论文部分内容阅读
Abstract： This paper mainly focus on the literature concerning comprehensible input so as to find the arguments from the researchers， as well as its implication for teaching.
Key words： comprehensible input； SLA
[中图分类号]G63
[文献标识码]A
[文章编号]1006-2831（2013）02-0080-6 doi：10.3969/j.issn.1006-2831.2013.01.020
1. Introduction
Although the Second Language Acquisition （SLA）， as a scientific discipline， has a history of only 40 years， “Input” is one of the most fundamental concepts that revolutionized the way people thought about how languages are learned （Van Patten， 2003）. Research issues associated with input received an ever growing concern， among which “comprehensive input” enjoy high attention from every aspect. Throughout the years since Krashen put forward the Input Hypothesis， it is no doubt an influential concept for SLA. Questions like whether comprehensible input is necessary for SLA， or whether it is sufficient and the only way for SLA are frequently raised both by SLA theorists and practitioners. With the purpose of finding more information to facilitate my ESL teaching practice， I pick up the above topic as my research question. Based on the review of many research， this paper mainly focus on the literature concerning comprehensible input so as to find the arguments from the researchers， as well as its implication for teaching.
2. Definitions
Input is “the communicative language a learner hears or reads in context and to which he or she attends for its meaning” （Van Patten， 2003： 117）. I adopt this definition because it is one of the latest understandings of “input” and it is focused on “meaning”， which is a central component of SLA.
According to Krashen （1985）， the Input Hypothesis is the fundamental part of the overall theory of SLA. It is made up of five hypotheses： the Acquisition-learning Hypothesis， the Natural Order Hypothesis， the Monitor Hypothesis， the Input Hypothesis， and the Affective Filter Hypothesis. Of the five hypotheses， the Input Hypothesis means humans can acquire language in only one way， that is， by understanding messages he or she received， more specifically， by receiving“comprehensible input”. We move on from the present level i， to i+1， which is the level following the natural order， by understanding the input containing i+1.
Comprehensible input is defined as“Messages the acquirer is able to understand， according to current theory， the essential ingredient in language acquisition” （Krashen， 1985： 101）. Here I choose Krashen’s own definition because it is he who first raised the Input Hypothesis and created the influential terminology that later proved to be a salient feature of SLA. 3. The benefits of the Comprehensible Input
The Input Hypothesis has enormous empirical support from both the theoretical and the applied levels. Krahnke （1994） argues that comprehensible input pays more attention to the meaning of language， so it has changed form-based teaching into meaning-based. Similarly， Cook （1996） maintains that language teaching focuses more on finding input which is suitable for the students.
According to Krashen （1985）， the Input Hypothesis gains its additional support evidence from the great success of Canadian immersion language programs. Although there are all kinds of immersion programs， they are all successful in achieving very high levels of second-language proficiency. Immersion works very well because it provides a great deal of comprehensible input for the students. Therefore， the Input Hypothesis claims that“it is the comprehensible input factor that is responsible for the success of immersion， not simply the fact that immersion students are exposed to a great deal of the second language” （Krashen， 1985： 17）.
V. Rodrigo et al. （2003） did a study on the fourth semester students who learn Spanish as a foreign language in university level in the US. The subjects participated in two kinds of comprehensible-input based instruction. This study is made up of two parts： an initial study， and a follow-up or replication. Each part takes one semester to work with intermediate level students. Both of the two parts included three groups， which are listed as the following， Experimental Group1： Reading， Experimental Group2： Reading-Discussion， and Comparison Group3： traditional grammar and composition. They found that the Experimental Reading and Reading-Discussion group performed better than the traditionally taught group in vocabulary and grammar tests. The ReadingDiscussion group did better than the traditional group in a cloze test. The two comprehensible input groups clearly performed better than the controls in the four comparisons out of the total six. The results provided strong support for the efficacy of comprehensible-input based approaches， and it confirmed that vocabulary and grammar can be acquired through comprehensible input.
Based on the appreciation of the importance of comprehensible input， Schmidt（1996） established an extensive reading program to address his students’ need for input and to reflect on how such a program can be implemented at Shirayuri. He presented several reasons for the selection of the reading materials. One of the factors is that the text should be at appropriate level for effective decoding and interaction. He emphasized the importance of the need for input that holds the learner’s interest. If the text is interesting and enjoyable for the reader， comprehensible input will be comprehended. So he suggested providing reading materials not only at the appropriate level， but also attracting the students’ interest. 4. The drawbacks of the Comprehensible Input
According to Spada （2007）， comprehensible input is a new term that has great influence on communicative language teaching， but at the same time many voices of doubt have appeared about it.
4.1 Ambiguous in definition
Mclaughlin （1987） claims that the definition of comprehensible input is ambiguous because we can not clearly know when the input is comprehensible and when it is incomprehensible. According to current SLA researches， there is no way that can be used to test what exactly comprehensible input is. Susan & Larry （2008） also find there are a number of problems with the concept of comprehensible input.
Although Krashen argued that i+1 is needed， we have almost no way to know precisely about what exactly level i is and consequently we cannot decide what i+1 is. In addition， from the information-processing perspective， input plays a role of automatizing controlled knowledge and providing information which is required for restructuring. This is not an issue of quality of input but of quantity （Gass， 1997）.
4.2 Logical fault of circularity
Krashen （1985） maintains that the success in Canadian immersion programs in the 1960s is the result of giving comprehensible input to learners， but Mclaughlin （1987） argues that Krashen made a logical mistake of circulation because comprehensible input can not be evaluated separately.
4.3 Not sufficient for SLA
We can find the evidence for the role of comprehensible input in SLA indirectly， mainly based on the studies of caretaker and foreign talk， immersion programs， as well as the silent period. Although comprehensible input may facilitate SLA， it is not a necessary condition of acquisition nor can it guarantee the acquisition to take place （Ellis， 1994）.
Krashen （1985） comments that more need for communicate may lead to more language use and consequently more comprehensible input containing i+1. However， comprehensible input alone is not sufficient for full language acquisition， even if it may be sufficient to acquire enough to meet the demands of everyday communication.
In the view of Krashen’s， acquisition only takes place when a learner can get access to comprehensible input. In other words， only a certain part of the input can be used to develop the learner’s linguistic knowledge： the input at the i+1 level， or slightly beyond the learner’s existing system. The central points are that the input plays a key role in his model of how second language acquisition really occurs and that only a certain kind of input is significant （Gass， 1997）. And also Gass argues that it is an unquestionable fact that some kind of input is necessary for language learning because languages cannot be learned in a vacuum. The controversial point is the type and quantity of input needed for second language development and other information maybe also essential for the development of second language knowledge. Based on many years of research on Canadian immersion programs， Swain （1985） found there are many problems with Krashen’s comprehensible input. The immersion programs aimed at the achievement of both academic and second language learning via the integration of language teaching and content teaching. Although the learners have great success in their language development， they still have many problems in the TL grammar， particularly in morpho-syntactic areas （Harley & Swain， 1984； Harley， 1986， 1992； Swain， 1985）. Swain （1985） notes that these learners lack output opportunities both in not being given enough chances to use the TL in the classroom context and not being “pushed” in their output. Observational studies of interaction in French immersion classrooms show that immersion classes are mainly teacher-centred in which students are not asked to give extended answers （Allen et al.， 1990）. Therefore Swain （1985） argued that if these learners are to improve both fluency and accuracy in their interlanguage （IL）， they need not only comprehensible input but also“comprehensible output”.
5. Beyond input： interaction and output
Comprehensible input is very important for the second language acquisition， yet it alone does not necessarily mean the whole process of the development of language. Beyond input， interaction should be taken into consideration. David （2003） comments that learner cannot really acquire a language simply by receiving input passively. Interaction and negotiation of meaning should not be excluded from the process of SLA. In the view of Long （1996）， comprehensible input gained through interactional adjustments such as negotiating meaning and modifying output is central to second language acquisition， and much research has been done to find out which classroom activities give learners the greatest benefit from this type of interaction（Pica， 1994）.
With the purpose of exploring what extent negotiation of meaning can be useful in reading instruction in order to make written input comprehensible， Van den Branden（2000） carried out a study in 8 multilingual primary schools in Flanders. The participants were arranged to face a difficult text in four different conditions： unmodified written input， pre-modified input， unmodified written input+oral negotiation with a peer， and unmodified written input +oral negotiation with the rest of the class. What is shown in the results is that the negotiation of meaning of unmodified input resulted in better comprehension than pre-modifying the same input. Likewise， negotiation of meaning with the teacher involved in performed better than peer negotiation. The study also found that teachers should play an important role and take actions when negotiation of meaning takes place in the classroom. Gass （1997） proposed a five-stage integrated model to explain the conversion of input to output： apperceived input， comprehended input， intake， integration， and output. He mainly focused on the role of interaction in second language acquisition. He claims that negotiation is a useful way to draw attention to the linguistic form， and make it salient and thus generate a readiness for learning. Additionally， it is a way in which learners can receive feedback on their own production. Negotiation can be used as a learning facilitator， through which input can turn out to be comprehensible and manageable.
Swain （1983） raised the Output Hypothesis based on evidence from the immersion program. Swain argues that there are still some gaps between the immersion children and native speakers in grammatical competence， even after they have been in the program for seven years and received about 4000 hours of comprehensible input. Therefore Swain makes a conclusion that comprehensible input is necessary but not sufficient for learners’ full language development. Then she notes that input must be supplemented by output practice. Based on refining her hypothesis， Swain （2005） specified the following four functions of output： fluency function， hypothesis-testing function， meta-linguistic function， and noticing/triggering function.
6. Implications for Teaching
Some implications can be drawn from this review on this research topic. Comprehensible input is essential but not sufficient for learners’language acquisition. In order to improve students’ English language proficiency， teachers should try their best to give students enough comprehensible input， and at the same time offer more opportunities for them to do interactions and output practice. What’s more， output practice should also be incorporated into second language teaching by utilizing the four different functions. In that case students can not only develop automaticity in their language use， judge the comprehensibility and linguistic well-formedness of their target language utterances， they can also reflect on their using language and notice a gap between what they want to say and what they can say， thus leading them to recognize what they do not know. The acknowledgment of problems will then push the students to concentrate on the related information in the input， and consequently will trigger their interlanguage development.
References：
Allen， P.， M. Swain， B. Harley & J. Cummins. Aspects of classroom treatment： toward a more comprehensible view of second language education[A]. In B. Harley， P. Allen， J. Cummins， and M. Swain （Eds.）： The Development of Second Language Proficiency. Cambridge： Cambridge University Press， 1990： 51-78. Cook， V. Second Language Learning and Language Teaching[M]. London： Arnold， 1996.
David， B. The Social Turn in Second Language Acquisition[M]. Washington， D. C.： Georgetown University Press， 2003.
Gass， S. M. Input， Interaction， and the Second Language Learner[M]. Mahwah， NJ： Lawrence Erlbaum Associates， Inc， 1997.
Harley， B. Age in Second Language Acquisition[M]. Clevedon， UK： Multilingual Matters， 1986.
Harley， B. Patterns of second language development in French immersion[J]. Journal of French Language Studies， 1992（2）： 159-83.
Harley， B. & Swain， M. The interlanguage of immersion students and its implications for second language teaching. In A. Davies， C. Criper， and A. Howatt （Eds.） Interlanguage[A]. Edinburgh： Edinburgh University Press， 1984： 291-311.
Krahnke， K. Krashen’s acquisition theory and language teaching method[A]. In R. M. Barasch & C. V. James （Eds.）， Beyond the Monitor Model. Boston： Heinle & Heinle， 1994.
Krashen， S. The Input Hypothesis： Issues and Implications[M]. London： Longman， 1985： 17， 101.
Long， M. The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition[A]. In W. Ritchie and T. Bhatia （Eds.）： Handbook of Research on Second Language Acquisition. New York： Academic Press， 1996： 413-468.
Mclaughlin， B. Theories of Second Language Learning[M]. Great Britain： Edward Arnold， 1987.
Pica， T. Research on negotiation： What does it reveal about second-language learning conditions， processes， and outcomes？[J]. Language Learning， 1994（44）： 493-527.
Schmidt， K. Extensive reading in English： rationale and possibilities for a program at Shirayuri Gakuen[J]. Sendai Shirayuri Gakuen Journal of General Researcho， 1996（24）.
Spada， N. Communicative language teaching： current status and future prospects. International handbook of English Language Teaching[J]. 2007（15）： 271-288.
Susan， G.， & Larry， S. Second Language Acquisition， An Introductory Course （3rd edition）[M]. New York： Routeledge， 2008.
Swain， M. Communicative competence： some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development[A]. Second Language Research Forum， University of Southern California， Los Angeles， November 13. In Krashen， S. （1985）. The Input Hypothesis： Issues and Implications. London： Longman， 1983.
Swain， M. Communicative competence： Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development[A]. In S. Gass and C. Madden （eds.） Input in Second Language Acquisition. Rowley， MA： Newbury House， 1985： 235-53.
Swain， M. The Output Hypothesis： Theory and Research[M]. In E. Hinkel （eds.） Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and learning. Mahwah， New Jersey： Lawrence Erlbaum， 2005.
Van den Branden， K. Does Negotiation of Meaning Promote Reading Comprehension？ A Study of Multilingual Primary School Classes[J]. Reading Research Quarterly， 2000（3）： 426-443.
Van Patten， B. From input to output： A Teacher’s Guide to Second Language Acquisition[M]. New York： The McGraw- Hill Companies， Inc， 2003.
V. Rodrigo et al. The effectiveness of two comprehensible-input approaches to foreign language instruction at the intermediate level[J]. System， 2004（23）： 53-60.
Key words： comprehensible input； SLA
[中图分类号]G63
[文献标识码]A
[文章编号]1006-2831（2013）02-0080-6 doi：10.3969/j.issn.1006-2831.2013.01.020
1. Introduction
Although the Second Language Acquisition （SLA）， as a scientific discipline， has a history of only 40 years， “Input” is one of the most fundamental concepts that revolutionized the way people thought about how languages are learned （Van Patten， 2003）. Research issues associated with input received an ever growing concern， among which “comprehensive input” enjoy high attention from every aspect. Throughout the years since Krashen put forward the Input Hypothesis， it is no doubt an influential concept for SLA. Questions like whether comprehensible input is necessary for SLA， or whether it is sufficient and the only way for SLA are frequently raised both by SLA theorists and practitioners. With the purpose of finding more information to facilitate my ESL teaching practice， I pick up the above topic as my research question. Based on the review of many research， this paper mainly focus on the literature concerning comprehensible input so as to find the arguments from the researchers， as well as its implication for teaching.
2. Definitions
Input is “the communicative language a learner hears or reads in context and to which he or she attends for its meaning” （Van Patten， 2003： 117）. I adopt this definition because it is one of the latest understandings of “input” and it is focused on “meaning”， which is a central component of SLA.
According to Krashen （1985）， the Input Hypothesis is the fundamental part of the overall theory of SLA. It is made up of five hypotheses： the Acquisition-learning Hypothesis， the Natural Order Hypothesis， the Monitor Hypothesis， the Input Hypothesis， and the Affective Filter Hypothesis. Of the five hypotheses， the Input Hypothesis means humans can acquire language in only one way， that is， by understanding messages he or she received， more specifically， by receiving“comprehensible input”. We move on from the present level i， to i+1， which is the level following the natural order， by understanding the input containing i+1.
Comprehensible input is defined as“Messages the acquirer is able to understand， according to current theory， the essential ingredient in language acquisition” （Krashen， 1985： 101）. Here I choose Krashen’s own definition because it is he who first raised the Input Hypothesis and created the influential terminology that later proved to be a salient feature of SLA. 3. The benefits of the Comprehensible Input
The Input Hypothesis has enormous empirical support from both the theoretical and the applied levels. Krahnke （1994） argues that comprehensible input pays more attention to the meaning of language， so it has changed form-based teaching into meaning-based. Similarly， Cook （1996） maintains that language teaching focuses more on finding input which is suitable for the students.
According to Krashen （1985）， the Input Hypothesis gains its additional support evidence from the great success of Canadian immersion language programs. Although there are all kinds of immersion programs， they are all successful in achieving very high levels of second-language proficiency. Immersion works very well because it provides a great deal of comprehensible input for the students. Therefore， the Input Hypothesis claims that“it is the comprehensible input factor that is responsible for the success of immersion， not simply the fact that immersion students are exposed to a great deal of the second language” （Krashen， 1985： 17）.
V. Rodrigo et al. （2003） did a study on the fourth semester students who learn Spanish as a foreign language in university level in the US. The subjects participated in two kinds of comprehensible-input based instruction. This study is made up of two parts： an initial study， and a follow-up or replication. Each part takes one semester to work with intermediate level students. Both of the two parts included three groups， which are listed as the following， Experimental Group1： Reading， Experimental Group2： Reading-Discussion， and Comparison Group3： traditional grammar and composition. They found that the Experimental Reading and Reading-Discussion group performed better than the traditionally taught group in vocabulary and grammar tests. The ReadingDiscussion group did better than the traditional group in a cloze test. The two comprehensible input groups clearly performed better than the controls in the four comparisons out of the total six. The results provided strong support for the efficacy of comprehensible-input based approaches， and it confirmed that vocabulary and grammar can be acquired through comprehensible input.
Based on the appreciation of the importance of comprehensible input， Schmidt（1996） established an extensive reading program to address his students’ need for input and to reflect on how such a program can be implemented at Shirayuri. He presented several reasons for the selection of the reading materials. One of the factors is that the text should be at appropriate level for effective decoding and interaction. He emphasized the importance of the need for input that holds the learner’s interest. If the text is interesting and enjoyable for the reader， comprehensible input will be comprehended. So he suggested providing reading materials not only at the appropriate level， but also attracting the students’ interest. 4. The drawbacks of the Comprehensible Input
According to Spada （2007）， comprehensible input is a new term that has great influence on communicative language teaching， but at the same time many voices of doubt have appeared about it.
4.1 Ambiguous in definition
Mclaughlin （1987） claims that the definition of comprehensible input is ambiguous because we can not clearly know when the input is comprehensible and when it is incomprehensible. According to current SLA researches， there is no way that can be used to test what exactly comprehensible input is. Susan & Larry （2008） also find there are a number of problems with the concept of comprehensible input.
Although Krashen argued that i+1 is needed， we have almost no way to know precisely about what exactly level i is and consequently we cannot decide what i+1 is. In addition， from the information-processing perspective， input plays a role of automatizing controlled knowledge and providing information which is required for restructuring. This is not an issue of quality of input but of quantity （Gass， 1997）.
4.2 Logical fault of circularity
Krashen （1985） maintains that the success in Canadian immersion programs in the 1960s is the result of giving comprehensible input to learners， but Mclaughlin （1987） argues that Krashen made a logical mistake of circulation because comprehensible input can not be evaluated separately.
4.3 Not sufficient for SLA
We can find the evidence for the role of comprehensible input in SLA indirectly， mainly based on the studies of caretaker and foreign talk， immersion programs， as well as the silent period. Although comprehensible input may facilitate SLA， it is not a necessary condition of acquisition nor can it guarantee the acquisition to take place （Ellis， 1994）.
Krashen （1985） comments that more need for communicate may lead to more language use and consequently more comprehensible input containing i+1. However， comprehensible input alone is not sufficient for full language acquisition， even if it may be sufficient to acquire enough to meet the demands of everyday communication.
In the view of Krashen’s， acquisition only takes place when a learner can get access to comprehensible input. In other words， only a certain part of the input can be used to develop the learner’s linguistic knowledge： the input at the i+1 level， or slightly beyond the learner’s existing system. The central points are that the input plays a key role in his model of how second language acquisition really occurs and that only a certain kind of input is significant （Gass， 1997）. And also Gass argues that it is an unquestionable fact that some kind of input is necessary for language learning because languages cannot be learned in a vacuum. The controversial point is the type and quantity of input needed for second language development and other information maybe also essential for the development of second language knowledge. Based on many years of research on Canadian immersion programs， Swain （1985） found there are many problems with Krashen’s comprehensible input. The immersion programs aimed at the achievement of both academic and second language learning via the integration of language teaching and content teaching. Although the learners have great success in their language development， they still have many problems in the TL grammar， particularly in morpho-syntactic areas （Harley & Swain， 1984； Harley， 1986， 1992； Swain， 1985）. Swain （1985） notes that these learners lack output opportunities both in not being given enough chances to use the TL in the classroom context and not being “pushed” in their output. Observational studies of interaction in French immersion classrooms show that immersion classes are mainly teacher-centred in which students are not asked to give extended answers （Allen et al.， 1990）. Therefore Swain （1985） argued that if these learners are to improve both fluency and accuracy in their interlanguage （IL）， they need not only comprehensible input but also“comprehensible output”.
5. Beyond input： interaction and output
Comprehensible input is very important for the second language acquisition， yet it alone does not necessarily mean the whole process of the development of language. Beyond input， interaction should be taken into consideration. David （2003） comments that learner cannot really acquire a language simply by receiving input passively. Interaction and negotiation of meaning should not be excluded from the process of SLA. In the view of Long （1996）， comprehensible input gained through interactional adjustments such as negotiating meaning and modifying output is central to second language acquisition， and much research has been done to find out which classroom activities give learners the greatest benefit from this type of interaction（Pica， 1994）.
With the purpose of exploring what extent negotiation of meaning can be useful in reading instruction in order to make written input comprehensible， Van den Branden（2000） carried out a study in 8 multilingual primary schools in Flanders. The participants were arranged to face a difficult text in four different conditions： unmodified written input， pre-modified input， unmodified written input+oral negotiation with a peer， and unmodified written input +oral negotiation with the rest of the class. What is shown in the results is that the negotiation of meaning of unmodified input resulted in better comprehension than pre-modifying the same input. Likewise， negotiation of meaning with the teacher involved in performed better than peer negotiation. The study also found that teachers should play an important role and take actions when negotiation of meaning takes place in the classroom. Gass （1997） proposed a five-stage integrated model to explain the conversion of input to output： apperceived input， comprehended input， intake， integration， and output. He mainly focused on the role of interaction in second language acquisition. He claims that negotiation is a useful way to draw attention to the linguistic form， and make it salient and thus generate a readiness for learning. Additionally， it is a way in which learners can receive feedback on their own production. Negotiation can be used as a learning facilitator， through which input can turn out to be comprehensible and manageable.
Swain （1983） raised the Output Hypothesis based on evidence from the immersion program. Swain argues that there are still some gaps between the immersion children and native speakers in grammatical competence， even after they have been in the program for seven years and received about 4000 hours of comprehensible input. Therefore Swain makes a conclusion that comprehensible input is necessary but not sufficient for learners’ full language development. Then she notes that input must be supplemented by output practice. Based on refining her hypothesis， Swain （2005） specified the following four functions of output： fluency function， hypothesis-testing function， meta-linguistic function， and noticing/triggering function.
6. Implications for Teaching
Some implications can be drawn from this review on this research topic. Comprehensible input is essential but not sufficient for learners’language acquisition. In order to improve students’ English language proficiency， teachers should try their best to give students enough comprehensible input， and at the same time offer more opportunities for them to do interactions and output practice. What’s more， output practice should also be incorporated into second language teaching by utilizing the four different functions. In that case students can not only develop automaticity in their language use， judge the comprehensibility and linguistic well-formedness of their target language utterances， they can also reflect on their using language and notice a gap between what they want to say and what they can say， thus leading them to recognize what they do not know. The acknowledgment of problems will then push the students to concentrate on the related information in the input， and consequently will trigger their interlanguage development.
References：
Allen， P.， M. Swain， B. Harley & J. Cummins. Aspects of classroom treatment： toward a more comprehensible view of second language education[A]. In B. Harley， P. Allen， J. Cummins， and M. Swain （Eds.）： The Development of Second Language Proficiency. Cambridge： Cambridge University Press， 1990： 51-78. Cook， V. Second Language Learning and Language Teaching[M]. London： Arnold， 1996.
David， B. The Social Turn in Second Language Acquisition[M]. Washington， D. C.： Georgetown University Press， 2003.
Gass， S. M. Input， Interaction， and the Second Language Learner[M]. Mahwah， NJ： Lawrence Erlbaum Associates， Inc， 1997.
Harley， B. Age in Second Language Acquisition[M]. Clevedon， UK： Multilingual Matters， 1986.
Harley， B. Patterns of second language development in French immersion[J]. Journal of French Language Studies， 1992（2）： 159-83.
Harley， B. & Swain， M. The interlanguage of immersion students and its implications for second language teaching. In A. Davies， C. Criper， and A. Howatt （Eds.） Interlanguage[A]. Edinburgh： Edinburgh University Press， 1984： 291-311.
Krahnke， K. Krashen’s acquisition theory and language teaching method[A]. In R. M. Barasch & C. V. James （Eds.）， Beyond the Monitor Model. Boston： Heinle & Heinle， 1994.
Krashen， S. The Input Hypothesis： Issues and Implications[M]. London： Longman， 1985： 17， 101.
Long， M. The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition[A]. In W. Ritchie and T. Bhatia （Eds.）： Handbook of Research on Second Language Acquisition. New York： Academic Press， 1996： 413-468.
Mclaughlin， B. Theories of Second Language Learning[M]. Great Britain： Edward Arnold， 1987.
Pica， T. Research on negotiation： What does it reveal about second-language learning conditions， processes， and outcomes？[J]. Language Learning， 1994（44）： 493-527.
Schmidt， K. Extensive reading in English： rationale and possibilities for a program at Shirayuri Gakuen[J]. Sendai Shirayuri Gakuen Journal of General Researcho， 1996（24）.
Spada， N. Communicative language teaching： current status and future prospects. International handbook of English Language Teaching[J]. 2007（15）： 271-288.
Susan， G.， & Larry， S. Second Language Acquisition， An Introductory Course （3rd edition）[M]. New York： Routeledge， 2008.
Swain， M. Communicative competence： some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development[A]. Second Language Research Forum， University of Southern California， Los Angeles， November 13. In Krashen， S. （1985）. The Input Hypothesis： Issues and Implications. London： Longman， 1983.
Swain， M. Communicative competence： Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development[A]. In S. Gass and C. Madden （eds.） Input in Second Language Acquisition. Rowley， MA： Newbury House， 1985： 235-53.
Swain， M. The Output Hypothesis： Theory and Research[M]. In E. Hinkel （eds.） Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and learning. Mahwah， New Jersey： Lawrence Erlbaum， 2005.
Van den Branden， K. Does Negotiation of Meaning Promote Reading Comprehension？ A Study of Multilingual Primary School Classes[J]. Reading Research Quarterly， 2000（3）： 426-443.
Van Patten， B. From input to output： A Teacher’s Guide to Second Language Acquisition[M]. New York： The McGraw- Hill Companies， Inc， 2003.
V. Rodrigo et al. The effectiveness of two comprehensible-input approaches to foreign language instruction at the intermediate level[J]. System， 2004（23）： 53-60.