The Natural Approach:

Krashen’s Model of Second Language Acquisition

Frederick Shannon

Abstract
Over the last thirty years, second language acquisition theories and language educators have
generated various theories in an attempt to better understand and explain human behavior.
Academics conducting research in disciplines such as sociology, psychology, linguistics and
education have made significant contributions in the field of second language acquisition (SLA)
research. Like those in other social sciences, SLA theoretical perspectives are dynamic in that
hypotheses are constantly evolving as new information about language is produced. First, this
paper begins by briefly contrasting two main SLA theoretical perspectives, nativist and inatist
theories of second language acquisition. It then shifts focus to Stephen Krashen’s natural
approach hypothesis, also known as the monitor model. The purpose of this paper is to outline
Krashen’s main hypotheses which constitute the natural approach to SLA. Moreover, this paper
will analyze Krashen’s theory in terms of its weaknesses, strengths as well as address some of
the obvious pedagogical implications that the model has had in teaching English as a foreign
language (EFL) and English as a second language (ESL).

Keywords:
Affective Filter, Interaction Hypothesis, Input Hypothesis, Innatist Theory, Learning Acquisition
Device (LAD), Monitor Model, The Natural Approach

Introduction
Over the last thirty years, researchers have generated a number of theories in order to
better understand and explain human behavior. Scholars working in disciplines such as
sociology, psychology, linguistics and education have made great contributions in the field of
second language acquisition (SLA) research. SLA theoretical perspectives, like those in other
social sciences, are dynamic in that hypotheses are constantly evolving as new information about
language is produced. First, this paper will begin by briefly contrasting two main but competing
 52

theoretical perspectives within the field of SLA: nativist and inatist theories of language
acquisition. However, specific focus will be given to Krashen’s natural approach hypothesis.
The purpose of this paper is to outline Krashen’s main hypotheses which constitute the natural
approach to SLA. Moreover, this paper will discuss and analyze Krashen’s theory in terms of its
weaknesses and strengths. Finally, the paper will address some of the obvious implications that
this popular model has had in teaching English as a foreign language (EFL) and English as a
second language (ESL).
Nature vs. Nurture
Second language acquisition theories have traditionally been divided into two broad
categories: nurture and nature. The nurture perspective posits that human interaction with the
environment leads to experience which, in turn, results in the acquisition of human knowledge
including second language acquisition. The behaviorist perspective is perhaps the most well
known among language acquisition theories and appears to be strictly based on the nurture
doctrine. The naturalistic or innatist perspective, in contrast with the nurture view, stresses the
importance of innate or genetic factors. These genetic factors weigh very heavily in the
acquisition of knowledge in human beings such as language learning. Social science theories
based on the innatist perspective argue that most knowledge is innate and transmitted genetically.
The nativist school of second language learning holds that all human beings are born with a
device that allows us to acquire language naturally and that language acquisition is biologically
determined.
The Monitor Model
Krashen has proposed what is referred to as a creative constructionist theory of second
language acquisition, originally called the monitor model but also known as the natural approach
or the input hypothesis (Brown, 2000). Krashen argues that adult second language learners
develop L2 competence through one of two ways which he has referred to as either acquisition or
learning. Krashen has described acquisition as a subconscious process similar to the way a child
will acquire his or her L1. In contrast, the concept of learning has been described as a conscious
process that is more related to knowing certain rules about a language such as grammar and so
on.
 53

The Five Hypotheses

In general, Krashen’s natural approach consists of five main hypotheses: (1) the
acquisition learning hypothesis; (2) the monitor hypothesis; (3) the natural order hypothesis; (4)
the input hypothesis and (5) the affective-filter hypothesis. Krashen (1982) has argued that
“Learning cannot become acquisition and that fluency in a second or foreign language is due to
what learners have acquired, not what they have learned” (Brown, 2000, p. 278). Acquisition,
according to Krashen, is a subconscious process whereas learning is an active and conscious
process involving the memorization of many formal linguistic rules. Krashen believed that
second language learners should attempt to acquire linguistic rules subconsciously and in a
natural way much like a child acquires his or her L1.
The monitor hypothesis makes a distinction between acquisition and learning. The
monitor hypothesis states that the “learned system acts as a monitor, making minor changes and
polishing what the acquired system has produced” (Lightbown and Spada, 1993, p. 27).
Additionally, Krashen has argued that there are three conditions which are necessary for monitor
use which include sufficient time, focus on form and knowing the rules (Lightbown and Spada,
1993, p. 27).
Next, Krashen’s natural order hypothesis states that second language learners “acquire
the rules of a language in a predictable sequence” (Lightbown and Spada,1993, p. 27-28). The
natural order hypothesis also states that even though some of the rules in a language are easy for
the learner to memorize, these rules or often most difficult for the learner to acquire. Krashen’s
view regarding the natural acquisition of certain structures has been supported in morpheme
studies and it is from these studies that Krashen attempts to bolster support for his natural order
hypothesis.
Perhaps the most important of Krashen’s five hypotheses, the input hypothesis, is his
assertion that in order for language acquisition to take place, the acquirer must receive
comprehensible input through reading or hearing language structures that slightly exceed their
current ability (Brown, 2000, p. 278). However, it is important that the acquirer not receive
input that exceeds his or her level of competence. It is crucial that the acquirer receive input that
is comprehensible and challenging enough to lead to improvements in linguistic competence.
The input hypothesis has been outlined by Krashen as follows:
 54

The input hypothesis makes the following claim: a necessary (but not sufficient)
condition to move from stage i + 1 is that the acquirer understand input that contains i+ 1,
where “understand” means that the acquirer is focused on the meaning and not the form
of the message (Krashen,1982, p. 21).

Furthermore, it is essential not to focus on explicit grammatical structures or learning activities

but rather to occupy classroom time with acquisition tasks or activities. Krashen argues, “The
input hypothesis relates to acquisition, not learning” (Krashen, 1982, p. 21). In this regard, many
EFL/ESL instructors can better serve their students second language learning needs by
introducing various tasks in the classroom. The input hypothesis also states that an acquirer must
not be forced to speak too early. That is, a certain amount of comprehensible input must be built
up before the acquirer is required to speak in a classroom (Brown, 2000, p. 278).
Finally, according to Krashen, many second language learners will go through what is he
refers to as a silent period when learners gradually receive and build enough comprehensible
input so that they can start to produce their own structures. Comprehensible input will occur
during the language acquisition process when that acquirer’s affective filter is down or low. The
affective filter hypothesis states that:
A learner who is tense, angry, anxious, or bored will screen out input, making it
unavailable for acquisition. Thus, depending on the learner’s state of mind or disposition,
the filter limits what is noticed and what is acquired. The filter will be up or operating
when the learner is stressed, self-conscious or unmotivated. It will be down when the
learner is relaxed or motivated (Lightbown and Spada, 1993, p. 28).

Again, as previously stated, this hypothesis has found a lot of support from those within the
EFL/ESL field as it makes perfectly good practical sense for instructors to try and create a low-
stress, anxiety free and relaxing language learning environment for those people attempting to
acquire a second language. Many EFL/ESL instructors truly believe that students learn better in
environments that are free from stress or where they feel uncomfortable.
Criticisms: Definition of Terms and Scientific Standards
While Krashen’s input hypothesis has received quite a bit of support from practitioners
within the EFL field and contributed towards EFL/ESL classroom teaching methodologies, his
theoretical views have received some harsh criticisms. For instance, McLaughlin, a psychologist,
has attacked Krashen’s monitor model by arguing that Krashen has not provided us with any
evidence to support his claims but has only argued that particular phenomena can be observed
from the perspective of his comprehension model. Similarly, Lightbown and Spada (1998, p. 29)
 55

state that, “…the theory has also been seriously criticized for failing to meet certain minimum
standards necessary in scientific research and writing.”
Firstly, the monitor hypothesis has been attacked primarily because there is no clear
evidence to show us ‘monitor’ use (Lightbown and Spada, 1993, p. 27). Scholars have not been
able to determine language that has been produced by the learned system and the acquired
system. Krashen’s claim that learning does not lead to acquisition is problematic for a number of
scholars as this implies that spontaneous language has been acquired and not learned.
Consequently, Krashen has been accused of providing a circular definition of the terms learned
and acquired systems (Lightbown and Spada, 1993, p. 27). Secondly, Krashen has not produced
any clear, empirical evidence that more output, either written or oral, results in more language
acquisition. This challenges Krashen’s silent period assertion in which Krashen argues that SLA
acquirers go through a period of acquiring sufficient comprehensible input in order to finally
produce intelligible second language utterances.
Thirdly, according to Gregg (1984), we need clearer definitions of
acquisition/subconscious and learning/conscious (Brown, 2000, p. 279). Gregg argues that
Krashen has used these terms with a certain sense of recklessness and has argued that it is very
difficult to distinguish between what is conscious and what is unconscious:
Krashen plays fast and loose with his definitions…If unconscious knowledge is capable
of being brought to consciousness, and if conscious knowledge is capable of becoming
unconscious – and this seems to be a reasonable assumption – then there is no reason
whatever to accept Krashen’s claim, in the absence of evidence. And there is an absence
of evidence (Brown, 2000, p. 280).

Another aspect of Krashen’s input hypotheses is that he claims that the use of care-taker talk or
foreigner-talk (FT) is beneficial to the learner as it aids comprehension:
…foreigner – talk and teacher – talk 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 (Krashen, 1982, p. 25).

However, many EFL schools view foreigner-talk as ungrammatical and are concerned that
students may complain if teachers speak to students using such modified speech. According to
Meisel (1980):
“Ungrammatical FT is generally felt to imply a lack of respect… However, it may not be
the presence of ungrammatical modifications per se that arouse negative responses in
 56

learners, but their awareness of being addressed in a special manner” (cited in Ellis, 2002,
p. 254).

Grammatical FT, on the other hand, has been seen as useful in supplying simple input (Ellis,
2002, p. 254). At any rate, it is widely believed that SL learners need exposure to a broad range
of input so that they can increase their communicative competence.
Krashen argues that explicit error-correction has very little or no effect at all upon
learner's long-term linguistic competence. Lightbown (1985) has stated that, “Isolated explicit
error correction is usually ineffective in changing language behavior” (Brown, 2000, p. 276). As
Lightbown and Spada (1993, p. 115) point out, “Excessive error correction can have a strong
negative effect on motivation.”
Finally, there is also some concern that input does not last long enough to promote the
development of confidence in the acquirer and, as well, we have not seen any evidence
indicating as to what the acquirer does with the input. In addition, Krashen’s concept of i + 1 has
been attacked as a result of the fact that scholars do not have a very clear understanding of what
the various learning stages are in second language acquisition.
Strengths: An Appealing Model for Language Teachers
Although Krashen’s innatist model of SLA has received an abundance of criticism, it has
been popular with many people teaching in the EFL/ESL fields. The natural approach model and
its constituent hypotheses seem to be simple for second language instructors to follow and
teachers are able to base some of their teaching methodology on these five hypotheses (Brown,
2000, p. 281). First, Krashen argues that grammar should not be taught in the classroom and that
the formal rules or structures of the language are not necessary to aid in comprehensible input.
Krashen has also been attacked on this point to which he states that we use our knowledge of the
world as well as context and other extra linguistic devices to aid comprehension and can
subconsciously acquire the formal structures through this process:
…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 (Krashen, 1982, p. 21).

Many language educators agree with Krashen in that learners are better served if instructors can
provide learners with opportunities with which to practice the grammar that they have acquired
 57

in the classroom. It is also important for instructors to encourage learners to use context and their
knowledge of the world to help learners with comprehension, new vocabulary and grammar.
Krashen also advocates the use of communicative tasks in the classroom, with which many
professional language teachers also agree. However, at times students, especially adult students
who are generally more cognitively advanced than child learners, can benefit from more explicit
grammatical explanations and direct vocabulary definitions.
Krashen further argues that it is important for language learners to be exposed to
structures that are slightly above their level of ability. Krashen feels that in order for L2
acquisition to occur and for learners to improve their L2 competence, learners must attempt to
understand language that slightly exceeds their current ability:
We acquire by understanding language that contains structure a bit beyond our current
level of competence (i + l). This is done with the help of context or extra-
linguistic information (Krashen, 1982, p. 21).

EFL students in Japan have studied English grammar extensively. However, it is interesting to
note that most of these students make routine mistakes on structures which they know the rules
for when speaking. For instance, Japanese students will, during classroom conversation,
regularly omit the s that must be attached to the third – person singular form of verbs. The
students indeed know the rules governing the third – person singular, as they have studied
English grammar ad nauseam in high school.
Unfortunately, most of these learners are not able to apply the rules during conversation.
Mistakes include, “He live with his sister” or “She go to work at 8 o’clock.” Lightbown (Brown,
2000, p. 275) states that, “Knowing a language rule does not mean one will be able to use it in
communicative interaction.” Japanese students have learned and know many of the formal
grammatical rules; however, they have not truly acquired the structures.
These errors may also represent the fossilization phenomenon that occurs in most L2
learners. This occurs during adult L2 acquisition in which the linguistic competence of the L2
learners does not progress with respect to particular language structures. Lightbown similarly
claims that, “For most adult learners, acquisition stops – “fossilizes” – before the learner has
achieved native-like mastery of the target language (Brown, 2002, p. 275).
 58

Krashen's input hypothesis holds quite a bit of appeal among EFL instructors and has
stressed the importance of communicative tasks in the SLA classroom. As well, the input
hypothesis is very easy to understand and to apply within the SL classroom.

For instance, according to the Affective Filter Hypothesis, SL acquirers are able to make better
use of input if their affective filters are low. EFL students who are relaxed and able to learn
English in a stress – free environment will be able to learn better and enjoy their second language
learning experience much more.
Many EFL/ESL language instructors have seen the merit of the affective-filter hypothesis
and strive to make their classrooms more relaxed for second language learners and to make the
language lessons more enjoyable for learners in attempts to reduce the levels of anxiety among
students. This aspect of Krashen’s theory, not surprisingly, has received support even from
Krashen’s critics. We have also seen through Krashen’s theory that many EFL programs over
emphasize the importance of grammar and do not utilize enough communicative tasks in order to
develop the learners competence.
Also, the input hypothesis is simple – perhaps too simple. The simplistic nature of
Krashen’s input hypothesis has led to a fair amount of criticism for not being scientific enough.
As mentioned previously, many scholars demand more evidence from Krashen in order to
support the various claims that he makes under the five central hypotheses which constitute his
input hypothesis. For example, Krashen’s definition of the terms acquisition and learning is not
satisfactory. Overall, however, the input hypothesis is an interesting and relevant SLA theoretical
perspective that has had an impact on SLA learning and teaching practices and has gained
acceptance among English language instructors for its simplicity and practical appeal.

References

Brown, H. Douglas (2000). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. Longman:

New York 4th ed.

Ellis, R. (2002). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford University Press:
New York 9th ed.

Gregg, K. (1984). Krashen’s monitor and Occam’s razor. Applied Linguistics, 5, 79-100.
 59

Lightbown, P. and Spada, N. (1998). How Languages are Learned. Oxford University Press:
New York.

Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and Practice in Second Language Learning and Acquisition.
Oxford: Pergamon.

Krashen, S.D. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. New York, Longman.

Krashen, S.D. & Terrell, T.D. (1983). The natural approach: Language acquisition in the
classroom. London: Prentice Hall Europe.

McLaughlin, B. (1987). Theories of second language learning. London: Edward Arnold.

Terrell, T.D. (1977). "A natural approach to the acquisition and learning of a language". Modern
Language Journal, 61. 325-336.