Is Comprehensible Input Necessary and Sufficient for SLA_

IsComprehensibleInputNecessaryandSufficientforSLA_Abstract：Thispapermainlyfocusontheliteratureconcerningcomprehensibleinputsoastofindtheargumentsfromtheresearchers，aswellasitsimplicationforteaching.Keywords：comprehensibleinput；SLA中图分类号G63文献标识码A文章编号1006-2831（2013）02-0080-6doi：10.3969/j.issn.1006-2831.2013.01.0201.IntroductionAlthoughtheSecondLanguageAcquisition（SLA），asascientificdiscipline，hasahistoryofonly40years，“Input”isoneofthemostfundamentalconceptsthatrevolutionizedthewaypeoplethoughtabouthowlanguagesarelearned（VanPatten，2003）.Researchissuesassociatedwithinputreceivedanevergrowingconcern，amongwhich“comprehensiveinput”enjoyhighattentionfromeveryaspect.ThroughouttheyearssinceKrashenputforwardtheInputHypothesis，itisnodoubtaninfluentialconceptforSLA.QuestionslikewhethercomprehensibleinputisnecessaryforSLA，orwhetheritissufficientandtheonlywayforSLAarefrequentlyraisedbothbySLAtheoristsandpractitioners.WiththepurposeoffindingmoreinformationtofacilitatemyESLteachingpractice，Ipickuptheabovetopicasmyresearchquestion.Basedonthereviewofmanyresearch，thispapermainlyfocusontheliteratureconcerningcomprehensibleinputsoastofindtheargumentsfromtheresearchers，aswellasitsimplicationforteaching.2.DefinitionsInputis“thecommunicativelanguagealearnerhearsorreadsincontextandtowhichheorsheattendsforitsmeaning”（VanPatten，2003：117）.Iadoptthisdefinitionbecauseitisoneofthelatestunderstandingsof“input”anditisfocusedon“meaning”，whichisacentralcomponentofSLA.AccordingtoKrashen（1985），theInputHypothesisisthefundamentalpartoftheoveralltheoryofSLA.Itismadeupoffivehypotheses：theAcquisition-learningHypothesis，theNaturalOrderHypothesis，theMonitorHypothesis，theInputHypothesis，andtheAffectiveFilterHypothesis.Ofthefivehypotheses，theInputHypothesismeanshumanscanacquirelanguageinonlyoneway，thatis，byunderstandingmessagesheorshereceived，morespecifically，byreceiving“comprehensibleinput”.Wemoveonfromthepresentleveli，toi+1，whichisthelevelfollowingthenaturalorder，byunderstandingtheinputcontainingi+1.Comprehensibleinputisdefinedas“Messagestheacquirerisabletounderstand，accordingtocurrenttheory，theessentialingredientinlanguageacquisition”（Krashen，1985：101）.HereIchooseKrashensowndefinitionbecauseitishewhofirstraisedtheInputHypothesisandcreatedtheinfluentialterminologythatlaterprovedtobeasalientfeatureofSLA.3.ThebenefitsoftheComprehensibleInputTheInputHypothesishasenormousempiricalsupportfromboththetheoreticalandtheappliedlevels.Krahnke（1994）arguesthatcomprehensibleinputpaysmoreattentiontothemeaningoflanguage，soithaschangedform-basedteachingintomeaning-based.Similarly，Cook（1996）maintainsthatlanguageteachingfocusesmoreonfindinginputwhichissuitableforthestudents.AccordingtoKrashen（1985），theInputHypothesisgainsitsadditionalsupportevidencefromthegreatsuccessofCanadianimmersionlanguageprograms.Althoughthereareallkindsofimmersionprograms，theyareallsuccessfulinachievingveryhighlevelsofsecond-languageproficiency.Immersionworksverywellbecauseitprovidesagreatdealofcomprehensibleinputforthestudents.Therefore，theInputHypothesisclaimsthat“itisthecomprehensibleinputfactorthatisresponsibleforthesuccessofimmersion，notsimplythefactthatimmersionstudentsareexposedtoagreatdealofthesecondlanguage”（Krashen，1985：17）.V.Rodrigoetal.（2003）didastudyonthefourthsemesterstudentswholearnSpanishasaforeignlanguageinuniversitylevelintheUS.Thesubjectsparticipatedintwokindsofcomprehensible-inputbasedinstruction.Thisstudyismadeupoftwoparts：aninitialstudy，andafollow-uporreplication.Eachparttakesonesemestertoworkwithintermediatelevelstudents.Bothofthetwopartsincludedthreegroups，whicharelistedasthefollowing，ExperimentalGroup1：Reading，ExperimentalGroup2：Reading-Discussion，andComparisonGroup3：traditionalgrammarandcomposition.TheyfoundthattheExperimentalReadingandReading-Discussiongroupperformedbetterthanthetraditionallytaughtgroupinvocabularyandgrammartests.TheReadingDiscussiongroupdidbetterthanthetraditionalgroupinaclozetest.Thetwocomprehensibleinputgroupsclearlyperformedbetterthanthecontrolsinthefourcomparisonsoutofthetotalsix.Theresultsprovidedstrongsupportfortheefficacyofcomprehensible-inputbasedapproaches，anditconfirmedthatvocabularyandgrammarcanbeacquiredthroughcomprehensibleinput.Basedontheappreciationoftheimportanceofcomprehensibleinput，Schmidt（1996）establishedanextensivereadingprogramtoaddresshisstudentsneedforinputandtoreflectonhowsuchaprogramcanbeimplementedatShirayuri.Hepresentedseveralreasonsfortheselectionofthereadingmaterials.Oneofthefactorsisthatthetextshouldbeatappropriatelevelforeffectivedecodingandinteraction.Heemphasizedtheimportanceoftheneedforinputthatholdsthelearnersinterest.Ifthetextisinterestingandenjoyableforthereader，comprehensibleinputwillbecomprehended.Sohesuggestedprovidingreadingmaterialsnotonlyattheappropriatelevel，butalsoattractingthestudentsinterest.4.ThedrawbacksoftheComprehensibleInputAccordingtoSpada（2007），comprehensibleinputisanewtermthathasgreatinfluenceoncommunicativelanguageteaching，butatthesametimemanyvoicesofdoubthaveappearedaboutit.4.1AmbiguousindefinitionMclaughlin（1987）claimsthatthedefinitionofcomprehensibleinputisambiguousbecausewecannotclearlyknowwhentheinputiscomprehensibleandwhenitisincomprehensible.AccordingtocurrentSLAresearches，thereisnowaythatcanbeusedtotestwhatexactlycomprehensibleinputis.Susan&Larry（2008）alsofindthereareanumberofproblemswiththeconceptofcomprehensibleinput.AlthoughKrashenarguedthati+1isneeded，wehavealmostnowaytoknowpreciselyaboutwhatexactlyleveliisandconsequentlywecannotdecidewhati+1is.Inaddition，fromtheinformation-processingperspective，inputplaysaroleofautomatizingcontrolledknowledgeandprovidinginformationwhichisrequiredforrestructuring.Thisisnotanissueofqualityofinputbutofquantity（Gass，1997）.4.2LogicalfaultofcircularityKrashen（1985）maintainsthatthesuccessinCanadianimmersionprogramsinthe1960sistheresultofgivingcomprehensibleinputtolearners，butMclaughlin（1987）arguesthatKrashenmadealogicalmistakeofcirculationbecausecomprehensibleinputcannotbeevaluatedseparately.4.3NotsufficientforSLAWecanfindtheevidencefortheroleofcomprehensibleinputinSLAindirectly，mainlybasedonthestudiesofcaretakerandforeigntalk，immersionprograms，aswellasthesilentperiod.AlthoughcomprehensibleinputmayfacilitateSLA，itisnotanecessaryconditionofacquisitionnorcanitguaranteetheacquisitiontotakeplace（Ellis，1994）.Krashen（1985）commentsthatmoreneedforcommunicatemayleadtomorelanguageuseandconsequentlymorecomprehensibleinputcontainingi+1.However，comprehensibleinputaloneisnotsufficientforfulllanguageacquisition，evenifitmaybesufficienttoacquireenoughtomeetthedemandsofeverydaycommunication.IntheviewofKrashens，acquisitiononlytakesplacewhenalearnercangetaccesstocomprehensibleinput.Inotherwords，onlyacertainpartoftheinputcanbeusedtodevelopthelearnerslinguisticknowledge：theinputatthei+1level，orslightlybeyondthelearnersexistingsystem.Thecentralpointsarethattheinputplaysakeyroleinhismodelofhowsecondlanguageacquisitionreallyoccursandthatonlyacertainkindofinputissignificant（Gass，1997）.AndalsoGassarguesthatitisanunquestionablefactthatsomekindofinputisnecessaryforlanguagelearningbecauselanguagescannotbelearnedinavacuum.Thecontroversialpointisthetypeandquantityofinputneededforsecondlanguagedevelopmentandotherinformationmaybealsoessentialforthedevelopmentofsecondlanguageknowledge.BasedonmanyyearsofresearchonCanadianimmersionprograms，Swain（1985）foundtherearemanyproblemswithKrashenscomprehensibleinput.Theimmersionprogramsaimedattheachievementofbothacademicandsecondlanguagelearningviatheintegrationoflanguageteachingandcontentteaching.Althoughthelearnershavegreatsuccessintheirlanguagedevelopment，theystillhavemanyproblemsintheTLgrammar，particularlyinmorpho-syntacticareas（Harley&Swain，1984；Harley，1986，1992；Swain，1985）.Swain（1985）notesthattheselearnerslackoutputopportunitiesbothinnotbeinggivenenoughchancestousetheTLintheclassroomcontextandnotbeing“pushed”intheiroutput.ObservationalstudiesofinteractioninFrenchimmersionclassroomsshowthatimmersionclassesaremainlyteacher-centredinwhichstudentsarenotaskedtogiveextendedanswers（Allenetal.，1990）.ThereforeSwain（1985）arguedthatiftheselearnersaretoimprovebothfluencyandaccuracyintheirinterlanguage（IL），theyneednotonlycomprehensibleinputbutalso“comprehensibleoutput”.5.Beyondinput：interactionandoutputComprehensibleinputisveryimportantforthesecondlanguageacquisition，yetitalonedoesnotnecessarilymeanthewholeprocessofthedevelopmentoflanguage.Beyondinput，interactionshouldbetakenintoconsideration.David（2003）commentsthatlearnercannotreallyacquirealanguagesimplybyreceivinginputpassively.InteractionandnegotiationofmeaningshouldnotbeexcludedfromtheprocessofSLA.IntheviewofLong（1996），comprehensibleinputgainedthroughinteractionaladjustmentssuchasnegotiatingmeaningandmodifyingoutputiscentraltosecondlanguageacquisition，andmuchresearchhasbeendonetofindoutwhichclassroomactivitiesgivelearnersthegreatestbenefitfromthistypeofinteraction（Pica，1994）.Withthepurposeofexploringwhatextentnegotiationofmeaningcanbeusefulinreadinginstructioninordertomakewritteninputcomprehensible，VandenBranden（2000）carriedoutastudyin8multilingualprimaryschoolsinFlanders.Theparticipantswerearrangedtofaceadifficulttextinfourdifferentconditions：unmodifiedwritteninput，pre-modifiedinput，unmodifiedwritteninput+oralnegotiationwithapeer，andunmodifiedwritteninput+oralnegotiationwiththerestoftheclass.Whatisshownintheresultsisthatthenegotiationofmeaningofunmodifiedinputresultedinbettercomprehensionthanpre-modifyingthesameinput.Likewise，negotiationofmeaningwiththeteacherinvolvedinperformedbetterthanpeernegotiation.Thestudyalsofoundthatteachersshouldplayanimportantroleandtakeactionswhennegotiationofmeaningtakesplaceintheclassroom.Gass（1997）proposedafive-stageintegratedmodeltoexplaintheconversionofinputtooutput：apperceivedinput，comprehendedinput，intake，integration，andoutput.Hemainlyfocusedontheroleofinteractioninsecondlanguageacquisition.Heclaimsthatnegotiationisausefulwaytodrawattentiontothelinguisticform，andmakeitsalientandthusgenerateareadinessforlearning.Additionally，itisawayinwhichlearnerscanreceivefeedbackontheirownproduction.Negotiationcanbeusedasalearningfacilitator，throughwhichinputcanturnouttobecomprehensibleandmanageable.Swain（1983）raisedtheOutputHypothesisbasedonevidencefromtheimmersionprogram.Swainarguesthattherearestillsomegapsbetweentheimmersionchildrenandnativespeakersingrammaticalcompetence，evenaftertheyhavebeenintheprogramforsevenyearsandreceivedabout4000hoursofcomprehensibleinput.ThereforeSwainmakesaconclusionthatcomprehensibleinputisnecessarybutnotsufficientforlearnersfulllanguagedevelopment.Thenshenotesthatinputmustbesupplementedbyoutputpractice.Basedonrefiningherhypothesis，Swain（2005）specifiedthefollowingfourfunctionsofoutput：fluencyfunction，hypothesis-testingfunction，meta-linguisticfunction，andnoticing/triggeringfunction.6.ImplicationsforTeachingSomeimplicationscanbedrawnfromthisreviewonthisresearchtopic.Comprehensibleinputisessentialbutnotsufficientforlearnerslanguageacquisition.InordertoimprovestudentsEnglishlanguageproficiency，teachersshouldtrytheirbesttogivestudentsenoughcomprehensibleinput，andatthesametimeoffermoreopportunitiesforthemtodointeractionsandoutputpractice.Whatsmore，outputpracticeshouldalsobeincorporatedintosecondlanguageteachingbyutilizingthefourdifferentfunctions.Inthatcasestudentscannotonlydevelopautomaticityintheirlanguageuse，judgethecomprehensibilityandlinguisticwell-formednessoftheirtargetlanguageutterances，theycanalsoreflectontheirusinglanguageandnoticeagapbetweenwhattheywanttosayandwhattheycansay，thusleadingthemtorecognizewhattheydonotknow.Theacknowledgmentofproblemswillthenpushthestudentstoconcentrateontherelatedinformationintheinput，andconsequentlywilltriggertheirinterlanguagedevelopment.References：Allen，P.，M.Swain，B.Harley&J.Cummins.Aspectsofclassroomtreatment：towardamorecomprehensibleviewofsecondlanguageeducationA.InB.Harley，P.Allen，J.Cummins，andM.Swain（Eds.）：TheDevelopmentofSecondLanguageProficiency.Cambridge：CambridgeUniversityPress，1990：51-78.Cook，V.SecondLanguageLearningandLanguageTeachingM.London：Arnold，1996.David，B.TheSocialTurninSecondLanguageAcquisitionM.Washington，D.C.：GeorgetownUniversityPress，2003.Gass，S.M.Input，Interaction，andtheSecondLanguageLearnerM.Mahwah，NJ：LawrenceErlbaumAssociates，Inc，1997.Harley，B.AgeinSecondLanguageAcquisitionM.Clevedon，UK：MultilingualMatters，1986.Harley，B.PatternsofsecondlanguagedevelopmentinFrenchimmersionJ.JournalofFrenchLanguageStudies，1992（2）：159-83.Harley，B.&Swain，M.Theinterlanguageofimmersionstudentsanditsimplicationsforsecondlanguageteaching.InA.Davies，C.Criper，andA.Howatt（Eds.）InterlanguageA.Edinburgh：EdinburghUniversityPress，1984：291-311.Krahnke，K.KrashensacquisitiontheoryandlanguageteachingmethodA.InR.M.Barasch&C.V.James（Eds.），BeyondtheMonitorModel.Boston：Heinle&Heinle，1994.Krashen，S.TheInputHypothesis：IssuesandImplicationsM.London：Longman，1985：17，101.Long，M.TheroleofthelinguisticenvironmentinsecondlanguageacquisitionA.InW.RitchieandT.Bhatia（Eds.）：HandbookofResearchonSecondLanguageAcquisition.NewYork：AcademicPress，1996：413-468.Mclaughlin，B.TheoriesofSecondLanguageLearningM.GreatBritain：EdwardArnold，1987.Pica，T.Researchonnegotiation：Whatdoesitrevealaboutsecond-languagelearningconditions，proce