2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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 .

5. 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.

6. • 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.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. • 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

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. Summary for
Krashen’s five
Hypothesis :
• 1*The Natural Order Hypothesis
We acquire the rules of language in a predictable
order.

14. 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.

15. 3* The Monitor Hypothesis
• Conscious learning can only be used as a monitor or
an editor.
4* The Input Hypothesis
Humans acquire language in only one way by
understanding message or by receiving
“comprehensible input”

16. 5*The Affective Filter Hypothesis
• A mental block, caused by affective factors that
prevents input from reaching the language
acquisition device.

17. By: Basma Mamdouh