This is an important chapter of these document. Read! You’ll like!
Summary of findings of a project-based linguistics seminar
held at the Department of English Studies
of the University of Graz, Austria
Oct 2002 – Jan 2003.
List of contributors
Dr. David Newby (lecturer, Department of English and American Studies)
Students:
Alexandra Altenaichinger
Petra Deutsch
Pia Maria Fauland
Charlotte Fink
Gudrun Frank
Theresa Gradnitzer
Dagmar Gromann
Martin Hanak-Hammerl
Manfred Jungwirth
Nina Leitner
Barbara Mairitsch
Miriam Meister
Ulla Meister
Ingeborg Nawratil
Michaela Ortner
Iris Portschy
Christina Schuchlenz
Bettina Steurer
2. Creative Construction Theory or the Naturalistic Approach
This approach is based on the assumption that language acquisition is innately determined and
that we are born with a certain system of language that we can call on later. Numerous
linguists and methodologists support this innateness hypotheses. Chomsky, who is the leading
proponent, claims that each human being possesses a set of innate properties of language
which is responsible for the child’s mastery of a native language in such a short time (cf.
Brown 2002: 24). According to Chomsky, this mechanism, which he calls the ‘language
acquisition device’ (LAD), ‘governs all human languages, and determines what possible form
human language may take’ (Dulay, Burt, Krashen 1982: 6ff).
Some linguists, in particular Stephen Krashen, distinguish between acquisition and
learning. Acquisition is supposed to be a subconscious process which leads to fluency.
Learning, on the other hand, is a conscious process which shows itself in terms of learning
rules and structures. Furthermore, Krashen claims that there are three internal processors that
operate when students learn or acquire a second language: the subconscious ‘filter’ and the
‘organizer’ as well as the conscious ‘monitor’ (cf. Dulay, Burt, Krashen 1982: 11-45). The
‘organizer’ determines the organisation of the learner’s language system, the usage of
incorrect grammatical constructions as provisional precursors of grammatical structures, the
systematical occurrence of errors in the learner’s utterances as well as a common order in
which structures are learnt. The ‘filter’ is responsible for the extent to which the learner’s
acquisition is influenced by social circumstances such as motivation and affective factors such
as anger or anxiety. The ‘monitor’ is responsible for conscious learning. The learners correct
mistakes in their speech according to their age and self-consciousness (cf. Dulay, Burt,
Krashen 1982: 45).
2.1 Krashen’s Input Hypothesis
This hypothesis by Stephen Krashen is one of the most controversial theoretical perspectives
in Second Language Acquisition. It is based on a set of five interrelated hypotheses that are
listed below:
1. The Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis
As mentioned above, Krashen claims that there is a difference between acquisition and
learning. Acquisition is ‘a subconscious and intuitive process of constructing the system of a
language, not unlike the process used by a child to ‘pick up’ a language’. Learning is a
conscious process in which ‘learners attend to form, figure out rules, and are generally aware
of their own process’ ( Brown 2002: 278).
Theory: Theories of Second Language Acquisition Alexandra Altenaichinger
2. The Monitor Hypothesis
The monitor has nothing to do with acquisition but with learning. The learned system acts
only as an editor or ‘monitor’, making minor changes and polishing what the acquired system
has produced. According to Krashen, three conditions are necessary for monitor use: 1.
sufficient time, 2. focus on form, 3. knowing the rules (cf. Lightbown, Spada 1995: 27).
3. The Natural Order Hypothesis
This hypothesis states that we acquire the rules of a language in a certain order that is
predictable (cf. Lightbown, Spada 1995: 27). However, this does not mean that every acquirer
will acquire grammatical structures in exactly the same order. It states rather that, in general,
certain structures tend to be acquired early and others to be acquired late. (cf. Krashen, Terrell
1983: 28)
4. The Input Hypothesis
This hypothesis states that it is important for the acquirer to understand language that is a bit
beyond his or her current level of competence. This means, if a learner is on a level i the input
he gets should be i + 1. This means that the language that learners are exposed to should be
just far enough beyond their current competence that they can understand most of it but still is
challenged to make progress (cf. Brown 2002: 278).
5. The Affective Filter Hypothesis
This hypothesis states that it is easier for a learner to acquire a language when he/she is not
tense, angry, anxious, or bored. According to Dulay and Burt, performers with optimal
attitudes have a lower affective filter. A low filter means that the performer is more open to
the input language. (cf. Krashen, Terrell 1983: 38)
Krashen’s assumptions have been hotly disputed. Many psychologists like McLaughlin have
criticised Krashen’s unclear distinction between subconscious (acquisition) and conscious
(learning) processes. According to Brown, second language learning is a process in which
varying degrees of learning and of acquisition can both be beneficial, depending upon the
learner’s own styles and strategies. Furthermore, the i + 1 formula that is presented by
Krashen raises the question how i and 1 should be defined. Moreover, what about the ‘silent
period’? Krashen states that after a certain time, the silent period, speech will ‘emerge’ to the
learner, which means that the learner will start to speak as a result of comprehensible input.
Nevertheless, there is no information about what will happen to the learners, for whom speech
will not ‘emerge’ and ‘for whom the silent period might last forever’ (Brown 2002: 281).
More details and references:
www.ecml.at/documents/relresearch/projectseminarDN.pdf
