请哪位高人能够告诉我 input hypothesis 和interaction hypothesis的相似相异点 ，不甚感激！
请教高人 关于input hypothesis 和interaction hypothesis的问题
- 主题发起人 zhangfeifei2325
- 时间
回复: 请教高人 关于input hypothesis 和interaction hypothesis的问题
哪个高人给我指点下啊！
哪个高人给我指点下啊！
回复: 请教高人 关于input hypothesis 和interaction hypothesis的问题
Encycopledia Dictionary of Applied Linguistics
Edited by: Keith Johnson and Helen Johnson
Published by Blackwell 1999
Input hypothesis
An influential but controversial (see McLaughlin, 1987) position put forward by Krashen, proposing that the most important factor in the development of second (or foreign) language proficiency is the learner's exposure to the target language (the ‘input’). Krashen proposed optimal characteristics for such input (see I + 1), and also hypothesized the existence of an affective filter to control the intake of input. (See also monitor model.) (1985). The Input Hypothesis: Issues and implications. New York: Longman. (1987). Theories of Second Language Learning. London: Edward Arnold.
Interaction hypothesis
The position that what promotes the development of second (or foreign) language proficiency is the process of face-to-face linguistic interaction, not merely the encountering of ‘input’ (see input hypothesis). The ‘strong’ form of the interaction hypothesis proposes that it is in the interaction process itself that linguistic development occurs. The ‘weak’ form of the hypothesis proposes that interaction, though important, is better seen simply as the process whereby learning opportunities are made available to learners, who may or may not make productive use of them. (See also output hypothesis.) (1984). Why don't learners learn what teachers teach? The interaction hypothesis. In ), Language Learning in Formal and Informal Contexts. Dublin: IRAAL, 3 18.
Encycopledia Dictionary of Applied Linguistics
Edited by: Keith Johnson and Helen Johnson
Published by Blackwell 1999
Input hypothesis
An influential but controversial (see McLaughlin, 1987) position put forward by Krashen, proposing that the most important factor in the development of second (or foreign) language proficiency is the learner's exposure to the target language (the ‘input’). Krashen proposed optimal characteristics for such input (see I + 1), and also hypothesized the existence of an affective filter to control the intake of input. (See also monitor model.) (1985). The Input Hypothesis: Issues and implications. New York: Longman. (1987). Theories of Second Language Learning. London: Edward Arnold.
Interaction hypothesis
The position that what promotes the development of second (or foreign) language proficiency is the process of face-to-face linguistic interaction, not merely the encountering of ‘input’ (see input hypothesis). The ‘strong’ form of the interaction hypothesis proposes that it is in the interaction process itself that linguistic development occurs. The ‘weak’ form of the hypothesis proposes that interaction, though important, is better seen simply as the process whereby learning opportunities are made available to learners, who may or may not make productive use of them. (See also output hypothesis.) (1984). Why don't learners learn what teachers teach? The interaction hypothesis. In ), Language Learning in Formal and Informal Contexts. Dublin: IRAAL, 3 18.
回复: 请教高人 关于input hypothesis 和interaction hypothesis的问题
谢谢楼上的！
谢谢楼上的！
