INTRODUCTION
This diploma paper aims at introducing a potential reader to the field of second language acquisition, the author’s area of interest. SLA, as an independent field of theoretical and experimental study, attempts to help to understand how a foreign language is acquired. Many theories have come into existence, whose comprehension might bring considerable benefit to both language teachers and language learners.
The first chapter of this work is devoted to a careful examination of second language acquisition theories, with the emphasis on Stephen Krashen’s Monitor Model, probably the most renown among linguists and language practitioners approach to second language acquisition. Despite its unquestionable popularity, Krashen’s theory has received an onslaught of criticism on the part of numerous researchers in the field. This critical modus operandi is the subject of chapter two. The last section of this paper, practical application, attempts to examine the opinions of prominent American, Canadian, and Australian linguists concerning the propositions set forward by Stephen Krashen in his theory. The data was gathered by means of electronic post, and a selection of responses to the author’s e-mails can be viewed in this part of the work.
1.1. The Acculturation Model.
The Acculturation Model of second language acquisition was created by John Schumann in 1978. Acculturation can be defined as the integration of a second language learner with a target language community/culture. Schumann himself explains the correlation between acculturation and second language acquisition as follows:
(…) second language acquisition is just one aspect of acculturation and the degree to which a learner acculturates to the target language group will control the degree to which he acquires the second language (Schumann 1978, cited in Ellis 1985:251).
Acculturation, and accordingly second language acquisition, are affected by social and psychological variables, also termed as social and psychological distances, which decide upon the quantity and quality of a contact with a target language community to which a learner is exposed .
Social distance is the result of a number of factors which affect the learner as a member of a social group in contact with the target language group. Psychological distance is the result of various affective factors which concern the learner as an individual (Ellis 1985:252).
The social variables determine what the good and bad conditions for learning situations are. The seven distinguished variables include (Ellis 1985):
The psychological variables deciding upon optimal second language acquisition and learning situations are as follows (Ellis 1985:252):
Schumann, in his theory, also indicates that early second language acquisition has some characteristics in common with the formation of pidgin languages, in that a learner’s language becomes pidginized when he fails to get through early stages of acquisition due to social and/or psychological distances: “pidginization may characterize all early second language acquisition and (…) under conditions of social and psychological distance it persists” (Schumann 1978:110, cited in Ellis 1985:253). When it persists, a learner fossilizes, and hence will be restricted to the use of only one, out of three, functions of language, the communicative one. The other function, integrative one, used by a speaker to show integrity with a particular social group, can be gained by both native speakers and L2 learners who do not fossilize in early stages. The last function of a language distinguished by Schumann, the expressive function, will never be fully mastered by either native speakers or L2 learners (Ellis 1985).
Another theory, Nativization Model, is to a great extent modeled on Schumann’s Acculturation Model, with the difference that it is much more focused on cognitive aspects of learning processes.
1.2. The Nativization Model.
The Nativization Model, a theory by Andersen, views language acquisition as a process predetermined by two notions, nativization and denativization (Ellis 1985).
Nativization is characterized by assimilation, which is visible when a learner seeks an accordance of input he receives with his own idea of the L2 system. Thus, a learner has a tendency to oversimplify the learning process as well as to create hypotheses founded on the knowledge he already has, e.g. knowledge of the world, knowledge of his first language, then he fits to what Andersen refers to as ‘internal norm’ (Ellis 1985). Nativization is also evident in pidginization, as well as in early second and first language acquisition.
Denativization is associated with accommodation phenomena, in that a learner adapts his inner system of a target language, his interlanguge, to the input he receives. Hence, a learner uses his inferencing strategies to reshape his interlanguage to be in correspondence with the linguistic properties of the input he receives (Ellis 1985). By doing that he suits the ‘external norm’. Denativization is a part of depiginization, also late second and first language acquisition.
The phenomena of ‘internal norm’ and ‘external norm’ are Andersen’s attempt to show how early and late interlanguage systems differ. He views second language acquisition as “the gradual transition of attention from an internal to an external norm, (…) the switch that learners make from reliance on simplifying to reliance on inferencing strategies” (Ellis 1985:254).
1.3. Accommodation Theory.
Accommodation theory created by Giles and his associates, is connected with such areas of study as sociolinguistics and socio-psychology. The main premise of the theory is to examine in what way intergroup language use echoes social and psychological aspects of interethnic communication (Ellis 1985). Giles is concerned with the correlation between a learner’s social group, the ‘ingroup’, and the target language social group, the ‘outgroup’. He explains this correlation by the use of the term ‘perceived social distance’, which stands for “how the ingroup defines itself in relationship to the outgroup that is important for SLA” (Ellis 1985:256). The intergroup relationships, in Giles’s view (Ellis 1985), are somehow long lasting negotiations during every interaction. Hence, any kind of intergroup relationships possess a feature of dynamism, and moreover vary with respect to the feel of identity one group retains against the other. This proposition, in turn, will determine a learner’s language variability and a native speaker’s input.
Giles also believes (Ellis 1985), that L2 proficiency largely relies upon motivation, which is to a great extent affected by how individual learners view themselves in terms of ethnic identity. This is determined by the following variables (Ellis1985:257):
Hence, high motivation and high level of proficiency in second language acquisition can be achieved when a learner has weak identification with his ingroup, makes positive or no comparison between his own and outgroup, has low perception of ethno-linguistic vitality, his perception of ingroup boundaries is soft, and his ingroup status is satisfactory. As opposed to this, a learner’s proficiency in second language acquisition will depend only on his intelligence and aptitude, due to his low motivation apparent when his identification with ingroup is strong, when he makes negative comparisons between his own and outgroup, his perception of ethno-linguistic vitality is high, his perception of ingroup boundaries is hard, and finally his ingroup status is inadequate (Ellis 1985).
Nevertheless, the level of proficiency that a learner can achieve in second language acquisition is also dependent on the learner’s linguistic output. Giles states:
(…) people are continually modifying their speech with others so as to reduce or accentuate the linguistic (and hence) social differences between them depending on their perceptions of the interactive situation (Ellis 1985:257).
The author of the theory differentiates between two types of L2 speaker’s use of ‘ethnic speech markers’ – linguistic features which mark the ingroup membership of the speaker, namely upward convergence and downward convergence (Ellis 1985). Upward convergence appears when ingroup speech markers are not accentuated, therefore a learner’s motivation concerning outgroup community is favorable. Downward convergence, in contrast, occurs when ethnic speech markers are stressed, and learner’s motivation towards the outgroup is unfavorable. Both phenomena can vary with regard to L2 speaker’s evaluation of himself and his ingroup as opposed to the outgroup. It can be further stated that a learner chooses what style and form to adopt according to his social and psychological distances, as well as due to the degree to which he wishes to mark his speech as that of the ingroup.
Language acquisition is optimal when a learner fits the upward convergence criterion, otherwise a learner fossilizes.
1.4. Discourse Theory.
According to the discourse theory of language acquisition, which was proposed by Hatch in the late 1970s, functions of speech are of primary importance to learners both in the case of mother tongue as well as a foreign language. Only thanks to the urge to successfully convey messages do they attempt to use more sophisticated structures, since as Ellis (1985) points out, the structure used by a language user is determined or formed by the function the utterance is to fulfill. Furthermore, the rules of usage of a language are developed by the learner with reference to the functions which might be performed by them (Ellis 1985:259).
The key assumptions of that theory include the notion that language is acquired in a natural way, in that the most frequently occurring items of syntax are mastered in the first place. Moreover, negotiation of meaning, which often occurs, especially with non-native speakers and non-proficient users of language, contributes to language awareness and the knowledge of its functions. What is more, at the beginning only surface meaning of lexis is acquired, and the understanding of the deeper sense, that is metaphors or idioms, comes with time. Therefore, it is claimed that people learn language ‘naturally’ when they follow this pattern: from basic sentences intended to convey simple ideas to elaborate metaphorical sentences consisting of several clauses, which is aimed at carrying animated discussions.
It is highlighted in that theory that communicative competence is most effectively gained through frequent participation in acts of linguistic contact, which would simultaneously stimulate the development of the learner’s interlanguage. The ability to employ the target language in an appropriate manner, as well as the capacity for suitably responding to various types of conversations operating different registers along with familiarity with the rules of speaking (turn-taking patterns), and last but not least detailed knowledge of syntax and lexis are understood as communicative competence.
Discourse theorists support the notion that language acquisition occurs when children successfully perform actions thanks to their linguistic abilities, which improve when their aims become more sophisticated and more elaborate structures are needed to express it. Similarly, when a second language is learnt, students are thought to benefit from partaking in a variety of tasks that require using the target language. An exemplary method based on such a premise could be Communicative Language Teaching, where emphasis is put on oral interaction.
1.5. The Variable Competence Model.
The Variable Competence Model, as proposed by Ellis in 1984, is based on and adds to the work of Tarone, Widdowson, and Bialystok. Its chief constituents are, what Ellis (1985) calls, a ‘process’ and ‘product’ of language use. According to this theory, the way a given language is used mirrors the method in which it is learnt.
The array of discourse types, from planned to unplanned, constitutes what Ellis has termed the product of language use. The unplanned discourse can be explained as spontaneous communication without prior thought or preparation. In contrast, the planned discourse requires first thought, then expression.
The discrepancy between knowledge about the language, i.e. rules of the language, and the actual use of this knowledge, i.e. procedures, allows for understanding the notion of the process of language use, as termed by Ellis (1985). In Widdowson’s view (Ellis 1985), knowledge of the rules can be referred to as ‘competence’, and the use of this knowledge in actual speech, as ‘capacity’. Following this assumption, it can be further stated that in order to produce sentences in discourse situation, the language user needs to be capable of correlating his knowledge of the rules with situational and linguistic context in which he finds himself . Thus, the product of language use is the effect of one or both of the following notions (Ellis 1985:267):
According to the Variable Competence Model, both of the above occur and interrelate.
Bialystok distinguishes between automatic/non-automatic and analytic/unanalytic variability of the learner’s rule system (Ellis 1985). The automatic/non-automatic distinction deals with the access that the learner has to his L2 knowledge. Knowledge that can be restored quickly and without effort is automatic. The one that requires time and energy is non-automatic. The analytic/unanalytic distinction, on the other hand, constitutes the degree to which the learner possesses a “prepositional mental representation which makes clear the structure of the knowledge and its relationship to other aspects of knowledge” (Bialystok 1982:183, cited in Ellis 1985:267). It is also noted by Bialystok (Ellis 1985) that unanalyzed knowledge refers to the question of how we know most things, as in most instances we are not conscious of the way our knowledge is structured.
Ellis distinguishes between two types of procedures for actualizing knowledge, namely primary and secondary processes (Ellis 1985), each of them having an external (discourse) and an internal (cognitive processes) representation. Primary processes, since they refer to unanalyzed and automatic knowledge, are responsible for engaging in unplanned discourse, e.g. semantic simplification. Secondary processes, as they relate to analyzed knowledge, are responsible for planned discourse, e.g. monitoring.
Primary and secondary processes explain how L2 learners actualize their linguistic knowledge in discourse, define the variability of L2 learner language by means of different types of knowledge, as well as procedures that contribute to creating discourse types. They also appear to relate to acquisition. In Widdowson’s understanding (Ellis 1985), by using procedures, the language learner not only reinforces his existing linguistic knowledge, but also creates new linguistic rules. Widdowson says:
We draw upon our knowledge of rules to make sense. We do not simply measure discourse up against our knowledge of pre-existing rules, we create discourse and commonly bring new rules into existence by so doing. All competence is transitional in this sense (Widdowson 1979:62, cited in Ellis 1985:268).
Thus, our ability to make sense results in language acquisition. New rules come into existence, when we participate in different types of discourse.
According to Ellis (1985), second language acquisition follows its established route due to the developmental character of the processes that the learner uses to take part in discourse. Early stages of second language acquisition are preoccupied with the intensified use of semantic simplification, for it involves little L2 knowledge. Later procedures in SLA classrooms reduce reliance on shared knowledge as well as verbal devices and move toward situational context, thereby becoming characteristic of later SLA.
1.6. The Universal Hypothesis.
The Universal Hypothesis is based on Noam Chomsky’s theory of language acquisition. Although Chomsky’s Universal Grammar theory holds for child first language acquisition, it is believed that it may well be true for second language acquisition.
Chomsky claims that language acquisition is greatly dependent upon a linguistic faculty, which he terms Language Acquisition Device, LAD, or Universal Grammar, around which all languages are built.
This linguistic faculty is thought to be innate to all human beings, placed somewhere in the brain, and consisting of linguistic universals. Its existence enables a child to acquire the grammar of a language to which he/she is exposed, and understand the input he/she receives.
Chomsky also comes up with the notion of deep structure and surface structure. The deep structure is a mental representation of an idea, universal for all languages and language learners. The surface structure, is the actual speech, utterances people produce, by the use of deep structure, or the grammar innately coded in their brains.
The argument for the existence of LAD in human brains is that when children acquire language, they are usually not exposed to its correct forms, e.g. slips of the tongue, interruptions, etc, yet they are able to learn the language and use it correctly, and produce the sentences they have never heard before. It happens so because children deduct rules from the received input rather than imitate the language being used around them. Thus, when a child is exposed to a language, he/she, with the aid of LAD, will unconsciously identify what sort of language he/she is dealing with, and adjust his/her grammar to the correct one.
Chomsky’s propositions have recently been translated into second language acquisition, and termed Universal Hypothesis. This theory is based on the assumption that there are ‘core’ and ‘language-specific‘ rules in all languages. The ‘core’ rules are those which are present in all natural languages. The ‘language-specific’ rules may be found in only one or two languages. According to the Universal Hypothesis, a second language learner learns ‘core’ rules with ease, the ‘language-specific’ ones appear to be much harder to master. It has also been suggested that when a learner comes across ‘language-specific’ rules, he/she will tend to refer to L1. Thus, if a learner discovers that an L2 rule is not in accordance with a universal rule, he/she will attempt to interpret that rule by means of the equivalent rule in his/her L1.
1.7. The Neurofunctional Theory.
Lamdella’s neurofunctional theory, unlike the previously discussed theories of second language acquisition, is based on neurolinguistic studies. The main premise of this theory is the fact that language learning strictly corresponds with neural mechanisms. It denies, however, the existence of any ‘black box’ in the human brain.
Neurofunctional theory considers the involvement of the right and left hemispheres of the brain to be firmly related to comprehension and production of language. It also accounts for age differences, formulaic speech, fossilization, and pattern practice in second language acquisition.
The right hemisphere is responsible for holistic processing, therefore, it is where formulaic speech and its constituents, namely routines and patterns, are stored and processed. It is also believed (Ellis 1985) that the right hemisphere participation in second language acquisition will most likely occur in the early stages of acquisition, as this is the time of intensified use of formulaic speech.
It has also been hypothesized (Ellis 1985) that the right hemisphere participation might be apparent in classroom pattern practice, since it arranges them for later left hemisphere examination.
The left hemisphere is in charge of analytic processing, and creative language use with both semantic and syntactic examining, characteristic of speaking and writing.
Lamdella differentiates between two types of language acquisition (Ellis 1985), namely Primary Language Acquisition and Secondary Language Acquisition. The first one is typical of a child, aged 2 to 5, acquiring one or more languages. The second one is further divided into foreign language learning (classroom L2 learning) and second language acquisition (natural acquisition of an L2 over the age of 5).
Each type of language acquisition possesses different neurofunctional systems, which, in turn, hold a variety of functions and contribute to information processing in a number of ways. In Lamendella’s view (Ellis 1985), there are two systems of considerable significance for language functioning: (1) the communication hierarchy, responsible for language and other types of interpersonal communication, and (2) the cognitive hierarchy, which regulates the array of cognitive information processing activities.
The communication hierarchy occurs in primary language acquisition and second language acquisition. Cognitive hierarchy, on the other hand, is present in foreign language learning.
Each of the above systems may be further subdivided into high- and low-level systems (Ellis 1985). By the use of high-level system, the acquired second language forms may be accumulated as sub-routines at lower level of the communication hierarchy. When it comes to performance, lower-level sub-routines may be approached without referring to higher levels within the same hierarchy.
1.8. The Monitor Model.
Stephen Krashen’s Monitor Model is an example of the nativist theories. The model forms a foundation for the Natural Approach, which is a comprehension-based approach to foreign and second language teaching. The model comprises of five hypotheses, whose extensive explanation is provided in the subsequent sections of this work.
1.8.1. The Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis.
In his theory, Stephen Krashen (1981) proposes the distinction between acquisition and learning of a language, being the most fundamental of all hypotheses, as well as the most renowned one among a number of linguists and language practitioners.
In his view, subconscious language acquisition bears a great deal of similarity to the way children acquire their first language. Through language acquisition, language learners naturally develop linguistic competence, exactly like children, who “are not necessarily aware that they are acquiring language, they are only aware that they are communicating” (Krashen 1983:26). However, it is not only the very process of acquisition that is subconscious, but also the final outcome of acquisition, or so to say acquired linguistic competence. Generally, a language learner is not aware of the rules of a language he has acquired, instead he has a ‘feel’ for correctness: “when we hear an error we may not know exactly what rule was violated, but somehow ‘know’ that an error was committed” (Krashen 1983:26). It is also stated that formal teaching, that is language teaching in grammar-based approaches, where error identification and correction are stressed, does not encourage acquisition. The acquisition process itself “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” (Krashen 1981:5). However, language can be acquired in the classroom when the focus is on communication – for example, through dialogues, role-playing, and other forms of meaningful interaction.
Conscious language learning, on the other hand, is said to be a product of formal instruction resulting in the knowledge about the language, e.g. knowledge of grammar rules, and unlike acquisition, takes place in formal environments (Krashen 1981). “Learning refers to ‘explicit’ knowledge of rules, being aware of them and being able to talk about them” (Krashen 1983: 26). This proposition seems to be entirely realized in formal teaching, whose “goal is the learning of conscious rules, and error correction is thought to help the learner arrive at the ‘right’ form of the rule” (Krashen 1983: 26).
It is also stated by Krashen (1981) that learning cannot become acquisition, as in many instances acquisition without learning appears, which means that an individual may be a competent user of a second language not knowing its rules consciously. Another supporting argument for this proposition is that there are incidents where learning never becomes acquisition, when one knows the rule but continues breaking it. And the last argument is based on the claim that no one ever masters all the rules of the target language.
1.8.2. The Monitor Hypothesis.
The Monitor hypothesis aims at illustrating the correlation between acquisition and learning, also outlining the impact of the latter on the former. As Krashen (1982) claims, formal knowledge of the rules of the target language – the learned system, acts as the editor or monitor of the acquired system gained through the meaningful interaction in the target language. Thus, by the use of the learned system, a learner is able to correct the deviations of speech initialized by the acquisition system, either before or after the utterance has been pronounced or written.
There are certain conditions to be fulfilled for the Monitor use, namely sufficient time, focus on form, and knowledge of the rule (Krashen and Terrell 1983). According to the first condition, the performer needs to have time for successful employment of the Monitor. This, however, seems to be hardly possible in conversation, when, while speaking and listening, performers have no time for thinking about and applying grammatical rules. At this point one might argue that the performer may have time but still not use the Monitor, as she/he is completely absorbed with the message she/he wishes to convey. Such a claim provides the foundation for the emergence of the second condition for the Monitor use, that the performer has to be focused on form and correctness. The third condition is met when the performer knows the rule, therefore “he or she needs to have a correct mental representation of the rule to apply it correctly” (Krashen 1981:7). This, however, appears to be difficult, for the fact that even the best and most diligent language students do not usually master all the rules presented to them.
Nevertheless, it is not exclusively the conscious learned knowledge of rules that can act as the Monitor. It is also the acquired knowledge of language, the so called ‘feel’ for grammaticality that can be used for self-correction and this is the case when a native speaker corrects his/her speech errors.
Krashen (1981) also comes up with the notion of individual variation in the Monitor use. He distinguishes between three types of performers. Type One performers, the over-users, are those language learners who tend to use the Monitor all the time. They refer to the conscious grammar, driven by fear of making mistakes, due to over-concern with correctness and form or lacking trust in their acquired knowledge. Yet, the over-use of the Monitor may also originate from lack of acquisition.
Those trained only in foreign language classrooms, where the emphasis was on conscious grammar, may develop extensive formal knowledge of the target language, with very little acquisition, and consequently have no choice but to be over-users. Such performers may utilize the first language as an utterance initiator when forced to speak, since they lack acquired competence in the second language
(Krashen 1981:20).
The Over-users, however, quite often appear to be accurate in written assignments, when the extreme monitoring use is possible and all three conditions for its use are met, namely sufficient time, focus on form and correctness, and knowledge of the rule.
Type Two performers, under-users, belong to a group of language learners, who hardly ever use the Monitor, even if conditions promote it. “The under-user typically judges grammaticality ‘by feel’, that is, he uses his subconsciously acquired system, rather than a conscious grammar” (Krashen 1981:20). It is also worth pointing out that “under-users may pay lip service to the importance of linguistic rules but in reality may hardly use them at all” (Stafford and Covitt 1978, cited in Krashen 1981:21).
The last group of performers – optimal users, take advantage of the Monitor only when it is appropriate and does not collide with communication, treating it more as a supplement to acquisition. In informal, daily communication optimal users do not seem to apply the Monitor, winning fluency this way. It might also be for the fact, that the performer is preoccupied with the message. Although they occasionally make mistakes, they are able to self-correct the moment a mistake has been pointed out to them. Yet, in formal writing and careful speech, they will always utilize conscious grammatical knowledge of a target language. It may thus be concluded, that optimal users are “able to communicate well in both Monitor-free and edited situations, applying the Monitor when it is appropriate to focus on form” (Krashen 1981:17).
1.8.3. The Natural Order Hypothesis.
This hypothesis states that grammatical structures are acquired in a predictable order: “there is a fairly stable order of acquisition of structures in language acquisition, that is, one can see clear similarities across acquirers as to which structures tend to be acquired early and which tend to be acquired late” (Krashen 1981:5-6). Krashen bases his assumptions regarding the natural order of acquisition on morpheme studies undertaken in the early 1980s.Brown’s research (1973) on child acquisition of English as a first language, as well as Dulay and Burt’s studies (1975) on child acquisition of English as a second language, are a clear evidence for the analogy between first language and second language acquisition of grammatical morphemes. The studies carried out in 1974 by Bailey, Madden, and Krashen prove that adults with different first languages also “show remarkably similar difficulty orders” (Krashen and Terrell 1983:29) in acquisition of a second language. The table below illustrates the order of acquisition of English as a second language, for both children and adults.
Average Order of Acquisition of Grammatical Morphemes for
English as a Second Language (Children and Adults)
ING (progressive) PLURAL COPULA (to be) |
AUXILIARY (progressive) ARTICLE (a, the) |
| IRREGULAR PAST |
REGULAR PAST III SINGULAR (-s) POSSESSIVE (-s) |
Note: from Krashen and Terrell 1983.
A number of the relationships presented in the above table are also true for child first language acquisition. However, Copula and Auxiliary are said to be acquired later in first language acquisition than in second language acquisition.
An important thing to point out is, that “natural order for adult subjects seems to appear only under certain conditions. It may not appear when adults are given grammar tests, but appears reliably when we focus adults on communication” (Krashen and Terrell 1983:29). Krashen, however, does not suggest that language teaching syllabuses should be based on the order found in the studies, as he postulates rejection of any type of grammatical sequencing, when the goal is language acquisition.
It has also been stated by Krashen (Krashen and Terrell 1983) that this natural order of acquisition is the same for learners whose exposure to the target language took place almost always outside language classes and those whose target language experience was primarily in the classroom. Moreover, the natural order of acquisition is the corollary of the acquired system, which functions free of the Monitor.
1.8.4. The Input Hypothesis.
The Input hypothesis is probably one of the most important out of all five hypotheses, as it attempts to provide an answer to the question of how a learner acquires a second language. It “states simply that we acquire (not learn) language by understanding input that is a little beyond our current level of (acquired) competence” (Krashen and Terrell 1983:32). For instance, if a learner’s stage is 'i', then acquisition occurs when he/she is exposed to comprehensible input that constitutes 'i + 1' level, provided that he/she understands (read: an acquirer is focused on the meaning rather than on form) language containing ‘i + 1’. It can be achieved through reading and hearing structures, which slightly excel learner’s current ability, as well as through context and extra-linguistic information. Following this assumption, it can be further stated that reading and listening comprehension are of prime importance to speaking and writing ability, which “will come on its own with time (…) after the acquirer has built up competence through comprehending input” (Krashen and Terrell 1983:32). This idea is in accordance with the silent period phenomena, which implies that second language acquirers start speaking several months after their first exposure to a target language has taken place.
The input itself can be divided into finely- and roughly-tuned. The finely-tuned input is targeted at the learners' present level of acquisition, aiming at one structure at a time. This is typical of teaching syllabus, whose goal is ‘i +1’, thus the aim of the lesson, for both teachers and students, is to teach and learn a specific grammatical item or structure. The moment the structure is mastered, the next structure from the syllabus can be presented.
The roughly-tuned input, in contrast, acts as a net spreading out around the current level of acquisition of the learner, his ‘i’, also consisting of instances of his ‘i + 1’. In this case, the speaker’s or teacher’s aim is to make himself/herself understood. It is said that “when communication is successful, when the input is understood and there is enough of it, i + 1 will be provided automatically” (Krashen 1982:22).
Good examples of roughly-tuned input are caretaker speech, foreigner talk, and teacher talk. Caretaker speech, a simplified form of a given language, is considered to be of a great help in the overall process of acquisition, for both first language and second language acquirer, as those who are exposed to it, apparently acquire language faster. Caretaker speech, as it is much simpler in structure and form, appears to be roughly tuned to the linguistic level of the child, and it gets more complex as the child grows in linguistic maturity. It is meant for communication, and “here and now” situations. Later, when the child has grown enough in his/her linguistic competence, it becomes more displaced in time and space, giving extra-linguistic information or context for the child to acquire ‘i + 1’ (Krashen and Terrell 1983).
Foreigner talk is another form of caretaker speech, and is characterized by the modifications that native speakers make when talking to non-native speakers. Its purpose, just as in the case of caretaker speech, is communication. The modifications include “slowing down, repeating, restating, changing wh- questions to yes/no questions” (Krashen and Terrell 1983:34).
Teacher talk, i.e. meta-language of the classroom delivered in the target language, also proves to be roughly tuned to the level of acquirer. Again, it is used for communication, and seems to have comparative outcome on adults as it has on children. Teachers talking to their students and making sure they are understood will not only provide an ordinary language lesson but also administer a great deal of input for acquisition.
Roughly tuned input is said to be more important and advantageous from finely tuned input.
With rough tuning, we are always assured that i + 1 will be covered, while with finely tuned exercises, we are taking a guess as to where the student is. With roughly tuned input, we are assured of constant recycling and review. Third, roughly tuned input will be good for more than one acquirer at a time, even when they are at slightly different levels. Finally, roughly tuned caretaker speech in the form of teacher talk or foreigner talk, will nearly always be more interesting than exercise that focuses just on one grammatical point (Krashen and Terrell 1983:35).
1.8.5. The Affective Filter Hypothesis.
According to the Affective Filter hypothesis, there is a number of affective variables, or attitudinal factors that play a significant role in second language acquisition, as well as decide upon learner’s success in obtaining acquired competence. These include:
(1) Motivation. Performers with high motivation generally do better in second language acquisition (usually but not always, ‘integrative’)
(2) Self-confidence. Performers with self-confidence and a good self-image tend to do better in second language acquisition.
(3) Anxiety. Low anxiety appears to be conductive to second language acquisition, whether measured as personal or classroom anxiety.
(Krashen 1982:31)
Attitudinal factors “encourage acquirers to communicate with speakers of the target language, and thereby obtain the necessary input, or intake, for language acquisition” (Krashen 1981:25).
Acquirers differ with regard to the strength of their Affective Filters. Those with approaches inferior to second language acquisition, that is low motivation, poor self-image, and high anxiety level,
will not only tend to seek less input, but they will also have a high or strong Affective Filter – even if they understand the message, the input will not reach the part of the brain responsible for language acquisition, or the language acquisition device.
(Krashen 1982:31)
Those with ideal, or optimal attitudes to second language acquisition, on the other hand, “will not only seek and obtain more input, they will also have a lower or weaker filter. They will be more open to the input, and it will strike ‘deeper’” (Krashen 1982:31).
The filter, as described by Krashen (1982), performs four limiting functions, namely it determines: (1) which language model the learner will select, (2) which part of the language the learner will devote himself to, (3) when the acquisition of the language should stop, and (4) how fast the learner is able to acquire the language.
The implication of the Affective Filter hypothesis is that affective factors should be taken into account in language teaching, where “ pedagogical goals should not only include supplying optimal input, but also creating a situation that promotes a low filter” (Krashen and Terrell 1983:38), as:
The student who feels at ease in the classroom and likes the teacher may seek out intake by volunteering, and may be more accepting of the teacher as a source of intake. Positive attitudes toward the classroom and teacher may also be manifestations of self-confidence and/or integrative motivation, and for this reason may also relate to acquisition (Krashen 1981:27-28).
Stephen Krashen’s theory has become very popular among second language learners and teachers, for it comprises ideas that are easily understandable and applicable. However, it has also received an onslaught of criticism on the part of second language researchers and theorists. In the following sections, the author of this paper will provide some major drawbacks of the Monitor Model.
2.1. The Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis – critique.
The very distinction that Krashen makes between acquisition and learning of a language seems to be problematic and not sufficiently supported by research data. Krashen’s explanation (1981) of acquisition and learning in terms of subconscious and conscious processes lacks the definition of what he really means by subconscious and conscious. Conscious learning, in his view, stands for deciding upon grammaticality on the basis of the ‘rule’; in contrast, when subconscious acquisition comes into play, this grammaticality is deducted from the ‘feel’. Such an explanation proves to be unsatisfactory, as it can never be stated for sure whether the subjects examined by Krashen and his associates acted upon the ‘rule’ or ‘feel’.
Another issue that Krashen critics (McLaughlin 1987) view as inadequate concerns the claim that learning does not become acquisition. For Krashen, acquisition, as independent of learning, subconscious process, requires meaningful interaction in the target language. There is however, the case of Gregg who learned the rules for forming the past and gerundive forms of Japanese verbs in a few days by memorizing the chart in his textbook and additional drilling, no input was provided, nor meaningful interaction with native speakers. Gregg argues (McLaughlin 1987) that this experiment proves that one is able to learn the rule, which, when error-free production of it occurs, becomes acquired.
2.2. The Monitor Hypothesis – critique.
One of the propositions made by Krashen in this hypothesis implies that the learned knowledge (the editor) may only be of use in production, not in comprehension. Kevin Gregg, however, a citizen of Japan, on the basis of his own experience, strongly disagrees with this view. While listening to one of the Japanese radio stations, Gregg heard a sentence he did not quite understand. On the basis of the knowledge of Japanese he already possessed, he was able to deduct the meaning of particular words and discover the true meaning of the sentence. This proves, that it is possible for the learner to comprehend the input he receives by the use of the learned knowledge.
The hypothesis also lists three conditions for the Monitor use, namely time, focus on form, and knowledge of the rule. The study carried out by Hulstijn and Hulstijn in 1984 (McLaughlin 1987), proves however, that the condition of time does not necessarily hold for second language accuracy. The subjects of the study, when given more time for production, and asked not to focus on form, did not perform better than when asked to produce sentences with the focus on form, and without time restrictions.
The second condition, focus on form, has some drawbacks as well. A number of studies (McLaughlin 1987), where subjects were asked to correct spelling and grammar in written assignments, did not confirm the use of the Monitor.
The last condition for the Monitor use has also been questioned in the study by Hulstijn and Hulstijn (McLaughlin 1987). The subjects’ knowledge of rules was tested and evaluated by means of an interview. It has been discovered that the knowledge of rules did not correlate with the results achieved in performance with focus on form and no time restrictions. Focus on form and no time limits proved to have the same impact on subjects who were able to provide a correct rule, who were not capable of expressing the rule at all, and who gave partially correct or incorrect rule.
2.3. The Natural Order Hypothesis – critique.
The studies carried out by Krashen that would prove there is the natural order of acquisition, no matter whether a longitudinal or cross-sectional method was applied, let him state there are “no significant individual differences among acquires when a minimum of ten obligatory occasions is used for each item and the data are gathered in a ‘Monitor-free’ condition” (Krashen 1985:20, cited in McLaughlin 1987:32). However McLaughlin (1987) argues that the results of longitudinal studies are not always in accordance with the results of cross-sectional studies. He calls the cross-sectional research by Hakuta and Rosansky from 1976, whose findings did not agree with the findings of the same longitudinal studies. McLaughlin (1987) also points out that the study carried out by Dulay and Burt, on which Krashen bases his hypothesis to a great extent, did not measure the acquisition sequence but rather accuracy of use of particular morphemes in obligatory contexts.
Krashen’s claim that an invariant natural order of acquisition can always be found has been impaired by the studies of first language interference in second language learning by Hakuta and Cancino (1977). Both state that “the semantic complexity of the morphemes may vary depending on the learner’s native language” (McLaughlin 1987:32). Their research revealed that when there is a great discrepancy between the structure of the learners’ mother tongue and the target language, they will show more difficulty in learning the target language. In contrast, the learners whose native language makes the same or close semantic discrimination as the target language, will not show difficulties in acquisition of the second language. Thus, the difficultness of acquisition of particular forms in the target language depends on the native language of the learner.
To establish what route the acquisition process takes, one also has to consider the individual variations of the learner, e.g. frequency and time of exposure to the target language, learning strategies etc. Unfortunately, Krashen does not account for these. Instead, he comes up with the notion of “several streams of development that are taking place at the same time” (McLaughlin 1987:35). Unfortunately, he does not provide the definition of the ‘streams of development’. Neither does he precisely state how many “streams’ can occur at once. In Gregg’s view (McLaughlin 1987), the probability of more than one stream occurrence undermines the Natural Order Hypothesis.
2.4. The Input Hypothesis – critique.
In order to support his hypothesis, Krashen uses the notion of the silent period, a span of time when a learner grows in his linguistic competence, and by gaining enough comprehensible input, starts speaking. McLaughlin (1987) argues that the phenomenon of silent period does not serve as a sufficient explanation of how the language is acquired. The silent period may as well be a result of learner’s anxiety, personality differences, etc.
Moreover, it could also be questioned how it is possible for the learner to understand the input containing structures that he has not acquired yet. Krashen reiterates that it is possible through extra linguistic information, context, etc. But, is it really measurable whether a learner uses this extra-linguistic information effectively, when he provides no or very little feedback to his interlocutors?
Another drawback of this theory is that the very comprehensible input cannot be defined, and it varies from learner to learner. Thus, the hypothesis, in this regard, is untestable.
Krashen (1982) also claims that by exposure to the input containing ‘i +1’ learners will acquire new structures of that level, which is not necessarily true, e.g. acquisition of formulaic expressions. Thus, the grammatical structure of the expression might not be understood by learners but it could be used properly within a context.
2.5. The Affective Filter Hypothesis – critique.
Krashen (1982) attributes four restrictive functions to the filter, which the author of this paper described in the section on the Affective Filter hypothesis. Yet he does not explain a limiting role of the affective filter. For instance, it is not dwelt on how the affective filter decides on what part of the language to attend to first. And if it is possible for the filter to determine it, do beginner learners really have the ability to discriminate between these parts, and respectively choose the proper one to learn first? Krashen remains silent on this issue.
The claim that the affective filter determines when the language acquisition should stop, is not clarified either (McLaughlin 1987). Krashen (1982) states that high motivation, good self-image and low anxiety level facilitate language acquisition. He also states that low motivation, poor self-image, and high anxiety level impede the acquisition process. He does not, however, take the indifferent attitude of the learner toward language learning into account. And this attitude, as being in accordance with the optimal affective filter, for it does not block the input, could also be thought of as facilitating the overall process of acquisition. Thus, the theory does not discriminate between the indifferent and highly motivated learner.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bialystok, E. 1982. On the Relationship between Knowing and Using Linguistic Forms. Applied Linguistics 3, 3:181-206.
Ellis, R. 1985. Understanding Second Language Acquisition. Oxford University Press.
Krashen, S.D. 1981. Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Pergamon.
Krashen, S.D. 1982. Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Pergamon.
Krashen, S.D. and Terrell, T. 1983. The natural approach: language acquisition in the classroom. Pergamon.
Krashen, S.D. 1985. The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. Longman.
McLaughlin, B. 1987. Theories of Second Language Learning. London, Edward Arnold.
Schumann, J. 1978. The acculturation model for second-language acquisition. In R.C. Gingras (Ed.). Second Language Acquisition and Foreign Language Teaching.
Stafford, C. and Covitt, G. 1978. "Monitor use in adult second language production". ITL: Review of Applied Linguistics 39-40: 103-125.
Widdowson, H.G. 1979. Explorations in applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.