affective hypothesis krashen

The Affective Filter Hypothesis: Definition and Criticism

January 23, 2018, 9:00 am

Linguist and educator Stephen Krashen proposed the Monitor Model, his theory of second language acquisition, in Principles and practice in second language acquisition as published in 1982. According to the Monitor Model, five hypotheses account for the acquisition of a second language:

• Acquisition-learning hypothesis
• Natural order hypothesis
• Monitor hypothesis
• Input hypothesis
• Affective filter hypothesis

However, in spite of the popularity and influence of the Monitor Model, the five hypotheses are not without criticism. The following sections offer a description of the fifth and final hypothesis of the theory, the affective filter hypothesis, as well as the major criticism by other linguistics and educators surrounding the hypothesis.

Definition of the Affective Filter Hypothesis

The fifth hypothesis, the affective filter hypothesis, accounts for the influence of affective factors on second language acquisition. Affect refers to non-linguistic variables such as motivation, self-confidence, and anxiety. According to the affective filter hypothesis, affect effects acquisition, but not learning, by facilitating or preventing comprehensible input from reaching the language acquisition device. In other words, affective variables such as fear, nervousness, boredom, and resistance to change can effect the acquisition of a second language by preventing information about the second language from reaching the language areas of the mind.

Furthermore, when the affective filter blocks comprehensible input, acquisition fails or occurs to a lesser extent then when the affective filter supports the intake of comprehensible input. The affective filter, therefore, accounts for individual variation in second language acquisition. Second language instruction can and should work to minimize the effects of the affective filter.

Criticism of the Affective Filter Hypothesis

The final critique of Krashen’s Monitor Model questions the claim of the affective filter hypothesis that affective factors alone account for individual variation in second language acquisition. First, Krashen claims that children lack the affective filter that causes most adult second language learners to never completely master their second language. Such a claim fails to withstand scrutiny because children also experience differences in non-linguistic variables such as motivation, self-confidence, and anxiety that supposedly account for child-adult differences in second language learning.

Furthermore, evidence in the form of adult second language learners who acquire a second language to a native-like competence except for a single grammatical feature problematizes the claim that an affective filter prevents comprehensible input from reaching the language acquisition device. As Manmay Zafar asks, “How does the filter determine which parts of language are to be screened in/out?” In other words, the affective filter hypothesis fails to answer the most important question about affect alone accounting for individual variation in second language acquisition.

Although the Monitor Model has been influential in the field of second language acquisition, the fifth and final hypothesis, the affective filter hypothesis, has not been without criticism as evidenced by the critiques offered by other linguists and educators in the field.

Gass, Susan M. & Larry Selinker. 2008. Second language acquisition: An introductory course , 3rd edn. New York: Routledge. Gregg, Kevin R. 1984. Krashen’s monitor and Occam’s razor. Applied Linguistics 5(2). 79-100. Krashen, Stephen D. 1982. Principles and practice in second language acquisition . Oxford: Pergamon. http://www.sdkrashen.com/Principles_and_Practice/Principles_and_Practice.pdf. Lightbrown, Patsy M. & Nina Spada. 2006. How languages are learned , 3rd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Zafar, Manmay. 2009. Monitoring the ‘monitor’: A critique of Krashen’s five hypotheses. Dhaka University Journal of Linguistics 2(4). 139-146.

affective filter hypothesis language acquisition language learning monitor model

The Input Hypothesis: Definition and Criticism

The Postpositional Complement in English Grammar

Seidlitz Education

Developing Language in Every Classroom

What Is the Affective Filter, and Why Is it Important in the Classroom?

by Valentina Gonzalez

What Is the Affective Filter?

The term “affective filter” originates from Stephen Krashen, an expert in the field of linguistics, who described it as a number of affective variables that contribute to second language acquisition. Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary defines affective as “referring to, arising from, or influencing feelings or emotions.”

Krashen (1986) cites motivation, self-confidence, and anxiety in the Affective Filter Hypothesis as three categories of variables that play a role in second language acquisition. In essence, when feelings or emotions such as anxiety, fear, or embarrassment are elevated, it becomes difficult for language acquisition to occur. The affective filter has commonly been described as an imaginary wall that rises in the mind and prevents input, thus blocking cognition. In opposition, when the affective filter is lowered, the feeling of safety is high, and language acquisition occurs. In fact, even current research in neuroscience seems to support Krashen’s theory that stress affects thinking and learning. 

Why Is the Affective Filter Important in the Classroom?

It is not enough to simply teach. It is not enough to deliver instruction even if it’s made comprehensible to students. If students’ affective filters are elevated, language acquisition will be impeded. Creating classroom environments that act intentionally to lower the affective filter will increase language development. 

The lower the filter, the more input is allowed to pass through. Students who are highly motivated, feel confident, and feel safe are more open to input. 

Let’s picture two classrooms:  

• In the first classroom, students walk in and sit in isolated rows. The teacher reads from a scripted lesson before assigning a worksheet for students to complete independently. Talk is discouraged, and students are quickly reprimanded for stepping outside of the planned lesson. It is clear to the students that their role is to comply with the teacher’s rules for the classroom. 
• In the second classroom, students have a voice in instruction. They are part of their learning journey. This creates motivation to learn. They gather in groups to share ideas, and they are encouraged to take risks, which helps build their self-confidence. The classroom talk is balanced with some teacher talk and some student talk. Students feel comfortable sharing their ideas and opinions.

When you imagined these two classrooms, in which one did you feel that students had more room to bloom freely within the context of the content? The teacher in the second classroom had a way of lowering the affective filter for students. But how? 

How Do We Lower the Affective Filter in the Classroom?

The answer is similar to how you might make visitors feel welcome at your home. Typically, if you want company to stay, you create a space that is inviting, comfortable, friendly, and interesting. You cater to their needs, offer them food, and pay attention to them. (And, I don’t know about you, but if I don’t want company to stay for long, I simply don’t do these things!)

We can lower the affective filters of our students in our classroom in similar ways to how we make visitors feel welcome in our homes. Let’s examine how this might look through the three categories that Krashen proposed: motivation, self-confidence, and anxiety.

Some might think motivation is solely up to individual students. But while educators don’t have complete control over student motivation, they can still influence it. Choice, voice, and relevance are three great motivators we can leverage in the classroom. Providing students with opportunities to select topics to study helps them feel motivated to do the work. Allowing students choice in what they write about or how they show understanding also builds motivation. Creating time and space for students to share their voice in learning stimulates a drive in learners. When students feel they have some say or some control over their learning journeys, they become more invested. Finally, providing learners with engaging experiences that tap into their passions increases motivation. When we keep instruction relevant to students’ lives, what they are learning becomes compelling to them. 

Self-confidence

Learners who feel a sense of belonging, value, and respect for their individuality are more likely to have lower affective filters. Creating classrooms that warmly welcome all students builds self-confidence. On the other hand, when students feel isolated or that they must “fit in,” their self-confidence erodes. To build self-confidence, educators can work on correctly pronouncing students’ names, ensure that walls and books are representative of the student population, and get to know students for who they are beyond the classroom. 

A safe classroom is one in which students are not afraid to make errors. Classrooms that embrace errors as part of the learning process are more likely to decrease students’ affective filters. Fostering a growth mindset and modeling this mindset with students can help them understand that mistakes are a part of growth in the process of learning. The way we talk with students and our body language can also affect their anxiety. Even students who are not yet speaking in English can understand body language and feel the energy in a classroom. Smiling sends a positive, warm message; sitting next to a student to confer with them rather than sitting in front of them is less confrontational; arms at the side rather than crossed is less aggressive. Another way to lower the affective filter is by making sure that we provide comprehensible input. Students become more focused and relaxed the more they can understand the language being used during instruction.

On the other hand, there are specific moves we make that can be counterproductive and raise the affective filter. The factors below can raise the affective filter and impede language acquisition: 

• Error correction
• Forcing output too early
• Embarrassment
• Lack of comprehensible input

We may not even know that we are doing these things or that they are causing the imaginary wall to come up. But becoming aware of the affective filter, what raises it, and how to lower it can help language acquisition flourish. 

Krashen, S. D. (1986). Principles and practice in second language acquisition . Oxford: Pergamon Press. http://www.sdkrashen.com/content/books/principles_and_practice.pdf

Share this:

Published by Seidlitz Education

View all posts by Seidlitz Education

14 thoughts on “ What Is the Affective Filter, and Why Is it Important in the Classroom? ”

• Pingback: The Best Resources, Articles & Blog Posts For Teachers Of ELLs In 2020 - NWS100
• Pingback: Building on the Foundations for Reading – Seidlitz Education
• Pingback: 7 Ideas for Review Games and Activities that Engage English Learners
• Pingback: Tad Lincoln's Restless Wriggle: Pandemonium and Patience in the President's House by Beth Anderson - Caroline Starr Rose
• Pingback: The Seidlitz Blog’s Top Posts from 2021 – Seidlitz Education

This really helps my writing on how we trainee teachers lower the affective filter in our classroom and thank you so much for providing it for us the ones who really need it for their study

• Pingback: A Welcoming Environment – The School Idealist
• Pingback: Bilinguismo: capire è più importante di parlare - Piccoli Camaleonti % %
• Pingback: Bilinguismo: capire è più importante di parlare Bilinguismo
• Pingback: Is Passive Listening Language Learning Possible? How to Learn with Music
• Pingback: Why Hexagonal Thinking is Perfect for Multilingual Learners - Maestra Novoa
• Pingback: SLA-Speak Series: Affective Filter - Eric Richards Instructional Consulting, LLC
• Pingback: Collaborating Across Departments to Serve Multilingual Learners – Seidlitz Education
• Pingback: QSSSA: The Secret Ingredient to Language-Rich, Interactive Classrooms – Seidlitz Education

Leave a comment Cancel reply

• Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
• Subscribe Subscribed
• Copy shortlink
• Report this content
• View post in Reader
• Manage subscriptions
• Collapse this bar

Krashen's Second Language Acquisition Theory

Affective Filter Hypothesis

This hypothesis was a theory first proposed by Dulay and Burt (1977) and it became known for agreeing with the ideas of a renowned linguist named Stephen Krashen, who contributed very much to the field of Applied Linguistics, mainly in the areas of acquisition and learning of second language. The main idea of this hypothesis is that there are affective filters that can directly interfere in the acquisition process of a second language. Such filters can bar or facilitate the action of an understandable input, so important to the acquisition process. Also, the action of these filters varies according to the attitudes of the acquirer, because their attitudes will determine the level of force that the affective filter will have, thus determining the effectiveness of an understandable input to the device of acquisition of the language. The main affective variations pointed out by Krashen are related to motivation, self-confidence, and anxiety. Therefore, any affective influence that falls into any of the three categories already mentioned may have a great effect on the development of language acquisition by the acquirer. It is therefore up to the acquirer, and not only to him, but to those who teach a second language, such as language school teachers, public or private school teachers, etc., to be aware of the importance of having the attitudes to provide the conditions necessary to diminish the action of the affective filter and thus the process of acquiring a second language to be well developed.

By M. B. Cavalcante

KRASHEN, Stephen D. (1982).  Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition  (PDF). Oxford: Pergamon. Available in: < http://www.sdkrashen.com/content/books/principles_and_practice.pdf ;. Access on Nov 24th, 2018.

Share this:

Published by alkrashen

View all posts by alkrashen

Leave a comment Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

• Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
• Subscribe Subscribed
• Copy shortlink
• Report this content
• View post in Reader
• Manage subscriptions
• Collapse this bar

Chinese as a Second Language Multilinguals’ Speech Competence and Speech Performance pp 11–29 Cite as

Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks

• Peijian Paul Sun 2  
• First Online: 20 August 2020

360 Accesses

This chapter critically reviews major theoretical and conceptual frameworks relating to L2 speech production. These include the Affective Filter Hypothesis, automaticity, the L2 Willingness to Communicate (WTC) Model, the L2 Motivational Self System (L2MSS), and L2 speech production models. The contributions and limitations of each hypothesis or theory pertaining to L2 speaking are discussed in order to establish a justifiable theoretical context for the study in this book. This chapter starts with an overview of the affective filter hypothesis and the concept of automaticity. This includes a critical review of (Krashen in Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition, Pergamon, Oxford, UK, 1982) Affective Filter Hypothesis and a brief introduction to the development of automaticity. Afterward, the L2 WTC Model of (MacIntyre et al. in The Modern Language Journal 82:545–562, 1998) is presented with a discussion of the problems concerning this model. Subsequently, (Dörnyei in Motivation, Language Identity and the L2 Self, Multilingual Matters, Bristol, UK, 2009) L2MSS is examined and its applicability in the CSL context is discussed. Lastly, an overview of the development of speech production models is presented, ensuing a discussion on the compatibility of speech production models in the CSL context. This chapter concludes with a brief summary.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution .

Buying options

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

L2 production here refers to any language production in addition to L1.

CFL refers to learning Chinese as a foreign language. In other words, CFL learners are learning Chinese in a nontarget language environment. In contrast, CSL learners are learning Chinese in a target language environment, such as in China.

Bargh, John A. 1994. The Four Horsemen of Automaticity: Awareness, Intention, Efficiency, and Control in Social Cognition. In Handbook of Social Cognition , ed. Robert S. Wyer and Thomas K. Srull, 2nd ed., 1–40. Tuxedo Park, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Google Scholar  

Bargh, John A., Kay L. Schwader, Sarah E. Hailey, Rebecca L. Dyer, and Erica J. Boothby. 2012. Automaticity in Social-Cognitive Processes. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 16 (12): 593–605. https://doi.org///dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2012.10.002 .

Clément, Richard, Susan C. Baker, and Peter D. MacIntyre. 2003. Willingness to Communicate in a Second Language: The Effect of Context, Norms, and Vitality. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 22: 190–209.

Clevenge, T.J. 1959. A Synthesis of Experimental Research in Stage Fright. Quarterly Journal of Speech 45 (2): 135–145. https://doi.org/10.1080/00335635909385732 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Coetzee-Van Rooy, Susan C. 2006. Integrativeness: Untenable for World Englishes Learners? World Englishes 25 (3–4): 437–450. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-971X.2006.00479.x .

Csizér, Kata. 2019. The L2 Motivational Self System. In The Palgrave Handbook of Motivation for Language Learning , ed. Martin Lamb, Kata Csizér, Alastair Henry, and Stephen Ryan, 70–93. Palgrave Macmillan.

Csizér, Kata, and Zoltán Dörnyei. 2005. The Internal Structure of Language Learning Motivation and Its Relationship with Language Choice and Learning Effort. Modern Language Journal 89 (1): 19–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0026-7902.2005.00263.x .

Csizér, Kata, and Judit Kormos. 2009. Learning Experiences, Selves and Motivated Learning Behaviour: A Comparative Analysis of Structure Models for Hungarian Secondary and University Learners of English. In Motivation, Language Identity and the L2 Self , ed. Zoltán Dörnyei and Ema Ushioda, 98–119. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

de Bot, Kees. 1992. A Bilingual Production Model: Levelt’s ‘Speaking’ Model Adapted. Applied Linguistics 13 (1): 1–24.

DeKeyser, Robert M. 2001. Automaticity and Automatization. In Cognition and Second Language Instruction , ed. Peter Robinson, 125–151. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Dörnyei, Zoltán. 2001. Teaching and Researching Motivation . Harlow, UK: Longman.

Dörnyei, Zoltán. 2003. Attitudes, Orientations, and Motivations in Language Learning: Advances in Theory, Research, and Applications, ed. Zoltán Dörnyei. Language Learning 53 (S1): 3–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.53222 .

Dörnyei, Zoltán. 2005. The Psychology of the Language Learner: Individual Differences in Second Language Acquisition . Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Dörnyei, Zoltán. 2009. The L2 Motivational Self System. In Motivation, Language Identity and the L2 Self , ed. Zoltán Dörnyei and Ema Ushioda, 9–42. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Dörnyei, Zoltán. 2010. Researching Motivation: From Integrativeness to the Ideal L2 Self. In Introducing Applied Linguistics: Concepts and Skills , ed. Susan Hunston and David Oakey, 74–83. Routledge.

Dörnyei, Zoltán, and Kata Csizér. 2002. Some Dynamics of Language Attitudes and Motivation: Results of a Longitudinal Nationwide Survey. Applied Linguistics 23: 421–462.

Dörnyei, Zoltán, Kata Csizér, and Nóra Németh. 2006. Motivation, Language Attitudes, and Globalization: A Hungarian Perspective . Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Book   Google Scholar  

Dörnyei, Zoltán, and Ema Ushioda. 2011. Teaching and Researching Motivation , 2nd ed. Harlow, UK: Pearson.

Dulay, Y.H., and M. Burt. 1977. Remarks on Creativity in Language Acquisition. In Viewpoints on English as a Second Language , ed. M. Burt, H. Dulay, and M. Finnochiaro, 95–126. New York, NY: Regents.

Fabio, Rosa Angela, Tindara Caprì, and Martina Romano. 2019. From Controlled to Automatic Processes and Back Again: The Role of Contextual Features. Europe’s Journal of Psychology 15 (4): 773–788. https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v15i4.1746 .

Gardner, Robert C. 1985. Social Psychology and Second Language Learning: The Role of Attitudes and Motivation . London, UK: Edward Arnold.

Gardner, Robert C., and W.E. Lambert. 1959. Motivational Variables in Second Language Acquisition. Canadian Journal of Psychology 13: 266–272.

Higgins, E Tory. 1987. Self-Discrepancy: A Theory Relating Self and Affect. Psychological Review 94 (3): 319–40.

Islam, Muhammad, Martin Lamb, and Gary Chambers. 2013. The L2 Motivational Self System and National Interest: A Pakistani Perspective. System 41 (2): 231–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.01.025 .

Kong, Ji Hyun, Jeong Eun Han, Sungjo Kim, Hunil Park, Yong Suk Kim, and Hyunjoo Park. 2018. L2 Motivational Self System, International Posture and Competitiveness of Korean CTL and LCTL College Learners: A Structural Equation Modeling Approach. System 72 (February): 178–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2017.11.005 .

Kormos, Judit, Thom Kiddle, and Kata Csizér. 2011. Systems of Goals, Attitudes, and Self-Related Beliefs in Second-Language-Learning Motivation. Applied Linguistics 32 (5): 495–516. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amr019 .

Krashen, Stephen D. 1982. Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition . Oxford, UK: Pergamon.

Lamb, Martin. 2004. Integrative Motivation in a Globalizing World. System 32 (1): 3–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2003.04.002 .

Lamb, Martin. 2012. A Self System Perspective on Young Adolescents’ Motivation to Learn English in Urban and Rural Settings. Language Learning 62 (4): 997–1023. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00719.x .

Levelt, Willem J.M. 1989. Speaking: From Intention to Articulation . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Li, Wei. 2011. Multilinguality, Multimodality, and Multicompetence: Code- and Modeswitching by Minority Ethnic Children in Complementary Schools. The Modern Language Journal 95 (3): 370–84. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01209.x .

Li, Wei. 2013. Codeswitching. In The Oxford Handbook of Sociolinguistics , edited by Robert Bayley, Richard Cameron, and Ceil Lucas, 360–78. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Macaro, Ernesto. 2005. Codeswitching in the L2 Classroom: A Communication and Learning Strategy. In Non-Native Language Teachers: Perceptions, Challenges, and Contributions to the Profession , edited by Enric Llurda, 63–84. Boston, MA: Springer.

Macaro, Ernesto, and Jang Ho Lee. 2012. Teacher Language Background, Codeswitching, and English-Only Instruction: Does Age Make a Difference to Learners' Attitudes? TESOL Quarterly 47 (4): 717–42. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.74 .

MacIntyre, Peter D., Zoltán Dörnyei, Richard Clément, and Kimberly A. Noels. 1998. Conceptualizing Willingness to Communicate in a L2: A Situational Model of L2 Confidence and Affiliation. The Modern Language Journal 82 (4): 545–562. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1998.tb05543.x .

Markus, Hazel, and Paula Nurius. 1986. Possible Selves. American Psychologist 41 (9): 954–969.

McCroskey, James C., and J.E. Baer. 1985. Willingness to Communicate: The Construct and Its Measurement. Paper Presented at the Annual Convention of the Speech Communication Association, Denver, CO.

McCroskey, James C., and V.P. Richmond. 1982. Communication Apprehension and Shyness: Conceptual and Operational Distinctions. Central States Speech Journal 33: 458–468. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510978209388452 .

Moors, A., and Jan De Houwer. 2006. Automaticity: A Theoretical and Conceptual Analysis. Psychological Bulletin 132 (2): 297–326. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.2.297 .

Moskovsky, Christo, Turki Assulaimani, Silvia Racheva, and Jean Harkins. 2016. The L2 Motivational Self System and L2 Achievement: A Study of Saudi EFL Learners. The Modern Language Journal 100 (3): 641–654. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12340 .

Ortega, Lourdes. 2009. Understanding Second Language Acquisition. London , UK: Hodder Education.

Papi, Mostafa, and Yasser Teimouri. 2012. Dynamics of Selves and Motivation: A Cross-Sectional Study in the EFL Context of Iran. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 22 (3): 287–309. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2012.00312.x .

Phillips, G.M. 1965. The Problem of Reticence. Pennsylvania Speech Annual 22: 22–38.

Phillips, G.M. 1968. Reticence: Pathology of the Normal Speaker. Speech Monographs 35: 39–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637756809375564 .

Ryan, S. 2009. Self and Identity in L2 Motivation in Japan: The Ideal L2 Self and Japanese Learners of English. In Motivation, Language Identity and the L2 Self , ed. Zoltán Dörnyei and Ema Ushioda, 120–143. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Safdari, Saeed. 2019. Operationalizing L2 Motivational Self System: Improving EFL Learners’ Motivation through a Vision Enhancement Program. Language Teaching Research , May, 136216881984659. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168819846597 .

Segalowitz, Norman. 2010. Cognitive Bases of Second Language Fluency . New York, NY: Routledge.

Sun, Peijian Paul, and Lawrence Jun Zhang. 2020. A Multidimensional Perspective on Individual Differences in Multilingual Learners’ L2 Chinese Speech Production. Frontiers in Psychology 11 (59): 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00059 .

Ushioda, E. 2001. Language Learning at University: Exploring the Role of Motivational Thinking. In Motivation and Second Language Acquisition , ed. Zoltán Dörnyei and Richard Schmidt, 99–125. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press.

Warden, Clyde A., and Hsiu Ju Lin. 2000. Existence of Integrative Motivation in an Asian EFL Setting. Foreign Language Annals 33 (5): 535–545. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2000.tb01997.x .

Xu, Hongchen, and Yihong Gao. 2014. The Development of English Learning Motivation and Learners’ Identities: A Structural Equation Modeling Analysis of Longitudinal Data from Chinese Universities. System 47: 102–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.09.020 .

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Linguistics, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China

Peijian Paul Sun

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peijian Paul Sun .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter.

Sun, P.P. (2020). Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks. In: Chinese as a Second Language Multilinguals’ Speech Competence and Speech Performance. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-6941-8_2

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-6941-8_2

Published : 20 August 2020

Publisher Name : Springer, Singapore

Print ISBN : 978-981-15-6940-1

Online ISBN : 978-981-15-6941-8

eBook Packages : Education Education (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Krashen's Language Acquisition Hypotheses: A Critical Review

Related Papers

International Journal of Social Research

Mzamani Maluleke

The monitor model, being one of its kind postulating the rigorous process taken by learners of second language, has since its inception in 1977, stirred sterile debates the globe over. Since then, Krashen has been rethinking and expanding his hypothetical acquisition notions, improve the applicability of his theory. The model has not been becoming, and it therefore faces disapproval on the basis of its failure to be tested empirically and, at some points, its contrast to Krashen’s earlier perceptions on both first and second language acquisition. In this paper, the writers deliberate upon Krashen’s monitor model, its tenets as well as the various ways in which it impacts, either negatively or positively upon educational teaching and learning.

Amalia Oyarzún

Aufani Yukzanali

Many theories on how language is acquired has been introduced since 19th century and still being introduced today by many great thinkers. Like any other theories which arose from variety of disciplines, language acquisition theories generally derived from linguistics and psychological thinking. This paper concluded that the most important implication of language acquisition theories is obviously the fact that applied linguists, methodologist and language teachers should view the acquisition of a language not only as a matter of nurture but also an instance of nature. In addition, only when we distinguish between a general theory of learning and language learning can we ameliorate the conditions L2 education. To do so, applied linguists must be aware of the nature of both L1 and L2 acquisition and must consider the distinction proposed in this study. Furthermore, no longer should mind and innateness be treated as dirty words. This will most probably lead to innovative proposals for syllabus development and the design of instructional systems, practices, techniques, procedures in the language classroom, and finally a sound theory of L2 teaching and learning.

Karunakaran Thirunavukkarasu

Luz Villarroel Cornejo

Evynurul Laily Zen

This paper aims at revealing the factors that contribute to children's language acquisition of either their first or second language. The affective filter hypothesis (Krashen, 2003) as the underlying framework of this paper is used to see how children's perception towards the language input take a role in the process of acquisition. 25 lecturers in the Faculty of Letters, State University of Malang who have sons or daughters under the age of 10 become the data source. The data are collected through survey method and analyzed qualitatively since this paper is attempting to give a thorough description of the reality in children's language acquisition. The results show that most children are exposed to the language while interacting with their family members, especially their mothers. Another factor is children's interactions with friends. The languages used by their friends are potential to be acquired by them. These two factors strongly confirm the core idea of the affective filter hypothesis that children will learn best when they feel comfortable and are positive about the input they are absorbing. Furthermore, reading is also one of other minor contributing factors discovering the fact that the books the children like helps them construct positive perception which then encourage them import more inputs. 1. Rationale This paper is an attempt to disseminate the result of the survey-based research conducted to have a closer look at the mapping of bilingual language situation seen in certain linguistic situation in Malang. The survey that was conducted to bilingual parents is basically about to satisfy a personal yet scientific curiosity of the researchers as both parents to bilingual children and language teachers. Nothing seems really unique from the fact that children in Indonesia are born to be bilingual because, by nature, they are raised by bilingual parents in bi(multi)lingual situation. On the other hand, there have been an increasing number of studies that explore the nature of bilingual language acquisition. Some have seen negative impact of exposing second language to children (at various angles by which these previous studies have been carried out, the socio-psycholinguistic environment of bilingual children in Malang is obviously worth-researching. One of the focuses of the survey is looking thoroughly at the contributing factors of both the first and second language development of bilinguals that mainly becomes the concern of this paper. Something really significant to start with is the result of the survey seen from Figure 1 below that not only 16% of the children of the respondents are raised monolingual, but also 28% of them are trilingual.

Lazaros Kikidis

For Didactics and Applied Linguistics MA students

Andreas Gozali

Language and Education

Nicole Ziegler

RELATED PAPERS

International Journal of Public Opinion Research

Eldad Davidov

Sheridan Brown

FEMS Microbiology Letters

Carlton Gyles

Gastrointestinal Radiology

Frank Volberg

Rosen Dimitrov

Revista científica Sociedad & Tecnología

Sociedad & Tecnología

Physics of Plasmas

Alexandre Poyé

Educação e Pesquisa

WAGNER VALENTE

Abiodun Modupe

Meat and Muscle Biology

Enrique Pavan

Porta Linguarum Revista Interuniversitaria de Didáctica de las Lenguas Extranjeras

Sonia López Serrano

The European Physical Journal C

Priscilla Cushman

Edivaldo de Oliveira

Malaria Journal

zelalem Desalegn

Advances in Systems Safety

bryan bakker

Ricardo Walter CORLETO

IFAC Proceedings Volumes

Harry Kwatny

Journal of Youth Studies

Peter Appleton

Javier Escobal

Computers and Electronics in Agriculture

Circulation Research

Igor Efimov

Computational Intelligence and Modern Heuristics

Bioedukasi : Jurnal Pendidikan Biologi FKIP UM Metro

Muhfahroyin Muhfahroyin

Marina Khaliman

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Introduction The Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis The Natural Order Hypothesis The Monitor Hypothesis The Input Hypothesis The Affective Filter Hypothesis Curriculum Design Conclusions Bibliography

  Introduction         The influence of Stephen Krashen on language education research and practice is undeniable.  First introduced over 20 years ago, his theories are still debated today.  In 1983, he published The Natural Approach with Tracy Terrell, which combined a comprehensive second language acquisition theory with a curriculum for language classrooms.  The influence of Natural Approach can be seen especially in current EFL textbooks and teachers resource books such as The Lexical Approach (Lewis, 1993).  Krashen’s theories on second language acquisition have also had a huge impact on education in the state of California, starting in 1981 with his contribution to Schooling and language minority students: A theoretical framework by the California State Department of Education (Krashen 1981).  Today his influence can be seen most prominently in the debate about bilingual education and perhaps less explicitly in language education policy:  The BCLAD/CLAD teacher assessment tests define the pedagogical factors affecting first and second language development in exactly the same terms used in Krashen’s Monitor Model (California Commission on Teacher Credentialing, 1998).         As advertised, The Natural Approach is very appealing – who wouldn’t want to learn a language the natural way, and what language teacher doesn’t think about what kind of input to provide for students.  However, upon closer examination of Krashen’s hypotheses and Terrell’s methods, they fail to provide the goods for a workable system.  In fact, within the covers of “The Natural Approach”, the weaknesses that other authors criticize can be seen playing themselves out into proof of the failure of Krashen’s model.  In addition to reviewing what other authors have written about Krashen’s hypotheses, I will attempt to directly address what I consider to be some of the implications for ES/FL teaching today by drawing on my own experience in the classroom as a teacher and a student of language.  Rather than use Krashen’s own label, which is to call his ideas simply “second language acquisition theory”, I will adopt McLaughlin’s terminology (1987) and refer to them collectively as “the Monitor Model”.  This is distinct from “the Monitor Hypothesis”, which is the fourth of Krashen’s five hypotheses. The Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis         First is the Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis, which makes a distinction between “acquisition,” which he defines as developing competence by using language for “real communication” and “learning.” which he defines as “knowing about” or “formal knowledge” of a language (p.26).  This hypothesis is presented largely as common sense: Krashen only draws on only one set of references from Roger Brown in the early 1970’s.  He claims that Brown’s research on first language acquisition showed that parents tend to correct the content of children’s speech rather than their grammar.  He compares it with several other authors’ distinction of “implicit” and “explicit” learning but simply informs the reader that evidence will be presented later.         Gregg (1984) first notes that Krashen’s use of the Language Acquisition Device (LAD) gives it a much wider scope of operation than even Chomsky himself.  He intended it simply as a construct to describe the child’s initial state, which would therefore mean that it cannot apply to adult learners.  Drawing on his own experience of learning Japanese, Gregg contends that Krashen’s dogmatic insistence that “learning” can never become “acquisition” is quickly refuted by the experience of anyone who has internalized some of the grammar they have consciously memorized.  However, although it is not explicitly stated, Krashen’s emphasis seems to be that classroom learning does not lead to fluent, native-like speech.  Gregg’s account that his memorization of a verb conjugation chart was “error-free after a couple of days”(p.81) seems to go against this spirit.  The reader is left to speculate whether his proficiency in Japanese at the time was sufficient enough for him to engage in error-free conversations with the verbs from his chart.         McLaughlin (1987) begins his critique by pointing out that Krashen never adequately defines “acquisition”, “learning”, “conscious” and “subconscious”, and that without such clarification, it is very difficult to independently determine whether subjects are “learning” or “acquiring” language.  This is perhaps the first area that needs to be explained in attempting to utilize the Natural Approach.  If the classroom situation is hopeless for attaining proficiency, then it is probably best not to start.  As we will see in an analysis of the specific methods in the book, any attempt to recreate an environment suitable for “acquisition” is bound to be problematic.         Krashen’s conscious/unconscious learning distinction appeals to students and teachers in monolingual countries immediately.  In societies where there are few bilinguals, like the United States, many people have struggled to learn a foreign language at school, often unsuccessfully.  They see people who live in other countries as just having “picked up” their second language naturally in childhood.  The effort spent in studying and doing homework seems pointless when contrasted with the apparent ease that “natural” acquisition presents.  This feeling is not lost on teachers: without a theoretical basis for the methods, given any perceived slow progress of their students, they would feel that they have no choice but to be open to any new ideas         Taking a broad interpretation of this hypothesis, the main intent seems to be to convey how grammar study (learning) is less effective than simple exposure (acquisition).  This is something that very few researchers seem to doubt, and recent findings in the analysis of right hemisphere trauma indicate a clear separation of the facilities for interpreting context-independent sentences from context-dependent utterances (Paradis, 1998).  However, when called upon to clarify, Krashen takes the somewhat less defensible position that the two are completely unrelated and that grammar study has no place in language learning (Krashen 1993a, 1993b).  As several authors have shown (Gregg 1984, McLaughlin 1987, and Lightbown & Pienemann 1993, for a direct counter-argument to Krashen 1993a) there are countless examples of how grammar study can be of great benefit to students learning by some sort of communicative method. The Natural Order Hypothesis         The second hypothesis is simply that grammatical structures are learned in a predictable order.  Once again this is based on first language acquisition research done by Roger Brown, as well as that of Jill and Peter de Villiers.  These studies found striking similarities in the order in which children acquired certain grammatical morphemes.  Krashen cites a series of studies by Dulay and Burt which show that a group of Spanish speaking and a group of Chinese speaking children learning English as a second language also exhibited a “natural” order for grammatical morphemes which did not differ between the two groups.  A rather lengthy end-note directs readers to further research in first and second language acquisition, but somewhat undercuts the basic hypothesis by showing limitations to the concept of an order of acquisition.         Gregg argues that Krashen has no basis for separating grammatical morphemes from, for example, phonology.  Although Krashen only briefly mentions the existence of other parallel “streams” of acquisition in The Natural Approach, their very existence rules out any order that might be used in instruction.  The basic idea of a simple linear order of acquisition is extremely unlikely, Gregg reminds us.  In addition, if there are individual differences then the hypothesis is not provable, falsifiable, and in the end, not useful.         McLaughlin points out the methodological problems with Dulay and Burt’s 1974 study, and cites a study by Hakuta and Cancino (1977, cited in McLaughlin, 1987, p.32) which found that the complexity of a morpheme depended on the learner’s native language.  The difference between the experience of a speaker of a Germanic language studying English with that of an Asian language studying English is a clear indication of the relevance of this finding.  The contradictions for planning curriculum are immediately evident.  Having just discredited grammar study in the Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis, Krashen suddenly proposes that second language learners should follow the “natural” order of acquisition for grammatical morphemes.  The teacher is first instructed to create a natural environment for the learner but then, in trying to create a curriculum, they are instructed to base it on grammar.  As described below in an analysis of the actual classroom methods presented in the Natural Approach, attempting to put these conflicting theories into practice is very problematic.         When one examines this hypothesis in terms of comprehension and production, its insufficiencies become even more apparent.  Many of the studies of order of acquisition, especially those in first language acquisition, are based on production.  McLaughlin also points out that “correct usage” is not monolithic – even for grammatical morphemes, correct usage in one situation does not guarantee as correct usage in another (p.33).  In this sense, the term “acquisition” becomes very unclear, even when not applying Krashen’s definition.  Is a structure “acquired” when there are no mistakes in comprehension?  Or is it acquired when there is a certain level of accuracy in production?  First language acquisition is very closely linked to the cognitive development of infants, but second language learners have most of these facilities present, even as children.  Further, even if some weak form of natural order exists for any learners who are speakers of a given language, learning in a given environment, it is not clear that the order is the same for comprehension and production.  If these two orders differ, it is not clear how they would interact. The Monitor Hypothesis The role of conscious learning is defined in this somewhat negative hypothesis: The only role that such “learned” competence can have is an editor on what is produced.  Output is checked and repaired, after it has been produced, by the explicit knowledge the learner has gained through grammar study.  The implication is that the use of this Monitor should be discouraged and that production should be left up to some instinct that has been formed by “acquisition”.  Using the Monitor, speech is halting since it only can check what has been produced, but Monitor-free speech is much more instinctive and less contrived.  However, he later describes cases of using the Monitor efficiently (p. 32) to eliminate errors on “easy” rules.  This hypothesis presents very little in the way of supportive evidence:  Krashen cites several studies by Bialystok alone and with Frohlich as “confirming evidence” (p.31) and several of his own studies on the difficulty of confirming acquisition of grammar.         Perhaps Krashen’s recognition of this factor was indeed a step forward – language learners and teachers everywhere know the feeling that the harder they try to make a correct sentence, the worse it comes out.  However, he seems to draw the lines around it a bit too closely.  Gregg points (p.84) out that by restricting monitor use to “learned” grammar and only in production, Krashen in effect makes the Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis and the Monitor Hypothesis contradictory.  Gregg also points out that the restricting learning to the role of editing production completely ignores comprehension (p.82).  Explicitly learned grammar can obviously play a crucial role in understanding speech.         McLaughlin gives a thorough dissection of the hypothesis, showing that Krashen has never demonstrated the operation of the Monitor in his own or any other research.  Even the further qualification that it only works on discrete-point tests on one grammar rule at a time failed to produce evidence of operation.  Only one study (Seliger, cited on p.26) was able to find narrow conditions for its operation, and even there the conclusion was that it was not representative of the conscious knowledge of grammar.  He goes on to point out how difficult it is to determine if one is consciously employing a rule, and that such conscious editing actually interferes with performance.  But his most convincing argument is the existence of learners who have taught themselves a language with very little contact with native speakers.  These people are perhaps rare on the campuses of U.S. universities, but it is quite undeniable that they exist.         The role that explicitly learned grammar and incidentally acquired exposure have in forming sentences is far from clear.  Watching intermediate students practice using recasts is certainly convincing evidence that something like the Monitor is at work: even without outside correction, they can eliminate the errors in a target sentence or expression of their own ideas after several tries.  However, psycholinguists have yet to determine just what goes into sentence processing and bilingual memory.  In a later paper (Krashen 1991), he tried to show that high school students, despite applying spelling rules they knew explicitly, performed worse than college students who did not remember such rules.  He failed to address not only the relevance of this study to the ability to communicate in a language, but also the possibility that whether they remembered the rules or not, the college students probably did know the rules consciously at some point, which again violates the Learning-Acquisition Hypothesis. The Input Hypothesis         Here Krashen explains how successful “acquisition” occurs:  by simply understanding input that is a little beyond the learner’s present “level” – he defined that present “level” as i and the ideal level of input as i +1.  In the development of oral fluency, unknown words and grammar are deduced through the use of context (both situational and discursive), rather than through direct instruction.  Krashen has several areas which he draws on for proof of the Input Hypothesis.  One is the speech that parents use when talking to children (caretaker speech), which he says is vital in first language acquisition (p.34).  He also illustrates how good teachers tune their speech to their students’ level, and how when talking to each other, second language learners adjust their speech in order to communicate.  This hypothesis is also supported by the fact that often the first second language utterances of adult learners are very similar to those of infants in their first language.  However it is the results of methods such as Asher’s Total Physical Response that provide the most convincing evidence.  This method was shown to be far superior to audiolingual, grammar-translation or other approaches, producing what Krashen calls “nearly five times the [normal] acquisition rate.”         Gregg spends substantial time on this particular hypothesis, because, while it seems to be the core of the model, it is simply an uncontroversial observation with no process described and no proof provided.  He brings up the very salient point that perhaps practice does indeed also have something to do with second language acquisition, pointing out that monitoring could be used as a source of correct utterances (p. 87).  He also cites several studies that shed some doubt on the connection between caretaker speech in first language acquisition and simplified input in second language acquisition.         McLaughlin also gives careful and thorough consideration to this part of Krashen’s model.  He addresses each of the ten lines of evidence that Krashen presents, arguing that it is not sufficient to simply say that certain phenomenon can be viewed from the perspective of the Input Hypothesis.  The concept of a learner’s “level” is extremely difficult to define, just as the idea of i +1 is (p.37).  Further, there are many structures such as passives and yes/no questions that cannot be learned through context.  Also, there is no evidence that a learner has to fully comprehend an utterance for it to aid in acquisition.  Some of the first words that children and second language learners produce are formulaic expressions that are not fully understood initially.  Finally McLaughlin points out that Krashen simply ignores other internal factors such as motivation and the importance of producing language for interaction.         This hypothesis is perhaps the most appealing part of Krashen’s model for the language learner as well as the teacher.  He makes use of the gap between comprehension and production that everyone feels, enticing us with the hope of instant benefits if we just get the input tuned to the right level.  One of Krashen’s cleverest catch-alls is that other methods of teaching appear to work at times because they inadvertently provide this input.  But the disappointment is that he never gives any convincing idea as to how it works.  In the classroom a teacher can see when the students don’t understand and can simplify his or her speech to the point where they do.  Krashen would have the teacher think that this was all that is necessary, and it is just a matter of time before the students are able to express themselves freely.  However, Ellis (1992) points out that even as of his 1985 work (Krashen 1985), he still had not provided a single study that demonstrated the Input Hypothesis.  Over extended periods of time students do learn to understand more and even how to speak, but it often seems to take much longer than Krashen implies, indicating that there are perhaps many more factors involved.  More importantly, even given this beginning of i, and the goal of i + 1, indefinable as they are, the reader is given no indication of how to proceed.  As shown above the Natural Order Hypothesis holds no answers, especially as to how comprehension progresses.  In an indication of a direction that should be explored, Ellis’s exploratory study (ibid.) showed that it is the effort involved in attempting to understand input rather than simple comprehension that fuels acquisition. The Affective Filter Hypothesis         This concept receives the briefest treatment in “The Natural Approach”.  Krashen simply states that “attitudinal variables relate directly to language acquisition but not language learning.”  He cites several studies that examine the link between motivation and self-image, arguing that an “integrative” motivation (the learner want to “be like” the native speakers of a language) is necessary.  He postulates an “affective filter” that acts before the Language Acquisition Device and restricts the desire to seek input if the learner does not have such motivation.  Krashen also says that at puberty, this filter increases dramatically in strength.         Gregg notes several problems with this hypothesis as well.  Among others, Krashen seems to indicate that perhaps the affective filter is associated with the emotional upheaval and hypersensitivity of puberty, but Gregg notes that this would indicate that the filter would slowly disappear in adulthood, which Krashen does not allow for (p.92).  He also remarks on several operational details, such as the fact that simply not being unmotivated would be the same as being highly motivated in this hypothesis – neither is the negative state of being unmotivated.  Also, he questions how this filter would selectively choose certain “parts of a language” to reject (p.94).         McLaughlin argues much along the same lines as Gregg and points out that adolescents often acquire languages faster than younger, monitor-free children (p.29).  He concludes that while affective variables certainly play a critical role in acquisition, there is no need to theorize a filter like Krashen’s.         Again, the teacher in the classroom is enticed by this hypothesis because of the obvious effects of self-confidence and motivation.  However, Krashen seems to imply that teaching children, who don’t have this filter, is somehow easier, since “given sufficient exposure, most children reach native-like levels of competence in second languages” (p.47).  This obviously completely ignores the demanding situations that face language minority children in the U.S. every day.  A simplification into a one page “hypothesis” gives teachers the idea that these problems are easily solved and fluency is just a matter of following this path.  As Gregg and McLaughlin point out, however, trying to put these ideas into practice, one quickly runs into problems. Curriculum Design         The educational implications of Krashen’s theories become more apparent in the remainder of the book, where he and Terrell lay out the specific methods that make use of the Monitor Model.  These ideas are based on Terrell’s earlier work (Terrell, 1977) but have been expanded into a full curriculum.  The authors qualify this collection somewhat by saying that teachers can use all or part of the Natural Approach, depending on how it fits into their classroom.         This freedom, combined with the thoroughness of their curriculum, make the Natural Approach very attractive.  In fact, the guidelines they set out at the beginning– communication is the primary goal, comprehension preceding production, production simply emerge, acquisition activities are central, and the affective filter should be lowered (p. 58-60) – are without question, excellent guidelines for any language classroom.  The compilation of topics and situations (p.67-70) which make up their curriculum are a good, broad overview of many of the things that students who study by grammar translation or audiolingual methods do not get.  The list of suggested rules (p.74) is notable in its departure from previous methods with its insistence on target language input but its allowance for partial, non-grammatical or even L1 responses.         Outside of these areas, application of the suggestions run into some difficulty.  Three general communicative goals of being able to express personal identification, experiences and opinions (p.73) are presented, but there is no theoretical background.  The Natural Approach contains ample guidance and resources for the beginner levels, with methods for introducing basic vocabulary and situations in a way that keeps students involved.  It also has very viable techniques for more advanced and self-confident classes who will be stimulated by the imaginative situational practice (starting on p.101).  However, teachers of the broad middle range of students who have gotten a grip on basic vocabulary but are still struggling with sentence and question production are left with conflicting advice.         Once beyond one-word answers to questions, the Natural Approach ventures out onto thin ice by suggesting elicited productions.  These take the form of open-ended sentences, open dialogs and even prefabricated patterns (p.84).  These formats necessarily involve explicit use of grammar, which violates every hypothesis of the Monitor Model.  The authors write this off as training for optimal Monitor use (p.71, 142), despite Krashen’s promotion of “Monitor-free” production.  Even if a teacher were to set off in this direction and begin to introduce a “structure of the day” (p. 72), once again there is no theoretical basis for what to choose.  Perhaps the most glaring omission is the lack of any reference to the Natural Order Hypothesis, which as noted previously, contained no realistically usable information for designing curriculum.         Judging from the emphasis on exposure in the Natural Approach and the pattern of Krashen’s later publications, which focused on the Input Hypothesis, the solution to curriculum problems seems to be massive listening.  However, as noted before, other than i + 1, there is no theoretical basis for overall curriculum design regarding comprehension.  Once again, the teacher is forced to rely on a somewhat dubious “order of acquisition”, which is based on production anyway.  Further, the link from exposure to production targets is tenuous at best.  Consider the dialog presented on p.87: . . . to the question What is the man doing in this picture? the students may reply run.  The instructor expands the answer.  Yes, that’s right, he’s running.

Browse MEP Blog →

• Lesson plans
• Learning theories

Unraveling the Power of Krashen’s Theory: Exploring Second Language Acquisition

• by MOHAMMED RHALMI
• May 31, 2023 May 31, 2023

Introduction

Learning a second language is a complex process that has fascinated linguists and educators for decades. One influential theory in the field of second language acquisition is Krashen’s Theory, proposed by Stephen Krashen, an eminent linguist, and researcher. This theory suggests that language acquisition is a subconscious process, and individuals acquire language skills through exposure to comprehensible input . In this article, we will delve into the details of Krashen’s Theory of Second Language Acquisition, exploring its key hypotheses, applications, and criticisms.

Background of Krashen’s Theory of second language acquisition

Stephen Krashen developed his theory of second language acquisition in the 1970s and 1980s, drawing upon various linguistic and psychological perspectives. His theory gained significant recognition and influenced language teaching methodologies worldwide. Krashen emphasized the importance of natural language acquisition, suggesting that formal instruction should take a backseat to meaningful exposure to the target language.

His theory has later been criticized for being vague and imprecise.

Five Hypotheses of Krashen’s Theory

Krashen’s Theory is composed of five key hypotheses, each providing insights into different aspects of second language acquisition. Let’s explore them:

1. Input Hypothesis

The Input Hypothesis suggests that language learners progress when they receive comprehensible input, i.e., language that is slightly beyond their current proficiency level. This is often referred to as i+1, meaning  ‘ input ‘ which is one step beyond learners’ current stage of linguistic competence.

In addition to being slightly above learners’ level of understanding, this input should be engaging, meaningful, and related to the learner’s interests and needs.

According to Krashen’s claim, this comprehensible input facilitates subconscious language acquisition.

2. Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis

Krashen differentiates between language acquisition and language learning . Acquisition refers to the subconscious assimilation of language skills through exposure and understanding, while learning involves conscious knowledge of rules and grammatical structures. He argues that acquisition is more effective than learning in developing fluent and natural language skills.

3. Monitor Hypothesis

The Monitor Hypothesis states that language learners utilize their acquired knowledge to self-monitor their production . When learners have time to reflect and consciously apply their knowledge, they can correct errors and improve their language proficiency. However, Krashen suggests that overreliance on the monitor can hinder spontaneous and fluent communication.

4. Natural Order Hypothesis

The Natural Order Hypothesis proposes that language learners acquire grammatical structures in a predictable sequence. Krashen argues that learners naturally progress through specific linguistic structures, regardless of explicit instruction or correction. This hypothesis emphasizes the importance of providing learners with ample exposure to the target language.

5. Affective Filter Hypothesis

Krashen’s Affective Filter Hypothesis suggests that affective factors, such as motivation, self-confidence, and anxiety, play a crucial role in language acquisition. When learners are highly motivated, have low anxiety, and feel comfortable in their learning environment, their affective filter is low, facilitating language acquisition. On the other hand, a high affective filter can impede language acquisition.

Application of Krashen’s Theory

Krashen’s Theory has had a significant impact on language teaching methodologies. It has influenced language teaching approaches such as the natural approach , the communicative approach , and the input-based methods.

These approaches prioritize providing learners with meaningful and comprehensible input, creating a language-rich environment, and encouraging natural language acquisition. Teachers can design activities that promote exposure to authentic language materials, encourage communication, and create a supportive and low-anxiety classroom atmosphere.

Furthermore, Krashen’s Theory highlights the importance of extensive reading in language acquisition. Reading allows learners to encounter a wide range of vocabulary, grammatical structures, and language patterns. By engaging with various texts, learners can develop their language skills organically and expand their knowledge of the language.

Criticisms of Krashen’s Theory

While Krashen’s Theory of second language acquisition has been widely influential, it has also faced some criticisms.

1. Comprehensible input Hypothesis : One criticism is that the theory does not fully account for the role of explicit instruction and practice in language learning. Some argue that a combination of both acquisition and learning strategies can lead to more comprehensive language development.

2. Acquisition-learning Hypothesis : Krashen’s framework distinguishes between acquisition and learning, with acquisition being slow and subtle, and learning being fast and conscious.

• This strict dichotomy has been criticized by linguists for its fuzzy terminology.
• According to Krashen, language acquisition is the desired process for language learners, leading to fluency, while learning only serves as a monitor or editor. The assumed claim here is that learning does not transform into acquisition, which is challenged by the idea that acquisition can be enriched by the learned system.
• Instead of drawing a clear boundary between acquisition and learning, it is suggested that the interplay and connections between the two processes should be recognized and explained.

3. Monitor Hypothesis: The main criticism of the monitor hypothesis is grounded on the evaluation of the acquisition-learning hypothesis.

• The monitor hypothesis suggests that the main purpose of language learning is to serve as a monitor for language output produced by the acquired system. However, critics of Krashen’s theory argue that it is impossible to clearly and adequately separate language learning from language acquisition, making it challenging to prove that the learned system functions solely as a monitor.
• Furthermore, the claim that learning-as-monitor only applies to output after production is questioned. Second language learners can use the learned system both for producing output and facilitating comprehension.

4. Natural Order Hypothesis: Another criticism pertains to the natural order hypothesis.

• While there is evidence supporting the idea of a natural order of grammatical acquisition, some researchers argue that learners may benefit from explicit instruction and guidance in certain cases, particularly with more complex grammatical structures.
• Krashen’s claim that children acquiring English as a second language follow a predictable sequence in acquiring morphemes is supported by studies comparing them to children acquiring English as a first language, but this claim may not hold true for second language acquisition as a whole.
• Morpheme studies, while providing evidence for the natural order hypothesis, do not offer insights into the acquisition of other linguistic features such as phonology, syntax, semantics, and pragmatics. The predictable sequence is limited to morpheme acquisition.
• The influence of the first language on second language acquisition is not adequately addressed by the natural order hypothesis. Research suggests that second language learners acquire grammatical structures in different orders depending on their native language, contradicting the notion of a universal and predictable sequence.

5. Affective Filter Hypothesis : Some educators argue that the affective filter hypothesis oversimplifies the role of affective factors in language acquisition.

• The affective filter hypothesis in Krashen’s Monitor Model claims that individual variation in second language acquisition is primarily influenced by affective factors, which is an oversimplification of how people acquire a second language. Motivation and affective factors can vary greatly among learners, and the impact of these factors on language acquisition is multifaceted and complex.
• Criticism of this hypothesis questions the assertion that affective factors alone can explain differences in language learning.
• Children, despite lacking the affective filter described by Krashen, still experience variations in motivation, self-confidence, and anxiety, which also impact their second language learning.
• The claim that an affective filter prevents comprehensible input from reaching the language acquisition device is challenged by evidence of adult second language learners who achieve native-like competence except for specific grammatical features.
• The affective filter hypothesis does not address the fundamental question of how the filter determines which parts of language to include or exclude, further challenging its explanatory power for individual variation in second language acquisition.

Implications of Krashen’s theory of Second Language Acquisition

Although Krashen’s theory has been widely criticized and re-evaluated, there are still some valid implications for language teaching:

• Understanding Krashen’s Theory of Second Language Acquisition has important implications for language educators and learners. It emphasizes the need for providing meaningful and engaging input in language classrooms.
• Teachers should create an environment that encourages communication, promotes extensive reading, and addresses learners’ affective needs.
• Furthermore, Krashen’s Theory suggests that language acquisition is a gradual and subconscious process that requires time and exposure.
• It highlights the importance of creating a language-rich environment both inside and outside the classroom.
• Learners can benefit from various language resources such as authentic materials, multimedia resources, and language exchange opportunities to enhance their language acquisition journey.

In conclusion, Krashen’s Theory of Second Language Acquisition provides valuable insights into the process of language learning. Its five hypotheses shed light on the importance of comprehensible input, the distinction between acquisition and learning, the role of self-monitoring, the natural order of grammatical acquisition, and the influence of affective factors. While the theory has faced criticisms, it has significantly influenced language teaching methodologies and continues to shape our understanding of second language acquisition.

What are the five hypotheses of Krashen’s theory of second language acquisition?

The five hypotheses of Krashen’s theory are the Input Hypothesis, the Monitor Hypothesis, the Natural Order Hypothesis, the Affective Filter Hypothesis, and the Output Hypothesis.

What is an example of Krashen’s theory?

An example of implementing Krashen’s theory in the classroom is creating a language-rich environment where students are exposed to meaningful and comprehensible input through engaging activities, authentic materials, and opportunities for meaningful communication. This approach encourages natural language acquisition by providing students with ample opportunities to interact with the language in a low-anxiety environment.

How does Stephen Krashen describe language acquisition vs. language learning?

Stephen Krashen describes language acquisition as a subconscious process that occurs naturally through exposure to meaningful language, while language learning involves a conscious study and rule-based instruction.

What does Krashen’s theory of second Language acquisition say about explicit vs. implicit language teaching?

Krashen’s theory of second language acquisition emphasizes the importance of implicit language teaching over explicit instruction. According to Krashen, language acquisition occurs naturally when learners are exposed to meaningful and comprehensible input, rather than through explicit teaching of grammar rules. He believes that explicit instruction should be kept to a minimum and primarily used as a monitor or editor in the language production stage. The focus is on creating an immersive language environment that promotes language acquisition through exposure and meaningful communication, allowing learners to develop their language skills implicitly.

What criticism is addressed to Krashen’s ideas about implicit language learning?

While Krashen’s theory prioritizes natural language acquisition through comprehensible input and unconscious acquisition of the target language, it is important to note that the inclusion of explicit instruction can be beneficial in certain contexts, as it provides learners with explicit knowledge that complements their implicit language skills. Thus, a combination of implicit and explicit teaching methods tailored to learners’ needs and proficiency levels can enhance language acquisition and proficiency.

Multilingual Pedagogy and World Englishes

Linguistic Variety, Global Society

Affective Filter

The affective filter is a concept put forward by Stephen Krashen describing the relationship between the processes of language acquisition and the emotional or psychological states of language learners (Krashen 423). Krashen argues that it is “more than coincidence” that anxiety-inducing classroom activities are often ineffective at promoting language acquisition, while activities putting students at ease are often more effective. Theoretically, a lower affective filter or lower-stress environment will promote an optimal language learning situation, while a raised affective filter can disrupt or undermine learning.

Application

Learning a language is usually stressful, but, as Linda Schinke-Llano and Robert Vicars there are many methods for countering the inevitable anxiety of the language classroom, including “Lozanov’s work on Suggestopedia, Curran’s on Counseling Learning/Community Language Learning, and Krashen and Terrell’s on the Natural Approach” (325).

Some might argue that the nature of education inevitably produces uncertainty, doubt, lack of motivation, and anxiety. At top-tier institutions, the pressure to compete and succeed can be enormous, and students–regardless of their linguistic or cultural backgrounds or preparation–feel the strain. Amid everything else, students in language classrooms feel additional stress unique to language learning. Schinke-Llano and Vicars argue, “It behooves all of us as second language educators to see to it that we provide classroom activities that are as facilitative as possible of negotiated interaction and that, in turn, allow our students to feel as comfortable as possible in their execution” (328). In other words, teachers would be well-advised to create and deploy classroom activities and strategies (see also above) that can help students lower or at least cope more effectively with emotional factors capable of impeding their learning.

Berg, Katherine. “Affective Filter.” YouTube, Uploaded by Katherine B., 22 Oct. 2017, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUzutTV_YVA.

Bibliography

Krashen, Stephen. “The Input Hypothesis: An Update.” Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics (GURT) 1991: Linguistics and Language Pedagogy: The State of the Art . Georgetown University Press, 1992. Google Books, https://books.google.com/books?id=GzgWsZDlVo0C&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false . Accessed 10 Apr. 2019.

Schinke-Llano, Linda, and Robert Vicars. “The Affective Filter and Negotiated Interaction: Do Our Language Activities Provide for Both?”  The Modern Language Journal , vol. 77, no. 3, 1993, pp. 325–329.  JSTOR , www.jstor.org/stable/329101.

• Beelinguapp

Stephen Krashen’s Five Hypotheses of Second Language Acquisition

Unsplash Monica Melton

Interested in learning more about linguistics and linguists ? Read this way.

What is linguistics? Linguistics is the scientific study of language that involves the analysis of language rules, language meaning, and language context. In other words, linguistics is the study of how a language is formed and how it works.

A person who studies linguistics is called a linguist . A linguist doesn't necessarily have to learn different languages because they’re more interested in learning the structures of languages. Noam Chomsky and Dr. Stephen Krashen are two of the world’s most famous linguists.

Dr. Stephen D. Krashen facilitated research in second-language acquisition , bilingual education, and in reading. He believes that language acquisition requires “meaningful interaction with the target language.”

Dr. Krashen also theorized that there are 5 hypotheses to second language acquisition , which have been very influential in the field of second language research and teaching

Let’s take a look at these hypotheses. Who knows, maybe you’ve applied one or all of them in your language learning journey!

1. Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis

The Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis states that there is a distinction between language acquisition and language learning. In language acquisition, the student acquires language unconsciously . This is similar to when a child picks up their first language. On the other hand, language learning happens when the student is consciously discovering and learning the rules and grammatical structures of the language.

2. Monitor Hypothesis

Monitor Hypothesis states that the learner is consciously learning the grammar rules and functions of a language rather than its meaning. This theory focuses more on the correctness of the language . To use the Monitor Hypothesis properly, three standards must be met:

• The acquirer must know the rules of the language.
• The acquirer must concentrate on the exact form of the language.
• The acquirer must set aside some time to review and apply the language rules in a conversation. Although this is a tricky one, because in regular conversations there’s hardly enough time to ensure correctness of the language.

3. Natural Order Hypothesis

Natural Order Hypothesis is based on the finding that language learners learn grammatical structures in a fixed and universal way . There is a sense of predictability to this kind of learning, which is similar to how a speaker learns their first language.

4. Input Hypothesis

Input Hypothesis places more emphasis on the acquisition of the second language. This theory is more concerned about how the language is acquired rather than learned.

Moreover, the Input Hypothesis states that the learner naturally develops language as soon as the student receives interesting and fun information .

5. Affective Filter Hypothesis

In Affective Filter, language acquisition can be affected by emotional factors. If the affective filter is higher, then the student is less likely to learn the language. Therefore, the learning environment for the student must be positive and stress-free so that the student is open for input.

Language acquisition is a subconscious process. Usually, language acquirers are aware that they’re using the language for communication but are unaware that they are acquiring the language.

Language acquirers also are unaware of the rules of the language they are acquiring. Instead, language acquirers feel a sense of correctness, when the sentence sounds and feels right. Strange right? But it is also quite fascinating.

Acquiring a language is a tedious process. It can seem more like a chore, a game of should I learn today or should I just do something else? Sigh

But Dr. Krashen’s language acquisition theories might be onto something, don’t you think? Learning a language should be fun and in some way it should happen naturally. Try to engage in meaningful interactions like reading exciting stories and relevant news articles, even talking with friends and family in a different language. Indulge in interesting and easy to understand language activities, and by then you might already have slowly started acquiring your target language!

Related Posts

14 spanish phrases to sound like a native speaker, basic brazilian portuguese phrases for your trip to brazil, let’s “confabulate” and master new words with hocus pocus 2, subscribe to our newsletter.

Proceedings of the 2021 4th International Conference on Humanities Education and Social Sciences (ICHESS 2021)

Review of Enlightenment of Emotional Factors in Krashen’s Affective Filter Hypothesis on English Teaching Research in College

Affective Filter Hypothesis describes the relationship between emotional factors and the process of second language acquisition, which is one of the five hypotheses of Krashen’s Monitor Model. This review sorts out and analyses the status quo and teaching enlightenment of the three major emotional factors to the listening, speaking, reading, and writing in college English classes.

Download article (PDF)

Cite this article

Search Our Store:

The affective filter (krashen’s hypotheses series, #6 of 9).

(Previous post in this series: The Input Hypothesis)

The next post in this series (#7/9), The Compelling Input Hypothesis , is found here .

Teach like a MANI A C

A: the affective filter hypothesis, “learning is filtered through the emotions.”.

Psychological safety is one of the most important factors in a successful team. The classroom is no different. Your classroom needs to be a safe space where students are free to take chances. The class must be free of insults, put-downs, judgmental statements and crude language. Even snide remarks, rolling eyes, smirks, mockery, and lack of inclusion can have a negative impact on students’ ability to learn. Establishing behavioral norms and expectations in the classroom and then rigorously enforcing them on a regular basis is crucial if students are to learn at high levels.

“When the input does not contain i+1 … and when the students’ affective filter is high, comprehensible input is not good enough.” (Krashen, 1982)

APPLYING THE AFFECTIVE FILTER HYPOTHESIS IN THE CLASSROOM :

• Model open and accepting behavior yourself.  To counteract a negative culture you will have to clearly model positive comportment and then explain what you are doing. Show students with you body language what acceptance and care look like.

• Have clear behavioral expectations. Set clear and high expectations for student behavior.

• Practice and use procedures. Reinforce your expectations with well thought out classroom procedures .

• Enforce the class norms. Consistently enforce the classroom norms of courtesy and respectful behavior.

• Show and tell them what you expect. Expect students to “play the game.” Use an interpersonal self-assessment to define what you mean.

• Control of your own behavior. You set the tone for the class by controlling your thoughts and actions. It’s not exactly as simple as “think good thoughts” … but almost. Students can pick up on the unconscious and unintended body language messages you are sending out when you judge them. Banish disappointment and disapproval from your mind because students will smell it on you and react negatively. There are techniques for this that I have seen work wonderfully.

Share This Article:

One comment.

[…] French classes last year and talks about how she resolved them. In addition, you might want to read this post by Bryce Hedstrom, a retired Spanish teacher, who writes about how negative behaviors impede […]

Leave A Comment Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.