Crossroads Between Vygotsky's ZPD and Krashens i+1

Krashen's i+1

Krashen's view is that language development takes place only through reception of comprehensible input. If i is the current level of a learner's language, she needs to receive comprehensible input at i+1 in order to acquire that language along natural order. If communication takes place using i+1, Language Acquisition Device (LAD) will act and assimilate the langauge received, contributing to language acquisition.  

Vygotsky's Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD)

According to Vygotsky, Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) is the the area between the actual developmental stage of an individual where she solves problems independently, and the potentisl developmental stage where she solves problems with the help of a more capable peer/adult (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 36). ZPD represents the scope of a learner in terms of development, where functions are in the process of maturation. It does not reside within the learner, but is a meeting place of all elements and aspects of the learning process (learner, teacher, learning materials, context, motivation, etc.).

Historical Context of ZPD

Children's IQ was determined by observing their independent problem solving abilities. But once at school, some children with high IQ scores showed a lower IQ, whild those with a lower IQ showed an increase. To address this issue, Vygotsky talked about the upper limit of possible development in the child. He argued that this upper limit could be determined by observing the child's problem solving skills when an adult's help is available. This means, while all children may appear to have the same level of IQ, some may have a higher upper limit than the others. Those with the higher upper limit will be able to comfortably move up their IQ score to the upper limit. Those with the lower upper limits will not be able to meet this level of development because the potential for development was lower. In other words, some children have a smaller potential for development, while some have a higher one. This area or potential for IQ development is what Vygotsky called ZPD. 

The implication is that if a child has a high IQ but small ZPD, it may show less development than a child who has lower IQ, but a larger ZPD. Exposure to and familiarity with knowledge may help some children to scale most of their ZPDs without instruction. And when instruction is provided, they may show lower development than others because they have already used the potential offered by their ZPDs. 

Note that for Vygostky, instruction and learning could be forerunners of development. He criticized the claim that development is impervious to instruction. Learning paves the way for development to occur. However, we should not assume that in ZPD, either is a precondition for the other. In ZPD, learning and development act together, or learning leads to development. Vygotsky has shown in his experiments that children learn in interaction and that leads to development. 

Learning and Development

Vygotsky and Krashen are different in terms of how they see development. Vygotsky sees the process of development as maturing of features. Krashen sees whether or not a feature is acquired or not. i is what is acquired, and i+1 is what is to be acquired next. Vygotsky on the other hand makes predictions about what is in the process of maturing or developing. Krashen's theory deals with stages that follow a yes-or-no approach to development; there is no place for the process of maturing. In addition, Krashen's development is clear-cut and predictable, while Vygotsky sees many intervening factors in the process, making prediction of a definite linguistic future impossible. 

Kashen's position is that learning and development are separate. Even when learning is seen as helpful to acquire knowledge of language use, he sees it as different from acquisition. Learned knowledge is different from acquired knowledge. If not through comprehensible input, it is not acquisition. Consequently, he was against syllabuses that used a natural acquisition order. Vygotsky sees learning and development as a unity.

Theoretical differences

Krashen sees the learner as an individual, separate from 'others'. The learner can learn in isolation from the society provided she receives comprehensible input and has a Language Acquisition Device (LAD). Language production is not improtant in his scheme, even when he acknowledges that interaction may help acquisition process. Therefore, there is no place for social interaction in Krashen's theory of SLA. This is because Krashen subscribes to the view of language as a scientific object of study, which ensues from Saussure's concepts where language is a natural phenomenon, separate from human interactions and activities. Hence for Krashen, there is no need to talk about human interactions in langauge acquisition. This is a pure or hard scientific view of language and language acquisition where learner's individuality does not have an influence on learning and acquisition.

Vygotsky's theory is founded on the view that the individual is based in the society which is based in a culture. This view rejects the view that individuals are independent entities, and that learning is an individual activity. For Vygotsky, mental activities are the result of socio-historically situated act of living, performed by individuals who are part of a society and culture situated in a time frame. All language interactions therefore have a concrete context. Making sense of langauge for children therefore, is to discover and use the same tools that made the message they try to make sense of. For second language learners, it is the same attempt to make meaning out of a new langauge. This is a form of establishing an identity, and regulate the self. This is an organic process situated in the society and culture in which learning and interacton takes place. This is radically different from the input hypothesis of Krashen. This is a softer or romantic-scientific view of language and language acquisition, where learner is a cultural agent situated in a specific context.

Input in Language Acquisition

Language learning is not as simple as filling some content into existing structures so that all on a sudden you begin speaking- like installing an operating system onto a new computer. You are not ready to go in 30 minutes. To see how complex a process is language acquisition, there are many frameworks we can adapt. Here, we will begin by looking at language input and its importance in acquisition of a language.

Language Input
Former conceptualizations of second language learning was based on behaviourist models where input in terms of exposure and imitation was the most important aspect in learning a language. Research based on input faded away as behaviourism was kept aside by theoreticians, and it became old fashioned. New interest was in the way of internal mechanisms of the learner. What the learner brings to learning situation began to be seen as very important. the focus is here on innateness and innate system within the learner. The view here is that the learner is the creator of language. Input is not important.

In 1967, Corder made an important distinction between input and intake. Input is what is available to the learner in terms of input, and intake is what is actually internalized, or acquired. Input is that language to which the learner is exposed. Any babble can be input. But that does no good to the learner. Intake is available for the learner to use at all times, and is part of the system of the learner.

Now, what is the nature of input to a language learner? Ferguson says that similar to the language mothers/elders use for their kids (motherese), there is something called 'foreigner talk'. Foreigner talk is simplified talk that Native Speaker (NS) use for the consumption of Non Native Speaker (NNS) or language deficient individuals. Ferguson set out to understand the similarity of motherese and foreigner talk.

There are various ways of making foreigner talk. It could be slow speech rate, loud speech, long pause, simple vocabulary, repetition, elaboration, restraining from use of slang, etc. Speech is adjusted by NS as a function of the learner proficiency. NSs make modifications in speech when they perceive that NNSs don't comprehend.

The techniques used are not only phonological and syntactical, but also like restatement, repetition, elaboration, giving more information, fuller use of noun or object or other classes or phrases, implicit grammatical information being made explicit, etc.

NSs assess and reassess NNS's linguistic ability during conversational interaction. So, during conversation, NS's speech pattern changes. This adjustment facilitates comprehension.

What are the functions of foreigner talk in terms of language learning? One, NNS's understanding is facilitated. Foreigner wants to be understood. Comprehensibility is the important criterion in a conversation. Foreigner talk is produced because comprehensible input is to be produced if comprehension has to occur (Like motherese creates comprehensible input for the baby, foreigner talk produces comprehensible input for the L2 learner). But not all foreigner talk is created equal. Parker and Chaudron says that discourse elaboration or modification of conversational structure aids comprehension better than simplification at linguistic level i.e., foreigner talk.

Input Hypothesis-Krashen
Krashen's Monitor model, where what you learn acts as your monitor to check your language use, and input hypothesis should be discussed in this context. Input hypothesis came as an explanation to Natural Order hypothesis. He argued that there is a natural order in which languages are learned. If there is an order, how does learner move from one point to another? The answer is Input hypothesis. Second languages are acquired by receiving comprehensible input.

For comprehensible input to work, the input should be one bit ahead of the current state of the learner's grammatical knowledge. If the learner's current state is 'i', comprehensible input should be 'i+1'. Input should not be very high or very low compared to the current state. It won't serve the purpose then. This condition has to be satisfied for acquisition to happen. Krashen assumed the availability of the Language Acquisition Device for first and second language acquisition. Comprehensible input activates this structure.

Input hypothesis applies to all acquisition, in class room also according to Krashen. He notes that speaking is the result of acquisition, not the cause of it. Speech emerges as a result of comprehensible input. What you acquire becomes part of your language, which is used in speech. If input is understood, necessary grammatical structures are automatically provided. A teacher need not deliberately teach grammar, the next step in the natural order. It happens automatically if comprehensible input is there. That is, no explicit language teaching is required. (This view led to the development of Communicative Language Teaching of CLT). The teacher's role is limited to ensuring the availability of comprehensible input.

The difficulties of this theory are the following. Krashen did not talk about level of the learner (i, i+1, etc.). He did not specify what is 'specific quantity' of appropriate input. He also did not consider how extra-linguistic information helps in actual acquisition or internalization of a language if understanding is defined at the level of meaning. We may understand what is spoken, but does that necessarily mean the grasp of grammatical rules that underlie the speech? How does exposure to language translate into internalization of language rules? These questions are not answered by Krashen's account.

Now, what is the relevance of Krashen's Monitor model and Input hypothesis to foreigner talk as language input in second language learning? Krashen's theory speaks about comprehensible input. The emphasis is on 'comprehension'. If input is not comprehensible, it is not relevant. That is why he speaks of i, i+1, etc. Likewise foreigner talk is a tactic by which comprehensible input is generated for the listener who is linguistically not at the level of the speaker. By keeping comprehensibility as the criterion, NS adjusts her speech in order to create comprehensibility. This is the relevance of input hypothesis in relation to foreigner talk.

Notes prepared from: Gass, Susan M. and Selinker, Larry. Second Language Acquisition. Routledge. London. 2008.