this post was submitted on 27 Jul 2025
58 points (100.0% liked)
Asklemmy
49905 readers
598 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I've never seen any persuasive evidence to support Krashen's hypotheses.
Krashens hypothesis is just that people acquire languages by understanding messages. Not by studying grammar, memorizing vocab, and "traditional" learning (IE based on skinner's method, of error=punish, correct=reinforce).
Not only is CI backed up by evidence, and by the many polyglots who have successfully learned many languages through CI / immersion, you'd also need to show evidence of babies not learning their first language this way to refute it (IE show evidence of babies learning their first language by studying grammar and doing flashcard study).
Adults are different from babies.
"This just in.."
Sus.
By that logic, it's refuted. Children produce language during the learning phase.
Children babbling then being able to talk after a long time period of input doesn't disprove anything. CI just says that talking isn't learning, which is true, because you're not receiving any information. That'd be like trying to learn geography without looking at a map, or how to play a musical instrument without hearing anyone play it before.
Are you saying musical instruments are learned entirely by observation, not by production?
There's no way I can stretch to believing that.
Both of course, but as a life-long musician, listening / reading / getting input is the first and most important step.
If someone has never heard a guitar before, and you hand them one, they'll have no basis for how or what to play. Instead how people learn, is they listen, then imitate, just like language. Mastery comes not through try / fail / correction, but through listening then playing a lot of different music, so that it becomes completely internalized and occurs without active thought. They call this the suzuki method, and its much preferred nowadays over the traditional method of memorizing scales, the circle of fifths, , which I unfortunately wasted years of my early music learning through.
After playing jazz for a few years now, I couldn't even imagine how skinner's method would work for that. Jazz is too complicated to think about or logic your way through, just like language.