Skip to main content

Conscious and unconscious language learning (5)

This blog, the fifth in the series, starts to examine Stephen Krashen's influential hypotheses about language learning and acquisition. Krashen continues to be a significant influence in the world of language teaching and the term "comprehensible input", coined by Krashen, can almost be written without quotation marks, such is its currency. What was Krashen saying?

His hypotheses follow a traditional belief about two types of second language learning, although it makes unusually specific predictions and claims to be based on empirical evidence. It is a boldly expressed set of claims, notable for its attractive elegance. Its very clarity and simplicity arouse suspicion!

Acquisition and Learning

For Krashen these two terms are mutually exclusive and are used in a particularly narrow sense. First, acquisition:

   Language acquisition is a subconscious process; language acquirers are not usually aware of the fact they are acquiring language, but are only aware of the fact that they are using the language for communication (Krashen, 1982, p.10)

Elsewhere Krashen states that acquisition occurs through a process of "creative construction" (Krashen, 1978). It closely resembles the way a young child comes to master its first language. Acquisition is enabled by the existence of the innate Language Acquisition Device (LAD) à la Chomsky. He explains that acquired linguistic competence (his term) is also subconscious and that we have an implicit "feel" for correctness.

Learning is described as:

   ... conscious knowledge of a second language, knowing the rules, being aware of them, and being able to talk about them (Krashen, 1978)

Learning, therefore, relates very specifically to explicit grammatical knowledge and to activities, we presume, such as the memorisation of vocabulary lists and rules of grammar. It also clearly refers not just to a process, but to the product, the knowledge that derives from the process.

Krashen makes the huge claim that learners only become proficient at a language through acquisition, not through learning. Learning can only allow a student to monitor their utterances or utterances they hear as being correct. Put simply, people become proficient at a language by hearing or reading messages they understand. Acquisition is unconscious and will occur naturally if the input is meaningful. This is what is termed comprehensible input.

The Input Hypothesis

Krashen labelled this the Input Hypothesis.  He wrote:

   The Input Hypothesis claims that we acquire language in an amazingly simple way - when we understand messages (Krashen, 1985, p.vii)

More specifically:

   The Input Hypothesis makes the following claim: a necessary (but not sufficient) condition to move from stage i to stage i + 1 is that the acquirer understand input that contains i + 1, where "understand" means that the acquirer is focused on the meaning and not the form of the message (Krashen, 1982, p.21).

The "acquirer" understands the new element (the "+ 1") by using other, non-linguistic information e.g. contextual clues and knowledge of the world. Krashen disagrees with the commonly held view that we acquire structure (i.e. tacit linguistic competence) be learning and practising it.

In sum, the Input Hypothesis relates to acquisition, not learning and we acquire by understanding language that contains language a bit beyond our current level of competence.

So, Krashen claims that learning cannot become acquisition. In other words, what we learn from explicit grammar instruction cannot seep into our naturally acquired competence. He calls this the Non-interface Hypothesis. This means that there may be no point in teaching grammar explicitly as only being exposed to meaningful messages, as a child would be, will cause acquisition to take place.

Krashen's Monitor Hypothesis claims that learning can only help us monitor the accuracy of what we hear or say. It might allow us to correct a mistake we have made, for example.

It is worth adding that by this hypothesis input is much more important than conversation. Conversation is most useful in language acquisition because it is a way of obtaining more input. Talk is output, and as such is of little use for further acquisition. Krashen would therefore recommend lessons to contain as many input activities as possible and relatively few output tasks. This is the thinking of the TPRS (Teaching Proficiency through Reading and Stories) movement, popular with many teachers in North America. This is also why Krashen strongly favours the use of extensive reading.

The Natural Order Hypothesis

Krashen cites Dulay and Burt in claiming that both first and second language acquirers tend to acquire certain grammatical morphemes in a natural, predictable order. The order of acquisition is related to difficulty and is similar in some ways for first and second language acquirers. It follows that:

   Students may be able to learn some structures consciously, but true subconscious acquisition will come only when the students are ready (Dulay, Burt and Krashen, 1982, p.201)

Some writers believed that natural orders could be used to design syllabuses, but Krashen does not take this view. He feels language chosen as input should not be fine-tuned in the traditional way, but rough-tuned.

The Affective Filter Hypothesis

One attractive element of Krashen's hypotheses is that they incorporate affective as well as cognitive domains. Drawing directly from the work of Dulay and Burt (1973, 1974, 1978), he postulates that affective factors relate directly to acquisition, but not learning. Broadly speaking, well-motivated students are predicted by the theory to well at communicative tasks, whereas learners of high aptitude would perform well on grammatical tasks such as cloze tests. Students with poor motivation are said to have strong affective filters (i.e. much of the input will not become intake). So the filter acts as a potential barrier between input and acquired competence.

Other factors which have been held to account for successful acquisition, such as memory, intelligence or language learning aptitude, are thought by Krashen to be good predictors of conscious learning success, but poor predictors of real language acquisition. This claim is supported by the success of first ands second language acquirers in immersion or bilingual environments.

Criticisms

Over the years there has been a fair amount of "Krashen bashin'". Here are some of the criticisms which have been levelled at his hypotheses.

Firstly, the clear-cut distinction between acquisition and learning has been much criticised. Put simply, the distinction between acquisition and learning is impossible to prove. A good model or theory needs to be falsifiable.

Next, critics consider the argument that learning cannot become acquisition questionable. Many language learners feel that language they have learned by conscious application and rote learning can become part of their automised competence.  Learning can become acquisition, one may think. How do we know that what we can say is the result of acquisition and not, in part at least, the product of explicit learning? Krashen's distinction is, as I see it, an attractive but unfalsifiable leap of faith.

Krashen might respond that during explicit practice of patterns and memorisation we are, in fact, being exposed to comprehensible input, but input of a poor quality. Meaning-based acquisition would be more effective. For example, if we do a translation from the target language, we are getting meaningful input, even if it is less efficient than a task where we work with a source text in the target language (getting, in the process, even more input).

The fact is that we cannot be sure that what Krashen says is right and attempts to prove the hypotheses empirically are likely to be unconvincing. How can we design an experiment with two identical, parallel groups of students, with a large enough sample, reproducible, learning by using different methods, with the same teacher, in the same conditions?

As with the acquisition-learning hypothesis, the first criticism of the Input Hypothesis surrounds the lack of a clear definition of comprehensible input; some argue that Krashen never sufficiently explains the values of i or i+1.

More importantly, the input hypothesis focuses on comprehensible input as necessary, although not sufficient, for second language acquisition to the neglect of any possible importance of output. How do we know that output is not also, simultaneously, input? Perhaps through talking students identify gaps in their knowledge and then attend more carefully to relevant input.

As for the Affective Filter Hypothesis, whilst it is attractive to include motivation in a theory of language acquisition (we all know motivation is crucial), how do we know that other, non-affective factors are not just as important? My own experience over many years was that language learning aptitude was a major factor in success and distinguished clearly between pupils of similar motivation in terms of long term proficiency, not just grammar tests. Yes, all students can acquire a new language naturally, but for some it takes much longer.

The Natural Order Hypothesis has come in for criticism. For example, it does not take into account the influence of the first language when students are acquiring a new language. The order of acquisition may be different for the second language acquirer. Others have said that morpheme studies offer no indication that second language learners similarly acquire other linguistic features (phonology, syntax, semantics, pragmatics) in any predictable sequence let alone in any sequence at all.

In the final blog of this series I shall look at the practical implications of the study of conscious and unconscious language learning for the teacher.

To be continued....

References
H. Dulay and M. Burt (1973) "Should We Teach Children Syntax", Language Learning Vol. 23
H. Dulay and M. Burt (1974) "natural Sequences in Child Second Language Acquisition", Language Learning Vol. 24, p.37-53
H. Dulay and M. Burt (1978) "Some Remarks on Creativity in Language Acquisition", in W.C. Ritchie (ed.)
H. Dulay, M. Burt and S.D. Krashen (1982) Language Two. New York: O.U.P.
S.D. Krashen (1978) "Individual variation in the Use of the Monitor", in W.C. Ritchie (ed.) 175-183
S.D. Krashen (1982) Principles and Practice in Sercond Language Acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Press (kindly made available online at: http://www.sdkrashen.com/content/books/principles_and_practice.pdf)
S.D. Krashen (1985) The Input Hypothesis. London: Longman
W.C. Ritchie (1978) Perspectives in Neurolinguistics and Psycholinguistics. New York: Academic Press

Stephen Krashen is making previously published work available online at sdkrashen.com



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The latest research on teaching vocabulary

I've been dipping into The Routledge Handbook of Instructed Second Language Acquisition (2017) edited by Loewen and Sato. This blog is a succinct summary of Chapter 16 by Beatriz González-Fernández and Norbert Schmitt on the topic of teaching vocabulary. I hope you find it useful.

1.  Background

The authors begin by outlining the clear importance of vocabulary knowledge in language acquisition, stating that it's a key predictor of overall language proficiency (e.g. Alderson, 2007). Students often say that their lack of vocabulary is the main reason for their difficulty understanding and using the language (e.g. Nation, 2012). Historically vocabulary has been neglected when compared to grammar, notably in the grammar-translation and audio-lingual traditions as well as  communicative language teaching.

(My note: this is also true, to an extent, of the oral-situational approach which I was trained in where most vocabulary is learned incidentally as part of question-answer sequence…

A zero preparation fluency game

I am grateful to Kayleigh Meyrick, a teacher in Sheffield, for this game which she described in the Languages Today magazine (January, 2018). She called it “Swap It/Add It” and it’s dead simple! I’ve added my own little twist as well as a justification for the activity.

You could use this at almost any level, even advanced level where the language could get a good deal more sophisticated.

Put students into small groups or pairs. If in groups you can have them stand in circles to add a sense of occasion. One student utters a sentence, e.g. “J’aime jouer au foot avec mes copains parce que c’est amusant.” (You could provide the starter sentence or let groups make up their own.) The next student (or partner) has to change one element in the sentence, and so on, until you restart with a different sentence. You could give a time limit of, say, 2 minutes. The sentence could easily relate to the topic you are working on. At advanced level a suitable sentence starter might be:

“Selon un article q…

Google Translate beaters

Google Translate is a really useful tool, but some teachers say that they have stopped setting written work to be done at home because students are cheating by using it. On a number of occasions I have seen teachers asking what tasks can be set which make the use of Google Translate hard or impossible. Having given this some thought I have come up with one possible Google Translate-beating task type. It's a two way gapped translation exercise where students have to complete gaps in two parallel texts, one in French, one in English. There are no complete sentences which can be copied and pasted into Google.

This is what one looks like. Remember to hand out both texts at the same time.


English 

_____. My name is David. _ __ 15 years old and I live in Ripon, a _____ ____ in the north of _______, near York. I have two _______ and one brother. My brother __ ______ David and my _______ are called Erika and Claire. We live in a _____ house in the centre of ____. In ___ house _____ …

Preparing for GCSE speaking: building a repertoire

As your Y11 classes start their final year of GCSE, one potential danger of moving from Controlled Assessment to terminal assessment of speaking is to believe that in this new regime there will be little place for the rote learning or memorisation of language. While it is true that the amount of learning by heart is likely to go down and that greater use of unrehearsed (spontaneous) should be encouraged, there are undoubtedly some good techniques to help your pupils perform well on the day.

I clearly recall, when I marked speaking tests for AQA 15-20 years ago, that schools whose candidates performed the best were often those who had prepared their students with ready-made short paragraphs of language. Candidates who didn't sound particularly like "natural linguists" (e.g. displaying poor accents) nevertheless got high marks. As far as an examiner is concerned is doesn't matter if every single candidate says that last weekend they went to the cinema, saw a James Bond…

Worried about the new GCSEs?

Twitter and MFL Facebook groups are replete with posts expressing concerns about the new GCSEs and, in particular, the difficulty of the exam, grades and tiers. I can only comment from a distance since I am no longer in the classroom, but I have been through a number of sea changes in assessment over the years so may have something useful to say.

Firstly, as far as general difficulty of papers is concerned, I think it’s fair to say that the new assessment is harder (not necessarily in terms of grades though). This is particularly evident in the writing tasks and speaking test. Although it will still be possible to work in some memorised material in these parts of the exam, there is no doubt that weaker candidates will have more problems coping with the greater requirement for unrehearsed language. Past experience working with average to very able students tells me some, even those with reasonable attainment, will flounder on the written questions in the heat of the moment. Others will…