论文部分内容阅读
【Abstract】With Krashen’s proposal of input hypothesis in 1980s， lots of contributions and further researches have been done in second language acquisition and teaching. Since it is impossible to undertake the exact empirical research to investigate its credibility， lots of criticisms are also aroused to disprove or adjust this hypothesis. However， due to its significant development in SLA， it is still valuable to explore the hypothesis and implications in language teaching to non-native speakers. This paper firstly focuses on the development of the input hypothesis， and then discusses some criticisms of this hypothesis.
【Key words】Input Hypothesis； comprehensible
Contents of Input Hypothesis
According to Ellis’ definition （1985：294-298）， input refers to the language that the learners are exposed to， which can be comprehensible or incomprehensible. It functions as the data that learners must use to “determine the rules of the target language”.
“The input hypothesis attempts to explore how learners can acquire a second language” （Zheng，2008：1）. According to Krashen （1982， 1985）， “the input hypothesis relates to acquisition， not learning”. If the natural order hypothesis is correct， an acquirer can move from stage i， the current level of competence， to the stage i 1（the next level along the natural order）. In this case， the acquirer concerns the meaning of the message， not the form. And the affective filter “facilitates LAD （Chomsky’s Language Acquisition Device） open to input”. Besides， the acquirer could get help from his own acquired knowledge， context， the concept of the world， extra-linguistic information to understand the input “i 1”， which is useful for language acquisition. But it is not necessary to only contain i 1.
Furthermore， Krashen （1982：20-26； 1985： 2-3） also claims that this hypothesis does not require teachers to provide i 1 “deliberately”， which will be “provided automatically” when the acquirer understand enough input. Also， it emphasizes that The acquirer should not “be pushed to produce early” （Zheng， 2008： 2）. Impossible to be “taught directly”， speaking is “a result of acquisition and not its cause”. It will “emerge” when the language competence is ready through listening and understanding （Krashen， 1985： 2 ）. If not， they will rely on the syntactic rules of their first language while speaking， which generates the interlanguage. But according to Newmark （cited in Krashen， 1984： 27）， it is not an interference， but the lack of acquisition of the target language rule. As Zheng （2008） concludes， there are four characteristics of input hypothesis： “comprehensible； interesting and relevant； not grammatically sequenced； sufficient i 1”. All in all， Krashen （1985） mentions that the input hypothesis makes clear that the only way to acquire a language is “to understand messages， or to receive comprehensible input”. Incomprehensible input， just like “noise” for acquirers， does not offer help for acquisition （Krashen， 1982： 63）. Affective filter determines whether the learner could “open to input”. In a word， comprehensible input is the essential ingredient for acquiring a second language.
Criticisms of Input Hypothesis
Many researchers have tried to find evidences to support this hypothesis. Larsen-Freeman and Long （1991） claim that ten sources support the view that input hypothesis contributes to acquisition， which includes silent period， caretaker and foreigner talk and age difference et. al.
However， more researchers expressed their criticisms of the “vague” input hypothesis （Ferch and Kasper， 1986； McLaughlin， 1987； White， 1987； Gass， 1988； Ellis， 1996）. Ellis （1996） claims many learners do not experience the “extended” silent period. And students from the immersion programs do not acquire the full L2 proficiency. White （1987） argues some part of acquisition is “input-free”， and the grammar might act as a filter which can sometimes be beneficial for acquisition. He also mentions about “incomprehensible input hypothesis”—learners should notice incomprehensible elements in the input to get the clues about its meaning for reconstructing their interlanguage and incorporate the new forms in their competence. And Ferch and Kasper （1986） describe this process as finding the “gap”， existing between the input and the learner’s current interlanguage. This finding receives many researchers’ approvals （Patten， 1996； White， 1987； Skehan， 1998）. While， Gass （1988） proposes that the “comprehended input” is more important than comprehensible input in “determining intake”.
What is more， some researchers believe comprehensible input is not sufficient to achieve the language acquisition. Swain （1985） argues the importance of her “comprehensible output hypothesis”， which is also necessary for acquisition. Towards this hypothesis， Krashen （1994， 2002） expresses his disagreement that the output is surprisingly rare and also pushing students to speak arouses their anxieties. Price （1991： 105） also expresses that pushing learners is frustrated and lack of effective communication. All in all， Krashen （1982：26） claims some output is not the real acquisition because it might be just the temporarily-memorized language， but he also admits that output aids acquisition indirectly by facilitating comprehensible input through conversation （Krashen， 1989： 456）. These criticisms inspire Ellis （1996：279） to propose a modified version of input hypothesis： Comprehensible input facilitates acquisition but is not necessary. It does not ensure the occurring of acquisition. This version affirms the positive aspects of input hypothesis， but it is also lack of empirical evidence to show which version is valid.
However， Krashen provides his own explanations for the feasibility of input hypothesis， later named as “Comprehension Hypothesis”. This new version is stated as following： we acquire language and develop literacy when we understand messages and take up “comprehensible input” （cited in Piske
【Key words】Input Hypothesis； comprehensible
Contents of Input Hypothesis
According to Ellis’ definition （1985：294-298）， input refers to the language that the learners are exposed to， which can be comprehensible or incomprehensible. It functions as the data that learners must use to “determine the rules of the target language”.
“The input hypothesis attempts to explore how learners can acquire a second language” （Zheng，2008：1）. According to Krashen （1982， 1985）， “the input hypothesis relates to acquisition， not learning”. If the natural order hypothesis is correct， an acquirer can move from stage i， the current level of competence， to the stage i 1（the next level along the natural order）. In this case， the acquirer concerns the meaning of the message， not the form. And the affective filter “facilitates LAD （Chomsky’s Language Acquisition Device） open to input”. Besides， the acquirer could get help from his own acquired knowledge， context， the concept of the world， extra-linguistic information to understand the input “i 1”， which is useful for language acquisition. But it is not necessary to only contain i 1.
Furthermore， Krashen （1982：20-26； 1985： 2-3） also claims that this hypothesis does not require teachers to provide i 1 “deliberately”， which will be “provided automatically” when the acquirer understand enough input. Also， it emphasizes that The acquirer should not “be pushed to produce early” （Zheng， 2008： 2）. Impossible to be “taught directly”， speaking is “a result of acquisition and not its cause”. It will “emerge” when the language competence is ready through listening and understanding （Krashen， 1985： 2 ）. If not， they will rely on the syntactic rules of their first language while speaking， which generates the interlanguage. But according to Newmark （cited in Krashen， 1984： 27）， it is not an interference， but the lack of acquisition of the target language rule. As Zheng （2008） concludes， there are four characteristics of input hypothesis： “comprehensible； interesting and relevant； not grammatically sequenced； sufficient i 1”. All in all， Krashen （1985） mentions that the input hypothesis makes clear that the only way to acquire a language is “to understand messages， or to receive comprehensible input”. Incomprehensible input， just like “noise” for acquirers， does not offer help for acquisition （Krashen， 1982： 63）. Affective filter determines whether the learner could “open to input”. In a word， comprehensible input is the essential ingredient for acquiring a second language.
Criticisms of Input Hypothesis
Many researchers have tried to find evidences to support this hypothesis. Larsen-Freeman and Long （1991） claim that ten sources support the view that input hypothesis contributes to acquisition， which includes silent period， caretaker and foreigner talk and age difference et. al.
However， more researchers expressed their criticisms of the “vague” input hypothesis （Ferch and Kasper， 1986； McLaughlin， 1987； White， 1987； Gass， 1988； Ellis， 1996）. Ellis （1996） claims many learners do not experience the “extended” silent period. And students from the immersion programs do not acquire the full L2 proficiency. White （1987） argues some part of acquisition is “input-free”， and the grammar might act as a filter which can sometimes be beneficial for acquisition. He also mentions about “incomprehensible input hypothesis”—learners should notice incomprehensible elements in the input to get the clues about its meaning for reconstructing their interlanguage and incorporate the new forms in their competence. And Ferch and Kasper （1986） describe this process as finding the “gap”， existing between the input and the learner’s current interlanguage. This finding receives many researchers’ approvals （Patten， 1996； White， 1987； Skehan， 1998）. While， Gass （1988） proposes that the “comprehended input” is more important than comprehensible input in “determining intake”.
What is more， some researchers believe comprehensible input is not sufficient to achieve the language acquisition. Swain （1985） argues the importance of her “comprehensible output hypothesis”， which is also necessary for acquisition. Towards this hypothesis， Krashen （1994， 2002） expresses his disagreement that the output is surprisingly rare and also pushing students to speak arouses their anxieties. Price （1991： 105） also expresses that pushing learners is frustrated and lack of effective communication. All in all， Krashen （1982：26） claims some output is not the real acquisition because it might be just the temporarily-memorized language， but he also admits that output aids acquisition indirectly by facilitating comprehensible input through conversation （Krashen， 1989： 456）. These criticisms inspire Ellis （1996：279） to propose a modified version of input hypothesis： Comprehensible input facilitates acquisition but is not necessary. It does not ensure the occurring of acquisition. This version affirms the positive aspects of input hypothesis， but it is also lack of empirical evidence to show which version is valid.
However， Krashen provides his own explanations for the feasibility of input hypothesis， later named as “Comprehension Hypothesis”. This new version is stated as following： we acquire language and develop literacy when we understand messages and take up “comprehensible input” （cited in Piske