A Good Teacher

Language teachers have the tremendous task of providing comprehensible input to encourage language acquisition in English language classrooms. The input they provide, however, should contain extralinguistic content that might insure language acquisition among students. Here, Stephen J. Krashen (1981) defines comprehensible input as our ability to acquire and understand language that contains structure a bit beyond our current level of competence (i+1) through context or extralinguistic information (Krashen, 1981). It is assumed that when speakers talk and the acquirers understand the message, the speakers, according to Krashen (1981) may be providing optimal input that is superior.

Although comprehensible input may be the causative variable necessary to induce an optimal input-output situation, is not a sufficient condition to allow the language learner to advance from one stage to another (Krashen, 1985).

Therefore, second language classrooms should provide opportunities for genuine communication, and the input required for second language acquisition then will depend on the frequency of different types of interaction (Krashen, 1981). In addition, because the quantity and quality of the input affect and is affected by the nature of the internal mechanisms of the learner, the interaction between external and internal factors, therefore, should manifest in the verbal interactions between teacher and student (Ellis, 1985). Hence, to examine how language learning evolves out of the strategies used to carry meaningful conversations inside the classroom, a careful analysis of discourse that is “jointly constructed” by the learner and his interlocutors should be sought. The collaborative efforts that exist between speaker and hearer, in this case, allow a negotiation of meaning in order for input to become comprehensible and understood (intake) and at the same time avoid communication breakdown.

On the other hand, providing intake via meaningful and communicative activities is quite a challenging task. In most cases, the English language classroom may inhibit comprehensible input especially when teachers dominate the talk, thus giving fewer opportunities for language learners to produce input/output of their own. Most important, although classrooms allow only a few students to reply, they do not equip learners for interaction outside the classroom where they are expected to initiate discourse. Previous studies show that affective filters may even delimit input before it can be processed by the cognitive organizer (Krashen, 1985); and no matter how meaningful and communicative the exercise is intended to be, little or no acquisition will take place because of ego permeability (Schumann, 1978).

Further limitations on the hypothesis that Krashen adheres to highlight the role of simplified speech used in motherese (caretaker’s speech) and foreigner talk. For instance, if input hypotheses subscribes to the idea that these forms of interaction are not directly geared towards language teaching but communication- because it is roughly tuned to the language learners’ level of linguistic competence, language acquisition may appear paradoxical and ambiguous.

In caretaker’s speech, for instance, the “here and now” principle underestimates the child’s level of syntactic development. Because although parents have a general idea of their children’s linguistic ability, they still lack an accurate knowledge of what specific linguistic features their children have mastered. This means that by talking to learners in simple sentences, one is depriving them of input, which is crucial. Similarly, the individual variation that exists in foreigner talk imposes further limitations on the interaction between the hearer and speaker. Because language tends to become arbitrary in most situations, the routines and patterns expected to arise from conversations involving speakers of different backgrounds, may create a gap between L2 input and comprehensible input. The effective use of routines and patterns, in this case, will depend on having a line ready when a situation arises.

In addition, because the foreign language learner presumably has carried over an L1 form to understand the input through routines and patterns, the role of error correction or grammar analysis would diminish and communication further breaks down (White, 1986).

Finally, while intake builds acquisition, some fluency work or structural analysis may be necessary to enable the language learner to perform competently in a second language classroom. Indeed, there is a certain satisfaction for some of us in knowing a conscious rule of grammar, but it is also important that insisting on grammar rules will limit what can be taught (Ellis, 1985). Therefore, a synthesis of the two approaches to language acquisition could reinforce motivational and attitudinal triggers that could stimulate optimal language acquisition.  

Languages have always fascinated me in terms of the degrees of interaction that could possibly ensue from my acquaintances and the premium that society places on eloquence. I agree that comprehensible input is not enough to create an illusion of fluency that people expect from a polyglot, hence, it is important for me to strike a balance between form and meaning. Although each has its own shortcomings, I found that understanding meaning first is more effective than initially focusing on form because without practice, rules easily fade away with memory.*

Reference:

Ellis, R. 1985. Understanding Second Language Acquisition. Oxford. 127-162.

Krashen, S. 1981. Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Krashen, S. 1985. The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. London: Longman.

Schumann, J. 1978. Second Language Acquisition: The Pidginization Hypothesis.Language Learning 28, 367-369.

White, L. (1986). Against Comprehensible Input: the Input Hypothesis and the Development of Second-language Competence. 95-110.