input hypothesis by krashen

The Input Hypothesis Model

Cite this chapter.

• Vivian Cook  

Part of the book series: Modern Linguistics Series ((MAML))

290 Accesses

The next three chapters look at the ways in which more general theories of second language acquisition have drawn on the type of syntactic evidence and the view of sequence of acquisition discussed in the previous chapter. This chapter is concerned with the Input Hypothesis proposed by Stephen Krashen. During the late 1970s Krashen put forward an account of SLA first known as the Monitor Model after its main claim about the role of monitoring in language learning (Krashen, 1979). In the early 1980s this was expanded into a broader-based model, described in Krashen (1981; 1982). The aspect of the model that became most developed was termed the Input Hypothesis , the title of Krashen’s last major theoretical book (Krashen, 1985a) and the name by which the model will be known here. From the beginning, Krashen’s ideas have been the subject of controversy. The discussion here does not follow all their ramifications but concentrates on the Input Hypothesis as put forward in Krashen (1985a), working back where necessary to earlier formulations. Initially the model will be presented as far as possible through the evidence and claims that he makes himself.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Unable to display preview.  Download preview PDF.

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Copyright information

© 1993 Vivian Cook

About this chapter

Cook, V. (1993). The Input Hypothesis Model. In: Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition. Modern Linguistics Series. Palgrave, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-22853-9_3

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-22853-9_3

Publisher Name : Palgrave, London

Print ISBN : 978-0-333-55534-7

Online ISBN : 978-1-349-22853-9

eBook Packages : Palgrave Social & Cultural Studies Collection

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

What Is Comprehensible Input and Why Does It Matter for Language Learning?

Published on, november 4, 2020, november 15, 2022, this article may contain affiliate links.

Stephen Krashen’s input hypothesis is one of the most influential theories of second language acquisition. He argues that Comprehensible Input is the most important factor in learning another language. Here’s why it matters.

Table of contents

There’s a scene in the movie Love Actually where Jamie, played by Colin Firth, is learning Portuguese. He’s sitting in a classroom with row after row of other language students listening to headphones and repeating simple Portuguese phrases, over and over again.

You might recognise the language learning trend that this scene was referencing. It is called the “ Audiolingual Method ” and became popular throughout the 1940s through the 1960s, declining after that. The idea was that if you heard something enough, and you repeated it, you could memorise it and eventually learn the language. 

That is just one of probably hundreds of language learning theories that have picked up steam at some point in the last century and then faded away. 

There are many others. 

When looking at the wide variety of approaches to learning languages, you might be tempted to ask, “Do we actually know anything about how people learn languages?” Especially when so many websites and services claim that their method is “based on science!”

It turns out that we do know quite a bit about language learning, and one of the concepts that has particularly strong support in the research is the input hypothesis developed by the linguist Stephen Krashen . 

So, let’s dive into that. 

In this article, I want to outline the input hypothesis and describe what it proposes about how we learn language. You’ll learn that, if you want to learn English, you will make progress fastest by ensuring that you create opportunities to expose yourself to comprehensible input in English.

What is the Input Hypothesis?

The Input Hypothesis was developed by Stephen Krashen in the 1970s and 1980s. It’s actually a group of 5 hypotheses . They’re a bit complex, but here’s a very simplified version of them:

• The Input Hypothesis states that language learners improve in a language when they are given language input that is slightly more advanced than their current level. Krashen called this “ i + 1” where “i” is a person’s current language level and “+1” represents language that is slightly more advanced than their current level. 
• The Acquisition–Learning hypothesis states that acquisition of language is different to learning language. Krashen argued that learning—what we do when we study grammar rules—doesn’t work nearly as well. Instead, language is acquired and that happens through an unconscious process when we are exposed to comprehensible input.
• The Monitor Hypothesis states that consciously learning language (like studying grammar rules or doing vocabulary exercises) can help a person monitor language output , but it doesn’t result in improvements to using language. In other words, learning grammar rules can help you measure your language ability, but not really improve it. 
• The Natural Order hypothesis states that language acquisition happens in a natural order, which is pretty much the same for everyone. It further says that language instruction doesn’t change this “natural” order. 
• The Affective Filter hypothesis states that affect —how you’re feeling—changes language acquisition ability. Krashen argues that negative emotions, like embarrassment or fear, make a person less able to acquire a language.

What does all that mean?

That’s all a bit complex, but, very simply, Krashen is saying this: the process of “learning a language” is not the same kind of process as, say, learning geography or philosophy. We can’t read a book about it and then come to “know” it. 

Instead, language acquisition happens through an unconscious process. The necessary ingredient—the critical, essential core—of that unconscious process is comprehensible input. 

What is comprehensible input? 

Comprehensible input in English is English language that you can understand. Language inputs are things that you hear (like podcasts, the radio, conversations, and so on) as well as things you read (like books, articles, English blog articles, etc).

Krashen is careful to specify that you can’t just read or listen to anything and improve your language. You have to read or listen to things you can understand. Language acquisition happens best, he says, when the input is just slightly more advanced than your own level. 

What evidence is there for the input hypothesis?

So is Krashen right? Is comprehensible input important? Is there evidence for the input hypothesis?

There’s a lot of evidence to suggest that he is.

Evidence in native language learning

For one thing, we’ve known for a long time that children who grow up in richer linguistic environments develop greater linguistic competence in their own language. We also know that students who read more outside of school become better writers . Reading, more than any other activity , is also the best predictor of vocabulary development in adults. 

It’s not just reading. Researchers have also found that children who heard more stories in pre-school were judged to have better linguistic abilities at age 10 .

These findings are consistent with the input hypothesis because each of them suggests a relationship between exposure to language and language ability.

There also seems to be some experimental evidence that suggests it is the language input that is driving the improved language ability. In several studies , researchers have found evidence that reading is more effective than practice exercises for improving vocabulary and spelling. 

Together, these results suggest that it is exposure to language, and not language instruction, that results in better linguistic development.

Evidence in second language learning

This also seems to be the case in acquiring second languages. 

Several studies have found that those language learners with more exposure to language are more proficient in it. There’s also significant evidence that second language learners regularly acquire grammar rules that they have never been taught , demonstrating that language acquisition can happen without instruction. 

We’ve also seen that approaches to language teaching that rely on comprehensible input, such as the Natural Approach or Total Physical Response, can be successful. Similarly, students can effectively learn a language by learning other subjects in that language—indeed, these types of “ immersion ” programmes have very successful learning outcomes. 

These programmes don’t necessarily teach the language, but students acquire the language through substantial input, demonstrating that substantial learning occurs through exposure to the language, even in the absence of direct language instruction. 

The Clockwork Orange study

Perhaps one of the clearest examples of this was a study that used the book A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess. 

If you’re familiar with the book, you’ll know that it contains a number of words from a Russian slang dialect called nadsat. There are 241 nadsat words in the book, and they are each repeated throughout the book 15 times on average. 

The researchers asked study participants to read the book. While most books include a nadsat dictionary, the researchers provided versions of the books without a dictionary, so the subjects couldn’t look up the meaning of the words. After they finished the book, the subjects were given a vocabulary test on the meaning of 90 of those nadsat words.

Subject’s scores ranged from 50 to 96 percent correct on the test, with an average of 76 percent. This demonstrated that these readers had acquired the meaning of at least 45 foreign language words, simply by reading. 

This study demonstrates that significant learning can occur through comprehensible input, even without direct instruction.

Comprehensible input matters

Taken together, the research demonstrates that learning can and often does occur simply from language input—reading and listening. And, it shows that second language acquisition can happen even without teaching or explicit instruction. 

Key takeaway: lots of comprehensible input is how to acquire a language effectively. 

“Compelling” input is best

Krashen further suggests that input should not only be comprehensible but also compelling . That means it should be interesting to the learner . 

Krashen argues that, sure, exposure to comprehensible input is important. But if the learner isn’t interested in that input, they won’t pay attention to it. And attention is an essential component of the learning process. 

Krashen says ,

“To make sure that language acquirers pay attention to the input, it should be interesting. But interest may be not enough for optimal language acquisition. It may be the case that input needs to be not just interesting but compelling.”

Compelling input, he says, is input that is so interesting, you forget it’s in another language.

He gives several examples of this: students who were startled by their improvement in English after they found reading material in English they really enjoyed and became avid readers; or, students who were not interested in learning Mandarin, but who made vast improvements in it after they found stories that they liked to read in Mandarin. 

I’ve written on this myself about Brazilian video gamers making massive progress in English , not because they were trying to learn English, but because they loved playing video games, and those happened to be in English. I’ve argued playing video games is one very effective way to learn a language precisely because it offers lots of comprehensible—and compelling—input. 

Krashen argues that these activities that you find so interesting that you want to keep doing them—even if they’re challenging—are how you can get the input you need to really acquire a language. He says ,

“An important conjecture is that listening to or reading compelling stories, watching compelling movies and having conversations with truly fascinating people is not simply another route, another option. It is possible that compelling input is not just optimal: It may be the only way we truly acquire language.”

This is the entire thesis behind Leonardo English and the English Learning for Curious Minds podcast. It was to provide something compelling and interesting for English learners to listen to. Most traditional listening activities aren’t only boring, they simply don’t work very well. 

What if, we thought, we could create podcasts that English learners actually wanted to listen to ?

What about output?

Okay great, comprehensible input is very important to learning a language. That means lots of listening and reading . 

But what about output? Aren't speaking and writing important, too?

There actually is a comprehensible output hypothesis , proposed by another linguist named Merrill Swain . She argues that some language learning occurs when a learner produces output and notices a gap in their language ability ( How do I say that word again?) . They may then change their output approach, and in so doing, develop their language ability.

Swain acknowledges that this cannot explain all language acquisition , but it may explain some language acquisition.

Krashen disagrees and provides several responses. Three of his arguments are:

• That output is relatively rare in language learning. Language learners do not speak and write nearly as much as they listen or read.
• He provides evidence that some individuals achieve significant language acquisition without much output .
• There is a lack of direct evidence supporting this hypothesis.

He concludes, 

“Given the consistent evidence for comprehensible input, and the failure of other means of developing language competence, providing more comprehensible input seems to be a more reasonable strategy than increasing output [for language learning].”

What does it all mean? 

Researchers seem to agree that speaking and writing help language acquisition. Krashen, himself, acknowledges the utility of writing for improving language development.

But it also seems to be clear that speaking—by itself—is not an effective way to learn a language. We probably need both, but we especially need input.

What does this mean for you—the English learner?

It means a few things:

• Make sure you give yourself lots of input. Read lots and listen lots.
• Make sure your input is appropriate for your level—it should be “comprehensible”. Aim for materials that you can already understand about 70% to 90%. 
• Include output activities ( speaking and writing), but focus on them a bit less than input activities.

Here is some more specific advice for you at various levels of English ability.

The beginner level

If you are a beginner, aim for exposing yourself to lots of input. Find easy reading activities and listening activities you can understand. 

• Choose short listening activities that are easy enough for you.
• Read simple English texts , and read a lot.
• Language apps may be useful at this level to you to build your vocabulary of basic words.
• Feel free to use translation tools like Google Translate . 
• Put a lower priority on speaking and conversation. While these are useful, they may not be as useful as listening or reading. However, speaking activities that provide lots of input, like shadowing , may be especially useful.
• Put a lower priority on focused grammar study. Look up grammar rules when you think it will be useful to you, but don’t spend too much time on this. Most of the important grammar should come intuitively with enough input.

The intermediate level

Intermediate learners are best served by consuming as much comprehensible input as possible. Use native English texts, but modify them so they are accessible for you. Part of that should include engaging in conversation. 

• Do lots of listening activities. English Podcasts are ideal for this , especially those that come with transcripts and key vocabulary to help make it more accessible. English Learning for Curious Minds was created for learners at exactly this level.
• Do lots of reading activities. Read in English every day if you can. The more reading, the better. But, read things you like so that you continue even when it feels challenging. 
• Engage in speaking activities and, if you can, find a conversation partner . Conversation provides lots of input and gives you very useful speaking practice.
• Do writing activities, too. These will help you get better at writing and using language.
• Take time to study grammar rules that you notice you don’t really understand, but do not make this a large focus.

The advanced level

At this level, you should consume native texts. Continue to find texts that are challenging for you, but not too difficult. Consume texts in a variety of genres.

• Listen widely. Listen to lots of different kinds of audios in English.
• Read widely. Continue to read things you’re interested in, but also search out things that are maybe a bit outside your comfort zone.
• Speak regularly. Try to seek out new people to speak with .
• Write when you like. Unless you’re specifically aiming to improve your writing , you can make this a lower priority.
• Don’t actively study grammar, but look up grammar rules if you’re not sure. But remember, you don’t have to follow every grammar rule —native speakers certainly don’t!

The take-away: focus on comprehensible input in English that you enjoy

This article was more scientific than you might have been expecting. But, while sifting through the specifics of the Input Hypothesis is a bit complicated, the takeaway is actually quite simple:

• We learn language through an unconscious process that happens when we’re exposed to it. 
• We’ll learn language the fastest when we’re given lots of language input at a level that we can understand. 
• And, we’re more likely to give ourselves lots of input when we like that input—when we’re listening to or reading material that is interesting to us. 

These days, there are lots of people on the Internet trying to convince you to take English lessons . Sure, language lessons may be appropriate for some people . But I am a language teacher, and I can tell you that not everyone should learn English in the classroom . 

You don’t need English lessons or tutoring. You can learn English on your own.

And your English learning programme doesn’t have to be complicated.

If you do just this one thing, you’ll see improvement in your English ability: make sure that you listen to English and read in it . 

Anderson, R. C., Wilson, P. T., & Fielding, L. G. (1988). Growth in reading and how children spend their time outside of school . Reading Research Quarterly, 23 (3), 285-303.

Chomsky, C. (1972). Stages in language development and reading exposure. Harvard Educational Review, 42 (1), 1-33.

Cook, V., & Newson, M. (2014). Chomsky's universal grammar . John Wiley & Sons.

Edwards, H., Wesche, M., Krashen, S., Clement, R., & Kruidenier, B. (1984). Second-language acquisition through subject-matter learning: A study of sheltered psychology classes at the University of Ottawa . Canadian Modern Language Review, 41 (2), 268-282.

Ellis, R., Tanaka, Y., & Yamazaki, A. (1994). Classroom interaction, comprehension, and the acquisition of L2 word meanings. Language learning, 44 (3), 449-491.

Greaney, V. (1980). Factors related to amount and type of leisure time reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 15 (3), 337-357.

Hafiz, F. M., & Tudor, I. (1989). Extensive reading and the development of language skills . ELT Journal, 43 (1), 4-13.

Hammond, R. M. (1988). Fossilization in second language acquisition: some experimental data from the second language classroom . Lenguas Modernas, 15, 105-113.

Hauptman, P. C., Wesche, M. B., & Ready, D. (1988). Second‐language acquisition through subject‐matter learning: A follow‐up study at the University of Ottawa . Language Learning, 38 (3), 433-475.

Krashen, S. (1998). Comprehensible output? System, 26 (2), 175-182.

Krashen, S. (2003). Explorations in Language Acquisition and Use . Heinemann.

Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition . Pergamon Press Inc

Krashen, S. (2011). The compelling (not just interesting) input hypothesis. The English Connection, 15 (3), 1.

Krashen, S. (1994). The input hypothesis and its rivals. Implicit and Explicit Learning of Languages (pp.45-77). Academic Press.

Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications . Longman.

Krashen, S. D. (2004). The power of reading: Insights from the research. ABC-CLIO.

Krashen, S. (1989). We acquire vocabulary and spelling by reading: Additional evidence for the input hypothesis. The Modern Language Journal, 73 (4), 440-464.

Krashen, S. D. (1984). Writing, research, theory, and applications. Pergamon.

Krashen, S. D., & Terrell, T. D. (1983). The natural approach: Language acquisition in the classroom . The Alemany Press.

Lafayette, R. C., & Buscaglia, M. (1985). Students learn language via a civilization course—A comparison of second language classroom environments. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7 (3), 323-342.

Nagy, W. E., Herman, P. A., & Anderson, R. C. (1985). Learning words from context . Reading Research Quarterly, 20 (2), 233-253.

Saragi, T., Nation, I. S. P., & Meister, G. F. (1978). Vocabulary learning and reading . System, 6 (2), 72-78.

Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In: Gass, S., Madden, C. (Eds.). Input in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 235-256). Newbury House.

Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning . Applied Linguistics, 16 (3), 371-391. 

Wells, G. (1986). The meaning makers: Children learning language and using language to learn . Heinemann Educational Books Inc.

You might also like

Any Language You Want by Fabio Cerpelloni

What Is the Pareto Principle and How Can You Use It to Learn English More Effectively?

The Best Podcasts To Prepare For IELTS [2022]

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

The Input Hypothesis: Definition and Criticism

January 22, 2018, 9:00 am

Stephen Krashen is a linguist and educator who proposed the Monitor Model, a theory of second language acquisition, in Principles and practice in second language acquisition as published in 1982. According to the Monitor Model, five hypotheses account for the acquisition of a second language:

• Acquisition-learning hypothesis
• Natural order hypothesis
• Monitor hypothesis
• Input hypothesis
• Affective filter hypothesis

However, despite the popularity and influence of the Monitor Model, the five hypotheses are not without criticism. The following sections offer a description of the fourth hypothesis of the theory, the input hypothesis, as well as the major criticism by other linguistics and educators surrounding the hypothesis.

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 understanding—with understanding defined as understanding of meaning rather than understanding of form—of 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 acquisition-learning 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.

Gass, Susan M. & Larry Selinker. 2008. Second language acquisition: An introductory course , 3rd edn. New York: Routledge. Krashen, Stephen D. 1982. Principles and practice in second language acquisition . Oxford: Pergamon. http://www.sdkrashen.com/Principles_and_Practice/Principles_and_Practice.pdf. Swain, Merrill. 1993. The output hypothesis: Just speaking and writing aren’t enough. The Canadian Modern Language Review 50(1). 158-164. Zafar, Manmay. 2009. Monitoring the ‘monitor’: A critique of Krashen’s five hypotheses. Dhaka University Journal of Linguistics 2(4). 139-146.

input hypothesis language acquisition language learning monitor model

The Monitor Hypothesis: Definition and Criticism

The Affective Filter Hypothesis: Definition and Criticism

Humanities Technology

Input hypothesis.

By Benjamin Niedzielski on January 14, 2020

The idea that language learners need exposure to the language (or “input”) to make progress in the target language is neither surprising nor new.  What is surprising is what the best type of input might be.

Linguist Stephen Krashen (a UCLA graduate) has written about this in his “Input Hypothesis”. Krashen supports an i+1 input approach for second language learners, meaning the best input is only one level above the learner’s level to maximize comprehension . This allows students to make use of context to understand unknown words or phrases, as native speakers do.  

Krashen’s hypothesis is not accepted by everyone (see Zafar 2009 and Liu 2015 ), as it is difficult or impossible to test. In addition, it is unclear what exactly i+1 input looks like, as it varies from case to case. Still, the general idea is attractive even if the details are disputed.

Most modern language classes that I have taken across the United States have followed the Input Hypothesis (at least partially). Classes teach grammar and vocabulary step by step. Listening and reading activities contain mostly words that are already known. This lets students focus on new concepts without being overwhelmed, and build on what they have mastered.

However, no two students are at the same level in a language. Some will have more exposure outside of the classroom. Others may have competencies in a related language that puts them above their peers (knowing French helps learn Italian for instance). In larger classes, providing i+1 input to each student individually may be impossible to achieve.

Technology, however, can allow teachers and students to bridge this gap. For many languages, there are large amounts of “input” at different levels available online. An instructor can find (or create) sites at different levels and ask students to choose something to read or listen to for a certain amount of time, allowing students to find their own i+1 input from an approved list. Instructors can guide students by saying that what students choose must contain new words but be understandable without a dictionary.

Examples of these kind of resources are NHK News Web Easy or Wasabi’s Fairy Tales and Short Stories with Easy Japanese , with reading practice at different levels. One of my personal favorites was a German class where we used iPods to find and listen to German music or podcasts, such as like Deutsche Welle’s Langsam gesprochene Nachrichten (Slowly Spoken News), that we students liked and could easily understand.

Activities such as these allow students the flexibility to seek out their own i+1 input in an instructor curated fashion.  They get more practice with a language outside of the classroom, and can find materials that meet their own needs and interests. 

Whether or not the Input Hypothesis is correct, giving students these opportunities is a great way to engage them effectively with a language and culture.

Image: language-2345801_1920.jpg . Image is used under the Pixabay License .( https://pixabay.com/photos/language-learning-books-education-2345801/ ) 

• Deutsche Welle. “Langsam gesprochene Nachrichten“. https://www.dw.com/de/21102019-langsam-gesprochene-nachrichten/a-50911528
• Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
• Krashen, S. (1985). The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. Harlow: Longman.
• NHK News Web Easy: https://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/easy/
• Liu 2015: http://jehdnet.com/journals/jehd/Vol_4_No_4_December_2015/16.pdf
• Teaching English. “Comprehensible Input”. https://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/article/comprehensible-input . Accessed Nov. 5, 2019.
• Wasabi’s Fairy Tales and Short Stories with Easy Japanese: https://www.wasabi-jpn.com/japanese-lessons/fairy-tales-and-short-stories-with-easy-japanese/
• Zafar 2009: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/39ee/7d69dae91b26dcffd84d718eb93f6d7795a4.pdf

Blog Categories

• Best Practices
• How To’s
• Instruction
• Opportunities

Recent Posts

• Job Openings for Humanities Graduate Students
• The New Faces of Humtech!
• RITC Call 2023-2024
• Small Bytes Workshops return for Spring!
• Humanities Technology Brief 002
• Contact Info
• Careers and Opportunities
• Project Overview
• Current Projects
• Past Projects
• Project Support FAQ
• Scholarly Web Design Best Practices
• Computing Support
• Web Support
• Teaching Resources
• Submit a Ticket
• Education and Teaching Space (ENT)
• Experimental Learning Facility (ELF)
• Learning Lab @ Rolfe
• Mobile Laptop Cart
• Online Resource Classroom (ORC)
• Podcasting Cart
• Teaching Resource Center
• Upcoming Events
• DH Infrastructure Symposium
• Digital Humanities

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.

Stephen Krashen’s Five Hypotheses of Second Language Acquisition

Unsplash Monica Melton

Interested in learning more about linguistics and linguists ? Read this way.

What is linguistics? Linguistics is the scientific study of language that involves the analysis of language rules, language meaning, and language context. In other words, linguistics is the study of how a language is formed and how it works.

A person who studies linguistics is called a linguist . A linguist doesn't necessarily have to learn different languages because they’re more interested in learning the structures of languages. Noam Chomsky and Dr. Stephen Krashen are two of the world’s most famous linguists.

Dr. Stephen D. Krashen facilitated research in second-language acquisition , bilingual education, and in reading. He believes that language acquisition requires “meaningful interaction with the target language.”

Dr. Krashen also theorized that there are 5 hypotheses to second language acquisition , which have been very influential in the field of second language research and teaching

Let’s take a look at these hypotheses. Who knows, maybe you’ve applied one or all of them in your language learning journey!

1. Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis

The Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis states that there is a distinction between language acquisition and language learning. In language acquisition, the student acquires language unconsciously . This is similar to when a child picks up their first language. On the other hand, language learning happens when the student is consciously discovering and learning the rules and grammatical structures of the language.

2. Monitor Hypothesis

Monitor Hypothesis states that the learner is consciously learning the grammar rules and functions of a language rather than its meaning. This theory focuses more on the correctness of the language . To use the Monitor Hypothesis properly, three standards must be met:

• The acquirer must know the rules of the language.
• The acquirer must concentrate on the exact form of the language.
• The acquirer must set aside some time to review and apply the language rules in a conversation. Although this is a tricky one, because in regular conversations there’s hardly enough time to ensure correctness of the language.

3. Natural Order Hypothesis

Natural Order Hypothesis is based on the finding that language learners learn grammatical structures in a fixed and universal way . There is a sense of predictability to this kind of learning, which is similar to how a speaker learns their first language.

4. Input Hypothesis

Input Hypothesis places more emphasis on the acquisition of the second language. This theory is more concerned about how the language is acquired rather than learned.

Moreover, the Input Hypothesis states that the learner naturally develops language as soon as the student receives interesting and fun information .

5. Affective Filter Hypothesis

In Affective Filter, language acquisition can be affected by emotional factors. If the affective filter is higher, then the student is less likely to learn the language. Therefore, the learning environment for the student must be positive and stress-free so that the student is open for input.

Language acquisition is a subconscious process. Usually, language acquirers are aware that they’re using the language for communication but are unaware that they are acquiring the language.

Language acquirers also are unaware of the rules of the language they are acquiring. Instead, language acquirers feel a sense of correctness, when the sentence sounds and feels right. Strange right? But it is also quite fascinating.

Acquiring a language is a tedious process. It can seem more like a chore, a game of should I learn today or should I just do something else? Sigh

But Dr. Krashen’s language acquisition theories might be onto something, don’t you think? Learning a language should be fun and in some way it should happen naturally. Try to engage in meaningful interactions like reading exciting stories and relevant news articles, even talking with friends and family in a different language. Indulge in interesting and easy to understand language activities, and by then you might already have slowly started acquiring your target language!

Related Posts

“saluton” and other useful esperanto phrases, learn english with “high school musical” and 9 other disney movies, meet the royal families from around the world, subscribe to our newsletter.