Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-c52kr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-07T23:38:30.843Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Shifting Gears: Krashen's Input Hypothesis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2008

Robin Scarcella  and
Leroy Perkins
Robin Scarcella
Affiliation:
University of California
Leroy Perkins
Affiliation:
University of Alaska at Fairbanks
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'

Information

Type
Review Article
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 9 , Issue 3 , October 1987 , pp. 347 - 353
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1987

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaudron, C. (1985). Intake: On models and methods for discovering learners' processing of input. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Gregg, K. R. (1984). Krashen's monitor and Occam's razor. Applied Linguistics, 5, 79–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gregg, K. R. (1986). [Review of The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 116–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hatch, E. (1983). Simplified input and second language acquisition. In Andersen, R. (Ed.), Pidginization and creolization as language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Higgs, T., & Clifford, R. (1982). The push toward communication. In Higgs, T. (Ed.), Curriculum, competence and the foreign language teacher. Skokie, IL: National Textbook Company.Google Scholar
Ioup, G. (1984). Testing the relationship of formal instruction to the input hypothesis. TESOL Quarterly, 18, 345–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krashen, S. (1980). The input hypothesis. In Alatis, J. E. (Ed.), Current issues in bilingual education. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. (1983). Newmark's “ignorance principle” and current second language acquisition theory. In Gass, S. & Selinker, L. (Eds.), Language transfer and language learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Krashen, S., & Terrell, T. (1983). The natural approach. Hayward, CA: Alemany.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Long, M. (1983a). Native speaker/nonnative speaker conversation in the second language classroom. In Clarke, M. & Handscombe, J. (Eds.), On TESOL ′82: Pacific perspectives on language learning and teaching. Washington, DC: TESOL.Google Scholar
Long, M. (1983b). Linguistic and conversational adjustments to nonnative speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 5, 177–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. (1983c). Native speaker/nonnative speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 42, 126–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raimes, A. (1983). Tradition and revolution in ESL teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 17, 535–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scarcella, R., & Perkins, L. (1986). Coming out of the cabbage badge. TECFORS.Google Scholar