acquisition learning hypothesis

The Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis: Definition and Criticism

January 19, 2018, 8:00 am

Linguist and educator Stephen Krashen proposed the Monitor Model, his theory of second language acquisition, in Principles and practice in second language acquisition published in 1982. Influenced by the theory of first language acquisition proposed by Noam Chomsky, the Monitor Model posits five hypotheses about second language acquisition and learning:

• Acquisition-learning hypothesis
• Natural order hypothesis
• Monitor hypothesis
• Input hypothesis
• Affective filter hypothesis

The following sections offer a description of the first hypothesis of the Monitor Model, the acquisition-learning hypothesis, as well as the major criticism surrounding the hypothesis.

Definition of the Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis

The first hypothesis of Krashen’s Monitor Model, the acquisition-learning hypothesis, distinguishes between the processes of language acquisition and language learning. Krashen contrasts acquisition and learning as two distinct and separate language processes. Acquisition occurs passively and unconsciously through implicit, informal, or natural learning, resulting in implicit knowledge and acquired competence of a language; in other words, to acquire a language is to “pick up” a language by relying on “feelings” of correctness rather than conscious knowledge of language rules.

In contrast to acquisition, learning occurs actively and consciously through explicit or formal learning and instruction, resulting in explicit knowledge about a language; learning results in metalinguistic knowledge and awareness. Furthermore, the acquisition-learning hypothesis states that both children and adults acquire language via access to an innate language acquisition device (LAD) regardless of age as well as that learning cannot become acquisition. The most important pedagogical implication of the first hypothesis of the Monitor Model is that explicit teaching and learning is unnecessary, indeed inadequate, for second language acquisition.

Criticism of the Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis

The first critique of Krashen’s Monitor Model is that the hypothesized distinction between acquisition and learning as posited by the acquisition-learning hypothesis, or, more specifically, determining whether the process involved in language production resulted from implicit acquisition or explicit learning, is impossible to prove. As Barry McLaughlin offers as anecdotal evidence, he feels that the German * Ich habe nicht das Kind gesehen “I have not seen the children” is incorrect based on intuition but also knows that the utterance is incorrect based on his knowledge of the rules of German grammar.

Furthermore, critics consider the argument that learning cannot become acquisition questionable. Kevin R. Gregg offers anecdotal evidence of his personal experience learning a second language as counterevidence to the clear division between acquisition and learning: He initially consciously learned the conjugations of Japanese verbs through rote memorization, which ultimately led to unconscious acquisition. In his case, learning became acquisition. Both examples of personal experience with a second language illustrate the problem with stringently distinguishing the process of language acquisition from the process of language learning. Thus, the claim that acquisition is distinct from learning fails to withstand evidence-based criticism

Although influential within the field of second language acquisition over the past few decades, the Monitor Model is not without criticism as illustrated by the major critiques of the learning-acquisition hypothesis.

Gregg, Kevin R. 1984. Krashen’s monitor and Occam’s razor. Applied Linguistics 5(2). 79-100. Krashen, Stephen D. 1982. Principles and practice in second language acquisition . Oxford: Pergamon. Krashen, Stephen D. 2009. Principles and practice in second language acquisition , 1st internet edn. Oxford: Pergamon. http://www.sdkrashen.com/Principles_and_Practice/Principles_and_Practice.pdf. Lightbrown, Patsy M. & Nina Spada. 2006. How languages are learned , 3rd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press. McLaughlin, Barry. 1978. The monitor model: Some methodological considerations. Language Learning 28(2). 309-332. Zafar, Manmay. 2009. Monitoring the ‘monitor’: A critique of Krashen’s five hypotheses. Dhaka University Journal of Linguistics 2(4). 139-146.

acquisition-learning hypothesis language acquisition language learning monitor model

Ambitransitive English Verbs

The Natural Order Hypothesis: Definition and Criticism

• Beelinguapp

Stephen Krashen’s Five Hypotheses of Second Language Acquisition

Unsplash Monica Melton

Interested in learning more about linguistics and linguists ? Read this way.

What is linguistics? Linguistics is the scientific study of language that involves the analysis of language rules, language meaning, and language context. In other words, linguistics is the study of how a language is formed and how it works.

A person who studies linguistics is called a linguist . A linguist doesn't necessarily have to learn different languages because they’re more interested in learning the structures of languages. Noam Chomsky and Dr. Stephen Krashen are two of the world’s most famous linguists.

Dr. Stephen D. Krashen facilitated research in second-language acquisition , bilingual education, and in reading. He believes that language acquisition requires “meaningful interaction with the target language.”

Dr. Krashen also theorized that there are 5 hypotheses to second language acquisition , which have been very influential in the field of second language research and teaching

Let’s take a look at these hypotheses. Who knows, maybe you’ve applied one or all of them in your language learning journey!

1. Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis

The Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis states that there is a distinction between language acquisition and language learning. In language acquisition, the student acquires language unconsciously . This is similar to when a child picks up their first language. On the other hand, language learning happens when the student is consciously discovering and learning the rules and grammatical structures of the language.

2. Monitor Hypothesis

Monitor Hypothesis states that the learner is consciously learning the grammar rules and functions of a language rather than its meaning. This theory focuses more on the correctness of the language . To use the Monitor Hypothesis properly, three standards must be met:

• The acquirer must know the rules of the language.
• The acquirer must concentrate on the exact form of the language.
• The acquirer must set aside some time to review and apply the language rules in a conversation. Although this is a tricky one, because in regular conversations there’s hardly enough time to ensure correctness of the language.

3. Natural Order Hypothesis

Natural Order Hypothesis is based on the finding that language learners learn grammatical structures in a fixed and universal way . There is a sense of predictability to this kind of learning, which is similar to how a speaker learns their first language.

4. Input Hypothesis

Input Hypothesis places more emphasis on the acquisition of the second language. This theory is more concerned about how the language is acquired rather than learned.

Moreover, the Input Hypothesis states that the learner naturally develops language as soon as the student receives interesting and fun information .

5. Affective Filter Hypothesis

In Affective Filter, language acquisition can be affected by emotional factors. If the affective filter is higher, then the student is less likely to learn the language. Therefore, the learning environment for the student must be positive and stress-free so that the student is open for input.

Language acquisition is a subconscious process. Usually, language acquirers are aware that they’re using the language for communication but are unaware that they are acquiring the language.

Language acquirers also are unaware of the rules of the language they are acquiring. Instead, language acquirers feel a sense of correctness, when the sentence sounds and feels right. Strange right? But it is also quite fascinating.

Acquiring a language is a tedious process. It can seem more like a chore, a game of should I learn today or should I just do something else? Sigh

But Dr. Krashen’s language acquisition theories might be onto something, don’t you think? Learning a language should be fun and in some way it should happen naturally. Try to engage in meaningful interactions like reading exciting stories and relevant news articles, even talking with friends and family in a different language. Indulge in interesting and easy to understand language activities, and by then you might already have slowly started acquiring your target language!

Related Posts

An easy health hack learn a new language, a quick tutorial to learning “gandara park” & more beki words, 32 terribly good oxymoron examples, subscribe to our newsletter.

Introduction The Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis The Natural Order Hypothesis The Monitor Hypothesis The Input Hypothesis The Affective Filter Hypothesis Curriculum Design Conclusions Bibliography

  Introduction         The influence of Stephen Krashen on language education research and practice is undeniable.  First introduced over 20 years ago, his theories are still debated today.  In 1983, he published The Natural Approach with Tracy Terrell, which combined a comprehensive second language acquisition theory with a curriculum for language classrooms.  The influence of Natural Approach can be seen especially in current EFL textbooks and teachers resource books such as The Lexical Approach (Lewis, 1993).  Krashen’s theories on second language acquisition have also had a huge impact on education in the state of California, starting in 1981 with his contribution to Schooling and language minority students: A theoretical framework by the California State Department of Education (Krashen 1981).  Today his influence can be seen most prominently in the debate about bilingual education and perhaps less explicitly in language education policy:  The BCLAD/CLAD teacher assessment tests define the pedagogical factors affecting first and second language development in exactly the same terms used in Krashen’s Monitor Model (California Commission on Teacher Credentialing, 1998).         As advertised, The Natural Approach is very appealing – who wouldn’t want to learn a language the natural way, and what language teacher doesn’t think about what kind of input to provide for students.  However, upon closer examination of Krashen’s hypotheses and Terrell’s methods, they fail to provide the goods for a workable system.  In fact, within the covers of “The Natural Approach”, the weaknesses that other authors criticize can be seen playing themselves out into proof of the failure of Krashen’s model.  In addition to reviewing what other authors have written about Krashen’s hypotheses, I will attempt to directly address what I consider to be some of the implications for ES/FL teaching today by drawing on my own experience in the classroom as a teacher and a student of language.  Rather than use Krashen’s own label, which is to call his ideas simply “second language acquisition theory”, I will adopt McLaughlin’s terminology (1987) and refer to them collectively as “the Monitor Model”.  This is distinct from “the Monitor Hypothesis”, which is the fourth of Krashen’s five hypotheses. The Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis         First is the Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis, which makes a distinction between “acquisition,” which he defines as developing competence by using language for “real communication” and “learning.” which he defines as “knowing about” or “formal knowledge” of a language (p.26).  This hypothesis is presented largely as common sense: Krashen only draws on only one set of references from Roger Brown in the early 1970’s.  He claims that Brown’s research on first language acquisition showed that parents tend to correct the content of children’s speech rather than their grammar.  He compares it with several other authors’ distinction of “implicit” and “explicit” learning but simply informs the reader that evidence will be presented later.         Gregg (1984) first notes that Krashen’s use of the Language Acquisition Device (LAD) gives it a much wider scope of operation than even Chomsky himself.  He intended it simply as a construct to describe the child’s initial state, which would therefore mean that it cannot apply to adult learners.  Drawing on his own experience of learning Japanese, Gregg contends that Krashen’s dogmatic insistence that “learning” can never become “acquisition” is quickly refuted by the experience of anyone who has internalized some of the grammar they have consciously memorized.  However, although it is not explicitly stated, Krashen’s emphasis seems to be that classroom learning does not lead to fluent, native-like speech.  Gregg’s account that his memorization of a verb conjugation chart was “error-free after a couple of days”(p.81) seems to go against this spirit.  The reader is left to speculate whether his proficiency in Japanese at the time was sufficient enough for him to engage in error-free conversations with the verbs from his chart.         McLaughlin (1987) begins his critique by pointing out that Krashen never adequately defines “acquisition”, “learning”, “conscious” and “subconscious”, and that without such clarification, it is very difficult to independently determine whether subjects are “learning” or “acquiring” language.  This is perhaps the first area that needs to be explained in attempting to utilize the Natural Approach.  If the classroom situation is hopeless for attaining proficiency, then it is probably best not to start.  As we will see in an analysis of the specific methods in the book, any attempt to recreate an environment suitable for “acquisition” is bound to be problematic.         Krashen’s conscious/unconscious learning distinction appeals to students and teachers in monolingual countries immediately.  In societies where there are few bilinguals, like the United States, many people have struggled to learn a foreign language at school, often unsuccessfully.  They see people who live in other countries as just having “picked up” their second language naturally in childhood.  The effort spent in studying and doing homework seems pointless when contrasted with the apparent ease that “natural” acquisition presents.  This feeling is not lost on teachers: without a theoretical basis for the methods, given any perceived slow progress of their students, they would feel that they have no choice but to be open to any new ideas         Taking a broad interpretation of this hypothesis, the main intent seems to be to convey how grammar study (learning) is less effective than simple exposure (acquisition).  This is something that very few researchers seem to doubt, and recent findings in the analysis of right hemisphere trauma indicate a clear separation of the facilities for interpreting context-independent sentences from context-dependent utterances (Paradis, 1998).  However, when called upon to clarify, Krashen takes the somewhat less defensible position that the two are completely unrelated and that grammar study has no place in language learning (Krashen 1993a, 1993b).  As several authors have shown (Gregg 1984, McLaughlin 1987, and Lightbown & Pienemann 1993, for a direct counter-argument to Krashen 1993a) there are countless examples of how grammar study can be of great benefit to students learning by some sort of communicative method. The Natural Order Hypothesis         The second hypothesis is simply that grammatical structures are learned in a predictable order.  Once again this is based on first language acquisition research done by Roger Brown, as well as that of Jill and Peter de Villiers.  These studies found striking similarities in the order in which children acquired certain grammatical morphemes.  Krashen cites a series of studies by Dulay and Burt which show that a group of Spanish speaking and a group of Chinese speaking children learning English as a second language also exhibited a “natural” order for grammatical morphemes which did not differ between the two groups.  A rather lengthy end-note directs readers to further research in first and second language acquisition, but somewhat undercuts the basic hypothesis by showing limitations to the concept of an order of acquisition.         Gregg argues that Krashen has no basis for separating grammatical morphemes from, for example, phonology.  Although Krashen only briefly mentions the existence of other parallel “streams” of acquisition in The Natural Approach, their very existence rules out any order that might be used in instruction.  The basic idea of a simple linear order of acquisition is extremely unlikely, Gregg reminds us.  In addition, if there are individual differences then the hypothesis is not provable, falsifiable, and in the end, not useful.         McLaughlin points out the methodological problems with Dulay and Burt’s 1974 study, and cites a study by Hakuta and Cancino (1977, cited in McLaughlin, 1987, p.32) which found that the complexity of a morpheme depended on the learner’s native language.  The difference between the experience of a speaker of a Germanic language studying English with that of an Asian language studying English is a clear indication of the relevance of this finding.  The contradictions for planning curriculum are immediately evident.  Having just discredited grammar study in the Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis, Krashen suddenly proposes that second language learners should follow the “natural” order of acquisition for grammatical morphemes.  The teacher is first instructed to create a natural environment for the learner but then, in trying to create a curriculum, they are instructed to base it on grammar.  As described below in an analysis of the actual classroom methods presented in the Natural Approach, attempting to put these conflicting theories into practice is very problematic.         When one examines this hypothesis in terms of comprehension and production, its insufficiencies become even more apparent.  Many of the studies of order of acquisition, especially those in first language acquisition, are based on production.  McLaughlin also points out that “correct usage” is not monolithic – even for grammatical morphemes, correct usage in one situation does not guarantee as correct usage in another (p.33).  In this sense, the term “acquisition” becomes very unclear, even when not applying Krashen’s definition.  Is a structure “acquired” when there are no mistakes in comprehension?  Or is it acquired when there is a certain level of accuracy in production?  First language acquisition is very closely linked to the cognitive development of infants, but second language learners have most of these facilities present, even as children.  Further, even if some weak form of natural order exists for any learners who are speakers of a given language, learning in a given environment, it is not clear that the order is the same for comprehension and production.  If these two orders differ, it is not clear how they would interact. The Monitor Hypothesis The role of conscious learning is defined in this somewhat negative hypothesis: The only role that such “learned” competence can have is an editor on what is produced.  Output is checked and repaired, after it has been produced, by the explicit knowledge the learner has gained through grammar study.  The implication is that the use of this Monitor should be discouraged and that production should be left up to some instinct that has been formed by “acquisition”.  Using the Monitor, speech is halting since it only can check what has been produced, but Monitor-free speech is much more instinctive and less contrived.  However, he later describes cases of using the Monitor efficiently (p. 32) to eliminate errors on “easy” rules.  This hypothesis presents very little in the way of supportive evidence:  Krashen cites several studies by Bialystok alone and with Frohlich as “confirming evidence” (p.31) and several of his own studies on the difficulty of confirming acquisition of grammar.         Perhaps Krashen’s recognition of this factor was indeed a step forward – language learners and teachers everywhere know the feeling that the harder they try to make a correct sentence, the worse it comes out.  However, he seems to draw the lines around it a bit too closely.  Gregg points (p.84) out that by restricting monitor use to “learned” grammar and only in production, Krashen in effect makes the Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis and the Monitor Hypothesis contradictory.  Gregg also points out that the restricting learning to the role of editing production completely ignores comprehension (p.82).  Explicitly learned grammar can obviously play a crucial role in understanding speech.         McLaughlin gives a thorough dissection of the hypothesis, showing that Krashen has never demonstrated the operation of the Monitor in his own or any other research.  Even the further qualification that it only works on discrete-point tests on one grammar rule at a time failed to produce evidence of operation.  Only one study (Seliger, cited on p.26) was able to find narrow conditions for its operation, and even there the conclusion was that it was not representative of the conscious knowledge of grammar.  He goes on to point out how difficult it is to determine if one is consciously employing a rule, and that such conscious editing actually interferes with performance.  But his most convincing argument is the existence of learners who have taught themselves a language with very little contact with native speakers.  These people are perhaps rare on the campuses of U.S. universities, but it is quite undeniable that they exist.         The role that explicitly learned grammar and incidentally acquired exposure have in forming sentences is far from clear.  Watching intermediate students practice using recasts is certainly convincing evidence that something like the Monitor is at work: even without outside correction, they can eliminate the errors in a target sentence or expression of their own ideas after several tries.  However, psycholinguists have yet to determine just what goes into sentence processing and bilingual memory.  In a later paper (Krashen 1991), he tried to show that high school students, despite applying spelling rules they knew explicitly, performed worse than college students who did not remember such rules.  He failed to address not only the relevance of this study to the ability to communicate in a language, but also the possibility that whether they remembered the rules or not, the college students probably did know the rules consciously at some point, which again violates the Learning-Acquisition Hypothesis. The Input Hypothesis         Here Krashen explains how successful “acquisition” occurs:  by simply understanding input that is a little beyond the learner’s present “level” – he defined that present “level” as i and the ideal level of input as i +1.  In the development of oral fluency, unknown words and grammar are deduced through the use of context (both situational and discursive), rather than through direct instruction.  Krashen has several areas which he draws on for proof of the Input Hypothesis.  One is the speech that parents use when talking to children (caretaker speech), which he says is vital in first language acquisition (p.34).  He also illustrates how good teachers tune their speech to their students’ level, and how when talking to each other, second language learners adjust their speech in order to communicate.  This hypothesis is also supported by the fact that often the first second language utterances of adult learners are very similar to those of infants in their first language.  However it is the results of methods such as Asher’s Total Physical Response that provide the most convincing evidence.  This method was shown to be far superior to audiolingual, grammar-translation or other approaches, producing what Krashen calls “nearly five times the [normal] acquisition rate.”         Gregg spends substantial time on this particular hypothesis, because, while it seems to be the core of the model, it is simply an uncontroversial observation with no process described and no proof provided.  He brings up the very salient point that perhaps practice does indeed also have something to do with second language acquisition, pointing out that monitoring could be used as a source of correct utterances (p. 87).  He also cites several studies that shed some doubt on the connection between caretaker speech in first language acquisition and simplified input in second language acquisition.         McLaughlin also gives careful and thorough consideration to this part of Krashen’s model.  He addresses each of the ten lines of evidence that Krashen presents, arguing that it is not sufficient to simply say that certain phenomenon can be viewed from the perspective of the Input Hypothesis.  The concept of a learner’s “level” is extremely difficult to define, just as the idea of i +1 is (p.37).  Further, there are many structures such as passives and yes/no questions that cannot be learned through context.  Also, there is no evidence that a learner has to fully comprehend an utterance for it to aid in acquisition.  Some of the first words that children and second language learners produce are formulaic expressions that are not fully understood initially.  Finally McLaughlin points out that Krashen simply ignores other internal factors such as motivation and the importance of producing language for interaction.         This hypothesis is perhaps the most appealing part of Krashen’s model for the language learner as well as the teacher.  He makes use of the gap between comprehension and production that everyone feels, enticing us with the hope of instant benefits if we just get the input tuned to the right level.  One of Krashen’s cleverest catch-alls is that other methods of teaching appear to work at times because they inadvertently provide this input.  But the disappointment is that he never gives any convincing idea as to how it works.  In the classroom a teacher can see when the students don’t understand and can simplify his or her speech to the point where they do.  Krashen would have the teacher think that this was all that is necessary, and it is just a matter of time before the students are able to express themselves freely.  However, Ellis (1992) points out that even as of his 1985 work (Krashen 1985), he still had not provided a single study that demonstrated the Input Hypothesis.  Over extended periods of time students do learn to understand more and even how to speak, but it often seems to take much longer than Krashen implies, indicating that there are perhaps many more factors involved.  More importantly, even given this beginning of i, and the goal of i + 1, indefinable as they are, the reader is given no indication of how to proceed.  As shown above the Natural Order Hypothesis holds no answers, especially as to how comprehension progresses.  In an indication of a direction that should be explored, Ellis’s exploratory study (ibid.) showed that it is the effort involved in attempting to understand input rather than simple comprehension that fuels acquisition. The Affective Filter Hypothesis         This concept receives the briefest treatment in “The Natural Approach”.  Krashen simply states that “attitudinal variables relate directly to language acquisition but not language learning.”  He cites several studies that examine the link between motivation and self-image, arguing that an “integrative” motivation (the learner want to “be like” the native speakers of a language) is necessary.  He postulates an “affective filter” that acts before the Language Acquisition Device and restricts the desire to seek input if the learner does not have such motivation.  Krashen also says that at puberty, this filter increases dramatically in strength.         Gregg notes several problems with this hypothesis as well.  Among others, Krashen seems to indicate that perhaps the affective filter is associated with the emotional upheaval and hypersensitivity of puberty, but Gregg notes that this would indicate that the filter would slowly disappear in adulthood, which Krashen does not allow for (p.92).  He also remarks on several operational details, such as the fact that simply not being unmotivated would be the same as being highly motivated in this hypothesis – neither is the negative state of being unmotivated.  Also, he questions how this filter would selectively choose certain “parts of a language” to reject (p.94).         McLaughlin argues much along the same lines as Gregg and points out that adolescents often acquire languages faster than younger, monitor-free children (p.29).  He concludes that while affective variables certainly play a critical role in acquisition, there is no need to theorize a filter like Krashen’s.         Again, the teacher in the classroom is enticed by this hypothesis because of the obvious effects of self-confidence and motivation.  However, Krashen seems to imply that teaching children, who don’t have this filter, is somehow easier, since “given sufficient exposure, most children reach native-like levels of competence in second languages” (p.47).  This obviously completely ignores the demanding situations that face language minority children in the U.S. every day.  A simplification into a one page “hypothesis” gives teachers the idea that these problems are easily solved and fluency is just a matter of following this path.  As Gregg and McLaughlin point out, however, trying to put these ideas into practice, one quickly runs into problems. Curriculum Design         The educational implications of Krashen’s theories become more apparent in the remainder of the book, where he and Terrell lay out the specific methods that make use of the Monitor Model.  These ideas are based on Terrell’s earlier work (Terrell, 1977) but have been expanded into a full curriculum.  The authors qualify this collection somewhat by saying that teachers can use all or part of the Natural Approach, depending on how it fits into their classroom.         This freedom, combined with the thoroughness of their curriculum, make the Natural Approach very attractive.  In fact, the guidelines they set out at the beginning– communication is the primary goal, comprehension preceding production, production simply emerge, acquisition activities are central, and the affective filter should be lowered (p. 58-60) – are without question, excellent guidelines for any language classroom.  The compilation of topics and situations (p.67-70) which make up their curriculum are a good, broad overview of many of the things that students who study by grammar translation or audiolingual methods do not get.  The list of suggested rules (p.74) is notable in its departure from previous methods with its insistence on target language input but its allowance for partial, non-grammatical or even L1 responses.         Outside of these areas, application of the suggestions run into some difficulty.  Three general communicative goals of being able to express personal identification, experiences and opinions (p.73) are presented, but there is no theoretical background.  The Natural Approach contains ample guidance and resources for the beginner levels, with methods for introducing basic vocabulary and situations in a way that keeps students involved.  It also has very viable techniques for more advanced and self-confident classes who will be stimulated by the imaginative situational practice (starting on p.101).  However, teachers of the broad middle range of students who have gotten a grip on basic vocabulary but are still struggling with sentence and question production are left with conflicting advice.         Once beyond one-word answers to questions, the Natural Approach ventures out onto thin ice by suggesting elicited productions.  These take the form of open-ended sentences, open dialogs and even prefabricated patterns (p.84).  These formats necessarily involve explicit use of grammar, which violates every hypothesis of the Monitor Model.  The authors write this off as training for optimal Monitor use (p.71, 142), despite Krashen’s promotion of “Monitor-free” production.  Even if a teacher were to set off in this direction and begin to introduce a “structure of the day” (p. 72), once again there is no theoretical basis for what to choose.  Perhaps the most glaring omission is the lack of any reference to the Natural Order Hypothesis, which as noted previously, contained no realistically usable information for designing curriculum.         Judging from the emphasis on exposure in the Natural Approach and the pattern of Krashen’s later publications, which focused on the Input Hypothesis, the solution to curriculum problems seems to be massive listening.  However, as noted before, other than i + 1, there is no theoretical basis for overall curriculum design regarding comprehension.  Once again, the teacher is forced to rely on a somewhat dubious “order of acquisition”, which is based on production anyway.  Further, the link from exposure to production targets is tenuous at best.  Consider the dialog presented on p.87: . . . to the question What is the man doing in this picture? the students may reply run.  The instructor expands the answer.  Yes, that’s right, he’s running.

Featured Languages

• Foreign Language
• Founder's Blog
• General Announcements
• ILL Office Life
• iPhone Applications
• Language Acquistion
• Language Learning
• Language Learning Software
• Language Teaching
• Languages Courses
• Learn Arabic
• Learn Chinese
• Learn English
• Learn French
• Learn German
• Learn Italian
• Learn Japanese
• Learn Language
• Learn Russian
• Learn Spanish
• Learning & Development
• Life at Innovative
• Linguistics
• Media Coverage
• Second Language
• Second Language Acquistion
• Second Language Learning Methods

Recent Posts

• April 2024: Mt. Mitake and Musashi Mitake Shrine
• Snow Sports in Yuzawa Niigata
• Hiking Adventure in Hadano
• The Role of Immersion in Language Acquisition: Living and Breathing the Language
• Top 4 Ways That Peninsular Spanish And Mexican Spanish Are Different
• October 2023
• September 2023
• January 2023
• August 2020
• January 2020
• December 2019
• November 2019
• October 2019
• August 2019
• February 2019
• January 2018
• November 2016
• October 2016
• August 2016
• February 2016
• January 2016
• December 2015
• September 2015
• January 2015
• September 2014
• August 2014
• January 2014
• December 2013
• October 2013
• September 2013
• August 2013
• January 2013
• December 2012
• November 2012
• October 2012
• February 2012
• January 2012
• December 2011
• September 2011
• August 2011
• October 2010
• November 2009
• October 2009
• September 2009
• August 2009
• January 2009
• December 2008

Stephen Krashen’s Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis

Stephen Krashen is a linguist, educational researcher, and activist who is Professor Emeritus at the University of Southern California. In the 1990s, as the state of California became increasingly hostile to bilingual education, Krashen was instrumental in advocating the merits of learning a second language. His Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis is the centerpiece of his academic work.

Krashen’s Acquisition-Learning hypothesis revolves around the concept of “comprehensible input,” a term which essentially means “messages that can be understood.” Comprehensible input is best received when the learner is hearing something that he or she wants or needs to know. Krashen differentiates language learning from language acquisition, emphasizing that while learning is a formalized process, such as that which occurs in a classroom, acquisition happens informally, when a person is relaxed. He identifies a “silent period” during language acquisition, a time during which the student listens but is not comfortable speaking.

The Acquisition-Learning hypothesis acknowledges that students learn faster as they are given more comprehensible input. Inversely, a lack of comprehensible input delays language acquisition. Total Immersion Language Teaching, for example, succeeds so well is because it provides lots of comprehensible input. When people are immersed in a culture in which they do not know the language, they have an intense need and desire to speak that language. Such students are not interested in grammar lessons from a book but, instead, want to hear “comprehensible input” about that culture that teaches them what they need to know to survive.

Krashen’s acquisition-learning theory has much in common with both the communicative approach to language study and Noam Chomsky’s theory of generative grammar. The idea of “comprehensible input” is simply another way of saying that students learn languages best when they are learning about things that interest them. This idea is the essence of the communicative approach. Krashen’s Natural Order Hypothesis says that we acquire the rules of grammar in a logical order. This is similar to generative grammar’s hypothesis that the basic foundations of human grammar are deeply embedded in the human brain.

Stephen Krashen has been criticized for not having sufficient empirical evidence to back up his theories. Gregg accused Krashen of using “ill-defined terms.” McLaughlin critiques Krashen’s theories as being weak and imprecise. However, Krashen has conducted extensive research to determine the validity of his theories, and his dedication to promoting bilingual education has had undeniable worth. His frequent media appearances have pushed bilingualism to the forefront of public awareness.

Krashen is regarded true linguistic theorist, with over 30 years of research and hundreds of published articles and multiple books. Stephen Krashen’s passionate work has left an indelible mark on the future of bilingual education in America.

Some of Dr. Stephen Krashen’s research is available for free at www.sdkrashen.com , benikomason.net , http://web.ntpu.edu.tw/~lwen/publications.html , www.IJFLT.com .

Tags: , acquisition-learning hypothesis , generative grammar hypothesis , krashen , Natural Order Hypothesis , noam chomsky , steven , Total Immersion Language Teaching

This entry was posted on Sunday, October 25th, 2009 at 6:30 pm and is filed under Language Acquistion , Language Learning , Linguistics , Second Language Acquistion , Second Language Learning Methods . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response , or trackback from your own site.

16 Responses to “Stephen Krashen’s Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis”

There are so many great methods for language learning and believe me when I say that there is no magic program for mastering a language in 30 days. Books claiming fluency in 15 minutes a day can give new learners false hope. The reality is that becoming proficient in any language requires a lot of time and work. It requires diligence. However, there are a lot of things that a person can do to help advance their learning and this blog is devoted to sharing those ideas.

We just couldnt leave your website before saying that we really enjoyed the quality information you offer to your visitors… Will be back often to check up on new stuff you post!

How To Speak Spanish…

Since I knew not a word of Spanish, I practiced speaking English the Spanish way– Vanessa’ s way. “ S” sounding words were replaced with a“ th”: “ Sour Patch Kids” became“ Thour Path Kidth.” “ Hey Vanessa, push me on the swing” …

Thank you for this post. I agree with this. I’ve been doing a little bit of research about language learning and this is what I often read, that a person would learn faster if she reads articles or books in her targeted language, and on that topics interests her. Which makes sense if you think about it. Think when you were still in school, you are more alert if you are interested in the topic being discussed, and this makes you want to learn more — just like in language learning.

Great information. The “relaxed” part especially rings true. Thanks!

I really don’t agree with this particular post. Even so, I did looked in Google and I have found out that you are right and I was thinking in the improper way. Keep on producing quality material such as this.

Stephen Krashen is right. Immersion is how you acquire a language; your language and ANY other language.

You didn’t learn English because you studied it for 12 years; you already had it all in your mind by the age of 5 because of immersion. So much exposure made it become part of you.

Although there are certain tools that accelerate the acquiring process (like SRS software), immersion is the key. And all people that say it’s wrong are teachers or language institute owners that want their innefective businesses to stay here!

Krashen’s theories are intuitively appealing but unfalsifiable (meaning there’s no way to show if he’s right or wrong). There’s plenty out there on WHY this is so. (Google Kevin Gregg, for example.)

My main objection, as a long-term (20+ years) language teacher is that his “input only” stance has led a lot of teachers to believe that they don’t have to know jack about how the language works - all they have to do is provide enough “comprehensible input” (whatever that means) and their students will end up with high proficiency in English. If they fail, it’s then because the input wasn’t rich enough? Comprehensible enough? No, if they fail, it could be because of a hundred other reasons, not the least of which is that adults are not children. Not biologically, not socially, not anyhow. So you cannot compare L1 acquisition with L2 acquisition, except in the most banal ways.

Krashen does this bait and switch all the time in his writings; whenever it suits him, he picks the evidence that supports his “theories” (which he arrogantly calls “THE theory of second language acquisition” - and no, “kanji”, he is in NO way “the father of language acquisition”, since HIS theoretical daddies are Chomsky, Seliger, Brown etc etc) and trashes everyone else without ONCE, EVER, in 30 years, actually defining any of his major constructs in ways that can be tested.

Compared to chew-your-own-arm-off grammar translation, maybe his Natural Approach had something going for it; compared to any halfway decent communicative teacher, he’s old hat. Forget him and move on.

Good day! Would you mind if I share your blog with my twitter group? There’s a lot of people that I think would really appreciate your content. Please let me know. Many thanks

@ James H: First, thanks for pointing out that Krashen’s theories derive from the works of Chomsky, Seliger, Brown… and well, others. I didn’t know that. (I’m the ‘kanji’ guy hehe)

Now, you want your students to achieve proficiency in the language you are “teaching” them? Then teach them to become independent learners. Encourage them to read and listen to material on topics they are actually interested in. Suggest them to use dictionaries and other online resources to expand their vocab and find the meaning of words they don’t understand.

In class, have them read and listen to audio in the target language too. Play videos or a movie in class if you can. If they ask about words they don’t understand describe the meaning of them and also provide example sentences. Basically, focus your classes on giving your students lots of native media (comprehensible input is a very relative term, really).

I’m no teacher and you have been working on the field for two decades. However, if I were a student, I would rather have this kind of experience instead of a boring class focused on grammar explanations, drills, boring textbooks and a bunch of tests. An experience where the student is having fun and reading/listening to content by his/her own will is MUCH more effective than the traditional methodologies.

This blog provides great information and well organized format to look for the related topics.

Although Stephen Krashen has been criticized for not having enough evidence for his theories, but I certainly believe that the five hypothesis do have influential effects for the field of second language acquisition.

rich amor …

[…]nice article man, thanks for sharing your idea[…]…

It’s really a nice and helpful piece of information. I’m glad that you shared this helpful info with us. Please keep us informed like this. I want to say it would supply up to .

Tech News…

[…]I simply could not go away your site before suggesting that I really loved the usual information an individual supply on your guests? Is gonna be back often in order to check up on new posts[…]…

check this link, with confident for promotion code

Magnificent site. A lot of helpful information here. I am sending it to some buddies ans also sharing in delicious. And naturally, thank you on your sweat!

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Stephen Krashen's SLA theories - A critical Review

Stephen Krashen's research about Second Language Acquisition (SLA) is widely discussed until current days. It influenced many researchers to pursue studies in the field and, for this reason, it is important to critically evaluate his ideas and methods. This essay aims at discussing Stephen Krashen theory of SLA, focusing on the five models that compose it.

Related Papers

Rohani Motivator

Liaquat Channa

Firth and Wagner's publication titled " On Discourse, Communication, and (some) Fundamental Concepts in SLA " was published in 1997 in the Modern Language Journal, volume 81, no. 3. The SLA community received the publication very well. The paper came out to be the seminal publication due to its innovative ideas. The paper not only challenged the mainstream Second Language Acquisition (SLA) Theory but it also argued for reconfiguring boundaries of the theory as it could explain SLA in a balanced and comprehensive manner. The papers that supported, but they had their own perspectives, and the papers that opposed Firth and Wagner's position accompanied the Firth and Wagner's publication in the same volume and number of the Modern Language Journal. This review paper examines the important debate with the following two aims to understand (a) how new perspectives are suggested for approaching SLA phenomenon and theorizing it and (b) how such debates be considered. This review paper is divided into four parts. The first part presents Firth and Wagner's arguments in detail. The second part deals with the objections leveled against Firth and Wagner's arguments by other scholars viewing SLA from the dominant positivist narrative. The third part presents the views of those scholars who support Firth and Wagner but have their own agenda. The final part examines and sums up the debate. The review paper points out that rather than viewing the SLA theoretical debates through " either/or " or " right/wrong " binary, it may be useful to view all of them as opposing, challenging, and competing sides of the same spectrum.

For Didactics and Applied Linguistics MA students

Lawrence Jun Zhang

Kathy M Escamilla

This essay serves as a summary of several of the seminal theories of second language acquisition. It is meant to be used as a supplemental resource for those users who are looking for a more detailed description of the theories mentioned throughout the module. While the perspectives discussed here are theoretical in nature, they are grounded in the needs of

Luz Villarroel Cornejo

Language and Education

Nicole Ziegler

Giulia Borelli

The aim of this paper is to give an overview of Second Language Acquisition from its beginning in the 1960s to the early 2000s. First, a historical excursus is provided. Next, a distinction is made between cognitive and linguistic fields of research and some relevant studies on language learning are analysed in detail.

Journal of Applied Linguistics

Darman Pangaribuan

This article makes the case that earlier explanations of SLA shouldn&#39;t be discounted. Instead, when combined, they offer a more comprehensive and in-depth understanding of the acquisition process. The ability of second language acquisition (SLA) to naturally adjust to various situations present in both internal and external settings provides evidence in favor of the assertion that SLA is a sophisticated adaptive system. On the basis of this comprehension, frequently debated second language theories, such as behaviorism, will be viewed as explanations for individual components of SLA. Excerpts from a few English language learning histories are given as examples of how students explain their learning processes in order to support this idea. The last assertion is that SLA should be seen as a chaotic/complex system. Keywords: Second Language Acquisition; Language Learning Histories

RELATED PAPERS

Norman I. Badler

sarbjit singh brar

XIII Jornadas Nacionales. VIII Congreso Iberoamericano de estudios de género: horizontes revolucionarios, voces y cuerpos en conflicto.

Guadalupe Gonçalves da Costa Lima

Düzce Üniversitesi Bilim ve Teknoloji Dergisi

MUSTAFA ÇUBUK

arXiv: Materials Science

Debjit Ghoshal

Bahman Ramavandi

John Sebastian Gallego Martinez

Zeitschrift für interkulturelle Germanistik

Michael Fisch

Anda Dogaru

Salvador Moreno-Lopez

Acta Medica Martiniana

Jozef Michalik

BARRIOS URBANOMARGINALES: espacio para la economía popular y solidaria

Sascha Quint , Roberto Hidalgo Flor

Estudios Internacionales

Diego armando Diaz alvarado

E3S Web of Conferences

Nataliia Kravchuk

Jurnal Teknik Informasi dan Komputer

Dodi Hidayat

Pol Hoorelbeke

Safety and Reliability

adi soeprijanto

Mathematical Biology and Bioinformatics

Alexei Finkelstein

Achim M Loske

Emerging Infectious Diseases

Costas Tsiamis

hgvfgd ghtgf

Joseph Mukendi

SEBHA UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF PURE & APPLIED SCIENCES

Khaled Elsherif

Helen Epstein

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Search Our Store:

Acquisition / learning (krashen’s hypotheses series, #3 of 9).

All of the posts about Stephen Krashen’s Hypotheses are available  here .

(Previous post: The Monitor Hypothesis)

The next post in this series (#4/9),  The Natural Order of Acquisition , is found here .

A: The A cquisition/Learning Hypothesis

Very important for teachers to get

“Language acquisition and language learning are two different things.”

Language acquisition is an unconscious process. Acquisition happens when the student is hearing the language or reading in the language but is focused on something other than on the language itself as subject matter. Acquisition happens when the student is focused on the message.

Language learning is conscious, focused and purposeful. It can feel difficult. Ironically, what passes for learning is often nothing more than short term memorization that is quickly forgotten.

Acquisition is a by-product of hearing or reading comprehended messages in the target language. Acquisition tends to be long term. Only language that has been acquired can be used instantly and readily. Anyone of normal cognitive ability can acquire language, but consciously learning a language by methodically memorizing vocabulary and drilling grammar rules can be done by only a limited percentage of students–and many researchers would say that even those few have actually acquired the language by meaningful comprehensible input along the way.

Here are some charts comparing Acquisition and Learning in theory, in teaching and in learning:

The Acquisition/Learning Hypothesis highlights two very different ideas about language teaching and learning that can be summarized as follows:

Input leads to output.  Acquisition-based teaching with meaningful comprehensible input.

Output leads to output.   Traditional learning-based teaching with grammar rules and output-based “practice”.

Read more about the acquisition / learning distinction in  Understanding TPRS .

APPLYING THE ACQUISITION/LEARNING HYPOTHESIS IN THE CLASSROOM :

• Minimize explicit grammar. Keep the acquisition/learning distinction in mind and go light on explicit teaching and learning of grammar—especially with younger students.
• Emphasize acquisition over learning. Focus on acquisition-based activities: input above output.
• Focus on the message. Remember that practice looks different under the acquisition model. In a traditional classroom with a learning-based model, students are shown a grammar rule and then they practice it. This rarely results in fluent language use and the rules are quickly forgotten after the unit and test. Students acquire the grammar and vocabulary of the language without being consciously aware as they focus on messages. With enough input, students begin to develop an ear for the language. They are able to apply grammar rules because “it just sounds right” to them.

Share This Article:

Leave a comment cancel reply.

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Not logged in

• ✍️Contributions
• ✨Create account

✨ Creating an account only takes 20 seconds, and doesn’t require any personal info.

If you’ve got one already, please log in .🤝

Acquisition–learning hypothesis

• 📄Glossary entry

Page actions

• Edit source

The acquisition–learning hypothesis is a hypothesis that forms part of Krashen’s theory of second language acquisition . [1] It states that there are two independent ways in which we develop our linguistic skills: acquisition and learning . According to Krashen acquisition is more important than learning.

• 1 Acquisition
• 3 Implications for teachers
• 4 References

Acquisition [ edit | edit source ]

Acquisition of language is a subconscious process and the learner is unaware of the process taking place. Once the new knowledge has been acquired, the learner is actually unaware of possessing such knowledge.

This is analogous to the way in which children learn their native language .

Learning [ edit | edit source ]

Learning a language involves formal instruction and is therefore a conscious process. New language forms are represented and possibly contrasted consciously by the learner as "rules" and “ grammar .” These "rules" - while known by the student - may well have no actual impact on the language produced by the student.

A good example would be the third person “s" - a structure "learnt" in the first few weeks of any English course but frequently not “acquired" until very much later.

Implications for teachers [ edit | edit source ]

It is clear that as teachers we want to maximise our student’s opportunities to acquire language. Consequently, if we accept the hypothesis then we need to spend more time using authentic language with our students as opposed to teaching them explicit grammar rules.

On the other hand, many students equate learning grammar rules with learning the language and attempting to re-focus teaching away from this method may meet with resistance.

References [ edit | edit source ]

• ↑ Schütz, Ricardo. “Stephen Krashen’s Theory of Second Language Acquisition.” English Made in Brazil
• Language acquisition hypotheses
• Language acquisition/learning
• ✍️Contribute
• 🌳Content tree
• 🔀Random entry

Conversations

• 🔀Random set
• 🪄Special pages
• Cite this page

User page tools

• ➡️What links here
• 🕸️Related changes
• 🖨️Printable version
• 🔗Permanent link
• Page information

📁Categories

Hidden categories.

• Teflpedia glossary entry Acquisition–learning hypothesis was last edited on 1 December 2023, at 08:32. 🔖Cite this page: General info - Specific citation 🔍 General search tools : Bing - DuckDuckGo - Google 🔍 Academic search tools : ERIC - Google Scholar - Semantic Scholar
• © Copyrights : Teflpedia content is licensed Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 or under compatible licences, except where noted.
• Privacy policy
• General disclaimer