Second Language Learning Theory - Literature review Example

Name Professor Institution Course Date Second Language Learning Theory Introduction Recent reports indicate that learning a second language or L2 makes second language learners smarter by enhancing the functionality of the brain by stimulating it to identify, communicate and negotiate meaning in varied language systems and in so doing, improving their problem-solving abilities as indicated by Cook, (2008). In addition, it enhances multitasking skills, memory and perception among learners (Crystal, 1997). There are various theories of L2learning and among them is Krashen’s Monitor Model. This forms the basis of assessment item A, which critically analyzes Krashen’s Monitor Model and the pedagogical implications drawn from the claims made by this theory. Krashen’s Monitor Model Krashen’s Monitor Model suggests that people are endowed with innate capacity, which guides their process of learning language (Krashen, 1982). According to the theory, people learn L2 the same way children learn their mother tongue; by merely listening keenly to the spoken language, which is made important (by those around them such as parents) as supported by Brown, (1973). It is in this same way that other subsequent languages are learnt. The theory somewhat downplays the significance of understanding or learning grammar and language rules as discussed by Krashen, (1982). The five components of Krashen’s Monitor Model that explain the process of learning a second language are: I. Acquisition and learning distinction; In this component of the theory, Krashen’s theory indicates that individuals develop their linguistic skills by either learning or acquisition (Krashen, 1982). The process of developing language through acquisition is a subconscious one where a person is not aware of it when it is occurring and they do so through comprehensible input, where individuals learning L2 are exposed to the second language, which is meaningful and understandable to them (Krashen, 1988). By focusing on the meaning of the language, individuals subconsciously obtain the language form (Krashen, 1982). According to O'Grady, (2005), the acquisition process is best evidenced among infants as they develop their first language. This component places greater emphasis on the need for meaningful interaction between the acquirer and L2, as the individual focuses more on meaning of the language than on form (Krashen, 1982). When developing L2 through acquisition, individuals are not cognizant of language rules and instead, they either feel or sound right or wrong to recognize they have made second language accuracies and errors respectively as argued by Krashen, (1982). On the other hand, the process of developing L2 through learning is a conscious one, where second language learners understand, are aware of the rules of the second language and they can communicate about them (Krashen, 1982).In the process of developing L2 through conscious learning, individuals through formal learning, learners are taught language forms, grammar and rules and all language or grammar inaccuracies are effectively and efficiently corrected (Krashen, 1982). According to Krashen, (1982), developing L2 through conscious learning is less effective compared to acquisition. The claim suggested by this component of the theory that just like infants, adults have innate ability to develop their language through acquisition and as a result overcome the hurdles and difficulties that comes with developing a L2 through learning, means that adults have the potential to develop their second language as easily as infants, even though they may not obtain a native-like level of mastery of the L2 (O'Grady, 2005).Nevertheless, it is important to note that individuals developing their second language through subconscious acquisition must make meaningful interaction with the second language; otherwise, they will not be successful in developing their linguistic skills in the target language as noted by Krashen, (1982). The implications of this claim when teaching second language is that teachers of second language must find ways in which learners of L2 have meaningful interactions with the second language. This can be achieved by engaging the learners in activities that exposes them to the target language such as encouraging second language learners to listen to music and watch movies that are in the second language and exposing them to environments where they are able to communicate or practice to speak and write in L2 (Long, 2006). The acquisition and learning distinction component of Krashen’s Monitor Model claims that although developing a second language through error correction practiced in conscious learning is useful, it does not impact on subconscious acquisition of second language (Krashen, 1988). Correcting grammatical errors when learning L2 goes a long way in helping the second language learner know the right form and rules of the target language but it has no impact on the way learners pick up the language. As supported by Brown, (1973), young children acquire language not by grammar and form errors corrected by the parents but by the truth value of the word spoken. For instance, parents only correct few language errors when a child is developing a language such as verbs, pronunciation and curse words, which means that parents are keener on the truth value of what the child says than on the form of the language. This means that the truth value of what is being said is more important compared to syntactic well-formedness when developing L2 as echoed by Brown, Cazden & Bellugi, (1973). The pedagogical implications drawn from this claim is that although correcting grammar errors when teaching second language is useful, teachers of second language must be aware that it has no impact on how second language learners acquire language. But in order to ensure conscious learning turn into subconscious learning and facilitate successful development of second language, second language teachers must not only provide comprehensible input to the learners but also, teach their learners the need to individually generate grammatically accurate comprehensible input by effectively monitoring their individual language production (Krashen, 1982).It is from this self-produced input that second language acquisition takes place. More importantly, teachers of second language must be more concerned with the truth value of what is communicated by the second language learner (orally or in writing) than on the language form and rules (Long, 2006). This will ensure that there are no second language learners who are highly grammatical because they know the language rules and form but who are ironically not truthful in what they are saying as suggested by Brown, Cazden & Bellugi, (1973). II. Natural order hypothesis This component claims that learners of the second language acquire the grammatical structures of the second language through a similar and predictable natural order with some of the structures being acquired early and others late (Krashen, 1982). According to natural order hypothesis, the order of acquiring the first language is not similar to that of acquiring the second language although there are some correspondences (Krashen, 1988). It is important to note that this natural order is not determined by how simple or intricate the grammatical structures are. The pedagogical implications of the claim that acquisition of grammatical structures among second language learners follows a predictable and almost similar natural order with some being acquired earlier than others is that second language syllabus and programs should in fact, not be founded on these predictable natural orders where the early acquired grammatical structures are taught first and the late acquired structures are taught later on. Instead, teachers of second language must teach both early and late acquired structures interchangeably without taking into account which is acquired early or late as advised by Krashen, (1982). In addition, teachers must take into account the age of the second language learners and the learner’s first language among other factors to aid second language acquisition. Nation, (2001) disagrees and argues that learners should know 98% of words in running text for effective reading. Teachers of second language should not teach language features, which learners are not ready to acquire in a bid to facilitate second language acquisition. This is because as Krashen notes, the only case where individuals are taught grammar and are able to proficiently acquire a second language is when the second language is utilized as medium of teaching a subject the learners are interested in, and not when grammar structures are selectively taught in a certain natural order (early acquired followed by late acquired) to learners in a bid to ease acquisition of the second language (Krashen, 1982). III. Monitor hypothesis The monitor hypothesis seeks to explain the way language acquisition and language learning are applied when developing second language (Gregg, 1984). The theory claims that the subconscious acquisition process plays a crucial role of initiating utterances and facilitating fluency in second language while conscious learning acts only as the monitor that edit what has already been created by the acquisition system (Krashen, 1982).As indicated by Krashen, (1982), the other claim in this component that learners of second language only utilize language rules when certain conditions are met namely a) Time, which means less focus on meaning hence, exchange of limited information, b) Focus on the form, which is hard to do when focusing on meaning and c) Know the rule, which means one, must have undergone explicit instruction. Second language learners only use language rules and form as a way of self-correcting and it is most applicable and more effective when writing (Krashen, 1988). This means that conscious learning should not be used as a basis of developing a second language but as the means of correcting deviations made by second language learners during normal speech and to make the speech more polished once uttered or written. According to this component of the theory, different second language learners use their conscious monitor differently (Gregg, 1984). For instance there are over users who use it continuously, under users who do not like using the monitor and optimal users who utilize their conscious knowledge appropriately (Krashen, 1982). Interestingly, second language teachers can identify what type of monitor users their learners are based on the personality of the learners with most perfectionists and introverts being under users and extroverts being underusers (Krashen, 1982). Individuals with low self- confidence are more likely to be overusers because they do not feel secure enough to trust their acquired competence no matter how excellent their acquired language competence is and they have to refer to their conscious monitor just to verify they are right(Stafford and Covitt, 1978). The pedagogical implication drawn from the claim made by this component of the theory that different second language learners use their conscious monitor differently resulting in under, over and optimal users of the monitor is that second language teachers must create second language learning programs that helps make all second language learners optimal users of conscious monitor, who rely and use it appropriately without interfering with communication as supported by Krashen, (1982). This means teaching second language learners to utilize the learnt language competence to supplement the acquired language competence and make up for any small language errors they make in their speech, hence enhancing second language fluency and eloquence. Since the theory claim second language acquisition is central and conscious learning plays only a minor role, therefore, the pedagogical goal is for second language teachers to encourage acquisition (Krashen, 1982). IV. Input hypothesis This component of the theory claims that to acquire language, learners first grasp the meaning of the language before acquiring language structure in order to facilitate fluency (Krashen, 1982). This means that developing a second language has everything to do with acquisition and nothing to do with learning as echoed by Krashen, (1988). As highlighted by Krashen, (1982), second language fluency and accuracy cannot be taught directly and instead, they develop on their own and over time as learners hear and understand the comprehensible input they are exposed to. As a learner progresses through the natural order, they acquire the second language as comprehensible input, which is a step beyond their present stage of their linguistic competence in what Krashen denotes as i+1(Krashen, 1982). Since the component claim that different second language learners are at different levels of linguistic competence, the pedagogical goal is to develop second language syllabus that provides natural communicative input that ensure every learner obtains comprehensible input (i+1), which is suitable for their present level of linguistic competence(Krashen, 1982). V. Affective filter hypothesis The affective filter hypothesis suggests that there is certain affective variables namely self- confidence, motivation and anxiety, which play a non-causal but facilitative role in acquisition of a second language (Krashen, 1982). According to the theory, variables such as low self-confidence, lack of motivation and extreme anxiety increases affective filter and create a mental block, which hinders use of comprehensible input in second language acquisition (Krashen, 1982). Second language learners without anxiety issues and with high levels of self-confidence and motivation are more successful in acquisition of second language. This means that the strength or level of affective filters among second language learners influences how successful they are in second language acquisition. Learners with attitudes that are more favorable to acquisition of second language such as high levels of self-confidence, motivation and low levels of anxiety, having weaker filters, which means they will seek and obtain more comprehensible input and in so doing, acquire second language more deeply (Stevick, 1976). The claim of the theory that the success in acquisition of second language lies in obtaining comprehensible input and in lowering the affective filters indicates that the pedagogical goal of every second language teacher should be to first, provide comprehensible input for their students and second, develop a learning environment, which promotes low affective filters that subsequently, enhances second language acquisition (Krashen, 1982). Personal Analysis As a prospective teacher, the five components of Krashen’s Monitor Model is an eye opener in providing useful insights about what role subconscious acquisition and conscious learning plays in L2 development. From the claims made by the components affective filter and input hypothesis it is clear that to be an effective and efficient L2 teacher, I need to not only supply input for my students that is comprehensible but also, do so in a low anxiety learning environment where every learner feels highly motivated, less anxious and have high levels of self- confidence. As noted by (Krashen, 1982), this weakens the affective filters and in so doing, enhances successful L2 acquisition. Although it may seem as though Krashen’s Monitor Model downplays the important role of conscious learning in developing L2, interestingly, it does not. The theory is categorical in its view about the central role subconscious acquisition plays in second language performance and how affective filters and comprehensible influences acquisition of L2 (Krashen, 1982). So, where does conscious learning come in and is it helpful? Someone might ask? Well, learning has a function of providing the environment that is favorable for low filters and provides comprehensible input that promotes second language acquisition. For second language learners such as beginners who cannot use the informal settings as a source of input, learning the second language helps immensely. This means that the only time that learning language is helpful is when it is the only major source of input and low affective filters; when learners cannot get sufficient input outside the learning environment (Krashen, 1982). Otherwise, if a learner has other rich sources of comprehensible input, then learning language has little or no use (Krashen, 1982). For a second language teacher, these conclusions are quite boggling, given my initial perceptions that learning is the main way for all learners to enhance their second language performance. Conclusion Developing the second language has less to do with conscious learning through explicit learning and more to do with subconscious acquisition of target language. This means that L2 teachers must cultivate an environment where learners are not only able to have meaningful interactions with L2 and remain motivated, less anxious and self-confident but also, provided with comprehensible input to enhance their L2 acquisition. Krashen’s Monitor Model is a theory worth implementing in L2 teaching. (2638words) References Brown, R. (1973).A First Language. Cambridge: Harvard Press. Brown, R., Cazden, C. & Bellugi, U. (1973). The child's grammar from I to III. In C. Ferguson and D. Slobin (Eds.). Studies of Child Language Development. New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston. pp. 295-333. Crystal, D. (1997). The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cook, V. (2008). Second Language Learning and Language Teaching. London: Arnold. Gregg, K. (1984). Krashen’s Monitor and Occam’s Razor. Applied Linguistics, 5, 79-100. Krashen, S. D. (1988). Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. London: Prentice-Hall International. Krashen, S. D. (1982).Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Long, M. (2006). SLA: Breaking the siege. Problems in SLA. New Jersey: Erlbaum. Nation, P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. O'Grady, W. (2005). How children learn language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Stafford, C. & Covitt, G. (1978). Monitor use in adult second language production. ITL: Review of Applied Linguistics, 39-40:p103-125. Stevick, E. (1976).Memory, Meaning, and Method. Rowley: Newbury House. Assessment Item B Question 1 Studies carried out to find the reasons why there are second language learners who excel in second language acquisition than others indicates that there are individual learner variations or differences that exists(Cook, 2001). According to Dornyei (2005), individual variations refer to enduring personal traits, which are ordinarily supposed to apply to all individuals and on which individuals vary by degree. One of the main individual variations that influence acquisition and learning of the second language is language aptitude. When Cook (2001) states that variations in the ability to learn the second language are seemingly only experienced in societies where learning the second language is treated as an issue and it is not embraced as a fact of everyday life, he is referring to language aptitude. Not to be confused with general intelligence or propensity, language aptitude entails an individual’s ability to learn and acquire a second language and it effectively and efficiently determines and predicts an individual’s ability to learn the second language. According to Cook (2001), there are individuals who have the knack for picking up the second language or subsequent languages and there are those who unfortunately, are poor at doing so. To support his argument the author indicates that there are immigrants who reside in their new host country for decades and are quite fluent and accurate when communicating in the second language compared to other immigrants with similar cultural background, motivations, age, social statuses and living in similar situations who in the same duration of time are poor in the second language (Cook, 2001). Cook’s statement indicates the need for positive motivations among second language learners in order to promote successful second language acquisition. This means that when learners of the second language view learning the second language as a problem, their ability to master the second language becomes difficult and consequently, results in individual variations in second language learning ability (Cook, 2001). It is important to note that although language aptitude doesn’t determine the success or failure of a learner in second language acquisition, it effectively explains the reasons for some learners learning a second language more quickly compared to others (Cook, 2001). However, Cook’s statement does not take into account the fact that variation in second language learning ability among L2 learners involves other factors other than the society’s perception of second language learning as a problem. This includes the memory capacity, auditory ability and linguistic skills of second language learners as argued by Ellis, (2008). This means that a learner may be in a society that treat second language learning as a fact of everyday life but lack the memory, auditory and linguistic proficiency to learn the second language, which contributes to differences in learning the second language when compared with a learner with exceptional linguistic, auditory and memory capability living in the same society (Ellis, 2008). In reference to the arguments presented by Cook (2001) that immigrants experiencing similar duration of exposure to target language, social cultural histories and motivations develop their second language competence differently attest to the fact that the variations may have nothing to do with the society that these people come from but everything to do with distinct intrinsic differences such as memory and auditory capacities among individuals. As noted by Larsen-Freeman & Long (1991), second language learners acquire or learn the second language at different rates and speed as a result of various social, cognitive and affective factors. Variations in second language learning abilities is not only limited to development of the second language alone as Cook implies, it is a critical factor in acquisition of the first language as discussed by Sparks, Ganchow & Patton (1995). As highlighted by Krashen, (1982), learners of second language succeed in learning and eventually acquiring the target language depending on how weak or strong their affective filters are. This means that individuals experiencing the same social cultural environment and exposed to the second language in equal duration of time may vary in their ability to acquire the second language not because the society they live sees second language learning as a problem and not an everyday fact of life but because their levels of affective filters (Krashen, 1982). Taking into account Krashen’s affective filters hypothesis, it is safe to suggest that variations in second language learning abilities are greatly influenced by the second language learner’s levels of motivation, self-confidence and anxiety. Nevertheless, it is important to note that affective variables as highlighted in Krashen’s theory are non-causal and facilitative in nature and they do not directly determine second language acquisition (Krashen, 1982). Other variables such as comprehensible input and meaningful interactions with the second language are critical and it is factors such as these that are supplied by the society, which may support Cook’s argument. In conclusion, it is a fact that both first and second language learners differ in their language aptitude, which explains why there are learners who learn languages easily and quickly than others even when exposed to similar motivations and environment (Cook, 2001). Cook’s argument that the variations in language aptitude is as a result of how the societies these learners live in treat second language learning holds water. Nevertheless, one cannot ignore the role cognitive and affective variables play in determining the same (Ellis, 2008). (881 words) References Cook, V.J. (2001). Second Language Learning and Language Teaching. London: Arnold. Dornyei, Z. (2005). The Psychology of the Language Learner: Individual Differences in Second Language Acquisition. New Jersey: L. Erlbaum. Ellis, R. (2008). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Second Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Larsen-Freeman, D. & M. Long. (1991). An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition Research. London: Longman. Oxford, R. (1990) Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know (pp. 18–21). Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House. Sparks, R., Ganschow, L. and Patton, I. (1995). Prediction of performance in firstyear foreign language courses: Connections between native and foreign language learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87 (4), 638-655. Question 2 There are numerous studies that have been carried out to examine motivation as a prime factor in determining the success or failure of learning and acquiring the second language. The first study to be carried out to examine motivation as a factor that predict performance in second language learning was by Gardner and his associates as discussed by Wei, (2000). Motivation as a variable that influences second language acquisition has obtained more focus from all fields compared to other variables as argued by Ellis (2008). This increased attention on motivation is justifiable because motivation does predict success or failure of learning and acquiring the second language. Nevertheless, motivation does not do so solely. A learner must not only be motivated but also obtain both comprehensible input and output and have meaningful interactions with the second language to be able to excel in second language learning (Krashen, 1982) It is clear that motivation has a role to play in second language learning and acquisition and as noted by Brown (1987), successful acquisition of second language is because the L2 learner is motivated. Motivation as a factor consists of conative, affective and cognitive attributes and learners who are motivated show all these facets (Gardner & Lambert, 1972). According to Gardner & Lambert (1972), there are two types of motivation that explain the success in learning or acquisition of the second language namely integrative motivation and instrumental motivation. In integrative motivation, the second language learner has the willingness and the desire to acquire the second language but with the goal to be like the speakers of the second language and be joined to the second language culture and community (Gardner & Lambert, 1972). For instance, an American may have the desire and willingness to learn Chinese with the intention of being like a Chinese and be connected to Chinese community and culture. On the other hand, instrumental motivation is when a second language learner has the desire to acquire the target language for utilitarian reasons and has no interest in the culture and speakers of the second language (Gardner & Lambert, 1972). For instance, the same American may desire to learn Chinese language but this desire is informed by utilitarian purposes and in fact, the American has no interest in Chinese speakers or the Chinese culture. Regardless of what type of motivation a second language learner has, it is apparent that motivation relates strongly with second language proficiency with successful second language learners being highly motivated and the success further increasing their level of motivation, which further improves their L2 performance (Cook, 1991). This argument is supported by Cook (1991) who indicates that there are learners who perform better than others since they are properly motivated. Debate about which type of motivation is more vital than the other is rife with Larsen-Freeman & Long (1991) arguing that L2 learner’s desire to become a member of the secondary society is a key factor in L2 learning while Lukmani (1972) indicating that learners with instrumental motivation do better than those with integrative motivation in L2 proficiency. Whichever type of motivation is better than the other, the bottom line is that lack of motivation is the main challenge in successful second language acquisition. Primarily, when second language learners are not motivated, they are faced with problems learning the second language. This conclusion is echoed by Cook (1991) who argues that without integrative motivation or instrumental motivation, learners have difficulties learning the second language in class. This means that instrumental motivation is as important as integrative motivation in learning the second language. As Cook (1991) notes, having instrumental motivation and integrative motivation may result in success in learning L2 but absence of either lead to problems. A second language learner may have the cognitive abilities such as general intelligence, language aptitude, memory ability and auditory ability and even be supplied with comprehensible input by being exposed to the second language, but if these learner is not motivated in any way either extrinsically or intrinsically, then they will encounter problems learning the second language and they may in fact, never learn the second language (Oxford, 1990). As discussed in Krashen’s affective filter hypothesis, motivation is one of the three affective variables that predict second language performance. According to Krashen (1982), second language learners with high motivation perform better in acquisition of second language. Krashen argues that motivation as an attitudinal variable directly relates to the subconscious acquisition especially where learners use the language in environment where there is plenty of comprehensible input and it is acquisition- rich. Learners with low levels of motivation as argued by Krashen (1982), tend to have low input and their affective filter is so strong such that even when they understand the message, the input does not reach the region of the brain responsible for acquisition of language resulting in difficulties in learning the language and worse total failure in learning the language. In conclusion, motivation is the best answer for explaining the success or failure of second language learning. This is in spite the fact that there are other affective factors such as anxiety and self-confidence, social and cognitive factors that come into play to influence second language acquisition (Oxford, 1990). (869 words) References Brown, P. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cook, V.J. (1991). The poverty-of-the-stimulus argument and multi-competence. Second Language Research, 7 (2), 103-17. Ellis, R. (2008). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Second Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gardner, R. & W. Lambert. (1972). Attitudes and Motivation in Second Language Learning. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House. Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Larsen-Freeman, D. & M. Long. (1991). An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition Research. London: Longman. Lukmani, Y. (1972). Motivation to learn and language proficiency. Language Learning, 22: 261- 73. Oxford, R. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House. Wei, L. (2000). The Bilingualism Reader. Upper River Saddle: Routledge. Question 3 Anxiety is an affective factor that has the greatest impact upon second language learning. Various studies indicate that there is a strong connection between both first and second language acquisition and anxiety as echoed by Gardner, Tremblay & Masgoret (1997). According to MacIntyre & Gardner (1991), anxiety is an affective variable, which predict success in acquisition of second language with language proficiency in adults being greatly affected by anxiety in comparison to children. There are numerous sources of anxiety when learning language and they include fear of making language errors, losing face, inability of leaner to express him/herself, fear of failure, anxiety associated with making a presentation before other people who may or may not have proficiency in the second language, fear of second language teachers and anxiety related to failing to live up to the expected standards when it comes to communicating or using the second language as discussed by Cubukcu (2007). The first thing that second language teachers should look out for when examining factors contributing to learner’s behavior is anxiety prior to attributing poor performance to lack of language aptitude, lack of motivation and insufficient background (Cubukcu, 2007). Cubukcu argues that second language learners who are not experiencing anxiety, process information more effectively and efficiently than those with high levels of anxiety. This means that learners with anxiety are not receptive to language input and consequently, negatively affects second language learning achievement. However, there are studies that indicate a positive correlation between anxiety and achievement in second language and suggest that language anxiety is not always a negative variable in second language learning (Gass & Selinker 2008). According to Gass & Selinker (2008), language anxiety produces a curvilinear impact on language performance and therefore when learners experience low levels of anxiety it is helpful and when the levels are high, it is harmful as supported by Kleinmann (1977).This group of studies generates an interesting view that anxiety has both positive and harmful impact on learning the second language and therefore, it might not be necessarily a bad thing as echoed by Liu, (2009). According to Alpert & Haber (1960), language anxiety has debilitative and facilitative qualities and the question that arises is how to effectively encourage facilitating anxiety and prevent debilitating anxiety among second language learners and in so doing, promote successful second language learning. Majority of studies have unanimously indicated that language anxiety is an impediment to successful language learning. Primarily, anxiety is an intricate phenomenon that manifests in different language learners differently and inevitably, it interlocks with other affective factors such as motivation to hinder second language learning (Krashen, 1982). Affective filter hypothesis in Krashen’s Monitor Model suggests that anxiety is one of the three affective variables that directly relate to successful acquisition of the target language. As discussed in Krashen (1982), second language learners with low levels of anxiety are conducive to acquisition of second language and as a result, they will continue seeking more input and learn more. On the other hand, learners with high levels of anxiety have a strong affective filter, which acts as a mental block, which makes it difficult for the comprehensible input they have obtained to reach language acquisition area in the brain, which results in failure and difficulties in learning the second language as echoed by Stevick (1976). According to Krashen (1982), learners of the second language must first, be supplied with comprehensible input and second exposed in a learning environment, which prevents low anxiety and in so doing lowers the affective filters and in so doing, facilitating quick and successful acquisition of the second language. This means that for second language teachers to be effective and efficient in facilitating successful second language learning they must offer their learners input that is comprehensible and do so in low anxiety situation (Oxford, 1990). For instance, since the main causes of anxiety in second language classes are fear of the teachers themselves, fear of making a presentation before the class, fear of failing, fear of making language errors and inability of learners to express themselves, second language teachers must find practical, sustainable and effective solutions for responding to these sources of anxiety (Cubukcu, 2007). Instead of making individual presentations in class, the teacher can encourage learners to do so in groups and they must always encourage their learners to persist even when they make mistakes. This means developing a supportive environment where teachers are not only approachable but also, learners are allowed to make mistakes and learn from them. In conclusion, anxiety as an affective factor has the greatest impact upon second language learning and it is until teachers of second language respond to it by eliminating the main sources of anxiety in their classroom whether it is individual anxiety or classroom anxiety that they will be successful in helping their students learn and acquire the second language (Oxford, 1990). (817 words) References Cubukcu, F. (2007). Foreign Language Anxiety. Iranian Journal of Language Studies, 1(2), 133- 142. Gass, S. & Larry S. (2008). Second language acquisition: An introductory course. New York: Routledge. Kleinmann, H. (1977). Avoidance behavior in adult second language learning. Language Learning, 27:93-107. Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Liu, M. (2009). Reticence and Anxiety in Oral English Lessons. Singapore: Peter Lang. MacIntyre, P.D., & R.C. Gardner. (1991). Language anxiety: Its relationship to other anxieties and to processing in native and second languages. Language Learning, 41(4): 513–534. Oxford, R. (1990).Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House. Stevick, E. (1976). Memory, Meaning, and Method. Rowley: Newbury House. Zeidner, M., & Matthews, G. (2010). Anxiety 101. New York: Springer Publishing Company. Read More

When developing L2 through acquisition, individuals are not cognizant of language rules and instead, they either feel or sound right or wrong to recognize they have made second language accuracies and errors respectively as argued by Krashen, (1982). On the other hand, the process of developing L2 through learning is a conscious one, where second language learners understand, are aware of the rules of the second language and they can communicate about them (Krashen, 1982).In the process of developing L2 through conscious learning, individuals through formal learning, learners are taught language forms, grammar and rules and all language or grammar inaccuracies are effectively and efficiently corrected (Krashen, 1982).

According to Krashen, (1982), developing L2 through conscious learning is less effective compared to acquisition. The claim suggested by this component of the theory that just like infants, adults have innate ability to develop their language through acquisition and as a result overcome the hurdles and difficulties that comes with developing a L2 through learning, means that adults have the potential to develop their second language as easily as infants, even though they may not obtain a native-like level of mastery of the L2 (O'Grady, 2005).

Nevertheless, it is important to note that individuals developing their second language through subconscious acquisition must make meaningful interaction with the second language; otherwise, they will not be successful in developing their linguistic skills in the target language as noted by Krashen, (1982). The implications of this claim when teaching second language is that teachers of second language must find ways in which learners of L2 have meaningful interactions with the second language.

This can be achieved by engaging the learners in activities that exposes them to the target language such as encouraging second language learners to listen to music and watch movies that are in the second language and exposing them to environments where they are able to communicate or practice to speak and write in L2 (Long, 2006). The acquisition and learning distinction component of Krashen’s Monitor Model claims that although developing a second language through error correction practiced in conscious learning is useful, it does not impact on subconscious acquisition of second language (Krashen, 1988).

Correcting grammatical errors when learning L2 goes a long way in helping the second language learner know the right form and rules of the target language but it has no impact on the way learners pick up the language. As supported by Brown, (1973), young children acquire language not by grammar and form errors corrected by the parents but by the truth value of the word spoken. For instance, parents only correct few language errors when a child is developing a language such as verbs, pronunciation and curse words, which means that parents are keener on the truth value of what the child says than on the form of the language.

This means that the truth value of what is being said is more important compared to syntactic well-formedness when developing L2 as echoed by Brown, Cazden & Bellugi, (1973). The pedagogical implications drawn from this claim is that although correcting grammar errors when teaching second language is useful, teachers of second language must be aware that it has no impact on how second language learners acquire language. But in order to ensure conscious learning turn into subconscious learning and facilitate successful development of second language, second language teachers must not only provide comprehensible input to the learners but also, teach their learners the need to individually generate grammatically accurate comprehensible input by effectively monitoring their individual language production (Krashen, 1982).

It is from this self-produced input that second language acquisition takes place. More importantly, teachers of second language must be more concerned with the truth value of what is communicated by the second language learner (orally or in writing) than on the language form and rules (Long, 2006).

Read More