1. Acculturation Theory – John Schumann
Theories of SLA
Acculturation Theory – John Schumann
Sociocultural theory – Lev Vygotsky – learning is a social process; development results from social interactions.
SLA sociocultural theory – Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), collective scaffolding.
Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 33–56). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Input Hypothesis / Monitor Theory 1

2. Theories of SLA: Input Hypothesis
Input hypothesis grew out of Steve Krashen’s early work on development sequences.
Krashen wondered about the regularity, and deviances, in morpheme acquisition orders. Recall that not all acquisition orders were identical … 2

3. Theories of SLA: Input Hypothesis
Krashen explained the differences by suggesting a cluster of claims / propositions known originally as Monitor Theory and later the Input Hypothesis. 3

4. Theories of SLA: Input Hypothesis
1. Acquisition–learning hypothesis
Acquisition is unconscious “learning.” It is the “subconscious process identical in all important ways to the process children utilize in acquiring their first language” (p. 1).
There is a significant contribution of the “Language Acquisition Device,” which Krashen calls the “internal language processor” or “language mental organ” in language acquisition (pp. 2–3).
Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. New York: Longman. 4

5. Theories of SLA: Input Hypothesis
1. Acquisition–learning hypothesis
Learning is “a conscious process that results in ‘knowing about’ language.” It is governed by instruction; it is associated with a focus on form, and with learning the rules of the language.
For Krashen, acquisition and learning are mutually exclusive – there is no overlap between them.
2. Monitor hypothesis
This is the interface between acquisition and learning. When we edit, self-correct, and otherwise “monitor” our production, it is our learned system acting upon our acquired system. Writing may be the most conducive skill to the monitor. 5

6. Theories of SLA: Input Hypothesis
3. Natural order hypothesis
“We acquire the rules of language in a predictable order” (p. 1).
This is Krashen’s acknowledgement of development sequences in interlanguage development; specific reference to Corder’s internal syllabus in Input Hypothesis (1985).
4. Input hypothesis
We acquire language from “comprehensible input.” CI triggers the SLAD, which allows to induce the rules of the language. i + 1, where:
i = our current language skill level; and
+ 1 = “the next level along the natural order” (p. 2). 6

7. Theories of SLA: Input Hypothesis
5. Affective filter hypothesis
Krashen argues that affective factors (motivation, anxiety, etc.) can act as a filter which blocks comprehensible input from reaching our SLAD. Low motivation, high anxiety “raises” our affective filter and blocks CI. 7

8. Theories of SLA: Input Hypothesis
Group Activity #1: Understanding the Hypothesis
Note that HLAL does not aggregate these 5 propositions in to a single theoretical statement. How do these 5 propositions come together into a single theoretical statement about language acquisition? Write a statement of SLA theory using all 5 propositions.
1. Acquisition–learning hypothesis
2. Monitor hypothesis
3. Natural order hypothesis
4. Input hypothesis
5. Affective filter hypothesis 8

9. Theories of SLA: Input Hypothesis
Through comprehensive Input (4), our SLAD is triggered, and we Acquire (1.1) language (subconsciously) in a Natural Order (3), as long as our Affective Filter (5) is low.
Deviant acquisition orders may emerge when our Monitor (2) introduces Learned (1.2) rules (from instruction) out of natural order.
“People acquire SLs only if they obtain CI and if their affective filters are low enough to allow the input ‘in.’ When the filter is ‘down’ and appropriate CI is presented, acquisition is inevitable. It is, in fact, unavoidable and cannot be prevented” (p. 4). 9

10. Theories of SLA: Input Hypothesis
Input Hypothesis has been heavily criticized, for:
acquisition – learning dichotomy, nonoverlapping
subconscious – conscious dichotomy
centrality of input; what about “output” or production?
difficulty of testing the hypothesis empirically 10

11. Theories of SLA: Input Hypothesis
Despite what HLAL terms “lively criticism and debate” (p. 38), the input hypothesis has been quite influential, particularly on the importance of input in SLA. It has been influential in the development of:
1. Natural approach, a language teaching method designed to replicate, in the classroom, a naturalistic environment to facilitate acquisition.
2. Immersion language programs. Because students tend to be dominant language speakers with similar level of skill in the target language (English native speakers learning French or Spanish, for instance), the teacher can provide appropriate CI (i + 1) to facilitate acquisition. 11

12. Theories of SLA: Input Hypothesis
3. Sheltered subject matter teaching. Similar dynamic for older students in individual classes. Study French history in French, e.g., or the sociology of Latin American in Spanish. Because all students are second language learners, the teacher / professor can similarly control the level of input (i + 1) to facilitate acquisition.
4. Input / book floods. Which takes us to our study of the day: Mangubhai, F. (2001). Book floods and comprehensible input floods: Providing ideal conditions for second language acquisition. International Journal of Educational Research, 35, 147–156. 12

13. Theories of SLA: Mangubhai
Group Activity #2: Understanding Mangubhai
Grp 1: Describe the demographics of Fiji, the educational language policy on Fiji, and the design of the study (three groups, different treatments).
Grp 2: How were the results of the Book Flood project measured?
Grp 3: What were the results after one year?
Grp 4: What were the results after two years?
Grp 5: Do results support the Input Hypothesis?
Grp 6: Do results lend support to theories of SLA beyond the Input Hypothesis? 13

14. Theories of SLA: Mangubhai
Grp 1: Demographics, policy, and design
50 / 50 Fijian and Indo-Fijians; a few Chinese and Europeans
Indigenous medium of instruction, with English as a foreign language grades 1–3, then English medium. 14

15. Theories of SLA: Mangubhai Grp 2: Measurement of Book Flood project15

16. Theories of SLA: Mangubhai Grp 3: Results after one year:16

17. Theories of SLA: Mangubhai
Significant diff’s b/t book flood groups and control: 17

18. Theories of SLA: Mangubhai Grp 4: Results after two years18

19. Theories of SLA: Mangubhai
All results significant, book flood groups v. control 19

20. Theories of SLA: Mangubhai
Grp 5: Does Book Flood support Input Hypothesis?
Yes. Large amounts of comprehensible input, under highly motivating conditions, led to significant gains in receptive skills (i.e., input skills, reading and listening comprehension) in one year.
Comprehensible input also led to gains in productive skills (writing and grammar) when the study was extended into a second year.
“There is strong support here for Krashen’s comprehensible input hypothesis” (p. 153). 20

21. Theories of SLA: Mangubhai
Grp 6: Does the Book Flood study support theories of SLA beyond the Input Hypothesis?
Yes. Data suggest support VanPatten’s “input processing hypothesis”: readers “process meaning before they process form” (i.e., structure, grammar). If they have sufficient “attentional resources” left after attending to meaning, they will “concentrate their attention on form” (p. 154).
“The provision of comprehensible input through high interest, well-illustrated story books is compatible with the input hypothesis, as well as a more cognitively oriented hypothesis that uses the construct of attention as a critical factor” (p. 155). 21