7(2),241-248,2006

The Input Hypothesis (Krashen, 1982, 1985)

An Evaluation of its Contributions to our Understanding of Second

language Acquisition Phenomena.

Barry Kavanagh 1)

Abstract

The Input Hypothesis is Krashen' s attempt to explain how the learner acquires a second language. The

hypothesis suggests that language learning is driven by the receptive skills rather than by the

productive ones. Krashen cites children who typically go through a silent period during which they absorb the language and then later begin to produce it. This hypothesis therefore maintains. that

increased input will result in more language acquisition and rejects the notion that increased output,

written or oral, results in a better acquirement of the language. It is the aim of this paper to evaluate

this controversial theory and its contributions to second language acquisition examining the

modifications and extensions made to it and how it has been met by critics.

(J. Aomori Univ. Health Welf. 7 (2): 241- 248 , 2006)

Key words : SLA (Second Language Acquisition), 1,1 (First language) L2 (second language),

Comprehensible Input

1 .INTRODUCTION

The late seventies saw Krashen put forward his ac-

count of second language acquisition (SLA) known as

the Monitor Model (1982,1985) and can be considered to

be the most influential of theories in the post Chomsky

period, leading McLaughlin (1987:19) to call it " The

most ambitious theory of the second - language learn-

ing process" . Almost twenty five years on the theory

still resonates in SLA circles and causes much academic

debate within the linguistic and teaching community.

Central to the Monitor Model is the Input Hypothesis,

Krashen' s stated favourite, and the fundamental part of

the overall theory. In brief Krashen states (1985:2) "The

input hypothesis claims that humans acquire language

in only one way - by understanding messages; or by re-

ceiving 'comprehensive input' ". The basic premise

seems lucid and intelligible but from the beginning the

Input Hypothesis and the model in which it is embedded

has attracted a lot of controversy.

It is the aim of this paper to evaluate the Input Hypothe-

sis and its contributions to our understanding of SLA

while taking note of the evidence put forward for it, how

it has been revised and extended, and how the critics

have portrayed the theory.

2 . THE MONITOR MODEL

The Input Hypothesis is one of four other hypotheses

which account for the monotor model. (Krashen,

1982,1985)

These can be summarized as follows:

The Acquisition / Learning Hypothesis

Learning is the conscious knowledge of a second lan-

guage, acquisition however is the unconscious process of 'picking up' the language. The distinction claims

that learning cannot lead to acquisition.

The Monitor Hypothesis

The only function learning has is to monitor or edit the

output of the learner.

The Natural Order Hypothesis

1 ) Division of Human Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, Aomori University of Health and Welfare

241

Learners of a second language acquire it in

mined grammatical order.

a predeter-

The Affective Filter Hypothesis

The psychological factors that prevent the learner from

acquiring the language even if comprehensible input is

at their disposal.

3. THE ACQUISITION LEARNING DIVIDE

Central to Krashen' s (1982,1985) theories is the notion

that second language acquisition can parallel the way

children learn their mother tongue. The hypothesis

claims that adults do not lose the ability to acquire lan-

guages the way that children do. He argues that there is a distinction between acquisition and learning, and it is

this dichotomy that lies at the heart of Krashen' s

theory.

Krashen developed his theories from a series of 'mor-

pheme order studies' conducted in the seventies that

looked at the notion that there exists a natural sequence

in the acquisition of second language grammar.

It was from this empirical evidence that Krashen devel-

oped his hypothesis. According to Krashen (1982,1985)

this metalinguistic knowledge or knowing about the lan-

guage cannot possibly lead to language acquisition.

However what has been acquired can be learned (like

native speakers learning the grammatical rules of their

own language). This controversial notion has attracted a

lot of debate. Cook (1993:53) illustrates his theory when

she says, "It is important to realize Krashen' s firm be-

lief that 'learnt knowledge can never be converted into '

acquired knowledge' , learning a rule for the past tense

consciously never allows one to develop an unconscious

ability to use the past tense in speech"

Hence the learned system of grammatical rules and

knowledge of the language can only act as an editor or

monitor making minor changes and polishing what the

acquired system has produced. This has implications

for the teaching of grammar which Krashen (1982:83)

considers to be " no longer the lead actor in the play"

but can be used limitedly as a monitor or for "language

appreciation" otherwise known as linguistics. This posi-

tion sees Krashen boldly turn his back on the cognitive

stance which suggests that conscious learning, in a

meaningful context can indeed be internalized and

subconscious.

4 . KRASHEN AND NATIVISM

Shannon (1994) suggests the Acquisition / Learning Hy-

pothesis can be seen to reveal Krashen' s nativist / in-nate position on SLA. Krashen draws on Ll theories of

acquisition as Cook (1993:58) suggests " makes the

Chomskyan language Acquisition device (LAD) a core

element in his model" . Krashen (1982) argues that SLA

parallels first language acquisition in that input is proc-

essed through the LAD, a mental capacity specifically

suited to language acquisition. He argues that input in

second language acquisition functions in the same way

that input does in a child' s acquisition of his or her first

language. This occurs during a critical period, this pe-

riod as Lenneberg (1967) suggests is prior to puberty

and that after this critical period the LAD device cannot

be activated.

Nevertheless as Lightbown and Spada (1999:36) claim "Ch

omsky has not made specific claims about the im-

plications of his theory for second language learning" However Krashen (1985:4) borrows from this to suggest

that when the language learner is in a rich language en-

vironment " the language 'mental organ' will func-

tion just as automatically as any other organ" . In this

respect acquisition will happen whether you like it or

not, while talking to your friends or even watching TV.

Krashen differs from Lenneberg (1967) however by sug-

gesting that the LAD is available to access throughout life, not just to the pre pubescent child, and is engaged

whenever a language is being acquired. However as

Shannon (1994) and Cook (1993) point out although the

chomskyan LAD is a core element in his model Krashen

himself does not explicitly develop it as Cook (1993:58) il-

lustrates " Krashen is concerned with the properties

of the input, rather than the processes of the mind" .

This paper will now examine these properties of input

and how they facilitate language acquisition.

5 . HOW IS LANGUAGE AQUIRED?

The input hypothesis attempts to answer what is per-

haps the most important question in our field, and

gives an answer that has a potential impact on all ar-

eas of language teaching: The important question is:

How do we acquire language?

Krashen: (1982:20)

242

Krashen (1982) argues that for SLA to occur learners

need to comprehend input that contains linguistic items

that are slightly beyond the learners present linguistic

competence. Krashen defines this as I +1. I refers to

the learners current level of proficiency and the level

that the student will go to next is defined as I + 1 but as

Cook (1993) argues the order in which the learner ac-

quires the language invokes Krashen' s idea of the Natu-ral Order Hypothesis. This states that students move to

the next level along the natural order. Krashen refers to

morpheme studies as done by Dulay and Burt (1973)

who found that there is an apparent common order of

acquisition for certain structures in L2 acquisition to re-

inforce his hypothesis.

This begs the question how do learners bridge the gap

from one level to the next (especially if forms are not

taught). Krashen states three factors that help in the un-

derstanding of 'comprehensible input' . Richards and

Rogers (2001:182) highlight these. "Clues based on the

situation and the context, extralinguistic information,

and knowledge of the world make comprehension possi-

ble" . Krashen suggests that speaking is the result of ac-

quisition and not the cause, it cannot be taught just as

grammar is not taught. Krashen (1982:21) argues to " 'understand' means that the acquirer is focused on the

meaning and not the form of the message" . Leading

him to assert that the input should not necessarily aim

at I +1 and suggests that when communication is suc-

cessful, and input is understood, then I +1 will be auto-

matically provided. The teacher does not teach the

next grammatical structure.

Clearly, the logical outcome of krashen' s position is that

there need not be any grammar teaching in the class-

room at all since learning cannot become acquisition.

The theory doesn' t allow for any form focused teach-

ing. Shannon (1994:10) clarifies this by suggesting "

the implication is that all formal learning environments

must be those that are language-rich and that they

should not centre on teaching about grammar or any

other aspect of language". This can have implications

for classroom practice as this paper will examine later.

6. HOW SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

FAILS

Comprehensible input is necessary for acquisition,

but is not sufficient. The acquirer needs to be 'open'

to the input. Krashen (1985:3)

Krashen (1982,1985) accepts that some learners who are

exposed to a variety of comprehensible input do not at-

tain levels of proficiency and attributes this to the affec-

tive filter. This 'psychological block' or filter has been

closely related to the theories of the LAD or `black

box' that Chomsky (1964) speaks of. Cook (1993:54) illus-

trates the process "Language input comes into the

mind, LAD processes it and produces an internal gram-

mar of the language"

However, whether or not this input is processed or not

is very much dependent on the learners psychological

states. When the filter is up Krashen (1985:3) states "

the acquirer may understand what he hears and reads,

but the input will not reach the LAD" According to

Krashen (1985) a student whose filter is up displays feel-

ings of anxiety, is unmotivated and suffers from low self

confidence. In contrast however a student with a low fil-

ter is more likely to acquire the language almost forget-

ting he is in the process of studying.

The crux of Krashen' s (1982,1985) views on SLA is that

once comprehensible input is understood and processed

by the learners internal mechanisms (done with a low fil-

ter) then acquisition has been a success and according

to Krashen (1982:33) " these are the true causes of sec-

ond language acquisition"

These are strong claims by Krashen and have been

prone to attack on theoretical and empirical terms. This

paper will now evaluate the evidence given by Krashen

(1982,1985) for his hypothesis and highlight the criticism

that it has attracted and how the hypothesis has been

extended by fellow linguists.

7 . KRASHEN' S EVIDENCE FOR THE INPUT

HYPOTHESIS

Krashen offers no direct evidence in support of the in-

put hypothesis.

Ellis (1990:101)

However there is a lot if indirect evidence that Krashen

uses to lend support to his hypothesis although

McLaughlin (1987:36) questions this "What Krashen

does is not provide 'evidence' in any real sense of the

term, but simply argues that certain phenomena can be

viewed from the perspective of his theory" Let us then

243

look at the `evidence' that Krashen claims for the input

hypothesis.

7 a. SIMPLIFIED CODES

Krashen (1982) suggests that the input hypothesis is

compatible with 'caretaker speech' . For Krashen care-

taker speech is not finely tuned, in other words it does

not strive for the next structure to be learned but in-

stead is roughly tuned. For caretakers Krashen states

(1982:23) "The input they provide for children includes I +1, but also includes many structures that have already

been acquired plus some that have not" . He concludes

(ibid:24) "With natural, roughly - tuned input, I + 1 will

occur and reoccur" . While the speech is simplified, it is

intended for communication, not language teaching and

is limited to 'here and now' , the child' s immediate envi-

ronment or the experiences the adult knows the child

has had.

Krashen (1982) argues that just as caretaker speech can

provide comprehensible input for the child, adult speak-

ers of second languages can also receive the kind of sim-

plified input that children get. Krashen (1985) puts forward the idea of 'foreigner talk' , the simplified lan-

guage we use when communicating with foreigners. Krashen equates this foreigner talk with teacher talk

within the classroom.

Running counter to these claims of caretaker speech

Lightbown and Spada (1999:24) state "In some societies,

adults do not engage in conversation or verbal play with

very young children. And yet these children achieve full

competence in the community language. Thus, it is diffi-

cult to judge the importance of these modifications

which some adults make in speech addressed to

children" Similarly McLaughlin (1987) shows evidence

from Heath (1983) that working class children whom

she studied were on the whole not getting simplified in-

put from family members. They instead waited until

they were conversationalists or information givers, and

they learned by imitating sounds around them. The lan-

guage they heard was said to be much higher than their

current level of competence, which is hardly simplified.

Krashen (1985:6) reacts to the above by suggesting such " data does not supply counter-evidence to the input

hypothesis". He suggests that it is not only simplified in-

put but also comprehensible input comprised of I +1 that leads to acquisition and that such evidence sup-

ports this. He emphasizes that the input hypothesis does not claim that all acquirers receive simplified input

but it does claim that they will get comprehensible in-

put which is essential for language acquisition. How-

ever these studies all involved L1 research and as Cook

(1993) maintains it is not relevant to SLA and requires L2 evidence to create a solid argument. Gregg (1984:87)

is equally damming in the assessment of this 'evidence'

as it "does not explain how the child (or the adult) goes

from understanding an utterance to 'acquiring' I + 1"

However some linguists observe that simplified input

can hinder rather than aid acquisition. Like foreigner

talk, teacher talk can comprise of shortened sentences,

grammatically incorrect utterances and overall simplifi-cation (Ellis 1985). This it is argued can be damaging to

the progression of the student. White (1987) states that

simplified input from native speakers can cause depriva-

tion, starving them of crucial input. However as Cook

(1996:61) suggests "There is no necessary cause-and-ef-

fect relationship between special speech and effective

learning - no indication that special speech helps learn-

ers rather than being simply a conventional register"

7 b. THE SILENT PERIOD

Continuing the theme of Krashen adopting other re-

search findings as 'evidence' supporting the input hy-

pothesis, Krashen (1982,1985) gives us the 'silent period' . This states that learners go through a silent period be-

fore they begin to produce the language, he gives exam-

ples of immigrants who are silent initially in their new environment only to produce when they have received

enough comprehensible input. Krashen (1985:9) illus-

trates "The child, during this time, is simply building up

competence by listening, via comprehensible input" .

Krashen suggests that adults and children in formal lan-

guage classes are usually not allowed a silent period (he

advocates not forcing production as in the natural ap-

proach) and that such forced production can be damag-ing.

Cook (1993) calls the silent period an intriguing observa-

tion and suggests that this initial silent period does not

necessary prove the build up of comprehensible input, it

could in fact be psychological. The child is embarrass-

ed, isolated and fearful of the new environment. Hakuta

(1974) as cited in Cook (1993) gives evidence of the child Uguisu who she claims started speaking as a result of

244

confidence rather that competence. It is arguable

whether this is a steady increase in comprehensible in-

put or simply a case of confidence. Krashen however

provides no direct evidence on how can it be tested em-

pirically. In practical teaching terms Krashen

(1982,1985) argues that methods that supply plenty of

comprehensible input have been shown to be more suc-

cessful than formal language teaching, for example TPR

(Total Practical Response) methods where students do not respond verbally for a lengthy period before produc-

tion is allowed. But Ellis (1990) again highlights the prob-

lems of Krashen' s own evidence as being non-existent.

Krashen provides no evidence to show that the meth-

ods he believes facilitative of acquisition provide more

comprehensible input than those he does not consider

effective. His argument in fact is circular.

Ellis (1990:127)

8. SPEAKING

According to Krashen (1982, 1985) the need for speaking

plays a minor role in acquiring a language. This runs

counter to the general consensus that it does. Most

teachers would claim that they need output from their

students in order to assess their understanding, monitor

their progress and teach. McLaughlin (1987:50) argues, "It i

s questionable, however, whether comprehensible

input alone can account for how learners correct and

adjust their hypotheses about the language. Unless

learners try out the language, they are unlikely to get

the kind of feedback they need to analyze the structure

of the language". Krashen (1985:36) himself acknowl-

edges the importance of this hypothesis testing but ar-

gues that it "does not require production" .

However Krashen (1982) is of the opinion that speaking

can only help indirectly in language acquisition by 1.)

Speaking produces conversation which leads to compre-

hensible input and 2.) Speaking allows native speakers

to judge your level and then speak accordingly. Surely

then, the classroom is not entirely teacher dominated.

9 . EXTENSTIONS TO COMPREHENSIBLE

INPUT

In an extension rather than rebuttal of the Input Hy-

pothesis Swain (1985) developed her output hypothesis.

Swain (1985) investigated immersion programmes in

Canada of which all instruction of all subjects were

taught in French to native English speakers. The chil-

dren of these programmes were exposed to huge

amounts of comprehensible input. Nunan (1999:45) how-

ever points out that " their second language develop-

ment is not as advanced as it should be according to the

comprehensible input hypothesis" . Swain (1985) found

that within these programmes the teachers talked a

great deal whilst the students said very little. Accord-

ing to the input hypothesis these would seem like the

perfect conditions for language acquisition. But appar-

ently not.

Based on her findings Swain (1985) formulated the out-

put hypothesis suggesting that student output was im-

portant for acquisition. According to the theory the learner should be forced to produce comprehensible lan-

guage which leads the student to focus upon form, and to formulate their own hypothesis about the language.

Swain (1985) refers to this as 'pushed language use' .

Evidence for this comes from Swain et al; 1989 as cited

in Ellis 1990, where a study of 175 grade 6 immersion

students learning French as an L2 in Canada showed

that although they had a native like level in discourse

competence the opposite could be said for their gram-

mar and sociolinguistic traits despite exposure to huge

amounts of comprehensible input. Swain lays the blame

for these inaccuracies not due to comprehensible input

but because they lacked the opportunity for speaking in

the classroom and as Ellis (1990:118) remarks " were

not pushed in the output they did produce"

Krashen (2003) queries the idea of 'pushed output' sug-

gesting that pushing students to produce is harmful,

and when asked what part of the language class gave

students most anxiety, speaking was found at the top of

the list. The implication here is that a silent period is to

be expected in all second language learners.

A similar and further extension to the input hypothesis

is the interactionist position.

They point out that that much of second language acqui-

sition can occur through conversational interaction.

Long (1983) agrees with Krashen that comprehensible

input is necessary for SLA but differs in that he is inter-

ested in how input is made comprehensible, in his opin-

ion interactional modification provides this. Lightbown

and Spada (1999:43) explain "In his view, what learners

need is not necessarily simplification of the linguistic

245

forms but . rather an opportunity to interact with other

speakers, in ways which lead them to adapt what they

are saying until the learner shows signs of understand-

ing" . Krashen (1985) agrees that the above is useful but

not a must for acquisition to occur. He believes that

comprehensible input can be achieved without any inter-

action. He cites the reading hypothesis, and that ad-

vanced learners can benefit from watching television to

facilitate language acquisition.

10. INSTRUCTION

Ellis (1990) underlines Krashen' s belief that it is doubt-

ful whether or not the classroom can provide compre-

hensible input to ensure L2 acquisition. For Krashen

the classroom is more important to the beginner as real

world input would be too difficult and also for the FL

(foreign language) learner who cannot secure the needed comprehensible input outside the classroom.

Krashen (1982,1985) argues that grammar teaching

should be restricted to forms and its goal is to enable

the learner to monitor. Language instruction itself only

helps when it is the primary source of comprehensible

input. If the teaching of structures are to be omitted

Krashen proposes extra linguistic information for under-

standing newly acquired sentence structure. Gregg

(1984:86) attacks this notion as a replacement for instruc-tion "I find it difficult to imagine extra-linguistic infor-

mation that would enable one to 'acquire' the third

person singular-s, or yes/no questions, or indirect object

placement, or passivization" Under the rule of the hypothesis once the input is under-

stood then the grammar is automatically provided but

this can be seen as problematic. McLaughlin (1987:47)

maintains that hearing sentences does not provide the

learner with the necessary grammatical knowledge. "O

ne way adults learn these rules is through formal in-

struction, where the discrepancy between their interme-

diate forms and target-language norms can be pointed

out"

Krashen also cites immersion programmes as more evi-

dence for the input hypothesis, as they provide enough

comprehensible input for acquisition to occur. Yorio

(1994:132) observes however that learners performance in such programmes or language rich environments

was "- - characterized by incorrect lexical, morphologi-

cal, and syntactic formsthese forms do not seem to im-

prove over time, in fact, . these learners fossilize early

and appear to remain fossilized" . Krashen' s answer to

this is not grammar instruction or review but as

McLaughlin (1987:46) cynically puts it "large, fresh

doses of comprehensible input". Johnson (1992) talks of

the fluent but fossilized 'intermediate-it is' who most

teachers have experienced. Although perhaps more

comprehensible input is not the answer as Johnson im-

plies the conventional pedagogic approach may not be the successful remedy. Krashen perhaps explains why

when he states "The grammatical system of any lan-

guage is far too complex to be consciously learned, and

many people develop high levels of competence without

formal instruction" . (Internet 1).

Nevertheless this cannot be seen as evidence for com-

prehensible input, we can only speculate.

11. THEORETICAL APPRASIAL.

Evaluation of the input hypothesis can proceed in two

ways. First, the quality of the evidence which

Krashen cites in favour of it can be considered. Sec-

ond, the hypothesis can be subjected to theoretical

appraisal.

Ellis (1990:103)

11 a. DEFINITION

The lack of direct evidence for the input hypothesis has

been examined and the arguments Krashen (1982,1985)

has given himself have been evaluated and commented

on.

This paper will now look at the concerns of its theoreti-

cal foundations. Ellis (1990:104) points out "The 'I +1'

construct is not operationally defined" There is no in-

struction book and a distinct lack of empirical evidence

to back up its claims. As examined comprehensible in-

put is clearly a hazy concept. In this respect, according

to Krashen anything that brings you to acquisition must

be comprehensible input and therefore comprehensible

input is whatever leads us to acquisition. The argument

is in fact circular. (Cook (1993) Ellis (1990) and McLaugh-

lin (1987).

11 b. TESTABILITY

McLaughlin (1987) agues that the theory should be test-

- 246

able. Most detractors of the theory, notably Gregg

(1984) and McLaughlin, ask 'What constitutes compre-hensible input? If it is untestable then the evidence

given by Krashen for input hypothesis citing that a lack of comprehensible input does not lead to acquisition be-

comes void. McLaughlin (1987:42) writes, " if it is im-

possible to test the theory in any meaningful way, such

claims have little credibility"

Gregg (1994:37) echoes concerns regarding its testabil-

ity. " any theory in any field must meet certain crite-

ria, e.g., of precision and testability Krashen generally

fails to meet these. Gregg goes even further to suggest

that the input hypothesis cannot be considered a theory

of SLA, that comprehensible input and a low affective

filter leads to acquisition cannot possibly lead to theory

of second language acquisition that explains what the

process is and how it works. On empirical grounds and as a piece of research then

Krashen' s theories can be considered flawed. As

McLaughlin (1987:57) illustrates "The issue here is not

second-language teaching, but second-language re-

search and whether Krashen' s theory is successful.

The answer, obviously, is that it is not" . Perhaps then

the area where Krashen has gained support is within

second language teaching circles amongst teachers and

researchers who see much which is intuitively appeal-

ing in his views (Lightbown & Spada 1999). Krashen is

therefore not without support.

11 c. SUPPORT

VanPattern (1994) suggests that the input hypothesis

should not be rejected outright but should be shown

where it is weak and modified accordingly and that in-

put as a variable should not be neglected in the class-

room. White (1987) illustrates that the Krashen theory

has highlighted the importance input has and how acqui-

sition is dependent on the learner but there is a need for

a hypothesis of a more precise kind. She adds that in-

comprehensible input is the key as it encourages learn-

ers to make hypotheses on the language they are

learning. She states that comprehensible input cannot

cover all aspects of grammar and that at some stage

grammatical instruction is necessary. Even McLaugh-lin (1987:58) admits " Krashen deserves praise for de-

veloping an extensive and detailed theory" but as you

would expect he continues "its inadequacies will doubt-

less stimulate others to improve on the theory" . The

general consensus then it seems is good start, but there is room (how much room is debatable) for improvement.

12. CONCLUSION

Judging from the evidence presented here it can be said

that the input hypothesis has struck a nerve in the

heart of the linguistic community. For some it is a

source of frustration. It lacks empirical evidence, it can-

not be tested and consequently falsified, and is vague in

definition. On the other hand it is a theory that has bro-

ken the linguistic constraints and barriers of grammar

that have come before it by underlining the importance

of input, whilst providing a model however flawed on

how this can be done. Ellis (1990) however suggests

there is more to teaching than comprehensible input

and like many practicing teachers metalinguistic knowl-

edge can play a bigger role than what Krashen gives it

credit for. Perhaps then what is needed is a more bal-

anced theory of SLA that gives equal weight to produc-

tion and comprehension and assigns a more significant

role for classroom instruction.

In conclusion it is clear that the contribution of the input

hypothesis to the field of SLA can be regarded as very

influential indeed. Perhaps Ellis (1990) is a little harsh

when the hypothesis is described as a bucket full of

holes but there is no doubt that it is leaking in parts as

this paper as tried to examine and evaluate. As a basis

for research it is inadequate but it can also be described

as the most extensive and controversial model of second

language acquisition in that it has highlighted a way

that learners acquire the language and is not without

value for language pedagogy.

It provides a statement of important principle,

namely that for successful classroom acquisition learn-

ers require access to message-oriented communica-

tion that they can understand. It also provides a

rough explanation of why this might be so. The main

problem with Krashen' s hypothesis is that it is noth-ing like as 'fundamental' as he claims.

Ellis (1990:107)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

COOK, V. (1993) Linguisticsand SecondLanguage Ac-

- 247

quisition. London: MacMillian Press.

DULAY, H. C. & BERT, M. K. (1973) 'Should we Teach

Children Syntax?' Language Learning, 24, pp. 37-53.

ELLIS, R. (1985) Understanding Second Language Acqui-

sition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

ELLIS, R. (1990) Instructed Second Language Acquisi-

tion. Oxford: Blackwell.

GREGG, K.R. (1984) "Krashen' s monitor and occam' s

razor." Applied Linguistics 5, 79-100.

GREGG, K.R (1994) `Krashen' s Theory, Acquisition

Theory, and Theory' in Barasch, R. M. & Vaughn

James, C. (eds.) Beyond the Monitor Model: Comments

on Current Theory and Practice in Second Language

Acquisition. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

INTERNET:

1. http://www.coas.uncc.edu/linguistics/courses/

6163/should_we_teach_grammar.htm

JOHNSON, H. (1992) 'Defossilizing' . ELT Journal Vol-

ume 46/2

KRASHEN, S (1982) Principles and Practice in Second

Language Acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.

KRASHEN, S. (1985) The Input Hypothesis: Issues and

Implications. London: Longman.

KRASHEN, S. (2003) Explorations in Language Acquisi-

tion and Language: The Taipei Lectures. Portsmouth,

NH: Heinemann.

LENNEBERG, E (1967) The Biological Foundations of

Language. New York: John Wiley.

LIGHTBOWN, P & SPADA, N. (1999) How Languages

are Learned. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

LONG, M. H. (1983) 'Native speaker/ non-native

speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehen-

sible input.' Applied Linguistics 4: 126-41.

MCLAUGHLIN, B. (1987) Theories of Second Language

Learning. London: Arnold.

NUNAN, D. (1999) Second Language Teaching and

Learning. Boston, MA. Heinle & Heinle.

RICHARDS, J.C. & ROGERS, T.S. (2001) Approaches

and Methods in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cam-

bridge University Press.

SHANNON, S.M. (1994) 'Introduction' in Barasch, R.M

& Vaughn James, C. (eds.) in Beyond the Monitor Model.

Comments on current theory and practice in second lan-

guage acquisition. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

SWAIN, M. (1985) Communicative competence: some

roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible out-

put in its development in S. Gass & C. Madden (eds.): In-

put in Second Language Acquisition. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.

VANPATTERN, B. (1994) 'On Babies and Bathwater: In-

put in Foreign Language Learning' in Barasch, R.M & Vaughn James, C. (eds.) Beyond the Monitor Model.

Comments on current theory and practice in second lan-

guage acquisition. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

WHITE, L. (1987) Against comprehensible input: the in-

put hypothesis and the development of second-language competence. Applied Linguistics 8, 95-110.

YORIO. C. (1994) The Case for Learning in Barasch,

R.M & Vaughn James, C. (eds.) in Beyond the Monitor

Model. Comments on current theory and practice in sec-

ond language acquisition. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

248