论文部分内容阅读
【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 – 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
【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