The Science Behind The Polyglots: Krashen's Second Language Acquisition Theory

We all know that foreign languages are one of the hardest things to learn and, possibly, even harder to teach. But what about those of us who have to do both? Maybe being more scientific in your language learning could be the answer for you.

I've been where many of you have been - having to learn a language all by yourself or having to catch up on a class because your teachers aren't up to scratch or you did't 'get' the work. Been there, done that and now returning for a third go. Don't tell me. I already know that I'm crazy...but I wouldn't have it any other way and I'm sure you wouldn't either! And if you disagree - well, why are you reading this?

As I delve in deeper into the polyglot world, I find myself reflecting more and more on those years I was forced to do it 'solo' and I ask myself, 'what really is the best way to learn a foreign language?' and 'is there really a right way?'. I may just have the answer for you - or just one of many...

Three words. Google 'Stephen Krashen'. You won't be disappointed. Trust me.

“Language acquisition does not require extensive use of conscious grammatical rules and does not require tedious drill.”

Was I wrong or did Christmas come early? You heard it right - Krashen says to ditch those 'tedious' grammar exercises. I'm sure very little of us would argue him on that - but what's the alternative?

Luckily, Krashen has written over 100 books and articles and conducted numerous university lectures so we are far from short of answers! Most notably, and what I shall discuss with you today, his famous 'theory of second language acquisition' contains 5 principal hypotheses. Here is a list of these 5 lifesavers:

• the acquisition-learning hypothesis

• the monitor hypothesis

• the input hypothesis

• the affective filter hypothesis

• the natural order hypothesis

In his 209 page 'Principles and Practice' study, Krashen makes no mistake in emphasising the importance of the acquisition-learning balance as the most fundamental of them all. He states that 'adults have two distinct and independent ways of developing competence in a second language'. You guessed it - language acquisition and language learning. But what is the difference?

Language acquisition is very, very similar to how we pick up languages as children. Do you remember learning your native language? Do you know all of the grammatical rules? I can bet you not. Until a year ago I didn't even know that we use 'an' in English before words that begin with a vowel but I sure was the one to police my friends when they slipped up. That is because I acquired English rather than learnt it. Acquiring a language is a subconscious process rather than a conscious one. But can we really just learn a language and not realise it? Sounds almost ridiculous as it does amazing, right? Well, no. Krashen clears this up by explaining that 'those who acquire a language are not usually aware of the fact that they are acquiring language, but are only aware of the fact that they are using the language for communication'. So when I speak English I know that I'm using it to communicate with my friends, but I'm not aware of the linguistics of it.

Now, let me ask you a few things. Have you ever looked at a word and just 'knew' it was wrong? For you Spanish learners, have you ever read something like 'las niños' and instinctively 'knew' it was wrong without having a flashback to those dreaded Spanish grammar lessons? This is what Krashen means. You have probably acquired that part of the language at some point.

The second half of this equation is language learning. 'Learning' uses the conscious mind and often relates to the study of grammatical rules. Can you explain when and how to use le passé composée or whether to use parce que or car? That is because you learnt it. There is, what Krashen would label a 'myth', that adults cannot acquire a language, only learn. However, he states that 'adults can access the same natural "language acquisition" device that children use'. Therefore, the acquisition-learning balance may be just part of the solution to your language learning problems.

The 'monitor hypothesis' looks deeper into this acquiring-learning relationship. In most cases, acquisition is responsible for our fluency. If you are in Spain and have to ask a local for directions to the shops and end up having a conversation with them, are you thinking of the verb you want to use, getting rid of the infinitive and adding on the present tense endings? If you are it's probably a very long and tiring conversation! In these types of situations learning plays a very small role and this is to 'monitor' or 'edit' the language you are using. Have you ever said 'la sistema' and immediately corrected it to 'el sistema'? This is where the learning comes into play. You have learnt that it is irregular but you have only realised that after you have said it.

In everyday language use learnt material is not very useful. Krashen says that for learnt material to be used three criterion must be met. It's common sense if you think about it. You need time to be able to think about the rules and put the sentence together. You have to focus on form and above all you have to know the rule. Can you even begin to imagine how difficult conversations would be if we went through this process every single time we opened our mouths?

Next we have the 'input hypothesis'. This is fairly simple and *almost* glaringly obvious. It deals with acquisition and so is a very important part of Krashen's theory, particularly as his findings in the 'monitor hypothesis' shows how integral acquisition is.

It poses the question of, 'how can we move from one level to another?'. So if we were to give a 'level' to our language skills and maybe I was on level 3 in Spanish - how would I progress to level 4? Now get ready to be blown away by this...Krashen says that, if my current level was 3, I would have to incorporate level 4 material into my language learning. To be able to 'understand' this level 4 material would be sufficient for me to move up a stage. However, it's important to note that Krashen defines 'understand' as 'the acquirer is focused on the meaning and not the form of the message'. So the point of this is not to analyse the grammar but to know what is being said.

But how do we even begin to understand material that is beyond our current capabilities? Well, when are faced with more challenging language, we use, as Krashen states, 'more than our linguistic competence to help us understand'. Quite simply, we use context (what else is being said that you do understand?) or any extra linguistic knowledge we may have. Have you ever read something before, in a foreign language our your native one, maybe you didn't understand every single word but you could still make sense of it? That's context in play.

The 'affective filter' is one that is very easy to implement and one we should all be aware of. Quite simply, Krashen says that outside factors may affect our linguistic progress. Do you ever lose motivation? Are you self-conscious when speaking? If yes, this could be a massive factor in your progress. According to Krashen, high motivation and confidence and a low level of anxiety leads to better language acquisition. It makes sense though, right? Isn't it so much harder to revise for an exam when you're stressed out about it? If you are self-conscious about your pronunciation, your not going to want to speak the language which would undoubtedly hinder your progress. Maybe, just maybe, the answer to your polyglot success has more to do with you than you think.

Krashen's very last hypothesis - the 'natural order' (based on the research findings of Dulay & Burt, 1974; Fathman, 1975; Makino, 1980). This has been described as one of the most exciting findings in language acquisition research and is certainly a very interesting concept. It says that we learn different grammatical concepts in a 'natural order'. Krashen gives the example of the possessive 's' in English as being one of the grammatical rules last acquired. This 'natural order' is irrespective of language or individual capability.

As you read at the start, Krashen doesn't seem to be a massive fan of grammar (join the club!). He thinks that teachers are deceiving themselves by thinking that they need to teach grammatical lessons in school. In fact, we don't need it. He says that the study of grammar is 'language appreciation' or a form of linguistics which does not lead to fluency.

So what do you think? Have you got your grammar textbooks ready to burn or are you going to hold on to them for a while longer? Are there any aspects of Krashen's theory that you already follow or a willing to implement? It's definitely interesting but is it really the answer to all of our struggles?

@Stephen D Krashsen, Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition, University of Southern California