Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc.

(TESOL)

A Commentary on Krashen's Input Hypothesis

Author(s): Christian Faltis
Source: TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 18, No. 2 (Jun., 1984), pp. 352-357
Published by: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL)
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3586705 .
Accessed: 22/01/2014 15:47
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
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 support@jstor.org.

Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL) is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to TESOL Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 197.28.25.55 on Wed, 22 Jan 2014 15:47:45 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

REFERENCES
31:217-221.
Krashen,
Stephen.1981.LettertotheEditor.LanguageLearning
and practiceinsecondlanguageacquisiKrashen,
Stephen.1982.Principles
tion.New York:Pergamon.
Long,Michael.1983.Inputand secondlanguageacquisition
theory.
Paper
of MichiganConferenceon Applied
presentedat the 10thUniversity
AnnArbor,Michigan,
October28-30,1983.
Linguistics,
IndianaReynolds,Paul Davidson.1971.A primerin theoryconstruction.
polis:Bobbs-Merrill.

A Commentary
on Krashen'sInputHypothesis
CHRISTIAN FALTIS

University
ofAlabama

I have been studyingand teachingKrashen'sMonitorModel with

itsaccompanyinghypothesesforseveralyearsnow. Krashenattaches
a great deal of importanceto the distinctionbetween acquisition
and learningand arguesthatthesole functionof consciouslanguage
learningis to monitoroutputwhichhas been acquired via meaningfulinteractionin the second language. For him,acquisitionis what
allows language studentsto initiateutterancesand gain fluencyin
the second language.
Of equal importanceto Krashenis how adults acquire a second
language. He attemptsto explain this process throughhis input
hypothesis,which states that second language acquisition is most
likelyto occur when theacquirerunderstandsthelanguage input.In
order forthisinputto be meaningful,Krashenbelieves thatit must
contain structure"a little"beyond the acquirer's currentlevel of
competence in the second language (1981a, 1982). Accordingto the
hypothesis, progressive speaking ability is not taught directly;
rather,it emerges as acquirers build up theircompetence through
meaningfulinput.
Krashen'sconceptionof the second language acquisitionprocess
in adults is very similarto the way he views firstlanguage acquisitionin children:
Childrenprogressby understanding
languagethatis a littlebeyond
them.Thatis,ifa childis at a stagei, thatchildcan progressto statei
plus 1 alongthe"naturalsequence"(wherei plus 1 maybe a blockof
morecorrectly
thechildwhohas justacquiredthemembers
structures;
ofi can thenacquirea memberofi plus1) by understanding
language
i plus1. The childunderstands
structure
containing
languagecontaining
thatis a bitbeyondhimorherwiththeaid ofcontext(1981b:126).
352

TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded from 197.28.25.55 on Wed, 22 Jan 2014 15:47:45 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

The idea that both adults and children acquire language in this
manner comes primarilyfroma small number of studies on first
language acquisition in childrenwhich report on a phenomenon
known as "caregiverspeech" (Krashen 1978:15-18;1981b:128-135).
Caregiver speech is also referredto in the literatureas "caretaker
speech" and "motherese" (Newport 1975). Krashen prefers"caregiver speech" and definesit as "the modificationthatparentsand
othersmake whentalkingto youngchildren"(Krashen1982:22).The
caregiverwhichhe has characterizedforthe last fiveyearsas being
the model forhis inputhypothesisinteractswithyoung childrenin
the followingways:
1. does not deliberately
attemptto teach language(citingNewport,
and Gleitman
Gleitman,
1977)
2. modifieshisorherspeechinordertoaid comprehension
(citingClark
and Clark1977)
3. usesshort,simplesentencesthatbecomemorecomplexas thechild
getsolder(citingPhillips1973)
4. repeatshim-or herselffrequently
to assurecomprehension
(citing
Cross1977)
5. correctslanguageonlyto clarifymeaning(citingClarkand Clark

1977).

I have no problemacceptingtheresultsof theseparticularstudies

nor do I object to the way thatKrashen uses them to supportthe
inputhypothesis.My real concernis thathe has painted a pictureof
second language acquisitionin adultsbased primarilyon accountsof
caregiver-childinteractioi withoutprovidinghis readershipwith
theculturalcontext
foranyoftheresearch.Who are thesecaregivers
to whom Krashenso oftenrefers?Do caregiversacross languages
and culturesinteractwithyoungchildrenin thismanner?I believe
thatit is importantto considerthat1) the caregiversin the studies
Krashenuses to supporthis ideas concerninghow acquisitiontakes
place come from mainstream middle-class homes, and 2) the
general pattern of caregiver-childinteractionportrayedin these
studiesis neithercharacteristic
of all societiesnor of all groups.
In theremainderof thiscommentary,I would like to considerthe
caregiverspeech phenomenonin firstlanguage acquisitionfroma
cross-culturalperspective by highlightinga number of studies
communities.
dealing withlanguagesocializationin non-mainstream
The purpose of presentingthesenon-mainstream
studiesis to show
that there is more than one patternof caregiver-childinteraction.
This commentaryends with a statementconcerningthe need for
cross-culturalevidence to supportKrashen'sinputhypothesis.
Heath (1982a, 1982b, 1983) has writtenextensivelyon language
THE FORUM

353

This content downloaded from 197.28.25.55 on Wed, 22 Jan 2014 15:47:45 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

socialization among Black residentsof the Southeasternworkingclass community referred to as Trackton. In Trackton, young
children are never viewed as conversationalpartners by adult
caregivers. For a caregiver to choose a young child over another
adult as a conversationpartnerwould be considered strangeand
inappropriate.Children are not excluded fromadult activitiesor
fromlisteningto conversationson any topic; they simply are not
broughtintothe discussion.
Tracktoncaregiversmake no attemptsto reduce the competence
gap between themand theirchildrenby simplifyingtheirspeech.
From the day Tracktonchildrenare born,parentsand older siblings
make statementsabout themto otherfamilymembersand friends
but do not attemptto engage them as talkingpartnersuntilthey
become realisticsources of informationalconversation.Childrenin
Trackton become informationgivers by taking in and imitating
sounds theyconstantlyhear around them.
Ward (1971) provides a similar,thoughless complete,description
of language acquisitionpatternsamong the caregiversand children
livingin the Black communityof Rosepoint in rural Louisiana. In
Rosepoint,althoughtalk is all around,thereis no such thingas talk
forthe sake of talkbetween caregiversand youngchildrenbecause
childrenwho are learningto talkare not consideredto be appropriate conversationalpartners.When caregiversdo findit necessaryto
address young children,theydo not attemptto imitateor expand
thespeech of the children.
Child language socialization research conducted outside the
United States pointsto a patternof caregiver-childinteractionthat
also differs markedly from the mainstreamstudies. Schieffelin
(1979) provides an account of language learningamong the rain
forest Kaluli people of the Southern Highlands in Papua New
Guinea. Kaluli caregivers direct very little speech to pre-verbal
children. Since babies are described by adults as "having no
understanding,"it does not make any sense to treat them as
conversationalpartners.Kaluli motherswill, however,speak "for"
the baby under the right conditions. For example, when older
childrengreet and address the baby, the motherwill respond in a
markedvoice forthe baby. In speaking forthe baby, however,the
mother makes no attemptwhatsoever to simplifyher speech to
imitatethe baby. Her language is well formedand appropriatefor
older children.
Ochs (1982) discusses the organizationand developmentof communication between caregivers and young children living in a
traditional,highly stratifiedvillage on the island of Upolu in
Western Samoa. For the firstsix to eight months after birth,
354

TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded from 197.28.25.55 on Wed, 22 Jan 2014 15:47:45 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

household membersand others,in the presence of the infant,do a

greatdeal of talkingabout theinfantto caregivers.Much of thistalk
concernstheinfant'sbodily statesand needs. Whenactual caregiverinfantcommunicationdoes take place, it tends to be articulated
throughthe medium of songs or rhythmicforms.At thisearlystage
of language development,caregiversdo not treatinfantsas conversational partners;infantsare talked about and at, but never with.
Once youngchildrenbegin to produce intelligiblespeech, caregivers
interactin ways thatencourage the use of certainspeech acts that
childrenwill be expected to produce as low-rankingmembersin the
household. The speech used by caregiversin these instancesis not
modifiedto accommodate theyoungchild.
The final example of caregiver-childinteractionin a non-mainstream settingcomes froma brief report of a study by Harkness
(1971) on language socializationin a ruralGuatemalan community.
Generallyspeaking,adult caregiversin thiscommunityrarelyinteract with young children.Language development is not thoughtto
bear any relationshipto how oftenor even how caregiversinteract
withthese children.When mothersdo need to address theiryoung
children,theytendto use a monotonicstyleof speakingthatis somewhat fasterthan theirnormal pace. If a child fails to understand
speech addressed specificallyto him or her, motherswill often
respond by repeatingthe utterance,withoutchangingit, as many
timesas needed.
It should be readily apparent fromthe studies presentedabove
that none of the patternsof interactionbetween caregiversand
youngchildrenin thesenon-mainstream
settingsresemblesKrashen's
representationof caregiver speech. According to him, caregivers
"talk 'simpler' in an effortto make themselvesunderstoodby the
child" (Krashen 1982:22). The caregivers in the non-mainstream
communities,however, did not simplifytheir speech to address
youngchildren.Simplificationwas viewed as inappropriatespeech
behavior. In fact,in one case, motherstended to speak fasterwhen
talkingto youngchildren!
It troublesme thatKrashenhas not once made referenceto any of
the non-mainstreamstudies of caregiver-childinteractionin his
discussionsof theinputhypothesis,especiallysincethishypothesisis
an attemptto answer"how we acquire language"(Krashen1981a:100;
1982:20). In its present form,the way "we" acquire language is
apparentlyvery similarto the way young childrenin mainstream
middle-classhomes acquire language simplybecause Krashensays
so. I am going to stickmy neck out here and suggestthatthisis a
subtle formof ethnocentrism,
the view thatone's own group is the
best model forwhateverit is thatwe want to establish.It seems to
THE FORUM

355

This content downloaded from 197.28.25.55 on Wed, 22 Jan 2014 15:47:45 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

me thata theoryof adult second language acquisitionwhich relies

on child language acquisitionphenomena should at least consider
thosephenomena froma cross-cultural
perspective.Such a perspective provides a robustnessmore fittingof higherlevel generalizations.
There are still many questions to be addressed before we can
begin to accept hypothesesas theory.We need to know more about
the role of peer input in the acquisition process. We also need to
know whetherculturalgroupswho do not appear to simplifyinput,
simplifythe interactionprocess (see Long 1981). We can no longer
rely only on mainstreammiddle-class research to characterize
and/or hypothesizeabout the language acquisitionprocess in general.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I wouldliketo thankShirleyHeathand MindySperlingfortheircomments
on an
earlierdraftofthiscommentary.

REFERENCES
Clark, Herbert,and Eve Clark. 1977.Psychologyand language. New York:

BraceandJovanovich.
Harcourt,

Cross, Toni G. 1977. Mothers'speech adjustments:the contributionsof

selected child listenervariables. In Talking to children:language input
and acquisition,CatherineSnow and Charles Ferguson (Eds.), 151-188.

Press.
Cambridge,England:CambridgeUniversity

Harkness, Sara. 1971. Cultural variation in mother's language. Word

27:495-498.

athomeandatschool:a comparaHeath,ShirleyBrice.1982a.Questioning
tive study. In Doing the ethnographyof schooling, George Spindler

and Winston.
(Ed.), 103-131.New York:Holt,Rinehart

Heath, ShirleyBrice. 1982b. Whatno bedtime storymeans: narrativeskills

at home and school. Language in Society 11(1):49-76.
Heath, ShirleyBrice. 1983. Ways with words: language, life and work in
communitiesand classrooms.Cambridge,England: Cambridge UniversityPress.
Krashen,Stephen. 1978. The monitormodel forsecond-languageacquisition. In Second language acquisition and foreignlanguage teaching,
Rosario C. Gingras(Ed.), 1-26.Arlington,Virginia:Center forApplied
Linguistics.
356

TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded from 197.28.25.55 on Wed, 22 Jan 2014 15:47:45 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Krashen,Stephen. 1981a. Effectivesecond language acquisition:insights

fromresearch.In The second languageclassroom:directions

forthe

1980's, James E. Alatis, Howard B. Altman, and Penelope M. Alatis

(Eds.), 97-109.Oxford,England: Oxford UniversityPress.

andsecondlanguage
Krashen,
Stephen.1981b.Secondlanguageacquisition
learning.New York: PergamonPress.

Krashen,Stephen.1982. Principlesand practicesin second language

acquisition. New York: PergamonPress.
Long, Michael. 1981. Input, interaction,and second language acquisition.

AnnalsoftheNew YorkAcademyofScience385:259-278.

Newport,Elissa. 1975.Motherese:thespeech of mothersto youngchildren.

Ph.D. dissertation,Universityof Pennsylvania.
Newport, Elissa, HenryGleitman,and Lila R. Gleitman.1977. MotherI'd
ratherdo it myself:some' effectsand non-effectsof maternalspeech

Catherine
style.In Talkingto children:
languageinputand acquisition,

Snow and Charles Ferguson (Eds.), 109-149. Cambridge, England:

Cambridge UniversityPress.
Ochs, Elinor. 1982. Talking to childrenin WesternSamoa. Language in
Society 11(1):77-104.
Phillips,Juliet.1973. Syntaxand vocabulary of mothers'speech to young
children:age and sex comparisons.Child Development 44(1):182-185.
Schieffelin,Bambi. 1979. How Kaluli childrenlearn what to say, what to
do, and how to feel: an ethnographicstudy of the development of
communicativecompetence.Ph.D. dissertation,Columbia University.

a studyoflanguagelearning.
Ward,MarthaC. 1971.Themchildren:
New
York: IrvingtonPublishers.

Krasben Responds to Faltis. . .

Faltis correctlysuggeststhatthe input hypothesisshould be reconsidered in the lightof cross-culturalevidence. In my view, the
cross-cultural
data do notsupplycounter-evidenceto thehypothesis.
They are, in fact,valuable in that they focus attentionon what is
essentialforlanguage acquisition:not simplifiedinputbut comprehensible input containingi + 1, structures"slightlybeyond" the
acquirer's currentstate of competence. The inputhypothesisdoes
notclaim thatall acquirerswill receive simplifiedinput,expansions,
or middle-classcaretakerspeech. It does claim thatall acquirerswill
obtain comprehensibleinput,and thereis good reason to posit that
suchinputis available to acquirersin each of thesituationsdescribed
by Faltis.
First,in each case thereis a large amountof exposureto language;
languageis used aroundthechilda greatdeal. Heath (1982) notesthat
the Black working-classchildrenshe studied "are in the midst of
THE FORUM

357

This content downloaded from 197.28.25.55 on Wed, 22 Jan 2014 15:47:45 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions