Input Theory Riana Eka Budiastuti Input vs Intake

Input Theory Riana Eka Budiastuti

Input vs Intake Input is something you hear Intake is what you understand from input

Acquisition vs Learning Acquisition Learning implicit, subconscious explicit, conscious informal situations uses grammatical 'feel' uses grammatical rules depends on attitude depends on aptitude stable order of acquisition simple to complex order of learning

Input and Comprehension • The most influential theoritical position are those advanced by Krashen and Long • This is well-known as Krashen’s Input Hypothesis

Evidence for Input Hypothesis • people speak to children acquiring their first language in special ways • people speak to L 2 learners in special ways • L 2 learners often go through an initial Silent Period • comparative success of younger and older learners reflects provision of comprehensible input • the more comprehensible input the greater the L 2 proficiency • lack of comprehensible input delays language acquisition • immersion teaching is successful because it provides comprehensible input • bilingual programs succeed to the extent they provide comprehensible input

Krashen’s Input Hypothesis • • • Five Hypotheses The Natural Order Hypothesis The Acquisition/ Learning Hypothesis The Monitor Hypothesis The Input Hypothesis The Affective Filter Hypothesis

Krashen’s Input Hypothesis This is perhaps the most important of Krashen’s five hypotheses. The thrust of the input hypothesis is that in order for language acquisition to take place, the acquirer must receive comprehensible input through reading or hearing language structures that slightly exceed their current ability

The relationship between interactive & non-interactive input and comprehension One type of non-interactive input adjustment concerns speech rate. Interactive input includes two variables which influence comprehension

two variables which influence comprehension: • Amount of type of information • The extent to which the participants engage in negotiation of meaning.

Long stresses the importance of the interactional modification that occur in negotiating meaning when a communication problem arises. He argues that interactive input is more important than non-interactive input

Critiques of the Input Hypothesis There have been a number of critiques of the input hypothesis: Farch & Kasper (1986) recognize the importance of topdown process , in which learners utilize contextual information and existing knowledge to understand what is said Sometimes, they must use the bottom-up process, where they pay closer attention to the linguistic form in the mesage.

• Sharwood Smith (1986) argues that process of comprehension and acquisition is not same and suggest that input has dual relevance. There is input that helps learner to interpret meaning, and there is input that learner used to advance their interlanguages.

These criticism can be accomodated if the hypothesis is modified in the following way: Comprehensible input can facilitate acquisition but (1) is not a necessary condition of acquisition (2) does not guarantee that acquisition will take place

Relationship between input / interactional modification and acquisition Pica (1992) illustrate how negotiation of meaning provides learners with information about semantic and structural property of TL. NNS: OK, you have a house which has third floor NS: Three floors right NS: Three floors.

Output = acquisition? • Traditionally output was seen as a way to practice existing knowledge or to elicit new (most likely richer) input, not a way to gain new knowledge • Swain studied French learners in an immersion setting: instruction was carried out in French – Noticed that learners’ comprehension was near native, but production abilities lagged far behind – Hypothesized that this ‘gap’ resulted from the emphasis on French comprehension, and French as a means for productive communication

• Traditionally output was seen as a way to practice existing knowledge or to elicit new (most likely richer) input, not a way to gain new knowledge • Swain studied French learners in an immersion setting: instruction was carried out in French – Noticed that learners’ comprehension was near native, but production abilities lagged far behind – Hypothesized that this ‘gap’ resulted from the emphasis on French comprehension, and French as a means for productive communication

We have some understanding of how interactional modification affects the comprehensibility of text. It is also become apparent that different kinds of input and interaction are needed to facilitate acquisition at diferent stages of learners’ development, and that input an and interaction may or may not affect acquisition depending on the nature of linguisting feature involved.

In all likehood, input combines with other factors such as the learner’s L 1, the learner’s communicative need to express certain meanings and the learner’s internal processing mechanism.

THANK YOU………