Skip to main content

What is the natural order hypothesis?

The natural order hypothesis states that all learners acquire the grammatical structures of a language in roughly the same order. This applies to both first and second language acquisition. This order is not dependent on the ease with which a particular language feature can be taught; in English, some features, such as third-person "-s" ("he runs") are easy to teach in a classroom setting, but are not typically fully acquired until the later stages of language acquisition. The hypothesis was based on morpheme studies by Heidi Dulay and Marina Burt, which found that certain morphemes were predictably learned before others during the course of second language acquisition. The hypothesis was picked up by Stephen Krashen who incorporated it in his very well known input model of second language learning.

Furthermore, according to the natural order hypothesis, the order of acquisition remains the same regardless of the teacher's explicit instruction; in other words, explicit teaching and learning cannot change the natural order of acquisition. Put simply, what you teach is not what students acquire.

Does this hold water?

One problem is that the natural order hypothesis fails to take into account the influence of the first language on the acquisition of a second language; in fact some studies suggest that second language learners acquire a second language in different orders depending on their native language. Therefore, second language learners do not necessarily acquire grammatical structures in a predictable sequence.

There is no agreement about, for example, the order an English native speaker would naturally acquire French grammar without instruction. This means that you cannot organise a grammatical syllabus based on natural orders. No one has been able to do this.

Acknowledging this, supporters of the hypothesis argue that you should not organise teaching by grammar sequencing at all. They argue, as we have seen, that grammar is simply not teachable, since teachers cannot control what a student will naturally acquire. So proponents of this view argue for teaching through comprehensible input with minimal reference to grammar. This would, for example, be the position of TPRS practitioners (Teaching Proficiency through Reading and Storytelling). Learners will pick up grammar only through meaningful exposure to the second language, not by explicit instruction and practice. Grammar might be occasionally explained, but more to satisfy the curiosity of students than to help with its acquisition.

If you find this far-fetched, bear in mind that this view hangs on the assumption that learning a second language is seen as very similar or identical to learning the mother tongue. Just as we cannot dictate the order a young child masters grammar, so we cannot force feed grammar down the throats of second language learners. It might also chime with the feeling you get that, even after teaching the same structure umpteen times, some students don't seem to pick it up and use it spontaneously.

So is it possible that we cannot "teach grammar"? Can we not control what students will both learn and use creatively?

I have serious doubts about this. My experience of teaching French over many years is that the traditional PPP (Presentation-Practice-Production) approach not only allowed students to explain rules and use new syntax in very controlled contexts, it also led to some of them, pretty quickly, to being able to apply the rules themselves, independently, in freer language production. This is in line with the skill-acquisition model of second language learning.

The objection to that claim would be that those students who can apparently use new patterns spontaneously do so not because of any explicit teacher instruction, but because their natural, in-built language acquisition capability produced that language at an unconscious level.

The truth is, of course, that we cannot know for sure if that spontaneous use of language came from instruction and practice or through an unconscious process. When we hear our advanced students using the language quite fluently, how do we know to what extent this has occurred naturally or as a result of instruction and practice?

For me, it is certainly true that being able to go from instruction and practice to spontaneous use only worked with a minority of students of higher aptitude, but, as far as I can tell, teaching grammar in a sequence did allow some students to apply their new knowledge in that same sequence. In short, my experience is that you can "teach grammar" and have some students apply it in the order you taught it. The claim that grammar is unteachable seems too strong to me. If it did not work for many pupils, perhaps it was that there was just not enough time and practice to make it happen. Language learning is hard and takes time.

If you are happy to assume that sequencing grammar is worthwhile, deciding on the sequence then becomes a question of proceeding from simpler to harder, less useful to more useful, bearing in mind the effects of interference from the first language. An example of where interference of this type makes acquisition slower would be object pronouns in French. These are easy to explain, but hard for student to use in spontaneous speech principally because of the fundamental word-order difference from English, e.g. I bought it versus Je l'ai acheté ("I it bought"). Should you teach direct object pronouns early (they are useful) or late (they are hard to acquire)?

In sum, whilst natural orders clearly exist when acquiring a first language, they are are much more problematic in second language learning. This need not be, however, a reason for abandoning the sensible sequencing of grammar in modern language lessons. It is still quite possible that some students at least will pick up new grammar in the order you choose to teach it. If they do not, this may be because they do not get enough input and practice to allow it to happen.

References

Heidi C. Dulay and Marina K.Burt (1974). “Natural sequences in child second language acquisition.” Language Learning, 24(1):37–53.
Krashen, S.D. (1981)Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon.
Krashen, S.D. (1982).Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.

(both available free online at sdkrashen.com)

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Comments

  1. "ome studies suggest that second language learners acquire a second language in different orders depending on their native language."

    Do you have a cite on this? This contradicts my understanding.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi. Here is one https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/studies-in-second-language-acquisition/article/l1-influence-on-the-acquisition-order-of-english-grammatical-morphemes/3263C3E82ECA4A7EB19D8F50E45FA1C3

      Delete
    2. And this https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00524.x

      Delete
    3. And this, which references other work https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281389236_Accuracy_order_of_grammatical_morphemes_of_Korean_EFL_learners_Disparities_among_the_same_L1_groups

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Second language learning and acquisition

This is a long, referenced blog which combines all the posts in my earlier series entitled Conscious and Unconscious Language Learning. If you have already read those posts, you should look away now. Part 1 Throughout the history of the study of language learning and teaching reference has been made to two distinct types of language learning. The first could be characterised as "picking up" a language and normally involves the apparently unconscious acquisition of a language in an informal or natural setting. One thinks of the child who learns their native tongue, or the immigrant who learns the new language without recourse to formal study. The second type of language learning involves the practice of a language in a formal, systematic way, often in a classroom setting. This has frequently been termed conscious learning. Such a clear distinction may be controversial and you may already be thinking, quite reasonably, that both types of learning have a role. However, when

What is "Input Processing"?

Input Processing (IP) was proposed by Bill VanPatten, Professor of Spanish and Second Language Acquisition from Michigan State University. Bill may be known to some of you from his podcast show Tea with BVP. He is one of those rare university academics who makes a specific effort to engage with practising teachers. IP was first proposed in a 1993 article (published with T. Cadierno in the Modern Language Journal) entitled "Input processing and second language acquisition: A role for instruction." My summary of it is based on an article "Input Processing and Processing Instruction: Definitions and Issues" (2013) by Hossein Hashemnezhad. IP is a little complicated to explain, but I'll do my best to summarise the key points before suggesting how it relates to other ways of looking at classroom language teaching. Is this actually any use to teachers? I apologise in advance for over-simplifying or misunderstanding. To paraphrase Dr Leonard McCoy from Star Trek &q

Pros and cons of pair and group work

Most teachers have made frequent use of pair and group work for many years, notably since the rise of communicative language teaching in the 1980s. Even before then it would have been common for pupils to work in pairs on simple role-play and dialogue tasks. So pair and group work is standard practice, if not universally supported by language teachers. It’s always worth evaluating, however, whether a practice works - whether, in this case, it helps students develop their proficiency. Pros Rod Ellis (2005) summarises the advantages of pair/group work (based on Jacobs, 1998) “1. The quantity of learner speech can increase. In teacher-fronted classrooms, the teacher typically speaks 80% of the time; in groupwork more students talk for more of the time. 2. The variety of speech acts can increase. In teacher-fronted classrooms, students are cast in a responsive role, but in groupwork they can perform a wide range of roles, including those involved in the negotiation of meaning. 3. There can

New MFL GCSE consultation

Updated on 7th April, with a few modifications to the original post written about a month earlier. ........................................................................... The DfE in England has recently published information about the proposed new GCSE exams, first teaching September 2023, first exams June 2025. There are two consultations going on, one regarding the subject content, and the other (much shorter) with respect to the assessment arrangements such as tiering.  The context is important here. DfE are worried about uptake in GCSE MFL, especially with their EBacc target of 90% uptake in mind. (This is highly unlikely to be achieved.) Therefore they would like an exam which makes the subject more attractive, both in terms of interesting content and accessibility (how easy it is thought to be). They are aware also of criticisms levelled at current papers that the exam is elitist, featuring too much subject matter which appeals to middle class students. Recall that MFL has be