A Study on Krashen’s Input Hypothesis

A Study on Krashen’s Input HypothesisAbstract: This essay elaborates on Krashen’s input hypothesis and its implications for English language teaching from the aspects of teachers, students, and teaching materials.Key words: input hypothesis；English language teaching；reading material一、IntroductionAccording to Krashen’s monitor hypothesis,normally, acquisition ‘initiates’our utterances in a second language and is responsible for our fluency, and learning has only one function: to serve as a monitor or editor of the utterances (Krashen, 1984:15). If this hypothesis is correct, that acquisition is central and learning more of slight importance, then the aim of our pedagogy should be to encourage acquisition. How we acquire language b ecomes a crucial question. And Krashen’s input hypothesis attempts to answer this perhaps most important question.二、Krashen’s four statem-ents of Input Hypothesis (Kra-shen, 1984:21)（1）The input hypothesis relates to acquisition, not learning.Krashen states that learners have two distinct and independent ways of developing compet-ence in a second language (Krashen, 1985:1). One way is language acquisitio-n, which is a similar process to the way children develop ability in their first language (Krashen, 1984:10). It is a subconscious process: language learners are usually not awareof the fact that they are acquiring language, but are aware that they are using the language for communication. The other wayis language learning, which is a conscious process, including knowing the grammar rules, being aware of them, and being able to talk about them.（2）We acquire by understanding language that contains structure a bit beyond our current level of competence. This is done with the help of context, our knowledge of the world or extra-linguistic information.Krashen clai-ms that a necessary condition to move from stage i (the learner’s current level) to stage i+1 (the next level) is that the acquirer understand input that contains i+1, where‘understand’means that the acquirer is focused on the meaning and not the form of the language (Krashen, 1984:21). So according toKrashen, sec-ond language acquisition depends on the acquirer’s understanding of meaning, that is the comprehensible input.（3）When communication is success-ful, when the input is understood and there is enough of it, i+1 will be provi-ded automatically.It implies that speaking fluency cannot be taught directly, inste-ad, it‘emerges’over time (Krashen, 1984:22). According to this view, the best and only way to teach speaking is to provide comprehensible input. It also shows that acquirers do not have to talk until they are ‘ready’. It is unavoidable that early speech is grammatically inaccurate, but the accuracy develops as acquirers hear and understand more input.（4）Therefore, the acquirers’produ-ction ability is not taught directly, but emerges on its own.三、Implications of Input Hypothesis for English langua-ge teachingAccording to input hypothesis, second language can be acquired in the classroom by providing enough compreh- ensible input for the students. There are different sources of comprehensible input in the classroom. From my interviewwith Mandy(a MA student majoring in English Language Teaching), comprehensible in-put may come first from the teacher, second from the textbook or teaching materials, and third from the other students (interlanguage). But how can successful comprehensible input take place in classroom?1.Teacher talk and students’ interlanguageTeacher talk is foreigner talk (the language that native speakers use when addressing non-native speakers) in the second language classroom (Krashen and Terrell, 1988: 34). It is the language of classroom management and explanation. Input hypothesis implies that teacher talk should be roughly tuned to the level of the students in order to make them understand. Krashen states that roughly tuned language has several real advantages over finely tuned language (Krashen, Terrell, 1988:35).With rough tuning, teachers are always assured that i+1 will be covered, while with finely-tuned exercises, they are taking a guess of the students’current level. Besides, with roughly tuning, teachers are assured of the constant recycling and review of knowledge. And this roughly tuned input will benefit more than one student at a time, provided that they are at slightly different levels. According to my observation in class,the teacher talk is usually modified from three aspects in order to adapt to the level of the students. First, pronunciation. With low-level students, teachers use a more accurate and standard pronunciation. Second, vocabulary and grammar. Withlow-level students, teachers tend to use more simple words and very short sentences, even one or two words to describe or explain. Third, speaking techniques. Teachers are likely to speak more slowly and make repetitions or rephrasing to make them understood.Students’interlanguage (the second language they use to communicate with each other in activities) is also very useful for language acquisition. It is the ungrammatical foreigner talk. When students are in conversation or discuss-ion, although they can not avoid making some grammatical mistakes, they can encourage more comprehensible input to each other. Therefore, both teachers’roughly-tuned language and students’interlanguage can encourage more comp-rehensible input, which can contribute to language acquisition in classroom.2.Teaching materialsKrashen says “if materials are supposed to helpstudents’language acq-uisition, they should supply input that is comprehensible, interesting/relevant, and not grammatically sequenced them- selves, or they should provide students with the means of obtaining such input (Kra shen, 1984:182).” It is obvious that nowadays there are no such ideal course books. So in order to facilitate students’ acquisition, teachers should choose materials to use in class.3.Choosing reading materialsIn Krashen’s view, the obvious and convenient source of comprehensible input should be reading. Then to choose the pleasure reading material becomes the point. Pleasure reading materials should aim at overall comprehensibility, which meets the requirements for appro-priate vocabulary and syntax that is within the students’comprehensible abili-ties. That is to say, the students can understand some grammar and vocabulary that is beyond their current level(i+1).The input hypotheses implies that if the reading is comprehensible, the relevant structures (i+1) and vocabulary will be present, and then realize the acquisition. ‘Pleasure’ relates to the topics covered in the materials. The topics shouldbe at least partially familiar and not overwhelmingly complex. For example, the popular intermediate level English newspapers or magazines are ideal choices for intermediate students. Becau-se they cover a variety of topics, students can pick and choose their favorite one.Besides the visual reading material, teacher can also present some compreh-ensible, interesting/relevant materials in audio or video form, on CD-ROMs, or on the Internet or through live performance or display. For instance, some students’popular English magazines, including CDs or cassettes, are beneficial for students’ standard pronunciation forming, some famous film excerpt in the form of simplified books with CDs. It is not difficult to find the right teaching material since there are quite a number of English magazines and newspapers on the book market aiming to meet the increasing demands of different English lovers. In China, we have various English books and magazines which have gained hot popularity among students, such as English Study, Crazy English(a book on tapes, there are many columns containing various subjects), and 21stCentury(an English newspaper). However, the problem forteacher is how to make best use of these materials to facilitate acquisition and encourage students actively involved in it. This depends on the teacher’s tra nsmitting techniques and how he can motivate his students to a great extent.四、ConclusionFrom Krashen’s statement of input hypothesis, it has shown meaningful implications for classroom English teach- ing: providing enough comprehensible input is necessary, but not sufficient for language acquisition. Teachers must also try every effort to lower students’ affective filter so that they can acquire(take in) the input. Therefore, language acquisition could happen in the teaching practice and facilitate language learning to a great extent if learners could absorb enough comprehensible input in a low affective filter environment.Bibliography:[1] Dulay，H.，Burt，M.，Krashen，n-guage Two[M].Oxford：Oxford Univer-sity Press，1982.[2] Krashen, S.D..Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition[M].Pergamon Press，1984.[3] Krashen, S.D..The Input Hypothesis: issues andimplications[M].London:Longman，1985.。