Krashen’s Input Hypothesis

As early as Chomsky’s (1965) research, the role of input in the language acquisition process was acknowledged. And he claims both first and second language learners need large amounts of contextualized, meaningful input in order to acquire language after research.

Krashen’s Acquisition Hypothesis claims that there are two distinctive ways of developing competence in a second or foreign language. Acquisition is the “natural” way, paralleling first language development in children. Acquisition refers to an unconscious process that involves the naturalistic development of language proficiency through understanding language and through using language for meaningful communication learning, by contrast, refers to a process in which conscious rules about a language are developed. It results in explicit knowledge. Formal teaching is necessary for learning to occur, and correction of errors helps with the development of learned rules. Learning, according to the theory, cannot lead to acquisition(Richards ＆ Rodgers 1986: 131).

Krashen’s (1982)“Monitor Model,”posits five hypotheses.

1. the acquisition-learning hypothesis: Acquisition (a subconscious “picking up” of rules characteristic of the L1 acquisition process), not learning (a conscious focus on knowing and applying rules), leads to spontaneous, unplanned communication.

2. the monitor hypothesis: The conscious knowledge of rules prompts the action of an “editor” or “monitor” that checks, edits, and polishes language output and is used only when the language users has sufficient time, attends to linguistic form, and knows the rule being applied.

3. the natural order hypothesis: learners acquire the rules of a language in a predictable sequence, in a way that is independent of the order in which rules may have been taught. Studies have shown that learners experience similar stages in development of linguistic structures in spite of their first languages (see, for example, Vanpatten, 1993). Other research has shown, however, that learners can learn rules taught in a prescribed order (see White, Spada, Lightbown,＆Ranta,1991), although the way this learned knowledge might lead to acquisition remains to be clarified.

 4.the input hopothesis: Acuisition occurs only when learners receive optimal comprehensible input that is interesting, a little beyond their current level of competence (i+1), and not grammatically sequenced, but undertandable through their background knowledge, their use of context, and other extra-linguistic cues such as gestures and intonation. In other words, the input should neither be so far beyond their reach that they are overwhelmed (this might be, say, i+2), nor so close to their current stage that they are noe challenged at all. Language teacher should shoulder the responsibility to enable students to take in as much comprehensible language as possible.

5. the affective filter hypothesis: Language learning must take place in an environment where learners are “off the defensive ” and the affective filter (anxiety) is low in order for the input to be noticed and gain access to the learners’ thinking (Krashen, 1988).

Krashen’s theories have had a great influence on classroom instruction. Among these implications are that the primary function of the classroom is to provide comprehensible input in a low-anxiety environment in which learners are not required to speak until they are already to do so, and optimal input is comprehensible, at he level of i+1, interesting, relevant, and not grammatically sequenced; error correction should be minimal in the classroom since it is not useful when the goal is acquisition (Krashen, 1982).

Krashen’s claims have been strongly criticized by various researchers on the grounds that 1) his theories have not been empirically tested in language learning environments; 2) concepts such as “comprehensible input” and the “learning-acquisition” distinction are not clearly defined or testable; and 3) his model presents far too simplistic a view of the acquisition process (Lee＆Vanpatten, 1995; McLaughlin, 1987) Furthermore, use of the "acquisition-rich environment" dimisnishes the role of the learner in the foreign language classroom by highlighting the role of the teacher as the source of comprehensible input and by failing to recognize the function of the learner-to learner talk. BUt few would deny that Krashen's modle created a great deal of thout and discussion in the profession regarding the role of input in language learning. 

 Swain’s Output Hypothesis

Evidence suggests that output, or production of language, may contribute to language acquisition (Swain，1985, 1995)

Comprehensible Output Hypothesis developed by Merrill Swain suggests that “pushed output” may be necessary for learners to achieve higher levels of linguistic and sociolinguistic competence. Swain recognizes the importance of comprehensible input, but she claims that it is insufficient to ensure native-like levels of grammatical accuracy, and therefore learners need the opportunity to produce the target language. Swain defines that there are three functions of output:

1. helps learners to find out that there is a gap between what they are able to say and what they want to say;

2. provides a way for learners to try out new rules and modify them accordingly;

3. helps learners to actively reflect on what they know about the target language system.

   According to Ellis(1997), the use of linguistic knowledge becomes automatic only when learners make use of inter-language knowledge under real conditions of communication. In other words, learners “need to see for themselves what has gone wrong in the operating conditions under which they went wrong”(Johnson, 1988).

    In Krashen’s view, receptive language activities such as listening and reading play a leading role in the course of language learning. Only when sufficient quantity and forms of input are provided, the improvement of language skills and the language acquisition will be automatic. But Swain (1985) argues that it is not sufficient for the L2 learner to acquire a high level of L2 proficiency by just providing large amounts of comprehensible input, and comprehensible output is also a necessary mechanism. She claimed that understanding new forms is not enough and that learners must also be given opportunities to produce them.

    Language input depends on listening and reading while language output depends on speaking and writing. As we can see, input and output have a very close relationship and they rely on and help each other. Input is presupposition for language development, which serves acquisition in two ways: it provides language material for the second stage, and it stimulates motivation to acquire by triggering the acquirer’s/students’ noticing of the gap between what he has already acquired and what he still needs to acquire; output is the ultimate purpose. That is to say, without input, output will lose its source and can achieve nothing. If there is insufficient input, there will be short of output, making it difficult to carry out language activities.

It should be noted, however, that the output hypothesis predicts that learners need to be pushed in their output in order for acquisition to occur. The output hypothesis claims that production makes the learner move form “semantic processing” that is necessary for second language development.

Eisterhold(1990:8) believed that reading in the writing classroom is understood as the appropriate input for acquisition of writing skills because it is generally thought that reading passages will somehow function as primary models from which writing skills can be learned, or at least inferred.

Thus in teaching, reading functions as an important source of input before writing, enabling the students to better complete communicative goal. Writing activities will follow when reading skills are acquired. They begin with direct and controlled activities and gradually become more creative. Reading exerts a direct influence upon students’ word usage, grammar, text, social knowledge and habits of thinking in English Reading is the critical link in language input, and it can be regarded as input stage in writing, for reading materials offer students everything-not only information they contain but also language use, text development, writing ways and so on.

The implication from Input hypothesis and output hypothesis for L2 writing teaching is that reading, which is regarded as a way of input, is a condition to develop students L2 writing. Writing itself, as a way of output, is very important to raise L2 writing ability. L2 writing, one of the written output, provided strong evidence to test the three functions (Swain, 1994)-noticing, hypothesis testing, and metalinguistic (Zhao, 2000)especially when they can not continue to write, through meaning negotiation they will convey their ideas to their readers. Meaning negotiation in output means that students have to use accurate, coherent and appropriate language to express themselves, not just make information understood. In this way, students will  have the same expressing ability gradually as natives.

So a conclusion can be drawn that input and output are the basis of a good mastery of language form and its function, good comprehension of the written message quite well as well as fully development of writing ability.