Krashen Hypotheses

Stephen Krashen
1941-Present - Born in Chicago in 1941.
- Spent two years in the Peace Corps in Ethiopia where he taught eighth grade English and science.
- Krashen pursued a Ph.D. in Linguistics at the University of California, Los Angeles, culminating with his 1972 dissertation "Language and the Left Hemisphere."
- Took up a Ph.D. in Linguistics at the University of California, Los Angeles in 1972.
- Joined the USC School of Education in 1994.
- Published over 350 papers and books, and has presented keynote and plenary addresses at the National Association for Bilingual Education, and many other conferences.
- A professor of Linguistics at the CUNY Graduate Center and the Linguistics Department of the University of Southern California.

Description of Krashen's Theory of Second Language Acquisition

Krashen's theory of second language acquisition consists of five main hypotheses:

The Acquisition-Learning hypothesis distinction is the most fundamental of all the hypotheses in Krashen's theory and the most widely known among linguists and language practitioners.

Acquisition | Learning implicit, subconscious | explicit, conscious informal situations | formal situations uses grammatical 'feel' | uses grammatical rules depends on attitude |depends on aptitude stable order of acquisition | simple to complex order of learning

According to Krashen there are two independent systems of second 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. According to Krashen 'learning' is less important than 'acquisition'.

The Monitor hypothesis explains the relationship between acquisition and learning and defines the influence of the latter on the former. The monitoring function is the practical result of the learned grammar. According to Krashen, the acquisition system 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: that is, the second language learner has sufficient time at his/her disposal, he/she focuses on form or thinks about correctness, and he/she knows 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 - or should be - minor, being used only to correct deviations from 'normal' speech and to give speech a more 'polished' appearance.

Krashen also suggests that there is individual variation among language learners with regard to 'monitor' use. He distinguishes those learners that use the 'monitor' all the time (over-users); those learners who have not learned or who prefer not to use their conscious knowledge (under-users); and those learners that use the 'monitor' appropriately (optimal users). An evaluation of the person's psychological profile can help to determine to what group they belong. Usually extroverts are under-users, while introverts and perfectionists are over-users. Lack of self-confidence is frequently related to the over-use of the 'monitor'.

The Natural Order hypothesis is based on research findings (Dulay & Burt, 1974; Fathman, 1975; Makino, 1980 cited in Krashen, 1987), which suggested that the acquisition of grammatical rules follows a natural predictable order. This order is independent of the learner’s mother tongue, age, and setting. For example, in English language, the learner acquires the progressive –ing, plural –s, and active voice before he or she acquires third person –s, or passive voice.

The Input hypothesis is Krashen's attempt to explain how the learner acquires a second language. In other words, this hypothesis is Krashen's explanation of how second language acquisition takes place. So, 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.

Finally, the fifth hypothesis, 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 and anxiety. Krashen claims that learners with high motivation, self-confidence, a good self-image, and a low level of anxiety are better equipped for success in second language acquisition. Low motivation, low self-esteem, and debilitating anxiety can combine to '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.

Pedagogical Implication of the Monitor Model

1. Teachers must continuously deliver at a level understandable by learners. 2. Teaching must prepare the learners for real life communication situations. 3. Teachers must ensure that learners do not become anxious or defensive in language learning. 4. Formal grammar teaching is of limited value because it contributes to learning rather than acquisition. 5. Teachers must create an atmosphere where learners are not embarrassed by their errors. 6. Teachers should not expect learners to learn ‘late structures’.