Language acquisition does
not require extensive use of conscious grammatical rules, and does not require
tedious drill.
Acquisition requires
meaningful interaction in the target language - natural communication - in
which speakers are concerned not with the form of their utterances but with the
messages they are conveying and understanding.
The best methods are
therefore those that supply 'comprehensible input' in low anxiety situations,
containing messages that students really want to hear. These methods do not
force early production in the second language, but allow students to produce
when they are 'ready', recognizing that improvement comes from supplying
communicative and comprehensible input, and not from forcing and correcting
production.
In the real world,
conversations with sympathetic native speakers who are willing to help the
acquirer understand are very helpful.
Introduction
Stephen Krashen (University
of Southern California) is an expert in the field of linguistics, specializing
in theories of language acquisition and development. Much of his recent
research has involved the study of non-English and bilingual language
acquisition. During the past 20 years, he has published well over 100 books and
articles and has been invited to deliver over 300 lectures at universities
throughout the United States and Canada.
This is a brief description
of Krashen's widely known and well accepted theory of second language
acquisition, which has had a large impact in all areas of second language
research and teaching since the 1980s.
Description of
Krashen's Theory of Second Language Acquisition
Krashen's theory of second
language acquisition consists of five main hypotheses:
- the
Acquisition-Learning hypothesis;
- the Monitor
hypothesis;
- the Natural Order
hypothesis;
- the Input
hypothesis;
- and the Affective
Filter hypothesis.
The Acquisition-Learning distinction is the most fundamental of
all the hypotheses in Krashen's theory and the most widely known among
linguists and language practitioners.
According to Krashen there
are two independent systems of second language performance: 'the acquired
system' and 'the learned system'. The 'acquired system' or 'acquisition' is the
product of a subconscious process very similar to the process children undergo
when they acquire their first language. It requires meaningful interaction in
the target language - natural communication - in which speakers are
concentrated not in the form of their utterances, but in the communicative act.
The "learned
system" or "learning"
is the product of formal instruction and it comprises a conscious process which
results in conscious knowledge 'about' the language, for example knowledge of
grammar rules. According to Krashen 'learning' is less important than
'acquisition'. (Veja o texto ao lado e também outra
página em português sobreAcquisition/Learning).
The Monitor hypothesis explains the relationship
between acquisition and learning and defines the influence of the latter on the
former. The monitoring function is the practical result of the learned grammar.
According to Krashen, the acquisition system is the utterance initiator, while
the learning system performs the role of the 'monitor' or the 'editor'. The
'monitor' acts in a planning, editing and correcting function when three
specific conditions are met: that is, the second language learner has
sufficient time at his/her disposal, he/she focuses on form or thinks about
correctness, and he/she knows the rule.
It appears that the role of
conscious learning is somewhat limited in second language performance. According
to Krashen, the role of the monitor is - or should be - minor, being used only
to correct deviations from "normal" speech and to give speech a more
'polished' appearance.
Krashen also suggests that
there is individual variation among language learners with regard to 'monitor'
use. He distinguishes those learners that use the 'monitor' all the time
(over-users); those learners who have not learned or who prefer not to use
their conscious knowledge (under-users); and those learners that use the 'monitor'
appropriately (optimal users). An evaluation of the person's psychological
profile can help to determine to what group they belong. Usually extroverts are
under-users, while introverts and perfectionists are over-users. Lack of
self-confidence is frequently related to the over-use of the
"monitor".
The Natural
Order hypothesis
is based on research findings (Dulay & Burt, 1974; Fathman, 1975; Makino,
1980 cited in Krashen, 1987) which suggested that the acquisition of
grammatical structures follows a 'natural order' which is predictable. For a
given language, some grammatical structures tend to be acquired early while
others late. This order seemed to be independent of the learners' age, L1
background, conditions of exposure, and although the agreement between
individual acquirers was not always 100% in the studies, there were
statistically significant similarities that reinforced the existence of a
Natural Order of language acquisition. Krashen however points out that the
implication of the natural order hypothesis is not that a language program
syllabus should be based on the order found in the studies. In fact, he rejects
grammatical sequencing when the goal is language acquisition.
The Input hypothesis is Krashen's attempt
to explain how the learner acquires a second language. In other words, this
hypothesis is Krashen's explanation of how second language acquisition takes
place. So, the Input hypothesis is only concerned with 'acquisition', not
'learning'. According to this hypothesis, the learner improves and progresses
along the 'natural order' when he/she receives second language 'input' that is
one step beyond his/her current stage of linguistic competence. For example, if
a learner is at a stage 'i', then acquisition takes place when he/she is exposed
to 'Comprehensible Input' that belongs to level 'i + 1'. Since not all of the
learners can be at the same level of linguistic competence at the same time,
Krashen suggests thatnatural
communicative input is
the key to designing a syllabus, ensuring in this way that each learner will
receive some 'i + 1' input that is appropriate for his/her current stage of
linguistic competence.
Finally, the fifth
hypothesis, the Affective Filter hypothesis, embodies Krashen's view
that a number of 'affective variables' play a facilitative, but non-causal,
role in second language acquisition. These variables include: motivation,
self-confidence and anxiety. Krashen claims that learners with high motivation,
self-confidence, a good self-image, and a low level of anxiety are better
equipped for success in second language acquisition. Low motivation, low
self-esteem, and debilitating anxiety can combine to 'raise' the affective
filter and form a 'mental block' that prevents comprehensible input from being
used for acquisition. In other words, when the filter is 'up' it impedes
language acquisition. On the other hand, positive affect is necessary, but not
sufficient on its own, for acquisition to take place.
The Role of
Grammar in Krashen's View
According to Krashen, the
study of the structure of the language can have general educational advantages
and values that high schools and colleges may want to include in their language
programs. It should be clear, however, that examining irregularity, formulating
rules and teaching complex facts about the target language is not language
teaching, but rather is "language appreciation" or linguistics.
The only instance in which
the teaching of grammar can result in language acquisition (and proficiency) is
when the students are interested in the subject and the target language is used as a medium of instruction. Very
often, when this occurs, both teachers and students are convinced that the
study of formal grammar is essential for second language acquisition, and the
teacher is skillful enough to present explanations in the target language so
that the students understand. In other words, the teacher talk meets the
requirements for comprehensible input and perhaps with the students"
participation the classroom becomes an environment suitable for acquisition.
Also, the filter is low in regard to the language of explanation, as the
students" conscious efforts are usually on the subject matter, on what is being talked about, and not the
medium.
This is a subtle point. In
effect, both teachers and students are deceiving themselves. They believe that
it is the subject matter itself, the study of grammar, that is responsible for
the students" progress, but in reality their progress is coming from the
medium and not the message. Any subject matter that held their interest would
do just as well.
No comments:
Post a Comment