Second language acquisition is learning a second language (foreign language) after the first language is acquired.

The acquisition/mastery of a second language is an attempt to develop foreign language skills.

The determining factors in acquiring a second language are motivational, age, environmental, and first language
factors; the more robust the first language, the harder it will be to acquire/master a second language/foreign
language.

Dr. Stephen D. Krashen has facilitated research in second language acquisition, bilingual education, and reading.
He thought that language acquisition needs "meaningful interaction with the target language."

Dr. Krashen also theorized that there are five hypotheses for second language acquisition,

Let us take a look at these hypotheses, they are:

1. The Acquisition-Learning Distinction

2. The Natural Order Hypothesis
3. The Monitor Hypothesis
4. The Input Hypothesis
5. The Affective Filter Hypothesis

A. Five Hypotheses About Second Language Acquisition

The Acquisition-Learning Distinction

The Acquisition-Learning Distinction states a difference between language acquisition and language learning. In
language acquisition, the student acquires language subconsciously. The students are generally unaware of the
rules of the languages they have acquired. Instead, they have a "feel" for correctness. If grammatical sentences
"sound" or "feel" is right, they will use them in the conversation, even if they do not consciously know what rules
were violated. Language acquisition is similar to when children pick up their first language. Other ways of
describing acquisition include implicit, informal, and natural learning. In non-technical language, acquisition is
"picking up" a language.

On the other hand, language learning happens when the student is consciously discovering a language. They learn
the rules and grammatical structures of the language. They will know the rules, be aware of them, and be able to
talk about them. In non-technical terms, learning is "knowing" about a language, known as "grammar" or "rules."
It could say formal knowledge of a language or explicit learning.

The Natural Order Hypothesis

The definition of the natural order hypothesis is that the acquirers’ language tends to acquire specific
grammatical structures early and later. The acquisition of grammatical structures proceeds in a
predictable order.Brown (1973) reported that children gaining English as their first language tended to acquire
some grammatical morphemes, or function words, earlier than others. For example, the progressive marker /ing/
(he is coming to my house) and the plural marker /s/ (three cats) were among the first morphemes. Meanwhile,
the third-person singular marker /s/ (She works every day) and the possessive /s/ (Jack’s hat) were typically
acquired much later, maybe in six months to one year.

According to Dulay and Burt (1974, 1975), children acquiring English as L2 also show a "natural order" for
grammatical morphemes, regardless of their L1. The child's L2 acquisition order differed from the L1 order, but
different groups of L2 acquirers showed striking similarities.
Krashen (1974) reported a natural order for adult subjects, an order quite similar to that seen in
child second language acquisition.
As noted above, the order of acquisition for second language is not the same as the order of
acquisition for first language, but there are some similarities. Table 2.1, from Krashen (1977),
presents an average
TABLE 2.1. "Average" order of acquisition of grammatical morphemes for English as a second language
(children and adults)

Notes:

1. This order is derived from an analysis of empirical studies of second language acquisition (Krashen,
1977). Most studies show significant correlatons with the average order.
2. No claims are made about ordering relations for morphemes in the same box.
3. Many of the relationships posited here also hold for child first language acquisition, but some do not:
In general, the bound morphemes have the same relative order for first and second language acquisition
(ING, PLURAL, IR. PAST, REG. PAST, III SINGULAR, and POSSESSIVE) while AUXILIARY and
COPULA tend to be acquired relatively later in first language acquisition than in second language
acquisition.

The order for second language, and shows how the first language order differs. This
average order is the result of a comparison of many empirical studies of grammatical
morpheme acquisition.

Example
According to the natural order hypothesis, learners acquire the grammatical
morpheme -ing before the morpheme third person -s.
In the classroom
One possible implication of this hypothesis is that teaching language through a
traditional structural syllabus may not necessarily help them to acquire the language
they need. Attempts to get the learners to produce structures before they are ready
to do so may fail.

3. THE MONITOR HYPOTHESIS

The Monitor hypothesis puts that acquisition and learning are used in precise ways. Usually,
acquisition "initiates" our utterances in a second language and is responsible for our fluency.
Learning has only one function, and that is as a Monitor or editor. Learning comes only to make
changes in the form of our utterance after it has been "produced" by the acquired system. This
can happen before we speak or write or after (self-correction).

Fig. 2.1. Acquisition and learning in second langauge production.

The Monitor hypothesis implies that formal rules, or conscious learning, play only a limited
role in second language performance. The second language performers can use conscious
rules only when three conditions are met. These conditions are necessary and not
sufficient, that is, a performer may not fully utilize his conscious grammar even when all three
conditions are met.

(i) Time. In order to think about and use conscious rules effectively, a second language
speaker needs to have sufficient time. For most people, normal conversation does not allow
enough time to think about and use rules. The over-use of rules in conversation can lead to
trouble, i.e. a hesitant style of talking and inattention to what the conversational partner is
saying.

(ii) Focus on form. To use the Monitor effectively, time is not enough. The speaker must also be
focussed on form, or thinking about correctness (Dulay and Burt, 1978). Even when we have
time, we may be so involved in what we are saying that we do not attend to how we are
saying it.

(iii) Know the rule. This is a very formidable requirement. Linguistics has taught us that the
structure of language is extremely complex, and they claim to have described only a fragment
of the best known languages. We can be sure that our students are exposed only to a small
part of the total grammar of the language, and we know that even the best students do not
learn every rule they are exposed to.

Individual variation in Monitor use

Some of the individual variation we see in adult second language acquisition and performance
can be accounted for in terms of differential use of the conscious Monitor. Studies of
case histories suggest that there may be three basic types of performer (Krashen,1978;
Stafford and Covitt, 1978; Kounin and Krashen, 1978).
(i) Monitor Over-users. These are people who attempt to Monitor all the time, performers
who are constantly checking their output with their conscious knowledge of the second
language. As a result, such performers may speak hesitantly, often self-correct in the middle of
utterances, and are so concerned with correctness that they cannot speak with any real
fluency.
There may be two different causes for over-use of the grammar. Over-use may first of all derive
from the performer's history of exposure to the second language. Many people, victims of
grammar-only type of instruction, have simply not had the chance to acquire much of the
second language, and may have no choice but to be dependent on learning. Another type may
be related to personality. These overusers have had a chance to acquire, and may actually
have acquired a great deal of the second language. They simply do not trust this acquired
competence and only feel secure when they refer to their Monitor "just to be sure".
(ii) Monitor under-users. These are performers who have not learned, or if they have learned,
prefer not to use their conscious knowledge, even when conditions allow it. Under- users are
typically uninfluenced by error correction, can self-correct only by using a "feel" for correctness
(e.g. "it sounds right"), and rely completely on the acquired system.
(iii) The optimal Monitor user. Our pedagogical goal is to produce optimal users,
performers who use the Monitor when it is appropriate and when it does not interfere with
communication. Many optimal users will not use grammar in ordinary conversation, where it
might interfere. (Some very skilled performers, such as some professional linguists and
language teachers, might be able to get away with using considerable amounts of conscious
knowledge in conversation, e.g. Rivers, 1979, but this is very unusual. We might consider these
people "super Monitor users", after Yorio, 1978.) In writing, and in planned speech, however,
when there is time, optimal users will typically make whatever corrections they can to raise the
accuracy of their output (see, for example, Krashen and Pon, 1975).

4. THE INPUT HYPOTHESIS

(a) Statement of the hypothesis

Let us first restate the question of how we acquire: given the correctness of the natural order
hypothesis, how do we move from one stage to another? If an acquirer is at "stage 4", how can
he progress to "stage 5"? More generally, how do we move from stage i, where i represents
current competence, to i + 1, the next level? The input hypothesis makes the following claim:
a necessary (but not sufficient) condition to move from stage i to stage i + 1 is that the
acquirer understand input that contains i + 1, where "understand" means that the acquirer is
focussed on the meaning and not the form of the message.
The input hypothesis runs counter to our usual pedagogical approach in second and foreign
language teaching. As Hatch (1978a) has pointed out, our assumption has been that we first
learn structures, then practice using them in communication, and this is how fluency develops.
The input hypothesis says the opposite. It says we acquire by "going for meaning" first, and as
a result, we acquire structure!
We may thus state parts (1) and (2) of the input hypothesis as follows: (1) The input hypothesis
relates to acquisition, not learning.
(2) We acquire by understanding language that contains structure a it beyond our current
level of competence (i + 1). This is done with the help of context or extra-linguistic information.
A third part of the input hypothesis says that input must contain i + 1 to be useful for language
acquisition, but it need not contain only i + 1. It says that if the acquirer understands the input,
and there is enough of it, i + 1 will automatically be provided. In other words, if communication
is successful, i + 1 is provided.
Thus, part (3) of the input hypothesis is:
(3) When communication is successful, when the input is understood and there is enough of it,
i + 1 will be provided automatically.

The final part of the input hypothesis states that speaking fluency cannot be taught directly.
Rather, it "emerges" over time, on its own. 4 The best way, and perhaps the only way, to teach
speaking, according to this view, is simply to provide comprehensible input. Early speech will
come when the acquirer feels "ready"; this state of readiness arrives at somewhat different
times for different people, however. Early speech, moreover, is typically not grammatically
accurate. Accuracy develops over time as the acquirer hears and understands more input. Part
(4) of the input hypothesis is thus:
(4) Production ability emerges. It is not taught directly.
(i) First language acquisition in children. The input hypothesis is very consistent with what is
known about "caretaker speech", the modifications that parents and others make when
talking to young children. The most interesting and perhaps the most important characteristic
of caretaker speech for us is that it is not a deliberate attempt to teach language.
Rather, as Clark and Clark (1977) point out, caretaker speech is modified in order to aid
comprehension. Caretakers talk "simpler" in an effort to make themselves understood by the
child.

A second characteristic of interest to us here is the finding that caretaker speech, while it is
syntactically simpler than adult-adult speech, is "roughly-tuned" to the child's current level of
linguistic competence, not "finely-tuned". In other words, caretaker speech is not precisely
adjusted to the level of each child, but tends to get more complex as the child progresses.
Very good evidence for rough-tuning comes from the research of Cross (1977) and Newport,
Gleitman, and Gleitman (1977), who report that correlations between input complexity and
measures of the child's linguistic maturity, while positive and often significant, are not usually
very large. An interpretation of this finding is that caretakers are not taking aim exactly at i +
1. The input they provide for children includes i + 1, but also includes many structures that
have already been acquired, plus some that have not (i + 2, i + 3, etc.) and that the child may
not be ready for yet. In other words, caretakers do not provide a grammatically based syllabus!
A third characteristic of caretaker speech that concerns us is known as the "here and now"
principle. It is well established that caretakers talk mostly about what the child can perceive,
what is in the immediate environment. Discourse with children is far more likely to deal with
what is in the room and happening now ("See the ball?") than what is not in the room and
not current ("What will we do upstairs tomorrow?"). As Newport et al. (1977) points out, this is a
topical constraint--the "here and now" principle reflects the common interests of the caretaker
and child.
While there is no direct evidence showing that caretaker speech is indeed more effective than
unmodified input, the input hypothesis predicts that caretaker speech will be very useful for
the child. First, it is, or aims to be, comprehensible. The "here and now" feature provides extra-
linguistic support (context) that helps the child understand the utterances containing i + 1.
As MacNamara (1972) pointed out, the child does not acquire grammar first and then use it in
understanding. The child understands first, and this helps him acquire language.
As discussed earlier, roughly-tuned caretaker speech covers the child's i + 1, but does not
focus on i + 1 exclusively. Part (3) of the input hypothesis claims that this is optimal.
Rough-tuning has the following advantages in child first language acquisition:
(1) It ensures that i + 1 is covered, with no guesswork as to just what i + 1 is for each child. On
the other hand, deliberate aim at i + 1 might miss!
(2) Roughly-tuned input will provide i + 1 for more than one child at a time, as long as they
understand what is said. Finely-tuned input, even if accurate (i.e. even if it "hits" i + 1), will only
benefit the child whose i + 1 is exactly the same as what is emphasized in the input.
(3) Roughly-tuned input provides built-in review. We need not be concerned with whether a
child has "mastered" a structure, whether the child was paying attention to the input that day, or
whether we provided enough. With natural, roughly-tuned input, i + 1 will occur and reoccur.
In other words, if part (3) is correct, if it is the case that with enough natural communication and
understanding that i + 1 is always provided, the caretaker need not worry about consciously
programming structure.
This must be a good thing! Adding the responsibility of grammatical sequencing to parenthood
would make parent-child communication much less spontaneous and far more difficult.
(ii) Evidence from second language acquisition: simple codes. The input hypothesis also
holds for second language acquisition. First, as presented earlier, the second language
acquirer, child or adult, is also an "acquirer", just like the child acquiring first language. Also,
according to hypothesis (2), there is a natural order of acquisition for second language as well
as first language, so we can talk about the second language acquirers' i + 1 as well. Third,
second language acquirers can also receive the kind of modified input that children get.
This modified input is of three sorts. Foreigner-talk results from the modifications native
speakers make with less than fully competent speakers of their language (see, for example,
Hatch, Shapira, and Gough, 1978 for some good examples). Teacher-talk is foreigner-talk in
the classroom, the language of classroom management and explanation, when it is in the
second language. A third simple code is interlanguage talk, the speech of other second
language acquirers.
While there are some differences between these simple codes and caretaker speech (Long,
1980; Freed, 1980), there are important similarities. As is the case with caretaker speech,
modifications made in foreigner-talk and teacher-talk5 are not made for the purpose of
language teaching, but are made for the purpose of communication, to help the second
language acquirer understand what is being said. Second, the available research indicates
that foreigner-talk and teacher-talk are roughly-tuned to the level of the acquirer, and not finely-
tuned (Freed, 1980; Gaies, 1977; for a review, see Krashen, 1980); more advanced second
language performers tend to get more complex input, but the correlation between proficiency
and input complexity is less than perfect.
(iii) Evidence from second language acquisition: the silent period and L1 influence. The input
hypothesis is also consistent with other findings and hypotheses in second language
acquisition. One of these can be termed the "silent period", a phenomenon that is most
noticeable in child second language acquisition.
It has often been noted that children acquiring a second language in a natural, informal
linguistic environment may say very little for several months following their first exposure to
the second language. What output there is consists usually of memorized language, whole
sentences learned as if they were one word. Hatch (1972), for example, reported that Paul, a
five-year-old Chinese speaker acquiring English as a second language, did not really use
"creative" language for his first few months in the United States. His only output was
memorized sentences, such as:

Get out of here

It’s time to eat and drink

He had clearly learned these as whole utterances without a real understanding of their
components (e.g. he probably would not understand the word "out" or "time" if it were used in
another sentence). Such memorized sentences were probably very useful for Paul, both in
the classroom and playground.7 When "real" language did start to emerge, it looked very
much like first language development, with short, simple sentences such as:
This kite
Ball no

The explanation of the silent period in terms of the input hypothesis is straight-forward-- the
child is building up competence in the second language via listening, by understanding the
language around him. In accordance with the input hypothesis, speaking ability emerges on
its own after enough competence has been developed by listening and understanding.
Adults, and children in formal language classes, are usually not allowed a silent period. They
are often asked to produce very early in a second language, before they have acquired enough
syntactic competence to express their ideas. According to a hypothesis first proposed by
Newmark (1966), performers who are asked to produce before they are "ready" will fall
back on first language rules, that is, they will use syntactic rules of their first language while
speaking the second language.

(iv) Advantages and disadvantages of L2 rule use. The substitution of some L1 rule for some i
+ 1 has both advantages and disadvantages. The advantages are short term, however,
while the disadvantages appear to be quite serious.
One obvious advantage is that the use of an L1 rule allows the performer to
"outperform his competence", to meet a practical need in L2 communication before he has
acquired the relevant i + 1 rule. When the L1 rule used is identical to a rule in the L2 ("positive
transfer"), the performer seems to have got something for free. Even if the L1 rule is not the
same as the L2 rule, one could argue that the performer still comes out ahead, as, quite
often, he can still communicate his point despite the incorrect form.
Another advantage is that the early production allowed by the use of L1 rules also helps to
invite input--it allows the performer to participate more in conversation, and this could mean
more comprehensible input and thus more second language acquisition
There are real disadvantages to falling back on the L1, however. First, the L1 rule may not be
the same as an L2 rule, as noted above, and errors can result. The conscious Monitor can note
and repair these errors in some cases, but not all, since, as we have seen the constraints on
Monitor use are severe. Thus, use of L1 rules requires constant vigilance on the part of the
Monitor, and is an awkward way to produce formally correct sentences in a second language.

There may be another serious disadvantage to the use of L1 rules in second language
performance. Even if the L1 rule is similar to an actual L2 rule or transitional form, it is not
clear that these rules will help the acquirer progress--they may not take the place of "true" L2
rules in the developmental sequence.
If, for example, the target rule in English is the negative (i + 1, presented to the system by
input), the intermediate form no + v (provided by the creative construction system
internally) may be closer to the mature negative form. The acquirer may thus use no + v at i,
rather than a more primitive form of the negative (e.g. no + S).
If transitional forms can temporarily serve as i, the next question is whether L1 rules, even
when they happen to be similar to L2 rules or transitional forms, can perform this
function. The answer may be "no". For example, Spanish speakers often have a long period in
their acquisition of English in which they produce no + v for the English negative, a structure
that is similar to a transitional form in English as a first and second language (Schumann,
1979). It may be the case that earlier no + v performance is the use of the L1 rule, while later
no + v performance is the true intermediate form. It may be the case that only the latter
can help the system "move forward".9

To summarize, use of L1 rules is hypothesized to be the result of falling back on first language
knowledge when a second language rule is needed in production but is not available. It
may temporarily enhance production, but may not be real progress in the second language.
The real cure for "interference", according to Newmark, is not drill at the points of contrast
between the two languages (Newmark and Reibel, 1973, p. 239). Drill will, at best, produce
learning, and, as we have seen, this is only a short term cure. The real cure "is simply the
cure for ignorance" (Newmark, 1966, p. 81): real language acquisition. This can happen only
when the acquirer obtains comprehensible input.
(v) Applied linguistics research. The input hypothesis is also consistent with the results of what
can be called "method comparison" experiments. Several scholars and groups of scholars have
attempted to determine directly which teaching methods are best by simple comparison.
Groups of students studying second and foreign languages using two different methods are
compared, both in long-term and short-term studies. My reading of studies comparing the
more commonly used methods (audio-lingual as compared to grammar-translation or
cognitive-code) is as follows:
(1) "Deductive" methods (rule first, then practice, e.g. grammar-translation and cognitive-code)
are slightly more efficient than audio-lingual teaching for adults. The differences are often
statistically significant, but are not huge. Students clearly make some progress using any of
these approaches.
(2) For adolescents, there is no measurable difference.
I interpret this failure to find large differences in this way: none of the methods
compared in these studies provides much in the way of comprehensible input! The input
hypothesis predicts, moreover, that an approach that provides substantial quantities of
comprehensible input will do much better than any of the older approaches.

There are several newer methods that do this, such as Asher's Total Physical Response
Method (Asher, 1966, 1969) and Terrell's Natural Approach (Terrell, 1977). In these
methods, class time is devoted to providing comprehensible input, where the focus is on the
message and not the form, and students are not expected to produce in the second language
until they themselves decide they are "ready". Reports confirming the superiority of such "input
methods" have been appearing in the professional literature over the last ten years (e.g.
Asher, 1972; Gary, 1975; Postovsky, 1974)
5. THE AFFECTIVE FILTER HYPOTHESIS
 The Affective Filter hypothesis states how affective factors relate to the second language
acquisition process. The concept of an Affective Filter was proposed by Dulay and Burt
(1977), and is consistent with the theoretical work done in the area of affective variables
and second language acquisition, as well as the hypotheses previously covered in this
chapter.
Research over the last decade has confirmed that a variety of affective variables relate
to success in second language acquisition (reviewed in Krashen, 1981). Most of those studied
can be placed into one of these three categories:
(1) Motivation. Performers with high motivation generally do better in second
language acquisition (usually, but not always, "integrative"13
(2) Self-confidence. Performers with self-confidence and a good self-image
tend to do better in second language acquisition.
(3) Anxiety. Low anxiety appears to be conducive to second language
acquisition, whether measured as personal or classroom anxiety.
The Affective Filter hypothesis captures the relationship between affective variables and
the process of second language acquisition by positing that acquirers vary with respect to the
strength or level of their Affective Filters. Those whose attitudes are not optimal for
second language acquisition will not only tend to seek less input, but they will also have a
high or strong Affective Filter--even if they understand the message, the input will not reach
the part of the brain responsible for language acquisition, or the language acquisition device.
Those with attitudes more conducive to second language acquisition will not only seek and
obtain more input, they will also have a lower or weaker filter. They will be more open to the
input, and it will strike "deeper" (Stevick, 1976).
The Affective Filter hypothesis, represented in Fig. 2.2, claims that the effect of affect is
"outside" the language acquisition device proper. It still maintains that input is the primary
causative variable in second language acquisition, affective variables acting to impede or
facilitate the delivery of input to the language acquisition device.
The filter hypothesis explains why it is possible for an acquirer to obtain a great deal of
comprehensible input, and yet stop short (and sometimes well short) of the native speaker
level (or "fossilize"; Selinker, 1972). When this occurs, it is due to the affective filter.

The Affective Filter hypothesis implies that our pedagogical goals should not only include
supplying comprehensible input, but also creating a situation that encourages a low filter.
The input hypothesis and the concept of the Affective Filter define the language teacher
in a new way. The effective language teacher is someone who can provide input and help
make it comprehensible in a low anxiety situation. Of course, many teachers have felt this
way about their task for years, at least until they were told otherwise by the experts!