The Input Hypothesis

Universidad de El Salvador

Language Section

Prof. En Ingles.

The input hypothesis

The input hypothesis attempts to

answer what is perhaps the most

important question in our field,

and gives an answer that has a

potential impact on all areas of

language teaching.

(a) Statement of the hypothesis

We may state parts (1) and (2) of the input

hypothesis as follows:

1) The input hypothesis relates to acquisition,

not learning

2) We acquire by understanding language that

contains structure a bit beyond our current

level of competence (i+1). This is done with

the help of context or extra-linguistic

information.

3) When communication is successful,

when the input is understood and

there is enough of it, i+1 will be

provided automatically.

4) Production ability emerges. It is not

taught directly.

(b) Evidence supporting the hypothesis

(i) First language acquisition in children.

1. It ensures that i+1 is covered, with no guesswork

as to just what i+1 is for each child. On the other

hand, deliberate aim at i+1 might miss!

2. Roughly-tuned input will provide i+1 for more

than one child at a time, as long as they

understand what is said.

3. Roughly-tuned input provides built-in review.

(ii) Evidence from second language

acquisition: simple codes.

(1) All students may not be at the

same stage. The “structure of the

day” may not be i+1 for many of

the students.

(2) With a grammatical syllabus,

each structure is presented only

once.

3) A grammatical syllabus assumes we know

the order of acquisition. No such

assumption is necessary when we rely on

comprehensible input, on roughly-tuned

natural communication.

4) Finally, a grammatical syllabus, and the

resulting grammatical focus, places serious

constraints on what can be discussed.

(iii) Evidence from second language acquisition:

the silent period and L1 influence.

• The explanation of the silent period in

terms of the input hypothesis is straight-

forward; the child is building up

competence in the second language via

listening, by understanding the language

around him. In accordance with the input

hypothesis, speaking ability emerges on its

own after enough competence has been

developed by listening and understanding.

(iv) Advantages of L1 rule use.

• The use of an L1 rule allows the performer to

“outperform his competence”, to meet a practical need

in L2 communication before he has acquired the

relevant i+1 rule.

• The early production allowed by the use of L1 rules

also helps to invite input.

(iv) Disadvantages of L1 rule use

• The L1 rule may not be the same as an

L2 rule, as noted above, and errors can

result.

• Even if the L1 rule is similar to an

actual L2 rule or transitional form, it is

not clear that these rules will help the

acquirer progress- they may not take

the place of “true” L2 rules in the

developmental sequence.

(v) Applied linguistic research.

1) “Deductive” methods (rule first,

then practice, grammar translation

and cognitive-code) are slightly

more efficient than audio-lingual

teaching for adults.

2) For adolescents, there is no

measurable difference.