This paper deals with one of the most influential linguists in the field second language acquisition, Stephen D. Krashen. His theoretical framework provides essential implications for prospective language teachers. The focus of the following explorations will remain in the realm of theory and not extend to practical handson advice for the second language classroom.
Krashen claims to have put forth an “overall theory” (Krashen 1985: 1) of second language acquisition accompanied by implications for teaching. Starting with one hypothesis automatically leads to the others. As all five hypotheses are interlinked this closely they will be presented concisely in the first part of this paper by drawing on various works published by Krashen.
The second part of this paper gives an overview of the controversial aspects regarding Krashen’s hypotheses. Some of the weaknesses found in the Input Hypothesis, the Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis, and the Natural Order Hypothesis will be addressed by Pienemann’s Processability Theory. Afterwards the Monitor Hypothesis and the Affective Filter Hypothesis will be critically explored.
In this paper Krashen’s original texts are used as reference in order to be able to get a deeper understanding of his theoretical work and the alterations the hypotheses have undergone over the years. The voices of criticism have been collected in the years following his publications but also in recent years. The goal of this paper is to present Krashen’s framework and explore its weaknesses in order to present a critical and reflected perspective.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Outline of Krashen’s theoretical framework
3. Critical exploration
3.1 Input Hypothesis
3.2 The Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis
3.3 The Natural Order Hypothesis
3.4 The Monitor Hypothesis
3.5 The Affective Filter Hypothesis
4. Conclusion
Objectives & Core Themes
This paper aims to provide a comprehensive overview of Stephen D. Krashen's theoretical framework of second language acquisition, while critically examining its limitations through the lens of contemporary linguistic theories such as Processability Theory.
- The five interrelated hypotheses proposed by Krashen.
- Critique of the Input Hypothesis and the concept of i + 1.
- Distinction between language acquisition and language learning.
- Evaluation of the Monitor and Affective Filter Hypotheses.
- Application of Pienemann’s Processability Theory as a modern alternative.
Excerpt from the Book
3.1 Input Hypothesis
The vague definitions make the interlinked hypotheses very vulnerable. The three most important points of criticism will be explored in more detail. How can the i and the “1” be determined and which parameters can be used here? Is input, however it may be tuned, sufficient to ensure language acquisition? It is a known fact that there are individual learner differences. It can be assumed that different levels of competence can be found within the smallest group of learners. Which approach in teaching will ensure that all learners are attended to?
Latifi, Ketabi, and Mohammadi (cf. 2013: 224) suggest that the formula i + 1 might not be a genuine idea by Krashen. D. P. Ausubel (1963) proposes the concept of meaningfulness or subsumability. Very close to Krashen’s later idea subsumability means that “the received information should be roughly tuned to the existing cognitive structure” (Ausubel 1963). Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development (1987) also promotes the idea that learning in general is a gradual process that cannot leave out specific stages.
Input is basically all written and spoken language a learner is exposed to. Krashen believes that the input an L2 learner can profit most from is very similar to “caretaker” talk. Whoever takes care of a child alters their utterances directed to the child in order to help the child understand the message (cf. Krashen 1981: 102). In all his works he also introduces the notion of comprehensible input or intake. It is defined as the part of the input that the learner can actually understand and therefore process.
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: This chapter introduces Stephen D. Krashen and outlines the scope of the paper, focusing on his five interlinked hypotheses and a critical review of their theoretical validity.
2. Outline of Krashen’s theoretical framework: This section presents a concise summary of Krashen’s five hypotheses, establishing the foundation for the subsequent critical analysis.
3. Critical exploration: This central chapter evaluates each of Krashen's five hypotheses, identifying weaknesses and comparing them with alternative frameworks like Pienemann's Processability Theory.
4. Conclusion: The concluding chapter synthesizes the critique, acknowledging Krashen's influence while noting that his theories require modification in light of current research findings.
Keywords
Second Language Acquisition, Stephen D. Krashen, Input Hypothesis, i+1, Affective Filter, Natural Order Hypothesis, Monitor Hypothesis, Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis, Pienemann, Processability Theory, Comprehensible Input, Interlanguage, Language Pedagogy, SLA Research, Linguistic Criticism
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core subject of this paper?
The paper focuses on the theoretical framework of second language acquisition established by Stephen D. Krashen and provides a critical evaluation of his five central hypotheses.
What are the primary thematic fields covered?
The themes include the distinction between acquisition and learning, the role of input (i + 1), the natural order of acquisition, the monitor model, and the impact of the affective filter on language learners.
What is the main objective of the research?
The goal is to provide a balanced, critical perspective on Krashen's work by highlighting both its historical significance and its vulnerabilities when subjected to modern academic scrutiny.
Which scientific methodology is applied?
The author uses a literature-based theoretical analysis, drawing on Krashen’s original texts and comparing his claims against subsequent research and alternative models like Pienemann’s Processability Theory.
What is addressed in the main body of the work?
The main body systematically deconstructs each of Krashen's five hypotheses, discussing their vagueness, their over-generalizations, and the limitations of their practical application in diverse classroom settings.
Which keywords best characterize this work?
Key terms include Second Language Acquisition, Input Hypothesis, Affective Filter, Processability Theory, and linguistic critique.
How does the author view the role of instruction according to Krashen?
The paper discusses how Krashen often dismisses formal instruction as a mere "accessory" to acquisition, a stance that the author challenges by suggesting that instruction plays a more significant role in the acquisition process.
What is the specific contribution of Pienemann's Processability Theory in this text?
Pienemann’s theory serves as a modern counterpoint to Krashen’s hypotheses, providing a more empirical, stage-based approach to language development that accounts for learner trajectories and identifiable competence levels.
- Quote paper
- Martina Alexandra Hunkler (Author), 2016, Krashen's Hypotheses. A critical and reflected perspective, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.hausarbeiten.de/document/372523
