A BROAD LOOK TO KRASHEN’S SECOND LANGUAGE HYPOTHESES

Stephen Krashen is a Professor of Education at the University of Southern California. He

is best known for his theory of second language acquisition. His model includes five different
theories about second language acquisition (The Acquisition/Learning Hypothesis, The Monitor
Hypothesis, The Natural Order Hypothesis, The Input Hypothesis, The Affective Filter
Hypothesis). Krashen's theory is used mainly in the United States and each theory can be applied
in some ways in ESL/EFL classes. However, his works are criticized for their lack of scientific
research and de-emphasis on grammar.
The Acquisition/Learning Hypothesis is Krashen’s most important theory and the most
known one among linguists and ESL/EFL teachers. According to Krashen, there are two
independent ways of acquiring foreign/second languages: 'the acquired system' and 'the learned
system'. The 'acquired system' or 'acquisition' is similar to how children learn their first language.
Instead of being "aware" of the rules of language/s, we gradually develop a "feel" for correctness
in a "subconscious" way "identical" to "child first language acquisition"(Krashen and Terrel,
1988: 26-27). It requires natural communication –meaning that speakers are focused on the
communicative part, not on the grammar part. On the other hand, language learning is a
"conscious" and "explicit" process of "knowing about language". (26-27)
According to this theory, the best way to learn the target language is through natural
communication. Therefore, teachers should create a situation where students can use the
language for real-world purposes. This will help the students to acquire it instead of just learning
it.
One of the main criticism for Acquisition/Learning Hypothesis is that Krashen never
sufficiently defines what “acquisition”, “learning”, “conscious” and “subconscious” means.
(McLaughlin, 1987) And it is difficult to decide which subject are ‘’learning’’ or “acquiring”
without such explanations. It is also difficult to perceive how acquisition and learning, 'housed'
in two separate linguistics systems, could be put into use by L2 learners (Gass and Selinker,
1994). Krashen also states that grammar study has no place in language learning (Krashen 1993a,
1993b). However, as some counter-arguments have shown (Gregg 1984, McLaughlin 1987, and
Lightbown & Pienemann 1993) that there are examples of how grammar study can be of great
benefit to students.
The Monitor hypothesis clarifies the connection between acquisition and learning and the
influence of acquisition on learning. 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: The learner has enough time, they give attention to form, and they know the rule. (Krashen,
1981; Schulz, 1991; Schutz, 2005) As stated by Krashen, the role of the monitor is limited, it is
used to give a more 'polished' look to "normal" speech. Krashen (1981), also, distinguishes the
‘monitor’ use among learners. Learners who did not learn or do not prefer to use their conscious
knowledge are ‘under-users’, learners who use monitor all the time are over-users, and learners
who use their monitors appropriately are optimal-users.
 This theory shows that for teachers, there can be difficulties to find a balance between
encouraging accuracy and fluency. This balance will depend on the variables such as the degree
of fluency of the students and the aims for the language learning of the learners.
According to Gregg, (p.84) by restricting monitor use to “learned” grammar and only in
production, Krashen in effect makes the Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis and the Monitor
Hypothesis contradictory. McLaughlin (1987) points out that speech is a rule-governed, learned
system-activated procedure. Had speech been solely generated by the acquired system, L2
learners would have ended up throwing words together at random, without making much sense.
Therefore, in communication, the frequency of the learned system-activated utterances cannot be
denied. He also states that Krashen not only does not explain how this monitor operates, but he
also fails to prove that acquisition has no role in monitoring.
The Natural Order Hypothesis is based on research findings (Dulay & Burt, 1974;
Fathman, 1975; Makino, 1980 cited in Krashen, 1987). According to Krashen, the acquisition of
grammatical structures follows a 'natural order' which is predictable. For any language some
grammatical structures can be acquired early while others are can be acquired late. Learners' age,
L1 background, degree of exposure to the target language seemed to have no effect on this order.
Even though there are not a hundred percent agreement between learners, there are enough
similarities that showed the existence of a Natural Order in language acquisition.
Teachers should be aware of the grammar structures that are acquired easily and taught
lessons accordingly. Therefore, they can introduce more difficult structures with building on
easier ones.
However, the studies that Krashen based his theory on have methodological problems
pointed by Gass and Selinker (1994) and McLaughlin (1987). Krashen also overlooked the
influence of L1 on L2 and the role of positive and negative transferences. As researchers show,
with a specific L1 some learners might find the learning of L2 more difficult in comparison to
other learners (see Wode 1977, Zobl, 1980, 1982). Another issue is that Krashen suggests that
teachers can present the language without any effort to organize it, but, on the other hand, he
recommends a syllabus based on topics, functions, and situations.
The Input Hypothesis states that a language acquirer who is at “level I” must receive
comprehensible input that is at “level i+1.” In other words, we acquire the language only when
we understand language which contains a structure that is a little beyond' our current level. This
is achieved with the help of context or extralinguistic information (Gitsaki, 1998; Wilson, 2000).
Evidence for the input hypothesis can be found in the effectiveness of caretaker speech from an
adult to a child, teacher-talk from a teacher to a language student, and foreigner-talk from a
sympathetic conversation partner to a language learner/acquirer (Krashen, 1981). Therefore,
students should be given a ‘silent period’ in which they built up the language before they
produce it. Krashen (1985) further states that, since there is a natural order in acquiring the
second language, it would be easy if ESL/EFL teachers can detect the level of the learners’
competency and develop materials accordingly.) The "necessary grammar" would
"automatically" be provided as L2 teachers ensure that students receive "comprehensible input"
in "sufficient amount" and "right quantities" (Krashen, 1985: 2).
The usage of this hypothesis covers the importance of the practice of the target language
in the classroom. Since the goal of this hypothesis is to communicate effectively, providing
students with comprehensible input is very important. Especially, in situations where the only
exposure to the target language is in the classroom.
The Input Hypothesis is also criticized for its vague terminology such as "comprehensible
input’’ and "sufficient amount". The vagueness of the terms employed makes his theory all the
more non-testable (Zafar, 2009). The Input Hypothesis claims that comprehensible input will
result in language acquisition and the output will not result in language acquisition. However,
there is not clear evidence on this claim. Contrastingly, Romeo (2000) shows that output of some
kind is seen as a necessary phase in language acquisition. McLaughlin (1978) claims that the
concept of a learner’s “level” is very difficult to define. As stated in Bahrani (2011), teachers can
face difficulty in applying this rule in the classroom since individual differences come into play
when determining the learners’ current levels.
The Affective Filter Hypothesis claims that learns 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-confidence, a bad self-image, and high anxiety can cause a
rise in the affective filter and create a ‘mental block’ that prevents comprehensible input from
being used for acquisition. In other words, a highly effective filter deters acquisition and a low
effective filter encourages it. According to Krashen, this filter is present in adults but not in
children (Larsen-Freeman & Long, 1991)
This hypothesis emphasis on the importance of creating a safe and welcoming
environments that fosters learning. To produce language, students need to feel comfortable to
make mistakes and take risks.
The Affective Filter Hypothesis seems to indicate that the affective filter manifests itself
at around the age of puberty. However, Krashen does not explain how and why this filter begins
with puberty (Gregg, 1984). Also, Laser-Freeman and Long (1991) state that in order to provide
empirical evidence, Krashen would need to specify which affect variables and at what levels.
However, there is no explanation exists as to how this filter works.
To sum up, The Acquisition/Learning Hypothesis makes a distinction between
‘acquiring’ and ‘learning’, The Monitor hypothesis explains how acquisition and learning are
used, The Natural Order Hypothesis states that there is a natural order in language acquisition,
The Input Hypothesis introduces the comprehensible input, and lastly, The Affective Filter
Hypothesis explains the ‘effective filter’ that makes acquiring harder. Stephan Krashen’s theories
on the second language are not without its criticism. However, there are some ways to apply
these in ESL/EFL classes as stated above.
 REFERENCES
Stephen Krashen's Theory of Second Language Acquisition. (2021). Retrieved 26
January 2021, from https://www.sk.com.br/sk-krash-english.html

Monitoring the 'Monitor': A Critique of Krashen's Five Hypotheses. (2009) Retrieved 26

January 2021, from 6903-Article%20Text-26181-1-10-20110314.pdf

The Implications of the Monitor Theory for Foreign Language Teaching .(2011).
Retrieved 26 January 2021, from
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/594d/3eb6ed39a6d3776a01e4123681f05d8516e9.pdf

Krashen's Hypotheses. (2021). Retrieved 26 January 2021, from

https://bestofbilash.ualberta.ca/krashen.html

Krashen and Terrell's "Natural Approach". (2021). Retrieved 26 January 2021, from
http://web.stanford.edu/~hakuta/www/LAU/ICLangLit/NaturalApproach.htm

Krashen’s Five Proposals on Language Learning: Are They Valid in Libyan EFL Classes
(2012). Retrieved 26 January 2021, from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1076806.pdf