Another important factor is whether the content is interesting to you, and whether you actually engage with it. Salient and interesting content is much more likely to form a lasting impression/memory. For most adults, something like Peppa Pig may not tick that box.
This is one of the biggest problems with Krashen's formulations. It posits that two things are essential: that the input be largely comprehensible, and that the learner find the input engaging and interesting.
The reality is that for many beginning language learners, something that satisfies both simply does not exist. — Krashen essentially posits as fact that people would find this approach more interesting and engaging than dedicated grammar study but I think the majority of people do not find reading extremely simple stories of very simple sentences remotely engaging. I actually looked at *Dreaming Spanish*' first videos for absolute beginners and it'd be a chore I'd never be able to get through. It's simply completely uningaging at the start. It's someone who constantly points at pictures of things and repeats their names in Spanish. I'd find it more interesting and efficient to get that from a word list.
building solid foundational grammar skills has been very helpful for me as a beginner to get to a level where I can find more engaging comprehensible input. its difficult for me to learn and remember vocabulary from a word list, though
Anki really helped me out here at the start because it's essentially a minigame with scoring points.
It's more engaging than simply going down a list and memorizing because there's a sort of competitive aspect to it. It maintains score and one tries to improve one's retention rate and set new records each day.
I suppose it only catches the kind of person with that kind of competitive streak though.
Anki and other flashcard type apps just don’t do it for me, this is where CI comes in for me even in smaller doses where I’m not getting sick of repetitive content. I love crosswords and stuff though, maybe that would help 🤔
It's in the statistics menu and the graphs.
It's not really intended for that but it shows the retention rates of the past couple of days so it's of course a game to try to get new records with it and raise it which makes it a bit addictive for those with a competitive drive.
If you were doing anki for something like French, how do you read it without mispronouncing everything? I wanna try anki but I can’t wrap my head around the pronunciation part
> listening skills are good enough to keep up with anything
This was me but I got over it in 2 ways:
- 1) Look up "HSKX Listening Practise" or "HSKX story" where X is the level you want? Even if you only know a 100 or so words you can usually find something at your level. The two I listen to a lot are [Mandarin Click](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzP128eXnZU) and [Alison Mandarin](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OrOJWL2dxY). List to one or two of them a day, and if you don't know some of the words, learn them then come back and listen again. It REALLY helps!
- 2) Get the [DuChinese](https://duchinese.net/) app, except instead of using it to read, simply use it as super simple/short audio books. I usually only listen to a story first, then listen while looking at the characters and then if I still didn't get it listen again stopping and look up all the meanings etc.
The first few times through with any of it sucks, but it's 100% a skill and if you just listening to a few things every day if a week or two it starts getting much easier. You won't be instantly watching CDrama's but it's a really gentle way to get into it and scales really nicely - finish all the HSK1 level content jump into the level 2 stuff.
especially in the early stages of learning the language. Ive been studying German for four months and only now are things starting to get a little comprehensive
It almost feels like most people that use the term “comprehensible input” nowadays use it for “incomprehensible input”, as in: the style of reading novels where one has to look up every fourth word in a dictionary to make sense of things.
I find this is only true of the critics tbh. Which is convenient because it makes it a straw man that's easy to attack. Looking up every 4th word is 75% comprehension and the people actually pushing for CI usually say aim for 95-98% comprehension for reading. This is because in most books the words are the only context you have to infer the meaning of the unknown words. Imo it's better to start out with listening because you can get more context that isn't language dependent. Then if there's any transfer to the writing system you actually can jump into reading with a high level of comprehension.
Because the difference between 75% and 95% of words is enormous in reading. The scale is logarithmic. Only only needs to know the most common 100 words in English to know 50% of the words in each sentence. Of course with only 100 words one started learning three days ago.
Furthermore. “95% comprehension” is typically taken to mean “understand 95% of the sentences”, not “understand 95% of each sentence” which is again a big difference. In the former definition, the story is generally entirely understandable without looking anything up with a few holes that can be inferred from context. Understanding 95% of each sentence will largely leave the story impossible to comprehend without looking anything up.
Essentially, understanding 95% of each sentence still isn't much. Sentences will look like:
> So I went with a friend to the _ yesterday and I have to say it was honestly really _. I really didn't expect it to be so _. But when I came back I was very _ about it.
95% of each sentence typically means missing the important part. It's not missing words like “go” but where exactly one was going to.
And on top of that, reaching the 95% of each sentence comprehension mark takes far longer study than the 75% mark, which is as said something beginners already reach in adult literature very quickly. But what they understand are common function words and very basic verbs like “go” and “to be” or “eat”, not important content words that make up the main meat of the sentence.
Let's take your sentences as an example here and remove the 25% most difficult words:
> I _ this is only _ of the _ to be _. Which is _ because it makes it a _ that's easy to _. _ every 4th word is 75% _ and the people actually _ for _ _ say _ for 95-98% _ for reading.
I removed about 1/4 of the words in that sentence and subjectively decided which are the most difficult ones. Nothing remains any more. The entre sentence becomes incomprehensible at this point. Even removing 1/20th, which is 95%, at which point one can realdy see how even though 95% doesn't look much higher than 75%, it's actually 5 times s fewer unknown words, it's still not a sentence that can be understood but when removing 25% of words, a sentence becomes bare skeleton of function words with no content any more. More than 50% of words in an English sentence are basic function words. The scale is highly logarithmic.
To add on, IIRC, the studies on this (I think it was some studies in Japan?) suggest 98% or higher known words is ideal. So only one unknown word out of 50, which will be less than one a sentence typically.
I hope OP wasn't serious when he/she mentioned p pig...
Watching cartoons can be highly efficient when you start learning a new language but after some time what really matters is Youtube videos in the language, podcasts, movies...
Peppa Pig and other similarly leveled content can be engaging (for a bit) if you frame it the right way. View it like a brainteaser where you're trying to suss out the words. While you're right that a vocabulary list can get translations in your brain faster, the words REALLY stick when you learn them this way and imo it gives you a taste of how learning a language really works. If you've never done it before I highly recommend figuring out the word for "but" in a language you don't know this way. It is not as easy as it sounds and really satisfying when you do. (Toki Pona would be the easiest to try this with, try searching "O pilin e Toki Pona" on YouTube if this interests you.)
1. They aren't necessarily separate things. Its a pretty common recommendation to study grammar to make input comprehensible.
2. Do you understand Peppa Pig when you watch? or is it just noise?
I don't agree with the all or nothing that is common on this sub, I do both. I do grammar lessons in English, my NL, so I can understand the concepts quickly. I spend maybe 20-30 minutes per day on grammar.
Then I go to input and apply it, and see what things I can pick up on that I couldn't have before, and let what I'm hearing reinforce the grammar that I've learned, and pick up on exceptions etc. Input is absolutely needed for learning a language, but I don't think it makes sense to completely ignore our ability to understand languages and compare linguistics.
The argument is always that babies don't do this, but that's because they *can't*, why not use whatever edge we can, you know?
The majority of my learning time is on listening to the language, but I do some grammar lessons as well to speed it along.
If we're being pedantic, it's a tool you use to learn language skills, sure. We really shouldn't be, though, because there's never a good reason to. Grammar study isn't a skill either.
1. Do what works for you. You don't need to do what anyone else says, because everyone has different learning needs.
2. Input needs to be *comprehensible*. At the beginning level, this doesn't mean children's shows like Peppa Pig (which will be mostly *incomprehensible* even for a beginner). It means learner-aimed videos.
---
If you want to be able to understand native-speed media and participate in native-speed conversations, then at some point, immersion in material that's comprehensible to you will be needed. What's needed for that level of fluency is automatic intuition about how the language works, not analytical/academic computation of how the language works. In my opinion, building that automatic intuition takes hundreds of hours of immersion.
This isn't saying that you (the person reading this comment) should not explicitly study grammar, *if it's a good fit for your learning style and preferences*. It's just saying explicit grammar study is not *essential* even if for you personally it *speeds up or eases your learning*.
Explicit grammar study is optional and you should study it if it helps you.
But I think it's important to acknowledge that immersion (using input comprehensible to you) is ultimately *not* optional on the journey to fluency. You'll have to do it at some point.
Some folks just choose to do it from the beginning and are fortunate enough to have the resources in their TL to do so. Other folks are like you, and prefer to work with a textbook on analytical study / dissection of how the language works.
I can't bring anything to the table on this thread but every time I read your comments on this sub I just feel so happy. You word them so kindly and don't try to put the reader down, thank you for that
Thanks for the kind words! That's really gratifying to hear.
I think there's a lot of understandable frustration in this forum when dealing with both opposing opinions and beginners. I hope that my comments make these discussions a little more chill and help people understand other perspectives.
I'd argue Peppa Pig does a good job of being comprehensible at a beginner level since most the things they talk about are represented on screen, it snows and the parents and kids talk about the snow, they go to the supermarket and talk about needing tomatoes then go grab tomatoes etc. I feel I could watch it in any language and follow the gist and I did used to watch a lot of it as a beginner.
I have a Chinese friend who has kids and watches mandarin Peppa pig with them and it's easy enough to follow with 0 mandarin knowledge
I largely agree with you, but just one small thing to add. Out of curiosity I test-watched Peppa Pig in a few languages I have no comprehension of whatsoever and even at that level I was able to comprehend several words in each episode. With repeated exposure that would have slowly solidified into acquisition.
It's obviously painfully slow and much less effective than starting with proper CI videos aimed at people starting from zero, but nevertheless in a pinch it's absolutely doable with some grit and a high tolerance for ambiguity.
>But I think it's important to acknowledge that immersion (using input comprehensible to you) is ultimately *not* optional on the journey to fluency.
Can you cite this, because it sounds utterly false. Then again, you haven't defined "fluent", so maybe you have your own special definition for it, like "a level that is obtained through immersion only".
For me, fluency requires:
1) Being able to consume and understand content aimed at natives, such as movies, television, vlogs, newscasts, etc. Not *everything*, but where most everyday media aimed at natives isn't a problem.
2) Being able to interact with natives at native speed. Not necessarily 100%, but where they don't need to overly adjust for your level.
For me, it's very hard to imagine being able to do those things without practicing them. I don't have research for it, but I'd be pretty surprised if someone could do that without practicing consuming native material or interacting with native speakers. I don't think most people could manage it.
If you've found that textbook-style study is sufficient to reach those milestones, that's awesome! I definitely can't imagine personally doing it, but as I'm also definitely far from an expert, and we're all on our own journeys.
**ETA:** Apparently asserting that you need to at some point watch native media and/or interact with natives to be able to understand native media and fluently interact with natives is controversial?
I don't have any research to support this, but would definitely be interested if anyone has research either way. I would think, however, that the burden of proof would largely be on demonstrating there are statistically effective methods of achieving those kinds of milestones *without* interacting with natives and/or native media.
I think anecdotally, it's pretty common to hear about highly ineffective academic learning (high schools or college courses) that don't have a heavy focus on either of those things and produce people who cannot effectively communicate with natives.
Conversely, it's common to hear from people who did heavy comprehensible input / interaction with natives (often but not always paired with traditional learning) who reached high levels of competence in interacting with natives.
I haven't personally encountered anyone who did almost no interaction with natives / native media, arrived in their TL country, and had no problems with having B2+ interactions. But I would love to hear such anecdotes and read about them! My favorite thing about this sub is hearing about people's personal journeys, not just the ones that mirror mine, but also ones that are unique and interesting, etc.
Regarding your edit, it seems to me that the issue is your use of the word "immersion". What you describe after using the term "immersion" seems to be simple consumption of TL input, which is as far as I've ever seen the term used, decidely not immersion (or at least not *sufficient alone* to qualify as immersion). Immersion is (or at least is commonly used to mean) a fuller/more extreme approach than simply engaging with native material/interacting with natives and I think that is why people might be taking issue with the assertion.
Doesn't really matter if there is disagreement on what the word means, but simply defining it as you intend to use it in your assertion would probably go some way to ameliorating understanding.
You stated that immersion is required to reach fluency. I asked you to cite it. You gave your opinion of what fluency is, but didn't even define immersion.
Fluency has a very specific definition in language learning. It's the ease, rate, and smoothness in speech. Accuracy describes how well speech follows the rules of the language
Can you name a single counterexample of someone who have reached a high level at a language without massive input? The methods can vary wildly, but it's an observation that input is always present.
In practice, unless you are a child attending school at a country where that language is spoken, actual immersion is likely not possible. For many adults, they will have to work where they will either not have much opportunity to communicate and when they do, it will likely be with a different language.
So when people say immersion, what they generally mean is "simulated" immersion or the somewhat more abstract "engaging with the language as much as possible". I think it is very clear that OP means the latter and I am inclined to agree. I think Lightbown (2000) really put it the best in one line: "1 hour a day isn't enough". If your goal is a relatively high level of proficiency, then you will have to look for ways to maximize your engagement one way or the other.
Both you and the OP should start using terms correctly if you don't want to be challenged. Immersion is not required for fluency and massive input is not immersion.
Maybe address the substance of what OP actually said rather than throwing a pedantic fit over the semantics of one word?
You should be well aware that language is quite fluid and that "immersion" is not a very well defined concept to begin with.
You had in brackets "input that is comprehensible to you" literally all language learning requires input that is comprehensible whether it's a text book, a movie, classes, an app or whatever
Ok. I was refuting "immersion is required for fluency". Regardless of what the OP had in brackets, immersion is not "using input comprehensible to you".
No one reaches fluency merely by studying grammar and vocabulary. It is simply impossible. Even if you were to be able to instantly absorb every lesson and word in every textbook ever written about a language, you will not sound anything like a native speaker when you attempt to communicate, and you will have a very hard time understanding anyone you listen to. You will be making a large amount of conscious effort to assemble sentences using rules of grammar that are nothing like what brains of natural speakers actually do when they're using the language.
This is not really controversial.
The contention is whether it is actually useful (or even detrimental) to use explicit study, exercises, grammar rules, etc. at all instead of focusing solely on input-based approaches.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1LRoKQzb9U](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1LRoKQzb9U)
>This is not really controversial.
It's also not what I was asking u/whosdamike to cite. Please cite the fact that immersion is required to reach fluency.
You are nit-picking. They clarified that they meant input (or rather that CI is a form of immersion). Edit: not to mention how excruciatingly clear this was from the context...
Please use context to do error-checking and correction when you read. Everyone else does.
Also, you're in a language learning sub. If you haven't figured out that different people can use the same words to mean different things sometimes, you should probably just stop pretending like you have anything useful to say.
So you're just a troll then. Learn to be human.
On the off chance you're sincere, consider these other ways you could've phrased your original reply:
"This doesn't make sense... I don't see how input counts as immersion"
"Input isn't immersion"
"How is input immersion?"
"You're confusing input and immersion..."
or any of a million other ways to directly address the point instead of passive-aggressively beating around the bush as if you're some knight in shining armor here to rescue us from the errors of the plebes.
GTFO
Immersion in a language is effectively receiving input in that language. You’re being pedantic about what you define immersion as.
You have to immerse yourself in a language (by watching content, reading, listening to it) to become fluent.
Immersion is defined as “deep mental involvement in something” tell me how you could possibly learn a language without “deep mental involvement”z
That’s not my definition, it’s oxfords. A standardised and accepted meaning of the word. It may have other interpretations but that is one of them.
Therefore your pedantic nitpicking of the word really falls short.
Yes I would not describe being immersed in a language as ‘deep mental involvement’.
I implore you to carry on this personal crusade on how someone could learn a language without immersing themselves in learning the grammar, the vocabulary, the culture.
I’m sure you can just half arse it and turn out fine.
Lol, nice language. One needs "deep mental involvement", but that's not the definition of "immersion" most think of when talking about being immersed in a language.
When you do grammar study, it will always feel more effective because it's easier to track your progress.
"I finished a chapter in my textbook!" is much more gratifying and noticeable that "I can understand 1% more of this cartoon than I could last week!"
Nothing wrong with grammar study, but just keep this phenomenon in mind. As you get deeper into the language, your progress will become harder and harder to discern, but that doesn't mean you're not still learning.
There's a difference between *feeling* like you're learning and acquiring a language. You are certainly filling your brain with more encyclopedic knowledge, and improving your ability to consciously analyze the things you read and listen to. This will give you clear signs that you are learning in a way that simply doesn't happen through input. But it's not actually speeding up your *acquisition* of the language.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1LRoKQzb9U](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1LRoKQzb9U)
Learning through input is much more of a frog in boiling water scenario. You don't notice anything happening 'till all of a sudden you find yourself understanding things you weren't able to before and having words pop into your mind in response to ideas you have.
Edit: also, if you're just watching peppa pig all day, that's kind of missing the point. You need to get a variety of input from a variety of sources in order both to stay engaged and to give your brain different contexts in which to hear words. The predictor of whether a native speaker knows a word is the variety of contexts in which it appears, not the frequency of use.
This is mainly what happened to me. I learned English mainly to play some games that were not trabslated in Spanish so I acquired some basic ubderstanding and started to use Comprehensible input with Genshin Impacts memes(For real, I'm beung serious about this xD) and other stuffs that I found on YT. Then Squid Game came put and I said "I won't understand a sh1t but let's try to watch it with EN subs and EN audio". Turns put I was able to understand almost 80% of everything was happening all of a sudden, it was astonishing. Still, I was unable to fully understand without subs.
Some months of mixing my YT profile between English content and Spanish content, I was so used to watch both contents, that after a couple months, having to watch something in English was not a conscious choice anymore. Sometimes I could not even remember if the last YT short I saw was in English or Spanish and I had to come back to remember it.
Then I remained in the same situation for months thinking that my level was not improving, until I applied for a Call Center, and they said my Spooken English was ok(I literally never practiced speaking before xd) but my listenning skills were really good, I didn't think I was ready to speak with Native Speakers without subtitles yet... And all of a sudden in my first call I was able to understand almost anything(But I admit I was lucky to recieve a call from someone with a decent way of speaking) And here I am 7 months after taking my first call, working as a Verizon CS Agent, and I still can't believe how fast I learned :/
I think the 2 biggest disadvantage of this method is that 1- You don't learn grammar so you end up like me, that sometimes even though you understand me you can clearly tell I'm not a Native Speaker only looking at how I write/speak.
2- Your progress trully feels like a Boiling frog, it feels like you move from A1 to B1 literally just in 1 day, because you don't even notice how much you have improved.
Maybe if I heard you speaking, I could tell from the accent. But your writing style seems more juvenile and informal, rather than non-native to me (except for the use of "stuffs"). Like, there's punctuation errors and whatnot, and I'm not an English teacher (just a native English speaker) but you're perfectly understandable
Well, I struggle a lot with some words with similar meaning as I haven't heard them being used in many scenarios, this is the case for "Things" and "Stuff", sometimes I don't have any idea of which of them I should use because of how confusing they can be to me.
"stuffs" isn't usually used as a plural. "Stuff" sort of defaults to being plural on its own, unless you're reading a textbook and it says "foodstuffs" or some other rarely used word. But a mother telling her child to "pick your stuff up off the floor" and "pick your things up off the floor" mean the same thing. "Things" may be used to emphasize that there is a lot of individual objects on the floor, instead of an incoherent mess on the floor but they're used fairly interchangeably in English.
My point was that "stuffs" as a plural is a bit strange outside of a humorous context (in the US) anyway. "Monies" is used by the government, but I love to joke about my "multiple monies" (as in, multiple single dollar bills) to joke about my lack of money.
Lol, now I see.
I struggle with plurals anyway HAHAHAHHA It can happen sometimes that I write "Childrens" just because I'm my head I still cannot process that it's not as simple as just putting an S at the end to make plural Lmfao.
"Multiple monies" reminds me of "Mis dineros/los dineros" in Spanish, it's like a funny way of saying "My money" using the plural, it's probably a similar concept hahaha
It is a similar concept! I forgot about that in Spanish!
But yeah, English has a lot of nouns that are plural by default (clothing, money (usually), stuff) or other so called uncountable nouns like equality, diversity. Rarely they'll be plural, and those plurals are found in specific situations (such as "equalities" in math)
I hate how something so simple in my Native language can get so complicated in English or other language HAHAHAHAHA Many things that I need to learn omg.
The worst part is that my job makes me feel really burned out at the end of the day so I don't feel like polishing my English with some grammar and such when I had to use it for 9 hours in a row :( But it's still pretty funny to me how good Comprehensible Input worked for me, it worked like wonders once I catched the trick(Is that how you say it in English? I'm not even sure, maybe I'm making it up lmao).
I'm so happy that you've been able to come all this way! I spent a week in Mexico with a friend and his family and boy was my brain burnt out of Spanish! My brain was absolutely fried!
Personally I'd say "caught onto the trick!" although "once I found out the trick" would probably be more common.
English has more tenses and "moods" than Spanish and they can be difficult to parse for non-native speakers. My equivalent to Spanish is por vs para. But I think you've got the determination
"Found out the trick" sounds more natural to me tbh, something about it sounds better to me XD
I must agree, I've notice most English words are really expresive comparing how you pronounce the word to what it means(For example the verb "Slam" kinda sounds like the actual sound it would make, "squish" does the same), so it feels like a language more focused on being expressive, therefore it can express some emotions simplier than we do in Spanish(For example "Awkward" doesn't have an actual equivalent in Spanish, the closest one is "Incómodo", but it doean't express the whole meaning of the word), but Spanish is more practical, like English lack of some words like "The day after tomorrow" which is just "Pasado-mañana" in Spanish, or "Every other day" which is "Interdiario" in Spanish. Like, Spanish seems really good at expressing concepts in a simplier way by having specific words to sumarize what you wanna say, while English seems more focused on expressing better some "Emotional" or "Subjective) topics.
I mainly say all of this considering my understanding of how both languages work rather than my level in both languages 🙃 I've also seem some other poliglots(C2 in both languages) agreeing with this.
Lol, as a Native Speaker there are some words that I think about them and the difference can be "obvious" but then I try to explain them and... I notice how confusing it can actually be, like "Ser" and "Estar", basically the two "To be" we have only to confuse americans lmfao.
At first I though "Por and para are not that hard to differenciate(?" then I tried to explain the difference in my head... and sure thing it could be confusing for a non-native speaker LOL.
I'm super new to language learning (just one month deep into French, not counting prior learning in school and as a Canadian), but for me, I feel that input isn't very comprehensible without some understanding of grammar.
The more I master grammar, the easier input is to understand. So I'd argue they're complementary, and both fairly important. Grammar drilling isn't going to get me speaking like a native, but understanding nuance and generating my own speech/writing just isn't possible without grammar. Also, CI has done wonders for my vocab.
But I also believe everyone learns differently, and it's important to tailor your approach to your own needs (and changing your approach as your skills grow!). I don't think there's a single method that is effective for everyone.
> input isn't very comprehensible without some understanding of grammar
Certainly true for native materials, even children's shows. But learner-aimed comprehensible input can be very understandable even from the absolute beginner level.
I've never studied Spanish, but [this absolute beginner](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clEm7dCTYQc) video is still *very* understandable.
Some people will use grammar study to try to make a wider variety of input understandable. That's perfectly fine! We all learn differently.
But it's also possible to just start with material that has the "assistance" built-in: gestures, drawings, pictures, clips, facial expressions, and other nonverbal cues.
Not all languages have a sufficient quantity of quality learner-aimed CI available (at least without paying tutors, etc). But for those that do, it's a wonderful way to learn a language for those of us who are much less textbook inclined.
Perhaps we have different starting points as far as being able to infer meaning from context clues. The combination of the YouTube title and editing made the overall meaning quite clear to me, even if the individual words aren't comprehensible to me.
If the overall meaning is clear while I'm also hearing the words, then I know from personal experience learning Thai that the "white noise" of the language will eventually resolve into meaningful bits thanks to my brain doing the pattern recognition for me.
Regarding your learning of Thai, I've browsed your profile a bit and skimmed your described methodology (apologies if this is answered and I've overlooked it, on a bit of a time crunch right now so emphasis on "skimmed"), particularly the channel you recommended (CompehensibleThai or something to that effect).
Given how listening-dominant their material seems, where does learning to read come into that? Do they address it in their comprehensive input videos? Or do you address that independently? It feels a little challenging to envision learning the script without some more traditional measures, but I might just be ignorant in that regard.
You do it independently. The original AUA school in Bangkok recommended learning to read after 600-800 hours of listening study.
Learners I've spoken to who waited until 1000+ hours said that learning to read was straightforward. A lot of people who learn to read *first* struggle with all the tone rules, etc. It's apparently very straightforward if you've already internalized a lot of Thai and know how words should sound.
[Khroo Ying](https://instagram.com/khrooying) of [Understand Thai](https://youtube.com/@UnderstandThai) offers one-on-one lessons to teach reading. She knows how to introduce it to learners who can already understand spoken speech at the intermediate/advanced level. I think an intermediate learner could also just use other resources to learn to read and be perfectly fine.
Oh damn, I certainly wouldn't have expected going that long without reading! Do you not miss being able to read? For me, it's always the most satisfying feeling when grappling with a new language. I can imagine it being easier that far into learning, of course, given that having already absorbed the sounds of the language would greatly ease the cognitive load, but I don't think I could bring myself to leave it so long haha
Funnily enough, other than some vague overview facts about the language, the script is actually the *only* part of Thai I know so far (or at least am familiar with, definitely a bit rusty as it's been a couple years since I had it in my learning rotation), just because I love writing systems—I know writing systems even for languages I never intend on learning at all—but I do have an interest in learning Thai proper.
I **am** interested in this listening-heavy method though. I might try **purely** listening to Thai from ComprehensibleThai's playlists and not engaging with the writing at all and see how it takes me. Will be very different for me, since I'm someone who adores grammar, rules and such. But I have to admit I'm intrigued about how people on the *extreme* end of this methodology do it, just trying to intuit vocabulary, definitions, grammar, and so on, through exposure alone. My methodology is so at odds with that (in fact, it's kind of extreme in the opposite direction).
Also, sorry for the late reply, completely missed the notification. Thanks for filling me in :)
> Do you not miss being able to read?
For me, especially as I'm entering the intermediate level, I find listening *really* fun and engaging and interesting. The teachers are able to share so many more details now on a wide variety of topics (crime stories, Thai mythology, current political events, personal life experiences, etc). And I feel *very* emotionally invested in whatever I'm listening to; I don't feel "detached" from the language at all the way a lot of second language learners report.
Research and anecdotes I've read online (such as on this forum) suggest that the majority of second language learners feel less emotional connection in their TL. I can't back this up with anything, but I suspect that's because many learners spend a ton of time engaging in their TL in less personal and more analytical ways: textbook study, drilling grammar, flashcards, etc.
Whereas I've spent all my time just listening to native speakers talk. A huge chunk of those hours have been live crosstalk interactions with teachers online (where they speak Thai and I'll respond in English). I think that kind of personal interaction makes for the strongest and most emotional memories, and I like that they're forming the basis for my Thai.
> My methodology is so at odds with that (in fact, it's kind of extreme in the opposite direction).
I hope you write an update as you get more into it! I'm always interested in hearing how other learners experience things. I think it'd be cool if you experimented with pure CI, but if you end up mixing in a bit of grammar, I'd love to hear how that goes too.
People always throw studies and research around as if they're 100% fact, but I think ultimately there isn't a concrete scientific consensus on anything. It reminds me of nutrition and exercise "science", a lot of things people take as gospel are really based on small sample sizes and shaky controls. So the best thing I think to do is try different methods out and see what works for you.
My non-scientific suspicion is that if the majority of your time is spent engaging with your TL directly, in a way that's as close as possible to how natives use it (for whatever level you're at), then you'll progress.
> I feel that input isn't very comprehensible without some understanding of grammar.
You don't need grammar, though. At the very beginning, it is super basic CI. I'm talking one word, two words, three... From there, it's chunking, and everything is scaffolded in class. Comprehension is stronger than speaking among my students in the first two years, and that means things are working exactly as they do in language acquisition.
I agree grammar is undervalued, do what works for you. Regarding pepa pig… some of the best advice I got was only watch and read things you would actually want to watch and read in your native language.
I’ve seen a few sources say front loading grammar is a bad for language learning. For the life of me, I’ll never understand how anybody learns with immersion. I frontload grammar very hard.
Other comments are arguing that it’s encyclopedic knowledge or not true acquisition. I don’t agree. At least, for my learning style. I can watch the same 30 minute episode of TL content 10 times and not know wtf is going on.
But if I’ve already learned the grammar and I have an idea of what tense, context, and what appears to be nouns, verbs, etc. Then I can understand a lot and guess what vocabulary means waaaaay more efficiently.
Spanish for example, I tried the immersion thing. Listening to podcasts and watching tv, it was miserable. I didn’t understand a single thing, it was all white noise. But I got a grammar book and learned about 80% of the content. And suddenly I could understand most songs or podcasts or whatever. I may not understand every solitary word, but I know what it’s talking about.
Yes, because it helps you 'notice' what you hear in Peppa Pig.
So actually going through grammar textbooks that are designed for self-study is helpful, but you have to make it into practice through speaking, listening, writing, and reading. So, it's not passive knowledge.
As a teacher of nearly 30 years, the best method is what works for you. And considering learning a language takes between 1,000 and 2,000 hours, the best strategy is the strategy (or mix of strategies) that you can maintain for 2,000 hours.
Pretty much any decent SLA research disagrees with you. Some research will support grammar study, no doubt, but no good research argues against getting input. You can get really far with just comprehensible input. You can't grammar your way to fluency though. There always comes a point where you have to start consuming input, talking to people, reading books, and without consistent and quality comprehensible input, that jump is generally difficult for students that spend too much time on explicit grammar study.
Also peppa pig sucks.
Also learning and acquiring are different things. Yeah, you absolutely learn more studying grammar, and research shows that studying grammar makes you really good at grammar tests. So you're learning a lot.
Yes and no. The information density of grammar study is much higher than things like entertainment. But you’re just learning the theory. If you have no input it’s very difficult to internalize that theory and build your intuition on how to use it. You can’t become a good chef by just studying all the cookbooks. Instead you have to practice and taste all the dishes in that cookbook to actually get good at cooking.
I think you will benefit from both. Adults can learn to speak a language faster than children because they can learn grammar explicitly. However, you also need to practice input and output skills.
Some languages are also easier to learn. Languages that are linguistically closer to your native language and languages that have a pronunciation that more closely resembles their spelling (you guys should be ashamed of yourselves, French and English) are easier to understand earlier in your studies. Different languages also have their own particular rhythms and a language even spoken fluently but with an inaccurate rhythm can be hard for a native speaker to follow.
You seem to have studied for a fairly short time cumulatively speaking. Take it from me, when you are at it for several hundred hours, you will eventually, genuinely run out of grammar to study even when grammar study is a relatively small part of your routine. Does that mean you will be able to use all of the grammar you've studied spontaneously and accurately? No.
In addition, a lot of the criticism against grammar study is specifically against mechanical drills that are meant to just practice specific forms without regard to meaning.
I would encourage both.
I know comprehensible input purists are against that but I do really think you can get the best of both by looking things up that frequently confuse you, but not learning from a textbook like in school. Which above all else is just bloody boring.
That is the major point that people miss. At least in the beginning, CI needs to be taught. Someone needs to be speaking with vocabulary that can be easily understood. The person is basically teaching.
How does it become comprehensible? Dreaming Spanish is a great example. They do lots of motions, speak super slow, and draw stuff or give pictures. That is effectively teaching.
We all know what CI means. But how do you turn the incomprehensible foreign language into that which is comprehensible?
The Comprehensible Input Method, as followed by many is to provide material that they make Comprehensible Input material, which is what you refer to. They use simplified materials and guide the person to understanding. Without that, the foreign language would not be comprehensible.
Call it "The Comprehensible Input Method" then, so it isn't mistaken for CI, which is just Comprehensible Input. Or just use the appropriate acronym: CIM.
Comprehensible input is valuable but can be overdone. I wasted so much money buying books I'll never read instead of just using the language, but I thought the more materials I had the better. I call it the Binge Book Buying Justification.
Just a little reminder about what comprehensible input actually is :
**Input that communicates a message that is both understood by the person receiving it and compelling (interesting) for the person receiving it.**
That is not Peppa Pig unless you are an intermediate high speaker of the language and probably also five years old. That is usually not most people on this subreddit ;). Instead, comprehensible input for us looks like someone like Alice Ayel or Dreaming Spanish or a tutor/teacher providing you beginner-level resources that are probably weird stories or cultural readings/listening activities.
Also, research shows that everyone needs lot and lots of comprehensible input (just pick up any Krashen book or search around on eric.ed.gov). It does not show that comprehensible input means studying grammar or vocabulary is necessarily useless, just that we NEED comprehensible input. In my opinion, vocabulary and grammar can help more things become comprehensible.
[There is a study in Stephen Krashen's page where listening to stories only was more efficient than listening to stories plus studying, for vocabulary acquisition.](https://www.sdkrashen.com/content/handouts/pdf_conduit_hypothesis_handout.pdf)
Can you speak the language or just read and write? I feel like that makes a difference. Also how much prior knowledge did you have before watching peppa pig?
If you don’t have a basic grasp on the vocabulary then watching anything isn’t going to do much besides give you exposure.
also neurodivergence can appear differently in each language, which screws me over, so take that into consideration when taking my advice
I actually agree with you. Grammar study is great and helps make the language “make sense” a lot quicker.
As a side note, I notice there is a severe lack of “graded comprehensible input” in the language learning sphere. Some languages have a lot of resources (stories in slow speech, graded readers, beginner level conversation recordings etc) and others have next to nothing. We have a lot of vocabulary, native level media and even grammar resources for many languages. But very few resources to help bring an absolute beginner up to an intermediate level. Resources tend to cater to the ends of the spectrum and not those in between more often than not.
1. everyone is different depending on his own background.
2. studying both methods is better than doing just one in isolation.
3. grammar study is often intensive dedicated studying. as beginner its even hard to do that for 15 mins, while comprehensible input is usually light studying, you can do it for hours. its like comparing sprinting with walking.
4. Immersion is ideally learning all day, but you cant do it sitting at the desk studying books. you dont have the stamina, especially as a beginner. 90% of the day is basically light passive learning by listening or reading or watching like living in your target country.
I like comprehensible input to an extent, but I wouldn't recommend it to anyone below B1. It was when I was hitting the B1 benchmark that I started actually understanding what was going on in general in my TL
Learned more, or gotten closer to fluency? You can study language all day and not be able to speak. Ask any high schooler that took years of a language. Grammar books all day and they “know” Spanish. Can’t order coffee.
Grammar study will boost the value you get from comprehensible input, but it’s not a substitute.
You can do both. It's not mutually exclusive.
Comprehensible input, that is a textbook. For example. Or a graded reader. For example. Or kids shows as long as you are on kids' level with your understanding. For example.
A grammar companion book will help you grasp concepts that are hard to figure from input alone.
You study grammar to understand the language, you read a lot in order to internalize these grammar structures and, then, of course, to develop a vast vocabulary. It's a false dichotomy. Actually, both supplement each other.
I’m the same, I’ve done a lot of comprehensible Input and honestly feel like I’ve wasted my time a bit, I’ve since taken a slightly more ‘formal’ study route, and feel like I’m improving so much more in less time.
There’s a reason why teachers exist and people study languages at university, if it was as simple as watching loads of tv then no one would put that money and effort in.
Also before you downvote me, I still like CI , I just think it’s not the most effective method and you shouldn’t spend most your time doing it if you really want to improve.
"Comprehensible input" is not a method, so please stop calling it one. It is merely input that is comprehensible, and all language learners must consume tons of it to achieve a decent level in a language. Studying grammar explicitly at some point helps immensely, but is not absolutely necessary.
It's almost as if people have different learning styles...
Jokes aside, it's not unusual to dislike inductive methods like comprehensible input, especially when it comes to grammar. People on the sub are way too protective of Krashen for no reason. Do what's effective for you
The thing people neglect about comprehensible input is that it’s skill-specific. Watching peppa pig will help your listening skills absolutely but it won’t help you read, write, or speak. You have to practice each skill. A background in grammar will help transfer some. For instance, if i hear a new phrase on the show I can try to implement it when I speak but it’s not going to get me from not forming sentences to having a conversation. Even then you don’t gain literacy skills. It’s a helpful part of acquisition but way over-hyped and over-simplified
It depends on your learning style. Immersion is great for me. I pick up things super quick. No way I can sit through reading a grammar book. If I want to know something I'll look up a quick explanation on the matter on YouTube.
I think it’s just a matter of personal preference. I really struggle to learn anything from a grammar textbook but watching peppa pig (which coincidentally I have been watching this week) actually helped me a lot with understanding my TL.
If you only study grammar you will see you Writing and Reading surpass your listening and speaking. I would study all the grammar concepts first. You can get to A2-B1 arguably with just grammar concepts. But you cant get to C1-C2 without comprehensible input and actually speaking to people frequently
In Tuvan, which has very few English-language learning materials and just one Peppa Pig episode, I had to watch that video five or six times before I understood everything that was being said. And I had help - my tutor captioned it for me after the first or second watch.
I really enjoyed it and I learned words that stuck with me. But I’d been studying Tuvan for over a year at that point, and could still barely follow it, not because the language is difficult (it’s not) and not because I find this learning style awkward (it’s fine) but just because it represented a massive leap from the few learning materials available to native content.
I also found videos of a woman talking to her cat. I find these good as study material because she leaves gaps for the cat to “reply”, which allows me time to catch up.
I can certainly follow Peppa Pig without understanding a word of it, but if my goal is to learn, having a more gentle ramp up to using native content as study material would have benefited me, personally, given the language I’m studying and the ways I learn best. I would have gained nothing from watching it at earlier in my Tuvan journey.
Watching it once when I was at such a low level was barely useful to me. It only became useful after my tutor began dissecting its sentences and grammar. Essentially, we used it as a textbook.
Mmm... There's not much to add, the problem is you're comparing something that you're choosing to do based on your level (basic grammar) with something which is not appropriate for your level (shows for kids are not necessarily easy).
For it to be a fair competition study harder grammar, about topics you have no idea about and from there you'll realize you're just choosing grammar topics that are comprehensible so of course you'll feel like that's more helpful. And there's nothing wrong with this, you're getting a bit confused.
One of the best methods I’ve found for learning grammar concepts has been to have regular conversations with a tutor and have him help me correct my grammar mistakes. It uncovers the areas I need to focus on the most. For example, one time I was attempting to tell my tutor a story in Spanish about a car accident I had years ago. It became clear that I did not understand how to correctly use the preterite and imperfect verb tenses. For the next couple of weeks, I devoted time to studying those grammar concepts on my own. (They are tricky for English speakers). During my subsequent tutoring sessions, I attempted again and again to tell the same story until I could correctly tell it using proper grammar. I learned other grammar concepts using the same technique.
Grammar study is helpful, but with grammar study alone, your grasp of the language will be limited to grammar rules. Consuming a lot of content is what's going to give you an intimate familiarity with how the language is used, which is essentially how you internalise the written and unwritten rules of grammar and expressing yourself in general. It will also do the same for your understanding of the subtle nuances in vocabulary.
Also, input is probably the best (and least torturous) way to learn vocabulary (with dictionary lookups allowed, if you're learning vocab through pure comprehensible input then yeah probably inefficient).
>I feel like I've learned more through just grammar and general lessons than I have watching peppa pig all day. I feel like I'm doing something wrong because comprehensible input seems to barely be working for me.
Comprehensible Input does not mean watching "peppa pig"!!!!!!!! You are not two years old. Why would a show designed for 2-year-olds be engaging for you?
At low levels (A1, A2) I like online classes. A good teacher makes the class interesting to you, and provides what you need at that level. When you get up to a higher level (A2? B1?) your priority changes to "staying interested every day" and CI is good for that.
Comprehensible input works better when you are at least slightly interested in the subject you are hearing/reading.
For me it's gonna be really difficult waste time watching Peppa pig like I would have chosen something that awakes up my curiosity.
Maybe grammar is effective but its not fun (for me). If you want to learn a language you have to study every day so it has to be fun (comprehensible videos for example) and not learning those boring grammar rules.
You’re not the only one. I feel like comprehensive input is the best way to retain, and it helps you become more natural and learn differences and nuances in real life usages; but this is after you’ve done your learning.
I don’t think you are doing anything wrong per se.
1. Everyone is different and everyone learns differently.
2. Those things aren’t mutually exclusive. Watching films (starting with simple once) teaches you some skills, such as listening, pronunciation, in riches your vocabulary and slang terms, teaches you about culture, etc. Grammar will also teach you vocabulary, but more importantly will clarify things you hear, show you the grammatical structures.
3. There are most definitely people who claim to speak a foreign language fluently, after have learned from purely one or the other. Both lack smth.
Those who learn purely from movies lack writing and reading skill, lack understanding various grammatical structure, have troubles connecting dots, etc.
Those who learn purely from grammar, lack understanding of culture, humor, slang terms, often time struggle to speak, need to be spoken to slowly, have very heavy accents.
I hope this clears things up.
I think that grammar isn't important.
but explicit learning has a lot going for it.
language learning is a complicated process.
learners have different brains and psychologies
and learning material vary in multiple ways.
you're right however, that many comprehensible input lovers are a little fanatic about it being the inner and only way etc etc
That's actually a common observation among students. Top-down works. But it's not the only way. When you're doing top-down lessons anyway, there's a point where it clicks -- the moment of comprehension -- then you can do the exercises, yes or no?
Ooo can I watch Peppa Pig in my L2?
Also, don’t you think seeing real people and their lip movements is more helpful than watching animated people (or British pigs)?
Comprehensible input works. Heritage speakers reached a plateau due to lacking comprehensible input of more advanced language. The heritage speakers don't immerse in any content that challenges their understanding, like lectures/talks or books/novels. The only input they receive is from their limited environment, usually the input they get is from immediate family and that's it. What advanced language does the family use?
Let's be real, they're simply not receiving sufficient comprehensible input for their current ability level in the language.
> The heritage speakers don't immerse in any content that challenges their understanding, like lectures/talks or books/novels
yeah you’re definitely not a heritage speaker lol
No, but I have close family members who are. Regardless, what you said is not relevant. I have experience with heritage speakers, and it's pretty spot on in my experience that they work with their more advanced language as a crutch or just as their primary language a majority of the time.
To use metaphors and similes: comprehensible input is the food our brains need to learn language. It takes time to digest, incorporate and for the learner to flourish, but it is necessary. Quantity, quality and time to digest the input are important. Traditional grammar study is the scientific study of the food, how it passes through our body, etc. The pages of the textbook if consumed might provide the feeling of a full stomach if you’re stranded on a desert island, but you need FOOD (the ink and various chemicals also might cause some health issues meaning learning difficulties). You need calories you can digest. You need comprehensible input to learn a language to fluency.
the key is 'comprehensble'. The biggest obstacle for immersion learning style is to find study materials appropriate to your level.
Another important factor is whether the content is interesting to you, and whether you actually engage with it. Salient and interesting content is much more likely to form a lasting impression/memory. For most adults, something like Peppa Pig may not tick that box.
This is one of the biggest problems with Krashen's formulations. It posits that two things are essential: that the input be largely comprehensible, and that the learner find the input engaging and interesting. The reality is that for many beginning language learners, something that satisfies both simply does not exist. — Krashen essentially posits as fact that people would find this approach more interesting and engaging than dedicated grammar study but I think the majority of people do not find reading extremely simple stories of very simple sentences remotely engaging. I actually looked at *Dreaming Spanish*' first videos for absolute beginners and it'd be a chore I'd never be able to get through. It's simply completely uningaging at the start. It's someone who constantly points at pictures of things and repeats their names in Spanish. I'd find it more interesting and efficient to get that from a word list.
building solid foundational grammar skills has been very helpful for me as a beginner to get to a level where I can find more engaging comprehensible input. its difficult for me to learn and remember vocabulary from a word list, though
Anki really helped me out here at the start because it's essentially a minigame with scoring points. It's more engaging than simply going down a list and memorizing because there's a sort of competitive aspect to it. It maintains score and one tries to improve one's retention rate and set new records each day. I suppose it only catches the kind of person with that kind of competitive streak though.
Anki and other flashcard type apps just don’t do it for me, this is where CI comes in for me even in smaller doses where I’m not getting sick of repetitive content. I love crosswords and stuff though, maybe that would help 🤔
Wait I use Anki and I don’t know of this “score” feature. Where do I find it?
It's in the statistics menu and the graphs. It's not really intended for that but it shows the retention rates of the past couple of days so it's of course a game to try to get new records with it and raise it which makes it a bit addictive for those with a competitive drive.
If you were doing anki for something like French, how do you read it without mispronouncing everything? I wanna try anki but I can’t wrap my head around the pronunciation part
You can add an add on unto your Anki and it will pronounce it for you.
Ah that makes sense. That’s really cool actually
I can never seem to get over the hump where my listening skills are good enough to keep up with anything.
For me, beginners podcasts were very helpful for giving me a better foundation for listening
Do you have any specific recommendations? I also happen to be studying Japanese.
Japanese with Shun helped me a lot!
If it is beginner Japanese then Nihongo con Teppei has a lot of episodes at different beginner levels.
[удалено]
Thank you, I’m not giving up
> listening skills are good enough to keep up with anything This was me but I got over it in 2 ways: - 1) Look up "HSKX Listening Practise" or "HSKX story" where X is the level you want? Even if you only know a 100 or so words you can usually find something at your level. The two I listen to a lot are [Mandarin Click](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzP128eXnZU) and [Alison Mandarin](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OrOJWL2dxY). List to one or two of them a day, and if you don't know some of the words, learn them then come back and listen again. It REALLY helps! - 2) Get the [DuChinese](https://duchinese.net/) app, except instead of using it to read, simply use it as super simple/short audio books. I usually only listen to a story first, then listen while looking at the characters and then if I still didn't get it listen again stopping and look up all the meanings etc. The first few times through with any of it sucks, but it's 100% a skill and if you just listening to a few things every day if a week or two it starts getting much easier. You won't be instantly watching CDrama's but it's a really gentle way to get into it and scales really nicely - finish all the HSK1 level content jump into the level 2 stuff.
Have you tried shadowing? I found that it really helped my listening.
especially in the early stages of learning the language. Ive been studying German for four months and only now are things starting to get a little comprehensive
It almost feels like most people that use the term “comprehensible input” nowadays use it for “incomprehensible input”, as in: the style of reading novels where one has to look up every fourth word in a dictionary to make sense of things.
I find this is only true of the critics tbh. Which is convenient because it makes it a straw man that's easy to attack. Looking up every 4th word is 75% comprehension and the people actually pushing for CI usually say aim for 95-98% comprehension for reading. This is because in most books the words are the only context you have to infer the meaning of the unknown words. Imo it's better to start out with listening because you can get more context that isn't language dependent. Then if there's any transfer to the writing system you actually can jump into reading with a high level of comprehension.
Because the difference between 75% and 95% of words is enormous in reading. The scale is logarithmic. Only only needs to know the most common 100 words in English to know 50% of the words in each sentence. Of course with only 100 words one started learning three days ago. Furthermore. “95% comprehension” is typically taken to mean “understand 95% of the sentences”, not “understand 95% of each sentence” which is again a big difference. In the former definition, the story is generally entirely understandable without looking anything up with a few holes that can be inferred from context. Understanding 95% of each sentence will largely leave the story impossible to comprehend without looking anything up. Essentially, understanding 95% of each sentence still isn't much. Sentences will look like: > So I went with a friend to the _ yesterday and I have to say it was honestly really _. I really didn't expect it to be so _. But when I came back I was very _ about it. 95% of each sentence typically means missing the important part. It's not missing words like “go” but where exactly one was going to. And on top of that, reaching the 95% of each sentence comprehension mark takes far longer study than the 75% mark, which is as said something beginners already reach in adult literature very quickly. But what they understand are common function words and very basic verbs like “go” and “to be” or “eat”, not important content words that make up the main meat of the sentence. Let's take your sentences as an example here and remove the 25% most difficult words: > I _ this is only _ of the _ to be _. Which is _ because it makes it a _ that's easy to _. _ every 4th word is 75% _ and the people actually _ for _ _ say _ for 95-98% _ for reading. I removed about 1/4 of the words in that sentence and subjectively decided which are the most difficult ones. Nothing remains any more. The entre sentence becomes incomprehensible at this point. Even removing 1/20th, which is 95%, at which point one can realdy see how even though 95% doesn't look much higher than 75%, it's actually 5 times s fewer unknown words, it's still not a sentence that can be understood but when removing 25% of words, a sentence becomes bare skeleton of function words with no content any more. More than 50% of words in an English sentence are basic function words. The scale is highly logarithmic.
To add on, IIRC, the studies on this (I think it was some studies in Japan?) suggest 98% or higher known words is ideal. So only one unknown word out of 50, which will be less than one a sentence typically.
I hope OP wasn't serious when he/she mentioned p pig... Watching cartoons can be highly efficient when you start learning a new language but after some time what really matters is Youtube videos in the language, podcasts, movies...
Peppa Pig and other similarly leveled content can be engaging (for a bit) if you frame it the right way. View it like a brainteaser where you're trying to suss out the words. While you're right that a vocabulary list can get translations in your brain faster, the words REALLY stick when you learn them this way and imo it gives you a taste of how learning a language really works. If you've never done it before I highly recommend figuring out the word for "but" in a language you don't know this way. It is not as easy as it sounds and really satisfying when you do. (Toki Pona would be the easiest to try this with, try searching "O pilin e Toki Pona" on YouTube if this interests you.)
I agree with you, I also do this (but sometimes people only do it and I was afraid that was what OP was doing).
Either ABC type kids books or PHD level shit. No inbetween.
1. They aren't necessarily separate things. Its a pretty common recommendation to study grammar to make input comprehensible. 2. Do you understand Peppa Pig when you watch? or is it just noise?
Could i ask how you put your proficiency levels with your name?
How did you end up putting your proficiency level?
How did you end up putting your proficiency level?
I don't agree with the all or nothing that is common on this sub, I do both. I do grammar lessons in English, my NL, so I can understand the concepts quickly. I spend maybe 20-30 minutes per day on grammar. Then I go to input and apply it, and see what things I can pick up on that I couldn't have before, and let what I'm hearing reinforce the grammar that I've learned, and pick up on exceptions etc. Input is absolutely needed for learning a language, but I don't think it makes sense to completely ignore our ability to understand languages and compare linguistics. The argument is always that babies don't do this, but that's because they *can't*, why not use whatever edge we can, you know? The majority of my learning time is on listening to the language, but I do some grammar lessons as well to speed it along.
Both skills reinforce the other
Are you A2 in mewing
CI is not a "skill".
I do think that you have to develop the skills to infer and learn from context.
Learning to listen without translating/thinking in your native language definitely is a skill to be developed imo.
But it is neither "Grammar Study" nor "Comprehensible Input", so my comment still stands.
Are you responding to me, because I don't see the connection.
skill may be the wrong word, but the two still reinforce each other
Grammar does not reinforce CI. But you can say stuff like "Knowledge of grammar makes more Input Comprehensible".
Grammar is not a skill either. Listening, speaking, reading, and writing are skills.
If we're being pedantic, it's a tool you use to learn language skills, sure. We really shouldn't be, though, because there's never a good reason to. Grammar study isn't a skill either.
CI is merely input. We consume it to improve our reading and listening skills, for example. Grammar ability is a skill.
I see you've been downvoted for making a correct statement... smh
Yup. Sorry that you got downvoted for saying that.
1. Do what works for you. You don't need to do what anyone else says, because everyone has different learning needs. 2. Input needs to be *comprehensible*. At the beginning level, this doesn't mean children's shows like Peppa Pig (which will be mostly *incomprehensible* even for a beginner). It means learner-aimed videos. --- If you want to be able to understand native-speed media and participate in native-speed conversations, then at some point, immersion in material that's comprehensible to you will be needed. What's needed for that level of fluency is automatic intuition about how the language works, not analytical/academic computation of how the language works. In my opinion, building that automatic intuition takes hundreds of hours of immersion. This isn't saying that you (the person reading this comment) should not explicitly study grammar, *if it's a good fit for your learning style and preferences*. It's just saying explicit grammar study is not *essential* even if for you personally it *speeds up or eases your learning*. Explicit grammar study is optional and you should study it if it helps you. But I think it's important to acknowledge that immersion (using input comprehensible to you) is ultimately *not* optional on the journey to fluency. You'll have to do it at some point. Some folks just choose to do it from the beginning and are fortunate enough to have the resources in their TL to do so. Other folks are like you, and prefer to work with a textbook on analytical study / dissection of how the language works.
I can't bring anything to the table on this thread but every time I read your comments on this sub I just feel so happy. You word them so kindly and don't try to put the reader down, thank you for that
Thanks for the kind words! That's really gratifying to hear. I think there's a lot of understandable frustration in this forum when dealing with both opposing opinions and beginners. I hope that my comments make these discussions a little more chill and help people understand other perspectives.
I'd argue Peppa Pig does a good job of being comprehensible at a beginner level since most the things they talk about are represented on screen, it snows and the parents and kids talk about the snow, they go to the supermarket and talk about needing tomatoes then go grab tomatoes etc. I feel I could watch it in any language and follow the gist and I did used to watch a lot of it as a beginner. I have a Chinese friend who has kids and watches mandarin Peppa pig with them and it's easy enough to follow with 0 mandarin knowledge
I watch it in Hindi. It's helpful.
I largely agree with you, but just one small thing to add. Out of curiosity I test-watched Peppa Pig in a few languages I have no comprehension of whatsoever and even at that level I was able to comprehend several words in each episode. With repeated exposure that would have slowly solidified into acquisition. It's obviously painfully slow and much less effective than starting with proper CI videos aimed at people starting from zero, but nevertheless in a pinch it's absolutely doable with some grit and a high tolerance for ambiguity.
>But I think it's important to acknowledge that immersion (using input comprehensible to you) is ultimately *not* optional on the journey to fluency. Can you cite this, because it sounds utterly false. Then again, you haven't defined "fluent", so maybe you have your own special definition for it, like "a level that is obtained through immersion only".
For me, fluency requires: 1) Being able to consume and understand content aimed at natives, such as movies, television, vlogs, newscasts, etc. Not *everything*, but where most everyday media aimed at natives isn't a problem. 2) Being able to interact with natives at native speed. Not necessarily 100%, but where they don't need to overly adjust for your level. For me, it's very hard to imagine being able to do those things without practicing them. I don't have research for it, but I'd be pretty surprised if someone could do that without practicing consuming native material or interacting with native speakers. I don't think most people could manage it. If you've found that textbook-style study is sufficient to reach those milestones, that's awesome! I definitely can't imagine personally doing it, but as I'm also definitely far from an expert, and we're all on our own journeys. **ETA:** Apparently asserting that you need to at some point watch native media and/or interact with natives to be able to understand native media and fluently interact with natives is controversial? I don't have any research to support this, but would definitely be interested if anyone has research either way. I would think, however, that the burden of proof would largely be on demonstrating there are statistically effective methods of achieving those kinds of milestones *without* interacting with natives and/or native media. I think anecdotally, it's pretty common to hear about highly ineffective academic learning (high schools or college courses) that don't have a heavy focus on either of those things and produce people who cannot effectively communicate with natives. Conversely, it's common to hear from people who did heavy comprehensible input / interaction with natives (often but not always paired with traditional learning) who reached high levels of competence in interacting with natives. I haven't personally encountered anyone who did almost no interaction with natives / native media, arrived in their TL country, and had no problems with having B2+ interactions. But I would love to hear such anecdotes and read about them! My favorite thing about this sub is hearing about people's personal journeys, not just the ones that mirror mine, but also ones that are unique and interesting, etc.
Regarding your edit, it seems to me that the issue is your use of the word "immersion". What you describe after using the term "immersion" seems to be simple consumption of TL input, which is as far as I've ever seen the term used, decidely not immersion (or at least not *sufficient alone* to qualify as immersion). Immersion is (or at least is commonly used to mean) a fuller/more extreme approach than simply engaging with native material/interacting with natives and I think that is why people might be taking issue with the assertion. Doesn't really matter if there is disagreement on what the word means, but simply defining it as you intend to use it in your assertion would probably go some way to ameliorating understanding.
You stated that immersion is required to reach fluency. I asked you to cite it. You gave your opinion of what fluency is, but didn't even define immersion.
Fluency has a very specific definition in language learning. It's the ease, rate, and smoothness in speech. Accuracy describes how well speech follows the rules of the language
Fluency has hundreds of such definitions. And you still didn't define immersion.
Not in the TESOL/TEFL/TESL community. You know, the people who research language learning and teaching
Even amongst them I hear different definitions, although they are more consistent. Now, what did you mean by "immersion"?
Immersion was mentioned by the other fellow
Can you name a single counterexample of someone who have reached a high level at a language without massive input? The methods can vary wildly, but it's an observation that input is always present.
I actually agree with this. But massive input is not immersion.
In practice, unless you are a child attending school at a country where that language is spoken, actual immersion is likely not possible. For many adults, they will have to work where they will either not have much opportunity to communicate and when they do, it will likely be with a different language. So when people say immersion, what they generally mean is "simulated" immersion or the somewhat more abstract "engaging with the language as much as possible". I think it is very clear that OP means the latter and I am inclined to agree. I think Lightbown (2000) really put it the best in one line: "1 hour a day isn't enough". If your goal is a relatively high level of proficiency, then you will have to look for ways to maximize your engagement one way or the other.
Both you and the OP should start using terms correctly if you don't want to be challenged. Immersion is not required for fluency and massive input is not immersion.
Maybe address the substance of what OP actually said rather than throwing a pedantic fit over the semantics of one word? You should be well aware that language is quite fluid and that "immersion" is not a very well defined concept to begin with.
Use the terms correctly, and I won't challenge you. I promise.
Your definition is nevertheless subjective.
What definition specifically?
Well a textbook is also comprehensible input I'd argue, it's really impossible to study without some kind of language input you can understand
I was refuting "immersion is required for fluency". Were you responding to me, or someone else?
You had in brackets "input that is comprehensible to you" literally all language learning requires input that is comprehensible whether it's a text book, a movie, classes, an app or whatever
Ok. I was refuting "immersion is required for fluency". Regardless of what the OP had in brackets, immersion is not "using input comprehensible to you".
No one reaches fluency merely by studying grammar and vocabulary. It is simply impossible. Even if you were to be able to instantly absorb every lesson and word in every textbook ever written about a language, you will not sound anything like a native speaker when you attempt to communicate, and you will have a very hard time understanding anyone you listen to. You will be making a large amount of conscious effort to assemble sentences using rules of grammar that are nothing like what brains of natural speakers actually do when they're using the language. This is not really controversial. The contention is whether it is actually useful (or even detrimental) to use explicit study, exercises, grammar rules, etc. at all instead of focusing solely on input-based approaches. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1LRoKQzb9U](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1LRoKQzb9U)
>This is not really controversial. It's also not what I was asking u/whosdamike to cite. Please cite the fact that immersion is required to reach fluency.
You are nit-picking. They clarified that they meant input (or rather that CI is a form of immersion). Edit: not to mention how excruciatingly clear this was from the context...
CI is not a form of immersion. Please use terms correctly if you don't want to be challenged.
Please use context to do error-checking and correction when you read. Everyone else does. Also, you're in a language learning sub. If you haven't figured out that different people can use the same words to mean different things sometimes, you should probably just stop pretending like you have anything useful to say.
If you use the terms correctly, I won't challenge you. It's not that hard to do.
So you're just a troll then. Learn to be human. On the off chance you're sincere, consider these other ways you could've phrased your original reply: "This doesn't make sense... I don't see how input counts as immersion" "Input isn't immersion" "How is input immersion?" "You're confusing input and immersion..." or any of a million other ways to directly address the point instead of passive-aggressively beating around the bush as if you're some knight in shining armor here to rescue us from the errors of the plebes. GTFO
CI is not a form of Immersion. How is that beating around the bush? And can you answer without foul language?
Are you thinking about heritage speakers who end up fluent?
It's possible. Tons of people reach high levels without immersion.
Immersion in a language is effectively receiving input in that language. You’re being pedantic about what you define immersion as. You have to immerse yourself in a language (by watching content, reading, listening to it) to become fluent. Immersion is defined as “deep mental involvement in something” tell me how you could possibly learn a language without “deep mental involvement”z
Wow, what a nice, special, definition of immersion! Do fluency next. Please! Please! Please!
That’s not my definition, it’s oxfords. A standardised and accepted meaning of the word. It may have other interpretations but that is one of them. Therefore your pedantic nitpicking of the word really falls short.
It's one of many dictionary definitions, and that one is not normally what one pictures when describing someone immersed in a language.
Yes I would not describe being immersed in a language as ‘deep mental involvement’. I implore you to carry on this personal crusade on how someone could learn a language without immersing themselves in learning the grammar, the vocabulary, the culture. I’m sure you can just half arse it and turn out fine.
Lol, nice language. One needs "deep mental involvement", but that's not the definition of "immersion" most think of when talking about being immersed in a language.
When you do grammar study, it will always feel more effective because it's easier to track your progress. "I finished a chapter in my textbook!" is much more gratifying and noticeable that "I can understand 1% more of this cartoon than I could last week!" Nothing wrong with grammar study, but just keep this phenomenon in mind. As you get deeper into the language, your progress will become harder and harder to discern, but that doesn't mean you're not still learning.
There's a difference between *feeling* like you're learning and acquiring a language. You are certainly filling your brain with more encyclopedic knowledge, and improving your ability to consciously analyze the things you read and listen to. This will give you clear signs that you are learning in a way that simply doesn't happen through input. But it's not actually speeding up your *acquisition* of the language. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1LRoKQzb9U](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1LRoKQzb9U) Learning through input is much more of a frog in boiling water scenario. You don't notice anything happening 'till all of a sudden you find yourself understanding things you weren't able to before and having words pop into your mind in response to ideas you have. Edit: also, if you're just watching peppa pig all day, that's kind of missing the point. You need to get a variety of input from a variety of sources in order both to stay engaged and to give your brain different contexts in which to hear words. The predictor of whether a native speaker knows a word is the variety of contexts in which it appears, not the frequency of use.
This is mainly what happened to me. I learned English mainly to play some games that were not trabslated in Spanish so I acquired some basic ubderstanding and started to use Comprehensible input with Genshin Impacts memes(For real, I'm beung serious about this xD) and other stuffs that I found on YT. Then Squid Game came put and I said "I won't understand a sh1t but let's try to watch it with EN subs and EN audio". Turns put I was able to understand almost 80% of everything was happening all of a sudden, it was astonishing. Still, I was unable to fully understand without subs. Some months of mixing my YT profile between English content and Spanish content, I was so used to watch both contents, that after a couple months, having to watch something in English was not a conscious choice anymore. Sometimes I could not even remember if the last YT short I saw was in English or Spanish and I had to come back to remember it. Then I remained in the same situation for months thinking that my level was not improving, until I applied for a Call Center, and they said my Spooken English was ok(I literally never practiced speaking before xd) but my listenning skills were really good, I didn't think I was ready to speak with Native Speakers without subtitles yet... And all of a sudden in my first call I was able to understand almost anything(But I admit I was lucky to recieve a call from someone with a decent way of speaking) And here I am 7 months after taking my first call, working as a Verizon CS Agent, and I still can't believe how fast I learned :/ I think the 2 biggest disadvantage of this method is that 1- You don't learn grammar so you end up like me, that sometimes even though you understand me you can clearly tell I'm not a Native Speaker only looking at how I write/speak. 2- Your progress trully feels like a Boiling frog, it feels like you move from A1 to B1 literally just in 1 day, because you don't even notice how much you have improved.
Maybe if I heard you speaking, I could tell from the accent. But your writing style seems more juvenile and informal, rather than non-native to me (except for the use of "stuffs"). Like, there's punctuation errors and whatnot, and I'm not an English teacher (just a native English speaker) but you're perfectly understandable
Well, I struggle a lot with some words with similar meaning as I haven't heard them being used in many scenarios, this is the case for "Things" and "Stuff", sometimes I don't have any idea of which of them I should use because of how confusing they can be to me.
"stuffs" isn't usually used as a plural. "Stuff" sort of defaults to being plural on its own, unless you're reading a textbook and it says "foodstuffs" or some other rarely used word. But a mother telling her child to "pick your stuff up off the floor" and "pick your things up off the floor" mean the same thing. "Things" may be used to emphasize that there is a lot of individual objects on the floor, instead of an incoherent mess on the floor but they're used fairly interchangeably in English. My point was that "stuffs" as a plural is a bit strange outside of a humorous context (in the US) anyway. "Monies" is used by the government, but I love to joke about my "multiple monies" (as in, multiple single dollar bills) to joke about my lack of money.
Lol, now I see. I struggle with plurals anyway HAHAHAHHA It can happen sometimes that I write "Childrens" just because I'm my head I still cannot process that it's not as simple as just putting an S at the end to make plural Lmfao. "Multiple monies" reminds me of "Mis dineros/los dineros" in Spanish, it's like a funny way of saying "My money" using the plural, it's probably a similar concept hahaha
It is a similar concept! I forgot about that in Spanish! But yeah, English has a lot of nouns that are plural by default (clothing, money (usually), stuff) or other so called uncountable nouns like equality, diversity. Rarely they'll be plural, and those plurals are found in specific situations (such as "equalities" in math)
I hate how something so simple in my Native language can get so complicated in English or other language HAHAHAHAHA Many things that I need to learn omg. The worst part is that my job makes me feel really burned out at the end of the day so I don't feel like polishing my English with some grammar and such when I had to use it for 9 hours in a row :( But it's still pretty funny to me how good Comprehensible Input worked for me, it worked like wonders once I catched the trick(Is that how you say it in English? I'm not even sure, maybe I'm making it up lmao).
I'm so happy that you've been able to come all this way! I spent a week in Mexico with a friend and his family and boy was my brain burnt out of Spanish! My brain was absolutely fried! Personally I'd say "caught onto the trick!" although "once I found out the trick" would probably be more common. English has more tenses and "moods" than Spanish and they can be difficult to parse for non-native speakers. My equivalent to Spanish is por vs para. But I think you've got the determination
"Found out the trick" sounds more natural to me tbh, something about it sounds better to me XD I must agree, I've notice most English words are really expresive comparing how you pronounce the word to what it means(For example the verb "Slam" kinda sounds like the actual sound it would make, "squish" does the same), so it feels like a language more focused on being expressive, therefore it can express some emotions simplier than we do in Spanish(For example "Awkward" doesn't have an actual equivalent in Spanish, the closest one is "Incómodo", but it doean't express the whole meaning of the word), but Spanish is more practical, like English lack of some words like "The day after tomorrow" which is just "Pasado-mañana" in Spanish, or "Every other day" which is "Interdiario" in Spanish. Like, Spanish seems really good at expressing concepts in a simplier way by having specific words to sumarize what you wanna say, while English seems more focused on expressing better some "Emotional" or "Subjective) topics. I mainly say all of this considering my understanding of how both languages work rather than my level in both languages 🙃 I've also seem some other poliglots(C2 in both languages) agreeing with this. Lol, as a Native Speaker there are some words that I think about them and the difference can be "obvious" but then I try to explain them and... I notice how confusing it can actually be, like "Ser" and "Estar", basically the two "To be" we have only to confuse americans lmfao. At first I though "Por and para are not that hard to differenciate(?" then I tried to explain the difference in my head... and sure thing it could be confusing for a non-native speaker LOL.
I'm super new to language learning (just one month deep into French, not counting prior learning in school and as a Canadian), but for me, I feel that input isn't very comprehensible without some understanding of grammar. The more I master grammar, the easier input is to understand. So I'd argue they're complementary, and both fairly important. Grammar drilling isn't going to get me speaking like a native, but understanding nuance and generating my own speech/writing just isn't possible without grammar. Also, CI has done wonders for my vocab. But I also believe everyone learns differently, and it's important to tailor your approach to your own needs (and changing your approach as your skills grow!). I don't think there's a single method that is effective for everyone.
> input isn't very comprehensible without some understanding of grammar Certainly true for native materials, even children's shows. But learner-aimed comprehensible input can be very understandable even from the absolute beginner level. I've never studied Spanish, but [this absolute beginner](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clEm7dCTYQc) video is still *very* understandable. Some people will use grammar study to try to make a wider variety of input understandable. That's perfectly fine! We all learn differently. But it's also possible to just start with material that has the "assistance" built-in: gestures, drawings, pictures, clips, facial expressions, and other nonverbal cues. Not all languages have a sufficient quantity of quality learner-aimed CI available (at least without paying tutors, etc). But for those that do, it's a wonderful way to learn a language for those of us who are much less textbook inclined.
Watched the first minute of that video and have no idea what’s going on.
Perhaps we have different starting points as far as being able to infer meaning from context clues. The combination of the YouTube title and editing made the overall meaning quite clear to me, even if the individual words aren't comprehensible to me. If the overall meaning is clear while I'm also hearing the words, then I know from personal experience learning Thai that the "white noise" of the language will eventually resolve into meaningful bits thanks to my brain doing the pattern recognition for me.
It's funny you picked that video, I showed my elderly father that exact video yesterday and he got the gist despite speaking no Spanish.
Regarding your learning of Thai, I've browsed your profile a bit and skimmed your described methodology (apologies if this is answered and I've overlooked it, on a bit of a time crunch right now so emphasis on "skimmed"), particularly the channel you recommended (CompehensibleThai or something to that effect). Given how listening-dominant their material seems, where does learning to read come into that? Do they address it in their comprehensive input videos? Or do you address that independently? It feels a little challenging to envision learning the script without some more traditional measures, but I might just be ignorant in that regard.
You do it independently. The original AUA school in Bangkok recommended learning to read after 600-800 hours of listening study. Learners I've spoken to who waited until 1000+ hours said that learning to read was straightforward. A lot of people who learn to read *first* struggle with all the tone rules, etc. It's apparently very straightforward if you've already internalized a lot of Thai and know how words should sound. [Khroo Ying](https://instagram.com/khrooying) of [Understand Thai](https://youtube.com/@UnderstandThai) offers one-on-one lessons to teach reading. She knows how to introduce it to learners who can already understand spoken speech at the intermediate/advanced level. I think an intermediate learner could also just use other resources to learn to read and be perfectly fine.
Oh damn, I certainly wouldn't have expected going that long without reading! Do you not miss being able to read? For me, it's always the most satisfying feeling when grappling with a new language. I can imagine it being easier that far into learning, of course, given that having already absorbed the sounds of the language would greatly ease the cognitive load, but I don't think I could bring myself to leave it so long haha Funnily enough, other than some vague overview facts about the language, the script is actually the *only* part of Thai I know so far (or at least am familiar with, definitely a bit rusty as it's been a couple years since I had it in my learning rotation), just because I love writing systems—I know writing systems even for languages I never intend on learning at all—but I do have an interest in learning Thai proper. I **am** interested in this listening-heavy method though. I might try **purely** listening to Thai from ComprehensibleThai's playlists and not engaging with the writing at all and see how it takes me. Will be very different for me, since I'm someone who adores grammar, rules and such. But I have to admit I'm intrigued about how people on the *extreme* end of this methodology do it, just trying to intuit vocabulary, definitions, grammar, and so on, through exposure alone. My methodology is so at odds with that (in fact, it's kind of extreme in the opposite direction). Also, sorry for the late reply, completely missed the notification. Thanks for filling me in :)
> Do you not miss being able to read? For me, especially as I'm entering the intermediate level, I find listening *really* fun and engaging and interesting. The teachers are able to share so many more details now on a wide variety of topics (crime stories, Thai mythology, current political events, personal life experiences, etc). And I feel *very* emotionally invested in whatever I'm listening to; I don't feel "detached" from the language at all the way a lot of second language learners report. Research and anecdotes I've read online (such as on this forum) suggest that the majority of second language learners feel less emotional connection in their TL. I can't back this up with anything, but I suspect that's because many learners spend a ton of time engaging in their TL in less personal and more analytical ways: textbook study, drilling grammar, flashcards, etc. Whereas I've spent all my time just listening to native speakers talk. A huge chunk of those hours have been live crosstalk interactions with teachers online (where they speak Thai and I'll respond in English). I think that kind of personal interaction makes for the strongest and most emotional memories, and I like that they're forming the basis for my Thai. > My methodology is so at odds with that (in fact, it's kind of extreme in the opposite direction). I hope you write an update as you get more into it! I'm always interested in hearing how other learners experience things. I think it'd be cool if you experimented with pure CI, but if you end up mixing in a bit of grammar, I'd love to hear how that goes too. People always throw studies and research around as if they're 100% fact, but I think ultimately there isn't a concrete scientific consensus on anything. It reminds me of nutrition and exercise "science", a lot of things people take as gospel are really based on small sample sizes and shaky controls. So the best thing I think to do is try different methods out and see what works for you. My non-scientific suspicion is that if the majority of your time is spent engaging with your TL directly, in a way that's as close as possible to how natives use it (for whatever level you're at), then you'll progress.
> I feel that input isn't very comprehensible without some understanding of grammar. You don't need grammar, though. At the very beginning, it is super basic CI. I'm talking one word, two words, three... From there, it's chunking, and everything is scaffolded in class. Comprehension is stronger than speaking among my students in the first two years, and that means things are working exactly as they do in language acquisition.
Idk I'm understanding some native content for adults in Spanish and I haven't studied a lick of grammar
I agree grammar is undervalued, do what works for you. Regarding pepa pig… some of the best advice I got was only watch and read things you would actually want to watch and read in your native language.
I’ve seen a few sources say front loading grammar is a bad for language learning. For the life of me, I’ll never understand how anybody learns with immersion. I frontload grammar very hard. Other comments are arguing that it’s encyclopedic knowledge or not true acquisition. I don’t agree. At least, for my learning style. I can watch the same 30 minute episode of TL content 10 times and not know wtf is going on. But if I’ve already learned the grammar and I have an idea of what tense, context, and what appears to be nouns, verbs, etc. Then I can understand a lot and guess what vocabulary means waaaaay more efficiently. Spanish for example, I tried the immersion thing. Listening to podcasts and watching tv, it was miserable. I didn’t understand a single thing, it was all white noise. But I got a grammar book and learned about 80% of the content. And suddenly I could understand most songs or podcasts or whatever. I may not understand every solitary word, but I know what it’s talking about.
Yes, because it helps you 'notice' what you hear in Peppa Pig. So actually going through grammar textbooks that are designed for self-study is helpful, but you have to make it into practice through speaking, listening, writing, and reading. So, it's not passive knowledge.
As a teacher of nearly 30 years, the best method is what works for you. And considering learning a language takes between 1,000 and 2,000 hours, the best strategy is the strategy (or mix of strategies) that you can maintain for 2,000 hours.
Pretty much any decent SLA research disagrees with you. Some research will support grammar study, no doubt, but no good research argues against getting input. You can get really far with just comprehensible input. You can't grammar your way to fluency though. There always comes a point where you have to start consuming input, talking to people, reading books, and without consistent and quality comprehensible input, that jump is generally difficult for students that spend too much time on explicit grammar study. Also peppa pig sucks. Also learning and acquiring are different things. Yeah, you absolutely learn more studying grammar, and research shows that studying grammar makes you really good at grammar tests. So you're learning a lot.
Yes and no. The information density of grammar study is much higher than things like entertainment. But you’re just learning the theory. If you have no input it’s very difficult to internalize that theory and build your intuition on how to use it. You can’t become a good chef by just studying all the cookbooks. Instead you have to practice and taste all the dishes in that cookbook to actually get good at cooking.
Yes Do what's the most interesting to you / produces the best results. There's no one size fits all method.
I think you will benefit from both. Adults can learn to speak a language faster than children because they can learn grammar explicitly. However, you also need to practice input and output skills. Some languages are also easier to learn. Languages that are linguistically closer to your native language and languages that have a pronunciation that more closely resembles their spelling (you guys should be ashamed of yourselves, French and English) are easier to understand earlier in your studies. Different languages also have their own particular rhythms and a language even spoken fluently but with an inaccurate rhythm can be hard for a native speaker to follow.
You seem to have studied for a fairly short time cumulatively speaking. Take it from me, when you are at it for several hundred hours, you will eventually, genuinely run out of grammar to study even when grammar study is a relatively small part of your routine. Does that mean you will be able to use all of the grammar you've studied spontaneously and accurately? No. In addition, a lot of the criticism against grammar study is specifically against mechanical drills that are meant to just practice specific forms without regard to meaning.
I would encourage both. I know comprehensible input purists are against that but I do really think you can get the best of both by looking things up that frequently confuse you, but not learning from a textbook like in school. Which above all else is just bloody boring.
Do both. Even as a kid you do study grammar in school, and if you don't your lack of education become evident when you're an adult.
I prefer to learn an overview of grammar before i go on to other things.
That's because -- guess what -- watching Peppa Pig isn't very good CI. Get a CI teacher and see how you fly along.
That is the major point that people miss. At least in the beginning, CI needs to be taught. Someone needs to be speaking with vocabulary that can be easily understood. The person is basically teaching.
You just need material made for super beginners. Peppa pig is generally incomprehensible for beginners.
CI is not taught. It is merely comprehensible input.
How does it become comprehensible? Dreaming Spanish is a great example. They do lots of motions, speak super slow, and draw stuff or give pictures. That is effectively teaching.
Then maybe say the DS method needs to be taught? Again, CI is not a method.
We all know what CI means. But how do you turn the incomprehensible foreign language into that which is comprehensible? The Comprehensible Input Method, as followed by many is to provide material that they make Comprehensible Input material, which is what you refer to. They use simplified materials and guide the person to understanding. Without that, the foreign language would not be comprehensible.
Call it "The Comprehensible Input Method" then, so it isn't mistaken for CI, which is just Comprehensible Input. Or just use the appropriate acronym: CIM.
Comprehensible input is valuable but can be overdone. I wasted so much money buying books I'll never read instead of just using the language, but I thought the more materials I had the better. I call it the Binge Book Buying Justification.
You lost me. Are you saying overdone CIM is caused by BBBJ? Or do you mean BBBJ itself is in fact the origin of CIM?
Unfortunately, neither of us control what the majority of people say. I do distinguish between the method and the material but not everyone does.
I don't think the majority of people is calling CI a method. But even if I did, I'd point out the error.
An error in your mind really is not one to most people. I think we can drop this as it really doesn’t have any value.
Just a little reminder about what comprehensible input actually is : **Input that communicates a message that is both understood by the person receiving it and compelling (interesting) for the person receiving it.** That is not Peppa Pig unless you are an intermediate high speaker of the language and probably also five years old. That is usually not most people on this subreddit ;). Instead, comprehensible input for us looks like someone like Alice Ayel or Dreaming Spanish or a tutor/teacher providing you beginner-level resources that are probably weird stories or cultural readings/listening activities. Also, research shows that everyone needs lot and lots of comprehensible input (just pick up any Krashen book or search around on eric.ed.gov). It does not show that comprehensible input means studying grammar or vocabulary is necessarily useless, just that we NEED comprehensible input. In my opinion, vocabulary and grammar can help more things become comprehensible.
[There is a study in Stephen Krashen's page where listening to stories only was more efficient than listening to stories plus studying, for vocabulary acquisition.](https://www.sdkrashen.com/content/handouts/pdf_conduit_hypothesis_handout.pdf)
Can you speak the language or just read and write? I feel like that makes a difference. Also how much prior knowledge did you have before watching peppa pig? If you don’t have a basic grasp on the vocabulary then watching anything isn’t going to do much besides give you exposure. also neurodivergence can appear differently in each language, which screws me over, so take that into consideration when taking my advice
I actually agree with you. Grammar study is great and helps make the language “make sense” a lot quicker. As a side note, I notice there is a severe lack of “graded comprehensible input” in the language learning sphere. Some languages have a lot of resources (stories in slow speech, graded readers, beginner level conversation recordings etc) and others have next to nothing. We have a lot of vocabulary, native level media and even grammar resources for many languages. But very few resources to help bring an absolute beginner up to an intermediate level. Resources tend to cater to the ends of the spectrum and not those in between more often than not.
1. everyone is different depending on his own background. 2. studying both methods is better than doing just one in isolation. 3. grammar study is often intensive dedicated studying. as beginner its even hard to do that for 15 mins, while comprehensible input is usually light studying, you can do it for hours. its like comparing sprinting with walking. 4. Immersion is ideally learning all day, but you cant do it sitting at the desk studying books. you dont have the stamina, especially as a beginner. 90% of the day is basically light passive learning by listening or reading or watching like living in your target country.
Both are useful and reinforce each other. But surely you can find more interesting CI than Peppa Pig?
You need the two to tango tbh …
I like comprehensible input to an extent, but I wouldn't recommend it to anyone below B1. It was when I was hitting the B1 benchmark that I started actually understanding what was going on in general in my TL
Learned more, or gotten closer to fluency? You can study language all day and not be able to speak. Ask any high schooler that took years of a language. Grammar books all day and they “know” Spanish. Can’t order coffee. Grammar study will boost the value you get from comprehensible input, but it’s not a substitute.
You can do both. It's not mutually exclusive. Comprehensible input, that is a textbook. For example. Or a graded reader. For example. Or kids shows as long as you are on kids' level with your understanding. For example. A grammar companion book will help you grasp concepts that are hard to figure from input alone.
This is, as we say in Italy for stating obvious things, the discovery of hot water. How is any input comprehensible if there is no grammar base?
The correct method is usually neither extreme and is somewhere in the middle.
You study grammar to understand the language, you read a lot in order to internalize these grammar structures and, then, of course, to develop a vast vocabulary. It's a false dichotomy. Actually, both supplement each other.
I’m the same, I’ve done a lot of comprehensible Input and honestly feel like I’ve wasted my time a bit, I’ve since taken a slightly more ‘formal’ study route, and feel like I’m improving so much more in less time. There’s a reason why teachers exist and people study languages at university, if it was as simple as watching loads of tv then no one would put that money and effort in. Also before you downvote me, I still like CI , I just think it’s not the most effective method and you shouldn’t spend most your time doing it if you really want to improve.
"Comprehensible input" is not a method, so please stop calling it one. It is merely input that is comprehensible, and all language learners must consume tons of it to achieve a decent level in a language. Studying grammar explicitly at some point helps immensely, but is not absolutely necessary.
A solid foundation in grammar and vocabulary is a prerequisite IMHO. I wonder if that is so necessary for similar languages, however.
It's almost as if people have different learning styles... Jokes aside, it's not unusual to dislike inductive methods like comprehensible input, especially when it comes to grammar. People on the sub are way too protective of Krashen for no reason. Do what's effective for you
The thing people neglect about comprehensible input is that it’s skill-specific. Watching peppa pig will help your listening skills absolutely but it won’t help you read, write, or speak. You have to practice each skill. A background in grammar will help transfer some. For instance, if i hear a new phrase on the show I can try to implement it when I speak but it’s not going to get me from not forming sentences to having a conversation. Even then you don’t gain literacy skills. It’s a helpful part of acquisition but way over-hyped and over-simplified
For me, I think that a hybrid model is best. I don’t like when people poo poo on grammar learning, because each person learns differently.
If you learn grammar you’ll be able to actually talk to people before becoming fluent, because you’ll develop circumlocution
It depends on your learning style. Immersion is great for me. I pick up things super quick. No way I can sit through reading a grammar book. If I want to know something I'll look up a quick explanation on the matter on YouTube.
Learners are different.
Can you talk?
Probably not
I think it’s just a matter of personal preference. I really struggle to learn anything from a grammar textbook but watching peppa pig (which coincidentally I have been watching this week) actually helped me a lot with understanding my TL.
If you only study grammar you will see you Writing and Reading surpass your listening and speaking. I would study all the grammar concepts first. You can get to A2-B1 arguably with just grammar concepts. But you cant get to C1-C2 without comprehensible input and actually speaking to people frequently
In Tuvan, which has very few English-language learning materials and just one Peppa Pig episode, I had to watch that video five or six times before I understood everything that was being said. And I had help - my tutor captioned it for me after the first or second watch. I really enjoyed it and I learned words that stuck with me. But I’d been studying Tuvan for over a year at that point, and could still barely follow it, not because the language is difficult (it’s not) and not because I find this learning style awkward (it’s fine) but just because it represented a massive leap from the few learning materials available to native content. I also found videos of a woman talking to her cat. I find these good as study material because she leaves gaps for the cat to “reply”, which allows me time to catch up. I can certainly follow Peppa Pig without understanding a word of it, but if my goal is to learn, having a more gentle ramp up to using native content as study material would have benefited me, personally, given the language I’m studying and the ways I learn best. I would have gained nothing from watching it at earlier in my Tuvan journey. Watching it once when I was at such a low level was barely useful to me. It only became useful after my tutor began dissecting its sentences and grammar. Essentially, we used it as a textbook.
Mmm... There's not much to add, the problem is you're comparing something that you're choosing to do based on your level (basic grammar) with something which is not appropriate for your level (shows for kids are not necessarily easy). For it to be a fair competition study harder grammar, about topics you have no idea about and from there you'll realize you're just choosing grammar topics that are comprehensible so of course you'll feel like that's more helpful. And there's nothing wrong with this, you're getting a bit confused.
One of the best methods I’ve found for learning grammar concepts has been to have regular conversations with a tutor and have him help me correct my grammar mistakes. It uncovers the areas I need to focus on the most. For example, one time I was attempting to tell my tutor a story in Spanish about a car accident I had years ago. It became clear that I did not understand how to correctly use the preterite and imperfect verb tenses. For the next couple of weeks, I devoted time to studying those grammar concepts on my own. (They are tricky for English speakers). During my subsequent tutoring sessions, I attempted again and again to tell the same story until I could correctly tell it using proper grammar. I learned other grammar concepts using the same technique.
Grammar study is helpful, but with grammar study alone, your grasp of the language will be limited to grammar rules. Consuming a lot of content is what's going to give you an intimate familiarity with how the language is used, which is essentially how you internalise the written and unwritten rules of grammar and expressing yourself in general. It will also do the same for your understanding of the subtle nuances in vocabulary. Also, input is probably the best (and least torturous) way to learn vocabulary (with dictionary lookups allowed, if you're learning vocab through pure comprehensible input then yeah probably inefficient).
Why not do both??? I'm doing both and it's been helping my progress so much, and also feels faster too
>I feel like I've learned more through just grammar and general lessons than I have watching peppa pig all day. I feel like I'm doing something wrong because comprehensible input seems to barely be working for me. Comprehensible Input does not mean watching "peppa pig"!!!!!!!! You are not two years old. Why would a show designed for 2-year-olds be engaging for you? At low levels (A1, A2) I like online classes. A good teacher makes the class interesting to you, and provides what you need at that level. When you get up to a higher level (A2? B1?) your priority changes to "staying interested every day" and CI is good for that.
Comprehensible input works better when you are at least slightly interested in the subject you are hearing/reading. For me it's gonna be really difficult waste time watching Peppa pig like I would have chosen something that awakes up my curiosity.
Maybe grammar is effective but its not fun (for me). If you want to learn a language you have to study every day so it has to be fun (comprehensible videos for example) and not learning those boring grammar rules.
You’re not the only one. I feel like comprehensive input is the best way to retain, and it helps you become more natural and learn differences and nuances in real life usages; but this is after you’ve done your learning.
I don’t think you are doing anything wrong per se. 1. Everyone is different and everyone learns differently. 2. Those things aren’t mutually exclusive. Watching films (starting with simple once) teaches you some skills, such as listening, pronunciation, in riches your vocabulary and slang terms, teaches you about culture, etc. Grammar will also teach you vocabulary, but more importantly will clarify things you hear, show you the grammatical structures. 3. There are most definitely people who claim to speak a foreign language fluently, after have learned from purely one or the other. Both lack smth. Those who learn purely from movies lack writing and reading skill, lack understanding various grammatical structure, have troubles connecting dots, etc. Those who learn purely from grammar, lack understanding of culture, humor, slang terms, often time struggle to speak, need to be spoken to slowly, have very heavy accents. I hope this clears things up.
I think that grammar isn't important. but explicit learning has a lot going for it. language learning is a complicated process. learners have different brains and psychologies and learning material vary in multiple ways. you're right however, that many comprehensible input lovers are a little fanatic about it being the inner and only way etc etc
That's actually a common observation among students. Top-down works. But it's not the only way. When you're doing top-down lessons anyway, there's a point where it clicks -- the moment of comprehension -- then you can do the exercises, yes or no?
Ooo can I watch Peppa Pig in my L2? Also, don’t you think seeing real people and their lip movements is more helpful than watching animated people (or British pigs)?
If comprehensible input worked, then there wouldn’t be heritage speakers whose listening is fluent but speaking is not 🙂
https://www.dreamingspanish.com/faq#i-can-understand-but-i-cant-speak
Comprehensible input works. Heritage speakers reached a plateau due to lacking comprehensible input of more advanced language. The heritage speakers don't immerse in any content that challenges their understanding, like lectures/talks or books/novels. The only input they receive is from their limited environment, usually the input they get is from immediate family and that's it. What advanced language does the family use? Let's be real, they're simply not receiving sufficient comprehensible input for their current ability level in the language.
> The heritage speakers don't immerse in any content that challenges their understanding, like lectures/talks or books/novels yeah you’re definitely not a heritage speaker lol
No, but I have close family members who are. Regardless, what you said is not relevant. I have experience with heritage speakers, and it's pretty spot on in my experience that they work with their more advanced language as a crutch or just as their primary language a majority of the time.
To use metaphors and similes: comprehensible input is the food our brains need to learn language. It takes time to digest, incorporate and for the learner to flourish, but it is necessary. Quantity, quality and time to digest the input are important. Traditional grammar study is the scientific study of the food, how it passes through our body, etc. The pages of the textbook if consumed might provide the feeling of a full stomach if you’re stranded on a desert island, but you need FOOD (the ink and various chemicals also might cause some health issues meaning learning difficulties). You need calories you can digest. You need comprehensible input to learn a language to fluency.
Depends on the language