importantA Comparative Study of Input Hypothesis and Output Hypothesis

A Comparative Study of Input Hypothesis and Output Hypothesis

Abstract: The essay compares the differences between input hypothesis andoutput hypothesis as well as their similarities based on literature and empirical studies.As for the differences, theoretical rests and attitudes towards output are taken intoconsideration. In terms of the similarities,both input hypothesis and output hypothesisare comprehensible and modified, have something to do with“i+1” and share thesame attitude to ward s pushed output.

Key words: input hypothesis;output hypothesis;comprehensible;modified

1 Input hypothesis

Krashen(1982)provides five hypotheses, in which he believes that the inputhypothesis is the most important one as it touches upon directly the most fundamentalquestion of second language acquisition (SLA). Based on the hypothesis, heintroduces the concept of comprehensible input, namely, language acquisitionconforms to the pattern of“i+1 ”, that is, language acquisition shall take place if andonly if the comprehensible input is just slightly higher than the learner’ s currentlanguage ab ility.

2 Output hypothesis

Swain(2005,p471)argued that output,by its nature, is not the end of production,but rather a process ofthe language learning.Therefore,output, if carefully taken careof, can also contribute to the language learning. In order to prove this, she hasoutlined three functions conducive to second language learning: a) the noticing andtriggering function, b) the hypothesis-testing function and c) the metalinguisticfunc tio n.

3 Differences

3.1 Theoretical rests

Krashen’ s input hypothesis is fundamentally based on the Nativist Theories,which maintains that the innate biological endowment is the precondition for learnersto acquire another language (Diane Larsen-freeman and Michael H.Long, 2000). Inthis sense,what the second language learner has to do is to take full advantage of the“language acquisition device”and acquire it subconsciously.Krashen’ s “feel” and“sound” (1982, p10) for the language instead of consciously learning it apparentlyseeks its theoretical rest from the nativist view of language acquisition.