See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/384190178

A Critical Evaluation of Stephen Krashen"s Input Hypothesis in Second

Language Learning and Teaching

Article · September 2024

CITATION READS

1 188

1 author:

Md. Abdus Salam

Jagannath University - Bangladesh
6 PUBLICATIONS 1 CITATION

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Md. Abdus Salam on 20 September 2024.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Jagannath University Journal of Arts
Volume 10, No 02, July–December 2020

A Critical Evaluation of Stephen Krashen‟s Input

Hypothesis in Second Language Learning and Teaching
Md. Abdus Salam*

Abstract
The necessity and importance of learning more than one language is at apex in this globalized 21st
century. This article studies American Educationist and Linguist Stephen Krashen‟s Input
Hypothesis in Second Language learning and teaching. This study critically analyses relevant
empirical secondary and tertiary sources following qualitative data analysis method to investigate
the answers of the research questions, viz. a) what are the effectiveness and appropriateness of
Stephen Krashen‟s Input Hypothesis in Second Language learning and teaching for Second
Language learners of the globe? b) Whether or not to recommend Stephen Krashen‟s Input
Hypothesis in Second Language learning and teaching? This article finds that friendly, sympathetic
and motivational teachers‟ Comprehensible Input by encouraging pleasure reading of self-chosen
reading materials and listening dialogues, conversations of practical life scenario as well as
watching movies in a less anxiety congenial atmosphere by attentive Second Language learners
with standard alphabetical and vocabulary knowledge will make Stephen Krashen‟s Input
Hypothesis a success in L2 learning and teaching.

Introduction
Multilingualism i.e., ability to communicate in more than one language has become a
basic tenet in academia nowadays perceiving the necessity and importance of second
language learning in linguistically diverged global village. To materialize effective
language learning and teaching linguists and scholars have piloted, proposed and
practiced multiple language learning and teaching methods and approaches in academia
like Grammar Translation Method, Communicative Language Teaching, Task Based
Language Teaching, Direct Method, Audio-Lingual Method, Total Physical Response,
Silent Method and Natural Approach. Regarding language learning and teaching,
American Linguist and co-initiator of Natural Approach in language acquisition and
learning Stephen Krashen proffers five hypotheses in language learning and teaching
namely Natural Order Hypothesis, Learning Hypothesis, Affective Filter Hypothesis,
Monitor Hypothesis and Input Hypothesis which play significant role in academia.
Krashen has combined psychological underpinning of the learners with educational
culture and linguistic approaches towards language learning and teaching. This article
demystifies Krashen‟s Input Hypothesis as it has attracted attention of several
stakeholders in academia like language learners, teachers, scholars and institutions.
Though Krashen‟s Input Hypothesis has already been analyzed by researchers, this article
discovers and evaluates the result and output of Krashen‟s Input Hypothesis which has
not yet been researched adequately. Firstly, this paper provides definition and evaluation
of language acquisition and learning. This article then examines Krashen‟s Input
Hypothesis, comments on Comprehensible Input and analyses “Silent Period” and “i+1”.
The next part of this article analyses comprehensible reading input for writing output of
language learners. Following this, this study juxtaposes listening and speaking skills of
language learners in Krashen‟s Input Hypothesis. Finally, this article pinpoints the

*
Associate Professor, Department of English, Jagannath University, Dhaka
RMbœv_ BDwbfvwm©wU Rvb©vj Ae AvU©m 225
appropriateness and effectiveness of Krashen‟s Input Hypothesis in language learning
and teaching.

Methodology
This article applied qualitative data analysis method. This study used secondary and
tertiary data to evaluate Stephen Krashen‟s Input Hypothesis in Second Language
learning and teaching as well as to recommend Stephen Krashen‟s Input Hypothesis in
Second Language learning and teaching. This paper used relevant research articles as
secondary data and books, lectures, newspaper articles, YouTube videos etc as the
tertiary data.

Aims and Objectives

This article focuses more on learning second language rather than teaching to fulfill the
following aims and objectives:
1. In-depth critical evaluation of Stephen Krashen‟s Input Hypothesis with relevant
empirical sources
2. Recommending Stephen Krashen‟s Input Hypothesis to Second Language Learning
and Teaching

Acquisition and Learning

Acquisition and learning are two ways of language learning but the former one gets
importance in Stephen Krashen‟s Input Hypothesis (1989a). In acquisition, Learners learn
language while they are not conscious of the learning. Language acquirers learn mother
language (L1) through language acquisition process. It is a natural process of language
learning and acquirers are not aware of it. Grammar, meaning and structure of a language
cannot be perceived by language acquirers at that time. The author argues that children‟s
mistakes are corrected by their parents and elder ones. Actually, children initially accept
the sound of a language and next time, they understand and internalize that sound in a
meaningful linguistic expression. This very process of children‟s language acquisition is
termed as “tacit competence” or a “feel” for language (Chomsky 28). Gradually,
language acquirers begin producing sounds with meaning that is mother tongue or First
Language (L1). On the contrary, language learning occur consciously following linguistic
methods and approaches by adult learners in which Stephen Krashen‟s (1989) Input
Hypothesis puts forward the idea of comprehensible input that is termed as “language
learning by feeling” (445). Krashen observes that linguistic input should be apprehended
and comprehended by conscious feeling process of learners. Whenever, a child starts
talking natural sounds, parents talk with the child in different meaning ways. Such
conversation between child and parents, to Krashen, is named comprehensible input
which can also be applied for adult learners. It is also observed by Krashen that after
getting birth, if a child is kept in isolation from such kind of comprehensible input,
language learning will not be successful. In such a situation, Krashen (1982) focuses on
that comprehensible input accelerates second language learning both for children and
adult learners. In addition to comprehensible input, language learning and teaching
environment plays note worthy role as stated by Krashen in his input hypothesis. Krashen
confirms that learners‟ anxiety is one of the chief barriers of language learning and so,
anxiety free second language learning environment is conducive to comprehensible input
and thus, results more positively to second language learners. Second language learners
and teachers should keep in mind that comprehensible input and anxiety cannot run side
by side. In connection between comprehensible input and learners‟ anxiety, Krashen
226 A Critical Evaluation of Stephen Krashen‟s Input Hypothesis in Second ...

suggests firmly, “Learners acquire language in one way and only one way when learners
get comprehensible input in a low anxiety environment” (YouTube, 2010). It means that
the ideas of anxiety in relation to language learning has not totally discarded by Krashen;
rather he mentions that “low anxiety” is somewhat needed for effective second language
learning and teaching. However, “high anxiety” from both side of learners and teachers
makes language learners tensed, scared and stressed. As a result, linguistic input becomes
incomprehensible and unfathomable by the learners. Such high anxiety circumstances
result delayed linguistic production and in extreme cases, learners stop trying to learn
second language. Finally, second language learning is hindered. Krashen linkage between
comprehensible input and anxiety resembles to Chomsky‟s (1986) theory of Language
Acquisition Device (LAD). For Chomsky (1986), human brain possesses a part named
Language Acquisition Device (LAD) that works for cognition and understanding. High
anxiety bars language input to LAD and so language learning and production becomes
problematic. Let us move on to Krashen‟s theory on “Silent Period” and “i+1” relating to
comprehensible input.

Comprehensible Input, Silent Period and “i+1”

For Krashen, Input Hypothesis addresses the answers of how does language acquisition
occur effectively. Input Hypothesis is an important one among Krashen‟s five hypotheses
because it determines the learning criteria of all four skills of a language. Krashen also
gives emphasis on learning content of second language learning. It reads when a learner
wants to learn a language, learning materials like reading and listening topics which
Krashen terms „input‟ should be easily understandable and recognizable. This kind of
easily understandable reading and listening stuffs Krashen identifies as comprehensible
input. In this regard, Krashen (1982) positions, “learners acquire language in just one
way—by understanding messages or by obtaining Comprehensible Input” (98). The
author of this article elaborates—for learning cooking, learner should first see practically
how to cook; teaching about the combination of spices with cooking stuffs and teaching
how gas burner works do not help cook. Rather, practical training through
comprehensible input gets a cook prepared and next time, the cook begins trying i.e.,
production or result or output. Similar kind of comprehensible linguistic input lends a
helping hand to second language learning and teaching.
In case of Input Hypothesis, second language learners actually “acquire language by
understanding messages” (Krashen 48). In this regards, Krashen adds, “from input to
production there is a period when Learners do not produce any original statements”
(Abukhattala 128). Krashen terms this time period as “silent period”. For perceiving and
internalising meaningful messages of comprehensible input, this silent period is required.
Learners are highly likely to develop a negative or passive attitude for language learning
if silent period breaks anyway. The researcher argues that Krashen‟s Input Hypothesis
determines no fixed time frame of “silent period”. To Krashen, “silent period” may vary
depending on learner to learner. For some learners, they produce result in a short time,
just after getting comprehensible input in class. For others, they appear to take longer
time or in some situation never produce desired output. Krashen argues that learners‟
cognitive level and academic environment play note-worthy role regarding “silent
period”. To critique, measuring learners‟ level instantly becomes troublesome in certain
circumstances. Here, Krashen recommends for a “finely tuned input” (Abukhattala 129)
in less anxious academic environment. “Silent period” and comprehensible input are
essentially related to environmental ingredient for second or target language acquisition.
RMbœv_ BDwbfvwm©wU Rvb©vj Ae AvU©m 227
Chomsky (1975) terms comprehensible input as in similar vein that reads comprehensible
input as “a richly specified internal language acquisition device” (35).
Krashen observes that in daily conversation, learners normally operate all kinds of
required structures for meaningful communication. Krashen‟s Input Hypothesis
recommends that language teacher should ask in simple sentence; answer using
continuous tense; carry narratives using past simple; advice in conditional, etc. Teachers
should determine the linguistic teaching content they utilize for teaching in language
class. To Krashen‟s Input Hypothesis, learners should unmask to a refined linguistic
input; if structures, comments, conditionals utilize in language class perceived genuinely
by learners, result comes rightly. Krashen suggests, “the optimal input must be
comprehensible, interesting and/or relevant, not grammatically sequenced, sufficient in
quality, and a little bit beyond the learners‟ level of comprehension: i + 1”(Cited in
Abukhattala 129). Here, „i‟ refers to student‟s current cognitive level of proficiency while
„1‟ puts for inputting meagerly above „i‟ level. If a learner proceeds from „i‟ towards
„i+1‟, he or she attains the result of comprehensible input. Language Teachers‟ usages of
pictures, gestures, charts, maps, recycling vocabulary can usher input comprehensible in
second language class through „i+1‟ of Krashen‟s Input Hypothesis.

Reading Versus Writing

Krashen‟s Input Hypothesis states that reading becomes input for writing skill of a
language. In order to apprehend the usages of structures and conditionals for writing,
reading works significantly as a linguistic input. Regarding this, Schutz (2007) puts
forward that “Language acquisition does not require extensive use of conscious
grammatical rules, and does not require tedious drill” (22). Reading projects Krashen’s
comprehensible input. Reading helps to Internalise the linguistic comprehensible input
through which language acquisition happens effectively. Krashen’s Input Hypothesis
signifies, “that more Comprehensible Input, aural and written, results in more language
acquisition” (Barnes 16). In similar tune, Carol Chomsky (1972) confirms the idea of
“competence and performance” (17). The researcher argues that reading more books
relating to linguistic materials accelerates language acquisition effectively. For reading
habit of learners, Chomsky (1972) finds, “those Acquirers who grew up in richer print
environments displayed more grammatical competence” (11). The author observes in
language classroom that learners state vocabulary as main problem of second language
learning. For solving this problem, teachers in language class put focus on monotonous
drill to memorise new words, grammatical rules, conditionals and structures of target
second language. This process of second language learning is lengthy and time
consuming. In such a juncture, Krashen’s input hypothesis through reading forms
multidimensional approach of picking up vocabulary, conditionals, grammatical rules
and sentence structures. Rice (1897), in this arena, reports that “adults who said they
spent more time doing leisure reading scored higher on a vocabulary test” (17).
Thus, practicing pleasure reading like story books, interesting text books, fictions,
travelogues expedite the knowledge of vocabulary, conditionals, grammatical rules and
sentence structures of target second language. No repetitious drill; no tests threat;
nothing is in pleasure reading that can forge a learner harassed, nervous and stressed.
Krashen’s reading input explains that a particular kind of reading helps more to learners
than other category of reading which learners pick from their personal liking and reads it
prior to sleep. Learners’ desired reading which they select intentionally is categorised by
Krashen as “free voluntary reading or reading for pleasure” (YouTube, 2015). Such kind
228 A Critical Evaluation of Stephen Krashen‟s Input Hypothesis in Second ...

of voluntary reading proffers powerful tool for learning all kinds of second languages or
target languages. Krashen states,
Free Voluntary Reading is a source of reading ability; writing ability; ability to write
respectable prose; the ability to handle complex grammatical constructions; a lot of
vocabulary; all of over educated vocabulary just about from reading; most of our ability
to spell. All these come from reading—the powerful form of Comprehensible Input
(YouTube, 2015).
It reads that in multiple language learning scenarios, learners begin from grammar; then
vocabulary in drills and so on. Krashen (1989) explains it as “Skill Building Hypothesis”
that is contrary to comprehensible input hypothesis. It is mentioned previously in this
article that such kind of skill building process need long time for learning second
language. Skill building concerns “individual rules or items, and gradually, through drills
and exercises, makes these automatic” (Krashen 441). So, Krashen terms skill building
approach for language learning as “delayed gratification” (YouTube, 2015). For
Krashen‟s comprehensible input hypothesis, language learners get immediate output.
Reading good books with interesting story speed up language acquisition. Thus,
compelling or interesting reading plays significant role in language cognition. For reading
input, Krashen states that “the more you enjoy it, the better your acquisition will be”
(YouTube, 2015). In such way, pleasure reading is entertaining and thus it earns
enjoyment and happiness. Skill building is repetitive, monotonous, time-consuming,
boring, dull and painful. Krashen mentions the growing attitude of virtual reading, like
blogs, face book and twitter which count too for comprehensible reading input in some
way. Hence, reading offers effective and appropriate comprehensible input to receive,
internalise and produce grammar, spelling and structure of target language altogether that
result writing output of second language. Let us move on to listening as a comprehensible
input for speaking skill of target language.

Listening Versus Speaking

To Krashen‟s Input Hypothesis, speaking skill of a language gets comprehensible input
through listening the linguistic content of target second language. Pronunciation, stressed
and intonation patterns, tone and style of target second language are perceived and
internalised by listening and this type of linguistic inputs result correct speaking output of
target second language. For communication, listening constructs oral communication
ability of second language learners. Oral communication in target language depends
largely on adequate volume of vocabulary, pronunciation and accent patterns of second
language which are nicely picked up and understood through listening. Reading does not
help learners to recognise the tone and stylistic linguistic patterns of second language.
Attending lectures, speeches, dialogues and conversation as well as watching movies,
cartoons and news in target language help second language learners to perceive the tone,
accent, pronunciation, stress, intonation, etiquette and manner which successively enlarge
the cognitive level of second language learners. In case of formal situations and in
cartoons and movies, standard linguistic patterns of a language are displayed. So, all
these basic tenets of target language can be input properly by listening. Krashen (1989)
confirms, “More Comprehensible Input in the form of listening is also associated with
better vocabulary development” (443). Thus speaking skill as well as the standard
pronunciation and vocabulary of target language are achieved by listening. It is observed
that language learners firstly picks sounds of language with the knowledge of alphabet
and grammar; gradually internalise the sound and after passing Krashen‟s “silent period”
in hazardless environment, start producing the sound of that target language. Same
RMbœv_ BDwbfvwm©wU Rvb©vj Ae AvU©m 229
situation is prescribed by Krashen‟s listening input hypothesis for second language
acquisition. So, listening stories in standard language; watching good movies and news in
target language; attending dialogue and conversation help speaking output. Wells (1986)
finds, “students who heard more stories during their pre-school years are judged by their
teachers to have better vocabularies at age ten” (19). Passing few moments in target
language area becomes beneficial in this regard. Swain and Lapkin (1998) declare,
“dialogue serves as a tool both for L2 learning and communication” (320). There is an
analogy—one learner gets himself admitted in language teaching institute, while other
one visits Chinese Embassy restaurant for learning Chinese language. Second learner
listens regularly to Chinese speaking people and tries to talk a bit in target language.
After few months, the second one makes improvement in Chinese speaking skill. Here,
Krashen puts forward a “narrow listening” that reads listening in interest and in less
anxiety friendly environment. So, listening becomes important linguistic input for getting
speaking output of target language.

Critical Evaluation
The author of this article observes his own language learning scenarios in the patterns of
starting from alphabet, then vocabulary, then grammar and structure of target language. A
same criterion is followed for learning both first and second language. Next time,
teachers in language classes introduce high frequency vocabulary of target language by
translating text in mother tongue. Author himself follows same technique for language
learning. The author encourages second language learners to read a lot and listen more
from target language in practical situation. The researcher argues and opines that
Krashen‟s “voluntary or pleasure reading” and listening input require a minimum and
moderate knowledge of alphabet and vocabulary of target language. In all languages, four
skills—reading, listening, writing and speaking are important. For Krashen, reading
works as the input for writing and listening puts forward for speaking. Learning a
language means that a language user will be capable in these four skills. Apart from
these, academic writing, writing for general purposes, formal and informal usages of
language are the various other fields of communication. Krashen‟s “free voluntary
reading or pleasure reading” might help learners‟ writing ability regarding general
purposes. Author thinks that methodologies and pedagogies of language learning and
teaching are also concerned with Krashen‟s Input Hypothesis. The researcher wonders
that in Krashen‟s Input Hypothesis, when the learner will study alphabet is not clearly
mentioned. In addition, minimum vocabulary is required even to conduct Krashen‟s
“voluntary or pleasure reading”. The author notes, for example, that a Bengali speaking
learner fails to learn French, if he or she does not recognise letters or words of French
language. Again, children learn mother tongue within one to two years of their age which
is called “silent period” by Krashen. The author concerns about the time length of adult‟s
“silent period”. So, the author is not totally assertive for the result of Krashen‟s
comprehensible input through reading and listening. For a practical example, author of
this article watches Hindi movies and thus, understands Hindi language well (Input
Hypothesis) but cannot write and speak Hindi till date; cannot read Hindi for the lack of
Hindi alphabetic knowledge. Hence, the author mentions that alphabetic idea and
knowledge on vocabulary should be added with Krashen‟s Input Hypothesis to have
output for language learners. For Krashen (2010):
People all around the globe eat a food item, chew it; swallow it and get it to stomach and
digest the food that makes him or her healthy—this is same for all people of the world.
Language acquisition is the same for all of the learners. If the food becomes tasteless; if
230 A Critical Evaluation of Stephen Krashen‟s Input Hypothesis in Second ...

the food item is not good; if the cook is not efficient; if the invitees are not hungry; if the
environment is dirty, result will not be healthy.
Finally, researchers should pilot Krashen‟s Input Hypothesis to employ it in second
language acquisition and learning.

Conclusion and Recommendation

To conclude, it is obvious that Krashen‟s Input Hypothesis occupies note worthy place in
second language acquisition theories, methods and approaches at hand. Krashen‟s reading
and listening input accelerates language learners‟ cognitive level. Interesting reading and
listening in stress free situation attracts human brain and so, produces better replica of
target language in a positive way. Thus, Krashen‟s Input Hypothesis requires best type of
linguistic input. If funny input is delivered in funny way, learners laugh but forget
quickly. Actually, learners catch up the story of linguistic content conveyed before them.
Aesop‟s fables are good examples in this regard which carry both morality and
entertainment. Learners‟ interest is also a vital tool too in second language learning.
Krashen advocates for learners‟ motivation to have interested second language learners.
Krashen (2010) anecdotes that a bilingual or multilingual person enjoys his or her life and
by learning multiple languages, learners can get the better control of his or her age.
Hence, learners‟ anxiety bars smooth language learning. Test and examination cause of
anxiety to learners. Here, practical language test like go shopping in second language
environment is appreciated to eradicate test related anxiety. Therefore, comprehensible
input by motivational and sympathetic teachers in less anxious atmosphere to attentive
second language learners will put together Krashen‟s Input Hypothesis effective and
successful in second or target language learning and teaching.

References
Abukhattala, Ibrahim. "Krashen's Five Proposals on Language Learning: Are They Valid in Libyan
EFL Classes." English Language Teaching 6.1 (2013): 128-131.
Barnes, Judy A. "Schema and Purpose in Reading Comprehension and Learning Vocabulary from
Context." Reading Research and Instruction 28.2 (1989): 16-28.
Baugh, Albert C., and Thomas Cable. A history of the English language. Routledge, 2002.
Bilash, Olenka. "Krashen‟s 6 Hypotheses." Best of Bilash (2009).
Chomsky, Carol. "Stages in language development and reading exposure." Harvard Educational
Review 42.1 (1972): 1-33.
Chomsky, Noam. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Vol. 11. MIT press, 2014.
---. "Reflections on language. New York: Pantheon." Chomsky Reflections on
language1975 (1975).
---. Knowledge of language: Its nature, origin, and use. Greenwood Publishing Group, 1986.
Diaz-Rico, Lynne T., and Kathryn Z. Weed. The crosscultural, language, and academic
development handbook. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1995.
Freeman, Yvonne S., and David E. Freeman. ESL/EFL teaching: Principles for success.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann, 1998.
Gregg, Kevin R. "Krashen's monitor and Occam's razor." Applied linguistics 5.2 (1984): 79-100.
Gremmo, Marie-José, and Philip Riley. "Autonomy, self-direction and self access in language
teaching and learning: The history of an idea." System 23.2 (1995): 151-164.
Jenkins, Jennifer. Global Englishes: A resource book for students. Routledge, 2014.
 RMbœv_ BDwbfvwm©wU Rvb©vj Ae AvU©m 231
Krashen, Stephen. “NRC Presents: Stephen Krashen on Reading Because You Want To (Part1)”.
YouTube (2016), Available from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rX0_R9ZdYfQ
[Accessed on 12 January 2020].
---. “British Council Interviews Stephen Krashen part 1 of 3”. YouTube (2015), Available from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgdMsOcSXkQ [Accessed on 13 January 2020].
---. “A Conversation with Stephen Krashen @ KOTESOL”. YouTube (2011), Available from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ki3xxoDpUUM [Accessed on 14 January 2020].
---. “Stephen Krashen on Language Acquisition”.YouTube (2010), Available from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiTsduRreug [Accessed on 14 January 2020].
Krashen, Stephen D. "Explorations in language acquisition and use." (2003).
---. Language acquisition and language education: Extensions and applications. New York:
Prentice Hall International, 1989.
Krashen, Stephen. "We acquire vocabulary and spelling by reading: Additional evidence for the
input hypothesis." The modern language journal 73.4 (1989): 440-464.
---. "Principles and practice in second language acquisition." (1982).
---. Second language acquisition and second language learning. University of Southern California,
1981.
Krashen, Stephen D. The power of reading: Insights from the research: Insights from the research.
ABC-CLIO, 2004.
Kim, Haeyoung, and Stephen Krashen. "Why don‟t language acquirers take advantage of the power
of reading." TESOL Journal 6.3 (1997): 26-29.
Liu, Dayan. "A critical review of Krashen‟s input hypothesis: Three major arguments." Journal of
Education and Human Development 4.4 (2015): 139-146.
Peirce, Bonny Norton. "Social identity, investment, and language learning." TESOL quarterly 29.1
(1995): 9-31.
Pennycook, Alastair. "The concept of method, interested knowledge, and the politics of language
teaching." TESOL quarterly 23.4 (1989): 589-618.
Rice, Joseph Mayer. Futility of the spelling grind. 1908.
Schutz, Ricardo. "Stephen Krashen's theory of second language acquisition." English made in
Brazil 2.2 (2007): 2007.
Swain, Merrill, and Sharon Lapkin. "Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent
French immersion students working together." The modern language journal 82.3 (1998):
320-337.
Wells, Gordon. The meaning makers: Children learning language and using language to learn.
Heinemann Educational Books Inc., 70 Court St., Portsmouth, NH 03801, 1986.
Young, Richard F., and Alice C. Astarita. "Practice theory in language learning." Language
Learning 63 (2013): 171-189.
Yang, Hong. "On teaching strategies in second language acquisition." Online Submission 5.1
(2008): 61-67.

View publication stats