theory of second language

2. 1. The Acquisition-Learning
Hypothesis
2. The Input Hypothesis
3. The Monitor Hypothesis
4. The Natural Order Hypothesis
5. The Affective Filter Hypothesis
2

3. THEORY OF LANGUAGE
Reflecting the cognitive psychology 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)
3

4. 1
Acquisition
Learning
Explicit Knowledge
Implicit Knowledge
Communicative Competence

5. Font
Sub-conscious learning
Learning from experiences:
books, movies, games, toys, c
onversations, and so on.
Knowing through language
Picking up words
Trying to ask for things
Talking about experiences
Knowing about language
Know grammar rules
Memorized word lists
Can describe language
Conscious learning
Learning rules
Grammar instruction
Error correction
Language Learning

6. Font
Sub-conscious learning
Learning from experiences:
books, movies, games, toys, conversations,
and so on.
Knowing through language
Picking up words
Trying to ask for things
Talking about experiences
L1
Conscious learning
Learning rules
Grammar instruction
Error correction
Knowing about language
Know grammar rules
Memorized word lists
Can describe language
L2

7. Font
Grammar Rules
Language instrution
No Grammar Rules
No Language Instruction

8. The Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis
 According to Krashen’s acquisition-learning hypothesis, there are
two independent ways to develop our linguistic skills: acquisition
and learning.
 This theory is at the core of modern language acquisition theory,
and is perhaps the most fundamental of Krashen's theories on
second acquisition.
1

9. Acquisition
 Subconscious process where individual is not aware. One is unaware
of the process as it is happening and when the new knowledge is
acquired, the acquirer generally does not realize that he or she
possesses any new knowledge.
 According to Krashen, both adults and children can subconsciously
acquire language, and either written or oral language can be acquired.
This process is similar to the process that children undergo when
learning their native language.
 Acquisition requires meaningful interaction in the target language,
during which the acquirer is focused on meaning rather than form.
1

10. Learning
Learning a language, on the other hand, is a conscious process,
much like what one experiences in school. New knowledge or
language forms are represented consciously in the learner's mind,
frequently in the form of language "rules" and "grammar" and the
process often involves error correction. Language learning involves
formal instruction, and according to Krashen, is less effective than
acquisition.
1

11. Material created by Sonia Albertazzi, Milagro Azofeifa y Gabriela Serrano for Educational Purposes
The Acquisition – Learning
Distinction
Acquisition
Sub-conscious
by environment
(Ex: games,
Movies, radio)
Picking up words
Learning
Conscious by
instructors
Correct errors
Knowing about
Grammar rules
SLA
1

12. The Acquisition-Learning hypothesis
• According to Krashen there are two independent systems of foreign language
performance: 'the acquired system' and 'the learned system'.
• The 'acquired system' or 'acquisition' is the product of a subconscious process very
similar to the process children undergo when they acquire their first language.
• It requires meaningful interaction in the target language - natural communication -
in which speakers are concentrated not in the form of their utterances, but in the
communicative act.
• The "learned system" or "learning" is the product of formal instruction and it
comprises a conscious process which results in conscious knowledge 'about' the
language, for example knowledge of grammar rules.
• A deductive approach in a teacher-centered setting produces "learning", while an
inductive approach in a student-centered setting leads to "acquisition".
• According to Krashen 'learning' is less important than 'acquisition'.
1

13. 2
Input
Sources of input
Comprehensible input
Levels of input

14. known input + 1 overload

15. THE INPUT HYPOTHESIS
15
2
Input and Sources of Input

16. THE INPUT HYPOTHESIS
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)
16
2

17. THE INPUT HYPOTHESIS
17
2

18. The Input hypothesis
• The Input hypothesis is Krashen's attempt to explain how the
learner acquires a second language – how second language
acquisition takes place.
• The Input hypothesis is only concerned with 'acquisition', not
'learning'.
• According to this hypothesis, the learner improves and
progresses along the 'natural order' when he/she receives second
language 'input' that is one step beyond his/her current stage of
linguistic competence.
• For example, if a learner is at a stage 'i', then acquisition takes
place when he/she is exposed to 'Comprehensible Input' that
belongs to level 'i + 1'.
• Since not all of the learners can be at the same level of linguistic
competence at the same time, Krashen suggests that natural
communicative input is the key to designing a syllabus, ensuring
in this way that each learner will receive some 'i + 1' input that is
appropriate for his/her current stage of linguistic competence.
2

19. THE MONITOR HYPOTHESIS
3
Learned System
Acquired System
Accuracy / Fluency

20. THE MONITOR HYPOTHESIS
Three specific conditions:
 Time
 Focus on form
 Know the rule
(Krashen, 1982)
20
3

21. 3. THE MONITOR HYPOTHESIS
Explains 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’.
The 'monitor' acts in a planning, editing and correcting
function when three specific conditions are met.
21
3

22. The second language learner has sufficient time at their disposal.
They focus on form or think about correctness.
They know the rule.
It appears that the role of conscious learning is somewhat limited in
second language performance. According to Krashen, the role of
the monitor is minor, being used only to correct deviations from
"normal" speech and to give speech a more 'polished' appearance.
22
The Monitor Hypothesis 3

23. 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)
23
3

24. THE MONITOR HYPOTHESIS
24
3

25. THE MONITOR HYPOTHESIS
25
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)
3

26. THE NATURAL ORDER HYPOTHESIS
4
Learned System
Acquired System
Accuracy / Fluency

27. 4
27

28. 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)
28
4

29. Font
PROGRESSIVE
(+ing)
PLURAL (n.+ s)
IRREGULAR PAST
POSSESSIVE (+‘s)
COPULA (be + n./adj.)
ARTICLE (a, the)
REGULAR PAST
3RD PERSON SINGULAR
(v.+ s)
AUXILIARY (be + verbs)
4

30. THE NATURAL ORDER HYPOTHESIS
For a given language, some grammatical structures tend to be acquired
early while others late.
This order seemed to be independent of the learners' age, L1 background,
conditions of exposure,
Krashen however points out that the implication of the natural order
hypothesis is not that a language program syllabus should be based on
the order found in the studies.
In fact, he rejects grammatical sequencing when the goal is language
acquisition.
30
4

31. THE AFFECTIVE FILTER
HYPOTHESIS
5
Learned System
Acquired System
Accuracy / Fluency

32. • The Affective Filter hypothesis embodies Krashen's view that a number of 'affective
variables' play a facilitative, but non-causal, role in second language acquisition.
• These variables include: motivation, self-confidence, anxiety and personality traits.
• Krashen claims that learners with high motivation, self-confidence, a good self-
image, a low level of anxiety and extroversion are better equipped for success in
second language acquisition.
• Low motivation, low self-esteem, anxiety, introversion and inhibition can raise the
affective filter and form a 'mental block' that prevents comprehensible input from
being used for acquisition.
• In other words, when the filter is 'up' it impedes language acquisition.
• On the other hand, positive affect is necessary, but not sufficient on its own, for
acquisition to take place.

33. THE AFFECTIVE FILTER HYPOTHESIS
33
5

34. 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)
34
5

35. 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.
35
4

36. 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.
36
5

37. CONCLUSION:
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 more to acquisiton.
37

38. 38
“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

39. 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
39