Second Language Acquisition: Input Hypothesis

• Optimal Monitor users supplement acquired competence with learned competence, allowing for successful production in their second language.
• Conscious learning cannot completely compensate for incomplete acquisition; optimal users bridge this gap partially with conscious learning.

The Input Hypothesis

• This hypothesis explores how language acquisition occurs and has implications for language teaching.
• Acquisition occurs when individuals understand language that is slightly beyond their current competence level.
• Understanding focuses on meaning over form, utilizing context, world knowledge, and extra-linguistic information.
• The input hypothesis contrasts with traditional pedagogy, which emphasizes learning structures before communication.
• The hypothesis states language is acquired by focusing on meaning first.

Key parts of the input hypothesis:

• The input hypothesis relates to acquisition, not learning
• Language acquisition occurs by understanding input that contains structure slightly beyond the current level of competence, with the support of context and extra-linguistic information.
• Comprehensible input ensures i+1 is provided automatically, rendering deliberate targeting of i+1 unnecessary.
• Speaking fluency emerges naturally over time through comprehensible input, rather than direct instruction.

Evidence Supporting the Input Hypothesis

First Language Acquisition in Children

• Caretaker speech shows modifications made by parents and others when talking to children
• They help comprehension rather than teaching
• Caretaker speech is "roughly-tuned" to the child's competence level, becoming complex as the child progresses.
• Caretakers primarily discuss present surroundings, reflecting common interests with the child.
• Caretaker speech provides comprehensible input and extra-linguistic support.
• Roughly-tuned caretaker speech covers the child's i+1 without exclusively focusing on it.
• Advantages of rough tuning:*
• Ensures i+1 coverage without strict guesswork
• Provides i+1 for multiple children simultaneously in group settings
• Roughly-tuned input offers built-in review through natural reoccurrence.
• Natural communication ensures that i+1 is consistently provided, eliminating the need for consciously programmed structure.

Evidence from Second Language Acquisition: Simple Codes

• It posits second language acquirers are similar to first language acquirers.
• Second language acquirers can receive modified input.
• Modified input is of three sorts: Foreigner-talk, teacher-talk and interlanguage talk
• These codes are designed for communication, to help second language acquirers understand.
• Foreigner-talk and teacher-talk are roughly tuned to the acquirer's level.

Grammatical Syllabus

• The input hypothesis favors natural, communicative, and roughly-tuned comprehensible input over finely-tuned input directly aimed at i+1
• it suggests exercises that aim to teach the structure of the day.
• Arguments against a grammatical syllabus:*
• Students may not be at the same stage, rendering the "structure of the day" irrelevant for many.
• Natural communicative input caters to individual needs
• Grammatical syllabi present structures once, potentially hindering students who miss them.
• Roughly-tuned comprehensible input allows for natural review.
• No assumptions are necessary when relying on comprehensible input and natural communication.
• Grammatical focus limits discussion topics, hindering real communication.
• It suggests not teaching along the natural order.

The Silent Period and L1 Influence

• The input hypothesis aligns with the "silent period" in second language acquisition.
• The "silent period" is a phenomenon characterized by children initially producing little creative language, instead memorized sentences.
• Listening aids building competence in the second language.
• A hypothesis states performers asked to produce before ready will use first language rules .
• An acquirer will substitute some L1 rule for i + 1
• Referred to as "interference," this substitution is due to a lack of acquisition of an L2 rule.

Advantages and Disadvantages of L2 Rule Use

• Using an L1 rule allows to outperform their competence to meet a practical need in L2 communication.
• Early production through L1 rules facilitates conversation, leading to more comprehensible input and further acquisition.
• L1 rules may differ from L2 rules, causing errors that necessitate constant monitoring.
• Use of L1 rules will not produce acquisition, only comprehensible output will.
• 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

Applied Linguistics Research

• The input hypothesis aligns with results from "method comparison" experiments.
• Studies show "deductive" methods are slightly more efficient than audio-lingual teaching for adults.

Affective Filter Hypothesis

• Claims that an approach providing comprehensible input is more effective.
• Newer methods prioritize comprehensible input.
• Class time is devoted to comprehensible input, focusing on the message, not the form
• Students are not expected to produce until they are ready.
• It predicts that the classroom may be an excellent place for second language acquisition.
• The hypothesis points out that the classroom provides better comprehensive input.