Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 33 views

    The Input Hyphothesis by Stephen Krashen

    Uploaded by

    contato

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    The Input Hyphothesis by Stephen Krashen

    Uploaded by

    contato
    33 views28 pages

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    33 views28 pages

    The Input Hyphothesis by Stephen Krashen

    Uploaded by

    contato

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 28
    Krashen, Stephen D, "Ch. 1: The Input Hypothesis’ The Input Hypothesis. Issues and Implications 1985 ss. 1-32 ISBN; 0582553814 Copyright(C) 1985 Longman Group UK Lid. ‘opie med hiemmel i Kopinor- aan D2: Bente Grup y~ Boriana Olena 1 The Input Hypothesis The purpose of this chapter is to discuss and review the evidence supporting the Input Hypothesis. In the first section, I review the theoretical framework in which the Input Hypothesis is embedded, five hypotheses that attempt to provide the foundation ofa theory of second- language acquisition. We then briefly review the published evidence to date for the Input Hypothesis. ‘The Input Hypothesis and second-language acquisition theory “The Input Hypothesis is the central part ofan overall theory of second- language acquisition that consists of five hypotheses. FIVE HYPOTHESES ©The Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis “There are wo independent ways, of developing ability in second languages. ‘Acquisition’ sa subconscious process identical in allimpor- tant ways tothe process children utilize in acquiring their first language, while ‘learning’ is a conscious process|that results in ‘knowing abou language. 2. The Natural Order Hypothesis To my knowledge, this hypothesis was first proposed for second- language acquisition by Corder (1967). It states that we acquire the rules of language in a predictable order| some rules tending to come tary and others se, The order does not Gpeario be dcermined SOE Fy feral simi and there is evidence that itis independent ofthe ‘order in which rules are taught in language classes 3. The Monitor Hypothesis “This hypothesis states how acquisition and learning are used in produc tion. Our ability to produce utterances in another language comes from cour acquired competence, from our subconscious knowledge. Learn- 1 np 2 The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications ing, conscious knowledge, serves only as an editor, or Monitor. We appeal to learning to make corrections, to change the output of the acquired system before we speak or write (or sometimes after we speak br write, asin self-correction). I have hypothesized that}wo conditions| need to be met in order to use the Monitor: the performer prust be consciously concerned about correctness; and he or she mustanow the rule. Both these conditions are difficult to meet. While focusing on form may result in somewhat more grammatical accuracy 3 it docs take more time. In arecent study using adult subjects, itwas reported thet focusing on form took about 30 per cent longer and resulted in about 14 per cent less information transmitted (Hulstijn and Iulsiiin 1984). This may seriously disrupt communication in conversa- tional situations™. 4. The Input Hypothesis “The Input lypothesis claims that humans acquire language in only one way — by understanding messages, or by receiving ‘comprehensible input’. We progress along the natural order (hypothesis 2) by under- standing input that contains structures at our next ‘stage’ — structures that are a bit beyond our current level of competence. (We move from i, our current level, to + 1, the next level along the natural order, by understanding input édintaining i + 1; this terminology, adequate for now, is expanded in Krashen 1983.) We are able to understand language containing unacquired grammar yyith she.help of context) which includes extra-linguistic information, our know[Sdge af the world, and previously acquired linguistic competence. ‘The caretaker provides fextra-linguistic context py limiting speech to the child to the he beginning-language teacher provides context via visual aids (pictures and objects) and discussion of familiar topics. The Input Hypothesis has two corollaries: (@)_Speakingis «result f acquisition and nor its causei Speech cannot be taught directly but ‘emerges’ on its own as a result of building ‘competence via comprehensible input. () Lf input is understood, snd there is enough of it, the necessary grammar is automatically provided. The language tcacher need not attempt deliberately to teach the next structure along the natural order — it will be provided in just the right quantities and automatically reviewed ifthe student receives sufficient amount of comprehensible input. ‘0 be more precise, input is the essential environmental ingredient. ‘The acquirer does not simply acquire what he hears — there is @ significant contribution of the internal language processor (Chomsty's The Input Hypothesis 3 Language Acquisition Device: LAD). Not all the input the acquirer hears is processed for acquisition, and the LAD itself generates possible rules according to innate procedures (eg. ‘operating principles’ (Slobin 1973); see Krashen 1983 for one possible schema). Moreover, not all comprehended input reaches the LAD (see discussion of the ‘affective filter’, below), (For similar versions of the Input Hypothesis, see Macnamara 1973, Kelley 1967 (cited in Dale 1976, pp. 159-60), Newmark 1981 and Winitz 1981.) ‘The idea that we acquire in only one way may not be fashionable in this age of individual variation. ‘There is, after all, very good evidence that people differ in many ways, and these variations affect the acquisi- of knowledge in general (c.g. the field dependence — field inde- pendence distinetion, left and right cerebral hemisphere preference, differences in cognitive style). Yet there are some things we all do the same, and some functions we acquire in the same way. The visual system, for example, is structured similarly and develops similarly in ‘everyone. Chomsky (1975) suggests that there is similar uniformity in the language faculty, and that the language acquisition device operates in fundamentally the same way in everyone, ‘The extensive evidence for the Input Hypothesis, reviewed below, supports Chomsky’s position, and extends it to second-language ac- uisition. We may sce individual variation ‘on the surface’ — diferent sources of comprehensible input, different strategies for obtaining input, different messages, and of course different languages — and this variation may be of practical concern. But deep down, the ‘mental organ’ for language (Chomsky 1975) produces one basic product, a hhuman language, in one fundamental way® 5. The Affective Filter Hypothesis Comprehensible input is pcs for acquisition, but jvis.not sufli “Gient. The acquirer needs toe "open’ to the input. The ‘affective filter’ mental block that prevents acquirers from fully utilizing the com- prehensibie input they receive for language acquisition. When itis ‘up’, the acquirer may understand what he hears and reads, but the input will not reach the LAD. This occurs when the acquirer is unmotivated, lacking in self-confidence, or anxious?, when he is ‘on the defensive’ (Gtevick 1976), when he considers the language class tobe a place where his weaknesses will be revealed. The filter is down when the acquirer is not concerned with the possibility of failure in language acquisition and when he considers himself to be a potential member of the group a1 4 The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications speaking the target language (Smith 19822, 1983). (For a review of research, see Krashen 1981a.)* [have suggested (Krashen 19828) that the filter is lowest when the acquirer is so involved in the message that he temporarily ‘forgets’ he is hearing or reading another language. {THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE IN SECOND-LANGUAGE ACQUISITION We can summarize the five hypotheses with a single claim: people acquire second languages ony if they obtain comprehensible input and littheir affective filters are low enough to allow the input in’. When the ‘filter is ‘down’ and appropriate comprehensible input is presented (and comprehended), acquisition is inevitable. Its, in fact, unavoidable and ‘cannot be prevented — the language ‘mental organ’ will function just as automatically as any other organ: “The learner (acquire) has no reason’ for acquiring the language; he does not ‘choose to learn (acquire) under normal conditions, any mare than he chooses {orcan fil) to organive visual space in a certain way — or, for that matte, any sore than certain cells in the embryo choose (or can fal) to become an arm or the sive centers of the brain under appropriate environmental conditions. (Chomsky 1975, p. 71) In other words, comprehensible input isthe essential ingredient for second-language acquisition. All other factors thought to encourage oF ‘cause second-language acquisition work only when they contribute to comprehensible input and/or a low affective filter. Evidence supporting the Input Hypothesis In this section, we very briefly review previously published evident supporting the Input Hypothesis and fundamental principle. Wt Alternative explanations are not excluded in every case, the Input [lypothesis can account for a wide variety of phenomena. ScanerakeR SPEECH, TEACHER TALK AND FOREIGNER TALK ‘As argued in Krashen 198la, the Input Hypothesis predicts that caretaker speech, the special language directed at children acaui ‘heir fst language, will be helpful for language acquisition, Caretaker “Speech, while ‘simplified’ in several ways,is intended for communi ree ye intended, therefore, to be comprehensible, not meant for ‘ivserate language teaching. As mentioned earlier, the fact thst seeker speech tends to be limited tothe ‘here and now’ aids com- ‘The Input Hypothesis 7 of human talk ... they are talked about and kept in the midst of talk about topics that range over any subject ..."(p. 64). They are exposed to ‘almost continuous communication’ (p. 68). ‘Exposure! does not necessarily entail comprehensible input. In these cases, however, extra-linguistic context is present to make the available speech the child hears more comprehensible. Ochs points out, for cxample, that the topics entertained between caregiver and child tend to focus on the immediate past (e.g. accusations and reports of risdeeds), immediate present, and immediate future (e.g. directives to ‘carry out acts)...’ (p- 101), topies that ‘characterize household talk in general and are part of a register used by familiars and intimates’ ‘Samoan caretaker speech thus focuses on the ‘here and now’; E. ‘Andersen (personal communication) has suggested that reference tothe ‘here and now’ may be a universal characteristic of caretaker speech. ‘Ochs (personal communication) also points out that caretakers in several cultures, while they do not ‘simplify’ speech to the child or ‘expand the child's utterances, do provide repeated exposure to language they expect the child eventually to understand. ‘This form of teaching is present in both linguistic and non-linguistic domains. According to ‘Ochs, Samoans, for example, do not instruct dance by breaking it down fo parts, but by performing the entre dance again and again, while the rovier observes and participates, in much the same way as American teenagers pick up the latest steps. Repeated presentations of language may give the acquirer a better chance of picking out comprehensible portions, especially i a helpful extra-lingustic context is present. Tarkness also points out the importance of considering sources of input other than the mother. Other members of the family and other ‘children can also supply comprehensible input. As Harkness notes: “Some of the children that | observed interacted predominantly with cher children, while their mothers only occasionally interjected fommand or prohibition. One mother frankly told me, “I never talk with ny child just tell him to do something and he does it. When he talks, it’s with other children.” Children living in this kind of sucial environ- ent must Iearn to talk {rom other children as well as from their mmothers or other adults’ (p. 498; see also Slobin 1975, especially pp. 292-5), Since older children in mainstream cultures are known to be capable of modifying their speech to younger children (Andersen and Johnson 1973; Fillmore 1976), they may be an important source of ‘comprehensible input in other cultures as well Input from this source nay also be important for the Samoan child; Ochs reports that as the Samoan child matures, ‘the mother spends less time with the child, and a sibling caregiver is given greater caregiving responsibilities. Is often 8 The dnput Hypothesis: Issues and Implications the case that several siblings cooperatively provide care for one or even several young child(ren)’ (p. 80-81; noted also by Kernan, cited in Slobin 1975, p. 292). These children, asis the case with Samoan adults, ‘make no attempt to simplify, however (E. Ochs, personal commu- nication). ‘The Input Hypothesis does not predict thet ‘simplified” caretaker speech is necessary for acquisition. It predicts that simplified speech will be helpful when it provides the acquirer with + J in context that makes the message comprehensible, What cross-cultural studies suggest is that there may be some variation across cultures with respect to how comprehensible input is presented, its source, and perhaps the amount of comprehensible input presented. There is nothing in the cross-cultural data to suggest that comprehensible input is not the essential ingredient for language acquisition. As Slobin (1975) concludes: Children in all cultures learn to speak according to a universal timetable ..., yet parental practices differ widely in regard to feedback and expansior Furthermore, children in many cultures receive their primary speech input from other children, Therefore it seems that the maior provide examples of meaningful utterances in a communicative situation, Feaving itto the LAD or LAS (language acquisition system) to figure out the structure of the language without explicit tution or guidance from adult speakers. (p. 292) ‘Andersen and Kekelis (1983) reach similar conclusions in their study of first-language acquisition by blind children. While input directed to blind children appears to be different from that directed to sighted children, blind children also receive comprehensible input. Andersen and Kekelis report that blind children hear more imperatives, fewer Ucclaratives, receive more requests for action, are provided with more identifications that label rather then describe, and discuss more child- centred topics than sighted children. These differences, according to ‘Andersen and Kekelis, are caused by the children’s dificuly in reading ccues from their environment, and the parents’ difficulty in checking the child’s comprehension. Thus, parents take ‘alternate routes to creating ‘meaningful input’. ‘Second-language acquirers also have access to varieties of caretaker speech, as diccussed in Krashen 198 1a, They include ‘teacher talk’, the nguage of classroum management in second-language classes, and “foreigner talk’, the adjustments made by native speakers when talking speakers. I have claimed (Krashen 1981s) that the Input ts the efficacy ofthese simple codes in the same way it does for caretaker specch. While not limited to the “here and now’ The Input Hypothesis 9 they attempt to provide the non-native speaker with comprehensible inna hei goals communication, not language teaching. fp adultion, thay appear to be roughly-tuned tothe level of the non-native speaker {Gales 1977; Freed 1980; but see note 11, above). es oT: ie available tothe second-language acquirer isthe speech of ther scquices (termed ‘interianguage talk? in Krashen, 1988) Set ethods encourage this kind of input, emphasizing role-p'a}ing sd problem-solving actives in which students heat gr=tt deal of 2a ers’ language. A few methods avoid it completcly (ees ¢-& hatte 1980). There is no ressasch-Fknow of, and very litle discussion, ating with whether inerlanguage talks elpfator harmful Tbe lope! Hypothesis predzts that it willbe of some help in cal SB Sy comprehensible in many cases and probably roughly-tuned, and will sae ie | for many acquirers. ‘There may be dangers, however contain used exclusively and over along perio of time: errors in the Taput anay be ‘acquired? by listeners. We will eturn to this iveresting question in Chapter 2. ‘THE SILENT PERIOD ‘The Input Hypothesis also accounts, for the silent period, & “Fenomenon that is very noticeable in child second-language feats Rrevery opal, children in a new country, faced with ¢ ot Treuage are silent for along period of me, thelr output being limited languages er of memorized phrases and sentences that they hear frequently and whose meaning they do nat understand completely. rae cond-language production may not emerge fo several vrs allem period of sx moni duration isnot unusus) ony id's reluctance to speak for the fist ew months of his vecidence in a new country is nt pathological but normal. ThE child, cH this time, is simply building up competence by Hsieh Te canrechensible input. His first words inthe second angwie® 2 not the beginning of his second-language acquisitions raher, they are the ae eet tne comprehensible input he has receive over he previous months hs Ihave mentioned previously aults are not usualy allowed asilent period in language classes, condition th makes many language perientsveryansious about foreign-language study Langwaet teachers sion demand that students talk right away. T have argued (Krashen 1983, following Newmark 1966) that this insistence on early production reese of frst-language influence’, We “all back’ on first-language veg when a second-anguage rule is needed in production ‘but is not 10 The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications available — as Newmark phrases i, first-language influence is ¢ result of ignorance and can be cured by acquisition. Thave described several case histories illustrating the silent period in previous publications; it may be useful to add two more. The fist one has received a good deal of publicity and has, I think, been misin~ tempreted. Richard Rodriguez tells his own story in his recent autobiography (Rodriguez 1981). Rodriguez grew up in Sacramento, California, speaking only Spanish at home during his pre-school years. ‘The school he attended was conducted entirely in English, and Rodriguez reports that he said nothing in class forthe first six months. ‘This grestly disturbed his teachers, who visited Rodriguez’ parents and asked that they speak English at home so that Richard could learn the language. Weeks after the home language switch from Spanish to English, Rodriguez reports that he finally volunteered an answer in English in class. Rodriguez looks upon this language switch as a crucial event in his life, the beginning of his full participation in American society and necessary for his acquisition of English. Second-language acquisition theory has a diferent interpretation. Richard Rodriguez experienced a typical silent period. His six months’ silence was not abnormal for « non-English speaking child in an all-English situation. Moreover, the theory, together with other case histories, strongly suggests that Richard Rodriguez would soon have begun to speal even without the home language switch. “There is good evidence in Rodriguez’ book in favour of this hypothesis. First of all, there is litle chance that he received much comprehensible input at home. His parents’ English was weak: ‘After dinner each night, the family guthered to practice our English pansghing. we would try to define words we could not pronounce. We plafed vuttreaege English sounds, often over-anglicizing our pronunciations. And welled the smiling gups of our sentences with familiar Spanish sounds ..(p 21) ‘As Rodrigues explains, the switch to English at home simply resulted in Tess communication with his parents. How could this have helped his English-language development? sanwe children learned more and more English we shared fewer and fewer sions wth cur parents. Sentences needed to be spakensiowly when a child waleeotad ue mother or father. (Ofte the parent wouldn’cunderstnd) "Pe saat caid necd to repeat himsel. (Sil the parent misunderstood) "he stung wee, rsrated; would end up saying’ Nevermind’ — the sabiet oe Young renee would be nosy withthe clinkng of knives and forks aginst shes: My muiher would smile sfly between her remarks my father athe ‘The Input Hypothesis, ‘ther end ofthe able would chew and chew at is food, while he stared over the heads of his children. (p. 23) Rodrigues’ successin acquiring English was probably the result of his eceiving comprehensible input from wo ther sources, one of which he ettdom in his book and the other he does not atleast, notin detail, He mentions and then describes extra tutoring’at the end of the school day’ for a year, private lessons with a very sympathete older teacher that onsicted largely of conversation and reading together. In addition, Slike many minority children today, Rodriguez lived in an English Speaking neighbourhood: the vast majority of his classimates spoke only English — very often, those who ‘made i’ without special programmes gut ther input fom their English-speaking friends. Thus, both ssecond~ Tanguage acquisition theory and data provided by Rediguer himself aor the probably that Rodriguez would have succeeded quits wel! ‘niout giving up Spanish at home; it resulted only in estrangement Tom his family and did not contribute to his English-language acquisition T spectacular example ofthe silent period is Richard Boyde? de= sibel in Fourcin 1975. Boydell contributes the introduction to Four tcn’s paper and tells his own story: Like every child, L was born without language, Unfortunately, was 90 Lae Caecbeal palsy which, in ny ease, mean that, although my ineligs es s Fhave very severe speech defect and no use in my hands and aa atat with | acquired an understanding of language by Hive.98 arms Sov d ane. Later, thanks tory mother’s tireless, patient work | Doe" those wotgtread and so became fariar with writen, a5 well 25 sPokeh (eagunge As my interentsdveloped— particularly in he Hh ofseeres dn ean fatencd to educational programson rauioand [ater eleision a poe ai aevel hat was normal, or sometimes rather above, for my 96 Tri er people visited ws... 1 enjoyed listering to che comersaton ©o°% ee cold only playa passive rot and could not take an seine Pan shoud or argument. Even this may, however, have had ks eompenss8ons for I was often reminded of the thyme: ‘Vhere was an old ove eho lived in tree ‘And the more ke heard the less said he ‘And the less he said the more he heard ‘Now wasn't he a wise old bird! Baty en svt was sometimes very rastrating sot 0 Be aI PTE Dat evenion’ excepto my parents aferward a hey were 9) Sal OO the on erape who had the patinceturytounderstand my speech (gp. 263 4 Boydell was educated at home by his parents until he enor hewas ald cough to stuly on his own: ‘As wel as reading books and listening 89 12 The InpueHypthesisIsues and Impatiens to radio and television to continue my general education, I read the wwspaper every day t0 keep in touch, "ch current events” (. 264), ‘When he was thirty, Richard Boydell was ‘provided with « POSSUM typewriter, foot-controled electe typewriter that he was able t0 iy ine days after receiving the PEVENT hhe produced his first Only maonding to Fourcin, i was elegsny ‘phrased’ and also made Suggestions for improving the ‘ypeorier (hat were eventwall accepted) Te Tput Hypothesis provides cleat explanation for Richard Boydel's ability suddenly 10 prodce “elegantly phrased’ English ret any significant previous production Pres ‘Boydell had built tp great deal of competence ove! the years via listening and reading cate enough to indicate to ‘As Fourcin notesy only versionsof roandy@s, Dut his parents spy the age of 44 he could produce vocally Pe fead and body movements appeared 2 indicate, speech comprehension and frm that 9 she started teach him, usi 265). After @ whl to select compre ‘pperiter allowed him to display Bs real competence AGE DIFFERENCES th previous reports (Keashen 19828, 1982b), 1 argued that the data on age differences in second-langwse acquisition could easily be in- Terpreted in terms of the Input vivpothess and the Affective FINS Tiypathesis. ‘The date indicates Ye bile children are generally roperior in second-language aainhneh Ja the long run, adults, a Teast ily, acquire ata faster rate. 1 dition, older children acquire rae nan younger ehitaren do (or 8 evigw of this research, S° Freshen, Long and Searcella 1982), follows: older acquirers promress MOT sqiekly in early stages Decauss they obiain more comprebensibfe input, while younset acer inthe Tong ran beeause of helt ‘ower affective filters. ‘Older acquirers obtain more ranaprehensibie input in several a, i Dia and knowledge of the world phelps make the “Also, older acquirers "rier than younger acquirers CO by cir greater experi input they hear and ead more comprehensible. ‘ca participate in conversations car rg the strategy of fling back OF frst language symeactic rules, Sapplemented with seconde lange m Mpulary and repaired by the Sor, his strategy WAY Of sputperforming one’s COmPEIENCS: has The Input Hypothesis 13 serious drawbacks, but it dues allow early production, early participation in conversation, and more input", A third way older acquirers gain more comprehensible input is via their superior skills in conversational management. As Scarcella and Higa (1982) have shown, younger children actually receive what looks like simpler input, input with less complex grammar, more frequent vocabulary, more tied to the ‘here and now’, etc, Older acquirers, however, are better able to ‘regulate’ the input: they work harder in encouraging more language (rom their conversational partner, indicate rmore when they have not understood, and are better at keeping conver sations going. (See Chapter 2 for additional discussion of the role of | ~” _tyo-way interaction) Child-adult differences in ultimate attainment may be due to__| differences in the strength of the affective filter. [ have hypothesized (Krashen 19812) thatthe affective filter gains dramatically in strength at around puberty, a time considered to be a turning point for language acquisition (e-g. Seliger, Krashen and Ladefoged 1982), and may never go ‘all the way down’ again. While the filter may exist for the child Second-language acquirer, it is rarely, in natural informal language acquisition situations, high enough 10 prevent native-like levels of attainment. For the adult, it rarely goes low enough to allow native-like attainment. "According to this explanation, the adult is still an ‘acquirer’ the adult uilizes comprehensible input in the same way the child does — no change is posited in the language acquisition device at puberty orat any tther age, nor does the language acquisition device degenerate. It also allows the possibilty that ‘perfect’ post-puberty second-language ac~ ‘quirers may exist — itpredicis that such individuals will have had plenty of exposure to comprehensible input, and will have very low affective fiers. ‘THE EFFECT OF INSTRUCTION “The Input Hypothesis helps to settle another apparent contradiction in the research literature. Some studies indicate that formal instruction helps second-language acquisition, while others seem to indicate that informal environments are superior or just 2s good. | reviewed this research in Krashen 1982a, and concluded that itis consistent with the hypothesis that language classes help when they are the primary source of comprehensible input. This is especially true for beginners, who fften find ‘real world’ input too complex to understand. Language Clases are less helpful when (I) the students are already advanced enough to understand some input from the outside world, and (2) this oO ————————— 14 The Jnpne Hypothesis: Issues and Implications input is avaiable o them, Tis explanation predicts, for examples Wh) sae ped ESL. courses for international students in North American adnan ies arc noteffeciive (Upshur 1968; Mason 1971) The students unetenpetent enough in English to get their comprehensible {Pit are compete qtain subject mater lasses ain social situations'*!*- ‘He EFFECT OF EXPOSURE Several studies conclude that more exposure to a second IenguaBe sever a increased proficiency, While other studies show litle oF ne ‘lationship between exposure and proficiency. In Kreshen 1982a, 1 weve these studies and argue that in cases where ‘exposure really reals comprehensible input, #6 in some school situations, We sg i i ie ea NEN The Input Hypothesis 23 ‘may produce partially xcquired forms that have not yet been firmly acquired. In Addition, we would expect those whe knew the rule to be able to utilize the fonscious Monitor and outperform those who did not know the rule if the {allowing conditions were met (I) the rule is not already acquired, and (2) the performer's are sulficlently focured on form. For one rule inversion of subject End verb, overall accuracy Tor thenon-focused on form condition forall subjects ‘yas quite high (79-3 per ceni), suggesting that several subjects had already ioquited the rule, Overall accuracy for the other rule the verb-final rule for subordinate clauses, was considerably lower, and we do, in fac, see some clear ‘Signs ofa greater increase in accuracy smong those who knew the rule under the focus on form condition (about 15 per cent greater in the free production ‘elsewhere! condition and about 4 per cent in the more restricted condition). These differences were not, however, statistically significant. This may be due, at least in part, 10 the small n: only eight subjects displayed Conscious knowledge of the rule, Some of these eight, moreover, may already hhave acquired the verb-final rule. In addition, Hulsijn and Hulstin simply Asked their subjects to focus attention on grammatical form during the 'gram- ima? condition story-retelling task, and informed them that their responses ‘would be scored for correctness. It may take more than this to invoke the ‘Conscious Monitor — in Krashen 19822 | hypothesize that for most subjects {cerssinly not language teachers and linguists!) a true diserete-point ‘grammar test may be necessary to bring out the conscious grammar. Thus, Hulstin and ates canbe inerprted a providing ore suppor forthe ides that fonitor use is limited. 5. Research confirms that adding extre-ingisic information can ave dex sue cess on comprenensiblty. Several studies have shown that when ents isaded,subjens understanding of «ext improves. This can ake the fein ots petre(Omoggi 1979; Hudson 1982; Mule 1980; Branford and Janson 1972: Dlaptek 1983), or of providing 4 tide or short description {Rlutee 198%; Branstord and Johwon 1972), Sina, txts on tops file desde are more comprehensible han uofarafiar texts Gohnson 1981, 1982; Tebow 97H Anderson eal 1972), Ges and Varons (1984) provide ex sec ha atari wih We topic facitates comprehension of non-nane speech «tat eet of providing extr-tnguticiformationyaree with the texthe rel ni the Elona In some ese, adding pllirs, Tor exarple, does eitg Vernon 1955, presumably «pctre woul not make this pargraph aay spesensibltomon reedes (ee slo dicusion in iastk 1983, ey Grngeio 1979), a stty ung stodeis of French at second Popetre toed ina providing pictare helped mont when t dal wit materia from the begining ofthe story the stdent eed ss rt EB eH pove ul enrol information canbe, how it cas een incomprehcoibe feat or messtge comprehensible. Here 20 an ee Saher ata." objets to igre out the meaning ofthe word pci inthe allowing passage Th Steouae condans are necessary imordertodothisac hae to have enough much (er foto much rouse, he object might bre Gu Gondnion te to eam, you wil have problems because the ruche hhatis, you 101 24 The Input Hypthess: Issues ana Iophictins sakes the object x0 UP. ay Wee are etc, a secous problem on et because you cannot contro the rowche. 45). aly he mace i mont feourable JOFDE NE PY, i, Lesa gochpamager scored a8 TTA, 0 correct out of & See gu. Subjects who were given ® SA “i ator’, some background posal 30 Seed an eveage ot 253 come out oO background Srp fre pnts 08 erred was: “This passage i sot fying & eon of input may or may not help sequin simplification Faeeancatee rerun nereased comprchensTly. fo dies show thal aes ean nore comprehensible NP Ney Doctorow and Witt ae end len gis in comprchensbly of ween texts whe tack, 1974) Tope for 6h rade children. On ne one hand, studies ‘Sin cimilar designs show either very small ving incomprehensiiiy(Wallas Taeatnng rwien science ex for Ot grader) 1 differences Johnson 1968 ung ee Du (98D, + study of abt ES found that ve ptieaton of gamma can sake #10 Fst ‘comprehensible by removing “Clements crucial 10 meaning. “The Input Hypothesis ay dat when simplification does help it dosss¢ vy regentgencea nels beyond he a iT, making the input by Fem and mare comprehensble AS Long (20) points ou, over tration can delay aegision by denying he equlter i+ f 6. InChomsky'sterms phat thavecaled‘conscous earning’ is heres of ieee min -ouide he ngs men organ, and pethaps Part separa et sormng” copay sed for seni Tenowledge a3 well oe og. Ba nage ik tens BN sequlsed through (Chora 197 eracalisf mind though we shoe Te (a find empirical the xc anne of acquinon an ei Bo {Chomsky 1980: 9. Serres preiely whats claimed: we 206.4 ‘comprehensible input, But 2b) pecioun le teaching (tac the Monitor tetas tat he evo systems ae We different ways Pa aaithere sony paral ovrip berets ie leaned and “eon Te We maybe abe 1 Tear’ ng A veuice — what amb ee: tian device i comand @ a nly cera TNE cfgrammatcal ules, itis posible that os an consciously leaa rues at “Uaite guint universals se Chomsky. ‘Of course, ot iol iyo zzrive th native spesber's COMPS hows we can acquire inal ou consciously tear. As Chomsly Foes {Chomsky 1925.7. 4: A ad, at special desi et oe remains “Forte co reconstruct and comprehend wa ‘il has done intuitive Sirun gm ea efor Laced ony ad tal distant goal © comprehend What many seF0nd ORF sequlrers mah nino Derween ODS is quit similar i nthe eon earn isin So fering 0 tly cote 0h Ae nd now wo comes EON {Chomsky 1975,

    You might also like