The Literature Review of Krashen’s Input Hypothesis
Abstract: As we all know, in a linguistic environment, if there is no input,there is nothing to pay attention to, hence there is no learning. For this reason,the role of target language input has been a central concern of SLA. Krashen’s Input Hypothesis is a very important theory in the cond language learning study, which has a great influence on the cond language teaching. It is a comprehensive but disputable theory. This paper will summarize the literature about Input Hypothesis from the perspective of the theory itlf, domestic rearch, foreign rearch and the limitations of the studies, and then give some suggestions in further study.
Key words: Input Hypothesis; domestic rearch; foreign rearch; limitations
1. Krashen’s Input Hypothesis
温宿大峡谷Not even the most strident critics of classical or operated conditioning would dare to claim that the role of the environment is so minimal in language learning that UG and other innate
factors alone are sufficient to promote successful SLA.The linguistic environment counts,and if there is no input,there is nothing to pay attention to;hence there is no learning.For this reason,the role of target language input has been a central concern of SLA;for some rearchers,it is the very foundation of their their theories about how adults can best learn a cond language(Krashen,1982:Brown and Palmer,1988).Krashen has been the most ardent and persistent advocate for the primacy of input in SLA,and among his many publications is a book titled The Input Hypothesis(Krashen,1985).Like many others of his work,this volume introduces and argues for his model of SLA,which includes the input hypothesis as one of five central components that together compri his model.One of the most controversial theoretical perspectives is found in a t of hypothes about cond language learning that were made by Stephen Krashen(1977,1981,1982,1985) in a host of articles and books. Krashen’s hypothes have had a number of different names. In the earlier years the “Monitor Model” and the “Acquisition-learning Hypothesis” were more popular terms; in recent years the Input Hypothesis has been a common term to refer to what are really a t of interrelated hypot昆明大理>生活感悟图片>西游记读后感200字
hes. In describing the Monitor Model, Krashen claimed that adult cond language learners have two means for internalizing the target language. The first is acquisition, a subconscious and intuitive process of constructing the system of a language, not unlike the process ud by a child to pick up a language. The cond means is a conscious learning process in which learners attend to form, figure out rules, and are generally aware of their own process. The “Monitor” is an aspect of this cond process.
The Input Hypothesis, a major offshoot of the Monitor Model, claims that an important “condition for language acquisition to occur is that the acquirer understand input language that contains structure a bit beyond his or her current level of competence. If an acquirer is at stage or level i, the input he or she understands should contain i＋1(1981a:100). In other words, the language which learners are expod to should be just far enough beyond their current competence that they can understand most of it but still be challenged to make progress. The corollary to this is that input should never be so far beyond their reach that they are overwhelmed(i炒股入门与技巧＋2), nor so clo to their current stage that they are not challenged at all(i＋0). An important part of the Input Hypothesis is Kras
hen’s recommendation that speaking not be taught directly or very soon in the language classroom. Speech will emerge once the acquirer has built up enough comprehensible input(i＋1).
Unfortunately, cond language acquisition is not as simply defined as Krashen would claim, and therefore, his assumptions have been hotly disputed. A difficulty in Krashen’s Input Hypothesis is found in his explicit claim(1986:62) that “comprehensible input is the only causative variable in cond language acquisition.” In other words, success in a foreign language can be attributed to input alone. Such a theory ascribes little credit to learners and their own active engagement in the pursuit of language competence. Also, it is important to note that the notion of i＋1 is nothing nothing new. It is a reiteration of a general principle of learning. Meaningfulness in Ausubel’s terms, is that which is relatable to existing cognitive structures, neither too far beyond the structures(i＋2), nor the existing structures themlves(i＋0). But Krashen prents the 电影春潮i＋1 formula as if we are actually able to define 蛤蜊冬瓜汤的做法i and 1.
Krashen’s theories have had wide appeal to teachers who cry for something simple and concrete on which to ba their methodology. It is easy to e how there is such appeal since the claims that are made do indeed reflect some important principles of cond language acquisition.
2. Foreign and Domestic rearch about Input Hypothesis
2.1 Foreign rearch about Input Hypothesis
The input hypothesis was first published in 1977, which states that learners progress in their knowledge of the language when they comprehend language input that is slightly more advanced than their current level. Krashen called this level of input "i+1", where "i" is the language input and "+1" is the next stage of language acquisition. As for input hypothesis, foreign scholars admitted that this theory to some extent improved the L2 teaching methods, Also,they had dispute on Krashen’s theories, including the following four parts.
>美玉无瑕
