Table of Contents
Introduction
Learning a second language is a complex process that has fascinated linguists and educators for decades. One influential theory in the field of second language acquisition is Krashen’s Theory, proposed by Stephen Krashen, an eminent linguist and researcher.
This theory suggests that language acquisition is a subconscious process, and individuals acquire language skills through exposure to comprehensible input. In this article, we will delve into the details of Krashen’s Theory of Second Language Acquisition, exploring its key hypotheses, applications, and criticisms.
Background of Krashen’s Theory of Second Language Acquisition
Stephen Krashen developed his theory of second language acquisition in the 1970s and 1980s, drawing upon various linguistic and psychological perspectives. His theory gained significant recognition and influenced language teaching methodologies worldwide.
Krashen emphasized the importance of natural language acquisition, suggesting that formal instruction should take a backseat to meaningful exposure to the target language.
His theory has later been criticized for being vague and imprecise.
Five Hypotheses of Krashen’s Theory
Krashen’s Theory is composed of five key hypotheses, each providing insights into different aspects of second language acquisition. Let’s explore them:
1. Input Hypothesis
The Input Hypothesis suggests that language learners progress when they receive comprehensible input, i.e., language that is slightly beyond their current proficiency level. This is often referred to as i+1, meaning ‘input‘ which is one step beyond learners’ current stage of linguistic competence.
In addition to being slightly above the learners’ level of understanding, this input should be engaging, meaningful, and related to the learners’ interests and needs.
According to Krashen’s claim, this comprehensible input facilitates subconscious language acquisition.
2. Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis
Krashen differentiates between language acquisition and language learning. Acquisition refers to the subconscious assimilation of language skills through exposure and understanding, while learning involves conscious knowledge of rules and grammatical structures. He argues that acquisition is more effective than learning in developing fluent and natural language skills.
3. Monitor Hypothesis
The Monitor Hypothesis states that language learners utilize their acquired knowledge to self-monitor their production. When learners have time to reflect and consciously apply their knowledge, they can correct errors and improve their language proficiency. However, Krashen suggests that overreliance on the monitor can hinder spontaneous and fluent communication.
4. Natural Order Hypothesis
The Natural Order Hypothesis proposes that language learners acquire grammatical structures in a predictable sequence. Krashen argues that learners naturally progress through specific linguistic structures, regardless of explicit instruction or correction. This hypothesis emphasizes the importance of providing learners with ample exposure to the target language.
5. Affective Filter Hypothesis
Krashen’s Affective Filter Hypothesis suggests that affective factors, such as motivation, self-confidence, and anxiety, play a crucial role in language acquisition. When learners are highly motivated, have low anxiety, and feel comfortable in their learning environment, their affective filter is low, facilitating language acquisition. On the other hand, a high affective filter can impede language acquisition.
Application of Krashen’s Theory in Language Teaching
Krashen’s ideas have greatly influenced modern teaching methods such as the Natural Approach and the Communicative Approach. These methods emphasize exposure to meaningful input and interaction over rote grammar instruction.
Teachers can apply Krashen’s theory by:
- Providing comprehensible input through stories, videos, songs, and conversations.
- Encouraging extensive reading to expose learners to authentic vocabulary and structures.
- Creating a supportive and low-anxiety classroom that lowers the affective filter.
- Designing activities focused on meaning, such as role-plays and discussions, rather than on explicit grammar drills.
Example:
In a lesson about daily routines, instead of explaining the present simple tense, the teacher tells a short story: “I wake up, brush my teeth, and go to work.” Learners understand through context, visuals, and gestures—naturally acquiring the tense before formally learning it.
Summary of the Five Hypotheses
| Hypothesis | Description |
|---|---|
| Comprehensible Input | Language acquisition occurs when learners receive understandable input slightly above their level (i+1). |
| Acquisition–Learning Hypothesis | Distinguishes subconscious acquisition from conscious learning. Acquisition leads to fluency; learning helps with accuracy. |
| Monitor Hypothesis | The learned system acts as a monitor to correct output when conditions allow. Overuse hinders fluency. |
| Natural Order Hypothesis | Grammatical structures are acquired in a predictable, natural sequence. |
| Affective Filter Hypothesis | Emotional factors like motivation and anxiety affect how much input is processed and acquired. |
Criticisms of Krashen’s Theory
While Krashen’s Theory of second language acquisition has been widely influential, it has also faced some criticisms.
1. Comprehensible input Hypothesis: One criticism is that the theory does not fully account for the role of explicit instruction and practice in language learning. Some argue that a combination of both acquisition and learning strategies can lead to more comprehensive language development.
- Critics argue that Krashen places too much emphasis on input, assuming that exposure alone is sufficient for effective language acquisition.
- The hypothesis downplays the importance of output—speaking or writing—which research shows helps learners notice gaps in their knowledge and consolidate new language.
- Interaction and communication are essential for meaningful practice, yet the input hypothesis does not fully account for the role of negotiation of meaning in conversations.
- Later theories, such as Swain’s Output Hypothesis, highlight that producing language encourages self-correction, hypothesis testing, and deeper processing, which input alone may not achieve.
- Learners who passively receive input may struggle to transfer knowledge to active use, suggesting that input must be combined with opportunities for meaningful output to maximize acquisition.
2. Acquisition-learning Hypothesis: Krashen’s framework distinguishes between acquisition and learning, with acquisition being slow and subtle, and learning being fast and conscious.
- Linguists have criticized this strict dichotomy for its fuzzy terminology.
- According to Krashen, language acquisition is the desired process for language learners, leading to fluency, while learning only serves as a monitor or editor. The assumed claim here is that learning does not transform into acquisition, which is challenged by the idea that acquisition can be enriched by the learned system.
- Instead of drawing a clear boundary between acquisition and learning, it is suggested that the interplay and connections between the two processes should be recognized and explained.
3. Monitor Hypothesis: The main criticism of the monitor hypothesis is grounded on the evaluation of the acquisition-learning hypothesis.
- The monitor hypothesis suggests that the main purpose of language learning is to serve as a monitor for language output produced by the acquired system. However, critics of Krashen’s theory argue that it is impossible to clearly and adequately separate language learning from language acquisition, making it challenging to prove that the learned system functions solely as a monitor.
- Furthermore, the claim that learning-as-monitor only applies to output after production is questioned. Second-language learners can use the learned system both for producing output and facilitating comprehension.
4. Natural Order Hypothesis: Another criticism pertains to the natural order hypothesis.
- Although evidence supports the existence of a general order in grammatical acquisition, many researchers argue that explicit instruction can accelerate learning—especially for complex or less frequently encountered grammatical forms.
- Krashen’s claim that children learning English as a second language follow the same predictable sequence as first-language learners is supported by some morpheme studies, yet this pattern does not necessarily extend to all aspects of second language acquisition.
- Morpheme studies focus narrowly on grammatical endings and do not explain how learners acquire other components of language such as phonology, syntax, semantics, or pragmatics. Thus, the “natural order” appears limited in scope.
- The hypothesis overlooks the significant influence of a learner’s first language. Research shows that learners from different linguistic backgrounds often acquire structures in varying orders, challenging the idea of a universal, fixed sequence.
5. Affective Filter Hypothesis: Some educators argue that the affective filter hypothesis oversimplifies the role of affective factors in language acquisition.
- The hypothesis simplifies second language acquisition by attributing individual differences mainly to affective factors such as motivation, self-confidence, and anxiety. In reality, language learning is influenced by a far more complex interaction of cognitive, social, and contextual variables.
- Critics argue that affective factors alone cannot fully explain the wide variation in learners’ success or rate of acquisition.
- Even children, who supposedly have a “lower” affective filter, display differences in motivation and confidence that affect how they acquire a second language.
- The idea that an affective filter blocks comprehensible input from reaching the language acquisition device is questioned by research showing that some adult learners achieve near-native proficiency despite emotional or affective barriers.
- The hypothesis does not clarify how the filter selects which linguistic input is processed or ignored, which weakens its explanatory power in accounting for individual variation.
Implications of Krashen’s Theory of Second Language Acquisition
Despite its limitations, Krashen’s Theory offers valuable guidance for language educators:
- Focus on meaningful, comprehensible input rather than isolated grammar rules.
- Provide authentic materials—songs, stories, videos, and conversations—that expose learners to real language.
- Foster a positive classroom atmosphere to lower the affective filter.
- Encourage extensive reading and listening outside the classroom to boost natural acquisition.
- Use explicit instruction strategically to support accuracy without stifling fluency.
Conclusion
Krashen’s Theory of Second Language Acquisition remains a cornerstone in the study of language learning. His five hypotheses—comprehensible input, acquisition versus learning, the monitor, natural order, and affective filter—help explain how people acquire languages and how teachers can support that process.
Although modern research has refined or challenged parts of his model, Krashen’s emphasis on meaningful input, low anxiety, and natural communication continues to inspire effective, learner-centered language teaching.
FAQs about Krashen’s Theory of Second Language Acquisition
What are the five hypotheses of Krashen’s theory of second language acquisition?
The five hypotheses of Krashen’s theory are the Input Hypothesis, the Monitor Hypothesis, the Natural Order Hypothesis, the Affective Filter Hypothesis, and the Output Hypothesis.
What is an example of Krashen’s theory?
An example of implementing Krashen’s theory in the classroom is creating a language-rich environment where students are exposed to meaningful and comprehensible input through engaging activities, authentic materials, and opportunities for meaningful communication. This approach encourages natural language acquisition by providing students with ample opportunities to interact with the language in a low-anxiety environment.
How does Stephen Krashen describe language acquisition vs. language learning?
Stephen Krashen describes language acquisition as a subconscious process that occurs naturally through exposure to meaningful language, while language learning involves conscious study and rule-based instruction.
What does Krashen’s theory of second Language acquisition say about explicit vs. implicit language teaching?
Krashen’s theory of second language acquisition emphasizes the importance of implicit language teaching over explicit instruction. According to Krashen, language acquisition occurs naturally when learners are exposed to meaningful and comprehensible input, rather than through explicit teaching of grammar rules. He believes that explicit instruction should be kept to a minimum and primarily used as a monitor or editor in the language production stage. The focus is on creating an immersive language environment that promotes language acquisition through exposure and meaningful communication, allowing learners to develop their language skills implicitly.
What criticism is addressed to Krashen’s ideas about implicit language learning?
While Krashen’s theory prioritizes natural language acquisition through comprehensible input and unconscious acquisition of the target language, it is important to note that the inclusion of explicit instruction can be beneficial in certain contexts, as it provides learners with explicit knowledge that complements their implicit language skills. Thus, a combination of implicit and explicit teaching methods tailored to learners’ needs and proficiency levels can enhance language acquisition and proficiency.
