THE ROLE OF INPUT

IN SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

Approved :

Paper/Project Advisor

Date: 4/30/09
THE ROLE OF INPUT

IN SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

__________________

A Seminar Paper Research

Presented to

the Graduate Faculty

University of Wisconsin-Platteville

__________________

In Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirement for the Degree

Master of Science

in

Education

__________________

by

Ning Ning
(Nina)

2009
Abstract

The role of input is a major issue in second language (L2) research. Input

is a prerequisite for L2 learning. The term “input” is taken from information

processing and is deemed as oral/written data to which learners are exposed.

According to Krashen’s (1985) Input Hypothesis, learners must have access to

comprehensible input, and the input should go slightly beyond their current

competence in order for acquisition to take place.

The problem presented in this paper was to discover the role of input in

second language acquisition (SLA). Another objective of this paper was to

identify whether comprehensible input is sufficient in SLA. A brief review of

literature on the definition of input and Krashen’s Input Hypothesis in SLA

was conducted. A second review of literature relating to the insufficiency of

comprehensible input and the way that we provide input for acquisition was

conducted. Through a review of the literature, it becomes evident that input

plays an important role in SLA. The bulk of the SLA research stated that

comprehensible input was insufficient in SLA and that we should pay attention

to interaction and output as well as other communication aspects, in order to

better acquire a L2.

iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS

APPROVAL PAGE…………………………………………………..………...i
TITLE PAGE…………………………………………………………….……ii
ABSTRACT…………………………………………………………….…….iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS……………………………………………………..iv

CHAPTER Page

I. INTRODUCTION……………………………….........…….………1
Statement of the Problem
Purpose of the Research
Significance of the Problem
Assumptions
Delimitations of the Research
Method of Approach
Definition of Terms

[Link] OF LITERATURE……………..………………….……..6
Definition of input
The input hypothesis of Krashen’s theory of SLA
The insufficiency of comprehensible input
Providing Input for Acquisition

III. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS…….…………18

IV. REFERENCES……………………………………………….…..20

iv
CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Similar to people's attempts to account for first language acquisition, it

has been accepted that SLA is a complex phenomenon that cannot be

described in all aspects by any existing model today. What is essential in

understanding SLA is to understand how various research areas and theories

relate to one another.

While the behaviorism model emphasized the role of imitation and

positive reinforcement, a "nurture" position, the mentalists or the innativists

shifted to a "nature" position by stressing that human beings, equipped

innately with language acquisition device, are capable of language learning

provided with adequate input (Retrieved from [Link]

/2-2/Ch7/[Link]).

Therefore, it can be seen that currently the models and theories of SLA

are mainly divided on the point: to what extent SLA is a function of innateness.

Those who adopt an innateness position believe that a learner's structural

knowledge allows him or her to construct the grammar of the target language

based on limited data. The opposite position holds that language acquisition

and social interaction are mutually dependent and that language acquisition

cannot be understood if detached from the context where it occurs.

1
Among different theories and models, Krashen's Input Hypothesis is

worth mentioning. Krashen assumed that there were two independent means

or routes of second language learning acquisition and learning. Acquisition is a

process similar to the way children acquire their first language. It is a

subconscious process without minute learning of grammatical rules. Learners

are hardly aware of their learning but they are using the language to

communicate. People refer it to implicit learning, informal learning, or natural

learning, etc. Learning through another route is a conscious learning of the

second language knowledge by learning the rules and talking about them. In

addition to this distinction, Krashen put forward that learners advance their

language learning gradually by receiving "comprehensible input." He defined

“comprehensible input” as "i +l": i represents learners' current state of

knowledge. The next stage is a i+1. By providing comprehensible input that is

bit higher than the learners' current level, the learners' LAD will be activated

and contribute to acquisition. In Krashen's view the input hypothesis is central

to all acquisition and has implications for the classroom ( Krashen, 1988).

Krashen's input hypothesis received criticism later because he mistook "input"

as "intake" (the actual share of input that has been internalized by the learner).

In additions, some researchers said that comprehensible input is insufficient in

SLA that comprehensible input does not always result in language acquisition.

Today, the debate has not come to an end. While more research and

anecdotal evidence is available, the sides are still divided, with each side

1
2

apparently having enough testimony to support its argument. No doubt, the

debate will continue until more longitudinal studies provide definitive answers

either for or against the role of input in SLA.

Statement of the Problem

The problem presented in this paper was to identify whether or not input

is essential and sufficient in second language acquisition. Anecdotal evidence

and societal perception seems to indicate that it does; however, what does

research say? In addition, another objective was to discover the way we

provide input for acquisition.

Purpose of the Research

The perception by linguists and researchers is that input is an

indispensable component in SLA, and anecdotal evidence seems to agree. The

purpose of this research paper was to determine whether fact-based research,

short-term studies, and longitudinal research support this conclusion. In

addition, another purpose was to discover whether comprehensible input is

sufficient for acquisition.

Significance of the Problem

Currently, input is often seen as a prerequisite for L2 learning. Supporters

use anecdotal evidence to base their claims, while research seems to indicate
3

that comprehensible input is insufficient for acquisition. Some of the research

even says that comprehensible input does not always result in language

acquisition.

Assumptions

For the purpose of this paper, it was assumed that all research and review

of the current literature was accurately reported. It is also assumed that the

literature will make recommendations on how best to use the research

available.

Delimitations of the Research

The research will be conducted over 70 days in and through the

Karrmann Library at the University of Wisconsin-Platteville. The primary

searches will be conducted via the Internet through EBSCO host with ERIC

and Academic Search Elite as the primary sources. Key search topics included

“input, ” “comprehensible input, ”and “second language acquisition. ”

Method of Approach

A brief review of literature on the definition of input and Krashen’s Input

Hypothesis in SLA will be conducted. A second review of literature relating to

the insufficiency of comprehensible input and the way we provide input for

acquisition will also be conducted. The findings will be summarized and

4

recommendations made.

Definition of Terms

Input. The term input is taken from information processing and is deemed as

oral/written data to which learners are exposed.

Input Hypothesis: According to Stephen Krashen, the only way we can

acquire language is by receiving comprehensible input. That is, we have to

receive input that is just beyond our competence but not beyond our

understanding.

Acquisition. According to Krashen, the “acquired system” or “acquisition” is

the product of a subconscious process very similar to the process children

undergo when they acquire their first language. It requires meaningful

interaction in the target language - natural communication - in which speakers

are concentrated not in the form of their utterances, but in the communicative

act.
CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Definition of input

Input - Information processing

In information processing, input refers to either information received or

the process of receiving it:

In human-computer interaction, input is the information produced by

the user with the purpose of controlling the computer program. The

user interface determines what kinds of input the program accepts (e.g.,

control strings or text typed with keyboard and mouse clicks).

Input also comes from networks and storage devices such as disk

drives.

e.g., 1 + 2 = 3

1 and 2 are the inputs while 3 is the output.

---- Encyclopedia II, 2005

Input is an indispensable component in SLA. According to Ellis (1986),

input may be provided by interaction with native speakers in a natural setting

or by formal instruction. Input can be spoken or written, and it is the data that

6
7

learners use to determine the rules of the L2. Ellis, by defining input,

establishes two important distinctions in the field of SLA research. First, he

makes the traditional distinction between incidental and intentional acquisition,

frequently referred as acquisition versus learning (Krashen, 1981) or implicit

versus explicit learning (Bialystok, 1978; Ellis, 1990). When input is provided

by interaction in a natural setting, learners are concerned mainly with trying to

understand and to produce a message, although they can also acquire L2 rules

incidentally. Second, if learners focus on the language form itself, they acquire

the language intentionally. By considering input to be both spoken and written

data, Ellis considers both comprehension and production processes that may

occur in the learner in response to language input.

The Input Hypothesis of Krashen’s theory of SLA

Language acquisition does not require extensive use of conscious

grammatical rules, and does not require tedious drill.

Acquisition requires meaningful interactions in the target language -

natural communication - in which speakers are concerned not with the form of

their utterances but with the messages they are conveying and understanding.

The best methods are therefore those that supply 'comprehensible input'

in low anxiety situations, containing messages that students really want to

hear. These methods do not force early production in the second language, but

allow students to produce when they are 'ready', recognizing that improvement
8

comes from supplying communicative and comprehensible input, and not from

forcing and correcting production.

---- Stephen Krashen (1987, 1988)

Stephen Krashen (University of Southern California) is an expert in the

field of linguistics, specializing in the theories of language acquisition and

development. Krashen's widely known and well accepted theory of SLA has

had a large impact since the 1980s in all areas of second language research and

teaching.

Krashen's theory of second language acquisition consists of five main

hypotheses:

the Acquisition-Learning hypothesis,

the Monitor hypothesis,

the Natural Order hypothesis,

the Input hypothesis, and

the Affective Filter hypothesis.

The Input Hypothesis is the central part of the overall theory of SLA. It

claims that language can be acquired only by understanding contents, that is,

by receiving “comprehensible input.” It is Krashen's attempt to explain how

the learner acquires a second language. In other words, this hypothesis is

Krashen's explanation of how SLA takes place. Thus, the Input Hypothesis is

only concerned with “acquisition, ” not “learning.” (Krashen, 1988)

9

Krashen makes the following claims:

1). Learners’ progress along a natural order by understanding input

that contains structure a little bit beyond their current level of

competence.

2). Although comprehensible input is necessary for acquisition to

take place, it is not sufficient, because learners also need to be

disposed affectively to “let in” the input that they comprehend.

3). Input becomes comprehensible as a result of simplification and

with the help of contextual and extralinguistic clues.

4). Speaking is the result of acquisition, not its cause. If the learner

receives a sufficient amount of comprehensible input, speech will

“emerge” on its own. Learners’ production does not contribute

directly to acquisition.

5). If input is understood and there is enough of it, the necessary

grammar is provided automatically.

The input hypothesis answers the question of how a language acquirer

develops competency over time. It states that a language acquirer who is at

"level i" must receive comprehensible input that is at "level i+1." "We acquire,

in other words, only when we understand language that contains structure that

is 'a little beyond' where we are now." This understanding is possible due to

using the context of the language we are hearing or reading and our

knowledge of the world. ( Krashen, 1987)

10

However, instead of aiming to receive input that is exactly at our i+1

level, or instead of having a teacher aim to teach us grammatical structure that

is at our i+1 level, we should instead just focus on communication that is

understandable. If we do this, and if we get enough of that kind of input, then

we will, in effect, be receiving and thus acquiring out i+1. "Production ability

emerges. It is not taught directly." (Krashen, 1988)

Evidences for the input hypothesis can be found in the effectiveness of

caretaker speech from an adult to a child, of teacher-talk from a teacher to a

language student, and of foreigner-talk from a sympathetic conversation

partner to a language learner/acquirer. One result of this hypothesis is that

language students should be given a initial "silent period" where they are

building up acquired competence in a language before they begin to produce

it.

Whenever language acquirers try to produce language beyond what they

have acquired, they tend to use the rules they have already acquired from their

first language, thus allowing them to communicate but not really progress in

the second language.

The insufficiency of comprehensible input

In his input hypothesis, Krashen (1985) highlights the significant role that

comprehensible input plays in SLA. He argues that the success or failure of

11

acquisition relies on whether or not input is comprehensible to learners. The

Input Hypotheses, however, has also brought a considerable amount of

criticism. First, Rost (1990) claims that being able to understand the meaning

of input is not equal to the acquisition of it because one may still not know the

forms of sentences in a target language even though s/he successfully

comprehends messages. Secondly, Faerch and Kasper (1986) believe learners

pay very little attention to linguistic items when they use top-down processing

to reach comprehension. White (1987) holds a similar view, contending that

being able to comprehend input does not necessarily lead to acquisition;

however, acquisition occurs when learners fail to understand the meaning of

messages because the failure of comprehending input draws their attention to

unfamiliar linguistic items and hence results in acquisition.

The evidence of the insufficient comprehensible input in L2 learning can

be seen from the study of Swain (1991) and of Schmidt (1983). Swain (1991)

found that although immersion students of French achieved native-like

proficiency in terms of listening and reading comprehension, they failed to

reach native-like proficiency in production, which was shown in their

grammatical errors, e.g., verb tenses, prepositional usage, and gender making.

Hence, Swain (1991) concluded that although the immersion students of

French were exposed to L2 and received comprehensible input, their

productive skills “remain far from native-like” (p.98). Another evidence of the

insufficiency of comprehensible input in SLA comes from a case study

12

conducted by Schmidt (1983). Schmidt (1983) did a 5-year longitudinal case

study of Wes, an adult Japanese naturalistic learner of English in Honolulu,

who could use English to reach basic purposes, such as ordering food. Wes’

English knowledge in morphology, however, did not advance despite living in

an English-speaking place.

Besides the empirical evidence of the insufficiency of comprehensible

input in SLA, it has been argued that comprehensible input does not always

result in language acquisition because learners may understand meanings of

input without knowing forms (Long, 1996). According to Faech and Kasper

(1986), some input is used for comprehension, when it is used in immediate

communication, and as in this case, it is less likely to result in acquisition

because there is too little time for learners to pay attention to input (Gass &

Selinker, 2001). Furthermore, it is claimed that acquisition does not occur if

learners always use top-down models to process information because the use

of contextual clues or schematic knowledge do not induce learners to notice

their interlingua and to attend to linguistic items. In other words, only when

learners become aware of gaps between their interlingua and a target language

and when they consciously attend to input does language acquisition take

place (Shardwood S., 1986; Faech & Kasper, 1986).

In addition, input has to be assimilated into intake for acquisition to occur.

“Intake” is defined as “that part of input that the learner notices” (Schmidt,

1990, p.139). According to Schmidt (1990), noticing is an indispensable

13

condition in language acquisition. He argues, “if noticed, it becomes intake”

(p.139). Hence, “intake” eventually takes place if learners consciously notice

input. Schmidt’s view of noticing derives from his own Portuguese-learning

experience. Schmidt studied Portuguese in Brazil for five weeks while

spending time interacting with NSs of Portuguese. Schmidt compared the

recordings of his own speech to his diary and notes in order to find a link

between noticing and language output. However, the relationship between

input and output was insufficient to explain Schmidt’s production. What was

significant was the relationship between what Schmidt found in his diary and

the emergence of these forms in his speech as Schmidt (1990) noted:

… when we learned question words, we were told that there are

alternate short and long forms like a que and o que e que, quem or quem

e que. I have never heard the long forms, but today, just before we left

Cabo Frio, M said something to me that I didn’t catch right away. It

sounded like French que’est-ce que c’est [sic], only much abbreviated,

approximately [kekse], which must be (o)que(e)que(vo)ce…(p.140)

Schmidt continues to say, “He heard the input and processed it for

meaning from the beginning, but did not notice the form for five months”

(1990, p.141). Therefore, Schmidt concluded that noticing input consciously

results in the ability to produce it.

The evidence from the studies of Swain (1991), Schmidt (1983) also

argues that the use of top-down models in reaching comprehension seldom

14

leads to language acquisition. We learn that not all-comprehensible input ends

up in language acquisition because only understanding the general meaning of

input is insufficient for language acquisition to take place (Long, 1996; Faerch

and Kasper, 1986; Gass, 1997; Gass & Seliker, 2001). If one is to make

language acquisition occur, the conversion of input into intake is necessary in

L2 learning. Schmidt (1983) argues that learners need to notice input before

assimilating it into intake. Learners cannot simply have the ability to

understand a general meaning of input, but they also need the capacity to

analyze input syntactically and to produce comprehensible output. Because the

ability to analyze input syntactically and to produce comprehensible output

aids learners not only to convert input into intake but also to make them pay

attention to their gaps between the correct and incorrect use of a target

language, which eventually results in the acquisition of an L2.

Providing Input for Acquisition

Various research studies have been done that compare the amount of

language competence and the amount of exposure to the language either in

classroom-years or length of residence, the age of the language acquirer, and

the acculturation of the language acquirer. The results of these studies are

consistent with the acquisition hypotheses: the more comprehensible input one

receives in low-stress situations, the more language competence that one will

acquire.
15

Once it is realized that receiving comprehensible input is central to

acquiring a second language, questions are immediately raised concerning the

nature and sources of this type of input and the role of the second language

classroom (Reid, Retrieved from [Link]

[Link]).

To what extent is the second language classroom beneficial? Classrooms

help when they provide the comprehensible input that the acquirer should

receive. If acquirers have access to real world input, and if their current ability

allows them understand at least some of it, then the classroom is not nearly as

significant. An informal, immersion environment has the opportunity to

provide significant input; however, this input is not always comprehensible to

a beginner, and often for an adult beginner the classroom is a better place than

the real world to provide comprehensible input.

However, for the intermediate level student and above, living and

interacting in an environment where the language is spoken will likely prove

to be better for the student, especially considering the fact that a language

classroom will be unable to reflect the broad range of language use that a real

world experience provides. The classroom's goal is to prepare students to

understand the language used outside the classroom.

What role does speaking (output) play in SLA? It has no direct role.

Because language is acquired by comprehensible input, someone who is

16

unable to speak for physical reasons can still acquire the full ability to

understand language. However, speaking does indirectly help in two ways: 1)

speaking produces conversation, which produces comprehensible input, and 2)

your speaking allows native speakers to judge what level you are at and then

adjust their language downward to you, providing you with input that is more

easily understood.

What kind of input is optimal for acquisition? The best input is

comprehensible, which sometimes means that it needs to be slower and more

carefully articulated by using common vocabulary, less slang, and shorter

sentences. Optimal input is interesting and/or relevant and allows the acquirer

to focus on the meaning of the message and not on the form of the message.

Optimal input is not grammatically sequenced, and a grammatical syllabus

should not be used in the language classroom, in part because all students will

not be at exactly the same level and because each structure is often only

introduced once before moving on to something else. Finally, optimal input

must focus on quantity, although most language teachers have to date seriously

underestimated how much comprehensible input is actually needed for an

acquirer to progress.

In addition to receiving the correct kind of input, students should have

their affective filter kept low. This means that classroom stress should be

minimized and students "should not be put on the defensive." One result of
17

this is that students' errors should not be corrected. Students should be taught

how to gain more input from the outside world. This includes helping them to

acquire conversational competence, which is the means for managing

conversation.
CHAPTER 3

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Through a review of the literature, it becomes evident that input is an

indispensable component in SLA and that it is often seen as a prerequisite for

L2 learning.. It would seem that a bulk of research states that input is essential

but not sufficient for SLA. Clearly, studies that are more definitive need to be

done to better study this debate.

Arguably, input is an indispensable component in SLA. Krashen's Input

Hypothesis, as the central part of an overall theory of SLA, is worth

mentioning. It claims that language can be acquired only by understanding

contents, or by receiving “comprehensible input.” It is Krashen's attempt to

explain how the learner acquires a second language. In other words, this

hypothesis is Krashen's explanation of how SLA takes place. It highlights the

significant role comprehensible input plays in SLA.

Another consideration is that comprehensible input is insufficient in SLA.

The evidence of insufficient comprehensible input in L2 learning can be seen

from the study of Swain (1991) and of Schmidt (1983). In addition, it has been

argued that comprehensible input does not always result in language

acquisition because learners may understand meanings of input without

knowing forms (Long, 1996). Finally, input has to be assimilated into intake

for acquisition to occur.

18
19

Since various research studies have been done comparing the amount of

language competence and the amount of exposure to the language, we come to

know that we should choose the best input for acquisition. The optimal input is

interesting and/or relevant and allows the acquirer to focus on the meaning of

the message and not on the form of the message.

In addition to receiving the correct input, students should have their

affective filter kept low. Classroom stress should be minimized and students

"should not be put on the defensive." One result of this is that students' errors

should not be corrected. Students should be taught how to gain more input

from the outside world, including helping them to acquire conversational

competence, which is the means for managing conversation.

REFERENCES

Bialystock, E. (1978) A theoretical model of second language learning.

Language Learning 28. p. 69-84.

Ellis, R. (1986) Understanding second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Ellis, R. (1990) Instructed second language acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell.

21st Century Webster's International Encyclopedia 2 Vol. Trident Press

International. 2005.

Faech, C., & Kasper, G. (1986). The role of comprehension in second language

learning. Applied Linguistics. P. 257-274.

Gass, S. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah,

NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Gass, S. & Selinker, L. (2001). Second language acquisition: An introductory

course ( 2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

20
21

Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language

learning. Oxford: Pergamon.

Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis. London: Longman.

Krashen, S. (1987). Principles and Practice in Second Language

Acquisition. Prentice-Hall International.

Krashen, S. (1988). Second Language Acquisition and Second Language

Learning. Prentice-Hall International.

Long, M. H. (1983). Native speaker / non-native speaker conversation and the

negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4, 126-141.

Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language

acquisition. In T. Bhatia & W. Ritchie (Eds.), Handbook of second

language acquisition. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Reid W. A Summary of Stephen Krashen's "Principles and Practice in Second

Language Acquisition". from

[Link]
22

Rost, M. (1990). Listening in language learning. New York: Longman.

Sharwood S. M. (1986). Comprehension vs. acquisition: Two ways of

processing input. Applied Linguistics, 7, 239-256.

Schmidt, R. (1983). Interaction, acculturation, and the acquisition of

communicative competence: A case study of an adult. Sociolinguistics

and language acquisition. MA: Newbury House. p. 137-174.

Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning.

Applied Linguistics, 11, 129-158.

Second Language Acquisition. from [Link]

[Link].

Swain, M. (1991). French immersion and its offshoots: Getting two for one.

Foreign language acquisition research and the classroom. Lexington,

MA: D.C. Health. p. 91-103.

White, L. (1987). Against comprehensible input: the Input Hypothesis and the

development of second-language competence. Applied Linguistics,

23

p.95-110.