which of krashen's hypothesis reflects an attention to learner characteristics

Introduction The Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis The Natural Order Hypothesis The Monitor Hypothesis The Input Hypothesis The Affective Filter Hypothesis Curriculum Design Conclusions Bibliography

  Introduction         The influence of Stephen Krashen on language education research and practice is undeniable.  First introduced over 20 years ago, his theories are still debated today.  In 1983, he published The Natural Approach with Tracy Terrell, which combined a comprehensive second language acquisition theory with a curriculum for language classrooms.  The influence of Natural Approach can be seen especially in current EFL textbooks and teachers resource books such as The Lexical Approach (Lewis, 1993).  Krashen’s theories on second language acquisition have also had a huge impact on education in the state of California, starting in 1981 with his contribution to Schooling and language minority students: A theoretical framework by the California State Department of Education (Krashen 1981).  Today his influence can be seen most prominently in the debate about bilingual education and perhaps less explicitly in language education policy:  The BCLAD/CLAD teacher assessment tests define the pedagogical factors affecting first and second language development in exactly the same terms used in Krashen’s Monitor Model (California Commission on Teacher Credentialing, 1998).         As advertised, The Natural Approach is very appealing – who wouldn’t want to learn a language the natural way, and what language teacher doesn’t think about what kind of input to provide for students.  However, upon closer examination of Krashen’s hypotheses and Terrell’s methods, they fail to provide the goods for a workable system.  In fact, within the covers of “The Natural Approach”, the weaknesses that other authors criticize can be seen playing themselves out into proof of the failure of Krashen’s model.  In addition to reviewing what other authors have written about Krashen’s hypotheses, I will attempt to directly address what I consider to be some of the implications for ES/FL teaching today by drawing on my own experience in the classroom as a teacher and a student of language.  Rather than use Krashen’s own label, which is to call his ideas simply “second language acquisition theory”, I will adopt McLaughlin’s terminology (1987) and refer to them collectively as “the Monitor Model”.  This is distinct from “the Monitor Hypothesis”, which is the fourth of Krashen’s five hypotheses. The Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis         First is the Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis, which makes a distinction between “acquisition,” which he defines as developing competence by using language for “real communication” and “learning.” which he defines as “knowing about” or “formal knowledge” of a language (p.26).  This hypothesis is presented largely as common sense: Krashen only draws on only one set of references from Roger Brown in the early 1970’s.  He claims that Brown’s research on first language acquisition showed that parents tend to correct the content of children’s speech rather than their grammar.  He compares it with several other authors’ distinction of “implicit” and “explicit” learning but simply informs the reader that evidence will be presented later.         Gregg (1984) first notes that Krashen’s use of the Language Acquisition Device (LAD) gives it a much wider scope of operation than even Chomsky himself.  He intended it simply as a construct to describe the child’s initial state, which would therefore mean that it cannot apply to adult learners.  Drawing on his own experience of learning Japanese, Gregg contends that Krashen’s dogmatic insistence that “learning” can never become “acquisition” is quickly refuted by the experience of anyone who has internalized some of the grammar they have consciously memorized.  However, although it is not explicitly stated, Krashen’s emphasis seems to be that classroom learning does not lead to fluent, native-like speech.  Gregg’s account that his memorization of a verb conjugation chart was “error-free after a couple of days”(p.81) seems to go against this spirit.  The reader is left to speculate whether his proficiency in Japanese at the time was sufficient enough for him to engage in error-free conversations with the verbs from his chart.         McLaughlin (1987) begins his critique by pointing out that Krashen never adequately defines “acquisition”, “learning”, “conscious” and “subconscious”, and that without such clarification, it is very difficult to independently determine whether subjects are “learning” or “acquiring” language.  This is perhaps the first area that needs to be explained in attempting to utilize the Natural Approach.  If the classroom situation is hopeless for attaining proficiency, then it is probably best not to start.  As we will see in an analysis of the specific methods in the book, any attempt to recreate an environment suitable for “acquisition” is bound to be problematic.         Krashen’s conscious/unconscious learning distinction appeals to students and teachers in monolingual countries immediately.  In societies where there are few bilinguals, like the United States, many people have struggled to learn a foreign language at school, often unsuccessfully.  They see people who live in other countries as just having “picked up” their second language naturally in childhood.  The effort spent in studying and doing homework seems pointless when contrasted with the apparent ease that “natural” acquisition presents.  This feeling is not lost on teachers: without a theoretical basis for the methods, given any perceived slow progress of their students, they would feel that they have no choice but to be open to any new ideas         Taking a broad interpretation of this hypothesis, the main intent seems to be to convey how grammar study (learning) is less effective than simple exposure (acquisition).  This is something that very few researchers seem to doubt, and recent findings in the analysis of right hemisphere trauma indicate a clear separation of the facilities for interpreting context-independent sentences from context-dependent utterances (Paradis, 1998).  However, when called upon to clarify, Krashen takes the somewhat less defensible position that the two are completely unrelated and that grammar study has no place in language learning (Krashen 1993a, 1993b).  As several authors have shown (Gregg 1984, McLaughlin 1987, and Lightbown & Pienemann 1993, for a direct counter-argument to Krashen 1993a) there are countless examples of how grammar study can be of great benefit to students learning by some sort of communicative method. The Natural Order Hypothesis         The second hypothesis is simply that grammatical structures are learned in a predictable order.  Once again this is based on first language acquisition research done by Roger Brown, as well as that of Jill and Peter de Villiers.  These studies found striking similarities in the order in which children acquired certain grammatical morphemes.  Krashen cites a series of studies by Dulay and Burt which show that a group of Spanish speaking and a group of Chinese speaking children learning English as a second language also exhibited a “natural” order for grammatical morphemes which did not differ between the two groups.  A rather lengthy end-note directs readers to further research in first and second language acquisition, but somewhat undercuts the basic hypothesis by showing limitations to the concept of an order of acquisition.         Gregg argues that Krashen has no basis for separating grammatical morphemes from, for example, phonology.  Although Krashen only briefly mentions the existence of other parallel “streams” of acquisition in The Natural Approach, their very existence rules out any order that might be used in instruction.  The basic idea of a simple linear order of acquisition is extremely unlikely, Gregg reminds us.  In addition, if there are individual differences then the hypothesis is not provable, falsifiable, and in the end, not useful.         McLaughlin points out the methodological problems with Dulay and Burt’s 1974 study, and cites a study by Hakuta and Cancino (1977, cited in McLaughlin, 1987, p.32) which found that the complexity of a morpheme depended on the learner’s native language.  The difference between the experience of a speaker of a Germanic language studying English with that of an Asian language studying English is a clear indication of the relevance of this finding.  The contradictions for planning curriculum are immediately evident.  Having just discredited grammar study in the Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis, Krashen suddenly proposes that second language learners should follow the “natural” order of acquisition for grammatical morphemes.  The teacher is first instructed to create a natural environment for the learner but then, in trying to create a curriculum, they are instructed to base it on grammar.  As described below in an analysis of the actual classroom methods presented in the Natural Approach, attempting to put these conflicting theories into practice is very problematic.         When one examines this hypothesis in terms of comprehension and production, its insufficiencies become even more apparent.  Many of the studies of order of acquisition, especially those in first language acquisition, are based on production.  McLaughlin also points out that “correct usage” is not monolithic – even for grammatical morphemes, correct usage in one situation does not guarantee as correct usage in another (p.33).  In this sense, the term “acquisition” becomes very unclear, even when not applying Krashen’s definition.  Is a structure “acquired” when there are no mistakes in comprehension?  Or is it acquired when there is a certain level of accuracy in production?  First language acquisition is very closely linked to the cognitive development of infants, but second language learners have most of these facilities present, even as children.  Further, even if some weak form of natural order exists for any learners who are speakers of a given language, learning in a given environment, it is not clear that the order is the same for comprehension and production.  If these two orders differ, it is not clear how they would interact. The Monitor Hypothesis The role of conscious learning is defined in this somewhat negative hypothesis: The only role that such “learned” competence can have is an editor on what is produced.  Output is checked and repaired, after it has been produced, by the explicit knowledge the learner has gained through grammar study.  The implication is that the use of this Monitor should be discouraged and that production should be left up to some instinct that has been formed by “acquisition”.  Using the Monitor, speech is halting since it only can check what has been produced, but Monitor-free speech is much more instinctive and less contrived.  However, he later describes cases of using the Monitor efficiently (p. 32) to eliminate errors on “easy” rules.  This hypothesis presents very little in the way of supportive evidence:  Krashen cites several studies by Bialystok alone and with Frohlich as “confirming evidence” (p.31) and several of his own studies on the difficulty of confirming acquisition of grammar.         Perhaps Krashen’s recognition of this factor was indeed a step forward – language learners and teachers everywhere know the feeling that the harder they try to make a correct sentence, the worse it comes out.  However, he seems to draw the lines around it a bit too closely.  Gregg points (p.84) out that by restricting monitor use to “learned” grammar and only in production, Krashen in effect makes the Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis and the Monitor Hypothesis contradictory.  Gregg also points out that the restricting learning to the role of editing production completely ignores comprehension (p.82).  Explicitly learned grammar can obviously play a crucial role in understanding speech.         McLaughlin gives a thorough dissection of the hypothesis, showing that Krashen has never demonstrated the operation of the Monitor in his own or any other research.  Even the further qualification that it only works on discrete-point tests on one grammar rule at a time failed to produce evidence of operation.  Only one study (Seliger, cited on p.26) was able to find narrow conditions for its operation, and even there the conclusion was that it was not representative of the conscious knowledge of grammar.  He goes on to point out how difficult it is to determine if one is consciously employing a rule, and that such conscious editing actually interferes with performance.  But his most convincing argument is the existence of learners who have taught themselves a language with very little contact with native speakers.  These people are perhaps rare on the campuses of U.S. universities, but it is quite undeniable that they exist.         The role that explicitly learned grammar and incidentally acquired exposure have in forming sentences is far from clear.  Watching intermediate students practice using recasts is certainly convincing evidence that something like the Monitor is at work: even without outside correction, they can eliminate the errors in a target sentence or expression of their own ideas after several tries.  However, psycholinguists have yet to determine just what goes into sentence processing and bilingual memory.  In a later paper (Krashen 1991), he tried to show that high school students, despite applying spelling rules they knew explicitly, performed worse than college students who did not remember such rules.  He failed to address not only the relevance of this study to the ability to communicate in a language, but also the possibility that whether they remembered the rules or not, the college students probably did know the rules consciously at some point, which again violates the Learning-Acquisition Hypothesis. The Input Hypothesis         Here Krashen explains how successful “acquisition” occurs:  by simply understanding input that is a little beyond the learner’s present “level” – he defined that present “level” as i and the ideal level of input as i +1.  In the development of oral fluency, unknown words and grammar are deduced through the use of context (both situational and discursive), rather than through direct instruction.  Krashen has several areas which he draws on for proof of the Input Hypothesis.  One is the speech that parents use when talking to children (caretaker speech), which he says is vital in first language acquisition (p.34).  He also illustrates how good teachers tune their speech to their students’ level, and how when talking to each other, second language learners adjust their speech in order to communicate.  This hypothesis is also supported by the fact that often the first second language utterances of adult learners are very similar to those of infants in their first language.  However it is the results of methods such as Asher’s Total Physical Response that provide the most convincing evidence.  This method was shown to be far superior to audiolingual, grammar-translation or other approaches, producing what Krashen calls “nearly five times the [normal] acquisition rate.”         Gregg spends substantial time on this particular hypothesis, because, while it seems to be the core of the model, it is simply an uncontroversial observation with no process described and no proof provided.  He brings up the very salient point that perhaps practice does indeed also have something to do with second language acquisition, pointing out that monitoring could be used as a source of correct utterances (p. 87).  He also cites several studies that shed some doubt on the connection between caretaker speech in first language acquisition and simplified input in second language acquisition.         McLaughlin also gives careful and thorough consideration to this part of Krashen’s model.  He addresses each of the ten lines of evidence that Krashen presents, arguing that it is not sufficient to simply say that certain phenomenon can be viewed from the perspective of the Input Hypothesis.  The concept of a learner’s “level” is extremely difficult to define, just as the idea of i +1 is (p.37).  Further, there are many structures such as passives and yes/no questions that cannot be learned through context.  Also, there is no evidence that a learner has to fully comprehend an utterance for it to aid in acquisition.  Some of the first words that children and second language learners produce are formulaic expressions that are not fully understood initially.  Finally McLaughlin points out that Krashen simply ignores other internal factors such as motivation and the importance of producing language for interaction.         This hypothesis is perhaps the most appealing part of Krashen’s model for the language learner as well as the teacher.  He makes use of the gap between comprehension and production that everyone feels, enticing us with the hope of instant benefits if we just get the input tuned to the right level.  One of Krashen’s cleverest catch-alls is that other methods of teaching appear to work at times because they inadvertently provide this input.  But the disappointment is that he never gives any convincing idea as to how it works.  In the classroom a teacher can see when the students don’t understand and can simplify his or her speech to the point where they do.  Krashen would have the teacher think that this was all that is necessary, and it is just a matter of time before the students are able to express themselves freely.  However, Ellis (1992) points out that even as of his 1985 work (Krashen 1985), he still had not provided a single study that demonstrated the Input Hypothesis.  Over extended periods of time students do learn to understand more and even how to speak, but it often seems to take much longer than Krashen implies, indicating that there are perhaps many more factors involved.  More importantly, even given this beginning of i, and the goal of i + 1, indefinable as they are, the reader is given no indication of how to proceed.  As shown above the Natural Order Hypothesis holds no answers, especially as to how comprehension progresses.  In an indication of a direction that should be explored, Ellis’s exploratory study (ibid.) showed that it is the effort involved in attempting to understand input rather than simple comprehension that fuels acquisition. The Affective Filter Hypothesis         This concept receives the briefest treatment in “The Natural Approach”.  Krashen simply states that “attitudinal variables relate directly to language acquisition but not language learning.”  He cites several studies that examine the link between motivation and self-image, arguing that an “integrative” motivation (the learner want to “be like” the native speakers of a language) is necessary.  He postulates an “affective filter” that acts before the Language Acquisition Device and restricts the desire to seek input if the learner does not have such motivation.  Krashen also says that at puberty, this filter increases dramatically in strength.         Gregg notes several problems with this hypothesis as well.  Among others, Krashen seems to indicate that perhaps the affective filter is associated with the emotional upheaval and hypersensitivity of puberty, but Gregg notes that this would indicate that the filter would slowly disappear in adulthood, which Krashen does not allow for (p.92).  He also remarks on several operational details, such as the fact that simply not being unmotivated would be the same as being highly motivated in this hypothesis – neither is the negative state of being unmotivated.  Also, he questions how this filter would selectively choose certain “parts of a language” to reject (p.94).         McLaughlin argues much along the same lines as Gregg and points out that adolescents often acquire languages faster than younger, monitor-free children (p.29).  He concludes that while affective variables certainly play a critical role in acquisition, there is no need to theorize a filter like Krashen’s.         Again, the teacher in the classroom is enticed by this hypothesis because of the obvious effects of self-confidence and motivation.  However, Krashen seems to imply that teaching children, who don’t have this filter, is somehow easier, since “given sufficient exposure, most children reach native-like levels of competence in second languages” (p.47).  This obviously completely ignores the demanding situations that face language minority children in the U.S. every day.  A simplification into a one page “hypothesis” gives teachers the idea that these problems are easily solved and fluency is just a matter of following this path.  As Gregg and McLaughlin point out, however, trying to put these ideas into practice, one quickly runs into problems. Curriculum Design         The educational implications of Krashen’s theories become more apparent in the remainder of the book, where he and Terrell lay out the specific methods that make use of the Monitor Model.  These ideas are based on Terrell’s earlier work (Terrell, 1977) but have been expanded into a full curriculum.  The authors qualify this collection somewhat by saying that teachers can use all or part of the Natural Approach, depending on how it fits into their classroom.         This freedom, combined with the thoroughness of their curriculum, make the Natural Approach very attractive.  In fact, the guidelines they set out at the beginning– communication is the primary goal, comprehension preceding production, production simply emerge, acquisition activities are central, and the affective filter should be lowered (p. 58-60) – are without question, excellent guidelines for any language classroom.  The compilation of topics and situations (p.67-70) which make up their curriculum are a good, broad overview of many of the things that students who study by grammar translation or audiolingual methods do not get.  The list of suggested rules (p.74) is notable in its departure from previous methods with its insistence on target language input but its allowance for partial, non-grammatical or even L1 responses.         Outside of these areas, application of the suggestions run into some difficulty.  Three general communicative goals of being able to express personal identification, experiences and opinions (p.73) are presented, but there is no theoretical background.  The Natural Approach contains ample guidance and resources for the beginner levels, with methods for introducing basic vocabulary and situations in a way that keeps students involved.  It also has very viable techniques for more advanced and self-confident classes who will be stimulated by the imaginative situational practice (starting on p.101).  However, teachers of the broad middle range of students who have gotten a grip on basic vocabulary but are still struggling with sentence and question production are left with conflicting advice.         Once beyond one-word answers to questions, the Natural Approach ventures out onto thin ice by suggesting elicited productions.  These take the form of open-ended sentences, open dialogs and even prefabricated patterns (p.84).  These formats necessarily involve explicit use of grammar, which violates every hypothesis of the Monitor Model.  The authors write this off as training for optimal Monitor use (p.71, 142), despite Krashen’s promotion of “Monitor-free” production.  Even if a teacher were to set off in this direction and begin to introduce a “structure of the day” (p. 72), once again there is no theoretical basis for what to choose.  Perhaps the most glaring omission is the lack of any reference to the Natural Order Hypothesis, which as noted previously, contained no realistically usable information for designing curriculum.         Judging from the emphasis on exposure in the Natural Approach and the pattern of Krashen’s later publications, which focused on the Input Hypothesis, the solution to curriculum problems seems to be massive listening.  However, as noted before, other than i + 1, there is no theoretical basis for overall curriculum design regarding comprehension.  Once again, the teacher is forced to rely on a somewhat dubious “order of acquisition”, which is based on production anyway.  Further, the link from exposure to production targets is tenuous at best.  Consider the dialog presented on p.87: . . . to the question What is the man doing in this picture? the students may reply run.  The instructor expands the answer.  Yes, that’s right, he’s running.

The 5 Hypotheses of Krashen’s Theory of Second Language Acquisition B.Ed Notes

Back to: Pedagogy of English – Unit 3

Stephen Krashen is an expert in the linguistic field. He specializes in the theories of language acquisition and development. He has published more than 100 articles since 1980 and has delivered over 300 lectures across many renowned Universities in USA and Canada. According to Krashen, language acquisition requires “meaningful interaction with the target language. ” Dr. Krashen theorized that there are 5 hypotheses for second language acquisition. All of these 5 hypotheses have been highly influential in the field of second language research and teaching.

The Life and Work of Stephen Krashen

Stephen Krashen is an American linguist who was born in 1941. He received a Ph.D. in Linguistics in 1972 and has spent his career working as a linguistics professor at the University of Southern California. Krashen’s work has earned him a number of awards and accolades. He has received the Mildenberger Award and the Pimsleur Award for his writing and the Dorothy C. McKenzie Award for Distinguished Contribution to the Field of Children’s Literature. Krashen’s theories have been widely received with positive critical acclaim and have in many cases become the educational standard for second language learning in North America.

Krashen’s work has primarily focused on his theory of second language acquisition, or the process through which individuals learn a language besides their native language. While most of his work has focused on second language acquisition among children, his research is often applicable to older language learners as well. Some of his notable books include The Power of Reading, Explorations in Language Acquisition and Use and Foreign Language Education The Easy Way, all of which are about the role of education in second language acquisition.

Second Language Acquisition and Theories of Stephen Krashen

Second language acquisition is a major area of discussion in the field of linguistics. There are many benefits to learning a second language and many parents in America want their children to learn a second language in school. In Krashen’s work, he makes an important distinction between language learning and language acquisition. In Krashen’s view, learning must be a deliberate process of building language skills through structured activities. Most people who have studied a second language will be familiar with this approach. Krashen distinguishes learning from acquisition on the basis that acquisition is an organic process that comes about through an immersion environment. Understanding this distinction is critical for understanding Krashen’s work, which can be divided into five hypotheses.

What are the 5 Hypothesis of Krashen?

Krashen’s five hypotheses are the acquisition-learning hypothesis, the monitor hypothesis, the input hypothesis, the affective filter hypothesis, and the natural order hypothesis. All five come together to form Krashen’s theory of second language acquisition.

The five hypotheses formulated by Krashen in his theory of language acquisition are as follows.

Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis

This hypothesis states that there is a difference between language learning and language acquisition. The learner acquired language unconsciously in language acquisition whereas, in language learning, the learner picks up the language through conscious discovery and by learning the grammatical rules and structures of the language.

The acquisition-learning hypothesis elaborates on the difference between language acquisition and language learning. Acquisition is unconscious while learning is deliberate. Acquisition is much closer to the way that humans learn their native languages as children: deliberate work is not typically required. Krashen’s hypothesis states that learning ought to be secondary to acquisition for second language learners. While he does not discount the importance of structured learning entirely, he strongly emphasizes the importance of immersion environments for long-term, comprehensive acquisition. Krashen describes acquisition as a student-centered approach to education, while learning is more teacher-centered. Foregrounding learning may be easier for teachers, but Krashen argues that it is less effective in the long term.

Monitor Hypothesis

According to monitor hypotheses, the learner learns the grammar rules and functions of the language consciously rather than its meaning. It lays more emphasis on the correctness of the language. There are three standards required to use this hypothesis properly.

The monitor hypothesis comes into play as an addition to the acquisition-learning hypothesis. In Krashen’s view, ”monitoring” is a skill that people acquire when they focus on learning grammar. They can monitor their own speech to edit it and correct errors. Language acquisition can be a more chaotic system that does not focus as heavily on rules, so grammar-based monitoring can help make speech more comprehensible and aligned with learning objectives. Monitoring, Krashen points out, only comes into play when learners are aware of a grammar rule, focus on that rule, and have enough time to correct speech errors. Some people seem to rely too much on their monitoring, while other speakers under-rely on it and make more mistakes as a result. In order to make the most of the monitor system, speakers need to have reasonable confidence in their speaking abilities.

• The acquired must know the language rules.
• The acquirer must emphasize the exact form of the language.
• The acquirer must review the language and apply its rules in a conversation.

Natural Order Hypothesis

This hypothesis believes that language learners learn grammatical structures universally and fixedly. This kind of learning has a sense of predictability which is akin to learning the first language. Natural Order Hypothesis is based on the finding that language learners learn grammatical structures in a fixed and universal way. There is a sense of predictability to this kind of learning, which is similar to how a speaker learns their first language.

Input Hypothesis

This hypothesis focuses more on the acquisition of the second language. It is concerned more with how the language is acquired instead of how it is learned. It believes that the learner develops the language naturally as they receive fun and interesting information. The input hypothesis attempts to explain how organic acquisition takes place. This is a major question in linguistics. Krashen proposes a simple formula: ”i + 1.” In this formula, ”i” represents the current input stage that a learner can understand. There is nothing new at this level and everything has already been internalized. The ”+ 1” indicates one level of challenge where there is a small amount of new input at each level. Once learners have mastered the new material, the input can become more complex yet again. In this way, those acquiring a second language are constantly improving and constantly challenged. It can, of course, be challenging for teachers to always observe this formula; it is intended as an ideal and a guideline more than anything else and it seeks to explain the actual process of acquisition on a practical level

Affective Filter Hypothesis

In this hypothesis, emotional factors can affect language acquisition. The learner is less likely to learn the language if the affective filter is higher. Hence, the learning environment must be stress-free and positive so that the learner can learn properly.

In Affective Filter, language acquisition can be affected by emotional factors. If the affective filter is higher, then the student is less likely to learn the language. Therefore, the learning environment for the student must be positive and stress-free so that the student is open for input.

Language acquisition is a subconscious process. Usually, language acquirers are aware that they’re using the language for communication but are unaware that they are acquiring the language.

Language acquirers also are unaware of the rules of the language they are acquiring. Instead, language acquirers feel a sense of correctness, when the sentence sounds and feels right. Strange right? But it is also quite fascinating.

Stephen Krashen states

“Language acquisition does not require extensive use of conscious grammatical rules, and does not require tedious drill. Acquisition requires meaningful interaction in the target language – natural communication – in which speakers are concerned not with the form of their utterances but with the messages they are conveying and understanding.”

He further added,

“In the real world, conversations with sympathetic native speakers who are willing to help the acquirer understand are very helpful.”

• Beelinguapp

Stephen Krashen’s Five Hypotheses of Second Language Acquisition

Unsplash Monica Melton

Interested in learning more about linguistics and linguists ? Read this way.

What is linguistics? Linguistics is the scientific study of language that involves the analysis of language rules, language meaning, and language context. In other words, linguistics is the study of how a language is formed and how it works.

A person who studies linguistics is called a linguist . A linguist doesn't necessarily have to learn different languages because they’re more interested in learning the structures of languages. Noam Chomsky and Dr. Stephen Krashen are two of the world’s most famous linguists.

Dr. Stephen D. Krashen facilitated research in second-language acquisition , bilingual education, and in reading. He believes that language acquisition requires “meaningful interaction with the target language.”

Dr. Krashen also theorized that there are 5 hypotheses to second language acquisition , which have been very influential in the field of second language research and teaching

Let’s take a look at these hypotheses. Who knows, maybe you’ve applied one or all of them in your language learning journey!

1. Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis

The Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis states that there is a distinction between language acquisition and language learning. In language acquisition, the student acquires language unconsciously . This is similar to when a child picks up their first language. On the other hand, language learning happens when the student is consciously discovering and learning the rules and grammatical structures of the language.

2. Monitor Hypothesis

Monitor Hypothesis states that the learner is consciously learning the grammar rules and functions of a language rather than its meaning. This theory focuses more on the correctness of the language . To use the Monitor Hypothesis properly, three standards must be met:

• The acquirer must know the rules of the language.
• The acquirer must concentrate on the exact form of the language.
• The acquirer must set aside some time to review and apply the language rules in a conversation. Although this is a tricky one, because in regular conversations there’s hardly enough time to ensure correctness of the language.

3. Natural Order Hypothesis

Natural Order Hypothesis is based on the finding that language learners learn grammatical structures in a fixed and universal way . There is a sense of predictability to this kind of learning, which is similar to how a speaker learns their first language.

4. Input Hypothesis

Input Hypothesis places more emphasis on the acquisition of the second language. This theory is more concerned about how the language is acquired rather than learned.

Moreover, the Input Hypothesis states that the learner naturally develops language as soon as the student receives interesting and fun information .

5. Affective Filter Hypothesis

In Affective Filter, language acquisition can be affected by emotional factors. If the affective filter is higher, then the student is less likely to learn the language. Therefore, the learning environment for the student must be positive and stress-free so that the student is open for input.

Language acquisition is a subconscious process. Usually, language acquirers are aware that they’re using the language for communication but are unaware that they are acquiring the language.

Language acquirers also are unaware of the rules of the language they are acquiring. Instead, language acquirers feel a sense of correctness, when the sentence sounds and feels right. Strange right? But it is also quite fascinating.

Acquiring a language is a tedious process. It can seem more like a chore, a game of should I learn today or should I just do something else? Sigh

But Dr. Krashen’s language acquisition theories might be onto something, don’t you think? Learning a language should be fun and in some way it should happen naturally. Try to engage in meaningful interactions like reading exciting stories and relevant news articles, even talking with friends and family in a different language. Indulge in interesting and easy to understand language activities, and by then you might already have slowly started acquiring your target language!

Related Posts

“alda” & more cool german slang words to learn, a quick tutorial to learning “gandara park” & more beki words, most romantic lines by shakespeare you should know, subscribe to our newsletter.

• ELT Concourse home
• A-Z site index
• Teacher training index
• Teacher development
• For teachers
• For trainers
• For managers
• For learners
• About language
• Language questions
• Other areas
• Academic English
• Business English
• Entering ELT
• Courses index
• Basic ELT course
• Language analysis
• Training to train
• Transcription

Krashen and the Natural Approach

The guide to the history and development of English Language Teaching covers: grammar translation, audio-lingualism (including structural linguistics and behaviourist theories of learning) and the rise of communicative language teaching. The separate guide to Communicative Language Teaching takes it on from there. You should go to those guides (which open in new tabs) for more on the background and the story so far.

We have a whole guide on the Natural Approach, not because it is hugely influential in itself, but because the theories (or, better, hypotheses) which underlie it have been demonstrably influential in themselves. The approach takes its name from the book by Krashen and Terrell (1983) which outlined an approach to language teaching based on a set of fundamental hypotheses.  It is these we need to focus on before we can discuss methodology arising from them.

In 1982, Krashen published Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning in which he set out five hypotheses.  What follows here is a very brief summary. The full text is, fortunately, now available at http://www.sdkrashen.com/content/books/sl_acquisition_and_learning.pdf.  Please look there for the background, evidence and more detail.

the classroom can be of value, and in fact generally is of value, in language acquisition as well as in language learning Krashen, 2002:48 (emphasis in the original)

Naturally, such a broad and significant range of hypotheses has not been without its critics.  However, whether one accepts the truth of all the hypotheses or not, there are clearly classroom implications to consider.  Consider how you would fill in the right-hand column in this table and then click on it for some comments.

To give you a flavour of how teaching and learning are carried out following the Natural Approach, here are some statements from a handbook of the approach (Krashen and Terrell, 1983).

• Your teacher will speak French exclusively.  You may answer in either English or French.  You are free to use English until you yourself feel ready to try speaking French.  You should not try to use French until you are comfortable doing so.
• When you do try to speak in the new language, the teacher is interested in what you have to say – not whether you have said it perfectly.  Neither you nor the teacher will be overly concerned with grammar errors in your speech while you are a beginner.
• You do not have to use full sentences.  You may talk in short phrases or even use just one word when that is appropriate.
• Remember that as long as you understand what the teacher is saying you are acquiring French.  This means that you should focus on what is being said, the message, rather than how it is being said.

The first of these is known as delayed oral practice and has received quite a lot of attention.  In the past, the assumption has been that intensive oral practice from the outset of the learning process will be effective.  This is now not taken for granted and some evidence shows that learners, especially beginners, need a period of time to assimilate what they hear before being asked to produce the target language.  In other words, to build competence before performance.

Many have noted that this kind of approach is not very far removed from an 'ordinary' communicative-approach classroom.

There's a short, easy test on this .

References: Krashen, S, 2002, Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning , First internet edition, retrieved from http://www.sdkrashen.com/content/books/sl_acquisition_and_learning.pdf Krashen, SD & Terrell, TD, 1983,  The natural approach: Language acquisition in the classroom , London: Prentice Hall Europe Widdowson, H, 1990, Aspects of Language Teaching , Oxford: Oxford University Press

Contact | FAQs | Copyright notice | ELT Concourse charter | Disclaimer and Privacy statement | Search ELT Concourse

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Krashen's Language Acquisition Hypotheses: A Critical Review

Related Papers

International Journal of Social Research

Mzamani Maluleke

The monitor model, being one of its kind postulating the rigorous process taken by learners of second language, has since its inception in 1977, stirred sterile debates the globe over. Since then, Krashen has been rethinking and expanding his hypothetical acquisition notions, improve the applicability of his theory. The model has not been becoming, and it therefore faces disapproval on the basis of its failure to be tested empirically and, at some points, its contrast to Krashen’s earlier perceptions on both first and second language acquisition. In this paper, the writers deliberate upon Krashen’s monitor model, its tenets as well as the various ways in which it impacts, either negatively or positively upon educational teaching and learning.

Amalia Oyarzún

Aufani Yukzanali

Many theories on how language is acquired has been introduced since 19th century and still being introduced today by many great thinkers. Like any other theories which arose from variety of disciplines, language acquisition theories generally derived from linguistics and psychological thinking. This paper concluded that the most important implication of language acquisition theories is obviously the fact that applied linguists, methodologist and language teachers should view the acquisition of a language not only as a matter of nurture but also an instance of nature. In addition, only when we distinguish between a general theory of learning and language learning can we ameliorate the conditions L2 education. To do so, applied linguists must be aware of the nature of both L1 and L2 acquisition and must consider the distinction proposed in this study. Furthermore, no longer should mind and innateness be treated as dirty words. This will most probably lead to innovative proposals for syllabus development and the design of instructional systems, practices, techniques, procedures in the language classroom, and finally a sound theory of L2 teaching and learning.

Karunakaran Thirunavukkarasu

Luz Villarroel Cornejo

Evynurul Laily Zen

This paper aims at revealing the factors that contribute to children's language acquisition of either their first or second language. The affective filter hypothesis (Krashen, 2003) as the underlying framework of this paper is used to see how children's perception towards the language input take a role in the process of acquisition. 25 lecturers in the Faculty of Letters, State University of Malang who have sons or daughters under the age of 10 become the data source. The data are collected through survey method and analyzed qualitatively since this paper is attempting to give a thorough description of the reality in children's language acquisition. The results show that most children are exposed to the language while interacting with their family members, especially their mothers. Another factor is children's interactions with friends. The languages used by their friends are potential to be acquired by them. These two factors strongly confirm the core idea of the affective filter hypothesis that children will learn best when they feel comfortable and are positive about the input they are absorbing. Furthermore, reading is also one of other minor contributing factors discovering the fact that the books the children like helps them construct positive perception which then encourage them import more inputs. 1. Rationale This paper is an attempt to disseminate the result of the survey-based research conducted to have a closer look at the mapping of bilingual language situation seen in certain linguistic situation in Malang. The survey that was conducted to bilingual parents is basically about to satisfy a personal yet scientific curiosity of the researchers as both parents to bilingual children and language teachers. Nothing seems really unique from the fact that children in Indonesia are born to be bilingual because, by nature, they are raised by bilingual parents in bi(multi)lingual situation. On the other hand, there have been an increasing number of studies that explore the nature of bilingual language acquisition. Some have seen negative impact of exposing second language to children (at various angles by which these previous studies have been carried out, the socio-psycholinguistic environment of bilingual children in Malang is obviously worth-researching. One of the focuses of the survey is looking thoroughly at the contributing factors of both the first and second language development of bilinguals that mainly becomes the concern of this paper. Something really significant to start with is the result of the survey seen from Figure 1 below that not only 16% of the children of the respondents are raised monolingual, but also 28% of them are trilingual.

Lazaros Kikidis

For Didactics and Applied Linguistics MA students

Andreas Gozali

Language and Education

Nicole Ziegler

RELATED PAPERS

International Journal of Public Opinion Research

Eldad Davidov

Sheridan Brown

FEMS Microbiology Letters

Carlton Gyles

Gastrointestinal Radiology

Frank Volberg

Rosen Dimitrov

Revista científica Sociedad & Tecnología

Sociedad & Tecnología

Physics of Plasmas

Alexandre Poyé

Educação e Pesquisa

WAGNER VALENTE

Abiodun Modupe

Meat and Muscle Biology

Enrique Pavan

Porta Linguarum Revista Interuniversitaria de Didáctica de las Lenguas Extranjeras

Sonia López Serrano

The European Physical Journal C

Priscilla Cushman

Edivaldo de Oliveira

Malaria Journal

zelalem Desalegn

Advances in Systems Safety

bryan bakker

Ricardo Walter CORLETO

IFAC Proceedings Volumes

Harry Kwatny

Journal of Youth Studies

Peter Appleton

Javier Escobal

Computers and Electronics in Agriculture

Circulation Research

Igor Efimov

Computational Intelligence and Modern Heuristics

Bioedukasi : Jurnal Pendidikan Biologi FKIP UM Metro

Muhfahroyin Muhfahroyin

Marina Khaliman

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Search Our Store:

Acquisition / learning (krashen’s hypotheses series, #3 of 9).

All of the posts about Stephen Krashen’s Hypotheses are available  here .

(Previous post: The Monitor Hypothesis)

The next post in this series (#4/9),  The Natural Order of Acquisition , is found here .

A: The A cquisition/Learning Hypothesis

Very important for teachers to get

“Language acquisition and language learning are two different things.”

Language acquisition is an unconscious process. Acquisition happens when the student is hearing the language or reading in the language but is focused on something other than on the language itself as subject matter. Acquisition happens when the student is focused on the message.

Language learning is conscious, focused and purposeful. It can feel difficult. Ironically, what passes for learning is often nothing more than short term memorization that is quickly forgotten.

Acquisition is a by-product of hearing or reading comprehended messages in the target language. Acquisition tends to be long term. Only language that has been acquired can be used instantly and readily. Anyone of normal cognitive ability can acquire language, but consciously learning a language by methodically memorizing vocabulary and drilling grammar rules can be done by only a limited percentage of students–and many researchers would say that even those few have actually acquired the language by meaningful comprehensible input along the way.

Here are some charts comparing Acquisition and Learning in theory, in teaching and in learning:

The Acquisition/Learning Hypothesis highlights two very different ideas about language teaching and learning that can be summarized as follows:

Input leads to output.  Acquisition-based teaching with meaningful comprehensible input.

Output leads to output.   Traditional learning-based teaching with grammar rules and output-based “practice”.

Read more about the acquisition / learning distinction in  Understanding TPRS .

APPLYING THE ACQUISITION/LEARNING HYPOTHESIS IN THE CLASSROOM :

• Minimize explicit grammar. Keep the acquisition/learning distinction in mind and go light on explicit teaching and learning of grammar—especially with younger students.
• Emphasize acquisition over learning. Focus on acquisition-based activities: input above output.
• Focus on the message. Remember that practice looks different under the acquisition model. In a traditional classroom with a learning-based model, students are shown a grammar rule and then they practice it. This rarely results in fluent language use and the rules are quickly forgotten after the unit and test. Students acquire the grammar and vocabulary of the language without being consciously aware as they focus on messages. With enough input, students begin to develop an ear for the language. They are able to apply grammar rules because “it just sounds right” to them.

Share This Article:

Leave a comment cancel reply.

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Second Language Acquisition—Scientifically-Based Research

Scientifically-based research.

Stephen Krashen and Jim Cummins are important researchers in the field of second language acquisition. This section explores the following: Stephen Krashen

• Comprehensible input hypothesis
• Affective filter hypothesis
• Monitor hypothesis

Jim Cummins (as cited in Wright, 2010)

• Basic Interpersonal Communicative Skills (BICS) vs. Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP)
• Common Underlying Proficiency (CUP) hypothesis 
• Second language quadrant

Comprehensible Input Hypothesis

Comprehensible input hypothesis directly addresses how a second language is acquired. “Mere input is not enough; it must be understood” (Krashen, 2003, p. 4). Students will only be able to acquire a second language when they obtain, hear, or read messages that they can comprehend.

“Language acquisition proceeds best when the input is not just comprehensible, but really interesting, even compelling; so interesting that you forget you are listening to or reading another language.” — Krashen

Focused, targeted, and systematic second language instructional activities, at students’ levels of language proficiency, provide content and language necessary to support English language progression. As students receive comprehensible input, their levels of language proficiency will increase (ELPS Instructional Tool, TAC §74.4(b), p.9).

Krashen uses the formula   " i + 1 " to explain how students’ levels of language proficiency and comprehensible input correlate in second language acquisition.

It is important to note that students’ current levels of language proficiency are comprised not only of their linguistic competence , but of their background knowledge as well.

Without comprehensible input , students will experience difficulty building the English language foundation necessary for academic achievement.

Affective Filter Hypothesis

Affective filter hypothesis explains how affective elements may facilitate or hinder second language acquisition. If a student is feeling anxious in a classroom setting, the student may block out the input even if it is comprehensible. In order to provide students with positive learning experiences, it is important for educators to reduce negative feelings and emotions so students can concentrate on the learning task. 

A teacher can do the following to create a welcoming school environment:

• Have routine classroom activities that students can follow through visuals or nonverbal cues
• Have students engage in meaningful communication rather than focusing on form
• Provide collaborative grouping opportunities that are structured with specific, tangible goals
• Learn some of the social norms of the cultures represented in the classroom so students have a feeling of belonging

Meet John Imagine that tomorrow John will be attending school in a different country without knowing the language. Think of daily activities that occur in a school setting that may cause negative emotions.

John may have the following questions about his new school experience:

• How will I participate or interact with others in class?
• What if I don’t understand the lesson?
• How will I get home?
• Who will I talk to? Will I be able to make friends?
• What is the assignment?
• Will someone be able to help me?

What increases?

When students' negative emotions are lowered, what student outcomes increase? To continually provide a positive, relaxed atmosphere, classroom activities must be meaningful and include a student’s cultural background and interests.

Monitor Hypothesis

Monitor hypothesis refers to students who are acquiring a second language and have begun the process of monitoring the target language through self-correction (Krashen, 2003, p. 7).

In order for ELLs to reach self-monitoring, they must

• know the rules of grammar,
• focus on the correct form, and
• have time to use the learned knowledge.

Important Note : Self–monitoring and self–correction denote that second language acquisition is taking place.

Categories of Language Proficiency

Jim Cummins, researcher and professor of linguistics, differentiated between the two categories of language proficiency: basic interpersonal communicative skills (BICS) and cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP) .

“Talking about the text in a collaborative context ensures that higher order thinking processes (e.g. analysis, evaluation, synthesis) engage with academic language in deepening students' comprehension of the text” — Cummins (Wright, 2010).

ELLs first develop social and conversational language (BICS), which is used for interpersonal interactions and oral communication. ELLs will then begin to develop highly–specialized and cognitively–demanding academic language (CALP) used in a classroom setting.

The Process of BICS and CALP

Click the hotspots below for additional information on how each category differs in terms of second language acquisition in an academic setting.

Differentiating between BICS and CALP

Why is it important to differentiate between bics and calp.

It is important to understand the difference between BICS and CALP because students' proficiencies in both are essential to a good foundation for academic achievement. Structured classroom activities should range from the context–embedded (concrete) to the context–reduced (abstract) use of language in listening, speaking, reading, and writing.

Click the hotspot below for additional information about academic achievement.

Characteristics and Strategies

The terms “context–embedded” and “context–reduced” were used as part of Cummins’ distinction between BICS and CALP. Each term has key characteristics or strategies.

Common Underlying Proficiency (CUP)

As part of his research, Cummins also advanced the theory that there is a common underlying proficiency (CUP) between the learning of two languages (Wright, 2010).

Skills, ideas, and concepts that are learned in a first language will be transferred to the second language.

As students learn a language, they gain proficiency in the language by

• learning the linguistics of the language,
• using the language for academic learning,
• having life experiences, and
• developing cognitive skills.

All of these thoughts and skills are processed from one central location in our brain.

Cummins explains that, although the surface aspects (e.g. pronunciation, fluency, etc.) of different languages are clearly separate, an underlying cognitive/academic proficiency is common across languages (Long & Doughty, 2011).

Remember that a student’s CUP includes the linguistic universals, academic knowledge, and cognitive development in their first and second language. Students who read in their first language have the skills or foundation that can be used to transfer meaning into the second language, the target language.

Reflect on this : Using Cummins’s concept of common underlying proficiency (CUP), how can you apply this concept to linguistically accommodate your classroom instruction?

Surface Features vs. Deep Structure

As ELLs experience first language (L1) and second language (L2) , they develop proficiency in both languages. On the surface, the languages appear to be different; however, in the deep structure, the languages are interdependent . Thoughts and skills of L1 and L2 process from one central location. This interdependence is what Cummins refers to as the CUP.

Second Language Quadrant

Cummins' “Learning a Second Language” quadrant demonstrates the linguistic support necessary for developing a second language (Wright, 2010).

Classroom activities should be a combination of the four linguistic domains: listening , speaking , reading , and writing , targeting and promoting development of both BICS and CALP. ELLs need to develop both BICS and CALP for comprehension of content.

Review the image to see examples of activities that support the development of BICS and CALP.

Copy and paste the link code above.

Related Items

Browse MEP Blog →

• Lesson plans
• Learning theories

Unraveling the Power of Krashen’s Theory: Exploring Second Language Acquisition

• by MOHAMMED RHALMI
• May 31, 2023 May 31, 2023

Introduction

Learning a second language is a complex process that has fascinated linguists and educators for decades. One influential theory in the field of second language acquisition is Krashen’s Theory, proposed by Stephen Krashen, an eminent linguist, and researcher. This theory suggests that language acquisition is a subconscious process, and individuals acquire language skills through exposure to comprehensible input . In this article, we will delve into the details of Krashen’s Theory of Second Language Acquisition, exploring its key hypotheses, applications, and criticisms.

Background of Krashen’s Theory of second language acquisition

Stephen Krashen developed his theory of second language acquisition in the 1970s and 1980s, drawing upon various linguistic and psychological perspectives. His theory gained significant recognition and influenced language teaching methodologies worldwide. Krashen emphasized the importance of natural language acquisition, suggesting that formal instruction should take a backseat to meaningful exposure to the target language.

His theory has later been criticized for being vague and imprecise.

Five Hypotheses of Krashen’s Theory

Krashen’s Theory is composed of five key hypotheses, each providing insights into different aspects of second language acquisition. Let’s explore them:

1. Input Hypothesis

The Input Hypothesis suggests that language learners progress when they receive comprehensible input, i.e., language that is slightly beyond their current proficiency level. This is often referred to as i+1, meaning  ‘ input ‘ which is one step beyond learners’ current stage of linguistic competence.

In addition to being slightly above learners’ level of understanding, this input should be engaging, meaningful, and related to the learner’s interests and needs.

According to Krashen’s claim, this comprehensible input facilitates subconscious language acquisition.

2. Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis

Krashen differentiates between language acquisition and language learning . Acquisition refers to the subconscious assimilation of language skills through exposure and understanding, while learning involves conscious knowledge of rules and grammatical structures. He argues that acquisition is more effective than learning in developing fluent and natural language skills.

3. Monitor Hypothesis

The Monitor Hypothesis states that language learners utilize their acquired knowledge to self-monitor their production . When learners have time to reflect and consciously apply their knowledge, they can correct errors and improve their language proficiency. However, Krashen suggests that overreliance on the monitor can hinder spontaneous and fluent communication.

4. Natural Order Hypothesis

The Natural Order Hypothesis proposes that language learners acquire grammatical structures in a predictable sequence. Krashen argues that learners naturally progress through specific linguistic structures, regardless of explicit instruction or correction. This hypothesis emphasizes the importance of providing learners with ample exposure to the target language.

5. Affective Filter Hypothesis

Krashen’s Affective Filter Hypothesis suggests that affective factors, such as motivation, self-confidence, and anxiety, play a crucial role in language acquisition. When learners are highly motivated, have low anxiety, and feel comfortable in their learning environment, their affective filter is low, facilitating language acquisition. On the other hand, a high affective filter can impede language acquisition.

Application of Krashen’s Theory

Krashen’s Theory has had a significant impact on language teaching methodologies. It has influenced language teaching approaches such as the natural approach , the communicative approach , and the input-based methods.

These approaches prioritize providing learners with meaningful and comprehensible input, creating a language-rich environment, and encouraging natural language acquisition. Teachers can design activities that promote exposure to authentic language materials, encourage communication, and create a supportive and low-anxiety classroom atmosphere.

Furthermore, Krashen’s Theory highlights the importance of extensive reading in language acquisition. Reading allows learners to encounter a wide range of vocabulary, grammatical structures, and language patterns. By engaging with various texts, learners can develop their language skills organically and expand their knowledge of the language.

Criticisms of Krashen’s Theory

While Krashen’s Theory of second language acquisition has been widely influential, it has also faced some criticisms.

1. Comprehensible input Hypothesis : One criticism is that the theory does not fully account for the role of explicit instruction and practice in language learning. Some argue that a combination of both acquisition and learning strategies can lead to more comprehensive language development.

2. Acquisition-learning Hypothesis : Krashen’s framework distinguishes between acquisition and learning, with acquisition being slow and subtle, and learning being fast and conscious.

• This strict dichotomy has been criticized by linguists for its fuzzy terminology.
• According to Krashen, language acquisition is the desired process for language learners, leading to fluency, while learning only serves as a monitor or editor. The assumed claim here is that learning does not transform into acquisition, which is challenged by the idea that acquisition can be enriched by the learned system.
• Instead of drawing a clear boundary between acquisition and learning, it is suggested that the interplay and connections between the two processes should be recognized and explained.

3. Monitor Hypothesis: The main criticism of the monitor hypothesis is grounded on the evaluation of the acquisition-learning hypothesis.

• The monitor hypothesis suggests that the main purpose of language learning is to serve as a monitor for language output produced by the acquired system. However, critics of Krashen’s theory argue that it is impossible to clearly and adequately separate language learning from language acquisition, making it challenging to prove that the learned system functions solely as a monitor.
• Furthermore, the claim that learning-as-monitor only applies to output after production is questioned. Second language learners can use the learned system both for producing output and facilitating comprehension.

4. Natural Order Hypothesis: Another criticism pertains to the natural order hypothesis.

• While there is evidence supporting the idea of a natural order of grammatical acquisition, some researchers argue that learners may benefit from explicit instruction and guidance in certain cases, particularly with more complex grammatical structures.
• Krashen’s claim that children acquiring English as a second language follow a predictable sequence in acquiring morphemes is supported by studies comparing them to children acquiring English as a first language, but this claim may not hold true for second language acquisition as a whole.
• Morpheme studies, while providing evidence for the natural order hypothesis, do not offer insights into the acquisition of other linguistic features such as phonology, syntax, semantics, and pragmatics. The predictable sequence is limited to morpheme acquisition.
• The influence of the first language on second language acquisition is not adequately addressed by the natural order hypothesis. Research suggests that second language learners acquire grammatical structures in different orders depending on their native language, contradicting the notion of a universal and predictable sequence.

5. Affective Filter Hypothesis : Some educators argue that the affective filter hypothesis oversimplifies the role of affective factors in language acquisition.

• The affective filter hypothesis in Krashen’s Monitor Model claims that individual variation in second language acquisition is primarily influenced by affective factors, which is an oversimplification of how people acquire a second language. Motivation and affective factors can vary greatly among learners, and the impact of these factors on language acquisition is multifaceted and complex.
• Criticism of this hypothesis questions the assertion that affective factors alone can explain differences in language learning.
• Children, despite lacking the affective filter described by Krashen, still experience variations in motivation, self-confidence, and anxiety, which also impact their second language learning.
• The claim that an affective filter prevents comprehensible input from reaching the language acquisition device is challenged by evidence of adult second language learners who achieve native-like competence except for specific grammatical features.
• The affective filter hypothesis does not address the fundamental question of how the filter determines which parts of language to include or exclude, further challenging its explanatory power for individual variation in second language acquisition.

Implications of Krashen’s theory of Second Language Acquisition

Although Krashen’s theory has been widely criticized and re-evaluated, there are still some valid implications for language teaching:

• Understanding Krashen’s Theory of Second Language Acquisition has important implications for language educators and learners. It emphasizes the need for providing meaningful and engaging input in language classrooms.
• Teachers should create an environment that encourages communication, promotes extensive reading, and addresses learners’ affective needs.
• Furthermore, Krashen’s Theory suggests that language acquisition is a gradual and subconscious process that requires time and exposure.
• It highlights the importance of creating a language-rich environment both inside and outside the classroom.
• Learners can benefit from various language resources such as authentic materials, multimedia resources, and language exchange opportunities to enhance their language acquisition journey.

In conclusion, Krashen’s Theory of Second Language Acquisition provides valuable insights into the process of language learning. Its five hypotheses shed light on the importance of comprehensible input, the distinction between acquisition and learning, the role of self-monitoring, the natural order of grammatical acquisition, and the influence of affective factors. While the theory has faced criticisms, it has significantly influenced language teaching methodologies and continues to shape our understanding of second language acquisition.

What are the five hypotheses of Krashen’s theory of second language acquisition?

The five hypotheses of Krashen’s theory are the Input Hypothesis, the Monitor Hypothesis, the Natural Order Hypothesis, the Affective Filter Hypothesis, and the Output Hypothesis.

What is an example of Krashen’s theory?

An example of implementing Krashen’s theory in the classroom is creating a language-rich environment where students are exposed to meaningful and comprehensible input through engaging activities, authentic materials, and opportunities for meaningful communication. This approach encourages natural language acquisition by providing students with ample opportunities to interact with the language in a low-anxiety environment.

How does Stephen Krashen describe language acquisition vs. language learning?

Stephen Krashen describes language acquisition as a subconscious process that occurs naturally through exposure to meaningful language, while language learning involves a conscious study and rule-based instruction.

What does Krashen’s theory of second Language acquisition say about explicit vs. implicit language teaching?

Krashen’s theory of second language acquisition emphasizes the importance of implicit language teaching over explicit instruction. According to Krashen, language acquisition occurs naturally when learners are exposed to meaningful and comprehensible input, rather than through explicit teaching of grammar rules. He believes that explicit instruction should be kept to a minimum and primarily used as a monitor or editor in the language production stage. The focus is on creating an immersive language environment that promotes language acquisition through exposure and meaningful communication, allowing learners to develop their language skills implicitly.

What criticism is addressed to Krashen’s ideas about implicit language learning?

While Krashen’s theory prioritizes natural language acquisition through comprehensible input and unconscious acquisition of the target language, it is important to note that the inclusion of explicit instruction can be beneficial in certain contexts, as it provides learners with explicit knowledge that complements their implicit language skills. Thus, a combination of implicit and explicit teaching methods tailored to learners’ needs and proficiency levels can enhance language acquisition and proficiency.

Comprehension Strategies in the Acquiring of a Second Language pp 61–100 Cite as

Models of Implicit Language Processing

• Harris Winitz 2  
• First Online: 09 October 2020

362 Accesses

An important development regarding the role of language comprehension as the primary process in second-language learning is the theoretical framework provided by Stephen Krashen (1981, 1982, 1985). To be precise, Krashen’s theoretical constructs regarding second-language acquisition began to appear in the latter part of the decade of the 1970s (e.g. Krashen 1977). His major work entitled “Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition” was published in 1982 and revised in 2009 as an internet edition. Krashen’s theoretical constructs are in accord with the working premises of investigators who explored the role of comprehension in second-language learning in the previous decade.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution .

Buying options

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Bialystok, E. (1978). A theoretical model of second language learning. Language Learning, 28 , 69–85.

Article   Google Scholar  

Bleyhl, W. (2009). The hidden paradox of foreign language instruction or: Which are the real foreign language learning processes? In T. Piske & M. Young-Scholten (Eds.), Input matters in SLA . Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Google Scholar  

Bongartz, C., & Schneider, M. (2003). Linguistic development in social contexts: A study of two brothers learning German. Modern Language Journal, 86 , 13–37.

Brown, R. (1973). A first language, the early stages . Cambridge: MA: Harvard University Press.

Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax . Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Cowley, M. (1966). A note on the text in Winesburg, Ohio. In J. H. Ferres (Ed.), Sherwood Anderson, Winesburg, Ohio, Text and Criticism . New York: The Viking Press.

de la Garza, B., & Harris, R. J. (2017). Acquiring foreign language vocabulary through meaningful context: What is the limit to vocabulary learning? Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 46 , 395–413.

Dulay, H. C., & Burt, M. K. (1973). Should we teach children syntax? Language Learning, 23 , 245–258.

Ellis, R. (1990). Instructed second language acquisition, Learning in the classroom . Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Ellis, R. (1993). The structural syllabus and second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 27 , 91–113.

Ellis, R. (1994a). Implicit/explicit knowledge and language pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly, 28 , 166–172.

Ellis, R. (1994b). Factors in the incidental acquisition of second language vocabulary from oral input: A review essay. Applied Language Learning, 5 , 1–32.

Ellis, R. (1998). Teaching and research: Options in grammar teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 32 , 39–60.

Ellis, R. (2001). Introduction: Investigating form-focused instruction. Language Learning, 51 , 1–46.

Ellis, R. (2002). Does form-focused instruction affect the acquisition of implicit knowledge? A review of the research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24 , 223–236.

Hammerly, H. (1985). An integrated theory of language teaching, and its practical consequences, N . Burnaby, Canada: Second language publications.

Krashen, S. (1977). Some issues relating to the monitor model. In H. D. Brown, C. Yorio, & R. Crymes (Eds.), Teaching and learning English as a second language: Trends in research and practice . Washington, DC: TESOL.

Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning . Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition . Oxford: Pergamon Press. Also Krashen (2009) reedited as an internet publication.

Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications . New York: Longman.

Krashen, S. D. (1993). The effect of formal grammar teaching: Still peripheral. TESOL Quarterly, 27 , 722–725.

Krashen, S. D., & Terrell, T. D. (1983). The natural approach, Language acquisition in the classroom . Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Lafayette, R. C., & Strasheim, L. A. (1984). The standard sequence and the non-traditional methodologies. Foreign Language Annals, 17 , 567–574.

Larsen-Freeman, D., & Long, M. H. (1991). An introduction to second language acquisition research . London: Longman.

Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (2006). How languages are learned (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

Liming, Y. (1990). The comprehensible output hypothesis and self-directed learning: A learner’s perspective. Revue TESL du Canada, 8 , 9–26.

Long, M. H., Inagaki, S., & Ortega, L. (1998). The role of implicit negative feedback in SLA: Models and recasts in Japanese and Spanish. Modern Language Journal, 82 , 357–371.

McLaughlin, B. (1978). The monitor model: Some methodological considerations. Language Learning, 28 , 309–332.

Morsbach, G. (1981). Cross-cultural comparison of second language learning: The development of comprehension of English structures by Japanese and German children. TESOL Quarterly, 15 , 183–188.

Palmer, H. E. (1921). The principles of language-study . London: Harrap.

Schmidt, R. W., & Frota, S. N. (1986). Developing basic conversational ability in a second language: A case study of an adult learner of Portuguese. In R. R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn, conversation in second language acquisition . Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Solzhenitsyn, A. I. (1973). The Gulag Archipelago . New York: Harper & Row.

Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition . Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Terrell, T. D. (1991). The role of grammar instruction in a communicative approach. Modern Language Journal, 75 , 52–63.

Terrell, T. D., et al. (1992). Kontakte, a communicative approach . New York: McGraw-Hill.

Toth, P. D. (2004). When grammar instruction undermines cohesion in L2 Spanish classroom discourse. Modern Language Journal, 88 , 14–30.

Troyanovich, J. M. (1972). Foreign language and the Dodo bird: A lesson from Darwin. Foreign Language Annals, 5 , 341–344.

Tucker, G. R., Lambert, W. E., & Rigault, A. (1969). Students’ acquisition of French gender distinctions. A pilot investigation. IRAL, 3 , 51–55.

VanPatten, B. (1987). On babies and bathwater: Input in foreign language learning. Modern Language Journal, 71 , 156–164.

Wheldall, K., Mittler, P. J., & Hobsbaum, A. (1979). The sentence comprehension test . Windsor: National Foundation for Educational Research in England and Wales.

Winitz, H. (1978). The Learnables Book 1 . Kansas City: International Linguistics.

Winitz, H. (1981a). Input considerations in the comprehension of first and second language. In H. Winitz (Ed.), Native language and foreign language acquisition (Vol. 379, pp. 296–308). New York: Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

Winitz, H. (1981b). Nonlinear learning and language teaching. In H. Winitz (Ed.), The comprehension approach to foreign language instruction . Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publishers.

Winitz, H., Gillespie, B., & Starcev, J. (1995). The development of English speech patterns of a 7-year-old Polish-speaking child. Journal Psycholinguistic Research, 24 , 117–143.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Psychology Department, University of Missouri–Kansas City, Kansas City, MO, USA

Harris Winitz

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Harris Winitz .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter.

Winitz, H. (2020). Models of Implicit Language Processing. In: Comprehension Strategies in the Acquiring of a Second Language. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-52998-7_4

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-52998-7_4

Published : 09 October 2020

Publisher Name : Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-52997-0

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-52998-7

eBook Packages : Education Education (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research