时间：2022-09-20 08:06:08
【Abstract】Gass （1997） once said that the concept of input is the single most important concept of second language acquisition. It is trivial to point out that no individual can learn a second language without input of some sort. And humans acquire language in only one way C by understanding messages， or by receiving “comprehensible input”， which is proved to be extremely important to the second language acquisition. Stephen Krashen’s input hypothesis theory can appear ‘seductive’ to teachers of languages， in that they identify a seemingly clear way forward for language acquisition in the classroom. （Mark Payne， 2011）
【Key words】comprehensible input； role； second language acquisition
1. Introduction
It has been proposed that we acquire language when we understand what we hear and what we read. Krashen’s Input Hypothesis Theory picked up the concept of “comprehensible input” to us. He once said， in order to acquire， two conditions are necessary. The first is comprehensible （or even better， comprehended） input containing i+1， structures a bit beyond the acquirer’s current level， and second， a low or weak affective filter to allow the input ‘in’. From what he said， we notice that the comprehensible input is a key point to the acquisition of the second language.
This paper is set out as follows. In the next section， Section 2， I discuss Krashen’s input hypothesis and theory of ‘i + 1’， as presented by him. In Section 3， I talk about Krashen’s notion of ‘i + 1’ into the second language teaching practice through ‘comprehensible input’. In Section 4， the limitations and questions are discussed. And the final section is the conclusion of the whole paper.
Before embarking upon the rest of this paper， I just want to say something about Stephen Krashen and his theories in general. Krashen would appear to be a significant figure with a certain impact in the world of linguistics， as judged by measures such as his name recognition amongst colleagues and students， and his many publications and citation count. He has a certain resonance with a generation of school practitioners in England. And his theories have attracted some quite strident articles. （Mark Payne， 2011） In this paper， I would like to focus on the particular relevance of one aspect of his theory.
2. Krashen’s Input Hypothesis Theory
Krashen’s Input Hypothesis is central to all acquisition. 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 second language acquisition takes place. So， the Input hypothesis is only concerned with ‘acquisition’， not ‘learning’. Krashen put forward that learners advance their language learning gradually by receiving “comprehensible input”. He defined comprehensible input as “i+1”： i represents learners’ current stage of knowledge， the next stage is a i+1. By providing comprehensible input which is a bit higher than the learners’ current level， the learners’ LAD will be activated and contribute to acquisition. （戴炜栋，何兆熊，2002：168） According to this 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. 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’. 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. （Ricardo Schütz， 2007）
According to Krashen， acquisition takes place， when we understand the input-language that contains ‘structure’ that is ‘a little beyond’ where we currently are. The idea is to go for ‘meaning’ over ‘structure’ which， as Krashen points out， may be counter-intuitive i.e. normal practice may see structures taught first and then applied. （Mark Payne， 2011） According to Krashen’s second stage of the input hypothesis， ‘We acquire by understanding language that contains structure a bit beyond our current level of competence （i + 1）.’ （Krashen， 1987： 21）.
In order for language acquisition to take place， Krashen posits that the teacher uses ‘comprehensible input’ to facilitate language acquisition. He also refers to ‘comprehended’ input. And if the pupil is at a level that we shall call ‘i’， then the aim is for the teacher to raise the level of his/her use of the language to ensure that the pupil is receiving input a bit above ‘i’ and hence pushing up acquisition to the next level ‘+1’. This， then， is where the term ‘i + 1’ stems from： ‘. . . an acquirer can “move” from a stage i （where i is the acquirer’s level of competence） to a stage i + 1 （where i + 1 is the stage immediately following i along some natural order） by understanding language containing i + 1’ （Krashen & Terrell， 1983： 32）. Krashen argues that， to meet the requirements of acquisition by ‘i + 1’ input， the message needs to be understood and， as long as there is enough of the language being inputted， i + 1 will ‘automatically be provided’ （Mark Payne， 2011）.
3. Comprehensible input in foreign language teaching
There are some characteristics of input comprehensible： The words refer to the immediate environment； the vocabulary and structures are simple； there is a lot of repetition； acting or gestures are used； to illustrate meanings and attention is given to the meaning of what is said and not to the form.
Victoria Rodrigo and Stephen Krashen once did a research. They examined the impact of two different approaches based on comprehensible input at the intermediate level for students of Spanish as a foreign language at the university-level. One approach focused exclusively on meaningful reading， combining self-selected and assigned reading. The other approach included both reading and comprehensible aural input， and focused on reading and discussion of assigned texts. In neither approach was there any direct teaching of grammar， or error correction. At last， they found that comprehensible input-based approaches are more effective than traditional methodology. The results thus provide support for the efficacy of comprehensible-input based approaches， confirm that vocabulary and grammar can be acquired via comprehensible input， and are consistent with a three-stage approach to increasing reading proficiency. （Victoria Rodrigo， Stephen Krashen， Barry Gribbon， 2004）
Firstly， teachers should providing relevant background knowledge and content to students. That is one way teachers can ensure whether material is sufficiently comprehensible or not. In this way， teachers should try to explain ideas or concepts several times using slight variations in terminology and examples.
Secondly， appropriate context is crucial. One way for teachers to be sensitive to the language and cultural backgrounds of their English-language learners with learning difficulties is to provide instruction that draws on the experiences of their students. This does not mean that teachers have to be experts in their students’ cultures， but they do have to understand how effective it can be to connect students’ learning to their past experiences. Such understanding can often be gained by listening carefully and attentively to students.
What’s more， many other techniques can be used to increase the likelihood that students will understand what is being said to them， such as the use of consistent language， frequent use of visuals， and providing frequent opportunities for students to express their ideas. Comprehensible instruction requires that teachers carefully control their vocabulary and use graphic organizers， concrete objects， and gestures when possible to enhance understanding. It is important to limit the length and number of lecture-type presentations.
Besides what mentioned above， to continually modulate and clarify the language of instruction， teaching must also be highly interactive. Teachers must constantly involve students， ask many questions， and encourage students to express their ideas and thoughts in the new language. One strategy for motivating students is to give them opportunities to share their language， culture， country， and experiences. Opportunities to use language orally creates， in turn， opportunities to increase receptive language skills.
Last but not least， students need to be given more opportunities in the classroom to use oral language and to engage in cognitively challenging tasks. Cooperative learning and peer tutoring strategies have the potential to effectively and rapidly increase English-language development， particularly when working with highly decontextualized and cognitively challenged language concepts.
In a conclusion， it is important to realize that comprehensible input is as much an ideal as it is an achievable reality.
4. The limitation of Krashen’s Input Hypothesis Theory
Krashen’s input hypothesis received criticism in the following years. What bothers me is， in attempting to reify the input hypothesis， more questions are raised for me than answered. For example， it is not clear for teachers what ‘i’ means when 50 school pupils are sitting in front of them C is it 50 different levels of ‘i’， one for each pupil， or a collective ‘i’ that they are addressing？ And in terms of ‘+1’， is it 50 different ‘shades’ of ‘+1’ that the teachers are aiming to raise their levels to individually， or a collective level of ‘+1’？ The question is： What does ‘i + 1’ mean in practice in a real-life school teaching context？
Besides what mentioned above， a major limitation is that it does not account for the reality that is the teaching and learning of MFL in the busy secondary school of today. There are certain parameters within which teachers are teaching and children are learning， imposed by， for example， pressures of time and the need to fulfill the National Curriculum， syllabus and examination requirements. Therefore， realistic time for any long ‘chunks’ of ‘rough-tuned’ comprehensible input is hard to find. This means that any attempts by teachers to work with Krashen have to be ‘shoe-horned’ into a full and busy teaching reality. And to do so would require a complete reinvention of a school timetable and， in particular， how language lessons are ‘delivered’ to ensure exposure to large ‘chunks’ of comprehensible input. （Mark Payne， 2011）
And what’s more， according to Krashen， it would appear that teachers and native speakers are amongst the best people to help learners achieve comprehensible input； they would appear to be traditional linguistic role-models. If teachers （or native speakers） do not speak too quickly， or use overly complex language， and facilitate some pupil interaction and provide extra-linguistic scaffolding （mimes， clues etc.）， the likelihood of a learner achieving ‘i + 1’ is more likely. Although again， in principal， this would appear to make sense， how can teachers be sure that the language they are teaching their learners is ‘i + 1’ rather than， say， ‘i + 2’ or， ‘i?1’？ With no effective way of precisely measuring ‘i’， or indeed ‘i + 1’， the likelihood of constantly introducing ‘i + 1’ seems improbable. It is this that forms the basis of the research： How can we successfully introduce the concept of ‘i + 1’ into language lessons to facilitate language acquisition？
In practical terms， the attempt to teach according to the notion of ‘i + 1’ did not take place in a ‘vacuum’. There is so much happening in the languages classroom that needs to be considered and which cannot be factored out. For example， the pupils we worked with would all have had differing ‘silent periods’， that period during which language processing happens before ‘real language’ emerges （Krashen， 1987， pp. 26C27）， and needed more or less time to engage with the acquisition process. Their ‘affective filters’ may have operated in different ways and this could have varied lesson to lesson. Interlanguage may also have come into play， with some pupils’ emergent linguistic systems developing ahead of others. In attempting to provide comprehensible input by repeating items in French a number of times， one could argue that the teacher was starting to employ aspects of the audio-lingual method， ‘drilling’ the items.（ Mark Payne， 2011） All of this further underscores both the complexity behind the apparent simplicity of Krashen’s theories and the impossibility of conducting experimental research in the classroom.
5. Conclusion
Krashen’s input hypothesis theory gives the new idea to teachers’ activities， and plays a key role in the second language acquisition. According to this 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. In the teaching and learning activities， the comprehensible-input based approaches which discussed in this paper confirm that vocabulary and grammar can be acquired via comprehensible input. Through the “i+1” comprehensible input， the students can acquire the second language better and more quickly. And the theory also has many limitations in practice. But in general， I think， its advantages outperform its disadvantages.
References：
[1]Krashen，S.D.1987.Principles and practice in second language acquisition[M].Hemel Hempstead：Prentice-Hall International.
[2]Krashen，S.D.& Terrell，T.D.1983.The natural approach.Language acquisition in the classroom[M].Oxford：Pergamon Press Ltd.
[3]Mark Payne，2011.Exploring Stephen Krashen’s ‘i + 1’ acquisition model in the classroom[J].Linguistics and Education 22（2011）419C429.
作者简介：龚梦南（1989.11-），女，河南信阳人，研究生学历，硕士学位，助教，研究方向英文语言文学。