A Critique on Krashen’s Input Hypothesis
The input hypothesis is one of the hypotheses that Stephen Krashen explained in his monitor model. According to the input hypothesis, learners develop in their language knowledge when they comprehend linguistic input that is marginally advanced than their current level. This level of input was termed “i+1” by Krashen, where “i” represents the learner’s interlanguage or current level of skill and “+1” represents the immediate next stage of linguistic acquisition. Language development, according to the input hypothesis, is not a one-time event, but rather a sequential and gradient process. Stephen Krashen claimed that learners perhaps learn the language best when they are comfortable with it. Consequently, an individual might not learn a language if it is cognitively more demanding and complex. It would be more convenient if people acquire the rules of language in a linear way. Similarly, Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development emphasizes the idea that learning is a continual process and requires individuals to be in a comfort zone. In this article, I will argue against the input hypothesis proposed by Stephen Krashen and demonstrate why this idea is apparently problematic.
To begin, the input hypothesis is criticized for its lack of a precise definition of ‘comprehensible input.’ Krashen does not provide a clear understanding of what the formula “i+1” entails. Even Krashen is inconclusive about its meaning. At first, he stated that “i” refers to our “current level of language skill” and “+1” represents “the immediate next step along with natural order” (Liu, 2015). He seemed to be referring to one’s “degree of competence.” However, he then confined this form of competence to grammar exclusively, as he defined “i+1” as “structures of our next stage” (Liu, 2015). This inconsistency appears to suggest that perhaps Krashen is more concerned with a general degree of grammar proficiency than any other dimensions of language. As a result of his consistency, numerous scholars have varied interpretations of the formulation “i+1”. In the book “How Languages are Learned,” Lightbown and Spada interpret “i+1” in a considerably broader sense, where “i” indicates “the level of language already acquired” and “+1” symbolizes “a metaphor for language (words, grammatical forms, features of sound) that is one step beyond that level.” (Lightbown and Spada, 2013). It is apparent that, due to the lack of a precise and unambiguous definition, people become perplexed and interpret the input hypothesis in a different manner.
Another shortcoming of the input hypothesis is that it concentrates primarily on comprehensible input while ignoring the validity of output altogether. According to Stephen Krashen, “humans acquire language only in one way — by understanding messages or by receiving ‘comprehensible input.’” (Krashen, 1982). Even Ellis has challenged Krashen’s concept, claiming that “comprehensible input is necessary, however, not merely sufficient for language acquisition as a whole” (Ellis, 2013). In favor of this argument, there is another hypothesis called the “output hypothesis.” Merrill Swain proposes the output hypothesis. According to her output hypothesis, learning can also occur through language production. Swain hypothesizes that output enables second language learners to recognize gaps in their linguistic understanding and then attend to the relevant input. Without diminishing the significance of input, the output hypothesis complements and solves the inadequacies of the input hypothesis by emphasizing the necessity of language production for second language acquisition. Accordingly, comprehensible input is not the sole factor that aids second language acquisition. It is also critical to be able to produce language effectively.
Krashen’s input hypothesis does not explain precisely how to measure the “i+1” formula, making this idea even more questionable. Language learning is a subjective process. It changes depending on the person and the context. Hence, it is reasonable to assume that diverse levels of competency can be discovered among the smallest number of learners. “The present level of competence” or “i” can differ amongst people, even if they are of the same age group, since second language acquisition is influenced by a variety of other parameters such as aptitude, motivation, cultural shock, ego boundaries, and so on. Moreover, the concept of “+1” or “slightly advanced knowledge” is apparently a fuzzy idea as it also differs across learners. What is comprehensible input for one student perhaps may not always be comprehensible input for another student in the same classroom. Likewise, if an input is “+1” for student “A,” it could be “+2” or “+3” for student “B.” Even, the same input might be “+0” for student “C.” As a consequence, teachers may face difficulties regarding this issue. A teacher can barely discern each individual learner’s level of proficiency in a classroom and design comprehensible instructional materials accordingly. Thus, it appears to be a significant drawback of Krashen’s input hypothesis.
In his input hypothesis, Krashen contends that people learn languages most efficiently in their comfort zone. Similarly, if language knowledge is more cognitively complicated and challenging, an individual may be unable to acquire it. He presented the ‘comprehensible input’ or the formula “i+1” out of this concept. According to his idea, the learner will be unable to proceed in their second language learning if the formula is “i+2” or “i+3”. Krashen’s this proposal, on the other hand, contradicts Michael Swan’s “pushed hypothesis.” According to Michael Swan’s pushed hypothesis, learners must venture outside their comfort zone in order to acquire the language. Furthermore, He focuses on the impact of cognitive load on the acquisition of a second language. According to the pushed hypothesis, individuals may acquire the language more effectively under pressure situations. Likewise, pupils will exert additional effort in order to master materials that are a little more complicated or difficult for them. The pushed hypothesis informs that learners will likely be required to step outside their comfort zone to progress in language acquisition. According to Michael Swan, the formula for better language learning is “i+2” or “i+3”, invalidating Stephen Krashen’s idea of comprehensible input. Consequently, the pushed hypothesis appears to make Krashen’s input hypothesis apparently more vulnerable and exposed.
Bibliography:
Ellis, R. (2013). Task-based language teaching: Responding to the critics. University of Sydney Papers in TESOL, 8(Jun2013), 1–27.
Krashen, S. (1982). The Input Hypothesis (pp. 77–109).
Lightbown and Spada. (2013). How Languages are Learned.
Liu, D. (2015). A Critical Review of Krashen’s Input Hypothesis: Three Major Arguments. Journal of Education and Human Development, 4(4), 139–146. https://doi.org/10.15640/jehd.v4n4a16