Theories and Applications
Foundations of Language Acquisition
2010512 EIL Batch 10 - Group 3
Chulalongkorn University – Thailand
Krashen's Five Main Hypotheses
on Second Language Acquisition

Krashen's Theories of Second Language
Acquisition consist of five main hypotheses:
 The Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis
 The Monitor Hypothesis
 The Natural Order Hypothesis
 The Input Hypothesis
 The Affective Filter Hypothesis
The design and procedures in the Natural Approach
are based on these five hypothesis.

L2 Acquisition
Theory Curriculum
The Natural Approach
Combines
Learning
Process
Spoken
Production
During
Focused on

History
Stephen Krashen and
Tracy Terrell developed the
"Natural Approach" in the early
eighties (Krashen and Terrell,
1983), based on Krashens‟ five
theories on second language
acquisition.
“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."

Theory of Language
Reflecting the cognitive psychology and
humanistic approach prominent in the field
of education at that time, Krashens‟ five
theories on second language acquisition
shifted the culture of the language
classroom 180 degrees and brought a sense
of community to the students by their
sharing of the experience of learning the
same language together.
(Richards & Rodgers, 2001)

The Acquisition/Learning Hypothesis
Language acquisition
(an unconscious process
developed through using
language meaningfully) is
different from language
learning (consciously
learning or discovering rules
about a language) and
language acquisition is the
only way competence in a
second language can
develop.
(Richards & Rodgers, 2001)

This acquisition-focused approach sees
communicative competence progressing through
three stages:
(a) aural comprehension,
(b) early speech production, and
(c) speech activities, all fostering "natural"
language acquisition, much as a child would learn
his/her native tongue.
Following an initial "silent period",
comprehension should precede production in
speech, as the latter should be allowed to emerge
in natural stages or progressions.
Cook, V. website http://homepage.ntlworld.com/vivian.c/SLA/Krashen.htm

The Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis
There are two independent systems of second language performance:
The 'acquired system„ and The 'learned system'
Acquisition
A product of subconscious
processes very similar to the
process children undergoes when
they acquire their first language.
 Needs natural communication in
the target language.
 Informal situations.
 Depends on attitude.
 Uses grammatical „feel‟.
 Learning
A product of formal learning
It comprises a conscious process
which results in conscious
knowledge 'about' the language,
for example knowledge of
grammar rules.
 Formal situations.
 Depends on aptitude.
 Uses grammatical „rules’.
Cook, V. website
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/vivian.c/SLA/Krashen.htm

Acquisition/Learning Hypothesis
Strength Weaknesses
Language is learned
is through natural
communication.
The idea of „Language does not
lead to acquisition‟ is refuted by
the experience of anyone who
has internalized some of the
grammar they have consciously
memorized.
The definitions of
acquisition/subconscious and
learning/conscious are not clear
enough (Gregg, 1984)

The Monitor Hypothesis
Explain the relationship between acquisition
and learning.
The acquisition is the utterance initiator,
while the learning system performs the role
of the „monitor‟ or the „editor‟.
(www.sk.com.br.sk-krash.html)

The Monitor Hypothesis
Three specific conditions:
 Time
 Focus on form
 Know the rule
(Krashen, 1982)

The Monitor Hypothesis
Individual variation in monitor use
Monitor Over-users are learners who attempt “monitor”
all the time.
Monitor Under-users are learners who prefer not to
use their conscious knowledge.
Optimal Monitor users are learners who use the
“monitor” appropriately.
According to Krashen, the role of the monitor is or
should be minor.
(Krashen, 1982)

The Monitor Hypothesis
Weaknesses
“There is no clear
evidence to show us
„monitor‟ use. We are not
able to determine the
language that has been
produced by the learned
system and the acquired
system” (Lightbown, &
Spada, 1993).
“Knowing a language rule
does not mean one will be
able to use it in
communicative interactions”
(Brown, 2000).
Discourage
Speech is halting
Focus more on accuracy

The Monitor Hypothesis
Applications to teaching
Produce „Optimal Monitor Users‟
 Easy rules to remember and apply
 Communicative competency
(www2.education.ualberta.ca/staff/olenka/bilash/Best%20of%20Bilash/krashen.html)
(www.standord.edu/~kenro/LAU/ICLangLit/NaturalApproach.htm)

The Natural Order Hypothesis
By referring to several prior research findings by
Brown, 1973; Dulay and Burt , 1974 ; Andersen, 1976;
Kessler and Idar, 1977; Fabris, 1978; Christison, 1979;
Makino, 1980, Krashen said that grammatical morphemes
seem to be acquired in natural order. Some structures are
acquired earlier and some later.
Natural order is found in both language acquisition by
children and adults alike. In case of L2, natural order
exists regardless of the acquirers‟ L1. Later findings
show that this hypothesis is valid for other language
acquisition as well.
(Krashen, 1982)

"Average" order of acquisition of grammatical morphemes
for English as a second language (children and adults)

Weaknesses of the Natural Order Hypothesis
The morphemes themselves do not form any
linguistic unity, so there can be no unitary hypothesis to
explain why they should follow in sequence. (Mason, 2002)
Any language learners‟ behavior may vary. So a
morpheme present today may disappear tomorrow.
(Mason, 2002)
The order may depend to some greater or lesser
extent upon the situation in which the learners acquire their
L2.
The complexity of morphemes depends on the
learners‟ L1.

Implication for Teaching
 A syllabus should not be based on the
Natural Order Hypothesis (Krashen, 1982).
 Lots of grammar programs are based on
whether the points covered are easy or
difficult for the teacher to formulate, rather
than on whether they are easy or difficult for
the learner to acquire.

An important condition for language to occur
is that the acquirer understand (via hearing or
reading) input language that contains
structure “a bit beyond” his or her current
level of competence.
For example,
If a learner is at a stage „I‟, then maximum
acquisition takes place when he/she is
exposed to 'Comprehensible Input' that
belongs to level „i + 1'.
(Krashen, 1985)
The Input Hypothesis

The Input hypothesis is only concerned with
'acquisition', not „learning‟.
“Human acquires language in only way – by
understanding messages, or by receiving
comprehensible input” and Learners improve
and progress along the „the natural order‟
when they receive L2 comprehensible input”.
(Krashen, 1985)
Input Hypothesis

1.) Speaking is a result of acquisition & NOT its
cause.
2.) If input is understood, and there is enough of it,
the necessary grammar is automatically provided.
(Krashen, 1985, p.2)
Input Hypothesis

 Krashen suggests that natural communicative
input is the key to designing a syllabus.
Communicative Language Teaching Approach
Cooperative Learning Approach (Scaffolding)
Michael Long (1985-1996) takes up where in a sense
Krashen left off. He posits in what has come to be
called the interaction hypothesis, that comprehensive
input is the result of modified interaction.
Teaching Application

Vygotsky influenced Krashen‟s second
language acquisition theory – application of their
theories to second language teaching produces
similarities.
Krashen's Input Hypothesis
VS.
Vygotsky's concept of zone of proximal development
(ZPD) : Social Constructivism
L1: Baby talk (Accommodation Theory) links to
Nature & Nurture between Function & Form
Related key points to other theorist & L1

Debatable and Criticism
Strengths Controversial
The more comprehensible
input, more L2 proficiency.
Teaching methods are
dependent on
comprehensible input.
Since not all of the
learners can be at the
same level of linguistic
competence at the same
time, we are unable to
define the level of i and
i+1.
Grammar generalization
(making errors)

The Affective Filter Hypothesis
“… Learner‟s feeling or attitude as an adjustable
filter that freely pass, impedes or block input
necessary to acquisition”
3 kinds of affective or attitudinal variables related
to SLA
1) Motivation: high
2) Self-confidence: high
3) Anxiety: low
(Richards & Rodgers, 2001, p. 183)

The Affective Filter Hypothesis
 Learners with a low affective filter: high
motivation, self-confidence, a good image, and a
low level of anxiety
 Are better equipped for success in SLA
 Learners with a high affective filter: low self-
esteem and a high level of anxiety
 Form a mental block
 When the filter is high, it blocks language
acquisition.
 The low affective filter is desirable.

The Strengths of the
Affective Filter Hypothesis
Teachers try to reduce learners‟ negative
feelings.
Learners can have higher competence when
they receive comprehensible input in low-stress
condition.

Strengths of the Affective Filter
Hypothesis
“A learner who is tense, angry, anxious, or
bored will screen out input, making it unavailable
for acquisition. Thus, depending on the learner‟s
state of mind or disposition, the filter limits what is
noticed and what is acquired. The filter will be up
or operating when the learner is stressed, self-
conscious or unmotivated. It will be down when the
learner is relaxed or motivated.”
(Lightbown and Spada,1993,p. 28)

Weaknesses of the Affective
Filter Hypothesis
“Sheltered” classroom environment
vs.
“Real world” environment
The stresses of everyday life and
communication are an uncontrollable
variables.

Implications for Language Teaching
Students activities should be based on meaningful
communication rather than on form.
Input should be interesting and student needs
based.
Input should contribute to a relaxed classroom
atmosphere.

“The best methods… are therefore those that supply
'comprehensible input' in low anxiety
situations, containing messages that
students really want to hear.
These methods do not force
early production in the second
language, but allow students to
produce when they are 'ready',
recognizing that improvement
comes from supplying
communicative and comprehensible
input, and not from forcing and
correcting production."
Stephen Krashen

Theory of language
The Communicative view of language is the
focus behind the Natural Approach. Particular
emphasis is laid on language as a set of messages
that can be understood.
Language is a vehicle for communicating meanings
and messages.
Communicative approach
The focus on meaning not form
Vocabulary is stressed (Lexicon)
Formula I + 1

The use of the term ‘Natural Approach’
rather than ‘Method’ highlights the development
of a move away from ‘methods teaching’ which
implies a particular set of features to be followed,
almost as to ‘approach’ which starts from some
basic principles which are then developed in the
design and development of practice in teaching
and learning.
It is now widely recognized that the diversity
of contexts requires an informed, eclectic
approach.
(Richards & Rodgers, 2001)

Interrelated Key Points of the Hypotheses
Combined model of acquisition and production

Krashen's Theories of Second Language
Acquisition consist of five main hypotheses:
(The Acquisition/Learning Hypothesis)
Language acquisition (an unconscious
process developed through using language
meaningfully) is different from language
learning (consciously learning or discovering
rules about a language) and language
acquisition is the only way competence in a
second language occurs.

Grammatical structures are acquired in
a predictable order and it does little good to
try to learn them in another order.
(The natural order hypothesis)
People acquire language best from
messages that are just slightly beyond
their current competence:
i+1 (The input hypothesis)

Conscious learning operates only
as a monitor or editor that checks or repairs
the output of what has been acquired.
(The Monitor Hypothesis)
The learner's emotional state can
act as a filter that impedes or blocks
input necessary for language
acquisition.
(The Affective Filter Hypothesis)

Learner Roles:
Learners trying to „acquire‟ language, not learn it in
usual way. Slightly more difficult input is given than at
level, but by context & extra-linguistic info, can
understand.
Learner‟s roles change depending on the level and a
major aspect is the learner deciding when to speak,
what to speak about & what language to use when
speaking..

Learner roles:
3 phases:
1) pre-production: no response but participate by e.g.
pointing.
2) early-production: either/or questions, single words,
short phrases, fill in charts, use fixed conversational patterns
e.g. „How are you?‟
3) speech-emergent: role-play, games, personal
info, opinions, group problem solving
( Krashen & Terrell, 1983:76)
Should not try and learn a language in the usual sense, but
should try and lose themselves in activities involving
meaningful communication.

Materials & Activities
The primary goal of materials to make classroom
activities as meaningful as possible by giving “the
extra-linguistic context that helps the acquirer to
understand and thereby to acquire” (Krashen &
Terrell, 1983:55).
Thus REALIA are of paramount needs based, and
not textbooks.
So pictures, visual aids, schedules, brochures, ads,
maps, simple books, games.

Materials & Activities
1. Real life dialogues
2. Pair-work interviews with personal info
3. Personal charts & tables
4. Preference ranking – opinion polls / give opinions
5. Giving personal info about self- social networking
6. Role Play/ Imagination user
7. Problem-solving activities
8. Games & Songs
9. Content activities such as academic subject matter or
situational

Krashen's Theories of Second Language Acquisition Summarized:
 Acquisition is more important than learning.
 In order to acquire, two conditions are
necessary. The first is comprehensible (or
even better, comprehended) input containing
i+1, structures a bit beyond the acquirer's
current level, and second, a low or weak
affective filter to allow the input 'in'.
 Present as much comprehensible input as
possible

Krashen's Theories of Second Language Acquisition Summarized:
 Things that help comprehension are student
needs based – such as pics/realia- exposure
to wider lexicon / vocabulary
 Focus should be on reading & listening –
speaking comes later when ELL‟s ready

Krashen's Theories of Second Language Acquisition Summarized:
 „Natural Approach‟ focuses mainly on basic
communication skills.
 2nd perspective is that “ the purpose of a
language course will vary according to the
needs of the students and their particular
interests” – Krashen & Terrell 1983:65.

Group 3 Presenters:
Rob Hatfield ID: 548 77990 20
Samorn Suthipiyapathra ID: 548 78160 20
Noppamart Watcharapimonpun ID: 548 75407 20
Tipparat Eiamworawuttikul ID: 548 75333 20
Urairat Adithepsathit ID: 548 78359 20

Breen,M. & Candlin, C.N. (1980). The Essentials of a communicative curriculum in teaching. Applied Linguistics 1(2):
89-112.
Brown, H.D. (1994). Principles of language learning and teaching, (3rd ed.). Prentice Hall Regents, Englewood Cliffs:
NJ, USA.
Doughty, C. & Long, M. H. (2003). The Handbook of second language acquisition.
John & Sons: NJ, USA.
Gregg, K. (1984), 'Krashen's Monitor and Occam's Razor', Applied Linguistics, 5 (2), 79-100
Krashen, S., (1982). Principle and practice in second language acquisition. Pergamon Press.
Krashen, S., (1985).The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. Harlow Longman
Krashen, S., (1985) The Input Hypothesis. London, Longman.
Krashen, S., (1987). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Prentice-Hall International.
Krashen, S., (1988). Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Prentice-Hall International.
Lightbown, P. and Spada, N. (1998). How Languages are Learned. New York: Oxford University Press.
Littlewood, W. (1981). Communicative language teaching. Cambridge: NY, USA.
Mitchell,R. & Myles, F. (1998). Second language learning theories. Oxford: NY, USA.
Richards,J.C. & Rodgers,T.S. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching, (2nded.). Cambridge: NY, USA.
Saville-Troike,M. (2006). Introducing second language acquisition. Cambridge:NY, USA.
Web Links:
http://2.education.ualberta.ca
Cook, V. website http://homepage.ntlworld.com/vivian.c/SLA/Krashen.htm
http://languageimpact.com/articles/rw/krashenbk.htm
http://sk.com.br/sk-krash.html
http://www.standford.edu/ kenro/LAU/ICLangLit/NaturalApproach.htm
http://www.timothyjpmason.com/WebPages/LangTeach/Licence/CM/OldLectures/L12_Krashen_Review.htm