input hypothesis krashen

Krashen's Second Language Acquisition Theory

Input Hypothesis

The Input Hypothesis is part of a group of 5 hypotheses related to Second Language Acquisition developed by the linguist Stephen Krashen.

According to this Hypothesis, the results of the acquisition of a second language are related to the input that the acquirer receives/is exposed to. However, this input has to be understood (comprehensible input), and it is from this precept that Krashen established that in order for the acquirer to achieve results, the level of language he is exposed to must follow the i + 1 standard where i means the Acquirer’s actual competence in the language and +1 means a bit further. That is, the students should always be exposed to a slightly more advanced level of understandable input so that they can achieve ever more fluency in the Second Language.

Based on how children acquire their first language and the caretaker speech (a simple language used with children for them to understand), Krashen proposed something similar to be worked on with adults: the teacher-talk, the Foreigner-talk, and the Interlanguage- talk, also known as Simple codes.

The “Teacher-talk” is the classroom language that accompanies exercises, the language of explanations in the second language and in some foreign language classrooms, and the language of classroom management. “Interlanguage talk” is simply the speech of other second language acquirers, often that of the foreign student peer group and “Foreigner-talk” may be of two kinds. The term has been used to describe native speakers’ imitations of second language speech or, rather, their acquisition of aspects of this interlanguage. (Krashen, 1981,p. 121)

According to him, these are the 3 simple codes that are part of the process of acquiring a language. The teacher-talk promotes more input than the exercises a teacher may do in classes. So, the language itself used in the teacher speech is a way of promoting comprehensible input, that is if the teacher takes into account that the language, he may use, must be into the patterns of the formula i+1 cited above. The theorist also mentions the interlanguage-talk and the foreigner-talk that provide the students with the input they need during the classes and outside the school environment.

In sum, this hypothesis says that we acquire language through a unique way, comprehending or receiving comprehensible input and that this comprehension follows a natural order, from i to i+1. So, an input is an essential ingredient in Language Acquisition and is related to other 4 Hypotheses.

By M. A. M. Júnior

KRASHEN, Stephen. Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning . University of Southern California. Available on:  <http://www.sdkrashen.com/content/books/sl_acquisition_and_learning.pdf>  Access on

KRASHEN, Stephen D.  Issues and Implications . In: The Input Hypothesis. 1985. p. 1-32. Available on: < https://www.uio.no/studier/emner/hf/iln/LING4140/h08/The%20Input%20Hypothesis.pdf&gt ; Acess on

Stephen Krashen . In: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Available in: < https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Input_hypothesis#cite_note-Krashen2003-3&gt ; Access on Nov 30, 2018.

Share this:

Published by alkrashen

View all posts by alkrashen

Leave a comment Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

• Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
• Subscribe Subscribed
• Copy shortlink
• Report this content
• View post in Reader
• Manage subscriptions
• Collapse this bar

• Linguistics
• Join Newsletter

Our Promise to you

Founded in 2002, our company has been a trusted resource for readers seeking informative and engaging content. Our dedication to quality remains unwavering—and will never change. We follow a strict editorial policy , ensuring that our content is authored by highly qualified professionals and edited by subject matter experts. This guarantees that everything we publish is objective, accurate, and trustworthy.

Over the years, we've refined our approach to cover a wide range of topics, providing readers with reliable and practical advice to enhance their knowledge and skills. That's why millions of readers turn to us each year. Join us in celebrating the joy of learning, guided by standards you can trust.

What Is the Input Hypothesis?

The input hypothesis is a hypothesis in second language acquisition developed by Stephen Krashen, which states that a language learner gains the most benefit from receiving linguistic input that is just beyond his or her current interlanguage, or level of grammatical understanding. This type of input is known as comprehensible input or "i + 1," where "i" refers to the learner's interlanguage. According to Krashen, comprehensible input is most likely to be gained from interacting with another speaker of the language.

In some respects, the input hypothesis is fairly intuitive. Someone who understands only a few basic phrases of Chinese will not derive much benefit from listening to a scientific discourse in Chinese since it will be incomprehensible. Likewise, someone who is nearly fluent in Italian will not gain much grammatical knowledge from a child's picture book, because it will not introduce any new grammatical features.

Krashen, however, draws on more complex theories of second language acquisition to make his claim. The interlanguage hypothesis states that learners acquire the grammatical features of a language in a predictable order, and that at any given time the learner has an internally consistent grammatical framework known as the interlanguage. As the learner progresses, the interlanguage becomes increasingly similar to the target language 's actual grammar. The input hypothesis states that input one stage closer to the target language — or i + 1 input — helps the learner acquire the next set of grammatical features. It is not enough, however, for a learner to receive comprehensible input passively; he or she must then analyze the new data in order to move the interlanguage forward.

The input hypothesis states that the best way for learners to gather comprehensible input is through a sort of trial-and-error process of communication. The learner seeks out conversation partners, who modify their speech until it becomes comprehensible to the learner. This process can be aided by nonverbal communication, such as by gestures and by feedback from the learner. When the process is successful, the learner's interlanguage grows to accommodate new grammatical features that he or she has observed.

Krashen claims that output, or speech production, has little to no relevance in second language acquisition. Many other researchers have criticized this position, however, saying that more advanced language learning and syntactic processing have to come through the trial-and-error process not only of comprehending, but also of speaking. Language output allows the speaker to test out his or her grammatical hypotheses and modify them if communication is not successful.

Editors' Picks

Related Articles

• What Is the Communication Accommodation Theory?
• What Is the Competition Model?
• What Is the Language Acquisition Device?
• What Is the Interaction Hypothesis?
• What Is a Second Language?
• What Are the Different Types of Second Language Acquisition Theories?
• What Are the Best Tips for Improving Foreign Language Proficiency?

Our latest articles, guides, and more, delivered daily.

Unraveling The Power Of Krashen’s Theory: Exploring Second Language Acquisition

Table of Contents

Introduction.

Learning a second language is a complex process that has fascinated linguists and educators for decades. One influential theory in the field of second language acquisition is Krashen’s Theory, proposed by Stephen Krashen, an eminent linguist, and researcher.

This theory suggests that language acquisition is a subconscious process, and individuals acquire language skills through exposure to comprehensible input . In this article, we will delve into the details of Krashen’s Theory of Second Language Acquisition, exploring its key hypotheses, applications, and criticisms.

Background of Krashen’s Theory of Second Language Acquisition

Stephen Krashen developed his theory of second language acquisition in the 1970s and 1980s, drawing upon various linguistic and psychological perspectives. His theory gained significant recognition and influenced language teaching methodologies worldwide.

Krashen emphasized the importance of natural language acquisition, suggesting that formal instruction should take a backseat to meaningful exposure to the target language.

His theory has later been criticized for being vague and imprecise.

Five Hypotheses of Krashen’s Theory

Krashen’s Theory is composed of five key hypotheses, each providing insights into different aspects of second language acquisition. Let’s explore them:

1. Input Hypothesis

The Input Hypothesis suggests that language learners progress when they receive comprehensible input, i.e., language that is slightly beyond their current proficiency level. This is often referred to as i+1, meaning  ‘ input ‘ which is one step beyond learners’ current stage of linguistic competence.

In addition to being slightly above learners’ level of understanding, this input should be engaging, meaningful, and related to the learner’s interests and needs.

According to Krashen’s claim, this comprehensible input facilitates subconscious language acquisition.

2. Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis

Krashen differentiates between language acquisition and language learning . Acquisition refers to the subconscious assimilation of language skills through exposure and understanding, while learning involves conscious knowledge of rules and grammatical structures. He argues that acquisition is more effective than learning in developing fluent and natural language skills.

3. Monitor Hypothesis

The Monitor Hypothesis states that language learners utilize their acquired knowledge to self-monitor their production . When learners have time to reflect and consciously apply their knowledge, they can correct errors and improve their language proficiency. However, Krashen suggests that overreliance on the monitor can hinder spontaneous and fluent communication.

4. Natural Order Hypothesis

The Natural Order Hypothesis proposes that language learners acquire grammatical structures in a predictable sequence. Krashen argues that learners naturally progress through specific linguistic structures, regardless of explicit instruction or correction. This hypothesis emphasizes the importance of providing learners with ample exposure to the target language.

5. Affective Filter Hypothesis

Krashen’s Affective Filter Hypothesis suggests that affective factors, such as motivation, self-confidence, and anxiety, play a crucial role in language acquisition. When learners are highly motivated, have low anxiety, and feel comfortable in their learning environment, their affective filter is low, facilitating language acquisition. On the other hand, a high affective filter can impede language acquisition.

Application of Krashen’s Theory

Krashen’s Theory has had a significant impact on language teaching methodologies. It has influenced language teaching approaches such as the natural approach , the communicative approach , and the input-based methods.

These approaches prioritize providing learners with meaningful and comprehensible input, creating a language-rich environment, and encouraging natural language acquisition. Teachers can design activities that promote exposure to authentic language materials, encourage communication, and create a supportive and low-anxiety classroom atmosphere.

Furthermore, Krashen’s Theory highlights the importance of extensive reading in language acquisition. Reading allows learners to encounter a wide range of vocabulary, grammatical structures, and language patterns. By engaging with various texts, learners can develop their language skills organically and expand their knowledge of the language.

Criticisms of Krashen’s Theory

While Krashen’s Theory of second language acquisition has been widely influential, it has also faced some criticisms.

1. Comprehensible input Hypothesis : One criticism is that the theory does not fully account for the role of explicit instruction and practice in language learning. Some argue that a combination of both acquisition and learning strategies can lead to more comprehensive language development.

2. Acquisition-learning Hypothesis : Krashen’s framework distinguishes between acquisition and learning, with acquisition being slow and subtle, and learning being fast and conscious.

• This strict dichotomy has been criticized by linguists for its fuzzy terminology.
• According to Krashen, language acquisition is the desired process for language learners, leading to fluency, while learning only serves as a monitor or editor. The assumed claim here is that learning does not transform into acquisition, which is challenged by the idea that acquisition can be enriched by the learned system.
• Instead of drawing a clear boundary between acquisition and learning, it is suggested that the interplay and connections between the two processes should be recognized and explained.

3. Monitor Hypothesis: The main criticism of the monitor hypothesis is grounded on the evaluation of the acquisition-learning hypothesis.

• The monitor hypothesis suggests that the main purpose of language learning is to serve as a monitor for language output produced by the acquired system. However, critics of Krashen’s theory argue that it is impossible to clearly and adequately separate language learning from language acquisition, making it challenging to prove that the learned system functions solely as a monitor.
• Furthermore, the claim that learning-as-monitor only applies to output after production is questioned. Second-language learners can use the learned system both for producing output and facilitating comprehension.

4. Natural Order Hypothesis: Another criticism pertains to the natural order hypothesis.

• While there is evidence supporting the idea of a natural order of grammatical acquisition, some researchers argue that learners may benefit from explicit instruction and guidance in certain cases, particularly with more complex grammatical structures.
• Krashen’s claim that children acquiring English as a second language follow a predictable sequence in acquiring morphemes is supported by studies comparing them to children acquiring English as a first language, but this claim may not hold true for second language acquisition as a whole.
• Morpheme studies, while providing evidence for the natural order hypothesis, do not offer insights into the acquisition of other linguistic features such as phonology, syntax, semantics, and pragmatics. The predictable sequence is limited to morpheme acquisition.
• The influence of the first language on second language acquisition is not adequately addressed by the natural order hypothesis. Research suggests that second language learners acquire grammatical structures in different orders depending on their native language, contradicting the notion of a universal and predictable sequence.

5. Affective Filter Hypothesis : Some educators argue that the affective filter hypothesis oversimplifies the role of affective factors in language acquisition.

• The affective filter hypothesis in Krashen’s Monitor Model claims that individual variation in second language acquisition is primarily influenced by affective factors, which is an oversimplification of how people acquire a second language. Motivation and affective factors can vary greatly among learners, and the impact of these factors on language acquisition is multifaceted and complex.
• Criticism of this hypothesis questions the assertion that affective factors alone can explain differences in language learning.
• Children, despite lacking the affective filter described by Krashen, still experience variations in motivation, self-confidence, and anxiety, which also impact their second language learning.
• The claim that an affective filter prevents comprehensible input from reaching the language acquisition device is challenged by evidence of adult second language learners who achieve native-like competence except for specific grammatical features.
• The affective filter hypothesis does not address the fundamental question of how the filter determines which parts of language to include or exclude, further challenging its explanatory power for individual variation in second language acquisition.

Implications of Krashen’s Theory of Second Language Acquisition

Although Krashen’s theory has been widely criticized and re-evaluated, there are still some valid implications for language teaching:

• Understanding Krashen’s Theory of Second Language Acquisition has important implications for language educators and learners. It emphasizes the need for providing meaningful and engaging input in language classrooms.
• Teachers should create an environment that encourages communication, promotes extensive reading, and addresses learners’ affective needs.
• Furthermore, Krashen’s Theory suggests that language acquisition is a gradual and subconscious process that requires time and exposure.
• It highlights the importance of creating a language-rich environment both inside and outside the classroom.
• Learners can benefit from various language resources such as authentic materials, multimedia resources, and language exchange opportunities to enhance their language acquisition journey.

In conclusion, Krashen’s Theory of Second Language Acquisition provides valuable insights into the process of language learning. Its five hypotheses shed light on the importance of comprehensible input, the distinction between acquisition and learning, the role of self-monitoring, the natural order of grammatical acquisition, and the influence of affective factors. While the theory has faced criticisms, it has significantly influenced language teaching methodologies and continues to shape our understanding of second language acquisition.

What are the five hypotheses of Krashen’s theory of second language acquisition?

The five hypotheses of Krashen’s theory are the Input Hypothesis, the Monitor Hypothesis, the Natural Order Hypothesis, the Affective Filter Hypothesis, and the Output Hypothesis.

What is an example of Krashen’s theory?

An example of implementing Krashen’s theory in the classroom is creating a language-rich environment where students are exposed to meaningful and comprehensible input through engaging activities, authentic materials, and opportunities for meaningful communication. This approach encourages natural language acquisition by providing students with ample opportunities to interact with the language in a low-anxiety environment.

How does Stephen Krashen describe language acquisition vs. language learning?

Stephen Krashen describes language acquisition as a subconscious process that occurs naturally through exposure to meaningful language, while language learning involves a conscious study and rule-based instruction.

What does Krashen’s theory of second Language acquisition say about explicit vs. implicit language teaching?

Krashen’s theory of second language acquisition emphasizes the importance of implicit language teaching over explicit instruction. According to Krashen, language acquisition occurs naturally when learners are exposed to meaningful and comprehensible input, rather than through explicit teaching of grammar rules. He believes that explicit instruction should be kept to a minimum and primarily used as a monitor or editor in the language production stage. The focus is on creating an immersive language environment that promotes language acquisition through exposure and meaningful communication, allowing learners to develop their language skills implicitly.

What criticism is addressed to Krashen’s ideas about implicit language learning?

While Krashen’s theory prioritizes natural language acquisition through comprehensible input and unconscious acquisition of the target language, it is important to note that the inclusion of explicit instruction can be beneficial in certain contexts, as it provides learners with explicit knowledge that complements their implicit language skills. Thus, a combination of implicit and explicit teaching methods tailored to learners’ needs and proficiency levels can enhance language acquisition and proficiency.

Search Our Store:

The input hypothesis (krashen’s hypotheses series, #5 of 9).

(Previous post in this series: The Natural Order of Acquisition)

The next post in this series, The Affective Filter Hypothesis (#6/9) is found here .

Focus like a MAN I AC

I: the i nput hypothesis.

This is the big one

“Comprehensible input is the cause of language acquisition.”

The term ‘comprehensible input’ (C.I.) means messages in the target language that the learner can understand. C.I. is the “Goldilocks” level of input—not too hard, not too easy. It is input at the student’s current level of acquisition and just slightly above it, what Krashen calls the “ i + 1 ” level, where “ i ” is the level of acquisition of the student and “ +1 ” is a wee bit above it. Input that is too simple (already acquired) or too complex (out of reach at the moment) is not useful for second language acquisition.

Even input that is perceived by the student as very simple can have value, as the brain needs time to sort out the complex rules of grammar. Rules that are imperceptible to the  conscious mind can be refined with seemingly simple input.

Comprehensible Input Can Be :

• Understanding messages in the language at your level, and just a bit above it. Krashen calls this i + 1 . The “ i ” in this formula is the student’s current level of acquisition, plus just a little bit more.

The i + 2/3/4… levels would be language that is not understandable to the student for some reason, be it unknown vocabulary, grammar the student has not heard before, unfamiliar topics, or subjects that are familiar but too deep for the current language level of the student.

• Independent reading in the TL at the 95% or better comprehension level.

• Listening to and understanding almost everything said in the TL. This understanding can be with the aid of gestures, body language, context and pictures.

• But, there is a problem…  The idea of comprehensible input has become widespread in the last few years, which is a double-edged sword. It is being used so often in educational circles that the original meaning has become diluted by so many pouring their own meanings into it. Many seem to think it means teachers  are using language that they (the teachers) understand, or that students get the general gist of. An alternate term that keeps the original meaning fresh is one coined by Terry Waltz: comprehended input . The input must be comprehended by the student. If what you say is not understood it is virtually worthless for acquisition.

APPLYING THE INPUT HYPOTHESIS IN THE CLASSROOM :

• Discard listen and repeat. Remember that for acquisition there is little-to-no place for the traditional “Listen and Repeat” strategy. Listening with understanding is often enough. Students sometimes do enjoy “practicing” sounds, but this does not help them to acquire the language or help them to hear it.

• Limit forced output. Since language is acquired by input, there is little role for forced output above the level of acquisition. Give students tools to respond in the form of rejoinders. Allow students to respond but, in general, do not force them to speak until they are ready.

• Allow and encourage output–but do not force it. There is a balance. Students feel like they are part of the club when they can speak. They want to express themselves. So provide them with tools and set up situations where they can express themselves simply and often, just do not force spontaneous discourse when they are neither ready nor able. Rejoinders are one way to encourage output, awareness of levels of questioning is another.

• Be sure it is “Comprehended Input”   This is a genius term originated by Terry Waltz and it makes the meaning of what is valuable input clearer. The teacher speaking in the TL alone is not enough. Sometimes teachers think that if they are speaking the language slowly, clearly and accurately, it MUST be comprehensible input to the students. But students need to understand what is being said. Even if the teacher is speaking the target language perfectly, it does not count if students do not understand. Language only counts as helpful for acquisition when it is comprehended by the students.

Lack of understanding = It is not Comprehensible Input.

Only input that is comprehended by students counts for acquisition.

• Use clear language with interesting topics. Teacher and students have an equal part in the dance of acquisition: the teacher’s job is to speak clearly in the target language about interesting topics. The students’ job is to show you when you are not using language they can understand. If students do not demonstrate when they are understanding, you may not be doing your job and not even know it.

• Check often to be sure it is actually comprehensible. The language we speak in class must be comprehensible to all students, not just the top students that are responding all the time. The above average students may well be giving you a false reading on your degree of clarity.

Tell your students this often:

“My job is to give you clear, interesting language.

Your job is to let me know when I am not doing my job.”

They need to let me know when I am not being clear (speaking TL that they understand). If we are not checking in with students to be sure they understand, we may be busy, but not actually doing our jobs.

• Make sure all students understand.  Discard the traditional practice of asking questions and plaintively waiting for the occasional hand to go up by the the boldest and brainiest. The Ferris Bueller  model (‘Anyone? Anyone?’) was out of date and mocked in the movie 30 years ago. Don’t revive it.

Ask a variety of questions, and ask often.

Assign a student the task of counting how many questions you ask during the class period. Asking one question per minute of class is not too much.

• Use differentiated comprehension checks questions to be sure individual students understand at different levels. Know who your slower language processors are, who your medium language processors are, and who your faster processors are (this week). Ask them questions that are appropriate for their level. Throw each student the right pitch, the right level of question, for their level.

• Create a classroom culture where NOT understanding is OK. Avoid putting students in situations in class where they have only limited comprehension of the language—this can be extremely frustrating. Reward those that let you know when they do NOT understand. This is the opposite of a traditional classroom where students raise their hands to give an answer and show they know the answer.

Share This Article:

Leave a comment cancel reply.

You must be logged in to post a comment.