevant to the discussion. 30? Nope, can’t do research. 34? Nope. 71? Nope. I wonder how old he needs to be before his age is not relevant to you?

1 Like