The input hypothesis

Stephen Krashen, The Input hypothesis.

1. The Input Hypothesis Universidad de El Salvador Language Section Prof. En Ingles.

2. The input hypothesis The input hypothesis attempts to answer what is perhaps the most important question in our field, and gives an answer that has a potential impact on all areas of language teaching.

3. (a) Statement of the hypothesis W e may state parts (1) and (2) of the input hypothesis as follows: The input hypothesis relates to acquisition, not learning We acquire by understanding language that contains structure a bit beyond our current level of competence (i+1). This is done with the help of context or extra-linguistic information.

4. When communication is successful, when the input is understood and there is enough of it, i+1 will be provided automatically. Production ability emerges. It is not taught directly.

5. (b) Evidence supporting the hypothesis First language acquisition in children. 1. It ensures that i+1 is covered, with no guesswork as to just what i+1 is for each child. On the other hand, deliberate aim at i+1 might miss! Roughly-tuned input will provide i+1 for more than one child at a time, as long as they understand what is said. Roughly-tuned input provides built-in review.

6. (ii) Evidence from second language acquisition: simple codes. All students may not be at the same stage. The “structure of the day” may not be i+1 for many of the students. With a grammatical syllabus, each structure is presented only once.

7. 3) A grammatical syllabus assumes we know the order of acquisition. No such assumption is necessary when we rely on comprehensible input, on roughly-tuned natural communication. 4) Finally, a grammatical syllabus, and the resulting grammatical focus, places serious constraints on what can be discussed.

8. (iii) Evidence from second language acquisition: the silent period and L1 influence. The explanation of the silent period in terms of the input hypothesis is straight-forward; the child is building up competence in the second language via listening, by understanding the language around him. In accordance with the input hypothesis, speaking ability emerges on its own after enough competence has been developed by listening and understanding.

9. (iv) Advantages of L1 rule use. The use of an L1 rule allows the performer to “outperform his competence”, to meet a practical need in L2 communication before he has acquired the relevant i+1 rule. The early production allowed by the use of L1 rules also helps to invite input.

10. (iv) Disadvantages of L1 rule use The L1 rule may not be the same as an L2 rule, as noted above, and errors can result. Even if the L1 rule is similar to an actual L2 rule or transitional form, it is not clear that these rules will help the acquirer progress- they may not take the place of “true” L2 rules in the developmental sequence.

11. (v) Applied linguistic research. “Deductive” methods (rule first, then practice, grammar translation and cognitive-code) are slightly more efficient than audio-lingual teaching for adults. For adolescents, there is no measurable difference.