A Critical Review of Krashen s Input Hypothesis Three Major Arguments.pdf

Journal of Education and Human Development
December 2015, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 139-146
ISSN: 2334-296X (Print), 2334-2978 (Online)
Copyright © The Author(s). All Rights Reserved.
Published by American Research Institute for Policy Development
DOI: 10.15640/jehd.v4n4a16
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.15640/jehd.v4n4a16
A Critical Review of Krashen’s Input Hypothesis: Three Major Arguments
Dayan Liu1
Abstract
Second language acquisition (SLA) theories can be grouped into linguistic, psychological and sociocultural
theories. Krashen’s Monitor Model is seen as an innatist theory within the linguistic group. This paper
critically reviews the Input Hypothesis, one of the five hypotheses of Krashen’s Monitor Model. It examines
three major arguments over the hypothesis, namely, the vagueness of the construct, the simplification of
input, and the overclaims that he has made about the hypothesis.
Keywords: Input Hypothesis, Monitor Model, Comprehensible input, second language acquisition (SLA)
1. Introduction
Stephen Krashen, a pioneer in the field of second language acquisition (SLA), has made substantial
contributions to the understanding of language learning process, whose ideas have long been “a source of ideas for
research in second language acquisition” (Lightbown & Spada, 2006, p.38). He should also be given credit for
fostering a transition in teaching methodology, from previous rule-focused approaches (e.g. grammar-translation
method and audiolingualism) to meaning-focused ones, particularly communicative language teaching (CLT), which is
now the most widely accepted approach (Lightbown & Spada, 2006). In spite of the acclaim he has received,
Krashen’s theory is considered to be “[O]ne of the most controversial theoretical perspectives in SLA in the last
quarter of the twentieth century” (Brown, 2000, p.277). His Input Hypothesis in particular, which Krashen (1985, p.1)
himself claims to be “the central part of an overall theory of second language acquisition that consists of five
hypotheses”, i.e. his Monitor Model, has been hotly debated and criticised. Given so many controversies over this
construct, it is of particular interest to the author and will be critically reviewed in this paper.
This study first gives an overview of Krashen’s Monitor Model within the framework of overall SLA research.
It then critically reviews the Input Hypothesis, examining three major arguments, namely, the vagueness of the
construct, the simplification of input and the overclaims that he has made about the hypothesis.
2. Theoretical background
2.1 General SLA theories
Though Ellis (2010) points to its meanings both as an established academic discipline and as the object of
study in that discipline, SLA is generally understood to be a field of study in parallel with first language (L1)
acquisition. In this sense, SLA research “focuses on the developing knowledge and use of a language by children and
adults who already know at least one other language” (Spada & Lightbown, 2010, p.108). More broadly, Brown (2000:
271) sees it as “a subset of general human learning” and arrays the elements that should be included in a theory of
SLA:
1 Chongqing Jiaotong University , School of Foreign Languages, No.66, Xuefu Road, Nan’an District, Chongqing, China.
lucyldy2008@ hotmail.com

140 Journal of Education and Human Development, Vol. 4(4), December 2015
[SLA] … involves cognitive variations, is closely related to one’s personality type, is interwoven with second
culture learning, and involves interference, the creation of new linguistic systems, and the learning of discourse and
communicative functions of language. (Brown, 2000, p.271)
Even more sophisticated is a taxonomy proposed by Yorio (1976), picturing a multitude of variables to be
investigated in an SLA theory (Brown, 2000). To put it succinctly, a general SLA theory needs to take into account
“language acquisition by learners with a variety of characteristics in a variety of contexts” (Lightbown & Spada, 2006,
p.33). The following are some of the endeavours to explain SLA common to a variety of learners and contexts. With
slight variation, SLA theories can be grouped into three categories: linguistic (e.g. innatist models), psychological (e.g.
behaviourist and cognitive models) and sociocultural (e.g. social constructivist models) theories (Lightbown & Spada,
2006; Spada & Lightbown, 2010; Brown, 2000).
Linguistic theories base language acquisition on innate knowledge of principles embedded in the human mind
and common to all languages (Spada & Lightbown, 2010). Krashen’s (1982) Monitor Model is seen as an innatist
theory and the second language (L2) application of Chomsky’s (1968) universal grammar (UG) ((Brown, 2000;
Lightbown & Spada, 2006). It was developed in the 1970s when the behaviourism-based language teaching
methodology had drawn a lot of criticism (Lightbown & Spada, 2006, p.36). Psychological theories hold that it is the
general cognitive mechanisms, rather than any specialised module, that function in language learning process as in
other types of learning and information processing (Spada & Lightbown, 2010). This category embraces
behaviourism, cognitive psychology, connectionism, processability theory, interactionist perspectives (ibid.). The
cognitivist models are of primal importance, including McLaughlin’s attention-processing model and other implicit or
explicit models (Brown, 2000). Sociocultural theories place SLA in a larger social context, assuming “an intimate
relationship between culture and mind” and the social nature of all learning, including language learning (Spada &
Lightbown, 2010, p.114). A representative of social constructivist model is Long’s (1983) Interaction Hypothesis.
2.2 Krashen’s Monitor Model
An SLA theory, according to Brown (2000, p.274), “is really an interrelated set of hypotheses and/or claims
about how people become proficient in a second language”. Krashen’s (1985) Monitor Model is such a theory, which
consists of five hypotheses:
1) The acquisition-learning hypothesis, in which a dichotomy is drawn between acquisition and learning, the former
being a subconscious way of developing L2 ability, the same as children acquiring their L1, whereas the latter a
conscious way to know about language;
2) The natural order hypothesis, in which rules of language are acquired in a predictable order, which might be
different from the order followed in class instruction;
3) The monitor hypothesis, the essence of which is that the ability to produce L2 utterances derives from the
learner’s acquired competence (subconscious knowledge) while learning (conscious knowledge), simply as a Monitor,
helps him make corrections or change output;
4) The input hypothesis, which states that language is acquired by receiving “comprehensible input” slightly
above one’s current level of competence (i+1);
5) The affective filter hypothesis, in which the affective filter, like a mental block, can control the access of
comprehensible input to the Language Acquisition Device (LAD) for acquisition.
2.3 Controversies over the Monitor Model
Krashen’s Monitor Model has been severely criticised on lots of grounds by L2 researchers and theorists,
psychologists and linguists alike (see Gregg, 1984; White, 1987; McLaughlin, 1987; Swain & Lapkin 1995). Gregg
(1984) voiced some of the harshest criticisms, using very strong wording:
We have seen that each of Krashen’s five hypotheses is marked by serious flaws: undefined or ill-defined
terms, unmotivated constructs, lack of empirical content and thus of falsifiability, lack of explanatory power. (Gregg,
1984, p.94)
The attack on Krashen’s theory is mainly directed to the following aspects:

Dayan Liu 141
1) E xcessive claims
Brown (2000) thinks that Krashen’s theory of SLA is oversimplified and the claims he made are overstated.
For instance, Krashen and Terrell (1983) claimed that his Natural Approach was the first to base a language teaching
methodology on an SLA theory, which was criticised by McLaughlin (1987: 58) for exhibiting a “tendency to make
broad and sweeping claims for his theory”, and such claims “would be disputed by most researchers in the field
today”.
2) An absence of evidence
Another criticism leveled at all of Krashen’s hypotheses is an absence of evidence. McLaughlin (1978) is said
to be “one of the first to raise the question of whether the five hypotheses could be tested by empirical research”
(Lightbown & Spada, 2006, p.38). Furthermore, the evidence Krashen gives to support his theory is largely dismissed
by McLaughlin (1987, p.36), as he puts it, “What Krashen does is not provide ‘evidence’ in any real sense of the term,
but simply argue that certain phenomena can be viewed from the perspective of his theory”.
3) Invalid theory
Some researchers question the validity of Krashen’s Monitor Model as a theory. McLaughlin (1987) measures
his model against four criteria for evaluating a theory, such as definitional precision and explanatory power, etc., but
disappointingly comes to the conclusion that “Krashen’s theory fails at every juncture”. This view is echoed by Gregg
(1984, p.94), who asserts that his theory is not “a coherent theory” and it even would be “inappropriate to apply the
word ‘theory’ to it”.
McLaughlin (1987, p.57) also notes other “unfortunate tendencies” in Krashen’s theoretical formulation: to
mold assumptions to suit his purposes (Gregg, 1984); to bypass counter-evidence or place it in footnotes (Takala,
1984), which is particularly disturbing because in that case the counter-evidence might be neglected by the reader. Of
the five hypotheses in the Monitor Model, the Input Hypothesis is the focus of this study, as Krashen (1985, p.1)
asserts that it is “the central part” of his Monitor Model.
3. The Input Hypothesis
In the Input Hypothesis, Krashen (1985) claims that “comprehensible input” can lead to acquisition, the
process of which is explained in the following:
We progress along the natural order (hypothesis 2) by understanding input that contains structures at our
next ‘stage’  structures that are a bit beyond our current level of competence. (We move from i, our current level, to
i+1, the next level along the natural order, by understanding input containing i+1; ….) (Krashen, 1985, p.2)
According to Krashen (1985, p.2), the unknown structures are acquired with the help of contextual information. The
hypothesis has two convictions: first, speech would emerge, rather than being taught, as a result of acquisition through
comprehensible input with competence successfully built; second, grammar is automatically acquired if
comprehensible input is received and there is enough of it.
Like other hypotheses in the Monitor Model, the Input Hypothesis suffers similar criticisms. McLaughlin
(1987, p.43), for instance, faults it with an absence of evidence, saying that there are only “assertions that have only
tangential relevance to the central claims of the theory”. In view of this and other defects, Gregg (1984, p.90) goes so
far as to advocate rejecting the Input Hypothesis, saying that it has “no more explanatory power than Molière’s
doctor’s explanation that opium makes one sleepy by virtue of its dormitive powers”. Among the multitudinous
arguments about this hypothesis, three major ones will be examined in the following to inspect the construct more
closely.
4. Three major arguments about the Input Hypothesis
4.1 Vagueness of the Input Hypothesis
4.1.1 Comprehensible input
The Input Hypothesis postulates that language is acquired in “only one way”, that is, “by understanding
messages, or by receiving ‘comprehensible input’” (Krashen, 1985, p.2).

The problem here is, as McLaughlin (1987) contends, that Krashen never defined the concept
“comprehensible input” precisely, giving rise to the untestability of the hypothesis. The ambiguity is chiefly
manifested in what the formulation i+1 signifies and what “comprehensible input” means.
In Krashen’s account, the formulation i+1 is not given an exact definition, and is thus interpreted somewhat
differently. Even Krashen himself is not consistent with its signification. He first states that i refers to “our current
level of competence” and i+1 means “the next level along the natural order” (Krashen, 1985, p.2). He seems to be
talking about one’s “level of competence”. He then limits this type of competence to grammar alone and interprets
i+1 as “structures at our next ‘stage’” (ibid.). Despite this inconsistency, Krashen is more inclined to a general level of
competence in grammar than any specific structure, and is hence criticised by White (1987, p.97) for failing to give
“specific syntactic illustrations”.
Some scholars tend to interpret this formulation in a more concrete matter. McLaughlin (1987, p.37), for
instance, considers “i+1 structures” as “unknown structures”. By contrast, Lightbown and Spada (2006, p.37) try to
give a much broader interpretation, in which i signifies “the level of language already acquired” and +1 is “a metaphor
for language (words, grammatical forms, aspects of pronunciation) that is just a step beyond that level”. This
understanding transcends the scope of grammar to cover such aspects as words and pronunciation.
Not only the formulation i+1 but also the concept of “comprehensible input” is given no clear definition.
The word “comprehensible”, which literally means “able to be understood” or “intelligible”, is again interpreted
differently. When talking about “causative variables” in SLA, Krashen (1982, 33) lays down two necessary conditions
for language acquisition, the first of which is “comprehensible (or even better, comprehended) input containing
i+1…”. In this explanation, two different concepts “comprehensible” and “comprehended” are juxtaposed, with the
former concerned with a possibility or the process while the latter a reality or the result of the action. The latter is
favoured by Swain (2000, p.98), whose perception of the Input Hypothesis is that “the cause of second language
acquisition is input that is understood by the learner”.
4.1.2 The next level (i+1)
The vagueness of the hypothesis is also shown in how to decide “the next level along the natural order”
(Krashen, 1985) or those “unknown structures” (McLaughlin, 1987). The problem lies in that the so-called “natural
order” is not determined yet, which, in McLaughlin’s (1987, p.56) words, is “a non-existent theory of acquisition
sequences”. That being the case, it is difficult, if not possible, for the Input Hypothesis to pinpoint what specific
structure to be acquired first and what next “along the natural order”.
Consequently, others understand the next level in similar vague ways. McLaughlin (1987, p.56) considers the
“right” structures at the next level (i+1) to be the ones “just beyond the syntactic complexity of those” in the learner’s
current grammar, whereas in Lightbown and Spada’s (2006, p.37) interpretation, they are “just a step beyond that
level”. Brown (2000, p.278) takes a middle position, maintaining that “input should neither be so far beyond their
reach that they are overwhelmed (this might be, say, i+2), nor so close to their current stage that they are not
challenged at all (i+0)”. Given the indeterminacy of the sequences, those attempts at describing the next level (i+1)
will practically lead us nowhere.
4.1.3 The acquisition process
What is equally obscure in the Input Hypothesis is the acquisition process. Krashen (1982) formulates the
question of acquisition this way:
1) [g]iven the correctness of the natural order hypothesis, how do we move from one stage to another?
2) If an acquirer is at “stage 4”, how can he progress to “stage 5”?
3) More generally, how do we move from stage i, where i represents current competence, to i+1, the next level?
(Krashen, 1982, pp.20-21)
Krashen (1982, p.21) answers the question by simply claiming that “a necessary (but not sufficient) condition
to move from stage i to stage i+1 is that the acquirer understand input that contains i+1…”. It is arguable that
understanding input alone is enough for acquisition. Evidently, more needs to be known about the transition from
mere comprehension to successful acquisition. It seems that Krashen only sets the condition for the move but does
not come up with a “mechanism for moving along any given ‘stream of progress’”, thus the claim is no explanation of
acquisition in this sense (Gregg, 1984, p.87).

Dayan Liu 143
Both White (1987) and McLaughlin (1987) notice the same uncertainty: it is unclear how new input interacts
with the learner’s current level of grammar to cause change and how he could advance to the next stage, apart from
merely recognising the insufficiency of the current one.
4.2 The simplification of input
One controversy closely related to comprehensible input is about Krashen’s (1985) postulation that input can
be made comprehensible by simplifying it. What he cites as examples of comprehensible input are caretaker speech
(CS), sometimes referred to as “motherese” or “baby talk” (Gregg, 1984), teacher talk and foreigner talk. Initially
obtaining evidence from L1 acquisition, Krashen (1985) holds that caretaker speech, the language especially directed
at children who are acquiring their L1 and simplified somehow for communication, will help language acquisition.
White (1987, p.101) contends that he is “misguided” in making such a claim of those forms of simplified input.
Krashen’s position can be disputed on two grounds: first, in L1 acquisition, CS does not always mean simplified
speech; second, “comprehensible” input does not necessarily mean “simplified” or “caretaker speech”.
4.2.1 Is caretaker speech simplified speech?
Caretaker speech (CS) is reported to have the following characteristics: 1) it is simplified for communication;
2) it is roughly-tuned to the child’s level; 3) it concerns “here and now”, i.e. the child’s immediate environment
(Gregg, 1984, p.89). Krashen (1985) uses CS as evidence for the Input Hypothesis mainly because it is usually
simplified, which he sees as one way of making the input comprehensible. It is arguable, however, that CS should be
simpler in syntactic structures than adult speech (AS). Newport et al. (1977), using precise percentage data, have
shown that CS is not syntactically simpler than AS in such aspects as canonical SVO declaratives, clauses with deletion
or movement of elements, questions and imperatives (Gregg, 1984, p.89).
Cross-cultural studies also question the notion of simplified CS. Heath (1983) studied black children in
working-class families and found that without being particularly addressed to, they learned to speak by imitating what
they heard in the surroundings, which was far beyond their current level (McLaughlin, 1987). Similar results were
found in Ochs’ (1982) research with children in Western Samoa (ibid.). The cross-cultural evidence reveals that in
quite a few cultures or societies, caretakers (e.g. parents) do not always address young children in simpler codes
(McLaughlin, 1987).
What further weakens Krashen’s argument is the counter-evidence provided by Gleitman et al. (1984), who,
by re-analysing the data presented by Newport et al. (1977), find that contrarily complex maternal speech can assist the
child’s language development (White, 1987, p.102). Gregg (1984, p.89) therefore concludes that it is “a pretty messy
way” to characterise CS by its syntactic simplicity and to use it as evidence for the Input Hypothesis.
4.2.2 Does “comprehensible” input mean “simplified” input or “caretaker speech”?
Literally, “comprehensible” does not equal “structural simplicity” but has more to do with the learner’s
knowledge framework or cognitive ability. Even some complex structures could be comprehensible if they match the
learner’s knowledge framework. The argument here, however, concerns whether simplified input or CS could assist
acquisition.
CS has variations, such as “foreigner talk”, the adjustments made by native speakers when addressing non-
native speakers, or “teacher talk”, the language used by teachers in classroom management (Krashen, 1985, p.8).
Krashen (ibid.) attaches the same value to those variations as to CS, saying that “… the Input Hypothesis predicts the
efficacy of these simple codes in the same way it does for caretaker speech”. Foreigner talk, for example, needs to be
“roughly-tuned to the level of the non-native speaker” for the input to be comprehensible (Krashen, 1985, p.9).
Both White (1987) and Gregg (1984) disapprove of this type of input and question the reasoning. White
(1987) uses many examples of deprived input or non-target forms to highlight the dangers of simplified input. She
argues that since simple sentences do not contain many complex language properties, if learners are addressed only
this way, they are deprived of certain crucial input. Besides, not all teachers or native-speakers will modify their
speech. To cite some extreme cases, there are “bad teachers and insensitive or inept native-speakers” (Gregg, 1984,
p.97). Even if native-speakers do so, that does not mean merely to simplify the speech.

Their ways of modification when addressing non-native speakers practically are no different from those in
ordinary conversations, where there are ambiguities or breakdowns in communication. Usually, some conversational
strategies, such as repetition or relexicalisation (McCarthy & Carter, 1997), not necessarily simplification, are employed
to make the input “comprehensible” and keep the conversation going. To use CS or its variations as evidence for
comprehensible input or the Input Hypothesis is hence not convincing enough.
4.3 Overclaims of the Input Hypothesis
Krashen’s (1985, p.1) claim that the Monitor Model is “an overall theory” of SLA is described by McLaughlin
(1987, p.19) as “[T]he most ambitious theory of the second-language learning process”. As “the central part” of his
“overall theory”, Krashen’s Input Hypothesis has been over-emphasised too. It is hailed by Krashen (1980, p.168) to
be “the single most important concept” in SLA today for its attempt at “[answer] the critical question of how we
acquire language” (cited in McLaughlin, 1987, p.36). There is an exceedingly strong claim that comprehensible input is
the causal factor in SLA and, in Krashen’s (1985, p.4) words, “[A]ll other factors thought to encourage or cause
second-language acquisition work only when they contribute to comprehensible input and/or a low affective filter”.
This assertion, thought to be invalid (McLaughlin, 1987; Brown, 2000), can be argued against both internally and
externally.
4.3.1 Internal factors
As regards the Input Hypothesis itself, comprehensible input is not the single causal factor in acquisition. It is
argued that the acquisition of structures can happen even without input. In other words, internal factors or internally-
driven systems can also foster grammatical change and lead to the acquisition of certain grammatical structures. White
(1987, p.98) cites the example of the passive from Berwick and Weinberg (1984), who have shown that the child can
acquire the passive form in his L1, simply based on his existing syntactic or lexical knowledge, with no need for any
contextual or extra-linguistic information. Considering the very similar mechanisms underlying L1 and L2 acquisition,
White (1987, p.98) points to the possibility that “there may be more than one potential route for grammar change”.
Apart from the system-internal factors, some structures can be acquired without being “comprehensible”. For
instance, formulaic expressions, often used as single items or unanalyzed units, contribute significantly to native
speakers’ fluency (Nation & Meara, 2010). Initially, the child L2 learner learns to use them automatically for
communicative purposes, but he does not understand fully or accurately the meanings of those expressions either as a
whole or individually, nor the internal structures. To the child learner, this type of input is not strictly
“comprehensible input” by Krashen’s definition, since those expressions can only be said to be partly understood and
their grammatical formations are deemed far beyond the learner’s current level of competence (McLaughlin, 1987).
4.3.2 E xternal factors
SLA cannot be attributed to comprehensible input alone, in that 1) in the Monitor Model, comprehensible
input is conditioned by the affective filter; and 2) in the SLA framework, a lot of factors are needed for successful
acquisition.
In the Monitor Model, Krashen (1985, p.3) proposes the Affective Filter Hypothesis, in which the “affective
filter”, functioning as a mental block, can be “up” or “down” to block or allow comprehensible input to be received
by the learner. The filter is “up” when the learner lacks motivation or feels anxious while it is “down” when he
identifies himself with the target-language community with no concern for the possible failure in acquisition (ibid.).
Gregg (1984), however, argues strongly that the Affective Filter Hypothesis does not explain the growth and function
of such a filter, and there is no evidence to prove its existence.
In the SLA framework, the Input Hypothesis needs to be supplemented by other theories, such as the
interaction hypothesis and the output hypothesis. Some researchers endeavour to explain precisely how to make the
input comprehensible, which Krashen fails to do. Notably, Long (1983) proposes one way, i.e. through “modified
interaction” in his Interaction Hypothesis. Through an empirical study of conversations between native speakers and
non-native speakers, he describes three kinds of devices for the modification of interaction: strategies, tactics, and
both. Later, Long (1996) stresses corrective feedback and negotiation of meaning in interaction for language
acquisition (Lightbown & Spada, 2006, p.44).

Dayan Liu 145
Additionally, Swain (2000) gives prominence to output by presenting her comprehensible output hypothesis,
in which she identifies some benefits of output in language development, such as enabling deeper processing of
language, promoting “noticing” in the sense of recognising where the learner is unable to convey the right meaning at
the right time, and testing the learner’s language learning hypotheses by studying the errors made through production.
Aside from interaction and output, other factors are also relevant, such as those explained in noticing hypothesis
(Schmidt, 1990), input processing (Vanpatten & Cadierno, 1993), etc. All things considered, the exposure to
comprehensible input is indeed essential but not sufficient to explain overall SLA.
5. Krashen’s contributions
In addition to the three major arguments, Krashen is also criticised on other grounds, such as his objection to
explicit grammar instruction (Brown, 2000), over-generalisation of rules (White, 1987), inconsistency in the use of
terms (Gregg, 1984). However, despite his theoretical deficiencies, even his harshest critics cannot deny that some of
his assumptions are correct, as White (1987, p.96) is quoted as saying, “there is something essentially correct about the
input hypothesis”.
One important contribution is how his ideas influence language teaching methodology. This is not in the
sense of their intuitive appeal to L2 teachers, which, as McLaughlin (1987, p.19) unjustly comments, is “due in large
measure to his ability to package his ideas in a way that makes them readily understandable to practitioners”. The real
contribution of his theory, the Input Hypothesis in particular, lies in giving prominence to input as well as learners’
exposure to input (White, 1987); underscoring meaningful communication in the classroom, with the emphasis on the
message rather than form (Brown, 2000); promoting a shift from the previous rule- or grammar-based approaches to
CLT (McLaughlin, 1987).
Other assumptions that are agreed upon include: the need to provide students with a proper challenge (i+1)
(Brown, 2000); the degree to which acquisition depends on the learner (White, 1987); the role of affective factors
(McLaughlin, 1987; Gregg, 1984; Brown, 2000); the importance of sequences of acquisition (McLaughlin, 1987;
Larsen-Freeman & Long, 1991).
Generally, Krashen should be credited with integrating research findings from a variety of sources and with
formulating “an extensive and detailed theory” (McLaughlin, 1987, p.58). What Gregg (1984, p.94) terms “serious
flaws” found in Krashen’s theory can be viewed positively in that they spur other researchers to inspect Krashen’s
theory more closely and, most importantly, in the process of falsification, more insights and alternative theories will be
proposed, built on Krashen’s “bold, if brash, insights”, thus giving overall SLA research a great boost (Brown, 2000,
p.281).
6. Conclusion
It cannot be denied that Krashen’s Input Hypothesis, along with his Monitor Model as a whole, is flawed, but
it still offers some inspiring insights that both researchers and teachers can draw on. Well aware of its defects, some
scholars try to modify the hypothesis. Besides trying to materialise the Input Hypothesis with specific grammatical
structures, White (1987, p.108) suggests tightening it up and giving “a far more precise characterization of the possible
interactions between learner and input”. McLaughlin (1987, p. 51) argues for “[A] more balanced view of the second-
language learning process”, which embraces internal and external factors, comprehension and production in an equal
manner.
SLA is a field so complex that no single theory or factor can account for it. Consequently, despite Krashen’s
(1982, p.2) claim that those hypotheses are “a coherent theory” and the criticism directed for that by Gregg (1984), it
is preferable not to see his ideas as a unified and integrated theory but one of the many models dealing with certain
aspects of SLA, which, like other claims, hypotheses or theories, even competing ones, makes its due contribution to
SLA research in general.

References
Brown, H. D. (2000). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching (4th ed.). White Plains, NY: Addison Wesley Longman,
Inc.
Ellis, R. (2010). ‘Second language acquisition, teacher education and language pedagogy’, Language Teaching, 43(2): 182
– 201.
Gregg, K. R. (1984). ‘Krashen’s monitor and Occam’s razor’, Applied Linguistics, 5: 79-100.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Krashen, S. (1985). The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. Harlow: Longman.
Krashen, S. (1986) ‘Bilingual education and second language acquisition theory’, in California State Department of
Education (ed.) Schooling and Language Minority Students: A Theoretical Framework . Sacramento, CA: Department
of Education.
Larsen-Freeman, D. & Long, M. H. (1991). An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition Research. New York: Longman.
Lightbown, P. M. & Spada, N. (2006). Howlanguages are learned (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Long, M. H. (1983). ‘Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input’,
Applied Linguistics, 4(2): 126-41.
McCarthy, M. J. & Carter, R. (1997). ‘Written and spoken vocabulary’, in Schmitt, N. and McCarthy, M. (eds.)
V ocabulary: Description, Acquisition and Pedagogy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McLaughlin, B. (1987). Theories of second-language learning. London: Edward Arnold.
Nation, P. & Meara, P. (2010). ‘Vocabulary’, in Schmitt, N. (ed.) An Introduction to Applied Linguistics (2nd edition).
Abingdon: Routledge
Schmidt, R. (1990). ‘The role of consciousness in second language learning’, Applied Linguistics, 11(1): 17-46.
Spada, N. & Lightbown, P. M. (2010). ‘Second Language Acquisition’, in Schmitt, N. (ed.) An Introduction to Applied
Linguistics (2nd ed.). Abingdon: Routledge.
Swain, M. (2000). ‘The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue’, in
Lantolf, J.P. (ed.) Sociocultural Theoryand Second Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
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.
Vanpatten, B. & Cadierno, T. (1993). ‘Input Processing and Second Language Acquisition: A Role for Instruction’,
The Modern Language Journal, 77(1): 45-57.
White, L. (1987). ‘Against comprehensible input: The input hypothesis and the development of second language
competence’, Applied Linguistics, 8: 95-110.

A Critical Review of Krashen s Input Hypothesis Three Major Arguments.pdf

More Related Content

Similar to A Critical Review of Krashen s Input Hypothesis Three Major Arguments.pdf

More from Erica Thompson

Recently uploaded

A Critical Review of Krashen s Input Hypothesis Three Major Arguments.pdf