100%(2)100% fanden dieses Dokument nützlich (2 Abstimmungen)
824 Ansichten8 Seiten
The Input Hypothesis is Krashen' s attempt to explain how the learner acquires a second language. The hypothesis suggests that language learning is driven by the receptive skills rather than by the productive ones. This paper examines the modifications and extensions made to the theory and how it has been met by critics.
The Input Hypothesis is Krashen' s attempt to explain how the learner acquires a second language. The hypothesis suggests that language learning is driven by the receptive skills rather than by the productive ones. This paper examines the modifications and extensions made to the theory and how it has been met by critics.
The Input Hypothesis is Krashen' s attempt to explain how the learner acquires a second language. The hypothesis suggests that language learning is driven by the receptive skills rather than by the productive ones. This paper examines the modifications and extensions made to the theory and how it has been met by critics.
An Evaluation of its Contributions to our Understanding of Second language Acquisition Phenomena. Barry Kavanagh 1) Abstract The Input Hypothesis is Krashen' s attempt to explain how the learner acquires a second language. The hypothesis suggests that language learning is driven by the receptive skills rather than by the productive ones. Krashen cites children who typically go through a silent period during which they absorb the language and then later begin to produce it. This hypothesis therefore maintains. that increased input will result in more language acquisition and rejects the notion that increased output, written or oral, results in a better acquirement of the language. It is the aim of this paper to evaluate this controversial theory and its contributions to second language acquisition examining the modifications and extensions made to it and how it has been met by critics. (J. Aomori Univ. Health Welf. 7 (2): 241- 248 , 2006) Key words : SLA (Second Language Acquisition), 1,1 (First language) L2 (second language), Comprehensible Input 1 .INTRODUCTION The late seventies saw Krashen put forward his ac- count of second language acquisition (SLA) known as the Monitor Model (1982,1985) and can be considered to be the most influential of theories in the post Chomsky period, leading McLaughlin (1987:19) to call it " The most ambitious theory of the second - language learn- ing process" . Almost twenty five years on the theory still resonates in SLA circles and causes much academic debate within the linguistic and teaching community. Central to the Monitor Model is the Input Hypothesis, Krashen' s stated favourite, and the fundamental part of the overall theory. In brief Krashen states (1985:2) "The input hypothesis claims that humans acquire language in only one way - by understanding messages; or by re- ceiving 'comprehensive input' ". The basic premise seems lucid and intelligible but from the beginning the Input Hypothesis and the model in which it is embedded has attracted a lot of controversy. It is the aim of this paper to evaluate the Input Hypothe- sis and its contributions to our understanding of SLA while taking note of the evidence put forward for it, how it has been revised and extended, and how the critics have portrayed the theory. 2 . THE MONITOR MODEL The Input Hypothesis is one of four other hypotheses which account for the monotor model. (Krashen, 1982,1985) These can be summarized as follows: The Acquisition / Learning Hypothesis Learning is the conscious knowledge of a second lan- guage, acquisition however is the unconscious process of 'picking up' the language. The distinction claims that learning cannot lead to acquisition. The Monitor Hypothesis The only function learning has is to monitor or edit the output of the learner. The Natural Order Hypothesis 1 ) Division of Human Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, Aomori University of Health and Welfare 241 Learners of a second language acquire it in mined grammatical order. a predeter- The Affective Filter Hypothesis The psychological factors that prevent the learner from acquiring the language even if comprehensible input is at their disposal. 3. THE ACQUISITION LEARNING DIVIDE Central to Krashen' s (1982,1985) theories is the notion that second language acquisition can parallel the way children learn their mother tongue. The hypothesis claims that adults do not lose the ability to acquire lan- guages the way that children do. He argues that there is a distinction between acquisition and learning, and it is this dichotomy that lies at the heart of Krashen' s theory. Krashen developed his theories from a series of 'mor- pheme order studies' conducted in the seventies that looked at the notion that there exists a natural sequence in the acquisition of second language grammar. It was from this empirical evidence that Krashen devel- oped his hypothesis. According to Krashen (1982,1985) this metalinguistic knowledge or knowing about the lan- guage cannot possibly lead to language acquisition. However what has been acquired can be learned (like native speakers learning the grammatical rules of their own language). This controversial notion has attracted a lot of debate. Cook (1993:53) illustrates his theory when she says, "It is important to realize Krashen' s firm be- lief that 'learnt knowledge can never be converted into ' acquired knowledge' , learning a rule for the past tense consciously never allows one to develop an unconscious ability to use the past tense in speech" Hence the learned system of grammatical rules and knowledge of the language can only act as an editor or monitor making minor changes and polishing what the acquired system has produced. This has implications for the teaching of grammar which Krashen (1982:83) considers to be " no longer the lead actor in the play" but can be used limitedly as a monitor or for "language appreciation" otherwise known as linguistics. This posi- tion sees Krashen boldly turn his back on the cognitive stance which suggests that conscious learning, in a meaningful context can indeed be internalized and subconscious. 4 . KRASHEN AND NATIVISM Shannon (1994) suggests the Acquisition / Learning Hy- pothesis can be seen to reveal Krashen' s nativist / in- nate position on SLA. Krashen draws on Ll theories of acquisition as Cook (1993:58) suggests " makes the Chomskyan language Acquisition device (LAD) a core element in his model" . Krashen (1982) argues that SLA parallels first language acquisition in that input is proc- essed through the LAD, a mental capacity specifically suited to language acquisition. He argues that input in second language acquisition functions in the same way that input does in a child' s acquisition of his or her first language. This occurs during a critical period, this pe- riod as Lenneberg (1967) suggests is prior to puberty and that after this critical period the LAD device cannot be activated. Nevertheless as Lightbown and Spada (1999:36) claim "Ch omsky has not made specific claims about the im- plications of his theory for second language learning" However Krashen (1985:4) borrows from this to suggest that when the language learner is in a rich language en- vironment " the language 'mental organ' will func- tion just as automatically as any other organ" . In this respect acquisition will happen whether you like it or not, while talking to your friends or even watching TV. Krashen differs from Lenneberg (1967) however by sug- gesting that the LAD is available to access throughout life, not just to the pre pubescent child, and is engaged whenever a language is being acquired. However as Shannon (1994) and Cook (1993) point out although the chomskyan LAD is a core element in his model Krashen himself does not explicitly develop it as Cook (1993:58) il- lustrates " Krashen is concerned with the properties of the input, rather than the processes of the mind" . This paper will now examine these properties of input and how they facilitate language acquisition. 5 . HOW IS LANGUAGE AQUIRED? The input hypothesis attempts to answer what is per- haps the most important question in our field, and gives an answer that has a potential impact on all ar- eas of language teaching: The important question is: How do we acquire language? Krashen: (1982:20) 242 Krashen (1982) argues that for SLA to occur learners need to comprehend input that contains linguistic items that are slightly beyond the learners present linguistic competence. Krashen defines this as I +1. I refers to the learners current level of proficiency and the level that the student will go to next is defined as I + 1 but as Cook (1993) argues the order in which the learner ac- quires the language invokes Krashen' s idea of the Natu- ral Order Hypothesis. This states that students move to the next level along the natural order. Krashen refers to morpheme studies as done by Dulay and Burt (1973) who found that there is an apparent common order of acquisition for certain structures in L2 acquisition to re- inforce his hypothesis. This begs the question how do learners bridge the gap from one level to the next (especially if forms are not taught). Krashen states three factors that help in the un- derstanding of 'comprehensible input' . Richards and Rogers (2001:182) highlight these. "Clues based on the situation and the context, extralinguistic information, and knowledge of the world make comprehension possi- ble" . Krashen suggests that speaking is the result of ac- quisition and not the cause, it cannot be taught just as grammar is not taught. Krashen (1982:21) argues to " ' understand' means that the acquirer is focused on the meaning and not the form of the message" . Leading him to assert that the input should not necessarily aim at I +1 and suggests that when communication is suc- cessful, and input is understood, then I +1 will be auto- matically provided. The teacher does not teach the next grammatical structure. Clearly, the logical outcome of krashen' s position is that there need not be any grammar teaching in the class- room at all since learning cannot become acquisition. The theory doesn' t allow for any form focused teach- ing. Shannon (1994:10) clarifies this by suggesting " the implication is that all formal learning environments must be those that are language-rich and that they should not centre on teaching about grammar or any other aspect of language". This can have implications for classroom practice as this paper will examine later. 6. HOW SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION FAILS Comprehensible input is necessary for acquisition, but is not sufficient. The acquirer needs to be 'open' to the input. Krashen (1985:3) Krashen (1982,1985) accepts that some learners who are exposed to a variety of comprehensible input do not at- tain levels of proficiency and attributes this to the affec- tive filter. This 'psychological block' or filter has been closely related to the theories of the LAD or `black box' that Chomsky (1964) speaks of. Cook (1993:54) illus- trates the process "Language input comes into the mind, LAD processes it and produces an internal gram- mar of the language" However, whether or not this input is processed or not is very much dependent on the learners psychological states. When the filter is up Krashen (1985:3) states " the acquirer may understand what he hears and reads, but the input will not reach the LAD" According to Krashen (1985) a student whose filter is up displays feel- ings of anxiety, is unmotivated and suffers from low self confidence. In contrast however a student with a low fil- ter is more likely to acquire the language almost forget- ting he is in the process of studying. The crux of Krashen' s (1982,1985) views on SLA is that once comprehensible input is understood and processed by the learners internal mechanisms (done with a low fil- ter) then acquisition has been a success and according to Krashen (1982:33) " these are the true causes of sec- ond language acquisition" These are strong claims by Krashen and have been prone to attack on theoretical and empirical terms. This paper will now evaluate the evidence given by Krashen (1982,1985) for his hypothesis and highlight the criticism that it has attracted and how the hypothesis has been extended by fellow linguists. 7 . KRASHEN' S EVIDENCE FOR THE INPUT HYPOTHESIS Krashen offers no direct evidence in support of the in- put hypothesis. Ellis (1990:101) However there is a lot if indirect evidence that Krashen uses to lend support to his hypothesis although McLaughlin (1987:36) questions this "What Krashen does is not provide 'evidence' in any real sense of the term, but simply argues that certain phenomena can be viewed from the perspective of his theory" Let us then 243 look at the `evidence' that Krashen claims for the input hypothesis. 7 a. SIMPLIFIED CODES Krashen (1982) suggests that the input hypothesis is compatible with 'caretaker speech' . For Krashen care- taker speech is not finely tuned, in other words it does not strive for the next structure to be learned but in- stead is roughly tuned. For caretakers Krashen states (1982:23) "The input they provide for children includes I +1, but also includes many structures that have already been acquired plus some that have not" . He concludes (ibid:24) "With natural, roughly - tuned input, I + 1 will occur and reoccur" . While the speech is simplified, it is intended for communication, not language teaching and is limited to 'here and now' , the child' s immediate envi- ronment or the experiences the adult knows the child has had. Krashen (1982) argues that just as caretaker speech can provide comprehensible input for the child, adult speak- ers of second languages can also receive the kind of sim- plified input that children get. Krashen (1985) puts forward the idea of 'foreigner talk' , the simplified lan- guage we use when communicating with foreigners. Krashen equates this foreigner talk with teacher talk within the classroom. Running counter to these claims of caretaker speech Lightbown and Spada (1999:24) state "In some societies, adults do not engage in conversation or verbal play with very young children. And yet these children achieve full competence in the community language. Thus, it is diffi- cult to judge the importance of these modifications which some adults make in speech addressed to children" Similarly McLaughlin (1987) shows evidence from Heath (1983) that working class children whom she studied were on the whole not getting simplified in- put from family members. They instead waited until they were conversationalists or information givers, and they learned by imitating sounds around them. The lan- guage they heard was said to be much higher than their current level of competence, which is hardly simplified. Krashen (1985:6) reacts to the above by suggesting such " data does not supply counter -evidence to the input hypothesis". He suggests that it is not only simplified in- put but also comprehensible input comprised of I +1 that leads to acquisition and that such evidence sup- ports this. He emphasizes that the input hypothesis does not claim that all acquirers receive simplified input but it does claim that they will get comprehensible in- put which is essential for language acquisition. How- ever these studies all involved L1 research and as Cook (1993) maintains it is not relevant to SLA and requires L2 evidence to create a solid argument. Gregg (1984:87) is equally damming in the assessment of this 'evidence' as it "does not explain how the child (or the adult) goes from understanding an utterance to 'acquiring' I + 1" However some linguists observe that simplified input can hinder rather than aid acquisition. Like foreigner talk, teacher talk can comprise of shortened sentences, grammatically incorrect utterances and overall simplifi- cation (Ellis 1985). This it is argued can be damaging to the progression of the student. White (1987) states that simplified input from native speakers can cause depriva- tion, starving them of crucial input. However as Cook (1996:61) suggests "There is no necessary cause-and-ef- fect relationship between special speech and effective learning - no indication that special speech helps learn- ers rather than being simply a conventional register" 7 b. THE SILENT PERIOD Continuing the theme of Krashen adopting other re- search findings as 'evidence' supporting the input hy- pothesis, Krashen (1982,1985) gives us the 'silent period' . This states that learners go through a silent period be- fore they begin to produce the language, he gives exam- ples of immigrants who are silent initially in their new environment only to produce when they have received enough comprehensible input. Krashen (1985:9) illus- trates "The child, during this time, is simply building up competence by listening, via comprehensible input" . Krashen suggests that adults and children in formal lan- guage classes are usually not allowed a silent period (he advocates not forcing production as in the natural ap- proach) and that such forced production can be damag- ing. Cook (1993) calls the silent period an intriguing observa- tion and suggests that this initial silent period does not necessary prove the build up of comprehensible input, it could in fact be psychological. The child is embarrass- ed, isolated and fearful of the new environment. Hakuta (1974) as cited in Cook (1993) gives evidence of the child Uguisu who she claims started speaking as a result of 244 confidence rather that competence. It is arguable whether this is a steady increase in comprehensible in- put or simply a case of confidence. Krashen however provides no direct evidence on how can it be tested em- pirically. In practical teaching terms Krashen (1982,1985) argues that methods that supply plenty of comprehensible input have been shown to be more suc- cessful than formal language teaching, for example TPR (Total Practical Response) methods where students do not respond verbally for a lengthy period before produc- tion is allowed. But Ellis (1990) again highlights the prob- lems of Krashen' s own evidence as being non-existent. Krashen provides no evidence to show that the meth- ods he believes facilitative of acquisition provide more comprehensible input than those he does not consider effective. His argument in fact is circular. Ellis (1990:127) 8. SPEAKING According to Krashen (1982, 1985) the need for speaking plays a minor role in acquiring a language. This runs counter to the general consensus that it does. Most teachers would claim that they need output from their students in order to assess their understanding, monitor their progress and teach. McLaughlin (1987:50) argues, "It i s questionable, however, whether comprehensible input alone can account for how learners correct and adjust their hypotheses about the language. Unless learners try out the language, they are unlikely to get the kind of feedback they need to analyze the structure of the language". Krashen (1985:36) himself acknowl- edges the importance of this hypothesis testing but ar- gues that it "does not require production" . However Krashen (1982) is of the opinion that speaking can only help indirectly in language acquisition by 1.) Speaking produces conversation which leads to compre- hensible input and 2.) Speaking allows native speakers to judge your level and then speak accordingly. Surely then, the classroom is not entirely teacher dominated. 9 . EXTENSTIONS TO COMPREHENSIBLE INPUT In an extension rather than rebuttal of the Input Hy- pothesis Swain (1985) developed her output hypothesis. Swain (1985) investigated immersion programmes in Canada of which all instruction of all subjects were taught in French to native English speakers. The chil- dren of these programmes were exposed to huge amounts of comprehensible input. Nunan (1999:45) how- ever points out that " their second language develop- ment is not as advanced as it should be according to the comprehensible input hypothesis" . Swain (1985) found that within these programmes the teachers talked a great deal whilst the students said very little. Accord- ing to the input hypothesis these would seem like the perfect conditions for language acquisition. But appar- ently not. Based on her findings Swain (1985) formulated the out- put hypothesis suggesting that student output was im- portant for acquisition. According to the theory the learner should be forced to produce comprehensible lan- guage which leads the student to focus upon form, and to formulate their own hypothesis about the language. Swain (1985) refers to this as 'pushed language use' . Evidence for this comes from Swain et al; 1989 as cited in Ellis 1990, where a study of 175 grade 6 immersion students learning French as an L2 in Canada showed that although they had a native like level in discourse competence the opposite could be said for their gram- mar and sociolinguistic traits despite exposure to huge amounts of comprehensible input. Swain lays the blame for these inaccuracies not due to comprehensible input but because they lacked the opportunity for speaking in the classroom and as Ellis (1990:118) remarks " were not pushed in the output they did produce" Krashen (2003) queries the idea of 'pushed output' sug- gesting that pushing students to produce is harmful, and when asked what part of the language class gave students most anxiety, speaking was found at the top of the list. The implication here is that a silent period is to be expected in all second language learners. A similar and further extension to the input hypothesis is the interactionist position. They point out that that much of second language acqui- sition can occur through conversational interaction. Long (1983) agrees with Krashen that comprehensible input is necessary for SLA but differs in that he is inter- ested in how input is made comprehensible, in his opin- ion interactional modification provides this. Lightbown and Spada (1999:43) explain "In his view, what learners need is not necessarily simplification of the linguistic 245 forms but . rather an opportunity to interact with other speakers, in ways which lead them to adapt what they are saying until the learner shows signs of understand- ing" . Krashen (1985) agrees that the above is useful but not a must for acquisition to occur. He believes that comprehensible input can be achieved without any inter- action. He cites the reading hypothesis, and that ad- vanced learners can benefit from watching television to facilitate language acquisition. 10. INSTRUCTION Ellis (1990) underlines Krashen' s belief that it is doubt- ful whether or not the classroom can provide compre- hensible input to ensure L2 acquisition. For Krashen the classroom is more important to the beginner as real world input would be too difficult and also for the FL (foreign language) learner who cannot secure the needed comprehensible input outside the classroom. Krashen (1982,1985) argues that grammar teaching should be restricted to forms and its goal is to enable the learner to monitor. Language instruction itself only helps when it is the primary source of comprehensible input. If the teaching of structures are to be omitted Krashen proposes extra linguistic information for under- standing newly acquired sentence structure. Gregg (1984:86) attacks this notion as a replacement for instruc- tion "I find it difficult to imagine extra-linguistic infor- mation that would enable one to 'acquire' the third person singular-s, or yes/no questions, or indirect object placement, or passivization" Under the rule of the hypothesis once the input is under- stood then the grammar is automatically provided but this can be seen as problematic. McLaughlin (1987:47) maintains that hearing sentences does not provide the learner with the necessary grammatical knowledge. "O ne way adults learn these rules is through formal in- struction, where the discrepancy between their interme- diate forms and target-language norms can be pointed out" Krashen also cites immersion programmes as more evi- dence for the input hypothesis, as they provide enough comprehensible input for acquisition to occur. Yorio (1994:132) observes however that learners performance in such programmes or language rich environments was "- - characterized by incorrect lexical, morphologi- cal, and syntactic formsthese forms do not seem to im- prove over time, in fact, . these learners fossilize early and appear to remain fossilized" . Krashen' s answer to this is not grammar instruction or review but as McLaughlin (1987:46) cynically puts it "large, fresh doses of comprehensible input". Johnson (1992) talks of the fluent but fossilized 'intermediate-it is' who most teachers have experienced. Although perhaps more comprehensible input is not the answer as Johnson im- plies the conventional pedagogic approach may not be the successful remedy. Krashen perhaps explains why when he states "The grammatical system of any lan- guage is far too complex to be consciously learned, and many people develop high levels of competence without formal instruction" . (Internet 1). Nevertheless this cannot be seen as evidence for com- prehensible input, we can only speculate. 11. THEORETICAL APPRASIAL. Evaluation of the input hypothesis can proceed in two ways. First, the quality of the evidence which Krashen cites in favour of it can be considered. Sec- ond, the hypothesis can be subjected to theoretical appraisal. Ellis (1990:103) 11 a. DEFINITION The lack of direct evidence for the input hypothesis has been examined and the arguments Krashen (1982,1985) has given himself have been evaluated and commented on. This paper will now look at the concerns of its theoreti- cal foundations. Ellis (1990:104) points out "The 'I +1' construct is not operationally defined" There is no in- struction book and a distinct lack of empirical evidence to back up its claims. As examined comprehensible in- put is clearly a hazy concept. In this respect, according to Krashen anything that brings you to acquisition must be comprehensible input and therefore comprehensible input is whatever leads us to acquisition. The argument is in fact circular. (Cook (1993) Ellis (1990) and McLaugh- lin (1987). 11 b. TESTABILITY McLaughlin (1987) agues that the theory should be test- - 246 able. Most detractors of the theory, notably Gregg (1984) and McLaughlin, ask 'What constitutes compre- hensible input? If it is untestable then the evidence given by Krashen for input hypothesis citing that a lack of comprehensible input does not lead to acquisition be- comes void. McLaughlin (1987:42) writes, " if it is im- possible to test the theory in any meaningful way, such claims have little credibility" Gregg (1994:37) echoes concerns regarding its testabil- ity. " any theory in any field must meet certain crite- ria, e.g., of precision and testability Krashen generally fails to meet these. Gregg goes even further to suggest that the input hypothesis cannot be considered a theory of SLA, that comprehensible input and a low affective filter leads to acquisition cannot possibly lead to theory of second language acquisition that explains what the process is and how it works. On empirical grounds and as a piece of research then Krashen' s theories can be considered flawed. As McLaughlin (1987:57) illustrates "The issue here is not second-language teaching, but second-language re- search and whether Krashen' s theory is successful. The answer, obviously, is that it is not" . Perhaps then the area where Krashen has gained support is within second language teaching circles amongst teachers and researchers who see much which is intuitively appeal- ing in his views (Lightbown & Spada 1999). Krashen is therefore not without support. 11 c. SUPPORT VanPattern (1994) suggests that the input hypothesis should not be rejected outright but should be shown where it is weak and modified accordingly and that in- put as a variable should not be neglected in the class- room. White (1987) illustrates that the Krashen theory has highlighted the importance input has and how acqui- sition is dependent on the learner but there is a need for a hypothesis of a more precise kind. She adds that in- comprehensible input is the key as it encourages learn- ers to make hypotheses on the language they are learning. She states that comprehensible input cannot cover all aspects of grammar and that at some stage grammatical instruction is necessary. Even McLaugh- lin (1987:58) admits " Krashen deserves praise for de- veloping an extensive and detailed theory" but as you would expect he continues "its inadequacies will doubt- less stimulate others to improve on the theory" . The general consensus then it seems is good start, but there is room (how much room is debatable) for improvement. 12. CONCLUSION Judging from the evidence presented here it can be said that the input hypothesis has struck a nerve in the heart of the linguistic community. For some it is a source of frustration. It lacks empirical evidence, it can- not be tested and consequently falsified, and is vague in definition. On the other hand it is a theory that has bro- ken the linguistic constraints and barriers of grammar that have come before it by underlining the importance of input, whilst providing a model however flawed on how this can be done. Ellis (1990) however suggests there is more to teaching than comprehensible input and like many practicing teachers metalinguistic knowl- edge can play a bigger role than what Krashen gives it credit for. Perhaps then what is needed is a more bal- anced theory of SLA that gives equal weight to produc- tion and comprehension and assigns a more significant role for classroom instruction. In conclusion it is clear that the contribution of the input hypothesis to the field of SLA can be regarded as very influential indeed. Perhaps Ellis (1990) is a little harsh when the hypothesis is described as a bucket full of holes but there is no doubt that it is leaking in parts as this paper as tried to examine and evaluate. As a basis for research it is inadequate but it can also be described as the most extensive and controversial model of second language acquisition in that it has highlighted a way that learners acquire the language and is not without value for language pedagogy. It provides a statement of important principle, namely that for successful classroom acquisition learn- ers require access to message-oriented communica- tion that they can understand. It also provides a rough explanation of why this might be so. The main problem with Krashen' s hypothesis is that it is noth- ing like as 'fundamental' as he claims. Ellis (1990:107) BIBLIOGRAPHY COOK, V. (1993) Linguistics and Second Language Ac- - 247 quisition. London: MacMillian Press. DULAY, H. C. & BERT, M. K. (1973) 'Should we Teach Children Syntax?' Language Learning, 24, pp. 37-53. ELLIS, R. (1985) Understanding Second Language Acqui- sition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ELLIS, R. (1990) Instructed Second Language Acquisi- tion. Oxford: Blackwell. GREGG, K.R. (1984) "Krashen' s monitor and occam' s razor." Applied Linguistics 5, 79-100. GREGG, K.R (1994) `Krashen' s Theory, Acquisition Theory, and Theory' in Barasch, R. M. & Vaughn James, C. (eds.) Beyond the Monitor Model: Comments on Current Theory and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Boston: Heinle & Heinle. INTERNET: 1. http://www.coas.uncc.edu/linguistics/courses/ 6163/should _we_teach_grammar.htm JOHNSON, H. (1992) 'Defossilizing' . ELT Journal Vol- ume 46/2 KRASHEN, S (1982) Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon. KRASHEN, S. (1985) The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. London: Longman. KRASHEN, S. (2003) Explorations in Language Acquisi- tion and Language: The Taipei Lectures. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. LENNEBERG, E (1967) The Biological Foundations of Language. New York: John Wiley. LIGHTBOWN, P & SPADA, N. (1999) How Languages are Learned. Oxford: Oxford University Press. LONG, M. H. (1983) 'Native speaker/ non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehen- sible input.' Applied Linguistics 4: 126-41. MCLAUGHLIN, B. (1987) Theories of Second Language Learning. London: Arnold. NUNAN, D. (1999) Second Language Teaching and Learning. Boston, MA. Heinle & Heinle. RICHARDS, J.C. & ROGERS, T.S. (2001) Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cam- bridge University Press. SHANNON, S.M. (1994) 'Introduction' in Barasch, R.M & Vaughn James, C. (eds.) in Beyond the Monitor Model. Comments on current theory and practice in second lan- guage acquisition. Boston: Heinle & Heinle. SWAIN, M. (1985) Communicative competence: some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible out- put in its development in S. Gass & C. Madden (eds.): In- put in Second Language Acquisition. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House. VANPATTERN, B. (1994) 'On Babies and Bathwater: In- put in Foreign Language Learning' in Barasch, R.M & Vaughn James, C. (eds.) Beyond the Monitor Model. Comments on current theory and practice in second lan- guage acquisition. Boston: Heinle & Heinle. WHITE, L. (1987) Against comprehensible input: the in- put hypothesis and the development of second-language competence. Applied Linguistics 8, 95-110. YORIO. C. (1994) The Case for Learning in Barasch, R.M & Vaughn James, C. (eds.) in Beyond the Monitor Model. Comments on current theory and practice in sec- ond language acquisition. Boston: Heinle & Heinle. 248