Definition of the Natural Order Hypothesis

The second hypothesis, the natural order hypothesis, argues that the acquisition of grammatical
structures occurs in a predictable sequence. The natural order hypothesis applies to both first
language acquisition and second language acquisition, but, although similar, the order of
acquisition often differs between first and second languages. In other words, the order of
acquisition of a first language is different from the order of acquisition of that same language as a
second language.
However, regardless of native language, all language learners of any single second language
appear to follow the same predictable order; for example, learners of English as a second
language generally acquire the grammatical structure of yes-no questions before the grammatical
structure of wh- questions. Furthermore, according to the hypothesis, the order of acquisition
remains the same regardless of explicit instruction; in other words, explicit teaching and learning
cannot change the natural order of acquisition.
Criticism of the Natural Order Hypothesis The second critique of the Monitor Model
surrounds the evidence in support of the natural order hypothesis. According to Krashen, that
children acquiring English as a second language acquire the morphemes of the language in a
predictable sequence similar but not identical to the sequence followed by children acquiring
English as a first language confirms the validity of the natural order hypothesis. Furthermore,
other morpheme studies on adults acquiring English as a second language show similar results.
However, as Kevin R. Gregg argues, to generalize the results of a study on the acquisition of a
limited set of English morphemes to second language acquisition as a whole is fallible.
Morpheme studies offer no indication that second language learners similarly acquire other
linguistic features (phonology, syntax, semantics, pragmatics) in any predictable sequence let
alone in any sequence at all.
Secondly, the natural order hypothesis fails to account for the considerable influence of the first
language on the acquisition of a second language; in fact, the results of other studies indicate that
second language learners acquire a second language in different orders depending on their native
language. Therefore, although posited by the natural order hypothesis, second language learners
do not necessarily acquire grammatical structures in a predictable sequence. Although the
Monitor Model has been influential in the field of second language acquisition, the second
hypothesis, the natural order hypothesis, has not been without criticism as evidenced by the
critiques offered by other linguists and educators in the field.
The Input hypothesis
This hypothesis suggests that language acquisition occurs when learners receive messages
that they can understand, a concept also known as comprehensible input. However,
Krashen also suggests that this comprehensible input should be one step beyond the
learners current language ability, represented as i + 1, in order to allow learners to
continue to progress with their language development.

The Affective Filter hypothesis

According to Krashen one obstacle that manifests itself during language acquisition is the
affective filter; that is a 'screen' that is influenced by emotional variables that can prevent
learning. This hypothetical filter does not impact acquisition directly but rather prevents
input from reaching the language acquisition part of the brain. According to Krashen the
affective filter can be prompted by many different variables including anxiety, selfconfidence, motivation and stress.
Definition of the Input Hypothesis
The fourth hypothesis, the input hypothesis, which applies only to language
acquisition and not to language learning, posits the process that allows second
language learners to move through the predictable sequence of the acquisition of
grammatical structures predicted by the natural order hypothesis. According to the
input hypothesis, second language learners require comprehensible input,
represented by i+1, to move from the current level of acquisition, represented by i,
to the next level of acquisition. Comprehensible input is input that contains a
structure that is a little beyond the current understandingwith understanding
defined as understanding of meaning rather than understanding of formof the
language learner.
Second language acquisition, therefore, occurs through exposure to comprehensible
input, a hypothesis which further negates the need for explicit instruction learning.
The input hypothesis also presupposes an innate language acquisition device, the
part of the brain responsible for language acquisition, that allows for the exposure
to comprehensible input to result in language acquisition, the same language
acquisition device posited by the acquisition-learning hypothesis. However, as
Krashen cautions, like the time, focus, and knowledge required by the Monitor,
comprehensible input is necessary but not sufficient for second language
acquisition. Criticism of the Input Hypothesis
Like for the acquisition-learning hypothesis, the first critique of the input hypothesis
surrounds the lack of a clear definition of comprehensible input; Krashen never
sufficiently explains the values of i or i+1. As Gass et al. argue, the vagueness of
the term means that i+1 could equal one token, two tokens, 777 tokens; in other
words, sufficient comprehensible input could embody any quantity.
More importantly, the input hypothesis focuses solely on comprehensible input as
necessary, although not sufficient, for second language acquisition to the neglect of
any possible importance of output. The output hypothesis as proposed by Merrill
Swain seeks to rectify the assumed inadequacies of the input hypothesis by positing
that language acquisition and learning may also occur through the production of
language. According to Swain who attempts to hypothesize a loop between input
and output, output allows second language learners to identify gaps in their
linguistic knowledge and subsequently attend to relevant input. Therefore, without

minimizing the importance of input, the output hypothesis complements and

addresses the insufficiencies of the input hypothesis by addressing the importance
of the production of language for second language acquisition.
Thus, despite the influence of the Monitor Model in the field of second language
learning and acquisition, the input hypothesis, the fourth hypothesis of the theory,
has not been without criticism as evidenced by the critiques offered by other
linguists and educators in the field.

Piginization
Pidgin(ization) is a sociolinguistic phenomenon. It is a language that is essentially based on
acculturation or contact with the target culture. Despite the fact that pidgin is not regarded as a
natural language (such as English, French, Arabic, etc.). It has a similar function, since it is
employed primarily for communication purposes.
In this section, the study intends to introduce the term pidgin(ization) in its inclusive sense. At
the initial stages, definitions and sources of this sociolinguistic term will be presented. This will
be followed by studies related to pidginization and its relationship with language learning and/or
acquisition. And then, the focus will be moved to the linguistic characteristics of pidginization.

2. Definition and sources

Pidgin has been defined as a contact language and is sometimes, called a makeshift,
marginal language, or mixed languages (Crystal, 1987, p. 334).
Malmkjaer and Anderson (2001) listed six sources for the term pidgin. Some of these sources
indicated that it is a Chinese corruption of the English word business. It may be derived from
the two Chinese characters, Pei and tsin meaning paying money, or from the South American
Indian language, Yago, whose word for the people is Pidian (Malmkjaer, 2001, p. 81).
Yule (1996) defined pidgin as, a variety of a language (e.g. English) which developed for
some practical purpose, such as trading among group of people who had a lot of contact, but
who did not know each others language (Yule, 1996, pp. 233234).
He also, pointed out that, when a pidgin develops beyond its role as a trade language and
becomes the first language of a social community, it is described as a Creole (Yule, 1996, p.
234).
Similarly, Crystal (1991) stated that pidgins are formed by two mutually unintelligible speech
communities attempting to communicate, each successively approximating to the more obvious
features of the others language (Crystal, 1991, p. 264).

5. Discussion

Based on the definitions, the sources, the views, and the characteristics of pidginization theory, it
seems that similarities (and/or differences) do exist between this phenomenon and the language
acquisition/language learning processes. This inference is deduced by presenting references from
empirical studies by noted experts on language.
First, L2 is usually acquired through a lengthy process of learning in the classroom with the help
of a teacher and in a formal setting. We say this usually, because in some cases, L2 may also be
acquired through social interaction with native speakers, without the use of the formal teaching
setting. The result is usually a kind of L2 with little respect for grammatical rules and no
knowledge of the written aspect of the language. This type of L2 remains confined in its uses to
given registers and for given purposes. In this respect, this type of L2 resembles the pidgin.
Second, Creole, which in fact, is the end result of pidgin, is very much like a native language
(L1) as it has native-like speakers who perpetuate the language in time and space, but without the
use of a formal teaching setting. In some instances, however, Creole may exist in a written form
(as is the case in the Caribbean). In short, it is a means of communication that is spoken but
never taught formally. (cf. Valdman).
Third, pidgin on the other hand, is only used as a functional means of communication. It tends
not to be learnt in a formal teaching setting. It is different from Creole in that it does not coincide
with one speech community. Native speakers of other languages speak it, and use it only for
certain given purposes and in given registers.
These differences are reflected in the way as these so-called languages are acquired.
The acquisition of the first language as well as of Creole may be safely seen within the concerns
of language theories developed by the proponents of universal grammar, as well as theories
propounded by nativists such as Krashen, for whom language acquisition processes make use of
universal grammar and strongly rely on the generative transformational grammar. Therefore, L2
acquisition could profit from research flowing from studies on L1 and Creole acquisition,
making use of the universal grammar.
On the other hand, the acquisition of pidgin would, to my mind, find little application from such
studies as the processes of acquisition involved in it differ from those involved in the acquisition
of L1, L2 and Creole. Factors such as the age of the speakers of pidgin (usually adults), and the
purposes and register (quite limited and well defined for the speakers of pidgin) justify this view.
Furthermore, pidgin is, for the most part, a form of communication which makes use of two
different language sources, at least for the purposes of communication intended for a given
purpose (usually speakers of a minor language finding themselves in a wider speech community
having a major language, for example).
In more practical terms, commonality between pidgin system and the interlanguage system of the
foreign language learner is particularly noticeable. For example deletion of verb inflections such
as (s) after a third person singular occurs among some FL learners at their early stages of
learning.

Similarly, deletion of the copula among some learners of English such as the Arabs, especially
beginners, occurs in subject-predicate constructions such as, the car new for the car is new.
That is, they acquire a linguistic variety similar to that of pidgin. This is probably attributed to
the fact that, pidginization may be a universal first stage in second language acquisition
(Mitche