sidedlypreoccupiedComments on Input Hypothesis, Interaction Hypothesis and Output Hypothesis

Comments on Input Hypothesis,Interaction Hypothesis and Output Hypothesis1 Input Hypothesis

In Input Hypothesis,Krashen claimed that exposure to comprehensible input wasnecessary for SLL to take place.To make it specific, suppose that a L2 learner’scurrent language level is i then the L2 acquisition automatically takes place when aleaner understands the input containing grammatical forms that are at i+1,which is alittle more advanced than the current level of the leaner’s interlanguage. In general,what Krashen stresses are the comprehensibility of input and the natural acquisition oflanguage.But, a great number of scholars has pointed out the problems existing inInput Hypothesis. Firstly, it does not distinguish input and interaction ignoring thefunction that interaction displays in L2 acquisition. Secondly, this hypothesis isdifficult to prove and it takes the process that language acquisition device modifieslearners’ interlanguage system for granted.What is more, there is no clear definitionand explanation of the state i+1,and whether the i+1 formula can apply to all aspectsof language including vocabulary and phonology as well as syntax remains unknown.2 Interaction Hypothesis

As the Input Hypothesis had been doubted by more and more scholars,MichaelLong put forward Interaction Hypothesis, which was a further supplement orextension of the Input Hypothesis in the field of SLA.Unlike the Input Hypothesisdeals with one-way communication, Interaction Hypothesis follows theinput-interaction-acquisition model,which is two-way communication. But it doesrecognize the significance of comprehensible input.Long held that the effectivenessof comprehensible input could be largely increased when language learners have tonegotiate for meaning. That is, interactional modification can make input morecomprehensible. The earlier studies were criticized for being too one-sidedlypreoccupied with functional aspects of interaction and for neglecting linguistictheories.To further his study,Long introduced the notion of negative evidence whichcan help learners notice the gap in their interlanguage and the notion of selectiveattention for the sake of clarifying the process by which input becomes intake. In

Long’s view, interaction functions when learners relate input, inner learningmechanism and output together by selective attention.Although the new versionbecomes more complete and objective, it still has limitations.

Firstly,almost all interactionist research is carried out in western or Anglophoneeducational setting and more cross-cultural studies will be needed to make the resultsmore convincing. Secondly, negotiation for meaning is only a small part of thelearners’all interactional activities,but Long’s Interaction Hypothesis is based on thissingle part,which makes the theory less universal.Actually,people only admit thatinteractional modifications can result in increased comprehension but whetherincreased comprehension can lead to increased acquisition or not remains in doubt.Besides, interactionist research pays more attention to interactional modifications,recasts and other processes in communication through which learners focus onmeaning thus neglecting the specific linguistic forms.Consequently,a coherent targetlanguage grammar study cannot be guaranteed.

What is more, individual differences are not taken into consideration.Interaction Hypothesis tries to describe a satisfactory environment for learners whereSLA can easily take place during interaction,but, learners’ ability of negotiating formeaning and their intention for negotiating are apparently different.Age,motivation,personality, language proficiency and other factors can influence their interactionalmodifications.For instance,negotiations for meaning fit learners at middle level bestas beginners cannot negotiate effectively while higher learners are apt to focus on theopinions and explanations instead of comprehension.Thus,more specific research isneeded.

3Output Hypothesis

Questioning Krashen’s Input Hypothesis and Long’s Interaction Hypothesis,Swain put forward Output Hypothesis which extent the acquisition mode to“comprehensible input---interaction---output”pattern. She believed that output is notmerely a matter of practice, but had much to do with the development ofinterlanguage. That is, the output of language not only helps L2 learners increase

fluency but also pushes L2 learners to be aware of the gap between his interlanguageand target language which provides enough opportunities for them to introspect andanalyze the problems existing in their interlanguage so that they can practice L2correctly.However,whether output or output modification has an effect on SLLremains unknown as there is still a severe lack ofdata to demonstrate it.

4 Conclusions

To conclude, Input Hypothesis, interaction Hypothesis and Output Hypothesis allmake contributions in the field of SLA as they have explained the process of languageacquisition to some degree.However, they cannot explain all aspects in SLA. Tofurther the studies, the process that how language is internalized needs to becons idered.

5 Suggestions for Foreign Language Teaching

1 Providing prop er input

The main sources of input in the classroom are teachers’ talk.Therefore, anEnglish teacher must try as much as possible to make his or her talk proper toguarantee the quality of input as it can affect learners’performance in classroom and,hence, their learning.Creating an environment that enables learners to use English asmuch as possible is also of great importance.The teacher must make sure that inputfor students is comprehensible as well as native like.

2 Focusing on interaction

Long’s emphasis on interactional modifications makes sense.The teacher shouldnot regard students as passive recipients.Therefore,more attention should be paid tothe use of the target language through interaction with others. In the teacher-studentsmode of interaction, the teacher must take advantage of the negative evidence thatstudents make to enable them to be aware of the gap between their interlanguage andtarget language so that they can make progress.When organizing group activities, theteacher must make sure that the members in the same group should be students withdifferent language proficiency so that interactional modifications could take place.Recasts of students also need to be considered as they can provide the increased

saliency of the new form,which is most helpful in catching the attention of students,and thus making the L2 form available for processing and internalization.