Natural Order Hypothesis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article does not cite any references or sources. (April 2008) Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed.

This article or section needs to be wikified to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Please help improve this article with relevant internal links. (April 2008)

The Natural Order Hypothesis, according to Stephen Krashen's Natural Approach, is simply that grammatical structures are learned in a predictable order. This is based on first language acquisition research done by Roger Brown, as well as that of Jill and Peter de Villiers. These studies found striking similarities in the order in which children acquired certain grammatical morphemes. Krashen cites a series of studies by Dulay and Burt which show that a group of Spanish speaking and a group of Chinese speaking children learning English as a second language also exhibited a “natural” order for grammatical morphemes which did not differ between the two groups. A rather lengthy end-note directs readers to further research in first and second language acquisition, but somewhat undercuts the basic hypothesis by showing limitations to the concept of an order of acquisition. Gregg argues that Krashen has no basis for separating grammatical morphemes from, for example, phonology. Although Krashen only briefly mentions the existence of other parallel “streams” of acquisition in The Natural Approach, their very existence rules out any order that might be used in instruction. The basic idea of a simple linear order of acquisition is extremely unlikely, Gregg reminds us. In addition, if there are individual differences then the hypothesis is not provable, falsifiable, and in the end, not useful. McLaughlin points out the methodological problems with Dulay and Burt’s 1974 study, and cites a study by Hakuta and Cancino (1977, cited in McLaughlin, 1987, p.32) which found that the complexity of a morpheme depended on the learner’s native language. The difference between the experience of a speaker of a Germanic language studying English with that of an Asian language studying English is a clear indication of the relevance of this finding. The contradictions for planning curriculum are immediately evident. Having just discredited grammar study in the Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis, Krashen suddenly proposes that second language learners should follow the “natural” order of acquisition for grammatical morphemes. The teacher is first instructed to create a natural environment for the learner but then, in trying to create a curriculum, they are instructed to base it on grammar. As described below in an analysis of the actual classroom methods presented in the Natural Approach, attempting to put these conflicting theories into practice is very problematic. When one examines this hypothesis in terms of comprehension and production, its insufficiencies become even more apparent. Many of the studies of order of acquisition, especially those in first language acquisition, are based on production. McLaughlin also points out that “correct usage” is not monolithic – even for grammatical morphemes, correct usage in one situation does not guarantee as correct usage in another (p.33). In this sense, the term “acquisition” becomes very unclear, even when not applying Krashen’s definition. Is a structure “acquired” when there are no mistakes in comprehension? Or is it acquired when there is a certain level of accuracy in production? First language acquisition is very closely linked to the cognitive development of infants, but second language learners have most of these facilities present, even as children. Further, even if some weak form of natural order exists for any learners who are speakers of a given language, learning in a given environment, it is not clear that the order is the same for comprehension and production. If these two orders differ, it is not clear how they would interact.