Keywords
How to Cite
Abstract
: This paper explores second language acquisition (SLA) after puberty through the lens of Stephen Krashen’s Input Hypothesis, particularly the concept of i+1. It discusses how language learners beyond the critical period face cognitive, affective, and environmental challenges, yet can still achieve high proficiency with comprehensible input slightly above their current level. The article reviews the Critical Period Hypothesis, empirical research on post-puberty learners, and pedagogical implications of applying i+1 in teaching. The study concludes that while naturalistic acquisition may be limited, structured exposure to meaningful input can foster continuous progress and communicative competence.
References
Abdukarimov, A. (2021). Challenges of English language teaching in Uzbek schools. Journal of Language Education, 7(2), 45–53.
Birdsong, D. (2014). Dominance and age in bilingualism. Applied Linguistics, 35(4), 374–392.
Horwitz, E. K. (2017). Becoming a language teacher: A practical guide to second language learning and teaching. Boston: Pearson.
Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.
Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. London: Longman.
Lenneberg, E. H. (1967). Biological foundations of language. New York: Wiley.
Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (2013). How languages are learned (4th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mirziyoyev, Sh. M. (2019). The Strategy of Action for the Five Priority Areas of Development of the Republic of Uzbekistan 2017–2021. Tashkent: Uzbekistan Publishing House.
Mirziyoyev, Sh. M. (2020). Address of the President of the Republic of Uzbekistan to the Oliy Majlis. Tashkent: National News Agency.
Singleton, D., & Ryan, L. (2004). Language acquisition: The age factor (2nd ed.). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.