Review

Reviewed Work(s): The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications by Stephen D. Krashen
Review by: Kevin R. Gregg
Source: TESOL Quarterly , Mar., 1986, Vol. 20, No. 1 (Mar., 1986), pp. 116-122
Published by: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL)

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3586393

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to TESOL Quarterly

This content downloaded from

125.63.48.185 on Tue, 06 May 2025 01:44:34 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
discourse strategies long enough to establish a more humane
channel.
Langs, then, presents strategies which teachers might use to teach
on the trans-cultural field of discourse which Gumperz helps us to
understand. What's more, Langs's strategies can help teachers to
tailor their actions from day to day to the extent of their evolving
understanding of this field. If a therapist can maintain communica-
tive fields for deeply disturbed patients, a teacher can maintain
similar fields for those students whose discourse strategies the
teacher does not yet understand. With a field of communication
established, teachers can continue to analyze those strategies by
listening closely to the students, attending to their own response,
forming silent hypotheses, and seeing them invalidated or validated
in the next classroom exchange.

REFERENCES

Curran, C. A. (1976). Counseling-learning in second languages. A

River, IL: Apple River Press.
Labov, W. (1970). The study of non-standard English. Champaign,
National Council of Teachers of English.
Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University
Pennsylvania.
Langs, R. (1978). The listening process. New York and London: Jas
Aronson.

NEAL BRUSS
University of Massachusetts/Boston

The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications

Stephen D. Krashen. London and New York: Longm
Pp. viii + 120.

U There is a Monty Python routine in which a radio interviewer

tries to get Miss Ann Elk, a dinosaur expert, to explain her new
theory about the brontosaurus. After a great deal of hemming and
hawing, false starts, and general time wasting, we are finally told
this: Brontosauruses were very thin in the front, much, much thicker
in the middle, and then very thin again at the end. Most of us would
agree that, as a theory, this is rather unsatisfactory (indeed, the
interviewer shoots Miss Elk before she can tell us her second
theory). But then it was not meant to be taken seriously as a theory.
Reading The Input Hypothesis, which evidently is meant to be
taken seriously, brings Miss Elk to mind. The Input Hypothesis is
116 TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded from

125.63.48.185 on Tue, 06 May 2025 01:44:34 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
the latest in a series of books and articles in which Krashen pretty
much repeats what he has said in all the other books and articles;
that is, he offers "what I call, perhaps audaciously, a theory of
second-language acquisition" (p. vii). (There are perhaps more
fitting words than "audaciously"; and in fact Krashen usually drops
the article and talks simply of second language acquisition theory, a
locution that makes the complex error of suggesting that his theory
is a theory, that a second language acquisition theory exists, and that
his theory is it.) As just about everyone knows by now, Krashen's
theory is comprised of five hypotheses. This book, however,
focuses on what is probably the most important of the five,
presumably in an attempt to explain and defend it in greater depth
than heretofore.
The book has three chapters: one describing the hypothesis and
offering putative evidence in its support; one dealing with various
problems with, and challenges to, the hypothesis; and one on
implications for the language teacher. I have criticized the
shortcomings of Krashen's theory in some detail elsewhere (Gregg,
1984), and I wish to repeat myself here as little as possible. Rather,
I would like to concentrate on the Input Hypothesis as part of an
ostensible acquisition theory, specifically, to show how it reflects an
ignorance of the nature and goals of linguistic theory and of
language acquisition theory.
The Input Hypothesis states that "humans acquire language in
only one way-by understanding messages, or by receiving
'comprehensible input' " (p. 2). There is more than a touch of Miss
Elk here. On the one hand, no one has suggested that comprehen-
sion is not necessary for acquisition. On the other hand, and more
important, Krashen does not claim that comprehensible input
causes acquisition, which claim is necessary if he wishes to rescue
his hypothesis from vacuousness. And if he did claim that
comprehension causes acquisition, he would then, of course, be
obligated to try to show how. After all, it does not amount to a
scientific hypothesis to assert that apples fall from trees because of
gravity or that birds fly south by instinct. According to Krashen,
there is no fundamental difference between first and second
language acquisition; that is, input is a sufficient condition
acquisition. But in first language acquisition theory, that very fa
the problem to be explained; it is not the explanation. And
acquisition theory is supposed to explain acquisition.
The vacuity of the hypothesis makes Krashen's "evidence" lar
irrelevant; the Input Hypothesis is consistent with just about a
evidence possible. Caretaker speech (CS), for instance, is
(allegedly) simplified input, hence comprehensible, hence evidence

REVIEWS 117

This content downloaded from

125.63.48.185 on Tue, 06 May 2025 01:44:34 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
for the hypothesis. But Ochs (1982) and others point out that there
are cultures without CS. No problem! This just proves that they are
providing comprehensible input in some other way. Ochs's Samoan
caretakers, for example, "provide repeated exposure to language
they expect the child eventually to understand" (p. 7). The same, of
course, could be said of audiolingual syllabuses.
Again, after saying that the CS is simplified, Krashen then blithely
welcomes the findings of Gleitman, Newport, and Gleitman (1984)
that children require a rich input-that is, input that is not
simplified-and goes on to say, "Rich input provides the acquirer
with a better sample to work with, more opportunities to hear
structures he is ready to acquire" (p. 27). But Krashen's Natural
Order Hypothesis claims that "we acquire the rules of language in a
particular order" (p. 1). Thus, the richer the input, the less likely the
occurrence of any given "structure" in that input, and thus the
longer the child will have to wait for it. In other words, despite
Krashen's denials, his theory predicts that fine-tuning of input
would facilitate acquisition. Of course, there is in fact no fine-tuning
for children (although there possibly could be for adults), so the
point is moot; I raise it only to show how Krashen wants to have it
both ways. The fact remains that CS has no bearing as evidence on
the Input Hypothesis.
Of course, it is possible that Krashen has a narrower idea of
comprehensible input in mind. The phrase "by understanding
messages" suggests that input that is not in the form of a message
(however defined) will not qualify as input. Thus, studying a
conjugation chart presumably will not help. This seems like a
plausible interpretation, especially since Krashen claims that
"learning" cannot become "acquisition." But on the other hand, he
talks (pp. 46-47) of acquiring deviant forms, for example, in EFL
situations where there is little comprehensible input. Japan is a case
in point: Instruction typically is entirely in Japanese, so there are not
many messages in English. And yet forms are acquired, which
sounds rather like learning becoming acquisition. Or else, if it is not,
then comprehensible input is not confined to true "messages"
narrowly defined.
The Input Hypothesis claims that we move along the Natural
Order by comprehending input containing the "next" rule. It is odd
that in a book devoted to the Input Hypothesis, Krashen does not
bother to describe this process, instead simply referring us to
"Newmark's 'Ignorance Hypothesis' and Current Second Language
Acquisition Theory" (Krashen, 1983). There we are given an
example of a "rule" that is at "i + 1," next in line to be acquired: the
past tense of sweep. This is an interesting example, for it suggests

118 TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded from

125.63.48.185 on Tue, 06 May 2025 01:44:34 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
how feeble a grasp Krashen has on the meaning of rule. If swept is
a rule to be acquired and it is to be acquired in the Natural Order,
one wonders where it might be in relation to, say, broke or drove.
What kind of order could this be? What could possibly be natural
about it? And even if we take less embarrassing examples of rules-
such as the good old morphemes that gave us the hypothesis in the
first place-the order is a phenomenon to be explained, not just
appealed to.
Neither in the present book nor in the 1983 article-nor anywhere
else, for that matter-is "i + 1" coherently defined. If "i" is supposed
to refer to the learner's competence at a given time, then it cannot
be a rule. Therefore, it would be a category error to talk about
comparing "i" with "i + 1" (e.g., Krashen, 1983, p. 140). (This has
nothing to do with whether or not "i + 1" is operationalizable; see
p. 68.) This vagueness in the use of words like competence and rule
is not simply intolerably sloppy; it also reflects a profound
misunderstanding of linguistic theory and its connection with
second language acquisition theory.
For instance, Krashen attacks the "strong interface position" on
the question of whether learning becomes acquisition-that is, the
position that acquisition is always preceded by learning (a straw
man, incidentally). If this position were correct, "language teaching
[would be] truly 'applied linguistics,' completely dependent on
research in formal linguistics: linguists discover a rule, . . . teachers
teach it, and students learn it" (p. 39). But no linguist in the world is
looking for new English irregular verbs or grammatical mor-
phemes, and no teacher in the world is trying to explain subjacency
or the move-alpha rule to language learners.
Krashen is confusing two different kinds of rules, and this
confusion renders illegitimate his use of Chomsky to endorse his
learning/acquisition distinction. For instance, Krashen quotes
Chomsky as follows (the bracketed phrase is Krashen's): "there is
little doubt that [rules learned from a book] could not be
consciously applied, in real time, to 'guide' performance" (p. 25,
quoting Chomsky, 1975, p. 249). But this quotation is not faithful to
the original: "[rules learned from a book]" refers to the Specified
Subject Condition, a putative part of Universal Grammar (UG)-
that is, a rule not learned from any book.
Actually, for what it is worth, Chomsky is not only not endorsing
Krashen's position, he is implicitly supporting a weak interface
position. For instance, he characterizes a good traditional or
pedagogic grammar as being in effect "a structured and organized
version of the data presented to a child learning a language"
(Chomsky, 1985, p. 15). In fact, in the very note that Krashen quotes

REVIEWS 119

This content downloaded from

125.63.48.185 on Tue, 06 May 2025 01:44:34 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
from, Chomsky (1975) states that "people learn language from
pedagogic grammars by the use of their unconscious universal
grammar" (p. 249).
No one is denying the essential role of UG (except the mythical
strong interfacer), but after all one does not study a pedagogic
grammar unconsciously; that is, it sounds as if Chomsky does
believe that learning can become acquisition. And if Chomsky's
cognize/know distinction is really the same as Krashen's acquisi-
tion/learning distinction, as Krashen seems to claim (p. 24), Krashen
can take little comfort from Chomsky's (1980) claim that "the
irregularities [of language] are learned" (p. 238). (Chomsky's
"irregularities" are Krashen's "rules": the various specific details,
such as -ing, that distinguish one language from another.) Mind you,
Chomsky may be absolutely wrong on this point; he is no expert.
My point is simply that Krashen seems not to understand the
Chomsky research program and hence its relevance, if any, to his
theory.
Having brought the strong interface position to its knees, Krashen
goes on to consider a weaker position, namely that learning can
become acquisition in at least some cases. Krashen rejects this
position (in favor of a no-interface position) on the grounds that it
violates Occam's Razor ("Entities are not multiplied beyond
necessity"). Here we have another misunderstanding. Occam's
Razor is a principle of theory construction that bars the use of
unnecessary constructs. (For instance, Krashen's Output Filter,
introduced here for the first time [pp. 44-46], violates Occam's
Razor, since it deals with a performance phenomenon, while
Krashen's theory is a competence theory.)
The claim that conscious knowledge of a rule may in certain cases
be acquired is not a theoretical construct but a statement of fact, so
far as anyone can tell; certainly no one has ever shown a shred of
evidence against it. The fact that such acquisition is not necessary is
neither here nor there. Or would be neither here nor there, except
that Krashen's Acquisition/Learning and Monitor Hypotheses claim
that learning cannot become acquisition. In fact it is not the weak
interface position but rather these two hypotheses-specifically, the
Monitor construct-that must pass the test of Occam's Razor.
It is worth noting that Krashen's allegiance to Occam's Razor does
not prevent him from accepting a weak interaction position on the
question of whether face-to-face interaction is necessary for
acquisition (pp. 33-34). In other words, Krashen allows that while in
theory one could learn a language without interaction, interaction
can be helpful. This closely resembles the claim that while in theory
one could acquire a language without any conscious learning,

120 TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded from

125.63.48.185 on Tue, 06 May 2025 01:44:34 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
learning can be helpful. The only difference is that the interaction
question does not threaten the meretricious elegance of Krashen's
theory.
Constructing a cogent theory of language acquisition is very, very
difficult, which is one reason why no one has ever done it. Krashen
has not even tried, as we can see more easily if we look at attempts
being made in first language acquisition theory (e.g., Pinker, 1984;
Wexler & Culicover, 1980). Thus, it is disturbing to see how well-
received the theory seems to be.
Krashen himself indirectly suggests a possible reason when he
says (pp. 58-59) that teachers in elementary and adult education are
more taken with his theory than are teachers at the university level.
To this, I would add that American teachers seem to be more
receptive than Europeans. I can think of a couple of possible
explanations. For one thing, university teachers are better educated
in the relevant areas and also have a good deal more leisure to study
Krashen's writings critically. For another, Europeans are less
infected by the anti-intellectualism that afflicts American
elementary and secondary education (see, e.g., Hofstadter, 1962;
for a reflex of this attitude in TESL, see Moskowitz, 1978). For the
fundamental message of Krashen's theory is that you do not have to
know very much to be a good language teacher.
Krashen's ideas have been around for almost a decade now; one
of the noteworthy things about them is how little they have
changed. Krashen has had plenty of opportunity to try to rescue
them from their incoherence and shape them into something like a
real theory, but what we have before us is almost identical to what
we were offered years ago, with all its insufficiencies and
contradictions intact. The Input Hypothesis offered Krashen a
chance to give us a cogent elaboration of the linchpin of his theory;
unfortunately, he has muffed the chance.

REFERENCES

Chomsky, N. (1975). Reflections on language. New York: Pantheon.

Chomsky, N. (1980). Rules and representations. New York: Col
University Press.
Chomsky, N. (1985). Knowledge of language: Its nature, origins, an
Unpublished manuscript.
Gleitman, L.R., Newport, E.L., & Gleitman, H. (1984). The current s
of the motherese hypothesis. Journal of Child Language, 11, 43-79
Gregg, K.R. (1984). Krashen's Monitor and Occam's Razor. App
Linguistics, 5, 79-100.
Hofstadter, R. (1962). Anti-intellectualism in American life. New Y
Random House.

REVIEWS 121

This content downloaded from

125.63.48.185 on Tue, 06 May 2025 01:44:34 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Krashen, S.D. (1983). Newmark's "ignorance hypothesis" and current
second language acquisition theory. In S. Gass & L. Selinker (Eds.),
Language transfer in language learning (pp. 135-153). Rowley, MA:
Newbury House.
Moskowitz, G. (1978). Caring and sharing in the foreign language class.
Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Ochs, E. (1982). Talking to children in Western Samoa. Language in
Society, 11(1), 77-104.
Pinker, S. (1984). Language learnability and language development.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wexler, K., & Culicover, P.W. (1980). Formal principles of language
acquisition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

KEVIN R. GREGG
Matsuyama University, Japan

Support system f
Guided Composition learnin
Second Edition
Forence Baskoff, American Language write i
Institute, New York University
271 pages * paper * Instructor's
Annotated Edition * 1984

Baskoff's text for ESI/EFL students con-

centrates on writing paragraphs and model compositions and dic
short compositions. Each chapter con- expanded handbook of Eng
tains a model composition that focuses and rhetoric, and a new Ins
on a rhetorical form, an organizational Annotated Edition.
principle, and a grammatical topic.
Exercises isolate specific grammatical For adoption consideration, request
and lexical problems for the non-native copy from your regional Houghton M
speaker and provide extensive practice in EEL
sentence writing. Composition assign- Houghton
ments are based on the form and content 13400 Midway Rd., Dallas, TX 75
of the model composition. 1900 So. Batavia Ave., Geneva, IL 6
The Second Edition includes many new 989 Lenox Dr., Lawrenceville, NJ
N 777 California Ave., Palo Alto, CA 94304

122 TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded from

125.63.48.185 on Tue, 06 May 2025 01:44:34 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms