Ten "anxious" foreign language students interviewed by Price (1991) stated that their greatest source of anxiety "was having to speak the target language in front of their peers" (p. 313). Of great interest here is the finding that another source of stress "was the frustration of not being able to communicate effectively" (p. 105).

These results suggest that it is "pushed output," having to utilize structures they have not yet acquired, under demanding conditions, that students find uncomfortable. Methods based on comprehensible output put students in this situation constantly.

CO AND THE INTERACTION HYPOTHESIS

The CO hypothesis is linked to what is sometimes called the "interaction hypothesis," the hypothesis that we acquire language from interacting with others. As stated in this way, the interaction hypothesis is vague - Is interaction necessary or just helpful? Is it the only way to acquire language or one way to acquire language? Also, what occurs during interaction that causes language acquisition?

I have argued that a part of interaction that does not contribute to language acquisition is the output produced by the language acquirer. In addition, there is evidence that a strong version of the interaction hypothesis, one that asserts that interaction is necessary for language acquisition, is not correct. Such a hypothesis denies that acquisition can occur from reading and listening. In addition to the massive data showing that reading can promote language development, the results of Ellis et. al. (1994), discussed above, confirm that acquisition is possible without actually participating in the interaction. A weaker version of the interaction hypothesis is that interaction can be a good source of comprehensible input (Krashen, 1982).

THE NEED HYPOTHESIS

The CO hypothesis is closely related to the "need hypothesis." I have never seen the need hypothesis discussed explicitly in print, but it is widely assumed to be true. The need hypothesis says that we acquire language only when we "need" to communicate, when we need to make ourselves understood. If this hypothesis is correct, language acquirers must be forced to speak the second language. The need hypothesis thus implies that "submersion" is a good thing, in that it forces students to try to communicate.

The need hypothesis is not correct. An excellent counter-argument was presented by Garrison Kieler on the Prairie Home Companion, in a segment called "The Minnesota Language School." The Minnesota Language School operates on the assumption that we acquire language when we need to use it. Their method is to take someone who speaks no German at all, fly them up in a helicopter, and threaten to push them out if they don't start speaking German immediately. If the need hypothesis were correct, this would work.

According to the input hypothesis, need can be helpful when it puts the acquirer in a position to get comprehensible input. All the need in the world, however, will not result in language acquisition if there is no comprehensible input. In addition, interesting and comprehensible input will result in language acquisition whether need is present or not.

5