Add new comment

Language Acquisition: An Overview

By
Kristina Robertson, Karen Ford
On this page
Stages of Language Acquisition
Instructional Strategies
Recommendations
Hot links

"One generation plants the trees; another gets the shade."

Chinese Proverb
When I read The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams, I remember being
fascinated by the "babel fish." These were fish, who when dropped in a person's ear,
would provide immediate translation of any language, thriving on sound waves and
converting them into comprehensible language.
Wouldn't it be just great if learning a new language were that easy (despite the "yuck"
factor)? While we do have some technology that provides translation into a variety of
languages, it often fails to translate accurately due to the complexity of language.
Effective communication requires so much more than just being able to translate
vocabulary words it requires knowledge of intonation, dialect, and intent, and a
nuanced understanding of word use, expression, and a language's cultural context. For
example, one online translation application I tried translated "Fall Events" as "fall down
events" in Spanish because it didn't know that I was referring to events in autumn.
So, without a babel fish or perfect technology, we are left with the old-fashioned way of
learning a new language, which requires time, effort, and patience. How much time,
effort, and patience depends a lot on the individual who is learning, as well as the
learning environment and situation, but language researchers have developed a general
outline of language acquisition that helps explain the process that language learners go
through to develop skills in a foreign language. In this article, I will provide an overview

to the stages of language acquisition, and offer strategies designed to support ELL
instruction at different stages of language acquisition.

Stages of Language Acquisition

Researchers define language acquisition into two categories: first-language acquisition
and second-language acquisition. First-language acquisition is a universal process
regardless of home language. Babies listen to the sounds around them, begin to imitate
them, and eventually start producing words. Second-language acquisition assumes
knowledge in a first language and encompasses the process an individual goes through
as he or she learns the elements of a new language, such as vocabulary, phonological
components, grammatical structures, and writing systems.

The Six Stages of Second-Language Acquisition

Preproduction

This is also called "the silent period," when the student takes in the new language but
does not speak it. This period often lasts six weeks or longer, depending on the
individual.

Early
production

The individual begins to speak using short words and sentences, but the emphasis is
still on listening and absorbing the new language. There will be many errors in the
early production stage.

Speech
Emergent

Speech becomes more frequent, words and sentences are longer, but the individual
still relies heavily on context clues and familiar topics. Vocabulary continues to
increase and errors begin to decrease, especially in common or repeated interactions.

Beginning
Fluency

Speech is fairly fluent in social situations with minimal errors. New contexts and
academic language are challenging and the individual will struggle to express
themselves due to gaps in vocabulary and appropriate phrases.

Intermediate
Fluency

Communicating in the second language is fluent, especially in social language

situations. The individual is able to speak almost fluently in new situations or in
academic areas, but there will be gaps in vocabulary knowledge and some unknown
expressions. There are very few errors, and the individual is able to demonstrate
higher order thinking skills in the second language such as offering an opinion or
analyzing a problem.

Advanced
Fluency

The individual communicates fluently in all contexts and can maneuver successfully
in new contexts and when exposed to new academic information. At this stage, the
individual may still have an accent and use idiomatic expressions incorrectly at times,
but the individual is essentially fluent and comfortable communicating in the second
language.

How long does it take for a language learner to go through these stages? Just as in any
other learning situation, it depends on the individual. One of the major contributors to
accelerated second language learning is the strength of first language skills. Language
researchers such as Jim Cummins, Catherine Snow, Lily Wong Filmore and Stephen
Krashen have studied this topic in a variety of ways for many years. The general
consensus is that it takes between five to seven years for an individual to achieve
advanced fluency. This generally applies to individuals who have strong first language
and literacy skills. If an individual has not fully developed first language and literacy
skills, it may take between seven to ten years to reach advanced fluency. It is very
important to note that every ELL student comes with his or her own unique language
and education background, and this will have an impact on their English learning
process.
It is also important to keep in mind that the understood goal for American ELL students
is Advanced Fluency, which includes fluency in academic contexts as well as social
contexts. Teachers often get frustrated when ELL students appear to be fluent because

they have strong social English skills, but then they do not participate well in academic
projects and discussions. Teachers who are aware of ELL students' need to develop
academic language fluency in English will be much better prepared to assist those
students in becoming academically successful. (Learn more about academic language
in Colorn Colorado's academic language resource section.)

Instructional Strategies
If you have ELL students in your classroom, it is more than likely there will be students
at a variety of stages in the language acquisition process. What can teachers do to
differentiate instruction according to language level? Here are some suggestions for
appropriate instructional strategies according to stages of language acquisition.

Language Stage

Strategies

Emphasize listening comprehension by using read-alouds and

music.

Use visuals and have students point to pictures or act out

vocabulary.

Pre-production

Speak slowly and use shorter words, but use correct English
phrasing.
Model "survival" language by saying and showing the meaning.
For example, say, "Open your book," and then open a book while the
student observes.

Gesture, point and show as much as possible.

More advanced classmates who speak the same language can
support new learning through interpretation.

Avoid excessive error correction. Reinforce learning by modeling

correct language usage when students make mistakes.

Continue the strategies listed above, but add opportunities for

students to produce simple language.

Ask students to point to pictures and say the new word.

Early Production

Ask yes/no and either/or questions.

Have students work in pairs or small groups to discuss a problem.

Have literate students write short sentences or words in graphic organizers.

Model a phrase and have the student repeat it and add

modifications. Teacher says, "This book is very interesting." The student
repeats it and says, "This book is very boring." Continue with as many
modifications as possible.

Avoid excessive error correction. Reinforce learning by modeling

correct usage.

Speech Emergent

Introduce more academic language and skills by using the same

techniques listed above, but beginning to use more academic vocabulary.

Introduce new academic vocabulary and model how to use it in a

sentence.

Provide visuals and make connections with student's background

knowledge as much as possible.

Ask questions that require a short answer and are fairly literal.
Introduce charts and graphs by using easily understood information
such as a class survey of food preferences.

Have students re-tell stories or experiences and have another

student write them down. The ELL student can bring these narratives
home to read and reinforce learning.

In writing activities, provide the student with a fill-in-the blank

version of the assignment with the necessary vocabulary listed on the
page.

Provide minimal error correction. Focus only on correction that

directly interferes with meaning. Reinforce learning by modeling the

correct usage.

Have students work in pairs and groups to discuss content.

During instruction, have students do a "Think, pair, share"to give

the student an opportunity to process the new language and concept.

Ask questions that require a full response with explanation. If you

do not understand the student's explanation, ask for clarification by
paraphrasing and asking the student if you heard them correctly.

Ask questions that require inference and justification of the answer.

Ask students if they agree or disagree with a statement and why.

Model more advanced academic language structures such as, "I

think," "In my opinion," and "When you compare." Have students repeat
the phrases in context.

Beginning Fluency

Re-phrase incorrect statements in correct English, or ask the

student if they know another way to say it.

Introduce nuances of language such as when to use more formal

English and how to interact in conversations.

Have students make short presentations, providing them with the

phrases and language used in presentations ("Today I will be talking
about") and giving them opportunities to practice the presentation with
partners before getting in front of the class.

Continue to provide visual support and vocabulary development.

Correct errors that interfere with meaning, and pre-identify errors

that will be corrected in student writing, such as verb-tense agreement.
Only correct the errors agreed upon.

You may want to assist in improving pronunciation by asking a

student to repeat key vocabulary and discussing how different languages
have different sounds.

Identify key academic vocabulary and phrases and model them.

Ask students to produce the language in class activities.
Use graphic organizers and thinking maps and check to make sure
the student is filling them in with details. Challenge the student to add
more.

Help the student make connections with new vocabulary by

instructing him or her in the etymology of words or word families such as,
"important, importance, importantly."

Intermediate Fluency

Create assessments that give students an opportunity to present in

English after they have an opportunity to practice in pairs or small groups.

Introduce more academic skills, such as brainstorming, prioritizing,

categorization, summarizing and compare and contrast.

Ask students to identify vocabulary by symbols that show whether

the student "knows it really well, kind of knows it, or doesn't know it at
all." Help students focus on strategies to get the meaning of new words.

Have a "guessing time" during silent reading where they circle

words they don't know and write down their guess of the meaning. Check
the results as a class.

Introduce idioms and give examples of how to use them

appropriately. For example, "Let's wind up our work." What's another way
you could use the phrase "wind up?"

Starting at this level, students need more correction/feedback, even

on errors that do not directly affect meaning. They should be developing a
more advanced command of syntax, pragmatics, pronunciation, and other
elements that do not necessarily affect meaning but do contribute to oral
fluency.

It may also be helpful to discuss language goals with the student so

you can assist in providing modeling and correction in specified areas.

Advanced Fluency

Students at this level are close to native language fluency and can
interact well in a variety of situations. Continue to develop language skills
as gaps arise by using the strategies listed above. Although the student may
seem completely fluent, he or she still benefit from visual support,

building on background knowledge, pre-teaching vocabulary and making

connections between content areas.

Offer challenge activities to expand the student's vocabulary

knowledge such as identifying antonyms, synonyms and the use of a
thesaurus and dictionary.

Demonstrate effective note-taking and provide a template.

Offer error correction on academic work and on oral language.

Because students at this stage have achieved near-native fluency, they
benefit from support in fine-tuning their oral and written language skills.

Recommendations
Scaffold instruction so students receive comprehensible input and are able to
successfully complete tasks at their level. Instructional scaffolding works just like the
scaffolding used in building. It holds you at the level needed until you are ready to take
it down. Scaffolding includes asking students questions in formats that give them
support in answering, such as yes/no questions, one-word identifications, or short
answers. It also means providing the context for learning by having visuals or other
hands-on items available to support content learning. Also, when practicing a new
academic skill such as skimming, scaffolding involves using well-known material so the
students aren't struggling with the information while they are trying to learn a new skill.
Scaffolding includes whatever it takes to make the instruction meaningful for the
student in order to provide a successful learning experience.
Use cognates to help Spanish speakers learn English and derive meaning from
content. The Colorn Colorado website has a helpful list of common cognates in Spanish
for teachers to reference. Teachers can explicitly point out cognates for Spanish
speaking students so they begin to realize that this is a useful way for them to increase
their English vocabulary.
Explicit vocabulary instruction is very important in accelerating ELL students'
English language development. Textbooks include lists of new vocabulary words based
on grade-level content, but ELL students need further vocabulary instruction. There are
many words in a text that may affect the ELL student's comprehension of the text that
a teacher may assume he or she knows. It is important for teachers to develop ways to
help students identify the words they don't know, as well as strategies for getting their

meaning. Of course it is also beneficial if teachers reinforce the language structures or

common associations of vocabulary. For example, "squeak" is a sound that often goes
with "mouse" or "door" and it may be stated as, "squeak, squeaky, squeaks, or
squeaked."
Error correction should be done very intentionally and appropriately according to
student language ability, as noted earlier in the article. Students who are just beginning
to speak English are already nervous about using their new language skills and constant
correction will not improve their ability; it will just make them want to withdraw. I
inform students in advance of the type of errors I will correct, such as "missing articles"
and "third person agreement," and then those are the only errors I check. In my class,
I do not correct the errors; I circle the mistakes and return the paper to the student.
They are responsible for correcting the errors and returning the paper to receive more
points. Most of the time the students can make the corrections themselves when they
see the area I've circled, but if they have difficulty, I guide them as they make the
correction. In this way, I feel there is a manageable amount of correction information to
work with and the student will actually learn from doing the correction.
Learning another language. If you learn the language(s) your students speak, they
will be thrilled to hear you try it with them. I learned how to say "good morning" in
Somali and had to practice for an hour before I felt comfortable saying it. When I did I
was rewarded with the big grins of students as they entered the room. They were
excited to teach me other phrases as well, and we discussed how much English they
had learned since they arrived in the country. They were very proud to think of how
much progress they'd made.
Seek the experts in your building or district who can offer you guidance on effective
instructional strategies for your ELL students. There are many teachers who have
taught ELL students in your content area, have taught a certain population of students,
or are trained ESL or bilingual teachers who have a lot of advice and support to offer.
Don't hesitate to look for support when you are challenged to reach students who are
learning English. This can be especially true when you have a "pre-production" or
"beginning level" student and you are responsible for grade level content instruction.
Visit the hotlinks section for this article for more information on specific research
regarding language acquisition and recommended instructional strategies. You can also
search the Colorn Colorado educator information for useful information and resources
to assist you in meeting ELL student needs.
ELL teachers encounter students with a variety of backgrounds and abilities, and until
the babel fish comes into existence, they will need to have flexibility, creativity and skill

in order to help ELL students make meaning from the new language and content they
are learning. An understanding of the language acquisition process and levels will help
teachers tailor instruction to meet the needs of a diverse group of learners. Students
will benefit from everything teachers do to support the development of their language
skills while teaching them grade level content. Together teachers and students develop
their understanding of each other, the world around them, and the language that
connects us all.

Language acquisition
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Language learning" redirects here. For the processing of language by the human brain,
see Learning languages. For the journal, see Language Learning (journal). For formal instruction in
language, see Language education.

Linguistics
Theoretical

Cognitive

Generative

Quantitative

Functional theories of grammar

Phonology

Morphology

Morphophonology

Syntax

Lexis

Semantics

Pragmatics

Graphemics

Orthography

Semiotics
Descriptive

Anthropological

Comparative

Historical

Etymology

Graphetics

Phonetics

Sociolinguistics
Applied and experimental

Computational

Contrastive

Evolutionary

Forensic

Internet
Language acquisition

Second-language acquisition

Language assessment

Language development

Language education

Linguistic anthropology

Neurolinguistics

Psycholinguistics
Related articles

History of linguistics

Linguistic prescription

List of linguists
Unsolved linguistics problems
Linguistics portal

Part of a series on

Human growth and development

Stages

Embryo

Fetus

Infant

Toddler
Early childhood

Child
Preadolescence

Adolescence

Adult
Middle age

Old age
Biological milestones

Fertilization

Childbirth

Walking

Language acquisition

Puberty

Ageing

Death

Language acquisition is the process by which humans acquire the capacity to perceive and
comprehend language, as well as to produce and use wordsand sentences to communicate.
Language acquisition is one of the quintessential human traits,[1] because non-humans do not
communicate by using language.[2] Language acquisition usually refers to first-language
acquisition, which studies infants' acquisition of their native language. This is distinguished
from second-language acquisition, which deals with the acquisition (in both children and adults) of
additional languages.
The capacity to successfully use language requires one to acquire a range of tools
including phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, and an extensivevocabulary. Language can be
vocalized as in speech, or manual as in sign. The human language capacity is represented in the
brain. Even though the human language capacity is finite, one can say and understand an infinite
number of sentences, which is based on a syntactic principle called recursion. Evidence suggests
that every individual has three recursive mechanisms that allow sentences to go indeterminately.
These three mechanisms are:relativization, complementation and coordination.[3] Furthermore, there

are actually two main guiding principles in first-language acquisition, that is,speech
perception always precedes speech production and the gradually evolving system by which a child
learns a language is built up one step at a time, beginning with the distinction between
individual phonemes.[4]

Stephen Krashen's Theory of Second Language Acquisition

Assimilao Natural -- o Construtivismo Comunicativo no Ensino de Lnguas
Ricardo Schtz
Available since: April 1998
Last revision: June 12, 2014

"Language acquisition does not require extensive

use of conscious grammatical rules, and does not
require tedious drill."Stephen Krashen
"Acquisition requires meaningful interaction in
the target language - natural communication - in
which speakers are concerned not with the form
of their utterances but with the messages they are
conveying and understanding." Stephen Krashen
"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
"In the real world, conversations with sympathetic native speakers who are willing to
help the acquirer understand are very helpful." Stephen Krashen
Introduction
Stephen Krashen (University of Southern California) is an expert in the field of
linguistics, specializing in theories of language acquisition and development. Much of

his recent research has involved the study of non-English and bilingual language
acquisition. During the past 20 years, he has published well over 100 books and
articles and has been invited to deliver over 300 lectures at universities throughout the
United States and Canada.
Krashen's widely known and well accepted theory of second language acquisition has
had a large impact in all areas of second language research and teaching since the
1980s.
Summary of Krashen's Theory of Second Language Acquisition
Krashen's theory of second language acquisition consists of five main hypotheses:
the Acquisition-Learning hypothesis,
the Monitor hypothesis,
the Input hypothesis,
the Natural Order hypothesis,
and the Affective Filter hypothesis.
The Acquisition-Learning distinction is the
most important of all the hypotheses in
Krashen's theory and the most widely known
and influential among linguists and language
practitioners.
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

AS TRS HIPTESES MAIS IMPORTANTES

DA TEORIA DE KRASHEN, E SUA
INTERRELAO
A hiptese acquisition-learning, a
hiptese monitor e a
hiptese inputrepresentam a essncia da
teoria de Krashen.
De acordo com sua teoria, acquisition
responsvel pelo entendimento e pela
capacidade de comunicao criativa:
habilidades desenvolvidas
subconscientemente. Isto ocorre atravs da
familiarizao com a caracterstica fontica da
lngua, sua estruturao de frases, seu
vocabulrio, tudo decorrente de situaes
reais, bem como pela descoberta e
assimilao de diferenas culturais e pela
aceitao e adaptao nova cultura.
Learning depende de esforo intelectual e

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'. (Veja o texto ao
lado e tambm outra pgina em portugus
sobreAcquisition/Learning).
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-

procura produzir conhecimento consciente a

respeito da estrutura da lngua e de suas
irregularidades, e preconiza a memorizao
de vocabulrio fora de situaes reais. Este
conhecimento atua na funo de
monitoramento da fala. Entretanto, o efeito
deste monitoramento sobre a performance da
pessoa, depende muito do perfil psicolgico
de cada um.
Veja aqui mais sobre os conceitos
de acquisition e learning.
A hiptese monitor explica a relao
entre acquisition e learning ao definir a
influncia deste ltimo sobre o primeiro. Os
esforos espontneos e criativos de
comunicao, decorrentes de nossa
capacidade natural de assimilar lnguas
quando em contato com elas, so policiados e
disciplinados pelo conhecimento consciente
das regras gramaticais da lngua e de suas
excees.
Os efeitos deste monitoramento sobre
pessoas com diferentes caractersticas de
personalidade sero vrios. Pessoas que
tendem introverso, falta de
autoconfiana, ou ao perfeccionismo, pouco
se beneficiaro de um conhecimento da
estrutura da lngua e de suas irregularidades.
Pelo contrrio, no caso de lnguas com alto
grau de irregularidade (como o ingls),
podero desenvolver um bloqueio que
compromete a espontaneidade devido
conscincia da alta probabilidade de
cometerem erros.
Pessoas que tendem extroverso, a falar
muito, de forma espontnea e impensada,
tambm pouco se beneficiaro de learning,
uma vez que a funo de monitoramento
quase inoperante, est submetida a uma
personalidade intempestiva que se manifesta
sem maior cautela. Os nicos que se
beneficiam de learning, so as pessoas mais
normais e equilibradas, que sabem aplicar a
funo de monitoramento de forma moderada.
Mesmo assim, numa situao real de
comunicao, o monitoramento s funcionar
se ocorrerem 3 condies simultaneamente:
- Tempo suficiente: que a pessoa disponha

confidence is frequently related to the overuse of the 'monitor'.

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 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'. We can then
define 'Comprehensible Input' as the target
language that the learner would not be able to
produce but can still understand. It
goes beyondthe choice of words and involves
presentation of context, explanation,
rewording of unclear parts, the use of visual
cues and meaning negotiation. The meaning
successfully conveyed constitutes the learning
experience.

de tempo suficiente para avaliar as

alternativas com base nas regras incidentes.
- Preocupao com a forma: que a pessoa
concentre ateno no apenas no ato da
comunicao, no contedo da mensagem,
mas tambm e principalmente na forma.
- Conhecimento da regra: que a pessoa
tenha conhecimento da regra que se aplica ao
caso.
A hiptese input ajuda a explicar como o
aprendiz assimila uma segunda lngua atravs
de acquisition. Comprehensible input
linguagem inteligvel o elemento chave
para que ocorra a assimilao do idioma. O
aprendiz progride na medida em que recebe
input inteligvel. Linguagem inteligvel aquela
que se situa num nvel ligeiramente acima do
nvel de proficincia do aprendiz. a
linguagem que ele no conseguiria produzir
mas que ainda consegue entender. Vai alm
da simples escolha de vocabulrio. Pressupe
contextualizao, explicao, uso de recursos
visuais, linguagem corporal, negociao de
significados e recolocao de pontos obscuros
em outras palavras. As ideias efetivamente
transmitidas constituem a experincia de
aprendizado.
Veja abaixo uma demonstrao em vdeo do
Prof. Krashen sobrecomprehensible input.

See here an enlightening video by Krashen about comprehensible input.

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 structures follows a 'natural order' which is predictable.
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, and although the agreement between individual acquirers was
not always 100% in the studies, there were statistically significant similarities that
reinforced the existence of a Natural Order of language acquisition. 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.

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.

O CONSTRUTIVISMO NO ENSINO DE LNGUAS

A teoria de Krashen fornece substrato ao Natural Approach e ao Communicative
Approach, verses norte-americana e britnica, respectivamente, do
construtivismo no ensino de lnguas.
O construtivismo preconiza o desenvolvimento de habilidades e conhecimento
como resultado de ao e interao do ser inteligente com o meio scioambiental. Portanto, o ambiente fator determinante. No caso de lnguas
estrangeiras, o ambiente apropriado aquele que oferece convvio multicultural.
AMBIENTES MULTICULTURAIS DE CONVVIO: Ambiente de convvio
multiculural ou bicultural aquele composto de pessoas de diferentes
nacionalidades e culturas, que proporciona o desenvolvimento do conhecimento
necessrio e das habilidades bsicas necessrias para que todos possam se
comunicar em qualquer situao e nele se sintam vontade. Quanto maior o
grau de afinidade entre seus integrantes, mais completa ser a assimilao.

The Role of Grammar in Krashen's

View
According to Krashen, the study of
the structure of the language can have
general educational advantages and
values that high schools and colleges
may want to include in their language
programs. It should be clear,
however, that examining irregularity,
formulating rules and teaching
complex facts about the target
language is not language teaching,
but rather is "language appreciation"
or linguistics.

O PAPEL DA GRAMTICA SEGUNDO KRASHEN

De acordo com Krashen, o estudo formal da estrutura
de uma lngua pode vir a oferecer certos benefcios,
fazendo com que escolas secundrias bem como
cursos de nvel universitrio (letras e lingustica)
tenham interesse em incluir o estudo da gramtica em
seus programas de lnguas estrangeiras. Deve ficar
claro, entretanto, que a anlise das complexidades da
lngua, a formulao de regras e o estudo de suas
excees no se constituem em ensino e aprendizado
que produzam proficincia comunicativa, mas apenas
"apreciao" da lngua, ou, simplesmente, lingustica.
A nica situao na qual o ensino da gramtica pode
resultar em assimilao e desenvolvimento da
proficincia, ocorre se duas condies forem atendidas:

The only instance in which the

teaching of grammar can result in
language acquisition (and
proficiency) is when the students are
interested in the subject and the target
language is used as a medium of
instruction. Very often, when this
occurs, both teachers and students are
convinced that the study of formal
grammar is essential for second
language acquisition, and the teacher
is skillful enough to present
explanations in the target language so
that the students understand. In other
words, the teacher talk meets the
requirements for comprehensible
input and perhaps with the students'
participation the classroom becomes
an environment suitable for
acquisition. Also, the filter is low in
regard to the language of explanation,
as the students' conscious efforts are
usually on the subject matter,
on what is being talked about, and not
the medium.
This is a subtle point. In effect, both
teachers and students are deceiving
themselves. They believe that it is the
subject matter itself, the study of
grammar, that is responsible for the
students' progress, but in reality their
progress is coming from the medium
and not the message. Any subject
matter that held their interest would
do just as well.

os alunos tm interesse no assunto

gramtica;

a lngua usada na sala de aula pelo

professor a lngua estrangeira.

Normalmente, quando isso ocorre, ambos, professor e

alunos, acreditam que o estudo formal da gramtica
essencial para a assimilao e o desenvolvimento da
proficincia. Alm disso, o professor hbil o suficiente
para apresentar suas explicaes unicamente na lngua
estrangeira, de maneira que os alunos entendam. Na
verdade, o que ocorre que a linguagem usada pelo
professor se configura em perfeito comprehensible
input e, com a natural participao dos alunos devido
ao seu interesse, acaba criando-se na sala de aula um
ambiente adequado para que que language
acquisition ocorra. Em paralelo a isso, oaffective filter
baixo, uma vez que a ateno dos alunos se concentra
no assunto em si, naquilo a respeito de que se fala, e
no na forma da linguagem usada.
Essa questo muito sutil e curiosa. Na verdade,
professores e alunos podem estar iludindo-se a si
prprios. Ambos acreditam ser o conhecimento
metalingustico adquirido atravs do estudo da
gramtica responsvel pelo desenvolvimento da
proficincia do aluno, quando na realidade o
desenvolvimento vem do exerccio comunicativo e no
do contedo da mensagem. Qualquer tema que venha
a despertar o interesse do aluno e cativ-lo, que seja
apresentado dentro de seu nvel de competncia,
produzir o mesmo resultado. E se alm do interesse
intelectual, houver envolvimento no plano psicolgico e
afetivo, o resultado ser surpreen

Stephen Krashen's Theory of Second

Language Acquisition

Language acquisition does not require extensive use of conscious grammatical

rules, and does not require tedious drill.
Acquisition requires meaningful interaction in the target language - natural
communication - in which speakers are concerned not with the form of their
utterances but with the messages they are conveying and understanding.
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.
In the real world, conversations with sympathetic native speakers who are willing
to help the acquirer understand are very helpful.

Introduction
Stephen Krashen (University of Southern California) is an expert in the field of
linguistics, specializing in theories of language acquisition and development.
Much of his recent research has involved the study of non-English and
bilingual language acquisition. During the past 20 years, he has published well
over 100 books and articles and has been invited to deliver over 300 lectures
at universities throughout the United States and Canada.
This is a brief description of Krashen's widely known and well accepted theory
of second language acquisition, which has had a large impact in all areas of
second language research and teaching since the 1980s.

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;
the Monitor hypothesis;
the Natural Order hypothesis;
the Input hypothesis;
and the Affective Filter hypothesis.
The Acquisition-Learning distinction is the most fundamental of all the
hypotheses in Krashen's theory and the most widely known among linguists
and language practitioners.

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'. (Veja o texto ao lado e tambm
outra pgina em portugus sobreAcquisition/Learning).
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 structures follows a 'natural order' which is
predictable. 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, and although the
agreement between individual acquirers was not always 100% in the studies,
there were statistically significant similarities that reinforced the existence of a
Natural Order of language acquisition. 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.
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 thatnatural

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.

The Role of Grammar in Krashen's View

According to Krashen, the study of the structure of the language can have
general educational advantages and values that high schools and colleges
may want to include in their language programs. It should be clear, however,
that examining irregularity, formulating rules and teaching complex facts about
the target language is not language teaching, but rather is "language
appreciation" or linguistics.
The only instance in which the teaching of grammar can result in language
acquisition (and proficiency) is when the students are interested in the subject
and the target language is used as a medium of instruction. Very often, when
this occurs, both teachers and students are convinced that the study of formal

grammar is essential for second language acquisition, and the teacher is

skillful enough to present explanations in the target language so that the
students understand. In other words, the teacher talk meets the requirements
for comprehensible input and perhaps with the students" participation the
classroom becomes an environment suitable for acquisition. Also, the filter is
low in regard to the language of explanation, as the students" conscious
efforts are usually on the subject matter, on what is being talked about, and
not the medium.
This is a subtle point. In effect, both teachers and students are deceiving
themselves. They believe that it is the subject matter itself, the study of
grammar, that is responsible for the students" progress, but in reality their
progress is coming from the medium and not the message. Any subject matter
that held their interest would do just as well.
References
Crystal, David The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language. Cambridge
University Press, 1997.
Krashen, Stephen D. Principles and Practice in Second Language
Acquisition.Prentice-Hall International, 1987.
Krashen, Stephen D. Second Language Acquisition and Second
Language Learning. Prentice-Hall International, 1988.

Krashen's 6 Hypotheses

In her reflection Marguerite mentions how her students are apprehensive to produce
spoken language. She states that they are anxious about using the TL. Language
teachers and learners alike know that producing oral language can be a challenge
but that it is a necessary part of learning a language. Like Marguerite's students
many language students may feel worried about the level of their language. This
often prevents them from speaking or taking in the language at all. In addition,
many learners tend to monitor their use of the language too much, focusing more
on accuracy than fluency which in turn prevents them from using the language in a
communicative manner. In this section, we will look at the work of Stephen Krashen,
specifically his 6 hypotheses on language acquisition, in
order to better understand the challenges that might
arise during the language learning process.

back to case study

What are Krashen's Hypotheses?

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

the Acquisition-Learning hypothesis

the Monitor hypothesis

the Natural Order hypothesis

the Input hypothesis

the Affective Filter hypothesis

the Reading Hypothesis

How do Krashen's Hypotheses apply to

the SL/FL classroom?
Explanation of
Hypothesis

Application for
Teaching

The AcquisitionLearning
hypothesis
According to

According to this
theory, the optimal
way a language is
learned is through

Krashen, there are two ways of

developing language ability. Acquisition
involves the subconscious acceptance of
knowledge where information is stored in
the brain through the use of
communication; this is the process used
for developing native languages.
Learning, on the other hand, is the
conscious acceptance of knowledge
about a language (i.e. the grammar or
form). Krashen states that this is often
the product of formal language
instruction.

natural communication. As a second

language teacher, the ideal is to create a
situation wherein language is used in order
to fulfill authentic purposes. This is turn,
will help students to acquire the language
instead of just learning it.

The Monitor hypothesis

As an SL teacher it will always be a
This hypothesis further explains how
challenge to strike a balance between
acquisition and learning are used; the
encouraging accuracy and fluency in your
acquisition system, initiates an utterance students. This balance will depend on
and the learning system monitors the
numerous variables including the language
utterance to inspect and correct errors.
level of the students, the context of
Krashen states that monitoring can make language use and the personal goals of
some contribution to the accuracy of an each student. This balance is also known
utterance but its use should be limited.
asCommunicative competency.
He suggests that the monitor can
sometimes act as a barrier as it forces the
learner to slow down and focus more on
accuracy as opposed to fluency.
The Natural Order hypothesis
According to Krashen, learners acquire
parts of language in a predictable order.
For any given language, certain
grammatical structures are acquired early
while others are acquired later in the
process. This hypothesis suggests that
this natural order of acquisition occurs
independently of deliberate teaching and
therefore teachers cannot change the
order of a grammatical teaching

According to this hypothesis, teachers

should be aware that certain structures of
a language are easier to acquire than
others and therefore language structures
should be taught in an order that is
conducive to learning. Teachers should
start by introducing language concepts
that are relatively easy for learners to
acquire and then usescaffolding to
introduce more difficult concepts.

sequence.
The Input hypothesis
This hypothesis suggests that language
acquisition occurs when learners receive
messages that they can understand, a
concept also known as comprehensible
input. However, Krashen also suggests
that this comprehensible input should be
one step beyond the learners current
language ability, represented as i + 1, in
order to allow learners to continue to
progress with their language
development.

This hypothesis highlights the importance of

using the Target Language in the classroom.
The goal of any language program is for
learners to be able to communicate effectively.
By providing as much comprehensible input as
possible, especially in situations when learners
are not exposed to the TL outside of the
classroom, the teacher is able to create a more
effective opportunity for language acquisition.

The Affective Filter hypothesis

In any aspect of education it is always
According to Krashen one obstacle that
important to create a safe, welcoming
manifests itself during language
environment in which students can learn.
acquisition is the affective filter; that is a In language education this may be
'screen' that is influenced by emotional
especially important since in order to take
variables that can prevent learning. This in and produce language, learners need to
hypothetical filter does not impact
feel that they are able to make mistakes
acquisition directly but rather prevents
and take risks. This relates to directly to
input from reaching the language
Krashens hypothesis of the affective filter.
acquisition part of the brain. According to To learn more about creating a positive
Krashen the affective filter can be
classroom environment, click here.
prompted by many different variables
including anxiety, self-confidence,
motivation and stress.
The Reading Hypothesis
This hypothesis basically states that the
more we read in a SL the greater our
vocabulary will be.

It is important to involve reading in the

language classroom to increase knowledge of
the language and the way it is used in real-life
contexts.

What do Krashen's Hypotheses look like in the classroom?

Look at the cartoon and decide which of Krashen's Hypotheses

apply to this student. Explain your answers.

The input hypothesis, also known as the monitor model, is a group of five hypotheses of secondlanguage acquisitiondeveloped by the linguist Stephen Krashen in the 1970s and 1980s. Krashen
originally formulated the input hypothesis as just one of the five hypotheses, but over time the term
has come to refer to the five hypotheses as a group. The hypotheses are the input hypothesis, the
acquisitionlearning hypothesis, the monitor hypothesis, the natural order hypothesis and the
affective filter hypothesis. The input hypothesis was first published in 1977. [1][2]

The hypotheses put primary importance on the comprehensible input (CI) that language learners are
exposed to. Understanding spoken and written language input is seen as the only mechanism that
results in the increase of underlyinglinguistic competence, and language output is not seen as
having any effect on learners' ability. Furthermore, Krashen claimed that linguistic competence is
only advanced when language is subconsciously acquired, and that consciouslearning cannot be
used as a source of spontaneous language production. Finally, learning is seen to be heavily
dependent on the mood of the learner, with learning being impaired if the learner is under stress or
does not want to learn the language.
Krashen's hypotheses have been influential in language education, particularly in the United States,
but have received criticism from some academics. Two of the main criticisms are that the hypotheses
are untestable, and that they assume a degree of separation between acquisition and learning that
has not been proven to exist.

Krashen's Five Hypotheses

The Natural Order 'we acquire the rules of language in a
Hypothesis predictable order'
TheAcquisition/
Learning 'adults have two distinctive ways of
Hypothesis developing competences in second
languages .. acquisition, that is by
using language for real
communication ... learning .. "knowing
about" language' (Krashen & Terrell
1983)
The Monitor
Hypothesis 'conscious learning ... can only be used

as a Monitor or an editor' (Krashen &

Terrell 1983)
The Input
Hypothesis 'humans acquire language in only one
way - by understanding messages or by
receiving "comprehensible input"'
TheAffective Filter
Hypothesis 'a mental block, caused by affective
factors ... that prevents input from
reaching the language acquisition
device' (Krashen, 1985, p.100)

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

Combined model of acquisition and

production

Taken from Cook (1993)

The learner hears comprehensible input;
however some of it is filtered out by an
Affective Filter set by preconceptions
about language etc. This input is converted
by a Language Acquisition Device (LAD)
into Acquired Knowledge; i.e. Krashen
builds in a Chomskyan black-box that

automatically acquires language and he

does not specify it in more detail. In the
actual production of speech, seen on the
right of the figure, Acquired Knowledge is
used to produce utterances and any
Learned Knowledge that the person has
acquired by other means is used to Monitor
this process or the Output itself.
Evidence for the Input
Hypothesis (chiefly Krashen 1985)
i)

people speak to children acquiring their first

language in special ways
ii) people speak to L2 learners in special ways
iii) L2 learners often go through an initial Silent Period
iv) the comparative success of younger and older
learners reflects provision of comprehensible input
v) the more comprehensible input the greater the L2
proficiency
vi) lack of comprehensible input delays language
acquisition
vii) teaching methods work according to the extent that
they use comprehensible input
viii) immersion teaching is successful because it provides
comprehensible input
ix) bilingual programs succeed to the extent they
provide comprehensible input
Academic reactions to Krashen

Ellis (1990, p.57): 'the lucidity,

simplicity, and explanatory power of
Krashen's theory'.
Lightbown (1984, p.246): a
combination of 'a linguistic theory
(through its "natural order"
hypothesis), social psychological
theory (through its "affective filter"
hypothesis), psychological learning
theory (through its acquisitionlearning hypothesis), discourse
analysis and sociolinguistic theory
(through both the comprehensible
input hypothesis and the "monitor"
hypothesis)'.
Mitchell & Myles (1998, p.126): 'The
concepts of 'understanding' and
'noticing a gap' are not clearly
operationalised, or consistently
proposed; it is not clear how the
learner's present state of knowledge
('i') is to be characterised, or indeed
whether the 'i+1' formulation is
intended to apply to all aspects of
language, from lexis to phonology
and syntax.'
Gregg (1984, p.94): 'each of
Krashen's hypotheses is marked by

serious flaws: undefinable or illdefined terms, unmotivated

constructs, lack of empirical content
and thus of falsifiability, lack of
explanatory power'
McLaughlin (1987, p.56): 'Krashen's
theory fails at every juncture ...
Krashen has not defined his terms
with enough precision, the empirical
basis of the theory is weak, and the
theory is not clear in its predictions)
Ellis (1985, p.266): the Monitor
Model 'poses serious theoretical
problems regarding the validity of
the 'acquisition-learning' distinction,
the operation of Monitoring, and the
explanation of variability in
language-learner language'
The Natural Approach (Krashen &
Terrell, 1983; Terrell et al, 1997)
General premises
1. The goal is 'the ability to
communicate with native speakers
of the target language'

2. Comprehension precedes
production the Silent Period
3. Production 'emerges'
4. Acquisition activities are central,
though some Monitoring may be
useful for some people sometimes
5. Lower the Affective Filter: they
won't learn if their affective barrier
is too high
(6. Speech emerges in stages.
Terrell et al 1997)
(7. Group work encourages speech.
Terrell et al 1997)
(8. Speech emergence is
characterized by grammatical
errors. Terrell et al 1997)
Techniques (all acquisition
activities)
a) Affective-Humanistic activities
dialogues short and useful - 'open'
dialogues

 interviews pairwork on
personal information
personal charts and tables
preference ranking opinion
polls on favourite activities etc
revealing information about
yourself e.g. what I had for
breakfast
activating the imagination e.g.
give Napoleon advice about his
Russian campaign
b) Problem-solving activities
task and series e.g.
components of an activity such
as washing the car
charts, graphs, maps e.g.
busfares, finding the way
developing speech for particular
occasions e.g. What do you
say if
advertisements

c) Games, e.g. What is strange

about a bird swimming?'
d) Content activities, e.g. academic
subject matter such as maths
SOME ANTI-KRASHEN
OPINIONS FROM CALIFORNIA
taken from KrashenBurn (see end)
Alice Callaghan (Episcopal priest),
...a parasite on the backs of poor
Latino children.
Isaac Cubillos, editor of Latino Beat
...more than 2.5-million kids
statewide have not made it as a
result of bilingual education. What
an atrocious situation, and Krashen
helped create this."
Isaac Cubillos, editor of Latino Beat,
I discovered that Dr. Krashen has
done no research. It is purely a
theory. There is no test data, there
are no schools where it's been
proved, and it's based on thin air.
Christine Rossell "Krashen denied
having ever criticized that study. He
will say anything to win over a
room."

David Tokofsky, "This is how every

administrator in the state got
promoted from assistant principal to
principal, or from teacher to
bilingual coordinator, or from
regional supe to district supe: By
chanting the Mantra of 'Rama,
Rama, Krashen, Krashen, Rama,
Rama.'
one stunned non-educator in the
audience: "An impromptu receiving
line formed of teachers lining up for
a chance to touch their guru, their
Pied Piper. It was eery. It was the
Church of Krashen."

The Affective Filter Hypothesis:

Definition and Criticism
More Information : affective filter hypothesis, language acquisition, language learning, monitor model
Linguist and educator Stephen Krashen proposed the Monitor Model, his theory of second language acquisition,
in Principles and practice in second language acquisition as published in 1982. According to the Monitor Model, five
hypotheses account for the acquisition of a second language:
1.

Acquisition-learning hypothesis

2.

Natural order hypothesis

3.

Monitor hypothesis

4.

Input hypothesis

5.

Affective filter hypothesis

However, in spite of the popularity and influence of the Monitor Model, the five hypotheses are not without criticism.
The following sections offer a description of the fifth and final hypothesis of the theory, the affective filter hypothesis,
as well as the major criticism by other linguistics and educators surrounding the hypothesis.
Definition of the Affective Filter Hypothesis
The fifth hypothesis, the affective filter hypothesis, accounts for the influence of affective factors on second language
acquisition. Affect refers to non-linguistic variables such as motivation, self-confidence, and anxiety. According to the
affective filter hypothesis, affect effects acquisition, but not learning, by facilitating or preventing comprehensible input
from reaching the language acquisition device. In other words, affective variables such as fear, nervousness,
boredom, and resistance to change can effect the acquisition of a second language by preventing information about
the second language from reaching the language areas of the mind.
Furthermore, when the affective filter blocks comprehensible input, acquisition fails or occurs to a lesser extent then
when the affective filter supports the intake of comprehensible input. The affective filter, therefore, accounts for
individual variation in second language acquisition. Second language instruction can and should work to minimize the
effects of the affective filter.
Criticism of the Affective Filter Hypothesis
The final critique of Krashens Monitor Model questions the claim of the affective filter hypothesis that affective factors
alone account for individual variation in second language acquisition. First, Krashen claims that children lack the
affective filter that causes most adult second language learners to never completely master their second language.
Such a claim fails to withstand scrutiny because children also experience differences in non-linguistic variables such
as motivation, self-confidence, and anxiety that supposedly account for child-adult differences in second language
learning.
Furthermore, evidence in the form of adult second language learners who acquire a second language to a native-like
competence except for a single grammatical feature problematizes the claim that an affective filter prevents
comprehensible input from reaching the language acquisition device. As Manmay Zafar asks, How does the filter
determine which parts of language are to be screened in/out? In other words, the affective filter hypothesis fails to
answer the most important question about affect alone accounting for individual variation in second language
acquisition.
Although the Monitor Model has been influential in the field of second language acquisition, the fifth and final
hypothesis, the affective filter hypothesis, has not been without criticism as evidenced by the critiques offered by
other linguists and educators in the field.
Sources
Gass, Susan M. & Larry Selinker. 2008. Second language acquisition: An introductory course, 3rd edn. New York:
Routledge.
Gregg, Kevin R. 1984. Krashens monitor and Occams razor. Applied Linguistics 5(2). 79-100.
Krashen, Stephen D. 1982. Principles and practice in second language acquisition. 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.
Zafar, Manmay. 2009. Monitoring the monitor': A critique of Krashens five hypotheses. Dhaka University Journal of
Linguistics 2(4). 139-146.
Share25 Tweet14 4 4 Share6.7K
Previous post: Linguistic Definition of Adjective Phrase Modifier
Next post: Linguistic Definition of Predicate Nominative
You might also like:

Grammatical Forms of English Determiner Phrases

Objects Pronouns in English Grammar

The Ideology of Teaching English Prepositions

Spanish Pronouns: Subject, Object, Reflexive, and Prepositional Pronouns

Using Postpositions as Postpositional Phrase Heads

Linkwithin

Share this post:

image: http://www.linguisticsgirl.com/wp-content/themes/cadabrapress/images/icons/facebook.png

image: http://www.linguisticsgirl.com/wp-content/themes/cadabrapress/images/icons/twitter.png

image: http://www.linguisticsgirl.com/wp-content/themes/cadabrapress/images/icons/digg.png

image: http://www.linkwithin.com/pixel.png
image: http://www.linguisticsgirl.com/wp-content/uploads/userphoto/2.thumbnail.jpg

Author: Heather Johnson Heather earned a BA in English studies with a minor in creative writing from
Illinois State University in May 2007 and an MS in library and information science from the University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign in May 2009. In December 2011, she finished an MS in English studies with an emphasis in
linguistics at Illinois State University for which she wrote a thesis on multiple modals in American English.
Read more at http://www.linguisticsgirl.com/the-affective-filter-hypothesis-definition-andcriticism/#BlfHWFFmjykED8fa.99

affective-filter hypothesis: Krashen argues that comprehensible input is not

enough to ensure language acquisition. Language learners also have to be
receptive to that input. When learners are bored, angry, frustrated, nervous,
unmotivated or stressed, they may not be receptive to language input and so
they 'screen' the input. This screen is referred to as the affective filter. This
suggests that when learners are bored, angry, frustrated, nervous,
unmotivated or stressed, they may be unsuccessful at learning a second
language. This has very practical implications for language teachers: lower
their affective filters. One problem with this hypothesis is the difficulty in
determining cause and effect: Are language learners unsuccessful because
they are bored, angry, and stressed? Or are language learners bored, angry,
and stressed because they are unsuccessful?

The order of acquisition is a concept in language acquisition describing the specific order in which
all language learners acquire the grammatical features of their first language. This concept is based
on the observation that all children acquire their first language in a fixed, universal order, regardless
of the specific grammatical structure of the language they learn. Linguistic research has largely
confirmed that this phenomenon is true for first-language learners; order of acquisition for secondlanguage learners is much less consistent. It is not clear why the order differs for second-language
learners, though current research suggests this variability may stem from first-language interference
or general cognitive interference from nonlinguistic mental faculties.

The Monitor Hypothesis:

Definition and Criticism
More Information : language acquisition, language learning, monitor hypothesis, monitor model
Stephen Krashen is an educator and linguist who proposed the Monitor Model as his theory of second language
acquisition in his influential text Principles and practice in second language acquisition in 1982. The Monitor Model
posits five hypotheses about second language acquisition and learning:
1.

Acquisition-learning hypothesis

2.

Natural order hypothesis

3.

Monitor hypothesis

4.

Input hypothesis

5.
Affective filter hypothesis
However, despite the popularity and influence of the Monitor Model, the five hypotheses are not without criticism. The
following sections offer a description of the third hypothesis of the theory, the monitor hypothesis, as well as the major
criticism by other linguistics and educators surrounding the hypothesis.
Definition of the Monitor Hypothesis
The third hypothesis, the monitor hypothesis, complements the acquisition-learning hypothesis by claiming that the
only function of learning within second language acquisition is as an editor, or Monitor, for language use produced by
the acquired system as well as to produce grammatical forms not yet acquired. The Monitor allows a language user
to alter the form of an utterance either prior to production by consciously applying learned rules or after production via
self-correction. In other words, the learned system monitors the output of the acquired system.
However, according to the monitor hypothesis, explicit knowledge of a language rule is not sufficient for the utilization
of the Monitor; a language user must also have an adequate amount of time to consciously think about and apply
learned rules. Additionally, the three conditions required by the Monitortime, focus, and knowledgeare, as
Krashen asserts, necessary and not sufficient, meaning that, despite the convenement of all three conditions, a
language user may not utilize the Monitor.
Criticism of the Monitor Hypothesis
The major critique of the monitor hypothesis expands on the critique of the acquisition-learning hypothesis. According
to the monitor hypothesis, the main purpose of language learning is to function as a Monitor for output produced by
acquired system. However, as critics reveal through deeper investigation of the acquisition-learning distinction, to
separate language learning clearly and adequately from language acquisition is impossible. Consequently,
determining that the function of the learned system is as a Monitor only remains likewise impossible to prove.

Additionally, that the claim of learning-as-Monitor applies only to output after production invites further criticism of the
hypothesis; second language learners can and do use the learned system to produce output as well as to facilitate
comprehension. Such questions and evidence, therefore, invalidate the central claim of the monitor hypothesis.
Therefore, in spite of the influence of the Monitor Model in the field of second language acquisition, the third
hypothesis, the monitor hypothesis, has not been without criticism as evidenced by the critiques offered by other
linguists and educators in the field.
References
Gass, Susan M. & Larry Selinker. 2008. Second language acquisition: An introductory course, 3rd edn. New York:
Routledge.
Gregg, Kevin R. 1984. Krashens monitor and Occams razor. Applied Linguistics 5(2). 79-100.
Krashen, Stephen D. 1982. Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.
http://www.sdkrashen.com/Principles_and_Practice/Principles_and_Practice.pdf.
McLaughlin, Barry. 1978. The monitor model: Some methodological considerations. Language Learning 28(2). 309332.
Zafar, Manmay. 2009. Monitoring the monitor': A critique of Krashens five hypotheses. Dhaka University Journal of
Linguistics 2(4). 139-146.
Share10 Tweet9 3 1 Share5K
Previous post: Yoda Muses on Syntax
Next post: Linguistic Definition of Verb Phrase Modifier

Share this post:

image: http://www.linguisticsgirl.com/wp-content/themes/cadabrapress/images/icons/facebook.png

image: http://www.linguisticsgirl.com/wp-content/themes/cadabrapress/images/icons/twitter.png

image: http://www.linguisticsgirl.com/wp-content/themes/cadabrapress/images/icons/digg.png

image: http://www.linkwithin.com/pixel.png
image: http://www.linguisticsgirl.com/wp-content/uploads/userphoto/2.thumbnail.jpg

Author: Heather Johnson Heather earned a BA in English studies with a minor in creative writing from
Illinois State University in May 2007 and an MS in library and information science from the University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign in May 2009. In December 2011, she finished an MS in English studies with an emphasis in
linguistics at Illinois State University for which she wrote a thesis on multiple modals in American English.
Read more at http://www.linguisticsgirl.com/the-monitor-hypothesis-definition-and-criticism/#cWiCjW6CB3d0R2dT.99

Monitor Model
Brief Overview
This is a brief overview of the monitor model for the reader to understand the main points. Readers are
encouraged to study more in-depth to gain a full appreciation of the history, development, and
implementation of this theory. At the end are guiding questions for the educator to contemplate about
instruction and the monitor model.

The monitor model is an interesting set of hypotheses that were developed by Stephen Krashen in the late
1970s. The monitor model is interesting because some of its premises have been disproved, but during the
80s and 90s the monitor model was adopted by some educational systems much to their chagrin.
However, this is not to say that this theory is unusable for the language educator, but what is taken from
the theory and applied to the classroom must be weighted accordingly.
Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis
The origin of this hypothesis is completely flawed and science has disproved the basis, but if examined
from a different aspect, can be beneficial to instruction.
Krashen saw acquisition as subconscious learning that was facilitated by something Chomsky had
proposed in universal grammar (UG Theory) called the language acquisition device (LAD). The LAD was
a feature in the brain that helped people learn languages, but Chomsky would have to later admit that
there was no such thing.
If acquisition was subconscious, then the learning part of the hypothesis was what actually happens in the
classroom. Since the educator is making the students consciously aware of the information, this was
considered learning which is not as affective as acquisition.
Although there is no LAD as Krashen had considered when penning this hypothesis, many researchers do
note there can be a difference between subconscious learning (acquisition) and conscious learning
(learning).
How Not To Use

Explicit Teaching Needed: The educational systems that adopted the monitor model were
damaged by acquisition-learning hypothesis because grammar was not explicitly taught. As a
result, writing suffered immensely because direct instruction of grammar is essential for
academic/school writing.

Find out more information on how to not to use Monitor Model in our online SLA course.
Get information and discounts on our course HERE.
How To Use

Learning: Teenagers, young adults, and adults can really benefit from actually learning
strategies and explicit grammar instruction. Writing is one of the four skills that benefits most
from grammar instruction in older students, so make it part of the curriculum.

Find out more information on how to use Monitor Model in our online SLA course. Get
information and discounts on our course HERE.
Monitor Hypothesis
The monitor hypothesis involves the acquisition center being monitored by the learning system. So the
acquisition center would produce language and what the student is/has been learning will allow the
student to monitor output. If the output matches, then no problem, but if the language produced is not
correct, then the monitoring of the learning system will help correct the acquisition center.
However, Krashen warns that over-monitoring can cause language production to be more geared towards
accuracy than fluency.
How To Use

Accuracy/Fluency: Krashen is correct in stating too much monitoring will impede fluency at
the benefit of being accurate. A balance should always be central as being too far on either end of
the spectrum is not good for communication.

Natural Order Hypothesis

Krashen states that there is a natural order to acquiring language rules.
Morpheme order studies covers this in more detail along with strategies for use.
Input Hypothesis
The input hypothesis revolves around students receiving an appropriate amount of input. However the
hypothesis believes it is not just input, but comprehensible input that is easily understood by the learner
that will deliver the grammar needed.
How Not To Use

Adults: Input and grammar acquisition works for young learners as they have the ability pick up
language with proper interaction, but adults do not possess the ability to learn naturally like
children. Instead, adults use cognitive strategies to learn complex systems like grammar and
benefit from well structure taught input.

How To Use

Proper Input: This can be utilized across all instruction and not just grammar. Students not
only need input, but they need input that is easy to understand. Teaching language or teaching
materials that are too high for the students do little to progress their language ability or
understanding. This is a major key to instruction. Every educator needs to put this near the
top of his list of teaching beliefs.

Affective Filter Hypothesis

This hypothesis suggests affective filter is a mental screen that filters input from reaching the language
acquisition center in the brain. There are many things that can trigger the mental filter such as conscious
learning, motivation, stress, classroom environment, confidence, etc
How Not To Use

Broken Record: As stated before, conscious learning of grammatical features is not bad.
Conscious learning is beneficial for older learners with the ability to use cognitive reasoning. For
young learners, conscious learning will not be as beneficial.

How To Use

Factors Decrease Learning: Although there is no actual filter in the brain, it is well
documented that issues such as motivation, stress, classroom temperature, confidence, etc do
contribute to a decrease in learning. Any educator who has taught in a sweltering classroom will
understand this point. The educator should try to address as many of these issues as possible as
environment has a big influence on learning.