Stephen Krashen and language acquisition

Stephen Krashen's five hypotheses on language acquisition are the cleverest description I have read about how languages are learned. Most academic research on language learning just seeks either to come up an article for publication containing unnecessarily complicated research and theories, or to justify the massive involvement and intrusion of teachers on what should be a natural learning process. Krashen debunks much of this. If more people followed his precepts we would have more people speaking foreign languages and fewer language classrooms. Here is just one short gem amongst many from Krashen in his little book. "If we provide students with enough comprehensible input, the structures they are ready to acquire will be present in the input. We don't have to make sure they are there;we don't have to deliberately focus on certain points of grammar. If this corollary is correct it meanbs the end of grammatically based language teaching." Download the Krashen podcast

Comments

[Roderick Hinn]

I recently have been reading much of Krashen's works on Second Language Acquisition (if there is a difference between First Language and Second Language) and I've noticed some similarities between the methods that you propose and Krashen's theories of L2 acquisition. As far as I am aware, he's a much read author in the field of Applied Linguistics, but somehow, educators all over North America have not implemented his theories into their teaching yet, which is a bit of a pity...

[ed]

Caveat: I didn't listen to the podcast, but I have studied Krashen before.

I tend to take a weak Krashen position: His theories are appealing intuitively but I believe there should be explicit form focus especially for adult learners. The question of "which forms?" (not to mention the question "which content?") can be and should be settled by the student, not the teacher, which is why I like LingQ.

The classic arguments against Krashen are:

He has been very influential in the implementation of communicative language teaching which has provided mixed results at best, for example in the case of French Immersion in Canada.

His theories are also not really testable in a rigorous empirical study, if that is a standard that seems pertinent. That is, it is hard to figure out a test to prove the existence a "monitor" or an "affective filter", for example.

Accepting the existence of the affective filter, it is also not really clear whether the frustrations that raise this filter cause slower acquisition (what Krashen claims) or whether it is just correlated with lower acquisition. For example, a person may just innately not be as quick as his peers to pick up language so he feels frustrated.

[Brian Barker]

As far as learning another language, is concerned, can I put in a word for the international language, Esperanto?

Although Esperanto is a living language, it helps language learning as well.

Five British schools have introduced Esperanto in order to test its propaedeutic values. The pilot project is being monitored by the University of Manchester and the initial encouraging results can be seen at http://www.springboard2languages.org/Summary%20of%20evaluation,%20S2L%20Phase%201.pdf
You might also like to see http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8837438938991452670

Confirmation can be seen at http://www.lernu.net

[Steve Kaufmann]

Brian,
You have been pushing Esperanto here for quite a while. I have no interest in Esperanto because there is not Esperantoland or Esperanto people nor Esperanto culture. You have made your point, you have promoted this website. The next time you do I will put you on a spam filter.

[Steve Kaufmann]

ed,

Krashen says that teaching the forms or the grammar will not work. I largely agree. On the other hand it is effective to point out to learners that this is right and this is not right and to point out patterns,and to get them to look for these patterns in their listening and reading.

The explanations are usually not all that useful. It is better to encourage the learner to become observant or attentive. That is what we do with LingQ and the saving of phrases.

By the affective filter he refers to the fact that our emotions and our motivation are extremely strong influences on our brains ability to learn.

[Steve Kaufmann]

ed,

My grandchidren are in French immersion in Canada and I do not think that Krashen's principles are applied. There is far too much deliberate teaching and busywork assignments.

I would make all young children, not just the immersion kids, do a lot of reading and listening to other languages using a system like LingQ.

[ed]

Steve

You are right, in the last 5-10 years the French Immersion gods in Canada have a moved away from the hard-line Communicative approach because it had mixed, mostly bad results. But the Communicative approach itself was inspired by Krashen's principles, mostly for its focus on meaning to the exclusion of all else. I think that is actually good for kids up to grade 4 or so. But after that a slight form focus, à la LingQ, would be better than either continuing the pure meaning based approach or doing busywork.

My point about the affective filter is that it is not a testable hypothesis. It and most of Krashen's other hypothesis' will probably never be proven in an empirical way. I actually don't believe the scientific method is an appropriate way to look at language acquisition, but I think it is slightly disingenuous of Krashen to use the word hypothesis, with it's scientific connotations, in reference to his claims.

[Steve Kaufmann]

ed,

I find that my granddaughter pronounced French better in grade one than now in grade five. I am skeptical about immersion for the following reasons.
1) it is elitist, only a few have a change to learn French.
2) It is unnatural having anglophone kids speaking to each other in French (the source of my grandaughter's poor pronunciation I suppose.
3) It distracts them from the substance of much of what they are studying.
4) Most immersion kids do not end up fluent in French.
5) Why just French?

As to Krashen's use of the term hypotheses, it bothers me less than the confusing double speak that typifies much writing on language learning. At least his writing is crystal clear and makes sense, and it deals with important issues in language learning, not some refinement of something that was either obvious or of no great significance in the first place, or simply self-serving, as is the usual case in other things that I have read.

But I do not agree entirely with Krashen. We all have our blind side.

[Mitch]

Steve,

I've mentioned this before, but there are two points I question about Krashen--and I've had correspondence with him on this, many years ago. (Most everything else I agree with.)

One is his assumption that spoken language "emerges" by itself, given enough input. Although this might be true for some people, I know of too many cases where people understand a language completely, and can hardly say a thing. Somewhere along the line, one has to open one's mouth and use those muscles.

Secondly, he totally derides any focus on form--just concentrate on meaning. While I agree that learning "rules" may not be affective, noticing form--at least for adults--often benefits acquisition.

When I read about successful polyglots, like yourself, Alexander Arguelles, and Kato Lomb, they appear to be "Krashen-like," but differ on these two points.

[Steve Kaufmann]

Mitch,

I agree with you. I feel that speaking need not start early, or at least need not start until the learner is ready. However, there comes a point where we want to speak and it is very helpful to speak. We come back from an evening speaking the language and we feel we have moved up a notch or two, or a couple of weeks speaking the language and we have definitely improved.

I feel that input activities have the tremendous advantage that we can do them on our own terms, when we want and how we want and cheaply. We not rely on the patience of a teacher or friend or even a stranger. Listening and reading are not stressful and pleasant.

Somewhere Krashen talks about the Din of the language, and I believe there is a point where we have absorbed so much input that we are just dying to use it.

As to form, I believe that a brief review of grammar rules, patterns and declension tables etc. from time to time is useful. It just need not be the basis of learning, especially not with children. But these reviews are not to be considered something to be learned. Rather they are a stimulus, something to make the brain more attentive.

I would like to contact Krashen to discuss these things but have no idea how to contact him.

Steve

[Jason C]

Steve,

It appears his email may be Krashen[at]sdkrashen(dot)com, based on his mailing list which you can subscribe to.

It would be very interesting for you to be in contact with him, since your methods line up with his theories :)

[Jaroslav]

Steve,

It is by reading and listening (a LOT !!!!!!)
I learned my English(way back in Ukraine) and was able to speak and write right away after it bacame neccesary. Some grammar is nessasary, yes. But the bulk of learning was for me listening and reading. Moreover, to my opinion, "ignoring" the grammar is very useful at the begining just to get things going and make a
positive motivation, a crucial factor.

Another poing: it is better to GUESS a new word rather than to get its ready translation (which may be, by the way, difficult dute to mutiple meaning typical in English). New words are better retained if they are
GUESSED from the context. I for example would highlight in the text a word I do not know and when I see it for a second type the two contexts would give a meaning with 90% chance, if not the third encounter would nail it for sure. Sometimes not am I only remember the word, but the
context where I encounted it.

I met many people strugling with English for years, my Toronto cousine including, and they all were using 2-language vocabluaries, while I swiched to 1 language dictionary(Oxford) very early on...

Later on talking to an English teacher( a good one) about the method I used he only confirm that this is the way to go...

I think LingQ correctly addresses all of this ideas.
Great tool.

[Edward]

Steve,

I found a podcast of Stephen Krashen's speech on 31 August and 1 September 2006, which you might be interested in.
http://www.archive.org/details/WesleyA.FryerPodcast80EncouragingReadingbyStephenKrashen

[nickzi]

I am sorry, but the intuitive approach has been disastrous wherever it has been applied. You end up with people who cannot be described as knowing a language, who can parrot a few sentences, but cannot analyze what they do, and will never be able to go beyond a very basic and simplistic understanding. I say this as one who has seen classrooms of committed and enthusiastic students butchered by people who lacked any capacity for the hard, technical side of teaching languages. Try mastering Mandarin without being able to understand how grammar and syntax work! Or how about an inflected language like Latin? If you don't know the endings, you don't have a prayer of ever getting to a competent level. No-one ever suggests that we should just wander at random through mathematics - but the intuitionist approach basically does just that for languages. The result is students who have no idea how to take the next step - and have no tools with which to take it. There is a reason for the careful and precise analysis of languages - and a reason why the soft and fluffy approach to them has been a consistent failure in universities.

[Steve Kaufmann]

Nickzi,

I do not know if you are a learner or a teacher. Have you learned Mandarin your way? How many inflected languages have you learned your way? I have learned Mandarin, several Romance languages, German, Russian and other languages, my way. And I am quite fluent in them, I do not just parrot a few sentences.

I am not alone. I even believe that I am in the majority. I have seen the results of the grammar based instruction method in schools, where less than 1% of students learn to communicate in the language they are supposed to be learning. In US colleges, 3rd year students do Italian and Russian literature in translation, because they cannot read them in the original. My way, studying part-time, I can enjoy Russian literature, radio drama in the original.
Languages are meant to be enjoyed, not analyzed. When they are enjoyed, people stay with them and learn.

Whether you are a learner or a teacher, Nickzi, I suggest you give LingQ.com a try and open your eyes to a better way of learning languages.

[Warren Ediger]

Steve, I'd encourage the commentators who have questions about Krashen's research base to look at his Explorations in Language Acquisition and Use (2003) as well as the many articles available free at sdkrashen.com. Also, there is a one-day seminar video available at http://www.tprstories.com/ijflt/. It costs $40, but you'll never pay that little for a good seminar of any kind. I'm not sure when it was recorded, but it includes comments on some fairly recent research (warning: the production quality is amateurish, but the content is vintage Krashen).

[Steve Kaufmann]

Thanks Warren, I am still waiting to see if Nick answers my questions.

[nickzi]

Steve, since you ask, the languages I currently know are: English, Latin, Classical Greek, Mandarin, Classical Chinese, Japanese, Classical Japanese, French, Italian, German, Russian, Sanskrit and a certain amount of Arabic and Spanish. I've taught English, Latin,Greek, Chinese and French to a variety of students over the years.

Speaking bluntly, you create a totally false dichotomy between analyzing and enjoying languages. A precise understanding of languages enables the student to do far more with them, to read at a more advanced level, and to communicate in a much more meaningful and stylistically advanced way. You simply cannot achieve this by wandering through languages with getting a real grasp of grammar and how it operates. How, for example, would you read or use eg. a Russian imperfective verb versus a perfective? How would you even go about discussing the idea without using the relevant labels? And once you do so, you are using grammar, whether you like to call it that or not. Grammar and syntax are not analyzed by language teachers for the sake of analysis - they are valuable as a means - and a crucial means - of giving the students the tools they need to go further.

As for your remarks about LingQ being a "better" way, you presuppose that I am not conversant with LingQ or that I see LingQ as incompatible with precise understanding of language. I would point out that if LingQ has a virtue, it is that it potentially supplies a chance for practice with a native speaker, which has its own value, especially for understanding idiom. What it does not do is to replace the value of a clear understanding of why such speakers do what they do - and you simply won't get that without, in effect, deploying a grammatical and syntactical understanding. Equally, if a student asks why, for example, Classical Greek (no native speakers, alas) sometimes uses an optative rather than a subjunctive in a purpose clause, you won't get very far by just saying that that's how it is, don't worry about the grammar. In fact, without grammar, you have no way of discussing a language or communicating how it works effectively. Would you try and teach math by pointing to e.g. a series of algebra problems, without explaining the rules which underpin them? If you did, how much do you think the students would absorb? Grammar is an efficient and precise way of discussing language, not a way of shutting it off from students. Yes, bad teachers, of whom there are many, do not communicate effectively - but that's not because of grammar. After all, bad carpenters mishandle saws or drills, and yet no-one suggests that saws or drills are bad tools per se. Why should bad language teachers blame their tools?

[Steve Kaufmann]

Nick,

I have no idea how well you speak the languages you speak. I would be interested to see a video of you speaking these languages, since this is no mean achievement. I have done videos on youtube in the 10 languages that I claim to speak.

I understand Russian without knowing really when to use a perfective or imperfective verb. I know that I will gradually get better at using them, but I have no interest in the explanations, which I have read and do not understand. I am happy communicating in foreign languages while making mistakes and have limited interest in grammar, other than for the occasional reference.

I do not doubt that you like grammar, and that there are other people who like grammar. It is, however, arrogant pedantry to pretend, as you do, that a focus on grammar is a condition, or a necessary tool, for comfortable communication in a language, or the understanding of "advanced" concepts in a language.

You have not understood what LingQ is about, by the way. LingQ is a community of people who are able to access a growing library of interesting content in audio and text form, and who use a unique method to accumulate vocabulary. Members help each other in a variety of ways, such as contributing to the library of content in their own language,and by encouraging each other. The chance to converse with a native speaker, that you refer to, is a minor, and in no way unique feature of LingQ.

It is my conviction that the key to language learning is a large amount of interesting content, audio and text, and systematic vocabulary learning from that content, which is what we offer at LingQ.

Grammar study need be of only minor importance to most language learners, who wish to have meaningful conversations in the language, on subjects of interest to them, and who want to understand the spoken and written language. I repeat, grammar should be of minor importance in any language program.

Language learning is not math.I do not know if we can listen to people adding and subtracting and multiplying and dividing and gradually learn maths. I do know that we can do that in language learning. People do it all the time. The brain gradually figures out the patterns of the language with enough exposure.

All of your scorn for natural language learners cannot change the fact that these learners do better than the grammar learners when in comes to learning to communicate in a new language. The fact remains that the vast majority of students in schools and universities in North America who are forced to learn grammar, end up not able to speak the language they are studying. How do you explain this?

[ed]

Nickzi,

I realise this is an exchange between you and Steve, but I can't help but add my thoughts.

Concerning rules like the imperfective verb versus a perfective verb, this kind of thing is quite easily noticed by most people of even below average intelligence in languages like English or French, given enough exposure in the manner of LingQ. At that, there are often options using both to achieve adequate purposes.

Which brings me to my point, you often have a choice. As a non-native speaker your choices will always be more limited than a native speaker's, but as long as those objectives are adequately achieved, including maintaining the proper register for the situation, you are successful.

I suppose it is theoretically true that every different form corresponds to a slightly different meaning (cf Micheal Lewis "The English Verb"). But is making all those meaning-form connections explicit really useful when you can do just fine with stuff that you can figure out on your own?

I feel like the analogy with an algebra problem, the assertion that there are useful, or even clear answers to why speakers use the forms they do in every different imaginable situation, shows that you seem to have a very strong faith in a deductive notion of grammar. Actually grammar is at bottom an inductive notion.

Ironically, one of the main reasons that there are so many bad teachers is they put their faith into the grammar McNuggets served up by many of the remaining textbooks that share this common misapprehension about grammar.

Ed

[Steve Kaufmann]

ed,

This is not just a dialogue between Nick and me, it is an open discussion and I welcome your opinion and that of others.

[antongorodetsky]

"It is, however, arrogant pedantry to pretend, as you do, that a focus on grammar is a condition, or a necessary tool, for comfortable communication in a language, or the understanding of "advanced" concepts in a language."

Nonsense. I realize you dislike being called on your claims to fluency, but anyone who can't deal with imperfective versus perfective in Russian simply has no claim to know the language. Trust me, as someone who is fluent in both English and Russian, I should know! As for it being pedantry to insist on a genuine level of competence, I'm happy to work as a professional linguist, rather than a hopeful amateur. Nickzi is absolutely right to demand a high standard of competence, and to point out that you can't get there without grammar. Krashen is just another of the useful idiots peddling the idea that you can make progress without doing the real work to learn a language.

"All of your scorn for natural language learners cannot change the fact that these learners do better than the grammar learners when in comes to learning to communicate in a new language. The fact remains that the vast majority of students in schools and universities in North America who are forced to learn grammar, end up not able to speak the language they are studying. How do you explain this?"

Again, you keep creating this false, and self-evidently false, dichotomy between natural and grammar learners. And you offer no evidence to support these vast claims about the people who do better. Furthermore, you can't simply say that learning grammar means you don't learn to speak - it generally means you learn to speak correctly, rather than simply babbling in some hideous version of Russian (or another language) in a way that you confuse with being fluent. Yes, that takes more time - but it is time well spent.

"Actually grammar is at bottom an inductive notion." How refreshing to see a linguistic debate that has been running for the better part of 2500 years solved with such certainty!

[ed]

antongorodetsky

You accuse others of not backing up their claims... where is your back up for your "genuine level of competence". If you knew anything about language assessment you would know that that notion is about as slippery as it gets. For that matter, where is your back up for your claims about pedagogical grammar being better than the LingQ approach? It is easy to just criticize.

Moreover, I think you are reading too much into Steve's claims if you think he is saying "ignore grammar" in an absolute sense. I think he saying, sensitize yourself to the lexico-grammar continuum by massive, self-selected, interesting, repetitive, exposure coupled with a self-selected form focus implemented through flashcards. Thereby, whether you know it or not, you are creating and re-creating your own categories which are more usefully grasped and certainly not inherently less dodgy than many pedagogical grammars.

<<"Actually grammar is at bottom an inductive notion." How refreshing to see a linguistic debate that has been running for the better part of 2500 years solved with such certainty!>>

I don't think there is any debate about grammatical categories being built up from particular usages. Unless you are talking about innatist notions of Universal Grammar, in which case you are not really in the right forum. I suppose I should have said pedagogical grammar, but I would expect a "professional linguist" to get that distinction.

[sdkrashen]

http://www.angelfire.com/az/english4thechildren/krashen.html

[jasonsmith]

The problem with this sensitize yourself approach is that it takes a pointlessly long way round, rather than cutting through and getting to the point. That's what clear, precise understanding of grammar does. If you want to spend three years skimming through eg.Mandarin Chinese newspapers online to finally figure out the numerous different uses of e.g. "gei" or "le", I suppose you can, but you will find it a lot more effective to use one of the perfectly sound grammar books that are easily available. This paranoia about grammar is simply an elaborate way of rejecting tools that you don't understand, and it does no-one any good to pretend that happy amateurism will benefit you in your acquisition of language. As for taking Krashen as a guru, it apparently doesn't worry you that he has never taught languages, and never actually researched or tested his theories. You don't find it troubling that his impact on language teaching in eg, California has been disastrous. When will you wake up and realize that grammar is a way of talking about and analyzing languages, not something to be afraid of?

[nickzi]

Ed, I think you'll find that Anton is speaking of the debate over anomaly and analogy. It's hardly fair or adult to blame him for your sloppy usage of terms in this area. I don't plan to spend a great deal more time on these issues, but this whole debate is disturbingly reminiscent of the debate over teaching grammar versus creativity in English classes - and the results of the latter approach are depressingly clear. As for the claims that I don't "get" LingQ, I hate to point this out, but LingQ is hardly unique. There are plenty of websites that offer linguistic penpals, and it's great that they do.What they are not is a substitute for disciplined and effective language study. A student of Russian who doesn't know why the distinction between perfective and imperfective - and why it matters - is a pretty devastating witness to the limits of the method you offer.

[ed]

jasonsmith

There is a fundamental confusion shown by the pro-grammar folks on the nature of procedural knowledge, which is what language competency boils down to. You must "DO THINGS WITH" language. If thinking that you "KNOW ABOUT" language motivates you to DO more THINGS WITH it, good for you. The more you do, the faster you will learn.

However, my main issue in this thread is with the sweeping generalisations made about language pedagogy without back up. Applied Linguistics research is notoriously inconclusive on any of these issues. It is also rife with poorly designed studies. I think this speaks to problematic nature of language acquisition. It doesn't lend itself to any purist line. This applies equally to LingQ methodology and to a grammar centred approach. The thing LingQ has going for it is that it manifestly delegates choice to the student and uses information technology to greatly facilitate these choices, not to mention reducing the cost of texts etc.

Finally, the continual erection of straw men by you and others is annoying. There is no "paranoia" about grammar. I am capable of understanding complex grammatical concepts. The fact is, even the most complex grammatical concepts are not inherently that difficult. I just find the distinctions they elaborate are usually suspect when applied to language as it is in the world. In fact, the major difficulty I have with them is that I feel they waste my time. I definitely wouldn't pay for a class centred around them to teach me how to be competent as a language user. I also think the idea that LingQ is about "skimming" for a few years shows you haven't tried it so you don't really know what you are talking about on that score.

I personally don't care about the mystique of Krashen, I subscribe to approaches, which happen to be close to LingQ's, that are based on many years of teaching ESL and EFL as well as being a second and third language learner. I invite you and others to have a rational discussion about it.

[John Cotterell]

Krashen has noticed (correctly) the brain is hard-wired to deduce and get a feeling for the aesthetics of grammar without being specifically taught the rules.

Grammar teaching should be used later on to consolidate what we already have a feeling for.

[Ayush]

@Nickzi, Anton Gorodetsky, jasonsmith -
www.alljapaneseallthetime.com
www.antimoon.com

Case closed.

[ed]

nickzi

"It's hardly fair or adult to blame him for your sloppy usage of terms in this area."

What? because I failed to qualify my use of "grammar" with "pedagogical" in a thread about learning languages? Or that I used a terms, "inductive" and "deductive" in their general sense and not in a sense that is particular to the study of grammar as an object? Again, in a thread about pedagogical grammar.

", but this whole debate is disturbingly reminiscent of the debate over teaching grammar versus creativity in English classes - and the results of the latter approach are depressingly clear."

The relevance of teaching English to native speakers to ESL teaching is here is strained. In any case, what is clear to me is that you have yet to back up your claims.

" As for the claims that I don't "get" LingQ, I hate to point this out, but LingQ is hardly unique."

Straw man.

"There are plenty of websites that offer linguistic penpals, and it's great that they do."

You obviously haven't tried LingQ.

"What they are not is a substitute for disciplined and effective language study."

Question beggary.

"A student of Russian who doesn't know why the distinction between perfective and imperfective - and why it matters - is a pretty devastating witness to the limits of the method you offer."

How exactly? What if he communicates clearly and precisely using these proposed structures? (BTW I do not offer this method)

I invite you to a rational discussion on pedagogical grammar with reference to LingQ.

Cheers

[Steve Kaufmann]

I fully agree John. I think that we can and should refer to a short grammar book from to time, and also check declension and conjugation tables and the like from time to time, with the full realization that we will not remember much, but just as a part of the process of making the brain more attentive.

When we have enough of the language that we can read a book or listen to an audio book on grammar in the target language, then we can go about perfection our language using the grammar content as learning material, hopefully in LingQ so that we can save key words and phrases for review in flash cards, again helping our brain notice certain things.

[Robert Dupuy]

quote: "I am sorry, but the intuitive approach has been disastrous wherever it has been applied. You end up with people who cannot be described as knowing a language, who can parrot a few sentences, but cannot analyze what they do, and will never be able to go beyond a very basic and simplistic understanding. "

This is the general result of all learning methods, and frankly, the grammar rule approach doesn't even produce a student able to parrot a phrase.

Most students are not in academia at all. Typical student, decides to learn a foreign language, and they go into Barnes & Noble, and they buy a book.

Maybe they respond to a RosettaStone ad on the radio.

Someone gives them Pimsleur second hand.

5 years after they start...in a typical scenario, they've already quit 4 years ago, and they, tops, remember 5 words in the target language.

I've studied Russian for 8 years. I've studied grammar rules, I've done reading, I've done conversation.

Krashen's approach seems absolutely obvious to me. He's correct.

I wouldn't fault any approach for not working, frankly noone has solved the issue that learning a foreign language is a big task, and most people are not up to it.

If you need the language to survive, you will learn it, if not, you won't...except in a few rare cases.

[Robert Dupuy]

Guys, I want to add to the list of shame, lets see the list already had, RosettaStone, Pimsleur, self-help books at Barnes & Noble...add to that professional tutors, night courses at your local university, online university courses, and high school language course.

Not on the list of shame: total immersion by moving to a foreign country

and perhaps, also not on the list, a rigorous 4/6/8 year degree in the target language, but with the caveat, we aren't sure why that works, a college environment is a unique opportunity to be with other speakers just at your level or slightly above - meaning it would work under Krashen's theories as well...and secondly, most programs supplement the formal teaching by having the students immerse in the target country -- i.e. the one thing that isn't on the list of shame, is usually part of this solution as well.

still...I always thought it was a good idea to see what works and what doesn't work, and give heavy weight to things that are actually producing proficient speakers.