Krashen’s Theory of Second Words Acquisition

of second words acquisition offers been of much debate in the psycholinguistic circles. His
theories will be well regarded, and provide a different insight into how the brain works in
learning a second language.
The first of the five of Krashen’s theories may be the Natural Order Hypothesis. Predicated on a
robust analysis of research outcomes, Krashen’s natural buy hypothesis suggests that the
acquisition of language, especially the rules of vocabulary, follows a predictable natural order.
For any given words, some grammatical structures have a tendency to be acquired earlier than
others. This notion reflects Noam Chomsky’s groundbreaking notion that have a built-in
Language Acquisition Product (LAD), which within the first of all year of the children lives
begins to allow them to understand and acquire language.
Because of the nature of the LAD, kids tend to learn several structures at different amounts as
young children. Researchers have discovered that the same style occurs for aged learners – not a
surprise to seasoned terminology teachers! It is the “predictable natural order” of this hypothesis.
Secondly, may be the Acquisition or Learning Hypothesis. The distinction between acquisition
and learning is the most fundamental of all the hypotheses in Krashen’s theory, since it suggests
that language involves children in two somewhat various ways. Acquisition is one. Terminology
can be acquired by it for real conversation while learning, which he describes as “knowing
about” language, is quite a different thing.
Acquisition is the merchandise of a subconscious process very similar to the procedure children
undergo when they acquire their first language. It needs meaningful interaction in the mark
language-natural communication, where speakers concentrate not really on the type of their
utterances, however in the communicative action. Learning, on the other hand, provides
conscious knowledge about the target language. Hence, it is less important than acquisition for
basic communication, nonetheless it still plays a crucial role in vocabulary learning. In short,
learning is likely to take place in the “study” segment of an English lesson, while acquisition
takes place during language activation.
Thirdly, is the Monitor Hypothesis. The essential distinction between acquisition and learning
leads directly to another hypothesis. The keep an eye on hypothesis relegates vocabulary learning
(that is, a student’s responses from what the teacher teaches) to a secondary place in the scheme
of language learning.Â
The monitor hypothesis may be the proven fact that conscious learning – that’s, the results of
grammar instruction and other activities that were the traditional inventory in trade of the
vocabulary teacher – serve only as a monitor or an editor for the terminology student. Real
acquisition takes place as “meaningful conversation in the mark language – natural
communication – in which speakers can be involved not with the type of their utterances but with
the messages they happen to be conveying and understanding.”Â
Following that is the Source Hypothesis. The input hypothesis suggests that people acquire
language in only one way: by understanding messages, or by getting ‘comprehensible input’.
Based on the input hypothesis, learner’s improvement by acquiring second language input that’s
one step beyond their current level of linguistic competence. Acquisition for learners with words
knowledge “i” can only just take place if they are exposed to comprehensible type at a slightly
higher-level, which Krashen describes as level “i + 1”.Â
And finally, the Affective Filtration system Hypothesis. Finally, the Affective Filtration system
Hypothesis proposes that a mental block due to affective or emotional elements can prevent input
from reaching the student’s language acquisition product. The affective filtration hypothesis says
that affective variables like self-confidence and anxiety are likely involved in words acquisition.
When the filter is up, that is, when negative emotional elements are in play, dialect acquisition
suffers while when the filtration system is down, terminology acquisition benefits.

Universal grammar theory

According to Cook (2001), as a counterpoint to the
environmental perspective, Chomsky’s followers try to understand SLA in the light of his
universal grammar (UG) theory, a human innate endowment. Chomsky is interested in the nature
of language and sees language as a mirror of the mind (Gass & Selinker, 2008). Although he is
not concerned with SLA, his work has been influencing studies in this area. According to his
theory, it can be seen that every human being is biologically endowed with the Language
Acquisition Device (LAD), which is responsible for the initial state of language development.
The UG theory considers that the input from the environment is insufficient to account for
language acquisition. In the same perspective, White (2003:22) says that “[I]f it turns out that the
L2 learner acquires abstract properties that could not have been induced from the input, this is
strongly indicative that principles of UG constrain interlanguage grammars, parallel to the
situation of L1 acquisition”. As Mitchel and Myles (2004:94) remind us, “The universal
Grammar approach is only interested in the learner as a processor of a mind that contains
language” and not as a social being.

Interaction theory
Other attempts to explain SLA are the different versions of the interaction
hypothesis defended by Hatch (1978) and by Long (1981, 1996), who did not accept Krashen’s
Input Hypothesis. Both Hatch and Long consider that input alone is not sufficient to explain
SLA. Hatch disagrees that learners first learn structures and then use them in discourse. Hatch
considers the reverse possibility. “One learns how to do conversation, one learns how to interact
verbally, and out of this interaction syntactic structures are developed (Harch, 1978 p. 404)”.
Based on an empirical study, Long (1981) observed that in conversations between native and
non-native speakers, there are more modifications in interaction than in the input provided by the
native speakers. Long does not reject the positive role of modified input, but claims that
modifications in interactions are consistently found in successful SLA. Long (1996) suggests that
negotiation for meaning, especially negotiation work that triggers interactional adjustments by
the NS or more competent interlocutor, facilitates acquisition because it connects input, internal
learner capacities, particularly selective attention, and output in productiveways.
However, Larsen-Freeman and Long (1991) argue that the interactionist views are more
powerful than other theories “because they invoke both innate and environmental factors to
explain language learning”.