The principal arguments for the input are based on the role of simple codes, research on the

effect of instruction on second-language acquisition, and methods of comparison

research.

1. The Role of Simple Codes

krashen (1985) argued that simple codes provide ideal input for learners because they

are easily comprehensible and not finely tuned to the learner’s needs.

Krashen was careful not to claim that the use of simple codes by parents, teachers, and others

causes language acquisition.

2.The effects of instruction

krashen (1985) argued that input hypothesis “helps to settle” an apparent contradiction in the research literature.

Krashen proposed that language classes are effective when they are the primary source of comprehensible input.

Long (1983) reviewed research dealing with the effect of instruction and found that a number of studies showed that instructions benefit advanced learners who were in the environment that provided them

with a good deal of comprehensible input .

3. Method comparison research :

• krashen (1985) argued that research comparing the effectiveness of different methods indicates that rely on providing learners with comprehensible input are clearly superior to grammar-based and drill-based hypothesis .in particular, he argued for the superiority of the so-called “natural approach”

• The natural approach is predicted on krashen’s belief that communicative competence, or functional ability in a language, arises from exposure to the language in meaningful setting where the meanings expressed by the language are understood.

• Comprehensible input is necessary for acquisition, but it is not sufficient.• The acquirer needs to be “open” to the input .• The “affective filter” is a mental block that prevents acquirers from fully

utilizing the comprehensible input they receive for language acquisition.• When it’s “up” the acquirer may understand what he hears and reads, but

the input will not reach the LAD (Language Acquisition Device). This occurs when the acquirer is unmotivated, lacking in self-confidence, or anxious.

• The filter is down when the acquirer is not concernedwith the possibility of failure in language acquisition and when he considers himself a potenial member of the group speaking the target language.

The affective filter and language acquisition

• The affective filter was first proposed by Dualy and Burt (1977) to account how affective variables affect the process of second-language learning.

• “Affective filter “ the filter is that part of internal processing system that sub-consciously screens incoming language based on what psychologists call “affect” : the learner’s motives, needs, attitudes, and emotional states.

The filter have four functions:

1.It determines which language models the learner will select.

2. It determines which part of the language will be attended to first.

3. it determines when the language acquisition efforts should cease.

4. it determines how fast a learner can acquire a language.

• The affective filter hypothesis provides little information as to why learners stop where they do.

• Learners who suffer from a great deal of self-consciousness, lack motivation and anxious , are not likely to learn very much.

• those who are motivated but self-conscious and anxious would be expected to learn more.

• Those who are indifferent would be expected to learn even more because their filter is not blocking input.

• The affective filter hypothesis is not accurate enough about how a filter would be operate, no attempt has been made to tie the filter to linguistic theory, specific predictions that are possible blatantly absurd. But it is clear what kind of mechanism could carry out all of the functions assigned to the filter.

• The affective filter hypothesis is not accurate enough about how a filter would be operate, no attempt has been made to tie the filter to linguistic theory, specific predictions that are possible blatantly absurd. But it is clear what kind of mechanism could

The affective filter and individual differences:

• According krashen, the reason why children ultimately reach higher levels of attainment in language development than are achieved by individuals who begin the languahe in adulthood is due to strengthening of the affective filter at about puberty.

• Children have an advantage in language development because their affective filter is lower but adult learners have higher affective filters.

• Krashen (1981) argued that during adolescence the individual goes through the stage of “formal operations” which leads to the ability to conceptualize the thoughts of others.

Krashen’s theory fails in some points

1.The acquisition-learning distinction is not clearly defined and it’s impossible to determine which process is operating in a particular case.

2.The monitor model is so restricted in its application so ‘learning’ which is thought to involve the use of the monitor can easily dispensed.

3.The natural order hypothesis is based on the morpheme which are a questionable methodological validity because they focus on the final form.

4. The input hypothesis is untestable because no definition is given of the key concept “comprehensible

input” 5. The affective filter hypothesis is also questionable validity because krashen has provided no coherent

explanation for the development of the affective filter and no basis for relating the affective filter to individual

differences in language learning.

Summary for Krashen’s five Hypothesis :

• 1*The Natural Order HypothesisWe acquire the rules of language in a predictable

order.

2*The Acquisition Learning Hypothesis

• Adults have two distinctive ways of developing competence in second languages.

• Acquisition, that is by using language for real communication .

• Learning, knowing about language.

3* The Monitor Hypothesis

• Conscious learning can only be used as a monitor or an editor.

4* The Input HypothesisHumans acquire language in only one way by

understanding message or by receiving “comprehensible input”

5*The Affective Filter Hypothesis

• A mental block, caused by affective factors that prevents input from reaching the language acquisition device.

By: Basma Mamdouh