An exploration of Krashen's input hypothesis
Journal: Region - Educational Research and Reviews DOI: 10.32629/rerr.v7i1.3627
Abstract
In the 1970s and 1980s, American linguist Krashen and Spanish educator Terrell formulated five acquisition hypotheses, with the "i+1" input hypothesis being particularly influential. Krashen's theory emphasizes the significant role of input in second language acquisition and has inspired foreign language education. This paper analyzes the input hypothesis and reviews research on its application in teaching, followed by a discussion of its limitations and use in China's language education.
Keywords
input hypothesis; i+1; foreign language teaching
Full Text
PDF - Viewed/Downloaded: 3 TimesReferences
[1] Dulay H, Burt M. 1977. Language Two. New York: Oxford press.
[2] Krashen SD. 1985. The Input Hyphotheses: Issue and Implications. New York: Pergamon Press.
[3] Michael L. 1983. Native Speaker/Non-native Speaker Conversation in the Second Language Classroom. Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
[4] Rod E. 1992. The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford University Press.
[5] Sharwood SM. 1981. Consciousness-raising and the second language learner1. Applied Linguistics, 2: 159-168.
[6] Feng GX. 2009. An analysis of the monitoring model. Foreign Language Teaching, 30(06): 49-53.
[7] Luo LS, Li ZN, Ge L. 2001. Krashen's theory of language input and foreign language teaching. Journal of Tsinghua University (Philosophy and Social Sciences Edition), 4: 71-74.
[8] Jiang SQ. 2010. Krashen's second language acquisition theory and multimedia-assisted English listening teaching: an empirical study based on university English teaching reform model. Foreign Language Journal, 3: 140-143.
[9] Wang XL. 2000. The implications of the "input hypothesis" and "output hypothesis" for English teaching. Journal of Nanjing Medical University (Social Science Edition), 1: 50-51+63.
[10] Weng YH. 2006. An analysis of the second language acquisition "input hypothesis". Journal of Minzu University of China, 4: 142-144.
[11] Zhou N. 2019. The implications of Krashen's monitoring model for foreign language teaching. Educational Modernization, 6(60): 186-187.
[12] Zou WC. 2000. Opportunities and conditions for language input. Foreign Language World, 1: 5-10.
[2] Krashen SD. 1985. The Input Hyphotheses: Issue and Implications. New York: Pergamon Press.
[3] Michael L. 1983. Native Speaker/Non-native Speaker Conversation in the Second Language Classroom. Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
[4] Rod E. 1992. The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford University Press.
[5] Sharwood SM. 1981. Consciousness-raising and the second language learner1. Applied Linguistics, 2: 159-168.
[6] Feng GX. 2009. An analysis of the monitoring model. Foreign Language Teaching, 30(06): 49-53.
[7] Luo LS, Li ZN, Ge L. 2001. Krashen's theory of language input and foreign language teaching. Journal of Tsinghua University (Philosophy and Social Sciences Edition), 4: 71-74.
[8] Jiang SQ. 2010. Krashen's second language acquisition theory and multimedia-assisted English listening teaching: an empirical study based on university English teaching reform model. Foreign Language Journal, 3: 140-143.
[9] Wang XL. 2000. The implications of the "input hypothesis" and "output hypothesis" for English teaching. Journal of Nanjing Medical University (Social Science Edition), 1: 50-51+63.
[10] Weng YH. 2006. An analysis of the second language acquisition "input hypothesis". Journal of Minzu University of China, 4: 142-144.
[11] Zhou N. 2019. The implications of Krashen's monitoring model for foreign language teaching. Educational Modernization, 6(60): 186-187.
[12] Zou WC. 2000. Opportunities and conditions for language input. Foreign Language World, 1: 5-10.
Copyright © 2025 Ziyu ZHANG, Luying MA, Lidan GOU
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License
