Name: 史蒂芬‧克拉申的「可理解輸入」理論，難道大家都錯了？！ (Is everyone WRONG about Stephen Krashen's "comprehensible input" theory?)
Uploaded: 2026-01-20T09:38:01.000Z
Duration: 14 min 4 s

基礎被動語態

YouTube 上大家都在瘋迷一個人。

Video after video praises Stephen Krashen and his theory of comprehensible input.

一堆影片都在讚揚 Stephen Krashen 和他的 comprehensible input 理論。

Throw away your textbooks, forget about grammar.

把你的 textbooks 丟掉，忘掉 grammar。

一切都是關於 comprehensible input。

But is everybody getting his theory wrong?

但大家是不是都誤解了他的理論？

I'll explain why it's a little more complicated than people make it out to be, how solid it actually is, and

我會解釋為什麼它比大家想的要複雜一些，它實際上有多堅實，以及

I'm Dr. Taylor Jones, and this is Language Jones.

我是 Dr. Taylor Jones，這裡是 Language Jones。

I've seen people say that Chomsky is wrong about language and then two seconds later swear their intellectual allegiance to Krashen without realizing that not only does he know and get along with Noam Chomsky, not only does he pronounce his name correctly, but

我看過有人說 Chomsky 在語言學上是錯的，然後下一秒就對 Krashen 表達 intellectual allegiance，卻沒意識到他不僅認識 Noam Chomsky，跟他也處得來，而且還能正確唸出他的名字，更重要的是，

his theories are within a Chomsky and framework.

他的理論其實是建立在 Chomsky 的 generative framework 之上。

What you're likely to see on YouTube is a claim that all you need to learn a language is a sufficiently large quantity of engaging comprehensible input.

你在 YouTube 上很可能會看到一種說法，聲稱學語言只需要大量、引人入勝的 comprehensible input。

Comprehensible means that you can figure it out, ideally that there's only one new word in a sentence or one new structure that you can get from context, and

Comprehensible 意思是你可以從中理解，最好是句子裡只有一個新單字或一個新結構，你可以從上下文推斷出來，而

By this interpretation, the only thing you need to learn a language is a lot of the language starting simple and getting more and more complex, preferably with something like pictures or video, and

照這個解釋，學語言唯一需要的就是大量的目標語言，從簡單的開始，然後越來越複雜，最好是搭配圖片或影片，

而且最好還有母語人士的音檔。

But that's not exactly what Krashen meant.

And in his original theory, he actually specifically, specifically addresses the fact that that sometimes doesn't work.

而在他最初的理論裡，他其實有特別、特別提到，有時候這樣做是行不通的。

So let's get into what his theory actually is and then decide how justified it is and whether we can make it work for us.

所以，我們就來看看他的理論到底是什麼，然後再決定它有多大的根據，以及我們能不能讓它對我們有用。

His writing covers not just the comprehensible input hypothesis, but also four other interrelated hypotheses.

他的著作不僅涵蓋了 comprehensible input 假說，還有另外四個相關的假說。

If one proves wrong, it might destabilize the whole academic endeavor.

如果其中一個被證明是錯的，可能會動搖整個學術研究。

These need to be operationalized and tested.

這些需要被 operationalized 並經過測試。

He's working within a Chomsky and generative framework, and those assumptions are actually the first hypothesis.

他是在 Chomsky 和 generative framework 的框架下工作的，而這些假設其實是第一個假說。

They are 1 learning versus acquiring, 2, the linguistic monitor, 3, natural order, 4, comprehensible input, and

它們是 1 learning versus acquiring，2，linguistic monitor，3，natural order，4，comprehensible input，還有

Stick around to the end and I'll add two components that nobody discusses about Krashen's theory, even Krashen himself, but

留到最後，我會再補充兩個連 Stephen Krashen 本人都很少提及，但我們卻需要知道的組件。

First is the hypothesis, or really assumption that there's a difference between learning and acquiring a language.

第一個是關於 learning 和 acquiring 語言之間有差異的假說，或者說是假設。

Learning is explicit, taught, and consciously accessible.

Learning 是 explicit，是 taught 的，而且是 consciously accessible 的。

Declarative knowledge acquisition, on the other hand, is what children do.

另一方面，Declarative knowledge acquisition 則是小孩子在做的事。

They're not explicitly taught, say, how to make sure anaphors like himself occur in the correct grammatical framework with the correct dependencies.

他們並沒有被 explicit 地教導，例如，該如何確保像 himself 這樣的代名詞，在正確的 grammatical framework 下，有正確的依賴關係。

Yet somehow they start to produce language we would consider grammatical, despite in many instances having never heard the exact sentences or sentence structures they use from adults.

但他們卻能開始說出我們認為是語法的語言，即使在很多情況下，他們從大人那裡聽過的句子或句子結構，跟他們自己說的完全一樣。

That is, there appears to be a developmental stage, a mental module, as Chomsky might put it, where children simply start using finite grammatical structures to produce infinite possible language combinations in orders that we would consider grammatical.

也就是說，似乎有一個發展階段，一個 mental module，就像 Chomsky 會說的那樣，孩子們會開始使用有限的語法結構，來產生無限可能的語言組合，而且是我們認為語法的順序。

Where Krashen argues with Chomsky is the critical period hypothesis.

Krashen 和 Chomsky 在 critical period hypothesis 上有爭議。

There's a fair amount of evidence that if people start to learn a language too late, they will never attain native like fluency in grammar and phonology.

有相當多的證據顯示，如果人們太晚開始學習一門語言，他們將永遠無法像母語人士一樣精通 grammar 和 phonology。

But it's really hard and more than a little immoral to test this.

但實際上測試這點非常困難，而且有點不道德。

He has stated over and over that he doesn't think we get worse at acquiring languages as we age even past 25, when the prefrontal cortex is done cooking and we start losing neuroplasticity.

他一再表示，他不認為我們隨著年齡增長，即使過了 25 歲，當 prefrontal cortex 發育完成，我們開始失去 neuroplasticity 後，學習語言的能力會變差。

On average, I'd like to acquire 100,000 subscribers.

平均來說，我希望訂閱者能達到 10 萬人。

So now is a great time to like and subscribe.

所以現在是按讚和訂閱的好時機。

His second hypothesis is that of the linguistic monitor.

他的第二個 hypothesis 是 linguistic monitor。

This is similar to Bill Labov's sociolinguistic monitor.

這跟 Bill Labov 的 sociolinguistic monitor 差不多。

Shout out to Bill, one of my advisors in grad school.

感謝 Bill，他是我研究所時的指導教授之一。

The idea of the sociolinguistic monitor, put simply, is that we speak in a way that we think others will perceive as more correct when we're not stressed or agitated and have a lot of cognitive resources to put towards that.

簡單來說，sociolinguistic monitor 的概念是，當我們不緊張、不焦慮，並且有足夠的認知資源投入時，我們會用一種認為別人會覺得更正確的方式說話。

The neuroscience wasn't as developed when he came up with this.

當他提出這個概念時，神經科學還沒那麼發達。

This is why sociolinguists will do reading tasks and polite conversation and then start getting into questions like tell me about a time you almost died.

這就是為什麼社會語言學家會做閱讀測驗和禮貌的對話，然後開始問一些像「告訴我一件你差點死掉的事」之類的問題。

Our job is in part to get people so worked up that they're natural, natural vernacular comes out because they're no longer monitoring how they speak.

我們的工作一部分就是要讓大家情緒激動，讓他們自然的、自然的母語說出來，因為他們不再監控自己的說話方式。

Krashen 的 linguistic monitor 也很類似。

He argues that we have a store of our target language that we have acquired somehow, and

他認為我們有一個透過某種方式習得的目標語言儲存庫，而且

that what we have learned merely functions as a monitor.

我們所學到的東西僅僅是作為一個 monitor。

Basically, it has veto power to correct what we intuitively generate.

基本上，它有權否決我們直覺產生的內容。

We'll come back to what happens when we're cognitively taxed shortly.

我們很快就會回來談談當我們認知負荷過重時會發生什麼事。

So I might know in a declarative sense that in French you use the future tense in both parts of a future conditional I will speak French when I will be in France instead of I will speak French when I am in France.

所以，我可能從陳述知識上知道，在法文中，你應該在未來條件句的兩部分都使用未來式，例如「當我會在法國時，我將會說法語」，而不是「當我在法國時，我將會說法語」。

But I might only be able to generate such sentences when I'm monitoring my speech and I'm likely to produce a grammatical error until I've seen sufficient examples of sentences that use that structure correctly in French so that it just feels better to me his third hypothesis is about natural order of language learning.

但我可能只能在監控自己的說話方式時才能說出這樣的句子，而且我可能會出現文法錯誤，直到我看到足夠多的正確使用該結構的法語例句，讓我覺得這樣說比較好。他的第三個假設是關於語言學習的自然順序。

There are some really fascinating patterns when children first learn language and they're cross linguistically.

孩子們在學習語言時，會出現一些非常有趣的跨語言模式。

Basically the same things like saying I know like it first and only later developing don't in imperatives first, then in sentences like I don't like that and only much later being able to consistently get negation correct in sentences with multiple clauses or conditionals, or so on.

基本上，這和先說「我知道」，然後才發展出「不要」一樣，在祈使句中先出現，然後在「我不喜歡那個」這樣的句子中出現，直到很久以後才能在有多個子句或條件句的句子中持續正確地使用否定句，諸如此類。

This is a topic that deserves its own video, and I'll be making one soon.

這個主題值得做一個獨立的影片，我很快就會製作。

Leave me a comment if you want to see that For a long time it's been known in the field of second language acquisition that in general, non native learners interlanguage their use of their target language while learning it follows the same evidently hardwired order of acquisition.

如果你想看，請在下方留言。長久以來，第二語言習得領域一直都知道，一般來說，非母語學習者在學習目標語言時所使用的「中介語」，遵循著相同的、明顯是天生設定的習得順序。

This goes for everything from negation to matching the appropriate gender on possessives to how questions are formed.

這適用於從否定句、形容詞的適當性，到問句的形成等所有方面。

Krashen hypothesizes that this order of acquisition that non native learners tend to follow and which mirrors that of children learning their first language is natural and hardwired.

Krashen 假設，非母語學習者傾向遵循的這種習得順序，以及它與孩子學習母語的順序相似，是自然且天生設定的。

So why bother starting with declarative explanations of grammatical patterns that we know from experimental evidence?

那麼，為什麼要從我們從實驗證據中知道的語法模式的陳述性解釋開始呢？

Learners will likely not learn up front, especially if these patterns are basically impossible to acquire in that order.

學習者不太可能一開始就學會，特別是如果這些模式的順序基本上是不可能習得的。

It's not settled fact, but the experimental evidence is suggestive.

這不是定論，但實驗證據確實有啟發性。

His fourth fourth hypothesis is what people refer to as comprehensible input.

他的第四個假設就是人們所說的 comprehensible input。

That is, if you accept the hypotheses and these are not proven, if you accept that we do not learn, we acquire, and

也就是說，如果你接受這些假設，而這些假設尚未被證實，如果你接受我們不是學習，而是習得，而且

that there is no strong correlation between age and ability to acquire, that is biologically innate.

年齡與習得能力之間沒有很強的關聯，這是生物天生的。

And if you accept that what we produce is what we have acquired and what we have learned is merely a cognitively taxing conscious last check on the acquired language that wells up from our depths, and

如果你接受我們所產生的都是我們所習得的，而我們所學到的僅僅是認知上耗費心力的、有意識的最後檢查，來自我們內心深處湧現的習得語言，而且

if you accept that there is a natural order to acquisition such that it doesn't matter what order you were exposed to the language in, then he hypothesizes that the best approach is to get as large a volume as possible of, quote, comprehensible input.

如果你接受習得有其自然順序，使得你接觸語言的順序並不重要，那麼他假設最好的方法就是盡可能多地獲取，引述的話，comprehensible input。

Input just means your target language comprehensible in this case means that you learn at most one new thing at a time.

Input 僅僅意味著你的目標語言，comprehensible 在這種情況下意味著你一次最多學習一個新東西。

This can be new vocabulary in a sentence frame you don't know, or a new grammatical construction that you can figure out correctly because you know context and it's using all words that you already know.

這可能是你不知道的句子框架裡的新單字，或是因為你瞭解上下文且使用了你已知的所有單字，所以能正確推斷出的新文法結構。

It's not always clear whether he endorses translation and lookup and so on, or if he's implicitly endorsing an immersion only methodology.

他是否支持翻譯和查字典等方法，或是他其實是默認全浸泡式學習法，這一點並不總是清楚。

The key is also, once you have your I +1, you need sufficient input, sufficient repetitions of that to acquire it.

重點是，一旦你有了你的 I+1，你需要足夠的輸入，足夠的重複來習得它。

So it's not just chasing the dopamine hit of a new word all the time.

所以這不只是不斷追求新單字帶來的多巴胺快感。

I promised I'd get back to cognitive load.

我答應過會回到認知負荷的話題。

The idea is that if you're experiencing negative affect, that is Negative emotions, all of this is harder.

這個想法是，如果你正經歷負面情緒，也就是負面感受，這一切都會變得更困難。

This is required in his system because there's a lot of evidence that the first four on their own don't always work.

在他的系統中需要這個，因為有大量證據顯示，前四者本身並不總是有效。

So his theory is that people get stressed or upset or in their heads or in their feels about language learning, and

所以他的理論是，當人們在語言學習上感到壓力、沮喪、思緒混亂或情緒低落時，

This is also, by the way, the principle that Michel Thomas built his reputation on.

順帶一提，這也是 Michel Thomas 建立他聲譽的原則。

It's probably correct in some sense and that we know general learning is impeded by cognitive strain.

這在某種程度上可能是正確的，因為我們知道一般的學習會受到認知壓力的阻礙。

But notice this is necessary because even if we assume that each of the first four hypotheses are correct and do everything that that assumption would entail, the people fail to become proficient in their target language.

但請注意，這是必要的，因為即使我們假設前四個假設都正確，並採取該假設所包含的一切措施，人們仍然無法精通他們的目標語言。

So the affect filter is a way of explaining away what happens when a large volume of comprehensible input fails to produce a language learner who is competent in their target language.

所以，情感過濾器就是用來解釋，當大量的 comprehensible input 無法培養出目標語言能力嫻熟的學習者時，所發生的情況。

There are a lot of videos on YouTube that tell you not to study grammar and that quote, comprehensible input is all you need.

YouTube 上有很多影片告訴你不要學文法，並說 quote，comprehensible input 就夠了。

But they're leaving out a lot of the story.

但他們忽略了故事的很多部分。

A ton of content, even if it is engaging and even if it is at a level where you can figure it out from context, does not always produce a learner who can understand and meaningfully engage with a wide range of uses of their target language, or one who can produce comprehensible and correct language.

大量的內容，即使很有趣，即使是在你可以從上下文推斷的程度，也不總是能培養出一個學習者，讓他們能夠理解並有意義地參與各種目標語言的使用，或者能夠產出 comprehensible 且正確的語言。

There's also an entire world of second language acquisition research out there, and

此外，還有整個關於第二語言習得研究的世界，

字幕列表影片播放

史蒂芬‧克拉申的「可理解輸入」理論，難道大家都錯了？！ (Is everyone WRONG about Stephen Krashen's "comprehensible input" theory?)

cognitive

approach

massive

context