Stephen Krashen has been one of the most influential contemporary linguists in the field of second language acquisition (SLA). He became well-known on account of various concepts that he created such as the Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis, the Monitor Hypothesis, the Affective Filter Hypothesis, the Input Hypothesis and the Natural Order Hypothesis. These concepts play an important role in the study of second language acquisition, but they are also seen as somewhat controversial in the field of SLA. At the beginning of 2009, an article was published in which Krashen expands upon his own Input Hypothesis, also known as the Comprehension Hypothesis. A critical look will be taken at Krashen’s statements in which the Comprehension Hypothesis will be explored and opposing theories and approaches will be discussed. There will also be a focus on what can be inferred from the Comprehension Hypothesis and the discussion of this hypothesis. A conclusion will be drawn as to what this means for second language education at school. The goal of this paper is to present the controversy surrounding Krashen’s Comprehension Hypothesis by exploring its weaknesses and providing an alternative and critical perspective.
Table of Contents
1 Introduction
2 Outline of Krashenʼs Comprehension Hypothesis
3 Critical Exploration of Krashenʼs Comprehension Hypothesis
4 Conclusion
Objectives and Topics
The primary objective of this paper is to critically examine the controversy surrounding Stephen Krashen's Comprehension Hypothesis by analyzing its inherent weaknesses and proposing an alternative perspective that emphasizes the necessity of output and interaction in second language acquisition.
- Theoretical overview of Krashen’s Comprehension Hypothesis
- Critique of the role of input versus output in language learning
- Evaluation of direct instruction and its impact on acquisition
- Analysis of the importance of interaction and communicative competence
- Discussion on learner variables such as motivation and age
Excerpt from the Book
3 CRITICAL EXPLORATION OF KRASHENʼS COMPREHENSION HYPOTHESIS
As explained in Section 2, Krashen claims that in order to acquire a second language, only comprehensible input is required. Speaking and writing, on the other hand, “make the progress less efficient” (Krashen, 2009:90). In this section it will be explained why this view is cast in doubt and why output, particularly in terms of interaction, can be beneficial in the process of second language acquisition.
Children acquire their mother tongue surprisingly swiftly and by the age of five, most of the first language is acquired (Fromkin, Rodman, & Hymans, 2007:314). If an infant wants to play with a ball, he or she might be capable of uttering the word ball at a very young age. For example, if a ball is too high up for the baby to reach, speaking the word ball to a more able adult might help the baby fulfill her or his desire to have the ball. This demonstrates that the child uses language to obtain her or his objective, because it is the easiest way. A child is therefore motivated to acquire the language needed to have their wishes fulfilled.
This type of motivation can be compared to Krashen’s (2009:81) instrumental motivation. In this case, however, the motivation is not used to comprehend the input, but to create goal-directed comprehensible output. Thus, output is a crucial factor for motivation and motivation, according to Krashen (2009:81), contributes to the success in language acquisition. This is, however, not only true for first language acquisition, but also for the acquisition process of a second language. If, for example, a person visits a foreign country and, at the time of their arrival, can hardly speak the target language, they will be motivated to acquire as much of the foreign language as it is necessary to get by and to express their needs. At school, output also serves as a motivational factor since a monotonous class structure (e.g. reading only) could lead to boredom and extinguish all motivation.
Summary of Chapters
1 Introduction: This chapter introduces Stephen Krashen’s significant influence on second language acquisition theory and outlines the paper's goal to critically analyze his Comprehension Hypothesis.
2 Outline of Krashenʼs Comprehension Hypothesis: This chapter summarizes the core components of the Comprehension Hypothesis, including the roles of comprehensible input, affective variables, and the rejection of direct instruction and output.
3 Critical Exploration of Krashenʼs Comprehension Hypothesis: This chapter challenges Krashen’s dismissal of output, arguing that interaction and active language production are essential components for successful language acquisition and learner motivation.
4 Conclusion: This chapter synthesizes the main arguments, concluding that while comprehensible input is important, it is insufficient on its own and should be complemented by interaction, output, and potentially formal instruction.
Keywords
Second Language Acquisition, Comprehension Hypothesis, Comprehensible Input, Output Hypothesis, Interaction, Instrumental Motivation, Affective Filter, Direct Instruction, Linguistic Competence, Language Education, Communicative Competence, Language Learning, Krashen, Literacy, Vocabulary Acquisition
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core subject of this paper?
The paper fundamentally deals with the field of Second Language Acquisition (SLA) and a critical examination of Stephen Krashen’s Comprehension Hypothesis.
What are the central themes discussed?
The central themes include the role of comprehensible input, the significance of language output, the impact of direct instruction, and the role of learner motivation in acquiring a second language.
What is the primary objective of this study?
The goal is to address the controversy surrounding the Comprehension Hypothesis by highlighting its weaknesses and advocating for a more balanced view that incorporates output and interaction.
Which scientific methods are employed?
The author employs a literature-based analytical approach, contrasting Krashen's claims with opposing theories and concepts from secondary literature in the field of linguistics.
What does the main body of the paper cover?
The main body outlines the Comprehension Hypothesis, examines evidence against Krashen's assertions, and discusses the pedagogical implications for language teaching in schools.
Which keywords characterize this work?
Key terms include Second Language Acquisition, Comprehension Hypothesis, Input, Output, Interaction, and Communicative Competence.
Does the author argue that comprehensible input is completely useless?
No, the author acknowledges the importance of comprehensible input but argues that it is not sufficient on its own to explain the full process of language acquisition.
How does the author view the role of interaction in language learning?
The author contends that interaction is crucial because it necessitates the production of output, allows for meaning negotiation, and significantly enhances student motivation compared to passive input methods.
- Citation du texte
- Marc Weinrich (Auteur), 2009, A Critical Exploration of Krashen's Extended Comprehension Hypothesis, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/158195
