Krashen´S Theory

Many popular theories of second language acquisition have been analyzed throughout history. The socialization of L2 learners, their present emotional state that is present at time of acquisition, as well as the comprehensible input and output with the use of scaffolding play a major role in second language acquisition. Let us also not forget the importance of written expression as well as reading comprehension with these L2 learners. Each play a role in language development. However, I believe that in acquiring a language, one must use a variety of techniques that work together to create a balance within the learning environment. Furthermore, all L2 learners learn differently and so a variety of resources will need to be used based on the ability of each student. There are many theories that have been developed by highly qualified experts in the field on linguistics. However, I will address those areas that I agree with as I present my personal theories on second language acquisition.

“Any realistic account of language acquisition must take into account the manner in which the child passes from pre-speech communication to the use of language proper (Brunner, 1974–1975)”.

Krashen & Terrell (1995) explore five hypotheses of second language acquisition theory in their chapter. These hypotheses include, “the acquisition-learning hypothesis, the natural order hypothesis, the monitor hypothesis, the input hypothesis, and the affective filter hypothesis” (Krashen & Terrell, 1995). The concepts outlined in this chapter provide a foundation of the process that English language learners (ELLs) are developing through. However, like all theory, it is up to myself as the classroom teacher, to translate this theoretical into a working

A behaviorist view treats language learning as environmentally determined, controlled from outside by what learners are exposed to and the reinforcement they receive. In contrast, mentalist theories emphasize the importance of the learner’s ‘black box’ in their memory. They maintain that learners’ brains are especially equipped to learn language and all that is needed is minimal exposure to input in order to trigger acquisition (Ellis, 1997). On the whole, input is absolutely necessary and there is no theory or approach to SLA that does not recognize the importance of input and making sure that it is comprehensible. In Schwartz’s view (1993), the input feeds or nurtures an innate system to aid its growth. But input alone cannot facilitate second language learning. It will not function to the full in SLA until it gets involved in interaction. Input processing is just as important because it aims to offer an explanation as to how L2 learners process input, how they make form-meaning connections and how they map syntactic structures onto the utterance.

Second language acquisition is a process by which people learn a second language. It refers to any language learned in addition to the first language and the differences between both processes. Second language acquisition is a controversial issue; since, there is no a general agreement about how and when it takes place. Several theories and models have tried to explain the facts that may be involved

Learning a new language has many benefits; career advancement, bridging communication gaps, and strengthening life skills. “What theory implies, quite simply, is that language acquisition, first or second, occurs when comprehension of real messages occurs, and when the acquire is not ‘on the defensive’” wrote Steven D. Krashner (1981)

Some linguistic models try to explain the development of second language acquisition. The three most common models are (1) the Universal Grammar Model, (2) the Competition Model, and (3) the Monitor Model. The Universal Grammar Model refers to the system of principles, conditions, and rules that are properties or elements of all human languages. At the same time, each language has grammatical rules that vary from one language to another. Thus, Chomky states that different languages have a limited possibility of different grammatical structures (1975). Therefore, second language learners base their second language acquisition on universal principles common to all languages, and on the force of the particular rules of each language. All of those can be concluded that as a human, especially as children, we have vary form of rules in language, in this case is second language.

Inductive was known as a 'bottom up' approach. In other words, students discovered and asked to infer grammar rules while working through exercises. At this juncture, this approach came from inductive reasoning stating that a reasoning progression proceeded from particulars to generalities (for example, rules, laws, concepts or theories) (Felder & Henriques, 1995). Actually, Inductive approach was often correlated with Direct Method and Natural Approach in English teaching, therefore, the rules of the language were supposedly acquired out of the experience of the understanding and repeating examples which had been systematically graded for difficulty and put into a clear context” (Thornburry, 2002, p.50). With this approach, the learners were not taught grammatical or other types of rules directly but they were left to discover or induce rules from meaningful contexts provided by the teacher and their experience of using the language ( Richard& Platt,1997). The inductive approach related to subconscious learning processes similar to the concept of language acquisition. Learners learnt the language in the same way as children acquired their first or second

As previously said, there has been plenty of research in the linguistics field about second language acquisition. However, most studies focus on ESL writing or on Asian ESL students’ abilties. As far as my knowledge goes, there seems to be a lack of research about European

However, the influence of Stephen Krashen’s hypotheses of first and second language acquisition and his theory of acquired versus learned language can be seen clearly within this new language curriculum. Essentially,

According to the natural order hypothesis, language rules that are the simplest to instruct are not necessarily the first to be acquired.

1.1,1.2 a)Theories of first and second language acquisition and learning and associated language learning approaches.

Even though Krashen and Walqui are attempting to achieve a similar goal, their methodologies are different. Krashen believes there are two independent systems that affect one’s language and how a language is acquired. Krashen believes there are two systems that

Briefly explain reasons for second language acquisition and discuss individual differences in learning a second language. (Chapter 6)

While each of these designations emphasizes a particular notion, they share the concept that second language learners are forming their own self-contained independent linguistic systems. This is neither the system of the native language nor the system of the target language, but falls between the two. The most important feature of interlanguage is that it has its own legitimate system where learners are no longer looked on as producers of malformed, imperfect language replete with mistakes, but as intelligent and creative beings proceeding through logical, systematic stages of acquisition creatively acting upon their linguistic environment. The second feature is that this system is dynamic and it is based on the best attempt of learners to produce order and structure to the linguistic stimuli surrounding them. Finally, it is a linguistic system which reflects the psychological process of learning and the psychological process of foreign language learning.