learning hypothesis of stephen krashen

• 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

“cześć” & other ways to say hello in polish, 80 cringey and cheesy pick-up lines that will make you lol, the difference between language and dialect: who decides and why does it matter, subscribe to our newsletter.

The Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis: Definition and Criticism

January 19, 2018, 8:00 am

Linguist and educator Stephen Krashen proposed the Monitor Model, his theory of second language acquisition, in Principles and practice in second language acquisition published in 1982. Influenced by the theory of first language acquisition proposed by Noam Chomsky, the Monitor Model posits five hypotheses about second language acquisition and learning:

• Acquisition-learning hypothesis
• Natural order hypothesis
• Monitor hypothesis
• Input hypothesis
• Affective filter hypothesis

The following sections offer a description of the first hypothesis of the Monitor Model, the acquisition-learning hypothesis, as well as the major criticism surrounding the hypothesis.

Definition of the Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis

The first hypothesis of Krashen’s Monitor Model, the acquisition-learning hypothesis, distinguishes between the processes of language acquisition and language learning. Krashen contrasts acquisition and learning as two distinct and separate language processes. Acquisition occurs passively and unconsciously through implicit, informal, or natural learning, resulting in implicit knowledge and acquired competence of a language; in other words, to acquire a language is to “pick up” a language by relying on “feelings” of correctness rather than conscious knowledge of language rules.

In contrast to acquisition, learning occurs actively and consciously through explicit or formal learning and instruction, resulting in explicit knowledge about a language; learning results in metalinguistic knowledge and awareness. Furthermore, the acquisition-learning hypothesis states that both children and adults acquire language via access to an innate language acquisition device (LAD) regardless of age as well as that learning cannot become acquisition. The most important pedagogical implication of the first hypothesis of the Monitor Model is that explicit teaching and learning is unnecessary, indeed inadequate, for second language acquisition.

Criticism of the Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis

The first critique of Krashen’s Monitor Model is that the hypothesized distinction between acquisition and learning as posited by the acquisition-learning hypothesis, or, more specifically, determining whether the process involved in language production resulted from implicit acquisition or explicit learning, is impossible to prove. As Barry McLaughlin offers as anecdotal evidence, he feels that the German * Ich habe nicht das Kind gesehen “I have not seen the children” is incorrect based on intuition but also knows that the utterance is incorrect based on his knowledge of the rules of German grammar.

Furthermore, critics consider the argument that learning cannot become acquisition questionable. Kevin R. Gregg offers anecdotal evidence of his personal experience learning a second language as counterevidence to the clear division between acquisition and learning: He initially consciously learned the conjugations of Japanese verbs through rote memorization, which ultimately led to unconscious acquisition. In his case, learning became acquisition. Both examples of personal experience with a second language illustrate the problem with stringently distinguishing the process of language acquisition from the process of language learning. Thus, the claim that acquisition is distinct from learning fails to withstand evidence-based criticism

Although influential within the field of second language acquisition over the past few decades, the Monitor Model is not without criticism as illustrated by the major critiques of the learning-acquisition hypothesis.

Gregg, Kevin R. 1984. Krashen’s monitor and Occam’s razor. Applied Linguistics 5(2). 79-100. Krashen, Stephen D. 1982. Principles and practice in second language acquisition . Oxford: Pergamon. Krashen, Stephen D. 2009. Principles and practice in second language acquisition , 1st internet edn. Oxford: Pergamon. http://www.sdkrashen.com/Principles_and_Practice/Principles_and_Practice.pdf. Lightbrown, Patsy M. & Nina Spada. 2006. How languages are learned , 3rd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press. McLaughlin, Barry. 1978. The monitor model: Some methodological considerations. Language Learning 28(2). 309-332. Zafar, Manmay. 2009. Monitoring the ‘monitor’: A critique of Krashen’s five hypotheses. Dhaka University Journal of Linguistics 2(4). 139-146.

acquisition-learning hypothesis language acquisition language learning monitor model

Ambitransitive English Verbs

The Natural Order Hypothesis: Definition and Criticism

The Second Language Acquisition Theory of Stephen Krashen

Stephen Krashen’s theories of second language acquisition throw many of the old language-learning theories on their head. 

Even though his hypotheses are widely used in American schools and have become an “educational standard” for learning second languages there, many approaches to language acquisition (including so-called “modern” approaches using language learning apps ) still apply the older, grammar-translation methods.

Krashen said that language acquisition “does not require extensive use of conscious grammatical rules, and does not require tedious drill.” 

So, in a purely Krashen-inspired language learning environment, you won’t find flashcards or many grammar books. There may not even be a teacher. Instead, the focus is on creating an immersive learning environment.

Let’s find out more about Krashen, his theories, and a Krashen-inspired tool that can help you learn a foreign language from YouTube videos…

Who is Stephen Krashen?

Born in 1942, U.S. linguist Stephen Krashen is considered an expert in the fields of bilingual education, neurolinguistics, second language acquisition, and literacy.

He received a Ph.D. in Linguistics in 1972 and worked largely as a linguistics professor at the University of Southern California.

His book, Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning, published in 1988 was highly influential and won awards. 

Krashen’s theory of second language acquisition consists of five main hypotheses and these soon became the focus of his work.

A summary of Krashen’s five main hypotheses

If you summed up Krashen’s approach to second language acquisition, it would go something like this: language acquisition is driven by comprehensible language input that learners can understand, delivered in low-anxiety environments, and containing messages that students are interested in.

However, the insights go far beyond this. The five main pillars of Krashen’s hypothesis are the acquisition-learning hypothesis, the monitor hypothesis, the input hypothesis, the affective filter hypothesis, and the natural order hypothesis . 

Let’s take a closer look at each one.

1. The Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis

This hypothesis underpins Krashen’s second language acquisition theories and is well-established among linguists and language teachers. The theory states that there are two independent systems of second language performance: 

• The acquired system: the product of a subconscious process, similar to that which children undergo when they acquire their first language.
• The learned system: this requires instruction or meaningful interaction in the target language leading to natural communication in which speakers focus on communicating rather than the form of their communications.

Conscious learning and subconscious acquisition cannot exist at the same time. They are mutually exclusive. Krashen considers the acquired system as the most important whereas most traditional approaches treat the learned system as the priority.

2. The Monitor Hypothesis

The Monitor hypothesis explains the relationship between the acquisition and learning systems.

We already know that Krashen believes the former is far more important than the latter when acquiring a language.

The monitor hypothesis defines the influence of learning on the acquired language. The acquisition system initiates communications and provides fluency while the learning system acts in the “minor” role of monitor or editor of the communications, correcting mistakes and making it more polished and precise. 

It’s worth noting that the latter only comes into play when the learner has sufficient time available to think about correctness.

3. The Input Hypothesis

Krashen’s Input hypothesis is central to his theory of language acquisition. It states that second language learners must receive language input that is one step beyond their proficiency level so that it remains both comprehensible and challenging. 

He believes that speech emerges once the acquirer has built up enough comprehensible input.

The Input Hypothesis is only concerned with the more passive acquisition method of developing proficiency in a language—not active learning.

4. The Affective Filter Hypothesis

Krashen also notes that several variables play an important role in language acquisition: of these, motivation, self-confidence, self-image, and anxiety are key.

Comprehensible input is best delivered in a low-anxiety environment to motivated and self-confident students. The Affective Filter hypothesis states that a mental block or imaginary “filter” in learners’ minds can prevent input from having the desired learning effect.

Low-anxiety environments are best for learners as these tend to lower the affective filter rather than raise it. Conversely, low motivation, low self-esteem, and anxiety raise the affective filter and impede comprehensible input from achieving its target.

5. The Natural Order Hypothesis

The Natural Order hypothesis states that learners acquire the rules of language in a predictable order. It is probably the least-cited of all Krashen’s theories and is based on research from several studies from the 1970s.

For any given language, some grammatical structures tend to be acquired before others regardless of the age or background of the learner. Despite the findings from the 1970s studies, Krashen rejects grammatical sequencing for developing a language program syllabus.

Krashen’s approach to learning grammar

Krashen believes that the study of the structure of the language can have general educational benefits and recognizes that most language program syllabuses will include some elements of grammar.

However, he believes the benefits of learning grammar are greatly overplayed—and only come into play when the learner is already somewhat familiar with the language.

Krashen believes that the teaching of grammar can result in language acquisition (and proficiency) only if the students are interested in the topic and instruction is in the target language (native speaking instruction). The environment must also be conducive to language acquisition. Otherwise, highlighting the rules of grammar is unnecessary when teaching a language and learners should consider alternative ways of acquiring language.

For learners struggling to master the language they’re trying to learn , it could be due to the learning method you’ve adopted.

Apply Krashen’s language theories with video learning

Krashen’s theories of language acquisition do not force early production in the second language. Instead, students are encouraged to produce output only when they are “ready”. 

The focus is on input rather than output. Improvements in language proficiency come from comprehensible input delivered in low-anxiety environments rather than by forcing and correcting output.

Learning a language with video is one of the most effective ways to achieve this — especially for motivated learners who aspire to a high level of proficiency. With video, you’re in control of the topics that you learn from—and as long as the video holds your interest and is in the target language, you can use it to learn.

Our AI-powered language learning app can assist with this: inspired by the work of Krashen, it helps learners master a foreign language by watching subtitled YouTube videos. Learning is immersive, convenient, at your own pace, and motivational.

Learn from native speakers in context on YouTube using our free Chrome extension. Download it now for free !

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 Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences

ravi sikrodia

Boletín Científico CIOH

Liseth Arregocés

Zoja Miknienė

Sergio DellaPergola

Revista Portuguesa de Estomatologia, Medicina Dentária e Cirurgia Maxilofacial

Maria João Ponces

IJISTECH (International Journal of Information System and Technology)

Yosdarso Afero

SSRN Electronic Journal

Viviana Leon Jurado

Dan Canaani

Annali del Museo Civico di …

Fabrizio Bizzarini

Physical Review C

A. H. M. ZAHIRUL ALAM Alam

Italia Falcone

Heavy metals and arsenic concentrations in water, agricultural soil, and rice in Ngan Son district, Bac Kan province, Vietnam

Pablo Carmanchahi

Sustainability

mahmoud gad

Analytical Chemistry

Asian Journal of Medical and Biological Research

Rubaba Azad

Advances in Animal and Veterinary Sciences

Siti Azizah - FAPET , Achadiah Rachmawati

Journal of Vision

David Souto

Physiologia Plantarum

Andrea Scartazza

Advanced Robotics

Julian Banguera Colorado

Journal of Shellfish Research

sylvia Yamada

Choice Reviews Online

Harold Tarrant

快速办理毕业证， 各种各类的毕业证齐全

KNOWLEDGE ORGANIZATION

Regina Marteleto

See More Documents Like This

RELATED TOPICS

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

Featured Languages

• Foreign Language
• Founder's Blog
• General Announcements
• ILL Office Life
• iPhone Applications
• Language Acquistion
• Language Learning
• Language Learning Software
• Language Teaching
• Languages Courses
• Learn Arabic
• Learn Chinese
• Learn English
• Learn French
• Learn German
• Learn Italian
• Learn Japanese
• Learn Language
• Learn Russian
• Learn Spanish
• Learning & Development
• Life at Innovative
• Linguistics
• Media Coverage
• Second Language
• Second Language Acquistion
• Second Language Learning Methods

Recent Posts

• Hiking Adventure in Hadano
• The Role of Immersion in Language Acquisition: Living and Breathing the Language
• Top 4 Ways That Peninsular Spanish And Mexican Spanish Are Different
• Top 10 Careers You Can Get with a Foreign Language
• Premium PLUS: The Golden Ticket for Language-Learning
• October 2023
• September 2023
• January 2023
• August 2020
• January 2020
• December 2019
• November 2019
• October 2019
• August 2019
• February 2019
• January 2018
• November 2016
• October 2016
• August 2016
• February 2016
• January 2016
• December 2015
• September 2015
• January 2015
• September 2014
• August 2014
• January 2014
• December 2013
• October 2013
• September 2013
• August 2013
• January 2013
• December 2012
• November 2012
• October 2012
• February 2012
• January 2012
• December 2011
• September 2011
• August 2011
• October 2010
• November 2009
• October 2009
• September 2009
• August 2009
• January 2009
• December 2008

Stephen Krashen’s Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis

Stephen Krashen is a linguist, educational researcher, and activist who is Professor Emeritus at the University of Southern California. In the 1990s, as the state of California became increasingly hostile to bilingual education, Krashen was instrumental in advocating the merits of learning a second language. His Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis is the centerpiece of his academic work.

Krashen’s Acquisition-Learning hypothesis revolves around the concept of “comprehensible input,” a term which essentially means “messages that can be understood.” Comprehensible input is best received when the learner is hearing something that he or she wants or needs to know. Krashen differentiates language learning from language acquisition, emphasizing that while learning is a formalized process, such as that which occurs in a classroom, acquisition happens informally, when a person is relaxed. He identifies a “silent period” during language acquisition, a time during which the student listens but is not comfortable speaking.

The Acquisition-Learning hypothesis acknowledges that students learn faster as they are given more comprehensible input. Inversely, a lack of comprehensible input delays language acquisition. Total Immersion Language Teaching, for example, succeeds so well is because it provides lots of comprehensible input. When people are immersed in a culture in which they do not know the language, they have an intense need and desire to speak that language. Such students are not interested in grammar lessons from a book but, instead, want to hear “comprehensible input” about that culture that teaches them what they need to know to survive.

Krashen’s acquisition-learning theory has much in common with both the communicative approach to language study and Noam Chomsky’s theory of generative grammar. The idea of “comprehensible input” is simply another way of saying that students learn languages best when they are learning about things that interest them. This idea is the essence of the communicative approach. Krashen’s Natural Order Hypothesis says that we acquire the rules of grammar in a logical order. This is similar to generative grammar’s hypothesis that the basic foundations of human grammar are deeply embedded in the human brain.

Stephen Krashen has been criticized for not having sufficient empirical evidence to back up his theories. Gregg accused Krashen of using “ill-defined terms.” McLaughlin critiques Krashen’s theories as being weak and imprecise. However, Krashen has conducted extensive research to determine the validity of his theories, and his dedication to promoting bilingual education has had undeniable worth. His frequent media appearances have pushed bilingualism to the forefront of public awareness.

Krashen is regarded true linguistic theorist, with over 30 years of research and hundreds of published articles and multiple books. Stephen Krashen’s passionate work has left an indelible mark on the future of bilingual education in America.

Some of Dr. Stephen Krashen’s research is available for free at www.sdkrashen.com , benikomason.net , http://web.ntpu.edu.tw/~lwen/publications.html , www.IJFLT.com .

Tags: , acquisition-learning hypothesis , generative grammar hypothesis , krashen , Natural Order Hypothesis , noam chomsky , steven , Total Immersion Language Teaching

This entry was posted on Sunday, October 25th, 2009 at 6:30 pm and is filed under Language Acquistion , Language Learning , Linguistics , Second Language Acquistion , Second Language Learning Methods . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response , or trackback from your own site.

16 Responses to “Stephen Krashen’s Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis”

There are so many great methods for language learning and believe me when I say that there is no magic program for mastering a language in 30 days. Books claiming fluency in 15 minutes a day can give new learners false hope. The reality is that becoming proficient in any language requires a lot of time and work. It requires diligence. However, there are a lot of things that a person can do to help advance their learning and this blog is devoted to sharing those ideas.

We just couldnt leave your website before saying that we really enjoyed the quality information you offer to your visitors… Will be back often to check up on new stuff you post!

How To Speak Spanish…

Since I knew not a word of Spanish, I practiced speaking English the Spanish way– Vanessa’ s way. “ S” sounding words were replaced with a“ th”: “ Sour Patch Kids” became“ Thour Path Kidth.” “ Hey Vanessa, push me on the swing” …

Thank you for this post. I agree with this. I’ve been doing a little bit of research about language learning and this is what I often read, that a person would learn faster if she reads articles or books in her targeted language, and on that topics interests her. Which makes sense if you think about it. Think when you were still in school, you are more alert if you are interested in the topic being discussed, and this makes you want to learn more — just like in language learning.

Great information. The “relaxed” part especially rings true. Thanks!

I really don’t agree with this particular post. Even so, I did looked in Google and I have found out that you are right and I was thinking in the improper way. Keep on producing quality material such as this.

Stephen Krashen is right. Immersion is how you acquire a language; your language and ANY other language.

You didn’t learn English because you studied it for 12 years; you already had it all in your mind by the age of 5 because of immersion. So much exposure made it become part of you.

Although there are certain tools that accelerate the acquiring process (like SRS software), immersion is the key. And all people that say it’s wrong are teachers or language institute owners that want their innefective businesses to stay here!

Krashen’s theories are intuitively appealing but unfalsifiable (meaning there’s no way to show if he’s right or wrong). There’s plenty out there on WHY this is so. (Google Kevin Gregg, for example.)

My main objection, as a long-term (20+ years) language teacher is that his “input only” stance has led a lot of teachers to believe that they don’t have to know jack about how the language works - all they have to do is provide enough “comprehensible input” (whatever that means) and their students will end up with high proficiency in English. If they fail, it’s then because the input wasn’t rich enough? Comprehensible enough? No, if they fail, it could be because of a hundred other reasons, not the least of which is that adults are not children. Not biologically, not socially, not anyhow. So you cannot compare L1 acquisition with L2 acquisition, except in the most banal ways.

Krashen does this bait and switch all the time in his writings; whenever it suits him, he picks the evidence that supports his “theories” (which he arrogantly calls “THE theory of second language acquisition” - and no, “kanji”, he is in NO way “the father of language acquisition”, since HIS theoretical daddies are Chomsky, Seliger, Brown etc etc) and trashes everyone else without ONCE, EVER, in 30 years, actually defining any of his major constructs in ways that can be tested.

Compared to chew-your-own-arm-off grammar translation, maybe his Natural Approach had something going for it; compared to any halfway decent communicative teacher, he’s old hat. Forget him and move on.

Good day! Would you mind if I share your blog with my twitter group? There’s a lot of people that I think would really appreciate your content. Please let me know. Many thanks

@ James H: First, thanks for pointing out that Krashen’s theories derive from the works of Chomsky, Seliger, Brown… and well, others. I didn’t know that. (I’m the ‘kanji’ guy hehe)

Now, you want your students to achieve proficiency in the language you are “teaching” them? Then teach them to become independent learners. Encourage them to read and listen to material on topics they are actually interested in. Suggest them to use dictionaries and other online resources to expand their vocab and find the meaning of words they don’t understand.

In class, have them read and listen to audio in the target language too. Play videos or a movie in class if you can. If they ask about words they don’t understand describe the meaning of them and also provide example sentences. Basically, focus your classes on giving your students lots of native media (comprehensible input is a very relative term, really).

I’m no teacher and you have been working on the field for two decades. However, if I were a student, I would rather have this kind of experience instead of a boring class focused on grammar explanations, drills, boring textbooks and a bunch of tests. An experience where the student is having fun and reading/listening to content by his/her own will is MUCH more effective than the traditional methodologies.

This blog provides great information and well organized format to look for the related topics.

Although Stephen Krashen has been criticized for not having enough evidence for his theories, but I certainly believe that the five hypothesis do have influential effects for the field of second language acquisition.

rich amor …

[…]nice article man, thanks for sharing your idea[…]…

It’s really a nice and helpful piece of information. I’m glad that you shared this helpful info with us. Please keep us informed like this. I want to say it would supply up to .

Tech News…

[…]I simply could not go away your site before suggesting that I really loved the usual information an individual supply on your guests? Is gonna be back often in order to check up on new posts[…]…

check this link, with confident for promotion code

Magnificent site. A lot of helpful information here. I am sending it to some buddies ans also sharing in delicious. And naturally, thank you on your sweat!

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>

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.