knows that there are a million different learning systems

and methods out there

and a million different people trying to sell them to you

But after a while you will probably notice  one idea that everybody seems to believe in  

and that is the importance of input

Sometimes entire learning programs are based

only on providing input

and on the idea that input is the only thing

you need to learn a language

The main reason this idea is so powerful

is due to the influence of one man

Stephen Krashen, who is often viewed as a  legendary figure in the world of language learning

He proposed the input hypothesis back in the  1970s and his ideas have been enormously popular  

and very influential on the world of  language learning during the last 50 years  

and in 2021 you will still find him

repeating his now famous mantra

that we acquire language in only one way

when we understand it

Here is Krashen in his own words

"The core contribution, I think,

is that we acquire language in only one way,

when we understand it

Most people call that comprehensible input

We don't acquire language when we speak

We don't acquire language when we study it

We don't acquire language when we memorize lists of verbs, etc

We don't acquire language when we get corrected

All those things, like grammar, vocabulary, are the result of getting comprehensible input"

It sounds great, right?

No speaking, no study, just input

It's the dream of any language learner

There's just one little problem with the input hypothesis

It's total b*******

Now, I know this is dangerous ground

because I am talking about a person that is highly respected

and his ideas are the foundation

of a lot of language learning programs

But I truly believe in the principle of error correction

created by the great sociolinguist William Lebow

who said that "a person who becomes aware of an idea

with important consequences that has errors,

has an obligation to talk about those  errors with the widest possible audience" 

and because i think that the input hypothesis

has errors and negatively affects millions of people

trying to learn a language,

I have an obligation to talk about it

So, let's get specific

What exactly is the problem with the input hypothesis?

The first problem is that the hypothesis  can immediately be shown to be false  

by a specific, but very common group  of people, called receptive bilinguals  

They are people who have a highly proficient  understanding of language

but they cannot speak or write it

This situation is really common

among the children of immigrants

The family moves to a new country

and the parents continue to speak the language

of the old country, but the children will  adopt the language of the new country

and in that situation, it's common that  the children will be able to perfectly  

understand the language of their parents, but  will have a varying ability to express themselves  

Now, you cannot argue that these children are  not receiving comprehensible input

and not only is it comprehensible, but it is meaningful

It is input from their own parents about their own life

yet some of these children cannot speak  or write the language of their parents  

And this is just one example  of asymmetrical bilingualism  

In fact, in general, bilingualism is misunderstood

It is extremely, extremely rare

that people who speak two or more languages

will have equal abilities in all of them

And even though this is a well-known fact

and also totally natural,

this creates a great deal of shame

for some people, who want to honor their parents

and honor their culture through language

But the fact that people do not have equal  abilities in all their languages

is not surprising to me... at all

because I know something that everyone knows

if they take a moment to reflect

You get good at what you practice

and that's why I have an obligation

to talk about why this obsession with input is so dangerous

because it doesn't explain the full story

and I think, mainly, it's a problem of definitions

First let's ask two vital questions

One, what does it mean to acquire a language?

and two, what do you want?

Okay, so first, what does it mean to acquire a language?

If you define language acquisition,

if you define knowing a language as being able to comprehend it

and process it and understand it,

then I suppose that the input hypothesis is correct

But that is hardly what most language learners want

It's not an accident that people call themselves

English speakers or Japanese speakers

when they talk about their language abilities

The ability to speak, of course,

is quite valued, and in my experience

considered a fundamental skill

I wonder how many learners

would believe in a teacher that says,

"in my classroom you will learn to acquire language,  but not produce it"

Let's do a thought experiment

So, I sit down and I watch a video on YouTube

from a surgeon that shows me how to perform brain surgery

I totally comprehend the video

and everything that the surgeon does

Have I acquired the knowledge of this operation?

If not, how many videos would I need to watch

before I acquired the knowledge

Is that knowledge useful?

And how many videos would I need to watch

before you feel comfortable  with me operating on your brain

But, apart from that think about how  the idea of selling

the importance of input

discriminates against a  majority of the world's languages

The fact is that most of the world's  languages have never been written down... ever

But we have all become indoctrinated

into the idea that recorded language is king

that if it's written in a book or recorded  as a podcast or put on television

then it is real language that needs to be digested

and once you've done that you have acquired the language

Well, apart from a tiny percent of languages on the planet

that attitude won't get you very far

Apart from the fact that most languages produce  hardly any output,

so there is little or no input to digest,

how will you ever use that language

if you don't know how to speak it or write it

How do you think you will be accepted

as a human being and a member of a community

or a culture if you can't participate

in the most fundamental of all human actions

sharing

And maybe that's the part that upsets  me most about the input hypothesis  

It's not generous

It doesn't seek to contribute

It doesn't add anything

It just wants to suck on language like a parasite

and that brings us to the second question

and by far the most important

What do you want?

That is the first question that any good teacher asks

and so it's also the first question

that should be considered by any good teaching theory

If you want only to acquire language

then please spend all of your time and energy

on comprehensible input

But if you want to use language for the reason it was invented

communication

then you need to follow that basic logic of

"You get good at what you practice"

If you want to get good at reading

read more

If you want to get good at speaking

speak more

If you want to get good at writing

write more

and getting good at all of those things will require years

of hard work and a healthy dose of deliberate practice

Please don't let the promises

of false prophets and profits

rob you of the gift of language

which isn't about understanding language

but about understanding other people

and understanding yourself

and making a contribution to society

because now more than ever

the world needs to hear what you have to say

I'm Christian, this is Canguro

and I'll see you in class

[Music]