MAO Xiaoxia,WANG Jun

(College of Foreign Languages and Cultures, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610065, China)



A Brief Introduction to Stephen Krashen’s Theory of Second Language Acquisition

MAO Xiaoxia,WANG Jun

(CollegeofForeignLanguagesandCultures,SichuanUniversity,Chengdu610065,China)

Abstract：One of the mostly debated issues of the past few decades has been the plausibility of a set of hypotheses about second language acquisition that were made by Stephen Krashen. Krashen’s theories have had wide appeal to language teachers who cry for something simple and concrete on which to base their methodology. Krashen′s hypotheses are: the Acquisition-Learning hypothesis, the Natural Order hypothesis, the Monitor hypothesis, the Input hypothesis, and the Affective Filter hypothesis.

Key words：second language acquisitionStephen Krashenhypotheses

CLC number：HODocument code：AArticle ID：1008-5580(2016)02-0239-04

0Introduction

This article looks at some theories proposed by Stephen Krashen, which are related to second language and their application in the EFL or ESL classroom setting. Krashen′s theory of second language acquisition consists of five main hypotheses: the Acquisition-Learning hypothesis, the Natural Order hypothesis, the Monitor hypothesis, the Input hypothesis, and the Affective Filter hypothesis. In the earlier years the Monitor model and the Acquisition-Learning hypothesis were more popular terms; in recent years the Input hypothesis has been a common term to refer to what are really a set of interrelated hypotheses.

1The Acquisition-Learning hypothesis

Language acquisition refers to a subconscious process which is very similar to the way children learn to” pick up” their mother tongue. Instead of paying attention to the grammatical rules of the target language, language learners develop a “feel” for correctness (Krashen, 1995, p.10). On the other hand, “language learning” is a process in which learners consciously figure out language structures such as grammatical rules, and are actively involved in the process of learning. Language learning can be explained as learning about a language. Krashen states that ‘learning’ is less important than ′acquisition’ and the two processes are mutually exclusive, that is to say, learning can not become acquisition. (Gass and Selinker, 1994, p.148). The most important application of this hypothesis in classroom setting is that great importance should be attached to meaning based activities, such as listening activities and extensive reading, in teaching a second language.

2The Natural Order hypothesis

The Natural Order hypothesis suggests that “SL rules are acquired in a predictable order, one apparently not determined solely by linguistic complexity, and certainly not by the order in which the items appear in teaching syllables.” (Larsen-Freeman and Long, 1991, p.242).Here is where an understanding of the “natural order of acquisition” may have practical application in the classroom. Firstly, second language textbooks could be sequenced according to grammatically simple to complex order which is by reason of this theory, but we should be aware of the fact that grammatical simplicity may vary from country to country; that is, a textbook compiler in China may arrange English syntactical items in a far different order than his counterparts in China. Secondly, based on Krashen’s assumption, we can draw the conclusion that children appear to go through a number of stages in “picking up” their first language, acquiring different grammatical structures in a ′natural order′ which is predictable, and the same is true of SLA. “Acquirers of a given language tend to acquire certain grammatical structures early, others later.” (Krashen,1995, p.12). A fruitful teaching strategy would be to help the student construct his or her own grammar, or rather to construct a series of intermediate grammars, gradually approaching full mastery.

3The Monitor hypothesis

The Monitor hypothesis claims that acquisition, not learning, “is responsible for both fluency and most of our accuracy” (Smith, 1994, p. 279) in the second language performance, the monitor help the learners to use second languages and comfortably. It appears that the role of conscious learning is limited in second language performance. It does not contribute to fluency; it only acts as a monitor or editor. “The monitor has three major functions - the conscious learning of the rules of a language (eg. from a grammar book or in a classroom),the conscious formulation of utterances, and the editing of utterances during production or after they have been produced by the acquired system.” (Gonzalez. 2003).According to Krashen, the role of the monitor is similar to that of a minor, it is used to correct deviations from normal speech, to change the form of the speech before second language learners speak or write. Many language teachers seem to agree with Krashen in the light of the fact that second language students are usually capable of identifying and correcting the grammatical mistakes in their own compositions, presumably due to the learners′ knowledge about content rather linguistic items. I think that we language teachers should try to meet the conditions necessary for students to apply this theory properly.

4The Input hypothesis

The Input hypothesis is Krashen′s attempt to explain how second language acquisition takes place. So, the Input hypothesis is only related to ‘acquisition’ other than ‘learning’. According to this hypothesis, “the language which learners are exposed to should be just far enough beyond their current competence that they can understand most of it but still be challenged to make progress”. (Brown, 1994, p.280).For example, if a learner is at a stage ‘i’, then acquisition takes place when he or she is exposed to ‘Comprehensible Input’ that belongs to level ‘i + 1’. In Krashen’s view, ‘comprehensible input” is a chunk of language that is heard or read and that is above the learner’s current level of proficiency in the target language.However, some researchers such as Barry Mclayghlin strongly disputed Krashen’s Input hypothesis for not being practical, because there can be as many “i”s as the number of students in actual classroom setting. The point is that one class of student could be regarded as sharing more or less the same “i” if the issue is viewed from a micro level. That is, all of the students have at least been taught with the same linguistic knowledge contained in the same textbook.Language teachers could learn from Krashen′s input hypothesis that knowing the approximate levels of his or her students is very beneficial in that it could be easy for teachers to realize language acquisition in the students, and it is actually a fruitful method to use unfamiliar words from time to time when talking to students. Furthermore, more conversation should be incorporated in EFL or ESL classroom setting or preferably in the real language speaking community. For example, for a university English class in China, students could read English newspaper and magazine articles, and discuss the problems they encounter after all the reading. After teaching a lesson on a certain topic, the class could take a field trip to a primarily English -speaking neighborhood and do some practice by interacting with the members from the community. Additionally, the class will gain exposure to the target language and make a great deal of progress in their language learning.

5The Affective Filter Hypothesis

Finally, the Affective Filter Hypothesis embodies Krashen′s view that affective factors such as motivation, attitude, confidence and self- image are related to success in second language acquisition. “Language may not be produced by the young learner if there are external factors that affect the process of learning a second language.” (Yawkey and Prewitt-Diaz, 1990)He proposed an affective filter which describes the relationship between affective variables and the process of second language acquisition. If the affective filter is strong, the learner will not seek language input, and there can be no acquisition. On the other hand, if the Filter is down, or low, and if the input is comprehensible, the input will reach the acquisition device and acquisition will take place.(Gass & Selinker, 1994, P. 147).

6Conclusion

These five hypotheses of second language acquisition can be summarized as that acquisition is more important than learning. Two conditions are necessary in the process of acquiring a second language.They are comprehensible input containing‘i+1’structure which means a level beyond the acquirer’s current proficiency in the target language,and a low or weak affective filter to allow the input to be accepted. A lot of research work has been done in terms of some inter-related topics such as language competence, age factor, and learners’ exposure to the language either in school years or residence, and the acculturation of the language acquirer. The finding of these studies is consistent with Krashen’s acquisition hypotheses: the more comprehensible input one receives in low anxiety situations, the more language competence that one will acquire. Krashen′s hypotheses are interesting, and provide some insights into the way we investigate second language acquisition.

References

[1]Stephen D. Krashen.Theinputhypothesis:Issuesandimplications[M].The United States of America. Laredo Publishing Company,1985,20-21.

[2]Stephen D. Krashen.Principlesandpracticeinsecondlanguageacquisition[M].Great Britain, Prentice Hall Regents,1995,10.

[3]Vivian Cook. Secondlanguagelearningandlanguageteaching[M]. Great Britain. Edward Arnold,1991,36.

[4]H. Douglas Brown.Principlesoflanguagelearningandteaching(3rd edition)[M].The United States of America. Prentice Hall Regents,1994,280.

[5]Michael Sharwood Smith.Secondlanguagelearning:Theoreticalfoundation[M].New York. Longman Publishing,1994,279.

[6]Susan M. Gass & Larry Selinker.SecondLanguageAcquisition[M].New Jersey. Lawrence Erlbaum Associate, Publishers,1994,147.

[7]Diane Larsen-Freeman and Michael H. Long.Anintroductiontosecondlanguageacquisitionresearch[M].New York. Longman Group,1991,242.

[8]Gonzalez.Foundationsoflanguageeducation:Samplework-Theoryoflanguageintopractice[EB/OL].Retrieved May 4, 2014 from http://www-scf.usc.edu/～nataliec/ctse%20409.htm.

[9]Thomas D. Yawkey and Joseph Prewitt-Diaz. (1990).FirstSymposiumEarlyChildhoodTheories,ResearchandImplicationsforBilingualEducation[EB/OL].Retrieved May 6, 2014 from http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/pubs/symposia/first/early.htm.

Received date：2015-10-12

The first author：MAO Xiaoxia(1975-),Female,Master,Lecturer,Research fieid:English teaching.