Barriers to the Maximal Utilization of Krashen’s Hypothesis

of Second Language Acquisition

Recently, there has been an increasing study in language acquisition. Language is a

system of conventional spoken, manual(signed), or written symbols by means of

which human beings, as members of a social group and participants in its culture

express themselves. According to Grant Eckstein and Dana Ferris (24 May 2017),

although L1 and L2 students have much in common, the L2 students had observed

and (self-) perceived language needs that were significantly different from those of

the L1 students. These included differences in linguistic accuracy, lexical diversity,

and language-related anxiety. Implications for pedagogy include a recommendation

for teaching L2 writers to self-edit for common patterns and errors and sensitize

students to the value of advanced and purposeful lexical variety in their writing.

When we learn our first language (L1), we are likely to learn it in a different context

and in different ways from when we learn a second language (L2). Learner

characteristics include a learner’s motivation, learning style, learning strategies,

maturity, and past language learning experiences, how they learn it, how they

respond to different teaching styles and approaches in the classroom, and how

successfully they are learning it. (Diana Oliva Valdez Ramirez) Language is a natural

object, a component of the human mind, physically represented in the brain and

part of the biological endowment of the species. It is the inherent capability of native

speakers to understand and form grammatical sentences. A language is a set of

(finite and infinite) sentences, each finite length constructed out of a limited set of

elements. (Chomsky, 2002:1)

Stephens Krashen’s’ Theory of second language acquisition consists of five main

hypotheses. First is the Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis. The Acquisition-Learning

distinction is the most fundamental of all the hypotheses in Krashen’s Theory and

the most widely known among linguistics 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

that results in conscious knowledge 'about' the language, for example, knowledge of

grammar rules. According to Krashen 'learning' is less important than 'acquisition'.

The major barrier to Acquisition Learning Hypothesis is that the acquisition-learning

hypothesis gives learning a very specific definition—a conscious study of rules and

forms—it can be difficult to understand. But learning can also refer to developing

one's broad knowledge or proficiency in a subject. For instance, consider the

following: Languages can be acquired or learned by second language learners;

however, the two uses of the word "learn" have different meanings. Perhaps

Krashen's uncertainty could have been avoided if he had decided to use “study”

instead of “learn.” This approach argues that conversational interaction is the best

way to learn a language. The ideal scenario for a second language teacher to set up
is one where language is engaged to serve real-world functions. Students will then

be able to "acquire" the language rather than just "learn" it. If we use this

hypothesis, then instead of teaching kids formal grammar rules, we should spend

more time conversing with them in everyday language.

Second, the Monitor hypothesis. It 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 the 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 a 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'. There are

many difficulties with the use of the monitor, making the monitor rather weak as a
language tool. First: Knowing the rule: this is a difficult condition to meet because

even the best students do not learn every rule that is taught, cannot remember

every rule they have learned, and can’t always correctly apply the rules they do

remember. Furthermore, every rule of a language is not always included in a text

nor taught by the teacher. Second: Having time to use the monitor: there is a price

that is paid for the use of the monitor- the speaker is then focused on form rather

than meaning, resulting in the production and exchange of less information, thus

slowing the flow of conversation. Some speakers over-monitor to the point that the

conversation is painfully slow and sometimes difficult to listen to. Third: The rules of

language make up only a small portion of our language competence: Acquisition

does not provide 100% language competence. There is often a small portion of

grammar, punctuation, and spelling that even the most proficient native speakers

may not acquire. While it is important to learn these aspects of language, since

writing is the only form that requires 100% competence, these aspects of language

make up only a small portion of our language competence. As a teacher, it is

necessary that lessons be modified to accommodate students who have trouble

speaking, and teachers should make sure that daily lesson plans contain activities for

assistance and reinforcement. Also, while teachers monitor and direct students as

their speaking skills improve, learners should continuously be given speaking

exercises. To prevent academic bullying, I must institute a structure among the

students such as giving both groups the chance to promote helpful conduct rather

than making fun of those who make mistakes, empathizing with mistakes rather

than laughing at them, fostering good attitudes rather than discriminating against

them, and so on.

 Third, 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 are late. This order seemed to be independent of the learners'

age, L1 background, and 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 natural order states that students learn the grammatical

morpheme-ing before they learn the morpheme third person -s. This hypothesis may

have the potential implication that teaching language using a conventional structural

syllabus may not always assist them in learning the language they acquire. As a

teacher, to overcome the mentioned barrier, I should not organize teaching by

grammar sequencing since they argue that grammar is simply not teachable, and

teachers cannot control what a student will naturally acquire. So, supporting this

viewpoint it makes the case for teaching using intelligible input with little use of

language. This is, for instance, how TPRS practitioners would feel (Teaching

Proficiency through Reading and Storytelling). On occasion, grammar explanations

might be given, but more to stimulate pupils' curiosity than to aid in learning it.

Fourth, 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 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 that natural 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. The major barrier to

the Input hypothesis is that the Input hypothesis has been challenged for being

ambiguous and imprecise: how can we determine level I and level i+1? Moreover,

Krashen's assertion is rather circular: intelligible input is said to have been delivered

if the acquisition occurs, and acquisition is stated to have occurred if the learner

receives comprehensible input. As an educator, I have to make sure that I give

learners lots of input and advise them to read and listen a lot. Also, I will make sure

that the input is appropriate for their level- it should be “comprehensible”. I will also

include output activities such as speaking and writing but on them a bit less than

input activities.

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.

According to the affective filter hypothesis, students who experience emotional

distress have a harder time learning a second language. The hypothesis states that

for students to acquire a foreign language, a happy and stress-free learning

environment should be provided. As a teacher, I want to create a setting that lowers

the affective filter, I must be aware of how my own emotions impact my students

and make adjustments accordingly.

As a future educator, I will be developing instructional practices in an effort to

become a successful language instructor. Analyzing the characteristics of second

language learners would be my first tactic. Different language learners should be

educated by teachers in accordance with their unique qualities and provide

customized instruction of the best quality or modify the method of instruction to

accommodate the specific needs of the students of second languages. Next, I will be

creating a learner-centered classroom to set students’ learning responsibilities. A

learner-centered classroom is an environment that creates and fosters independent

students who are aware of their learning processes and who, through this

awareness, are able to take control of their learning. Then, I will be establishing

objectives for language learners that will enhance their motivation. Getting students

involved in learning by having them set goals is essential. Setting individual linguistic

goals for language learners improves their involvement by giving them huge support
in the learning process. Lastly, I will be integrating theories of second language

acquisition with practice. Theories provide light on the reasons why language

learners respond to teaching in certain methods. Teachers who comprehend

Stephen Krashen's idea can create effective lesson plans, educational approaches,

and evaluations that direct students along a range of linguistic development.