二语习得Krashen’s Hypothesis
克拉申的第二语言习得理论对我国英语教学的启示
克拉申的第二语言习得理论对我国英语教学的启示一、引言20世纪80年代初期，美国语言学家克拉申(Krashen)在《第二语言习得原理和实践》(Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition )中提出了第二语言习得理论(The Monitor Theory)并以五个假说为基础论。
此理论在应用语言学领域产生了极大的影响，为第二语言学习及英语教学提供了一个全新的视角。
尽管围绕这个理论的争议不断，但毫无疑问的是它能够准确描述第二语言习得的过程及机制，完整地把握和理解第二语言习得的本质，进而为更好地开展第二语言教学提供了一个清晰的思路。
本文拟从分析克拉申的监控理论入手结合我国英语教学的客观情况，探讨和摸索一种更具有针对性的英语教学模式。
二、克拉申的第二语言习得理论克拉申的第二语言习得理论主要包括五大假说，即习得――学习假说( The Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis)、监控假说(The Monitor Hypothesis)、输入假说(The Input Hypothesis)、情感过滤假说(The Affective Filter Hypothesis)和自然顺序假说(The Natural Order Hypothesis)。
1.习得――学得区分假说(The Acquisition- LearningHypothesis)。
这是五大假说中最基本的。
在这个假说中，克拉申对“学得”(Learning)和“习得”(Acquisition)的概念进行了较为明确的区分。
“学得”和“习得”指的是完全不同的两种学习方式，这两种方式相互区别并且彼此独立。
“学得”指学习者在有意识的情况下通过学习语言规则和形式去获取语言知识；“习得”是一种潜意识的过程，指注意力集中于意义层次上的交流，像儿童学习母语那样，在交际的过程中，无意识地学会使用第二语言。
高校课题申报：Krashen二语习得理论下儿童语言习得模式对推进高校英语教学的有效性研究
Krashen二语习得理论下儿童语言习得模式对推进高校英语教学高质量发展的有效性研究学科分类：高等教育课题类别：一般课题关键词：儿童语言习得;高校英语教学预期研究成果：研究报告课题设计论证问题的提出和课题的界定本课题名为：Krashen二语习得理论下儿童语言习得模式对推进高校英语教学高质量发展的有效性研究。
美国语言教育学家斯蒂芬·克拉申(Stephen D. Krashen)指出：“任何科学理论都是由一系列的假说组成的。
”Krashen的二语习得理论由五个假说组成——习得-学习假说、自然顺序假说、监控假说、输入假说和情感过滤假说。
基于研究五个假说理论，可以得出儿童高效习得语言的内在和外在原因。
对比儿童语言习得的轻松高效自然，在我国高校英语教学中,教师教得兢兢业业,学生学得勤勤恳恳，却仍未收到预期的学习效果，从而教学达不到高校英语教学的培养目标，学生的英语水平也满足不了社会对英语人才的需求。
本课题的设计理念是在论述Krashen的二语习得理论的基础上，探究出儿童语言习得的特征，并将研究成果与当前我国高校英语教学中教师教学、学生学习的特征和存在的问题进行对比分析，促使教师依据人类自然的语言习得规律改进教学，完善英语学习环境；学生改进学习观念，运用正确的学习方法提高学习效率，这些都将对我国高校英语教育改革起到重要的指导作用。
国内外研究现状上世纪七十年代初，第二语言习得(Second Language Acquisition /SLA，简称二语习得，通常指母语习得之后的任何其他语言学习)理论研究开始受到众多语言学家和学者们的关注。
在随后的几十年里，新的理论层出不断, 其中较为著名的有赛林格(Larry Selinker)的“中介语”理论，乔姆斯基(Avram Noam Chomsky)的“共同语法”理论以及认知语言学理论等。
在众多理论中，Krashen提出的五个假说理论被认为是二语习得研究中论述最全面、影响力最大的理论。
克拉申 语言习得理论
二语习得理论克拉申理论克拉申的第二语言习得理论(又称“监控理论”)。
此理论主要由五大假说组成：习得／学得假说(the Acquisition /Learning Hypothesis)，自然顺序假说(the Natural Order Hypothesis)，监控假说(the Monitor Hypothesis)，输入假说(the Input Hypothesis)和情感过滤假说(the Affective Hypothesis) [1] [2]一、克拉申的语言习得理论（一）习得／学得假说习得／学得假说是克拉申所有假说中最基本的一个，是其第二语言习得理论的基础。
这一假说认为：发展第二语言能力有两个独立的途径：“习得”是下意识过程，与儿童习得母语的过程，在所有的重要方面都是一致的；“学得”则是有意识过程，通过这一过程，可“了解语言”(即获得有关语言的知识)。
“习得”是潜意识（subconscious）过程，是注重意义的自然交际结果，正如儿童母语习得过程。
“学得”（learning），是有意识(conscious)的过程，即通过课堂教师讲授并辅之以有意识的练习、记忆等活动达到对所学语言的掌握。
Krashen认为成人学习第二语言可以通过两种方式——语言习得（language acquisition）和语言学得（language learning）。
语言是潜意识过程的产物。
这一过程和孩子们学习母语的过程很相似。
它要求学习者用目的语进行有意义的、自然的交流。
在交流过程中学习者所关注的是交流活动本身，而不是语言形式。
语言习得则是正式教育的产物。
正式教育是一个有意识的过程，其结果是学习者能获得一些有意识的和语言相关的知识。
Krashen指出学得不能转换成习得。
例如，使用母语者尽管不懂语法规则，却可以正确流利地使用该语言，而语言学习者虽然有完备的语法知识，却很难在实际交流中运用自如。
因此，对二语习得来讲，自然的语言环境比有意识的学习更为有效。
Krashen的语言输入假设
Krashen的语言输入假设（The Input Hypothesis）是二语习得中的一个重要理论，主要包括以下三个观点：Krashen认为人类获得语言的惟一方式是接受大量的可理解的输入(comprehensible input)。
人们的注意力集中在输入的信息本身，而不是语言形式上。
当他们理解了输入的信息，并且让输入多少包括一点超过他们能力的语言时，语言结构也就习得了，语言结构也是在自然的语言交际过程中习得的。
本文主要讨论其中的习得—学习假设和输入假设,并总结出语言输入的三个基本特征,即可理解性、趣味性和大量性Krashen语言输入假设理论与莲花指美国南加洲大学语言学系教授Krashen.S.D.于1977-1982年提出“语言监控模式”假说（The Monitor Model），也叫“语言控制调节模式”，“输入假说”或“监察论”，这一理论对于第二语言习得过程的研究产生了巨大的影响，在20世纪80年代早期，这个理论在他的《第二语言习得和第二语言学习》（Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning），《第二语言习得的原则和进程》（Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition），《输入假设》（The Input Hypothesis）这三本书中拓展成为基础更为广泛的著名的五个假设，用来解释学习第二语言的困难的原因，这五个假设是指：习得-学习假设（Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis）、自然顺序假设（The Natural Hypothesis）、语言监控假设（The Monitor Hypothesis）、语言输入假设（The Input Hypothesis）和情感过滤假设（The Affective Filter Hypothesis），其中最重要的就是语言输入假设。
克拉申二语习得理论
在第二语言习得研究中成就最大、影响最广也是最全面的理论便是克拉申（S.D.Krashen）的语言习得理论。
他的理论实际上是对近几十年来第二语言或外语学习研究的总结，并把各种研究成果加以理论化、系统化，使之成为系统的学说。
克拉申理论主要由以下五个假说组成：1 习得---学得区别假说（The Acquisition—Learning Hypothesis）克拉申理论的出发点和核心是他对“习得”和“学得”的区分，以及对它们各自在习得者第二语言能力形成过程中所起的作用的认识。
“习得”是潜意识过程，是注意意义的自然交际的结果，儿童习得母语便是这样的过程。
习得的语言系统处于大脑左半球语言区，是自发语言运用的根本。
与之相对的是“学得”，这是个有意识的过程，即通过课堂教师讲授并辅之以有意识的练习、记忆等活动，达到对所学语言的了解和对其语法概念的“掌握”。
“学得”的系统虽然在大脑左半球，但不一定在语言区。
克拉申认为，只有“习得”才能直接促进第二语言能力的发展，才是人们运用语言时的生产机制；而对语言结构有意的了解作为“学得”的结果，只能在语言运用中起监控作用，而不能视为语言能力本身的一部分。
2 监控假说（ The Monitor Hypothesis）监控假说与习得---学得区别假说密切相关，它体现了“语言习得”和“语言学习”的内在关系。
根据这个假设，语言习得与语言学习的作用各不相同。
语言习得系统，即潜意识语言知识，才是真正的语言能力。
而语言学得系统，即有意识的语言知识，只是在第二语言运用时起监控或编辑作用。
这种监控功能既可能在语言输出（说、写）前也可能在其后。
但是，它能否发挥作用还得依赖于三个先决条件：1）有足够的时间，即语言使用者必须要有足够的时间才能有效地选择和运用语法规则；2）注意语言形式，即语言使用者的注意力必须集中在所用语言的形式上，也就是说，必须考虑语言的正确性；3）知道规则，即语言使用者必须具有所学语言的语法概念及语言规则知识。
二语习得--英语
On Krashen’s Second Language Acquisition TheoriesAbstract : Krashen’s Second Language Acquisition Theories con sist of five main hypothesizes : the acquisition-learning hyp othesis ,the natural order hypothesis ,the monitor hypothesis ,the input hypothesis ,and the affective fliter hypothesis . These hypothesizes have certain directive significance to tea ching practice ,but also has some limitations : ignore the ou tput acquisition process ,lack of operability in actual teach ing in some degree.Key words : acquisition-learning hypothesis , natural order hypothesis , monitor hypothesis ,input hypothesis ,and affect ive fliter hypothesisⅠ.IntroductionAs a part of Second Language Acquisition ,Krashen’s Second La nguage Acquisition Theories is very significant in Second Lan guage Acquisition According to his theories second acquisitio n has two quite different systems : acquisition and learning systems .Acquisition is the subconscious development of langu age rules ,just like in first language development .It focuse s on meaning ,instead of on language form . Learning involves formal knowledge (and teaching ) of a language ,including er ror correction .It is a conscious development of language rules .Krashen argues that error correction and learning does no t lead to acquisition of fluency ,and that acquisition is mor e important than learning .Next we will have detailed analysi s of his hypothesizes .Ⅱ.General Understanding of Krashen’ Second Language Ac quisit ion TheoriesAcquisition-Learning HypothesisThis hypothesis is what Krashen considers to be perhaps the m ost fundamental of all hypothesizes .And it has been highly i nfluential, and still remains the source of much debate today. The starting point ,also the core of this hypothesis is the distinction between acquisition and learning, and the differe nt roles they play in second language acquisition. When learn ers acquire a second language they will internalize the langu age rulesubconsciously .They will not pay much attention to the langu age forms ,but to the meaning they want to express and unders tand. Learning (usually refers to the formal classroom contex t ) is the process of conscious study of language uncover kno wledge ,such as language rules. It is systematical and formal. According to Krashen, only acquired knowledge is readily available for natural fluent communication, and learned knowledg e can only play as a monitor using language.Monitor HypothesisThis hypothesis has a close relationship with acquisition –l earning hypothesis. It states that ,only language acquisition system ,also the potential language knowledge ,is the real k nowledge competence, and that conscious learning has extremel y limited function in adult L2 performance. Acquisition”inna tes “ the speaker’s utterances and is responsible for fluenc y .While learning has only one function –as a monitor or edi tor, making minor changes and polishing what the acquired sys tem has produced .This monitor comes before ,while ,and after the language output (speaking and writing).There are three k inds of monitor users ,monitor over-users ,monitor under user s ,and monitor optimal users. Learners should properly use th is monitor according to their personal situations. While have a conversation with others, we should focus on meaning not l anguage forms. And the conversation will not be fluent if we overuse the monitor. However, while writing it is necessary f or us to use the monitor to avoid expressing faults. There ar e three conditions for us to use monitor：Time (best applied when there is enough time)Focus on form (not on communication)Know the rules.Natural Order HypothesisStudents acquire (not learn) grammatical structures in a pred ictable order, that is certain grammatical structures tend to be learned early and others later. It appears that the order of acquisition for first language acquisition is not identic al for second language acquisition, but there are some simila rities. The naturalorder hypothesis reflects Noma Chomsky’s revolutionary notion that we all have a built-in Language Acquisition Device (LA D).Because of the LAD we tend to learn different language str ucture at different levels/stages as young learners ( also th e same for older learners).Equipped with this innate device , language learning follows a its natural route .For example, w hen children and adults learn English as a second language, t hey will acquire the present continue tense earlier than past tense, and 名词复数 earlier than 名词所有格Input HypothesisAccording to Krashen , the input hypothesis attempts to answe r what is perhaps the most important question in Second Langu age Acquisition filed ,that is ,how we acquire language .Thusthis notion has become the central part of Krashen’s theorie s. The input hypothesis states that one can acquire language in only one way – by exposure to comprehensible input. If th e input contains forms and structures just beyond the learner s’ current level of competence in the language (what Krashen calls i+1).Then both comprehension and acquisition will occur. Input which is either too simple (i + i) or too complex (i + 2/3/4) will not be useful for acquisition.” i” represents l earners’ current language level .1 represents the input that is slightly higher than learners’ current level. Krashen also provide the requirements of the ideal input :first,the input should be comprehensible. Second, it should be sufficient .t hird, it should be interesting and relevant to learners. Affective FilterKrashen believes that comprehensible alone is not sufficient fo r language acquisition. Learners also need to” let that inp ut in “ .The affective filter determines how receptive to com prehensive input a learner is going to be. Learners with high motivation ,high self-confidence ,a good self- image ,and a low level of anxiety are better equipped for success in Secon d Language .Low motivation, ,low self- esteem ,and debilitati ng anxiety can combine to raise “affective filter” and forma “mental block” that prevents comprehensive input from ente ring the individual’s langua ge acquisition device. The hypoth esis is based on the theory of an “affective filter “ which states that successful secondlanguage acquisition depends on the learners’ feeling. Negati ve attitudes are said to act as a filter ,preventing the lear ners from making use of input, and thus hindering success in language learning. So to help students let that input in ,tea chers should try to creat positive atmosphere in language tea ching, try to activate learners’ positive feeling ,like inter est ,good motivation, and attitude and desire to learn by enc ouragement, humanity care ,vivid design of teaching ,extra-cu rricular activities.Ⅲ. ConclusionKrashen’s theories are very significant in that ,first , it m akes a clear distinction between acquisition and learning ,se cond , it emphases the importance of the comprehensibility of the input , and that it should be slightly higher than learn ers’ present level, third , it attaches importance to learner s’ feeling factors, like motivation, interest , anxiety and a ct , and their influence on learners’ acquisition of a second language.。
二语习得
Factors Contributing to Fossilization IntroductionIn the past decades, many researchers and scholars in linguistic circle and the interrelated fields have done a lot of studies of fossilization from different perspectives to discover the causes of fossilization, and a number of different theories have been proposed, among which Selinker’s five psycholinguistic processes, and three models (the biological, interactional and acculturation model), one principle (the multiple effects principle) and Krashen’s in put hypothesis are worth mentioning. To be specific, these theories include:1. Selinker’s five central processesSelinker’s(1972)early explanation of the causes of fossilization consists of five central processes:Language transfer: Learners’IL systems are greatly influenced by their first language, and they cannot produce correct L2 output. Selinker regarded language transfer as the most decisive factor in leading to fossilization.Transfer of training: L2 learners may have done excessive training on certain IL structures that they cannot successfully continue to develop new structures. For instance, if a learner has too much training on the structure containing the verb “be”, he may form the habit of using “be”when it is not necessary.Inappropriate learning strategies: Learners may use inappropriate strategies in their learning progress and thus cause the fossilization in IL, such as translating L1 sentences into L2 sentences directly, etc. Inappropriate communication strategies: When learners are communicating in L2, they may apply some inappropriate strategies so as not to influence the fluency or effect of communication, such as avoidance, simplification, reduction of lexicon.Overgeneralization: This type of fossilization consists mainly of the overgeneralization of some target language rules, like “goed”“teached”.2. The biological causesOne of the most remarkable representatives is Lenneberg. Lenneberg advanced Critical Period Hypothesis in his monumental, The Function of Language, in 1967, believing that there was a neurologically based critical period, ending around the onset of puberty, beyond which complex mastery of a language, first or second, was not possible. Besides Lenneberg, many scholars, including Scovel(1988), Long(1990), Patkowski(1994)are supportive of the biological theory.Lamendella used “sensitive period”to explain the acquisition of second language. Lamendella(1977)also proposed another concept of infrasystem. He holds that while L1 acquisition calls for an infrasystem, L2 acquisition also requires its corresponding infrasystem. If a learner has not developed the infrasystem for acquiring a second language or if thisinfrasystem is underdeveloped, then he or she has to turn to the already-developed infrasystem for mother tongue to acquire the second language. However, the infrasystem for mother tongue is not appropriate for acquiring the second language, after the close of the critical period for primary language acquisition, the L2 learner stands a greater chance of fossilizing far from target-language norms.The Critical Period Hypothesis mostly explains the fossilization of L2 pronunciation, as the available evidence suggests that children do better than adult L2 learners in pronunciation and speaking tests, while adolescent and adult L2 learners are similar to or better than children in the acquisition of grammar and morphemes.3. Social and cultural causesL2 learner’s lack of desire to acculturate is also the reason for fossilization. Schumman(1981)proposed the Acculturation Hypothesis to interpret fossilization from a social-psychological perspective.According to Schumman, acculturation means the social and psychological integration of the learner with the target language group. In Schumman’s Acculturation Hypothesis,acculturation is seen as the determining variable in the sense that it controls the level of linguistic success achieved by second language learners. Stauble(1980)also affirmed the essential roles of social and psychological distance in second language acquisition.4. Vigil&Oller’s interactional modelVigil&Oller presented an early model of fossilization which focused on the role of extrinsic feedback. They expounded their opinions in the following:(1)When the language learners communicate with their teachers and classmates, some incorrect language output sometimes plays the role of input which leads to the learners’ language fossilization.(2)The information transmitted in interpersonal communication includes two kinds of information: one is cognitive information and another is affective information. The former contains facts, assumptions, and beliefs which are expressed in language. The latter is expressed in the form of facial expressions, intonation and gestures etc.Vigil&Oller argued that the interactive feedback received by a learner has a controlling influence on fossilization. Certain types of feedback were said to prompt learners to modify their knowledge of the L2, while other types encouraged learners to stand pat. They suggested that there were cognitive and affective dimensions to feedback. In this scheme, a combination of positive cognitive feedback and negative affective feedback was most likely to promote fossilization, while negative cognitive and positive affective feedback combined to cause learners to modify their linguistic knowledge.According to Han, one problem found in the interactional models isthat there is no way to determine what percentage of cognitive feedback needs to be positive in order to trigger fossilization. Another problematic aspect is the question of whether negative cognitive feedback destabilizes all the rules used to assemble the utterance.5. Krashen’s input hypothesisKrashen believes that most adult second-language learners “fossilize”. He concluded 5 possible causes of fossilization:(1)Insufficient quantity of inputKrashen claims that insufficient input is the most obvious cause of fossilization. Some second-language performers may cease progress simply because they have stopped getting comprehensible input.(2)Inappropriate quality of inputInappropriate quality of input, which means input of the wrong sort, or input filled with routines and patterns, a limited range of vocabulary, and little new syntax, is more subtle than insufficient quantity of input.(3)The affective filterComprehensible input is not sufficient for full language acquisition. To acquire the entire language, including late-acquired elements that do not contribute much to communication, a low affective filter may be necessary. The affective filter is a block that prevents input from reaching the Language Acquisition Device (LAD),and affects acquisition, preventing full acquisition from taking place.(4)The output filterThe output filter is a device that sometimes restrains second-language users from performing their competence (Krashen, 1985).(5)The acquisition of deviant formsThis may occur in two different kinds of situation, both of which are characterized by beginners being exposed nearly exclusively to imperfect versions of the second language. The first situation can be called the “extreme foreign-language” situations. The second situation is that of the performer in the informal environment, where he has communication demands that exceed his second-language competence, and is faced witha great deal of incomprehensible input.6. Multiple effects principleIn a later study, Selinker and Lakshmanan (1992 emphasize the importance of the role of language transfer in fossilization. They raise the question of why “certain linguistic structures become fossilized while others do not” They suggest that the multiple effects principle (MEP) may help explain this. The MEP states that two or more SLA factors, working in tandem, tend to promote stabilization of interlanguage forms leading to possible fossilization. Among various possible SLA factors that have fossiling effects language transfer has been singled out as the principal one.In their paper,Han and Selinker(1997)described a longitudinal case study they made to prove the MEP prediction. We may take what they said in the conclusion par as a summary of the main points of the MEP: What is showed in the case study “brings direct corronoration to the MEP in that language transfer functions as a co-factor in setting multiple effects, and that when it conspires with other SLA processes, there is a greater chance of stabilization of the interlanguage structure”. ConclusionIn summary, factors contributing to language fossilization have been illustrated, whether in terms of empirical studies of not, by different researchers from amount of perspectives This paper has listed a number of reasons from the following six views: Selinker’s five central processes (1972), biologica causes, social and cultural causes, Vigil&Oller’s interactiona model, Krashen’s inpu t hypothesis and Multiple Effects principle.There is no doubt that causes of “cessation” of learners’ might owe to other elements, however, knowing the above six ones, at their least value, inspires some solutions in overcoming the phenomenon of fossilization.References:[1]Selinker.L. Interlanguage[J].International Review of Applied Linguistics,1972.[2]Selinker. L.Fossilization: What we think we know [J].Internet, 1996[3]Lemendella,J.T.General principles of neurofunctional organization and their manifestations in primary and non-primary language acquisition[J]. Language Learning, 1977, (27), 155-196.[4]Vigil,N.&Oller,J. Rule fossilization: A tentative model[J].Language Learning,1976.[5]Ellis，R. The Study of Second Language Acquisition[M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994.[6]Rod Ellis.Underastanding Second Language Acquisition[M].Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,1999.[7]Krashen,S. The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implication[M].London:Longman,1985.[8]李炯英：中介语石化现象研究30年综观[J]，Foreign Language Teaching Abroad, 2003[9]陈慧媛：关于语言僵化现象起因的理论探讨[J]，外语教育与研究,1999.（3）：21-24[10]牛强：过渡语的石化现象及其教学启示[J]，外语与外语教学,2000（4）：28-31。
克拉申二语习得假说
克拉申关于二语习得的五个假说克拉申是二语习得研究领域内最有影响力的学者，他所提出的语言习得理论，是近几十年来影响广泛、解释全面以及引发讨论最多的理论。
克拉申的理论主要由以下五个假说组成：(1)习得---学得假说(The Acquisition —Learning Hypothesis )“习得”和“学得”有什么区别？它们在学习者形成第二语言的过程中分别发挥什么作用？对这两个问题的认识，是克拉申理论的基本出发点。
克拉申认为，习得和学得是两个独立的过程，它们在心理过程、发生环境、知识性质和知识在大脑中的储存等诸多方面都各不相同，并且这两个过程也不能互相转化。
“习得”是下意识(subconscious )的过程，类似于儿童获得母语的过程。
习得者的注意力放在语言所传递的信息上，而非语言本身的形式上。
通过自然交际，习得者下意识地将语言进行内化，自然而然地获得语言能力。
“学得”则是有意识(conscious )的过程，学习者将注意力放在语言形式上而非语言所传递的信息上，学习者通过听教师讲解语言现象和语法规则，并辅之以有意识的练习、记忆等活动，达到对所学语言的了解和对其语法概念的掌握。
“习得”来的语言，储存在大脑的语言区；学得来的语言，贝U不在语言区存储。
“习得”与“学得”的区别(2)监控假说( The Mo nitor Hypothesis )“监控”即注意、留心、纠正语言的形式。
克拉申认为，“习得”使人获得真正的语言能力，二语学习者通过“习得”的知识生成语言输出；“学习”起到的作用有限，主要是让人有意识地判断和调整自己的语言形式，注意自己的语言是否正确。
这种判断、留意、调整的过程就是监控的过程。
监控既可能发生在语言输出之前，也可能在其之后。
但是，它能否发挥作用还得依赖于三个先决条件：1)有足够的时间，即语言使用者必须要有足够的时间才能有效地选择和运用语法规则；2)注意语言形式，即语言使用者的注意力必须集中在所用语言的形式上，也就是说，必须考虑语言的正确性;3 )知道规则，即语言使用者必须具有所学语言的语法概念及语言规则知识。
二语习得Krashen’s Hypothesis
An Overview: Theory and Natural
• 1. Acquisition and learning • 2. How acquisition takes place? • 3. The natural approach and • language acquisition (four • principles) • 4. Suggested topics
2.How Acquisition Takes Place
• Acquisition can take place only when people understand messages in the target language. Incomprehensible input does not seem to help language acquisition. We acquire when we focus on what is being said, rather than how it is said. We acquire when language is used for communicating real ideas. (tea, toilet, fly in the room)
Krashen’s Hypothesis
Krashen's claim that monitor use is directly linked to learned language, and that the monitor can only be used in very reduced circumstances is questionable. We have already seen in an earlier lecture that the learning/acquisition distinction is problematic.
克拉申二语习得五假说
Krashen's five hypothesis——Krashen's Monitor Theory Five basic hypotheses:1) The Acquisition-Learning HypothesisAcquisition: naturally, subconscious,informal,Learning: consciously, formal, 'know about the second language, analysis and correction of errors formally and explicitly addressed.Krashen supports this claim as follows:(i) there can be acquisition without learning.Competent language learners mayspeak the language without consciouslyknowing the rules.(ii) there are cases where people can 'know' a rule but do not use it in normalinteraction.(iii) in any case, nobody knows all the rules of a language. Grammatical explanations even in languages as widely studied as English do not cover the largely unconsciously knowledge of a native-speaker. It often takes linguists years todescribe rules which are relatively easily acquired (Ellis 1985).Acquisition and Learning are not defined by 'where' a second language occurs. Formal learning in the street. The distinction is a central idea in education theory:between deductive (推理:from general to particular) and inductive (归纟内［approaches; classroom and naturalistic learning; formal and informal language learning.2) The Natural Order HypothesisGrammatical structures are acquired in a predictable order for both children and adults, irrespective of the language being learnt. Some rules tend to come early and others late. The order does not appear to be determined solely by formal simplicity and there is evidence that it is independent of the order in which rules are taught in language classes.Whena learner engages in natural communication, then the standard order will occur.3) The Monitor HypothesisThe Monitor is an editing device that may operate before language performance.Utterances may be modified by being acted upon by the Monitor of learnt knowledge. Such editing may occur before the natural output of speech; it may occur after the output via a correctingdevice.Krashen suggests that monitoring occurs when there is sufficient time, when there is pressure to communicate correctly and not just convey meaning, and when the appropriate rules of speech are known.Put it the other way:1) there must be time for a speaker to useconscious rules effectively. Normalconversation does not allow for thismonitoring.2) time alone is not enough. The speaker's attention must also be focused on Form.3) the speaker must know the rule before the monitor can be used.Examples include knowing the correct tense to use, when to use the third or first person and rules about plurals. This hypothesis has been criticized for being untestable and for a lack of supportive research evidence.4) The Input HypothesisTo explain how language acquisition occurs, Krashen proposes that when learners are exposed to grammatical features a little beyond their current level, those features are 'acquired'. Krashen emphasizes that 'acquisition' is the result of comprehensible language input and not of language production. Input is madecomprehensible because of the help provided by the context. If the language student receives understandable input, language structures will be, according to Krashen, naturally acquired. For Krashen, the ability to communicate in a second language'emerges' rather than is directly put in place by teaching. Second languageis said to be caused by the process of understanding second language input.Krashen lists a number of lines of evidence to support the input hypothesis:O the sile nt period: this is based on the fact that childre n in an L2 situati on sometimes remain silent for several weeks. Similarly, young children are exposed to their mother tongue (and obviously understand it) before they begin to speak.O age difference: younger learners mayget more comprehensible input because they tend to engage in 'here-and-now' interactions. Older learners may make faster progress initially, however, because they are exposed to more comprehensible input thanks to their broader world knowledge and because of the communicative strategies they have already developed in their L1.O the effect of exposure: the more learners are exposed to comprehensible input, the more their language proficiency develops. Learners who do not have access to comprehensible input are held up in their development.O immersion, bilingual and sheltered language teaching: students in these programs learn effectively because they receive comprehensible input where the focus is on the subject matter being taught rather than the form of the language.O simple codes (care taker speech, motherese, foreigner talk, etc.) provide ideal input because (a) they are used to communicate meaning, not form, (b) they are roughly tuned to the learners' current level of linguistic competence, and they follow the 'here-and-now' principle which helps the learners understand.O the effects of instruction: instruction is helpful when it is the primary source of comprehensible input. Formal instruction is only helpful because it is sourceof comprehensible input. Methods that focus on comprehensible input are assumed to be superior to grammar-based or drill-based methods which focus on learningInput is language which a learner hears or receives and from which he/she can learn. Intake isinput which is actually integrated into the learner's interlanguage.'speakers acquire Ian guage in only one way - by un dersta nding messages, or by recei ving 'comprehe nsible (or better still comprehe nded) in put' •…Wemovefrom i, our current level, to i + 1, the next level along the natural order, by understanding input containing i +1'.5) The Affective Filter HypothesisAn affective filter was proposed by Dulay & Burt (1977) with the idea that thereis a filter that determines how mucha person learns in a formal orinformal language setting. The filter comprises affective factors such as attitudes to language, motivation, self-confidence and anxiety.Thus learners with favorable attitudes and self-confidence may have 'a low filter' with consequent efficient second language learning. Those with unfavourable attitudes and / or high anxiety have 'high filters' and so the input of second language learning may be blocked or impeded. The affective filter proposedby Krashen influences the rate of development in second language learning and the level of success in becoming bilingual.Krashen: comprehensible input may not be utilised by second language acquirers if there is a 'mental block' that prevents them from fully profiting from it. If the affective barrier is down . when the learner is motivated, confident, and not anxious), comprehensible input reaches the Language Acquisition Device.The affective filter has 4 functions:i) it determines the selection of language models;ii) it determines which part of the language will be attended to first;iii) it determines when language acquisition efforts should cease;iv) it determines the speed of acquisitionSummary of the 5 hypothesis'People acquire second languages only if they obtain comprehensible input and if their affective filters are low enough to allow the input 'in'. When the filter is 'down' and appropriate comprehensible input is presented (and comprehended), acquisition is inevitableIt is, in fact, unavoidable and cannot be prevented - the language 'mental organ' will function just as automatically as any other organ'(Krashen 1985:4)Krashen's theory applied to the classroom (discuss)(1) the goal of teaching must be to supply understandable input in order for the child or adult to acquire language easily. A good teacher therefore is someonewho continuously delivers at a level understandable by the second language speaker.Just as father/mother talk (motherese) helps the young child to acquire the first language by a simplified and comprehensible language (and nonverbal language), so an effective teacher is said to facilitate second language learning by ensuring a close match between the level of delivery and the level that is understandable.(2) teaching must prepare the learner for real life communication situations. The classroom needs to provide conversational confidence so that, when in the outside world, the student can both linguistically cope and continue language learning.Language and communication are the two sides of the same coin.Teachers should provide opportunities for communication. McNamara (1973) has argued that'the really important part of motivation lies in the act of communication.Rossier (1975) also emphasizes the importance of a desire to communicate, arguing that without this, students' motivation may not be effective. It is the need to get meanings across and the pleasure experienced whenthis is achieved that provides the motivation to learn an L2. Teachers also should provide opportunities for group work.Teachers should try to ensure that students' interest is engendered as a result of a good rapport with the learners. As Finocchiaro (1981) puts it:The moment of truth--- the enhancement of motivation--- occurs when the teacher closes the classroom door, greets his students with a warm, welcoming smile, and proceeds to interact with various individuals by making comments or asking questions which indicate personal concern.(3) teachers must ensure that learners do not become anxious or defensive inlanguage learning. This relates to the Affective Filter hypothesis. The confidence of the learner must be encouraged in a language acquisition process.Whena learner is relaxed, confident and not anxious, then the input of the classroom situation will be more efficient and effective. If teachers insist on children conversing before they feel comfortable in doing so, or a teacher constantly corrects errors and makes negative remarks, the learner may feel inhibited in learning.(4) formal grammar teaching is of limited value because it contributes to learning rather than acquisition. Only simple rules should be learnt. Complex rules will not be used consciously or unconsciously by the language learner. Therefore, there appears little to be gained from formally teaching the rules of a second language.(5) errors should not be corrected when acquisition is occurring. They may be corrected when the goal is formal learning. Error correction is valuable when learning simple rules but may have negative effects in terms of anxiety and inhibition.For Krashen, a 'Natural Approach' is required in language teaching. The NaturalApproach is very different form traditional grammar teaching and languagelaboratory types of approach. Its main tenets are as follows: communicative skills should be the aim of the good language classroom; comprehension of language should precede production (listening should precede speaking);speaking and then writing will emerge when the language learner is ready and should not be forced; acquisition rather than formal learning is central in good language learning; and the affective filter needs to be kept low.Problems with the Monitor ModelMcLaughlin (1987) criticises Krashen for not defining his terms with enough precision and for basing his theory on weak empirical evidence. The theory, furthermore, fails to make clear predictions. McLaughlin lists the following problems:★the learning -acquisition distinction is not clearly enough defined to allow for empirical testing. Leakage from learnt to acquired seems not only possible but well-substantiated.When 'learnt' knowledge is automatised through practice it becomes 'acquired' ., available for spontaneous use).★variation is explained in terms of monitored and unmonitored performance andthere is no provision for partial monitoring . the Monitor is either on or off).Sociolinguistic research, however, shows that all speakers engage in 'small-m' monitoring in that their speech varies on a careful-non-careful continuum according to the level of attention to form. This attention to form does not necessarily imply the use of articulated rules of usage.★Krashen's case for the natural order hypothesis is based largely on morpheme studies which are questionable and provide little information about the process of acquisition because they focus on final form . the product).★the input hypothesis is untesta ble because no definition is given of 'comprehensible input' or of the constructs i and i +1. The hypothesis also fails to explain the elimination of incorrect intermediate forms in the learner's interlanguage and provides no way of distinguishing between different instructional methods because each,if effective, can be argued to provide comprehensible input. There seems a contradiction between the emphasis placed on the crucial component of 'rough tuned' input (the external environment) and the natural order hypothesis (an internal process).★the affective filter hypothesis is vague and does not explain how the filter develops or why, for example, it affects language acquisition in adults but not in children. Affectivity may just as well influence a learner's conscious learning by interfering with or aiding concentration, memory, hypothesis formation, or assiduity.△many researchers agree with Krashen on basic assumptions such as the need to move from grammar-based to communication-based instruction, the role of affective factors in language learning and the importance of acquisitional sequences in second language acquisition.The theory has, nevertheless, been criticized because it tries to achieve too much and makes assertions which cannot be proved or, indeed, contradicted by empirical evidence.。
- 1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性，平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
- 2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
- 3、如文档侵犯您的权益，请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间：9:00-18:30)。
Krashen’s thesis
• -the least successful learner in their study paid only attention to meaning,
• - whereas their most successful learner paid attention to both.
Krashen’s Hypothesis
语言输入是第二语言习得研究中的一个关键领域。
克拉申的“输入”说片面地夸大了语言习得机制 和语言输入的作用。语言输入不会自动地转化为 语言输出，实践中难以准确地把握可理解性输入 的尺度和量度。语言输入固然重要，语言输出亦
不可忽视。外语教学中应注意两者并举。
VII. Krashen’s Hypothesis An Overview: Theory and Natural Approach
Krashen’s Hypothesis
Krashen's claim that monitor use is directly linked to learned language, and that the monitor can only be used in very reduced circumstances is questionable. We have already seen in an earlier lecture that the learning/acquisition distinction is problematic.
Krashen’s Hypothesis
However, even if we do accept that material that is formally learned is different from material that is informally acquired, and if we do accept that the former is only used for monitoring, it does appear possible that the role of formal learning is greater than Krashen says it is, and that monitoring may be an important learning strategy, which is used consciously by good language learners.
Krashen’s Hypothesis
• Reiss, comparing 18 A grade students of French/German with 18 C & D grade students, through a questionnaire, found that monitoring and attention to form were the two most common strategies. Attending to meaning was less important. He also found that many successful learners were 'silent speakers' - they practiced silently while listening to others. The main finding from such studies is that good learners tend to pay attention to both meaning (as Krashen suggests they should) and to form (which Krashen does not recommend). Indeed, Abraham and Vann, (1987) found that :
Krashen’s Hypothesis
• Thus, Rubin, in a first study carried out in 1975, using video recordings of classroom behaviour, identified the following strategies • - good students paid attention to form • - they monitored their own and others speech • - they were prepared to guess • - they attempted to communicate, to get their message across • - they were willing to appear foolish • - they looked for practice - initiating conversations • - they attended to meaning - by attending to context
Krashen’s Hypothesis
Some researchers rejects the idea that learning cannot help the learner towards fluency. They don’t believe that language learning and language acquisition can be clearly separated. They have different ideas about the acquisition-learning distinction.
An Overview: Theory and Natural
• 1. Acquisition and learning • 2. How acquisition takes place? • 3. The natural approach and • language acquisition (four • principles) • 4. Suggested topics