Krashen’s Model of Second Language

Acquisition
5 Hypotheses
 5 Hypotheses
The Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis
The Monitor Hypothesis
The Natural Order Hypothesis
The Input Hypothesis
The Affective Filter Hypothesis
 Hypotheses I

Acquisition/learning Hypothesis
 2 Distinctive Ways !
Adults have two distinct and independent ways of
developing competence in a second language.

What are they?

 What’s language Acquisition?
“ a process similar, if not identical, to the way children develop ability
in their first language. Language acquisition is a subconscious
process;

language acquirers are not usually aware of the fact that they are
acquiring language, but are only aware of the fact that they are using
the language for communication”

Other ways of describing acquisition include implicit learning,

informal learning, and natural learning

In non-technical language, acquisition is "picking-up" a language.

(Krashen, 1982:10)
 What’s learning?
"learning conscious knowledge of a second language,
knowing the rules, being aware of them, and being able to
talk about them.

In non-technical terms, learning is "knowing about" a

language, known to most people as "grammar", or "rules".

Some synonyms include formal knowledge of a

language, or explicit learning” (Krshen, 1982:10)
 Debating Krashen’s Hypotheses

Are extensive use of conscious grammatical rules

and tedious drills necessary for language
acquisition?
 Acquisition

Language acquisition does not require extensive use

of conscious grammatical rules, and does not require
tedious drill”
(Krashen, 1982)
Debating Krashen’s Hypotheses

 What does language acquisition require?

 Acquisition

“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."
 Argument 1
Some second language theorists have assumed that
children acquire, while adults can only learn.

Does ability to "pick-up" languages disappear at

puberty?
 Argument 2

Error correction has little or no effect on subconscious

acquisition, but is thought to be useful for conscious
learning.
 “Truth value / Syntactic well-
formedness

 "truth value rather than syntactic well-formedness

that chiefly governs explicit verbal reinforcement by
parents— (Brown et al ,1973, p. 330). (Explain)
 Acquisition-Focused Approach
What are the stages of communicative
competence progressing?

(a) aural comprehension,

(b) early speech production
(c) speech activities
 THE NATURAL ORDER HYPOTHESIS
The acquisition of grammatical structures procedes a
“natural order” which is predictable.

Acquisition of certain grammatical structures early,

and others later.

 not always 100%, but there are clear, statistically

significant, similarities.
 First Morphemes Acquired
The progressive marker –ing / Plural marker /s/

ACQUIRED LATER:
Third person singular marker/
The possessive /s/ (Brown, 1973 & de Villiers & de
Villiers, 1973)
 Research
Does L1 affect the natural order of acquiring grammatical
structures?
Children acquiring English as a second language show a "natural
order" for grammatical morphemes, regardless of their first language.

Different groups of second language acquirers showed striking

similarities

Is child second language order of acquisition different from the

first language order? (Dulay & Burt, 1974, 1975 )
 L1 & L2 Natural Order
--not the same, but similar

"Average" order of acquisition of grammatical

morphemes for English
as a second language (children and adults):
-ing progressive/ plural /copula to be/auxiliary
progressive /articles. a, the/ irregular past/3 singular
s/possessive s (Krashen, 1977)
 Grammatical Structure Sequence
Krashen rejects grammatical sequencing in all
cases where the goal is language acquisition

The only instance in which the teaching of

grammar can result in language acquisition (and
proficiency) is when the students are interested
in the subject and the target language is used as a
medium of instruction. How to achieve this?
 THE MONITOR HYPOTHESIS

It explains the relationship between acquisition

and learning. How?
 Role of Acquisition & Learning
Acquisition "initiates" our utterances ( fluency).

Learning function : as a Monitor, or editor.

Learning: making changes in the form of our

utterance, after is has been "produced" by the
acquired system.
 3 Conditions
 Knowing the rule: (speaker must have had explicit
instruction)

Focus on correctness: thinking about form ( focus on

meaning and form at the same time)

Sufficient time: ( production and exchange of less

information)

These conditions are necessary and not sufficient (How)?

 When to use the monitor ?

at times when it does not interfere with

communication, such as while writing.
Monitoring & Learned Grammar

The monitoring function is the practical result of

the learned grammar.
 Individual variation in Monitor use
Monitor Over-users. (performer's history of
exposure/personality)

Monitor under-users.

The optimal Monitor User (pedagogical goal)

"super Monitor users"

 Optimal Monitor users
Optimal Monitor users: learned competence /
supplement acquired competence.

Some optimal users with incomplete L2 acquisition

can use their conscious grammar so successfully

Learnable /unlearnable unacquired rules .

 filling only a part of the gap with conscious learning

 Input Hypothesis
 Theoretical and practical Importance

 Question: (How do we acquire language?

Answer: potential impact on all areas of language

teaching.
 Goal of Pedagogy
Monitor hypothesis: acquisition central / learning
peripheral,

If so; what should be the goal of our pedagogy?

 Statement of the Hypothesis

How do we move from stage i, to i + 1?

 Claim of the Hypothesis
 A necessary (but not sufficient) condition:
understandable input

 Focusing on meaning / not form .

 A Paradox
Acquisition= understanding language - "a little
beyond" .

Q. How can we understand language that contains

structures that we have not yet acquired?
 More Variables
 Do we depend on our linguistic competence only?.

Context/ knowledge of the world/ extra-

linguistic information

Acquisition: "going for meaning" ------ acquiring

structure! ( MacNamara, 1972.)
 Input Hypothesis Assumptions
(1) Input hypothesis relates to acquisition, not learning.

(2) Acquisition: understanding language (i to i+1)

(3)Successful Communication = Sufficient Comprehensible

Input / i + 1 will be provided automatically.

(4) Production ability emerges. It is not taught directly.

(readiness/ no consistency )
What’s the best way to teach speaking?
 Evidence: Children First Language
Acquisition
Consistency with "caretaker speech“
(Modifications)

 Is caretaker speech a deliberate attempt to

teach language? (Clark & Clark, 1977)
Is Caretaker speech "roughly-tuned" or
"finely-tuned“?
Caretaker speech: more complex as the child
progresses. (Cross ,1977; Newport, Gleitman, & Gleitman , 1977).
 Care-taker Speech
"here and now" principle (Newport et al. ,1977)

Is caretaker speech more effective than

unmodified input?

Caretaker speech aims to :

a. be comprehensible.
b. provides extra-linguistic support (context)
 Roughly-tuned Caretaker Speech
 Roughly-tuned caretaker speech covers but not focus
on the child's i + 1

1. It ensures that i + 1 is covered

2. provides i + 1 for more than one child at a time

Q. Who benefit from the Finely-tuned input?

 Roughly-tuned Caretaker Speech
(3) Providing built-in review ( reoccurrence of i +
1)

Does the caretaker need to worry about

consciously programming structure?

What will happen if the responsibility of

grammatical sequencing is added to parenthood?
 Evidence: Second language acquisition
Simple codes:
Application of ‘i+1 to second language acquirers

modified input

Foreigner-talk / Teacher-talk/interlanguage talk

 Applying i+1 in SLA
Are some simple codes and caretaker speech the
same?

What is the purpose of the modifications made in

foreigner-talk and teacher-talk ?
 Evidence: Second Language Acquisition
No significant correlation between proficiency
and input complexity.

Foreigner-talk and teacher-talk may not always

be in the "here and now"
 so
How can helpful native speakers and teachers
make input comprehensible?
 Other ways ?
Linguistic alterations

The acquirer's knowledge of the world

Using pedagogical aids

 Input Hypothesis Prediction
 Simplified codes are as useful as caretaker speech

 Which is more effective : Natural, communicative,

roughly-tuned, comprehensible input or finely-
tuned input?
 No Grammatical Syllabus

Very similar / giving a child finely-tuned input


Are all students at the same stage?


Does the "structure of the day" represent i + 1 for all the
students?

However


Natural communicative input some i + 1 or other will be provided
for everyone.
 No Grammatical Syllabus
Grammatical syllabus: Presentation of a structure only
once.

Roughly-tuned comprehensible input allows for

natural review.
 No Grammatical Syllabus
Assumption of the order acquisition: grammatical
syllabus/ comprehensible input

A grammatical syllabus: Limited Discussion:

 A grammatical focus will usually prevent real

communication using the second language.
 No grammatical syllabus
If these arguments are correct

 Should we attempt to teach along the natural

order, or any other order, when our goal is
acquisition?
 Evidence from Second Language Acquisition
 The silent period and L1 influence

 Output : memorized language, whole sentences learned as if they were

one word.

 E.g. Paul, a five-year-old Chinese speaker acquiring English as a second

language:

 Get out of here.

It's time to eat and drink. ( Hatch ,1972) .

 This kite.
Ball no.
 Input Hypothesis & Silent Period
 How can a child build up competence in the
second language?

How can a child develop speaking ability ?

 Several months may elapse until children start talking

/ emerging speech is not error-free. (Hakuta, 1974;
Ervin-Tripp, 1974)
 Silent Period
Are Adults, and children in formal language classes
usually not allowed a silent period?

No Development of Syntactic Competene in L2

What do they do?

Newmark (1966),
 Silent Period
 Substituting some L1 rule for i + 1, a rule of the second
language

The L1 rule similar to the L2 i + 1/ differ in certain

ways.

interference“ error: When the L1 and L2 rules are

different
 Lack of Acquisition
It is not interference at all

 Result of ignorance--the lack of acquisition

of an L2 rule (Newmark ,1980)
 Advantages of L1 Rule Use
Use of an L1 rule allows the performer to
"outperform his competence

("positive transfer") : When the L1 rule

used is identical to a rule in the L2
 Falling Back on L1: Disadvantages
L1 rule may not be the same as an L2 rule/
errors

Use of L1 rules requires constant vigilance

on the part of the Monitor
..i & i+1
 Acquisition requires a comparison between i and
i + 1 (Clark & Andersen, 1980; Lamendella, 1979).

 The "distance" between i and i + 1 cannot be too

great--i and i + 1 can only differ in small ways.

Transitional forms can temporarily serve as i,

helping to decrease the amount of distance
between i and i + 1.
 Implication: Classroom &Outside world
Is the classroom an excellent place for
second language acquisition? Level?

Which is better the classroom or the

outside world? (Wagner-Gough and Hatch,
1975). Why?
L1 Use…
 When a second language rule is needed in production but is not
available? What happened?

 Can this lead to a real progress in second language acquisition?

or
 temporarily enhance production

 Cure for "interference

 Drill at points of contrast? acquisition or learning?

 The real cure : cure for ignorance" (Newmark, 1966, p. 81)

 THE AFFECTIVE FILTER HYPOTHESIS
 How affective factors relate to the second language
acquisition process?

The concept (Dulay & Burt ,1977),

 Consistency: Research (affective variables / second

language acquisition)

 Research: variety of affective variables / success in second

language acquisition (reviewed in Krashen, 1981). :
 Affective Variables
(1) Motivation. (usually, but not always, "integrative“

(2) Self-confidence. (Good self-image)

(3) Anxiety. Low

 Affective Variables
 These attitudinal factors relate directly to
acquisition not learning

Communicative-type tests: variables tend

to show stronger relationships to second
language achievement

Communicative-type tests. HOW?

 Affective Filters
 Acquirers: Different Affective Filters Levels.

What’s the reaction of whose attitudes are not

optimal for second language acquisition?

What’s the reaction of whose attitudes are

optimal for second language acquisition?
(Stevick, 1976).
 Affective Filters
What’s the primary causative variable in second
language acquisition?

Affective variables acting to impede or facilitate…what?

 Affective variables : acquirer stop short of the native

speaker level

Fossilize"; Selinker, 1972).

Operation of the "affective filter".

Filter
Input →│------→ LAD →Acquired Competence
 Affective Filter
The "affective filter“: preventing input from
being used for language acquisition.

Acquirers with optimal attitudes : "low"

affective filters.

Which classrooms that encourage low

filters?
 Pedagogical Goal
 Supplying comprehensible input

 Creating a situation that encourages a low filter.

 Language teacher
How is the language teacher defined through the
input hypothesis and the concept of the Affective
Filter?
 Which Question?

"Does language teaching help?" or "When does language

teaching help?“

Main source of low filter comprehensible input

( beginners /FL students). Why?

Supplying comprehensible input /true cause of second

language acquisition.
 Teaching helps…….
 Supplying conscious learning for optimal
Monitor use

 Giving tools for utilizing the outside

environment more fully for further
acquisition
 Teaching doesn’t help
 Rich source of comprehensible input
outside the classroom

competent students
 Input & Acquisition

Real acquisition comes only from

comprehensible input