KRASHEN’S INPUT HYPOTHESIS.

Main sources:
Krashen, S. (1981) Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning,
Pergamon, Oxford.
Krashen, S. (1982) Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition, Pergamon,
Oxford.
Krashen, S. (1985) The Input Hypothesis, Longman, New York.
Krashen, S. & Terrell, T. (1983) The Natural Approach, Pergamon, Oxford.

Overview:
Krashen’s theory, the Input Hypothesis (aka The Monitor Model) remains, 40 years after
its development, the only example of a macro-theory of SLA. As a macro-theory it is useful
for our purposes precisely because it touches on most aspects of the field of SLA research
(so it helps to give a general picture of the field). It also provides an opportunity to see how a
critical, rigorous and analytic evaluation of theoretical claims works.

The five hypotheses that constitute the overall theory are:

a) The Natural Order hypothesis
b) The Input hypothesis
c) The Acquisition/Learning hypothesis
d) Monitor Hypothesis
e) The Affective Filter hypothesis
Looking at them in that order will help us to see how the theory is put together (in other
words, they show the syntax/logic of the theory as a whole).

The Natural Order Hypothesis

In the 60’s and early 70’s, the prevailing view was that a learner’s L1 had a significant
role in accounting for the nature of L2 acquisition: to the extent that L1 and L2 have similar
structures, then this would facilitate acquisition; to the extent that they are dissimilar, this
would hinder acquisition (compare Contrastive Analysis of the 60’s and its reformulation in
Eckman’s “Markedness Differential Hypothesis” (1977). It was thought that most cases of
learner errors could be accounted for in terms of L1 interference.
Brown (1973) provided evidence that the acquisition of morphemes by children acquiring
English as L1 had a “natural order”: acquisition of accuracy in the use of morphemes is
achieved in a sequence common to all children (e.g. all children learning English achieve
accuracy of use of the plural /s/ before accuracy of use of is as an auxiliary verb).

1
 Studies by Dulay, Burt and Krashen in the early 70’s investigated the development of
accuracy of use of the same 14 morphemes as in Brown’s FLA study in L2 learners of
English. Their findings suggested that both L1 and L2 learners of English followed the same
developmental sequence. In other words, there is a natural order that is followed by learners
of a language (e.g. English) irrespective of whether it is L1 or L2. The implications of this
were considerable:
1) Learner errors were not to be accounted in terms of a learner’s L1 (Dulay, Burt
and Krashen proposed that only 3% of errors could be attributed to L1
interference)
2) The mechanism by which L1 is acquired is also the mechanism by which L2 is
acquired (the same development sequence in both suggests the same underlying
cause is responsible for both).

The second of these conclusions is the foundation of Krashen’s theory: the fundamental
claim is that SLA is, essentially, identical to FLA. The rest of Krashen’s theoretical structure
is for the purpose of maintaining this hypothesised underlying identity by accounting for the
ostensible differences between FLA and SLA that apparently disconfirm Krashen’s thesis.

The Input Hypothesis

In hypothesising that the same cognitive mechanism is used in both FLA and SLA,
Krashen makes use of (although without going into detail) the best current theory of FLA:
Chomsky’s notion of a Language Acquisition Device (LAD): a language specific, innate,
cognitive module that provides the species specific template for language.
Again on the basis of the assumption of an essential identity between FLA and SLA in
respect of the role of a LAD, Krashen investigated the findings of research into the conditions
that obtain in respect of children’s L1 development. The purpose of this was to understand
the nature of the input into the LAD that children receive such that it results in acquisition of
L1. Studies by Snow (1976, 1977 and 1978) identified the following characteristics of the
language that adults use to address small children (“motherese” or “caretaker language”):
a) topics are restricted to the “here and now”
b) utterances are grammatically short and simple
Krashen’s generalisation of these characteristics is that the necessary condition for FLA is
the presence of large quantities of “comprehensible input”. On the basis of the claimed
identity between FLA and SLA, Krashen proposes (the Input Hypothesis) that the primary
condition for SLA is the similar provision of maximal amounts of comprehensible input to
learners of an L2. The maximally effective input is characterised as being at just one level
beyond a learner’s present stage of interlanguage development (i + 1).

2
The Acquisition/Learning Hypothesis and The Monitor Hypothesis
Having posited the essential identity of FLA and SLA, the rest of Krashen’s hypothesis is
concerned with dealing with the apparent differences between acquisition of an L1 and of an
L2.
The first ostensible difference is that FLA is largely (if not wholly) unconscious. Young
children do not consciously apply themselves to acquiring their L1; they do it naturally and
spontaneously. Conversely, SLA seemingly involves conscious learning: traditionally second
languages have been taught in classrooms using grammar rules, vocabulary tests and the
like. Apparently, this approach has achieved some success. However, if Krashen is to
maintain his basic thesis (SLA = FLA), then the role of conscious learning has to be shown to
be limited.
Krashen does this, firstly, by hypothesising a cognitive distinction between conscious
learning and unconscious acquisition (the Acquisition/Learning distinction). The central claim
is that conscious learning is distinct of the LAD and cannot become acquisition, i.e. there is
no input into the LAD from conscious learning; the LAD is “encapsulated” and the
development of L2 grammatical systems (an interlanguage) cannot be effected by such
learning. Secondly, Krashen proposes that consciously learnt “rules” are available as a
“Monitor” (the Monitor Hypothesis). The idea is that only the LAD can initiate/form an
utterance, however, under certain limited conditions, an individual may apply consciously
learnt rules to edit and amend (i.e. monitor) linguistic output. Krashen posits that the
conditions for monitor use are:
1) the linguistic activity allows for “focus on form” (e.g. in a cloze test)
2) there is time available to apply learnt rules (compare a writing activity with
spontaneous conversation)
3) the rule is known and “portable” (i.e. it is simple to apply)
The Monitor Hypothesis hence redescribes the role of conscious learning SLA and, in doing
so, Krashen emphasises its restricted role.
The Monitor Hypothesis also goes some way to accounting for the second ostensible
difference between FLA and SLA: whereas there is a general uniformity in children’s
achieving a level of complete fluency in their L1 and within a similar period of time, the
outcomes in second language learning are enormously variable with some learners
progressing much more quickly than their peers. The Monitor Hypothesis allows for some
account of this learner variability in terms of variation in monitor use across individuals: in
short, some people are better conscious learners than others. In the case of “optimal”
monitor users, linguistic performance may be enhanced by judicious and skilful application of
learned rules, hence, allowing such learners to exceed their actual (acquired) level of
interlanguage development. This performance will also exceed that of other, non-optimal
Monitor users who have had comparable levels of comprehensible input and whose

3
interlanguage is therefore, by hypothesis, at a similar stage of development (recall, for
Krashen, the one and only positive cause of acquisition is the quantity of comprehensible
input). Hence, the Monitor Hypothesis allows an account of variation between L2 learners.
Importantly, however, Krashen’s delimiting of the conditions for monitor use and his
emphasising of the restricted role of the Monitor in linguistic performance means that the
Monitor Hypothesis, on its own, is insufficient to account for the extreme range of variation
that is to be found among L2 learners, nor can it apparently account for such phenomena as
fossilization (where a learner’s level of competence in an L2 fails to progress beyond a
certain level despite quantities of comprehensible input). The Affective Filter Hypothesis
allows Krashen to accommodate such variation into the explanatory range of the theory.

The Affective Filter Hypothesis

Krashen posits the Affective Filter as a construct that incorporates such factors as
motivation, self-confidence, attitude to the target language/culture and anxiety about
language learning. Krashen’s claim is that the Affective Filter (one may usefully think of it as
constituting a learner’s attitude) acts as a potential barrier between comprehensible input and
the LAD. If the Affective Filter is “up” then input cannot become acquisition; if the Filter is
down, then input is available to the LAD such that it becomes uptake. Variation between
learners is thereby accounted for, and accounted for in terms of a theoretical construct that
incorporates concepts (motivation etc.) that are routinely used in non-theoretic discourse
(e.g. by teachers) to explain differing levels of performance or attainment.