I assume that the following statement by Johanna is based on Krashen's
claim about comprehensible input.
> We know that immersion in the target language with practice
> that happens in real communicative contexts -- _doing_ things with
> language -- is very effective in promoting language acquisition, even
> without explicit grammar instruction.
(Although there is a notion in this statement (with practice/output?)
that Krashen explicitly rejected in the following paper: Krashen, S.
(1994). The input hypothesis and its rivals. In N. Ellis (ed.) Implicit
and explicit learning of languages (pp. 45-78). San Diego: Academic
Press.)
On November 29, 1999, I responded to a post by Krashen on the flteach, a
listserv that is a forum on teaching foreign languages in US public
schools.
(I think my note provides the context of my response. Krashen's
comments were marked by the >'s.)
*****************************************************************
11/29/99 My post
I really appreciate Steve Krashen telling us that his position about
comprehensible input [CI] can be found in a footnote in his text The
Input Hypothesis.
On Friday, November 26, 1999 he [Krashen] wrote:
> CI is necessary but not sufficient. This is stated in Input Hypothesis
> (1985), fn 8, page 25. The hypothesis, in a nutshell, is as follows: CI
> will give ultimately give you all you need for everyday communication.
> But if you want the redundant aspects of language, the ones that mark
> you as a member of the group, two routes are available . . .
What he says in that footnote is interesting. He cites Susan
Goldin-Meadow's work on home sign, the gestural system developed by deaf
children in hearing homes (The title of the article by Goldin-Meadow
that Krashen refers to is "The resilience of recursion: A study of a
communication system developed without a conventional language model.")
These deaf children were not getting any comprehensible input from any
language because no one in their households knew American Sign Language.
Although I do not understand how research on home sign supports the
comprehensible input hypothesis, I am even more perplexed by how he
identifies the "fragile" properties of language in the footnote, which I
interpret to mean what he called redundant properties in his Nov. 26
post. These fragile/redundant properties in the footnote are movement
rules, auxiliary structure, inflections, and pro-forms.
. . . .
************************************************************
It is important to consider how vacuous Krashen's claim about
comprehensible input actually is. Imagine a learner of English who
knows nothing about movement rules (no yes-no questions, no
wh-questions, only relative clauses in which the subject is
relativized), no tense-aspect, and no pronouns, let alone pro-verb or
pro-adverb forms.
Krashen agreed with my characterization. Here is part of his response.
***********************************************************
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 23:12:40 -0800
From: Stephen Krashen <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Response to Yates: Why you don't have to leave home to acquire
redundant features of a language
And I really appreciate Bob Yates' comments, asking penetrating and
important questions about my footnote.
1) Fragile properties are in fact quite similar to the properties Yates
lists. They are aspects of language that are added when a pidgin
creolizes,
when a language becomes more than a means for basic communication.
. . . .
**********************************************
I am more than willing to send a file with all of these exchanges (and
the complete texts of the posts) to anyone who is interested. I use
WordPerfect, but will send the file as an rtf file if that is your wish.
Because I believe that second language learning and first language
learning are different, the role of formal instruction on the nature of
language, formally teaching grammar, is also different.
I have tried to share with the readers of this list the research which I
have read that has lead me that that conclusion.
Bob Yates, Central Missouri State University
|
