How We Learn Languages. Stephen Krashen's Hypotheses. Part 1
I am planning a series of articles, and I want to start with the hypotheses of the American psycholinguist Stephen Krashen. Stephen Krashen is known for his theories about how people learn foreign languages. He developed five hypotheses in the 1970s and 1980s.
I will divide this article into two sections. The first will be scientific, in which I will talk about the hypotheses themselves and provide links to studies that confirm their effectiveness. The second section will be amateur, where I will share my comments based on personal experience.
Section One: Academic.
1. The learning-acquisition hypothesis or “learning-acquisition hypothesis” (acquisition-learning hypothesis)
Krashen argues that learning and acquiring a language are different processes. Learning is the conscious memorization of grammar rules and words. It helps us understand the structure of the language, but it does not guarantee fluent communication. When we speak, we do not have time to think about every rule. Speaking is more of an intuitive process, where the right phrases come to mind. That is why native speakers often cannot explain the grammar rules they intuitively apply. This is true acquisition of a language.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. This is Krashen's main work, in which he presents his hypotheses and justifies them. In this book, he provides examples from various studies that show that learners who are immersed in a language master it better than those who learn it through traditional methods.
Dulay, H., & Burt, M. (1974). “Natural sequences in child second language acquisition.” This study showed that children learning a second language follow a natural order in acquiring grammatical structures, supporting Krashen's idea that learning and acquisition are different processes.
2. Editor's hypothesis or “monitor hypothesis” (monitor hypothesis):
Krashen also proposed the “monitor” hypothesis, a kind of internal editor that monitors what we say. When we rely too much on this editor, our speech becomes strained and unnatural. The fear of saying something wrong often blocks us, and even simple phrases can be difficult. To speak freely, we need to learn to turn off this internal critic.
Green, P. S., & Hecht, K. (1985). “Implicit and explicit grammar: An empirical study.” The study found that even when learners know grammar rules, they cannot always apply them in real time in spoken language, supporting Krashen's idea that the “editor” slows down spontaneous speaking.
Long, M. H. (1983). “Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensive input.” This study found that when communicating with native speakers, learners are more likely to receive useful input that they can learn when the material is at an accessible level of difficulty.
3. Input material hypothesis (input hypothesis):
Language acquisition works best when we are exposed to a language that is slightly more complex than our current level. If the learning material is too complex, it will seem incomprehensible and off-putting. Krashen argued that long lists of new words and many grammar rules at once are ineffective. We can learn a lot, but retain much less. It is important that learning be gradual.
White, L. (1987). “Against comprehensible input: the input hypothesis and the development of second-language competence.” Although this study criticizes the input hypothesis, it acknowledges that the level of complexity of the input material is a key factor in successful language acquisition.
4. The Natural Order Hypothesis (natural order hypothesis):
According to this hypothesis, there is a natural order in which people learn language structures. This order does not depend on how the teacher explains the material. For example, a child will first learn to say simple phrases and only then complex grammatical structures.
Pienemann, M. (1984). “Psychological constraints on the teachability of languages.” The study found that there is a sequence in the acquisition of grammatical structures, supporting Krashen's natural order hypothesis.
5. The affective filter hypothesis (affective filter hypothesis):
Emotional state affects how we perceive and learn language. Negative emotions such as fear or shame can block the learning process. Krashen emphasized the importance of creating a positive and comfortable atmosphere for students. A happy and relaxed student learns material faster and more effectively.
Schumann, J. H. (1997). “The Neurobiology of Affect in Language.” This study showed that negative emotions can create barriers to language acquisition, supporting Krashen's idea that affective state influences learners' ability to acquire a new language.
Arnold, J., & Brown, H. D. (1999). “A map of the terrain.” This paper discusses the importance of emotional comfort for successful language learning and supports the idea that a high affective filter may block language comprehension.
Section two. Amateur
First, I would like to tell you a little about myself. I am not a professional linguist and for a long time I studied only programming languages. But at some point, having learned English, I took up Spanish, then Greek, since I lived on one island. Then it was time for Chinese, Turkish, Indonesian and Ukrainian. I will not say that I learned them – for each person asking this question, this means something different. I studied each of the languages differently and conducted experiments. For example, the project “Romanian in 30 days”, where I described my daily actions and results. Recently, I recorded a podcast in which I shared in detail my experience of learning languages ”PRO Languages. Issue 4” So I am more of an experienced student, a linguistic enthusiast, than a scholar or teacher. Perhaps this is the key point that changes the perception of my comments.
But let's return to Krashen's hypotheses. What do you think? Didn't you feel like you heard something new? Interestingly, none of my many teachers (and there were more than 100 of them over the years) mentioned them when they gave me homework with grammar exercises and word lists.
First hypothesis is important and perhaps even obvious. When I want to master a language and speak at the B1 level, I don’t want to become a linguist and study the many rules and segmentations that scientists have discovered. I just want to speak, that is, use the language. This is where the catch in our education comes in: teachers who graduated from universities with a focus on foreign languages tend to teach the way they were taught, assuming that all their students are aiming for levels C1-C2 and are ready to learn the entire language. Probably so that they can then go and teach according to the same scenario.
I often tell teachers: you are not training linguists, you are helping people master a language to achieve their goals. Yes, it all starts with setting a goal, and goals can be different. Most often, language learners just want to speak. For some, A2 is enough, for others, B1. It is important for them to be able to communicate in coffee shops, enjoying specialty coffee in Madrid and discussing the weather with the waiter, and not remember grammatical nuances and complain: “Oh, how difficult your language is, so many rules!” At the same time, a native speaker, a waiter, will not even remember what a subjunctive is in his native Spanish.
Remember the last conversation you had in your native language. Do you first think about what tense and case to use to construct a sentence? No, it’s impossible. Children, for example, start speaking before school. With mistakes? Yes, but I would like to speak Indonesian with the same minimal mistakes as children do. That would be enough for me.
Second hypothesis. Monitor/Editor Hypothesis
You've probably noticed that sometimes, after saying or writing something, you immediately start thinking: “Okay, what's the tense, gender, person, case, declension here?” And then you correct yourself, replacing the letter “i” with “e”, adding “s” to the verb, or inserting the counter “个”. This is how our conscious part works. We compare what we see or hear with how it should be according to the rules. Or we remain silent for a long time, choosing the right forms of words, and only then pronounce them. Fluency and speed of speech are lost at the expense of correctness. This is a typical approach: practice pronouncing correct sentences, and the teacher corrects them. This is how you can master a language, and this is how it is mastered, but the problem is that motivation is not endless. Many people can give up on learning a language under the pressure of so many grammar rules.
The editor is one of the main reasons for the emergence of a language barrier. We think for a long time and cannot decide which form of a word is correct. But we could focus on the target language task and solve it.
The target language task is what a person solves in the process, using language as a tool. For example, when a person comes to the market, he will buy the necessary fruits in the required quantity, not knowing the language, but using sign language. He will solve his target language task. Another, embarrassed and not daring to say anything because of the fear of making a mistake, will not solve the task and will leave, asking someone else, using another language. By the way, this is also not bad – the language was used. It is much worse to die of hunger.
The editor helps us solve tests and pass exams. When this is the goal, you need to study the language to master it. We will also master the language in the process of studying. Approximately as in other sciences: you can learn to solve physics problems knowing the rules, but you will not understand physics at a basic level if you do not change your approach.
Third hypothesis. Input
According to it, learners improve their knowledge of a language when they understand language input that is slightly higher than their current level. Krashen called this input level “i+1”, where “i” stood for the input language and “+1” for the next level of language acquisition.
If you listen to development conferences in a foreign language on YouTube from the first days, you can do this for years. It is much more effective to start with simple materials, such as fairy tales or storytelling. Start speaking with nouns. At the market, for example, in a new language, one word may be enough for me – “manzana” (apple), and the sellers will understand me. The next day, having memorized this word, I can add a verb of desire/action – “Quiero” (I want). “Quiero manzana”. And on the third day, I will add an adjective: “Quiero manzana fresca” – I want fresh apples. And so on. My speech will become more complex, and I will remember these words longer. Compare this with the approach when they immediately learn a big dialogue at school and act it out in roles. When you go outside, you only remember “Hola. ¿Qué tal?”
But what I don’t agree with is the conclusion that follows from this hypothesis.
The output is not language practice. Krashen repeatedly emphasizes that speaking the target (second) language does not lead to language acquisition. Although speaking may indirectly aid language acquisition, the ability to speak is not the direct cause of learning or acquisition of a language. Instead, the result of language acquisition is “comprehensible output.”
I think that it is much more important to speak than to listen. As I understand it, Krashen means that in the end we hear ourselves and absorb the language. As a counterargument, we can cite neurophysiology and remember Broca's and Wernicke's areas – these are different parts of the brain and they are not even very close. From the point of view of learning languages, we divide speaking and listening into two different skills that need to be developed separately. Therefore, input is important, but to achieve even greater efficiency, you need to speak right from the first seconds, and not wait until a couple of thousand words settle in your head.
The fourth hypothesis. Natural order
argues that language is acquired in a specific order, and that this order does not vary depending on the individual characteristics of the learner, and is not influenced by the explicit explanations of the teacher
It may be different for everyone. It depends on the needs, interests, language tasks and goals of learning the language. Also, I think it differs for language families/groups and depends on the combination, for example, “Slavic-Romance” or “Turkic-Kartvelian”. Somewhere there are similarities in grammar, word order, and even words can be similar. And somewhere everything will be new. For example, it is easy for a Turk to remember that in Georgian it is “ბათუმიდან / Batumidan”, which means “from Batumi”, because in Turkish it is almost the same (Batumi'den). Although the languages are different, they intersect in this place. And speakers of Indo-European languages will have to think about putting the preposition after the word, and not before, as we are used to.
Affective Filter Hypothesis
It is important to note the following. Yes, at the initial stages, speaking is always difficult and stressful, but a person gets used to everything, and over time this skill develops if it is regularly trained. Of course, listening to audio at home is easier and calmer, but the emphasis should be on speaking practice. At the first stages, it is important to maintain the conversation at a level of mild stress, complementing it with high interest. The main thing is to prevent the opposite. Severe stress really does have a negative effect, especially over a long period of time.
Here's an example: many of you remember your first conversations with a native speaker or a foreigner. Because it was a very emotional event and we remembered it. Then we get used to it and it no longer seems unusual. By the way, about the importance of not delaying the moment of communication with a native speaker of the language you are studying. I start right from the first lesson, I don't even let the language barrier form in its infancy. The main thing is that you have a common language.
Conclusion
The idea of the article was to tell that the language is acquired by our brain not as we usually imagine at first glance, when we just start learning it. We have both conscious and subconscious processes. Both stories are important. But knowing and understanding certain things we can make the process of learning languages more effective. So far I see that there is one super important factor to acquire a language effectively – you must have a strong interest, then you will break through even the most boring grammar method.
It is important to start speaking the language from the first days, without fear of mistakes. This strengthens knowledge and helps to get rid of the inner critic, which can slow down progress. Study materials should be a little more difficult than your level and match your interests. Create a comfortable and positive environment, as the emotional state affects the effectiveness of language acquisition.
Good luck to everyone in learning new languages!
In the second part I will talk about Duolingo and other apps. And in the third part, how I see effective language learning in 2024.
