We talked about the term “comprehended” a year ago here. Here is part of that discussion as a review:
Mark Knowles’ term of comprehended input was referred to by skip a few days ago and supported by others. So I sent Krashen this email about it a few nites ago:
A few people on my blog are talking about how comprehended may be a more accurate word than comprehensible, since then we know that the learner got it and only needs more and more reps to acquire it. You probably heard about that long ago but if you have any comments on it please let me know what you think.
Attached is one page about whether being literate in one language helps with a second language (it does). It is from a book I did with Jim Crawford, English Learners in American Classroom. There is tons of good research on this topic. in case you have too much time on your hands I can send you the source and even some of the research, including an article in IJFLT (Pauline Dow is the first author).
Comprehended, yes, this is more accurate. This came up a few years ago. We want acquirers to have comprehensible input, but to acquire the input has to be comprehended.
(I’m working on how to get the attachment copied here.)