TE 60104 KEY ISSUES IN LEARNING

Criticism between Stephen Krashen and Merrill Swaine about the Input Hyp
othesis
Group members

Fihi

Ana

Grace

Patsy
Introduction –Stephen Krashen
Stephen Krashen is a linguist and educator who proposed the Monitor

Model, a theory of second language acquisition, in Principles and practice in second language acquisition as published i
n 1982. According to the

Monitor Model, five hypotheses account for the acquisition of a second language:

Acquisition-learning hypothesis

Natural order hypothesis

Monitor hypothesis

Input hypothesis

Affective filter hypothesis

As part of his Monitor Model, Krashen (1981,1982, 1985) formulated the Input

Hypothesis, which claims that language input (listening and reading comprehension)

constitutes the main communicative process through which we acquire a second language. Krashen believes that fluency in speaking or
writing in a second language will naturally come about after learners have built up sufficient competence through comprehending input.
such input is the one which is only slightly above the current level of the learner's competence, which he represented wi
th the simple formula I + 1, where I = input. This input is made comprehensible because of the help provided by the co
ntext. Thus, if the learner receives understandable input, language structures will be naturally acquired, according to Kra
shen.
Krashen argues that learners are not to be forced to produce language, as this would bring about a co
nsiderable amount of anxiety, which would cause them to develop a high affective filter that would pr
event them from acquiring the target language smoothly.
Definition of the Input
Hypothesis
The fourth hypothesis, the input hypothesis, which applies only
to language acquisition and not to language learning, posits the
process that allows second language learners to move through
the predictable sequence of the acquisition of grammatical

structures predicted by the natural order hypothesis.

comprehensible input, represented by i+1, to move from the current level of

acquisition, represented by i, to the next level of acquisition. Comprehensible

input is input that contains a structure that is “a little beyond” the current

understanding—with understanding defined as understanding of meaning rather

than understanding of form—of the language learner.

exposure to comprehensible input, a hypothesis which further

negates the need for explicit instruction learning. The input

hypothesis also presupposes an innate language acquisition

device, the part of the brain responsible for language

acquisition, that allows for the exposure to comprehensible

input to result in language acquisition, the same language

acquisition device posited by the acquisition-learning

hypothesis.
THE ISSUES IN KRASHEN
THEORIES
However, as Krashen cautions, like the time, focus, and knowledge required by

the Monitor, comprehensible input is necessary but not sufficient for second

language acquisition

Like for the acquisition-learning hypothesis, the first critique of the input

hypothesis surrounds the lack of a clear definition of comprehensible input; Krash

through language production (written or spoken) that SLA may be more likely to

occur.
it is during language production stages that learners realise what they know and
what they don't. This may happen when a learner is trying to convey a message

but his or her linguistic knowledge of the second language is insufficient to do so.
It is then that the learner realises that s/he ignores some useful language structur
es and/or words needed to express a desired message. This issue is what Swain
refers to as the "gap" between what one can say and what one would like to be a
ble to say. And it would be on realizing this gap, that learners are motivated towar
ds modifying their output in order to learn something new about the target langua
ge.
Besides, this hypothesis asserts that language production
aids learners in four different ways (Swain, 1993).
• The first derives from the fact that language production provides opportunities
for meaningful practice, allowing the development of automatic linguistic

behaviours.

• The second is related to that which forces the learner to switch from semantic
mental processes to syntactic ones. As Krashen (1982) suggested: "In many c
ases, we do not utilize syntax in understanding, we often get the message

with a combination of vocabulary, or lexical information plus extra-linguistic

information".
The third way in which language production helps learners in acquiring a L2 is

through testing hypotheses, since output provides students with the opportunity to
test their own hypotheses, and withdraw their own conclusions. This third aspect

is closely related to the fourth one, which deals with the responses of other speak
ers of the language, especially native ones, which can give learners information o
n how comprehensible or well-formed their utterances are.
To sum up, where Krashen sees input hugely responsible for language acquisition
, Swain considers output; where the latter claims language production to be of utt
er importance, the former regards it as not necessary, as something that should n
ot be forced, since it will appear naturally after a certain amount of comprehensibl
e input.
 THE END
THANK YOU