Comprehensible Input Defined

In this chapter, I aim to address the nature and conceptual foundation of comprehensible input (CI), namely existing views about and definitions of CI. Firstly, I focus on what the concepts input, comprehensibility, output and CI entail. Secondly, I examine what input's linguistic (e.g. phonological, morphological), cultural (e.g. practices, perspectives), semiotic (e.g. semiosis, indexical) and stylistic (e.g. register, formality) elements are. Then, I explicate how CI pertains to processing and output production. I conclude the chapter with a brief section that offers a broad perspective of CI in light of the cumulative wisdom accrued as a result of many theoretical and practical innovations in related fields.

Comprehensible Input

Human beings use language not only to construct concepts and metaphors but also to communicate reason, emotion and ideas (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980). If to communicate is to understand and be understood in different contexts of situations, successful communication depends largely on possessing and effectively using commonly shared units of language. Even the most common everyday communicative acts have an underlying assumption of shared understanding of linguistic forms and meanings. For instance, at the most basic communicative level, a child and a parent have to agree on the meaning of the utterance 'I'm hungry' to result in the parent giving the child food. In the academic world, for instance, technical terms (register) constitute a commonly shared basis for scientific communication among professionals in closely related fields. Without them, mutual intelligibility is impossible and the future of scientific advancement is in jeopardy. Indeed, the practical value of an innovative idea or a technical term resides in the adoption and dissemination of its shared understanding in the scientific community. In this sense, technical terms help researchers to label scientific phenomena and establish commonly shared roadmaps for communication. Conventionally, before a technical concept is added to a professional registry, it must undergo an adoption process. This could occur in two different ways. In the first way, the term is operationally defined by the theorist and the field adopts this definition. In the second way, a need for the operationalization and measurement of the concept arises as the concept becomes widely used in the field. However, note that when it comes to operational meanings and representations of abstract concepts, full consensus is often a forlorn hope.

The term CI in L2 education is one construct that needs closer examination for several reasons. Firstly, even with its historical antecedents dating back to the 19th (Gouinian method; Howatt, 2004) and 20th (Asher, 1969) centuries, and after its special introduction into the field by Stephen Krashen (1987) approximately four decades ago, the term could benefit from a more comprehensive operational definition. Naturally, when defining elements of a technical term are not clearly identified, it becomes more susceptible to misuse. Secondly, the frequency of its use in L2 education is bordering on overuse, pointing to a need to review its usages in different contexts. Thirdly, recent developments in related fields that correspond to the theoretical underpinnings of different aspects of the term (e.g. theories of comprehension, multimodality) necessitate a re-examination. Finally, L2A theory and research and instructional models that have emerged in the last four decades or so have opened new horizons and possibilities that warrant a more comprehensive view of CI. For example, in complexity theory (Larsen-Freeman, 1997) L2A is characterized by multilayered notions of highly fluid and self-adaptive systems and complex processes of interactions. Therefore, a comprehensive view of CI needs to extend beyond the linguistic properties and encompass aspects of multimodal and non-linear dynamic systems as well as semiotic and cultural codes and representations.

What is Input?

According to Krashen (1981), success in L2A is primarily a matter of exposure to input that is comprehensible. Then, understanding the nature of defining elements of input is a prerequisite to the ability to make input comprehensible. Indeed, Gass and Mackey (2007: 177) define input as 'the sine qua non' – or the essential element – of acquisition. Input is generally used to refer to all language samples that are available to a learner in a context. There is no broad consensus in the field of L2 education as to what input really entails in terms of its linguistic, non-linguistic and metaphorical representations, as well as its multimodal forms and variations (for details, see Carroll, 2000). For example, it could refer to linguistic codes and properties at the phonemic or morphemic level, or it could mean a phrase, a clause or even a sentence. Likewise, one could assume that input of basic interpersonal communication skills (BICS) differs from that of cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP) (Cummins, 1984) in terms of levels of linguistic complexity, cognitive load and so forth. If we posit that input also has paralinguistic (e.g. body language) elements, we need to identify its cognitive and sociocultural particularities as well as how such elements interact with its socio- and psycholinguistic functions. Indeed, if we are to assume that 'input' encompasses all of the above-mentioned features, modifying it with the simple adjective 'comprehensible' may not do justice to the complexity of its constitutive elements.

The term 'input' has been used to refer to various forms of language samples in the L2A, teaching and assessment literature. Its meaning and uses are also closely linked to several other constructs (see Carroll, 2000). For example, a commonly used concept that is closely related to input is intake. Intake stands for the input that is perceived, attended to, processed and encoded as new knowledge by the learner (Gass, 1997). It is obvious that in one way or another, the term has been used either as a 'label' for linguistic codes, or as a misnomer for all linguistic, non-linguistic, semiotic, literal and sociocultural properties and functions it may possess. Either way, the assumption here is that 'input' is some kind of an existing bag of well-known, static and stable codes that L2 learners must...