The input hypothesis

The learner improves and progresses along the

'natural order' when he/she receives second
language 'input' that is one step beyond his/her
current stage of linguistic competence. If a learner
is at a stage 'i', then acquisition takes place when
he/she is exposed to 'Comprehensible Input' that
belongs to level 'i + 1'.
Since not all of the learners can be at the
same level of linguistic competence at the same
time, Krashen suggests that natural
Communicative input is the key to designing
a syllabus, ensuring in this way that each learner
will receive some 'i + 1' input that is appropriate for
his/her current stage of linguistic competence.
The Input hypothesis is Krashen's attempt to
explain how the learner acquires a second language
how second language acquisition takes place. The Input
hypothesis is only concerned with 'acquisition', not
'learning'. According to this hypothesis, the learner
improves and progresses when he/she receives second
language 'input' that is one step beyond his/her current
stage of linguistic competence. For example, if a
learner is at a stage 'i', then acquisition takes place
when he/she is exposed to 'Comprehensible Input' that
belongs to level 'i + 1'. We can then define
'Comprehensible Input' as the target language that the
learner would not be able to produce but can still

understand. It goes beyond the choice of words and

involves presentation of context, explanation,
rewording of unclear parts, the use of visual cues and
meaning negotiation. The meaning successfully
conveyed constitutes the learning experience.
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. According
to the input hypothesis, second language learners require 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 understandingwith
understanding defined as understanding of meaning rather than understanding
of formof the language learner.
Second language acquisition, therefore, occurs through 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 acquisitionlearning hypothesis. 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.
Criticism of the Input Hypothesis
Like for the acquisition-learning hypothesis, the first critique of the input
hypothesis surrounds the lack of a clear definition of comprehensible input;
Krashen never sufficiently explains the values of i or i+1. As Gass et al. argue,
the vagueness of the term means that i+1 could equal one token, two tokens,
777 tokens; in other words, sufficient comprehensible input could embody any
quantity.
More importantly, the input hypothesis focuses solely on comprehensible input
as necessary, although not sufficient, for second language acquisition to the
neglect of any possible importance of output. The output hypothesis as proposed
by Merrill Swain seeks to rectify the assumed inadequacies of the input

hypothesis by positing that language acquisition and learning may also occur
through the production of language. According to Swain who attempts to
hypothesize a loop between input and output, output allows second language
learners to identify gaps in their linguistic knowledge and subsequently attend
to relevant input. Therefore, without minimizing the importance of input, the
output hypothesis complements and addresses the insufficiencies of the input
hypothesis by addressing the importance of the production of language for
second language acquisition. Thus, despite the influence of the Monitor Model
in the field of second language learning and acquisition, the input hypothesis,
the fourth hypothesis of the theory, has not been without criticism as evidenced
by the critiques offered by other linguists and educators in the field.
Read more at http://www.linguisticsgirl.com/the-input-hypothesis-definition-andcriticism/#yAGp7MFsYYEgKSHY.99
This hypothesis highlights the importance of using
the Target Language in the classroom. The goal of
The Input hypothesis
any language program is for learners to be able to
This hypothesis suggests that language acquisition
occurs when learners receive messages that they can communicate effectively. By providing as much
understand, a concept also known as comprehensible comprehensible input as possible, especially in
situations when learners are not exposed to the TL
input. However, Krashen also suggests that this
comprehensible input should be one step beyond the outside of the classroom, the teacher is able to create
learners current language ability, represented as i + 1, a more effective opportunity for language
in order to allow learners to continue to progress with acquisition.
their language development.