Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Stephen Krashens SLA Theories A Critical
Stephen Krashens SLA Theories A Critical
0
1
Grammar theory (Chomsky, 1980). However, one of the first and most
between the two systems for developing linguistic abilities in adults: acquisition
and learning. The basic difference between them is that while acquisition
process. The researcher posits that “these systems are interrelated in a definite
1981:1)
only works as a monitor to the learner’s output, as Johnson (2013) states, “ the
Monitor allows a language user to alter the form of an utterance either prior to
correction.” In other words, the Monitor will edit the production of a learner who
Hypothesis, the Input Hypothesis, and finally the Affective Filter Hypothesis.
1
2
Each of the hypotheses relates to a different aspect of the Monitor Model, and it
is relevant to consider all five of them since they complement each other.
have seen that each of Krashen’s five hypotheses is marked by serious flaws:
and thus of falsifiability, lack of explanatory power” (Liu, 2015). For this reason,
this essay is divided in two parts. Firstly, it aims at theoretically discussing the
communication--in which speakers are concerned not with the form of their
utterances but with the messages they are conveying and understanding.”
(ibid:1), while language learning is based on rules, formal instruction and error
consider grammar rules and is only driven by meaningful interactions. For this
user mistakes are not relevant, as long as they have fluency. He believes there
2
3
and practical activities help the student learn the language faster. Johnson
(2013) adds, “the most important pedagogical implication of the first hypothesis
correction (Ellis, 2005). Also, the sequence which a learner goes through is
completely different. While the acquirer has their own linguistic demands to
meet first, the learner goes through a logical sequence of content designed by a
objectives.
low-anxiety situation is especially beneficial for beginning adult ESL learners for
whom the outside world is not prepared to provide such input for necessary
3
4
intake.” Thus, formal classroom instruction also has significant value towards
there are two different processes regarding the use of a language, Krashen
posits that learning cannot become acquisition (Johnson, 2013b). This view
acquisition. In his case, learning became acquisition. ” That means that this idea
memorized.” Also, according to Shresta (1998), “One could not say for sure that
the observations made on the basis of such data were strictly products of formal
4
5
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
that the order of grammatical structures and morphemes one learns a second
language is slightly deviant from the order one learns their first language
(Krashen, 1982:14).
completely acquired. “We can assume, then, that mistakes will always be
present during the acquisition process, especially when dealing with the late
means correction is performed more naturally, such as mirroring the error in the
correct way, so that the acquirer can notice the mistake and correct himself.
However, Ellis (2005) states that there is no agreement “about what type of
commence.”
believes teachers should work with functions, topics and situations. Thus,
teaching into more natural and situational, “copying” real life situations in which
the learner will have to deal with the language, not with the rules. Abukhattala
5
6
(2012:129) adds to this belief: “What I fell should be done with most published
material is to include more recycling of the material so that late structures can
Zafar (2009) believes that Krashen’s theory is wrong to separate learning from
into two discrete disciplines, the cross-currents of both the systems constantly
the output. The author highlights three focuses for the success of monitor: time,
form and rule. Burden (2006) agrees: “In order that the Monitor may work, three
principal conditions must be met. They are: the monitor needs time, a focus on
form and an appropriate knowledge of the rule.” In a situation in which all three
time, are focused on form, and know the rule, the error pattern changes,
6
7
and the interaction, they do not have the time to monitor their speech. This
develops the student’s “feel for grammaticality” (Krashen, 1981:3), which means
Krashen (1982:16) believes that a user does not have time to monitor each and
every one of the sentences produced in regular interaction. He states that “The
activate the learned/Monitor system, three conditions (i.e. time, focus on form,
knowledge of rule) need to be met which makes it all the more difficult either to
that “Had speech been solely generated by the acquired system, L2 learners
would have ended up throwing words together in random, without making much
distinct types: (1) Over-monitor users, who do not have confidence in the
language they have acquired and continuously check their production, impairing
their fluency; (2) under-monitor users, who are the extreme opposite. These
students rarely monitor themselves and have more grammatical errors than the
first group, but usually convey more meaning in their speech, are more talkative
and have more fluency. According to Wilson (no date), “although error
correction by others has little influence on them, they can often correct
7
8
themselves based on a "feel" for correctness”; and (3) optimal monitor users,
who manage to use the monitor only when the situation is appropriate, as
the third group usually appears to have more knowledge of the language than
an acquirer in the second group in the same level because they know how to
properly use the monitor, they know how to use their learned and acquired
Krashen has been extensively criticized for not providing enough data or
empirical study (Bahrani 2011; Zafar 2009; Liu 2015). Also, as Bahrani (2011)
argues, “Krashen fails to take into account the role that monitoring plays in the
the i+1 theory, “where i represents language at the students' current level of
slightly above the structures they have already acquired. Liu (2015) explains:
“The hypothesis has two convictions: first, speech would emerge, rather than
8
9
(1981) the input should be constant so that the student can internalize what he
hears and, finally, comprehend the grammatical rules contained in that speech.
above learning, and points out that formal learning has little to do with user
of acquisition (i+1), but that does not mean that such guesswork would
concerning the meaning of his statements and theories. Zafar (2009) also
terms employed makes his theory all the more nontestable.” So, once again,
placing a student in a lower level than the one they belongs to can demotivate
them, and placing a student in a much higher level than the one which they
have will not help them. Thus, the i+1 theory seems correct, considering it is
9
10
important to push the student further so that they can actually develop and
move forward with the language. However, “it is unclear how new input interacts
with the learner’s current level of grammar to cause change and how he could
advance to the next stage, apart from merely recognising the insufficiency of the
current one.” (Liu, 2015) Therefore, since Krashen defends a natural acquisition
determine both, the linguistic level of the acquirer (i) and the level immediately
above it (+1).
This theory can originally be credited to Dulay and Burt (1977), and was revised
based on" the three variables mentioned. “Krashen claims that learners with
2011:282), while learners who show the opposite tend to mentally block the
“even if they understand the message, the input will not reach the part of the
brain responsible for language acquisition,” so a high filter could, in fact, impair
that input is the main medium of acquisition of a language, but explains why
some learners have more success than others. Krashen (1982:32) maintains
10
11
that the affective filter can act “to impede or facilitate the delivery of input”, to
what Tricomi (1986:60) adds that “acquisition will not occur if a student's
how much a student will learn, than “the effective language teacher is someone
who can provide input and help make it comprehensible in a low anxiety
consider the role of output as well. The researcher believes that all stages a
student goes through when acquiring a language depend mainly on input, but
“despite an initial silent period, the major thrust in language development comes
when [children] start using and playing with words in their early years” (Burden,
contributions to applied linguistics and SLA theory, such as many aspects of the
monitor model and its theories. However, the researcher has failed at filling
many lacunas in his research, as well as testing and proving his hypotheses.
extreme to draw a line between the two means of developing linguistic ability
making the student use the language to learn how to deal with it (Richards,
2006), but it is also very important to have formal instruction to help students
cope with linguistic elements and structures faster and more easily.
believes that the learned language serves as a monitor for self-correction of the
Krashen clearly divides learning from acquiring and dismisses formal learning
some kind of importance. This kind of contradiction seems to make the monitor
model be taken less seriously by other researchers (Gregg 1984; Liu 2015;
the importance of output for the development of linguistic abilities. It is clear that
input plays a very important role in language acquisition, but the way a learner
plays with words and tests hypotheses is also important for student
goes through when acquiring a language: The silent period, the early production
period, the speech emergence period, the intermediate production period, and
the advanced production period. These stages define the evolution of the
student moves through the stages, output becomes even more important for
their development, being it for testing theories or even for correction, after all, a
learner will not be corrected if they do not produce any utterances at all.
and acquisition.
very difficult to be proven for the simple reason that they are difficult to be
tested. Krashen is not very clear about the meaning of some key concepts in his
model (Gregg, 1984). i.e.: Krashen claims that the monitor serves as an editor
tested.
13
14
Bibliography
Abukhattala, I. (2012) ‘Krashen’s Five proposals on language learning: Are they
valid in Libyan EFL classes’, English Language Teaching, 6(1), pp. 128–131.
doi: 10.5539/elt.v6n1p128.
Bahrani, T. (2011) ‘The implications of the monitor theory for foreign language
teaching’, Asian Social Science, 7(10), pp. 281–284. doi:
10.5539/ass.v7n10p281.
Burt, M.K., Dulay, H.C., Finocchiaro, M. and Alatis, J.E. (1977) Viewpoints on
English as a second language: In honor of James E. Alatis. New York: Regents
Publishing Company.
Gregg, K.R. (1984) ‘Krashen’s monitor and Occam’s Razar’, Applied Linguistics,
5(2), pp. 79–100. doi: 10.1093/applin/5.2.79.
14
15
Upshur, J.A. (1968) ‘Four experiments on the relation between foreign language
teaching and learning’, Language Learning, 18(1-2), pp. 111–124. doi:
10.1111/j.1467-1770.1987.tb00393.x.
15