Comments on Input Hypothesis, Interaction 预告犯Hypothesis and Output Hypothesis
1 Input Hypothesis
In Input Hypothesis, Krashen claimed that exposure to comprehensible input was necessary for SLL to take place. To make it specific, suppo that a L2 learner’s current language level is i then the L2 acquisition automatically takes place when a leaner understands the input containing grammatical forms that are at i+1, which is a little more advanced than the current level of the leaner’s interlanguage. In general, what Krashen stress are the comprehensibility of input and the natural acquisition of language. But, a great number of scholars has pointed out the problems existing in Input Hypothesisstudy是什么意思. Firstly, it does not distinguish input and interaction ignoring the function that interaction displays in L2 acquisition. Secondly, this hypothesis is difficult to prove and it takes the process that language acquisitioncet6真题下载 device modifies learners’ interlanguage system for granted. What is more, there is no clear definition and explanation of the state汉堡包英文怎么说 i+1, and whether the i+1 formula can apply to all aspects of language including vocabulary and phonology as well as syntax remains unknown.
2 Interaction Hypothesis
As the Input Hypothesis had been doubted by more and more scholars, Michael Long put forward Interaction Hypothesis, which was a further supplement or extension of the Input Hypothesis in the field of SLA. Unlike the Input Hypothesis deals with one-way communication, Interaction Hypothesis follows the input-interaction-acquisition model, which is two-way communication. But it does recognize the significance of comprehensible input. Long held that the effectiveness of comprehensible input could be largely 内向英文incread when language learners have to negotiate for meaning. That is, interactional modification can make input more comprehensible. The earlier studies were criticized for being too one-sidedly preoccupied with functional aspects of interaction and for neglecting linguistic theories. To further his study, Long introduced the notion of negative evidence which can help learners notice the gap in their interlanguage and the notion of lective attention for the sake of clarifying the process by which input becomes intake. In Long’s view, interaction functions when learners relate input, inner learning mechanism and output together by lective attention. Although the new version become
s more complete and objective, it still has limitations.
Firstly, almost all interactionist rearch is carried out in western or Anglophone educational tting and more cross-cultural studies will be needed to make the results more convincing. Secondly, negotiation for meaning is only a small part of the learners’儿童节的诗歌 all interactional activities, but Long’s Interaction Hypothesis is bad on this single part, which makes the theory less universal. Actually, people only admit that interactional modifications can result in incread comprehension but whether incread comprehension can lead to incread acquisition or not remains in doubt. Besides, interactionist rearch pays more attention to interactional modifications, recasts and other process in communication through which learners focus on meaning thus neglecting the specific linguistic forms. Conquently, a coherent target language grammar study cannot be guaranteedexpand.
What is more, individual differences are not taken into consideration. Interaction Hypothesis tries to describe a satisfactory environment for learners where SLA can easily
take place during interaction, but, learners’ ability of negotiating for meaning and their intention for negotiating are apparently different. Age, motivation, personality, language proficiency and other factors can influence their interactional modifications. For instance, negotiations for meaning fit learners at middle level best as beginners cannot negotiate effectively while higher learners are apt to focus on the opinions and explanations instead of comprehension. Thus, more specific rearch is needed.
3Output Hypothesis
Questioning Krashen’s Input Hypothesis and Long’什么是spas Interaction Hypothesis, Swain put forward Output Hypothesis which extent the acquisition mode to “comprehensible input---interaction---output” pattern. She believed that output is not merely a matter of practice, but had much to do with the development of interlanguage. That is, the output of language not only helps L2 learners increa fluency but also pushes L2 learners to be aware of the gap between his interlanguage and target language which provides enough opportunities for them to introspect and analyze the problems existing in their interlangua
ge so that they can practice L2 correctly. However, whether output or output modification has an effect on SLL remains unknown as there is still a vere lack of data to demonstrate it.
4 Conclusions
To conclude, Input Hypothesis, interaction Hypothesis and Output Hypothesis all make contributions in the field of SLA as they have explained the process of language acquisition to some degree. However, they cannot explain all aspects in SLA. To further the studies, the process that how language is 求函数值域的方法internalized needs to be considered.
5 Suggestions for Foreign Language Teaching
发现身边的美1 Providing proper input
The main sources of input in the classroom are teachers’ talk. Therefore, an English teacher must try as much as possible to make his or her talk proper to guarantee the quality of input as it can affect learners’ performance in classroom and, hence, their learni
ng. Creating an environment that enables learners to u English as much as possible is also of great importance. The teacher must make sure that input for students is comprehensible as well as native like.
