Five Hypotheses in a Theory of Second Language Development

Stephen Krashen, a researcher of bilingualism and second language acquisition, has proposed five hypotheses that together form a theory for second language development. 1. Language Acquisition versus Language Learning Hypothesis This hypothesis contends that language development is largely a result of acquisition and not learning. Here there is a distinction between learning and acquisition. Acquisition is a subconscious process that leads to fluency. In comparison, learning is a more conscious act that involves focus on formal knowledge (rules) of the language. Learning a language versus acquiring it, leads to grammatical and mechanical knowledge of the language, but it does not lead to fluency. The implication here is that second language learning is much more like first language learning in which parents do not focus on explicit instruction of the language, rather they focus on communication and meaning. 2. Natural Order Hypothesis Acquisition of grammatical rules happens in a predictable order. Mastery of a specific structure is not a prerequisite for acquiring others. As such, it is important for teachers to recognize that emphasis of certain grammatical structures may be beyond what a learner is developmentally (linguistically) ready to understand. Teachers should not be surprised to see (3rd person) subject verb agreement errors in ELL writing even after years of instruction. It is important for teachers to keep in mind the distinction between learning vs. acquisition, and to remember that just because a concept has been taught and learned does not mean it has been acquired by the students as demonstrated through their spontaneous productions of language. While the order of acquisition may vary, research supports the following general pattern among both children and adult second language learners: ING (progressive) PLURAL COPULA (to be) AUXILIARY (progressive) ARTICLE (a, the) IRREGULAR PAST REGULAR PAST 3RD PERSON SINGULAR (-s) POSSESSIVE (-s)

3. Monitor Hypothesis Monitoring is an editing device that can operate before or during language production. Monitoring occurs when there is enough time, and when there is pressure to communicate correctly and not just convey meaning, and when grammatical rules are known. Given time to listen carefully, listeners monitor both the language production they hear from others and the extent to which correct communication is needed in a given situation. They then monitor carefully the reactions to their own language production and make ongoing corrections during communications. 4. Comprehensible Input Hypothesis Input must be at a level that slightly challenges the learner, but that is not so difficult that it overwhelms the learner. It is based on the notion that the learner can only acquire language that s/he is able to understand. The task facing the teacher is to consider ways to make information more comprehensible to the learner by using strategies such as connecting new information to prior knowledge and using gestures, drawings and other nonlinguistic cues to convey information. It is equally important that teachers not dummy down information such that the learner is never challenged or exposed to new linguistic forms in the new language. For this reason, this hypothesis is often referred to as the i + 1 (information + 1) hypothesis, such that the teacher is constantly assessing a students current language abilities and considering when and how to best challenge these. When learners are exposed to grammar a little beyond their current level, those grammatical features are acquired. 5. Affective Filter Hypothesis This hypothesis argues that students acquire knowledge through a filter that determines how much of a second language a person learns. The filter is made up of factors such as attitudes, motivation, selfconfidence, and anxiety. Likened to a car window, when the filter is down, information can pass through and learning can occur. However, when there are high levels of anxiety, the filter can rise, thus blocking information from reaching the learner.

Error Correction Hypothesis

While the above theories and hypotheses focus on the learners experience, the error correction hypothesis focuses on an important aspect of the instructors role in language learning. Building on Krashens hypotheses above, error correction is seen to be an instructor role that can be an important factor in raising or lowering a learners affective filter. This hypothesis describes three forms of feedback that can be likened to a street light signal. Providing non-corrective feedback to an ELLs verbal message signals to the learner that his/her message is understood and to can continue with their communication (green light). Corrective feedback in the form of error corrections indicates to the ELL that his/her message is not understood and to reattempt to convey the message. Varied levels of error correction then represent the yellow or red lights of the signal and lead the speaker to restate his/her message or to stop trying altogether. In this way, error corrections can be a factor in raising or lowering an ELLs affective filter. Thus, like communication in a first language, where errors are rarely corrected unless they affect the meaning of the message, some experts suggest there should be little or no error correction in learning a second language, while others argue that some amount of error correction is important for ELLs. One concern around complete avoidance of error correction is fossilization. Fossilization occurs when an ELL is so accustomed to an error that he/she does not hear the correct use. Thus, the optimal mix of error correction is determined by a students language development, their ability to convey a message. Furthermore, a teacher must be aware of the manner in which the error correction is done, keeping in mind the individuals affective filter and the natural order of language acquisition. One way to approach error correction is to focus on global errors, those errors that hinder comprehension of the message, rather than focusing on local errors those that affect a single element of a sentence and do not affect the message. In considering whether to correct an error, a teacher may also identify those that are persistent and may largely be shared by the entire class. This can be done effectively through mini-lessons on speaking or during the editing phase of the writing process. Such error corrections can be beneficial to ELLs language development. However, it is important to realize that even after an error is corrected or a grammar rule is taught, ELLs should not be expected to immediately or consistently demonstrate the correct form. The production of errors often persists long after the student has learned a particular grammar rule.