Stephen Krashen´s Theory of Second Language Acquisition

Stephen Krashen´s Theory of Second Language Acquisition The expression "language learning" includes two clearly distinct, though rarely understood, concepts. One involves receiving information about the language, transforming it into knowledge through intellectual effort and storing it through memorization. The other involves developing the skill of interacting with foreigners to understand them and speak their language. The first concept is called "language learning," while the other is referred to as "language acquisition." These are separate ideas and we will show that neither is the consequence of the other. The distinction between acquisition and learning is one of the hypotheses (the most important) established by the American Stephen Krashen in his highly regarded theory of foreign language acquisition known as the Natural Approach. LANGUAGE ACQUISITION Language acquisition refers to the process of natural assimilation, involving intuition and subconscious learning, which is the product of real interactions between people where the learner is an active participant. It is similar to the way children learn their native tongue, a process that produces functional skill in the spoken language without theoretical knowledge. It develops familiarity with the phonetic characteristics of the language as well as its structure and vocabulary, and is responsible for oral understanding, the capability for creative communication and for the identification of cultural values. Teaching and learning are viewed as activities that happen in a personal psychological plane. The acquisition approach praises the communicative act and develops self-confidence in the learner. A classic example of language acquisition involves adolescents and young adults who live abroad for a year in an exchange program, attaining near native fluency, while knowing little about the language in the majority of cases. They have a good pronunciation without a notion of phonology, don't know what the perfect tense is, modal or phrasal verbs are, but they intuitively recognize and know how to use all the structures. LANGUAGE LEARNING The concept of language learning is linked to the traditional approach to the study of languages and today is still generally practiced in high schools worldwide. Attention is focused on the language in its written form and the objective is for the student to understand the structure and rules of the language through the application of intellect and logical deductive reasoning. The form is of greater importance than communication. Teaching and learning are technical and governed by a formal instructional plan with a predetermined syllabus. One studies the theory in the absence of the practical. One values the correct and represses the incorrect. There is little room for spontaneity. The teacher is an authority figure and the participation of the student is predominantly passive. The student will be taught how to form interrogative and negative sentences, will memorize irregular verbs, study modal verbs, etc. The student later learns to construct sentences in the perfect tense, but hardly ever masters the use of it. It's a progressive and cumulative process, normally tied to a preset syllabus that includes memorization of vocabulary. It seeks to transmit to the student knowledge about the language, its functioning and grammatical structure with its irregularities, its contrasts with the student's native language, knowledge that hopefully will produce the practical skills of understanding and speaking the language. This effort of accumulating knowledge becomes frustrating because of the lack of familiarity with the language. Innumerable graduates with arts degrees in English are classic examples of language learning. They often are trained and theoretically able to teach a language that they can communicate in only with extreme difficulty. INTERRELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ACQUISITION AND LEARNING AND ITS IMPLICATIONS The clear understanding of the differences between acquisition and learning makes it possible to investigate their interrelationships as well as the implications for the teaching of languages. First, we ought to consider that languages, in general, are complex, arbitrary, irregular phenomena, full of ambiguities, in constant random and uncontrollable evolution. Therefore, the grammatical structure of a language can be too complex and abstract to be categorized and defined by rules. Even if some partial knowledge of the functioning of the language is reached, it is not easily transformed into communication skills. What happens in fact is a dependency predominantly opposite: to understand the functioning of a language as a system and to understand its irregularities is a function of familiarity with it. Rules and exceptions as well will make sense if we have already developed solid intuitive control of the language in its oral form, that is, when we have assimilated it. Krashen admits that the knowledge obtained through formal study (language learning) can serve to monitor speaking. Krashen, however, doesn't specify the language that would be the object of study, but he was probably using the study of Spanish as the basis for his inferences and conclusions because it is the dominant foreign language in the United States, and particularly in the state of California, where Professor Krashen lives and works. Therefore, it is necessary to explore the degrees of irregularity and difficulty of the target language and how that affects the applicability of Krashen's theory. THE DEGREE OF IRREGULARITY OF THE LANGUAGE AND THE EFFICIENCY OF ACQUISITION: It is obvious that the effectiveness of the monitoring function (made possible by the knowledge of grammar rules) is directly proportional to the degree of regularity encountered in the language under study. If there is regularity, there can be a rule and such a rule will be useful to produce and monitor language. The smaller the regularity, the fewer the rules and more limited the monitoring. Spanish shows a much higher degree of regularity when compared to English, especially in its almost perfect correlation between the written language and its pronunciation. Therefore, when interpreting Krashen's theory we can logically deduce that his conclusions concerning the superiority of acquisition over learning would be more emphatic if the object of study and analysis had been English as the target language instead of Spanish. THE DEGREE OF PHONETIC SIGNALING IN THE LANGUAGE AND THE INEFFICIENCY OF LEARNING: It's also easy to assess the degree of phonetic signaling of languages and understand its importance. If we analyze and compare Spanish and Portuguese with English, we conclude that there is a significant difference, being English considerably more economical and compact than the Romance languages. This means a greater difficulty in achieving oral proficiency in the target language when going from Portuguese or Spanish to English than going the opposite direction. It also means that more time needs to be devoted to the practice of the spoken language (especially listening) and less time spent on the study of text and grammatical items. WORD STRESSING: The unpredictability of word stressing in English and the absence of any indication of stress from spelling is another element to demonstrate that, in the Brazilian case, Krashen's arguments acquire even greater strength. There are still many other points of contrast between English and Spanish that show the greater degree of irregularity and difficulty of English. The fact is that even with a target language with a large degree of regularity such as Spanish, the contribution of learning will only be effective and durable if the student simultaneously develops familiarity and skill with the language in natural environments. FIRST IMPLICATION: AGE AND THE EFFICIENCY OF ACQUISITION VS LEARNING The majority of studies as well as the experience of those in the field of SLA indicate that the lower the age the easier, the faster and the more complete the learning will be. In the same way that age is a determining factor in foreign language learning in general, it is also a determining factor in the level of efficiency of acquisition and learning. Disconsidering individual differences like personality, motivation, hearing, and taking the normal learner as a sample, we can say that the lower the age, the more efficient acquisition will be over learning. At the same time, learning demonstrates to be partially efficient only during the age of intellectual maturity, as the graph below represents. THIRD IMPLICATION: NATIVE VS. NON-NATIVE INSTRUCTOR English teaching programs in Brazil are predominantly based on language learning, working with the written language, strictly following a syllabus and having as a first objective transmitting information and knowledge about the language. For this kind of teaching, non-native teachers with the experience of "already having walked down the same path," have an advantage over native speakers. In language acquisition, however, the primary goal is interaction between people, in which one functions as a facilitator and through which the other (learner) selects his own route building his skill in a direction that interests him personally or professionally. Instead of a syllabus, language acquisition programs offer human interaction. Here, the presence of genuine representatives of the language and culture that one hopes to assimilate is fundamental. Native instructors, therefore, have a clear advantage in a communicative approach, inspired by the concept of language acquisition. CONCLUSION Krashen finally concludes that language acquisition is more efficient than language learning for attaining functional skill in a foreign language not only in childhood, and that the efficient teaching of languages isn't that tied to a packaged course of structured lessons nor is the one that relies on technological resources. Efficient teaching is personalized, takes place in a bicultural environment and is based on the personal skills of the facilitator in building relationships and creating situations of real communication focusing on the student's interests. Stephen Krashen's Theory of Second Language Acquisition "Language acquisition does not require extensive use of conscious grammatical rules, and does not require tedious drill." Stephen Krashen "Acquisition 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." Stephen Krashen "The best methods are therefore those that supply 'comprehensible input' in low anxiety situations, containing messages that students really want to hear. These methods do not force early production in the second language, but allow students to produce when they are 'ready', recognizing that improvement comes from supplying communicative and comprehensible input, and not from forcing and correcting production." Stephen Krashen "In the real world, conversations with sympathetic native speakers who are willing to help the acquirer understand are very helpful." Stephen Krashen Introduction Stephen Krashen (University of Southern California) is an expert in the field of linguistics, specializing in theories of language acquisition and development. Much of his recent research has involved the study of non-English and bilingual language acquisition. During the past 20 years, he has published well over 100 books and articles and has been invited to deliver over 300 lectures at universities throughout the United States and Canada. This is a brief description of Krashen's widely known and well accepted theory of second language acquisition, which has had a large impact in all areas of second language research and teaching since the 1980s. Description of Krashen's Theory of Second Language Acquisition Krashen's theory of second language acquisition consists of five main hypotheses: , the Acquisition-Learning hypothesis, , the Monitor hypothesis, , the Natural Order hypothesis, , the Input hypothesis, , and the Affective Filter hypothesis. The Acquisition-Learning distinction is the most fundamental of all the hypotheses in Krashen's theory and the most widely known among linguists 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 which results in conscious knowledge 'about' the language, for example knowledge of grammar rules. According to Krashen 'learning' is less important than 'acquisition'. (Veja o texto ao lado e também outra página em português sobre Acquisition/Learning). The Monitor hypothesis 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 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 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'. 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 late. This order seemed to be independent of the learners' age, L1 background, 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 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 a 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. 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. The Role of Grammar in Krashen's View According to Krashen, the study of the structure of the language can have general educational advantages and values that high schools and colleges may want to include in their language programs. It should be clear, however, that examining irregularity, formulating rules and teaching complex facts about the target language is not language teaching, but rather is "language appreciation" or linguistics. The only instance in which the teaching of grammar can result in language acquisition (and proficiency) is when the students are interested in the subject and the target language is used as a medium of instruction. Very often, when this occurs, both teachers and students are convinced that the study of formal grammar is essential for second language acquisition, and the teacher is skillful enough to present explanations in the target language so that the students understand. In other words, the teacher talk meets the requirements for comprehensible input and perhaps with the students' participation the classroom becomes an environment suitable for acquisition. Also, the filter is low in regard to the language of explanation, as the students' conscious efforts are usually on the subject matter, on what is being talked about, and not the medium. This is a subtle point. In effect, both teachers and students are deceiving themselves. They believe that it is the subject matter itself, the study of grammar, that is responsible for the students' progress, but in reality their progress is coming from the medium and not the message. Any subject matter that held their interest would do just as well.