The Theoretical Den of Krashen: When Critics Became Impudent - Essay Example

The Theoretical Den of Krashen: When Critics Became Impudent Introduction Languages could be easily primed with one’s own instant nature of tongue and with one’s ability to learn other languages, as well. According to Saville-Troike (2012), every language that one would tend to learn regardless of its order is considered as the second language or could also be termed as the “target language”. This would mean that anyone with the knowledge of more than one language could be considered as bilinguals (Butler & Hakuta, 2006). The present paper will focus on the importance of learning the second language acquisition which is defined with something that people used to know apart from their very own native language. Assumptions or Hypotheses of Stephen Krashen Krashen has assumed what a monitor model that would be useful and applicable for the acquiring of languages of an individual. There are five propositions or assumptions that underlie with what Stephen Krashen proposed. The five hypothetical assumptions of Krashen include the “acquisition-learning hypothesis, monitor hypothesis, natural order hypothesis, input hypothesis, and affective filter hypothesis” (Saville-Troike, 2012). Accordingly, the acquisition-learning hypothesis refers to the instant process of learning the language. One could be half conscious that he or she is already learning and ultimately using language that he is trying to adopt in a certain place or culture. The second assumption, which refers to the monitor hypothesis, involves corrections to what one has already learned. It mainly captures how one has adapted the language with the certainty on how the language is properly used and pronounced. The natural order hypothesis makes one learn the correct usage of word orders and how an individual manages to follow the rules for sentence structure of a certain language. The input hypothesis refers to how one has been able to construct sentences that would be comprehensible enough in which grammatical correction would be easy to understand and apply. Affective filter hypothesis refers to one’s unconscious learning that he is emotionally motivated to love the use of language. Supporting Studies of Krashen’s Monitor Theory There are many supporting studies that uphold to the ideas of Stephen Krashen, which are more likely the same to Chomsky’s language acquisition device or LAD (Saville-Troike, 2012; Dekeyser, 2005; Wheeler, 2003). According to DeKeyser (2005), Krashen’s way of understanding the acquisition of languages is “simple”. This would mean that Krashen used to have second usage of languages in which sentence structures and grammars would be easy to understand and learn. Hence, this is relative to what Scott and De La Fuente (2008) found on how Krashen’s application to second languages would be very helpful for those who want to learn other foreign languages. Wheeler (2003) has supported the study of Krashen with the emphasis on how Krashen’s study must still be acknowledged inspite of how it is highly criticized in the modern times. Accordingly, Krashen’s theory has put his image into a brand that everybody tries to avoid when, in fact, every idealist must learn how to appreciate the theory because it gives rise to new informational things wherein people could give corrections and analyze new ideas. Wheeler (2003) has been great in reopening the issue of Krashen with regard to his proposition because one could learn how to reopen their minds to ask and validate on something that must be shared for every fresh mind. The ideas of Krashen could be depicted with imperfection; however, his ideas give rise to better and more valid claims. Moreover, the theory of Krashen has been part of history which should be given credits because the ideas of today, particularly to the linguistic field, have been shaped of what has been originally discovered. This would mean that Krashen’s name must be proudly recognized in the linguistic disciplines with its contemporaneous study as the monitor theory becomes extraordinary with the critical minds who replicate its basis through backspacing the right ways of distinguishing the primers and secondary languages. Critical Analysis to Krashen’s Views There are also studies that critically analyzed the views of Krashen based on his monitor theory. In fact, Wheeler (2003) has indicated how hard it was for him to ask the publishers before to release his study of Krashen because many find his study as unreliable with his invalidated claims. Bahrani (2011) have found out that the theory has been criticized because it is one of the most memorable and definite theories related to learning of second languages. McLaughin (1978) has opposed to the assumptions of Krashen which are defined as unclear, vague, and broad (as cited in Bahrani 2011, p. 282). In addition, he added how Krashen became unpredictable in terms of how he defined the term of acquisition which almost complicates one’s understanding of how language could be subconsciously or halfway learned with one’s awareness that he is slowly adapting to the language. Moreover, Gregg (1984) argued of how Krashen used the term of acquisition that could be instantly acquired or pre-wired in one’s learning of language (as cited in Bahrani, 2011, p. 282). This is relative to how one could automatically use and speak one’s own native language. Krashen may have been criticized about this because he may have forgotten to clearly distinguish the result of first language and second language. This could have been resulted to how he defined acquisition of learning that could be almost similar to one’s instant usage of first language. Hence, the theory of Krashen could have undermined and concealed the value of first language, which is almost parallel to his first assumptional hypothesis that refers to the acquisition of learning languages. The second hypothesis is also criticized as Krashen points to how a sentence as a whole would be monitored or checked. McLaughin (1978) suggests that it could have been better for Krashen to consider that it is not that too easy as how he claimed it to instantly check on the grammar of those who are still learning other languages (as cited in Bahrani, 2011, p. 282). The point here could be related to how Krashen took the correction of second language of learning as easy to how the first language of learning could be correctly processed, as well. Therefore, Krashen is criticized with the way he could block an individual to learn with the second or other languages because the monitor hypothesis pressures the individual to learn the exactness of a word or sentence structure as what is properly seemed. Hence, the monitor hypothesis limits the time of a person to explore to himself what words are proper enough to use. The natural order hypothesis of Krashen needs more transparency as it brings the whole assumption to become unclear because the word natural becomes questionable when learning a language requires one’s own time to be used for the learning process (Zafar, 2009). This commentary is almost similar to how the first two hypotheses for the second language acquisition seems to have almost the same process on how the first natural language could be automatically adopted and learned. Bahrani (2011) has also criticized how the input hypothesis could force a person to make clear emphasis on his point using other languages, which could become possibly hard for any individual to interpret the input of what they really intend to let others understand with what one intends to say or mean. This could mean that the input hypothesis could be hard to address his intent and show it in an output because the mass words of the second language that has been stored in one’s input of mind could overlap one word from the other. Hence, input hypothesis of second language could interfere to one’s success of totally learning the language. Krashen has also been criticized for the lack of evidence in how affective filter hypothesis needs work. Bahrani (2011) implicated the point of how Kreshan failed to explain why the puberty stage makes an individual to easily rapture oneself to be proficient enough in using other languages. Kreshan could have been biased base on his experience in learning other languages. Conclusion Conclusively, the present paper deems to become effective in recalling what has been denied-Krashen’s theory. The study is significant enough in picturing out how the critics and the great minds of today stonewalled the ideas of Krashen even when it’s imperfectly proposed. It reviews and reopens the content of Krashen’s theory, as well as its critical embodiments. The paper shifted the historical contribution of Krashen to how his theory directs one mind to the other with their set of questions that give rise to their own perspective. Hence, the paper unlocks the historical mystery of theoretical mistakes. It reopens the closing tabulation of the critics on Krashen’s ideas. This could simply make the generation of today signify on the proper questions to take before making any further step to assume something. Therefore, Krashen could be used as their inspiration not to repeat the mistakes that were found by the modern minds unto him. The literary works relative to Krashen in the 21st century were reviewed in this paper as proofs to how the monitor theory serve as a browser to people who gain something from searching the answers to the enigma of Krashen’s theory that made their minds puzzled based on languages. References Bahrani, T. (2011). The implications of the monitor theory for foreign language teaching. Asian Social Science, 7 (10), 281-284. Butler, Y. G., & Hakuta, K. (2006). Bilingualism and second language acquisition. In T. J. Bhatia & W. C. Ritchie (Eds.), The handbook of bilingualism (chapter 5). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Dekeyser, R. M. (2005). What makes learning second-language grammar difficult? A Review of issues. Language Learning, 55 (1), 1-25. Saville-Troike, M. (2012). Introducing second language acquisition (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Scott, V. M., & De La Fuente, M. J. (2008). What’s the problem? L2 learners’ use of the L1 during consciousness-raising form-focused tasks. The Modern Language Journal, 92 (1), 100-113. Wheeler, G. (2003). Krashen, a victim of history. TESL Canada Journal, 2 (2), 90-99. Zafar, M. (2009). Monitoring the ‘monitor’: A critique of Krashen’s five hypotheses. The Dhaka University Journal of Linguistics, 2 (4), 140-146. Read More