The document discusses the input hypothesis, which attempts to answer how language is acquired. The key points of the hypothesis are: 1) Language is acquired through comprehending messages that are just beyond one's current ability, with context helping understanding. 2) When communication is successful and there is enough comprehensible input, the next stage of language acquisition will be automatically provided. 3) Production develops later, without being directly taught, as competence increases through listening and understanding input.

1. The Input Hypothesis
Universidad de El Salvador
Language Section
Prof. En Ingles.

2. The input hypothesis
The input hypothesis attempts to
answer what is perhaps the most
important question in our field,
and gives an answer that has a
potential impact on all areas of
language teaching.

3. (a) Statement of the hypothesis
We may state parts (1) and (2) of the input
hypothesis as follows:
1) The input hypothesis relates to acquisition,
not learning
2) We acquire by understanding language that
contains structure a bit beyond our current
level of competence (i+1). This is done with
the help of context or extra-linguistic
information.

4. 3) When communication is successful,
when the input is understood and
there is enough of it, i+1 will be
provided automatically.
4) Production ability emerges. It is not
taught directly.

5. (b) Evidence supporting the hypothesis
(i) First language acquisition in children.
1. It ensures that i+1 is covered, with no guesswork
as to just what i+1 is for each child. On the other
hand, deliberate aim at i+1 might miss!
2. Roughly-tuned input will provide i+1 for more
than one child at a time, as long as they
understand what is said.
3. Roughly-tuned input provides built-in review.

6. (ii) Evidence from second language
acquisition: simple codes.
(1) All students may not be at the
same stage. The “structure of the
day” may not be i+1 for many of
the students.
(2) With a grammatical syllabus,
each structure is presented only
once.

7. 3) A grammatical syllabus assumes we know
the order of acquisition. No such
assumption is necessary when we rely on
comprehensible input, on roughly-tuned
natural communication.
4) Finally, a grammatical syllabus, and the
resulting grammatical focus, places serious
constraints on what can be discussed.

8. (iii) Evidence from second language acquisition:
the silent period and L1 influence.
• The explanation of the silent period in
terms of the input hypothesis is straight-
forward; the child is building up
competence in the second language via
listening, by understanding the language
around him. In accordance with the input
hypothesis, speaking ability emerges on its
own after enough competence has been
developed by listening and understanding.

9. (iv) Advantages of L1 rule use.
• The use of an L1 rule allows the performer to
“outperform his competence”, to meet a practical need
in L2 communication before he has acquired the
relevant i+1 rule.
• The early production allowed by the use of L1 rules
also helps to invite input.

10. (iv) Disadvantages of L1 rule use
• The L1 rule may not be the same as an
L2 rule, as noted above, and errors can
result.
• Even if the L1 rule is similar to an
actual L2 rule or transitional form, it is
not clear that these rules will help the
acquirer progress- they may not take
the place of “true” L2 rules in the
developmental sequence.

11. (v) Applied linguistic research.
1) “Deductive” methods (rule first,
then practice, grammar translation
and cognitive-code) are slightly
more efficient than audio-lingual
teaching for adults.
2) For adolescents, there is no
measurable difference.