Team 4 –Activity 1
Names.• Santiago Araque
• Cristian Loaiza.
Course.-
6 “A”
Date.12/12/2020
THEORIES OF SECONDLANGUAGE ACQUISITION
Studies in linguistics have focused on different stages of development and assessing whether second language
acquisition follows a similar path to first language acquisition and research in the second language classroom
flourished.
There are five main components of Krashen’s theory, the five components are as follows:
•The Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis
•The Monitor Hypothesis
•The Natural Order Hypothesis
•The Input Hypothesis
•The Affective Filter Hypothesis
1. The Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis
This hypothesis actually fuses two fundamental theories of how individuals learn languages.
Krashen has concluded that there are two systems of language acquisition that are independent but
related: the acquired system and the learned system.
• The acquired system relates to the unconscious aspect of language acquisition. When people
learn their first language by speaking the language naturally in daily interaction with others who
speak their native language, this acquired system is at work. In this system, speakers are less
concerned with the structure of their utterances than with the act of communicating meaning.
• The learned system relates to formal instruction where students engage in formal study to acquire
knowledge about the target language. For example, studying the rules of syntax is part of the
learned system.
2. The Monitor Hypothesis
Explain the relationship between acquisition and learning. The acquisition is the utterance
initiator, while the learning system performs the role of the monitor or the editor.
The Monitor Hypothesis three specific conditions:
•
Time
•
Focus on form
•
Know the rule
The use of the Monitor is affected by the amount of time that the second language learner has at
his / her disposal to think about the utterance he / she is about. to produce, the focus on form,
and his / her knowledge of second language rules.
3. NATURAL ORDER HYPOTHESIS
Krashen said that grammatical morphemes seem to be acquired in natural order. Some
structures are acquired earlier and others later.
The natural order is found both in the acquisition of language by children and adults. In the
case of L2, the natural order exists independently of the L1 of the acquirers. Later findings
show that this hypothesis is also valid for the acquisition of other languages.
For example: the rule for adding an –s to third person singular verbs in the present tense
4. INPUT HYPOTHESIS
Acquisition occurs when one is exposed to language that is comprehensible and that
contains “i +1”.
If the input contains forms and structures just beyond the learner’s current level of
competence in the language (“i +1”), then both comprehension and acquisition will
occur.
Silent Period: during this period, learners are presumably building up their competence
in the target language by listening. Krashen argued that they are making use of the
‘comprehensible input’ they receive. Once competence has been built up, speech
emerges.
For example: This phenomena has been observed to occur in some children who come to
a new country where they are exposed to a new language, and are silent for a period of
time. During this period they are presumably building up their competence in the
language bu listening.
5. The Affective Filter Hypothesis
This hypothesis describes external factors that can act as a filter that impedes acquisition. These factors include
motivation, self-confidence, and anxiety. For example, if a learner has very low motivation, very low self-confidence,
and a high level of anxiety, the effective filter comes into place and inhibits the learner from acquiring the new
language. Students who are motivated, confident, and relaxed about learning the target language have much more
success acquiring a second language than those who are trying to learn with the affective filter in place.
CRITICISMS OF KRASHEN’S THEORY
1. have not been empirically tested in language-learning environments;
2. concepts such as comprehensible input and learning acquisition
distinction are not clearly defined or testable;
3. his model presents far too simplistic view of the acquisition process.
4. diminishes the role of the learner (teacher’s the only source for
comprehensible input)