How does input become intake?

Thesis

Introduction

In this section, I would like to propose the model to explain the mechanism of how input becomes intake. First, I will review studies on input and intake. Second, advantages and disadvantages of each hypothesis will be discussed. Third, I will define the concepts on input and intake which I will use in this thesis.

Input hypothesis and Natural approach

Krashen (1982) proposed the Input hypothesis to explain the mechanism of second language acquisition. His hypothesis consists of five parts and they can be summarized as follows (English360, http://www.english360.com/glossary/).

  1. Language acquisition (an unconscious process developed through using language meaningfully) is different from language learning (consciously learning or discovering rules about a language) and language acquisition is the only way competence in a second language occurs. (The acquisition/learning hypothesis)
  2. Conscious learning operates only as a monitor or editor that checks or repairs the output of what has been acquired. (The monitor hypothesis)
  3. Grammatical structures are acquired in a predictable order and it does little good to try to learn them in another order.(The natural order hypothesis).
  4. People acquire language best from messages that are just slightly beyond their current competence. (The input hypothesis)
  5. The learner's emotional state can act as a filter that impedes or blocks input necessary to acquisition. (The affective filter hypothesis)

Based on this hypothesis, Krashen and Terrell (1983) developed the Natural Approach. The features of this method were as follows.

  1. Comprehensible input is presented in the target language, using technqiues such as TPR, mime and gesture.
  2. To decrease anxiety, learners start to talk when they are ready, and are allowed to use their native language.
  3. Grammatical mistakes in learners' utterances are not corrected, as the teacher is focusing on meaning rather than form.

Input Hypothesis and Natural Approach provided the basic framework of language learning and acquisition, but they met with various kinds of criticism. For example, according to （誰が言っているの！？）;

  1. Our experience of language learning shows that language acquisition is not always done unconsicously. （説明不足。なぜ？）
  2. Since the levels of learners are different, it is hard to determine which forms of language input will be "comprehensible.　（説明不足。誰が言ってるの？）
  3. No mechanism was shown on how learners correctly "monitor" their performance.　　（意味不明。implicit/explicit knowledgeの説明必要。where/how many times learners' monitorなど）

To solve the problems of Input hypothesis, several hypothesis were introduced.

Modification of Krashen's model

Long (1981), in his Interaction Hypothesis, tried to show that language is acquired through the comprehensible input, but interaction, especially the negotiation of meaning.　（だから何？説明不足）
Swain (1985) examined Krashen's model in the immersion program in Canada. She found that many of her students made a lot of grammatical mistakes even with enough comprehensible input, which implied that comprehensible output as well as input is indispensable for language acquisition. In her Comprehensible Output Hypothesis, she defined comprehensible output as utterence that is precise, coherent, and appropriate. If output is not comrehensible, learners get negative feedback, through which they can modify their output. Her hypothesis showed a clear contrast with Krashen's input hypothesis. （Swainについての説明の要領で、他の部分もStory-tellingする）
Schmidt (1990) challenged Krashen's acqusition-learning hypothesis even more drastically. In his Noticing Hypothesis, he proposed that input becomes intake only if learners notice grammatical features, which was simply against Krashen's idea that language acquisition is done unconsciously.

Input-intake model in this thesis

（箇条書きではなく、文章風にする）
For the purpose of this thesis, the following assumptions will be adopted, combining the hypotheses of Krashen, Long and Swain.

  1. Teachers should provide students with comprehensible input.
  2. Teachers should remove learners' anxiety in language learning.
  3. Teachers should give students the chance to produce comprenensible output in the target language.
  4. Teachers should interact with learners in the target language so that learners can notice what they should learn.
  5. Teachers and other leaners should provide learners appropriate with negative feedback through interaction. (Long 1981, Swain 1985)
  6. Teachers should check learners' uptake to see whether learners' negative feedback is effectively improving comprehensibility.

Summary

This section was the overview of the theoretical background of language acquistion. Krashen's affective-filter hypothesis and input hypothesis are important for this thesis. However, comprehensible output takes a significant role as well. Futhermore, negotiation of meaning, and noticing, through interaction between a teacher and a learner, and among learners. Also interacting gives learners the chance to receive the negative feedbacks, and teachers the chance to check learners' uptake. These procedures will effectively change input into intake.