20 with feelings, 2 praises or encourages, 3 uses of students idea, and 4 asks
questions. Meanwhile the second one is divided into three categories, 1 gives informations, 2 gives directions, and 3 criticizes students behavior. In term of
the foreign language teaching therefore in this study the researcher uses the FLINT analysis system to describe, analyze, and interpret the function of
languages used by the teacher obtained from the class observations data.
2. Krahen’s Input Theory
Input plays a critical role in language learning. There is no learning without input. The language used by the teacher affects the language produced by
the learners, the interaction generate, and hence the kind of learning that takes places. The problem is what type and how much of input is appropriate and useful
for language learners in the classroom. Krashen‟s Input Hypothesis proposes that
comprehensible input is essential for the learner to acquire a language Krashen, 1985. Krashen further maintains that learners will begin to produce the language
naturally when they have enough exposure to comprehensible input. According to the input hypothesis explained by Krashen, the input must be comprehensible in
that it is near the learner‟s current level of development, called i, and the level that the learner will get to next must slightly beyond the level at which he or she
already acquired, called i+1 Krashen, 1982 in Cook, 1993: 53. With regard to teacher talk, comprehensible input refers to the utterances that learners understand
on the basis of context which they are used to, as well as the language which they have learned. When a speaker uses language so that the acquirer understands the
message, the speaker “casts a net” of structures around the acquirer current level competence, and this will include many instances of i+1 Ellis, 1985.
21 Several kinds of input that Krashen discusses are the foreigner speech and
teacher talk as form of the caracteker speech and interlanguage talk among acquires of the second language. It can be refered that modifications in speech
addressed to learners and extralinguistic information both are important since they can increase input comprehensibility Krashen, 1985. According to Krashen, the
goal of the language instruction is to bring the students to the point where they are able to use language outside the classroom in understanding and communicating
with native speakers of the language. Krashen 1985 claims that, if the students reach this level of competence, they will be able to continue to improve they
language skill from the comprehensible input recieved on the outside. Krashen stresses that two-way interaction is a particularly good way of
providing comprehensible input, because it enables the learner to obtain additional contextual information and optimally adjusted input when meaning has to be
negotiated because of communication problems. In Krashen‟s views, acquisition takes place by means
of a learner‟s access to comprehensible input. He comments that the input, which is totaly incomprehensible to learners, is not likely to cause
learning to take place. Teacher talk actually serves as the main source of input of language exposure in classroom learning. It is more important for foreign
language learning, so teachers should make their input comprehensible and in the right quantities. Cook 1993: 51 states “L2 learners acquire a new language by
hearing it in contexts where the meaning of sentences is made plain to them.” In conclusion, Krashen‟ input hypothesis proposes that language learners
can acquire language that is directed at their actual level competence. Krashen further asserts that contextual cues in the message together with students‟
22 knowledge of the word will also help the students to understand the language.
That is also include some structures that are somewhat beyond the students‟ level
of competence. Krashen‟s input hypothesis posits that a language is picked up or acquired when the learners recieve the input from messages which contain
language a little above their exciting understanding and from which they can infer meaning.
Although Krashen‟s Input Hypothesis has been criticized in that there is no clear difinition of comprehensible input, many people feel that distinction has
at least an intuitive appeal and that it represents some psychological reality. In the same way, many practitioners recognize the need to provide learners with
comprehensible input Hadley, 2001.
3. Output Hypothesis
