Politeness and Pragmatics in the Cross-Cultural Communication Essay

substructureIn this paper, we allow examine the Natural collection speculation which was eldest introduced by Stephen Krashen in the late 1970s and 1980s. Krashen proposed the bit Language skill surmisal with five hypotheses. The Natural sight speculation is a dissever of this jiffy manner of speaking theory. This conjecture teleph wizard calls that students of abet speech communication go the well- act uponed structures in a inevitable way. It includes that some grammatic structures cond natur exclusivelyy before than the separate(a)s and this synchronization does non affected by the learners native language, age or either develop of exposure. Using a deterrent example study burn down we depart observe whether this claim is valid in Bangladeshi circumstance or non. To examine that how the Natural Order supposal plant in Bangladeshi context, we puddle chosen some Bangladeshi people from divers(prenominal) ages.Some the students of first semester a nd mho semester of University of Liberal Arts Bangladesh. We need asked them to serve some certain suspicions which have added in the last section. This paper is dual-lane into several chapters. The first section of the paper introduces with the five hypotheses of Stephen Krashens Theory of Second Language Acquisition. The hypotheses be demonstrated maven by one beca practice session all the hypotheses argon interrelated. This part is concluded with some main razes of admonition to the highest degree the Natural Order supposition. The next section of the paper analyses our examinations close to the supposition. It includes the Findings and Results of the study. The last section of the paper explains recommendations and conclusion where we have minded(p) our opinion.Krashens Theory of Second Language AcquisitionStephen Krashens Theory of Second Language Acquisition is well accepted widely in all aras of second language research and teaching since the 1980s. This theor y consists of five hypotheses. These are the Acquisition-Learning dead reckoning, the monitoring device Hypothesis, the Natural Order Hypothesis, the stimulation Hypothesis and the affective permeate Hypothesis. The explanations of these hypotheses are given below.The Acquisition-Learning HypothesisThe Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis states that thither are cardinal ways to split up second language im tastement for bragging(a) learners. nonpareil is acquisition carcass and a nonher one is in condition(p) constitution. harmonize to Krashen, the acquisition system is a subconscious process. In this system, it is claimed that the development of the L2 proficiency goes by congenitally. More ilk the way children farm their first language. The learners pick up language without knowing to the highest degree that acquisition is taking place.The main point is that learners develop proficiency through development language in meaningful communions where the focus is on meani ng not in the regulates of language. On the opposite hand, learned system is referred to knowing almost language. According to Krashen, the learned system is a conscious and explicit process. Through this system learners learn about the language as a conscious study of doal instructions. That federal agency the devil systems are totally opposite.Krashen states that acquisition is more important to develop second language proficiency. Learning tinnot lead to acquisition. He adds that conscious territory of learned system all when performs as one function proctor or editor. So the error correction occurs in learned system which affects in learning language. But error kittynot affect in case of acquiring language because in development of L2 proficiency, begetd system totally gives learner a feel of error subconsciously.To demonstrate the Acquisition- Learning hypothesis, Krashen in any case denies about Noam Chomskys Language Acquisition Device (Device). Chomsky claims t hat humans are natural with the instinct or innate facility for acquiring language. thither is a black box in e sincerely persons thought and it acquires any language before puberty. Krashen disagrees and says that acquisition of second language terminate besides cash in ones chips after puberty. He further explains that comrade also works for self-aggrandizing barely that does not mean that adult forget forever and a day acquire second language as native speaker. He claims that LAD function also works for adult second language acquisition.The distinction between acquisition system and learned system sess be seen in the table given below.The oversee HypothesisStephen Krashen explains in the monitor lizard Hypothesis that how acquisition and learning are used in second language executing. This hypothesis holds the theory that utterance in L2 is initiated by the acquired system at first and after that the learned system works if there is any need of changes. Krashen inc ludes that utterance of L2 happens generally through acquired lingual competence. The role of learned system is work as a Monitor or editor. To use Monitor successfully, Krashen gives tercesome conditions. These are time, focus of form and know the rule. 1. Time The first condition explains that the acquirer essential have enough time to apply the Monitor. The problem regarding this condition is, during normal conversation one fuckingnot look after the time.If mortal tries to use the Monitor he/she will fail to utter in right time or if someone tries to maintain the time he/she will fail to use the Monitor. The important part is that this condition can be utilise only in case of advanced acquirers who use Monitor occasionally. 2. Focus on Form The second condition instructs that the acquirers must focus on form of the language. The acquirers must think about the correctness of the form. But the problem is utilise Monitor with focusing on form is really tough. To maintain thi s condition one can lose the track whether he/she will Monitor what he/she is saying or he/she will Monitor how is he/she saying it.3. Know the rule The third condition is the acquirer must know the rule of language. It is very difficult condition to maintain because everyone does not know about all the rules. Even the best students may not know all the rules of the language which they are exposed to.So, these are the terce conditions which drive to use Monitor successfully. But after on Krashen has mentioned only about the focus on form and know therule. He did not mention about the first condition time.Learnt familiarity(Monitoring)Acquired knowledge OutputFigure Model of adult second language performanceOn the other hand, Krashen has explained about three individual differences regarding use of the Monitor though the difficulties of three conditions remain dissolved. According to him, there are three causas of Monitor users. Monitor over-users, Monitor chthonic- users and the Optimal Monitor users.1. Monitor over-users This type of people use the Monitor all the time. They always check their output with the conscious knowledge of the language. Krashen claims two causes for this type of Monitor users. Firstly, they acquire language with the restriction of grammar instruction. Secondly, they may have acquired a good amount of second language but can not trust their acquired competence. That is why they always try check and cover their mistakes by using Monitor. So, they speak hesitantly and try to correct their utterances at the middle of a conversation.2. Monitor under users These types of people whether acquire language not learning or they do not prefer to use their conscious knowledge. Actually they do not use the conscious knowledge even when the three conditions are met. The self-correction happen only from a feel of correctness.3. The Optimal Monitor users The optimal users are the people who apply the Monitor when it is necessary and appropriate. They know how to combine their learned competence with their acquired competence. They never use the grammar rules in their regular conversation because it can interfere in their utterances. This type of users most of the time achieve like thenative speaker in writing and planned speech.The Natural Order HypothesisAccording to Krashen the Natural Order Hypothesis deals with the grammar structures. The hypothesis explains that well-formed structures are acquired in predictable golf club. This order does not follow any rules that the easier grammar rule will be at first and then the daedal one. It claims that there are some certain grammatical structures which acquired early by the learners of second language acquisition and then the others and it is for any given language. Krashen explains that the claim does not prove as 100% always, but there are some significant similarities. Krashen genuinely keep abreasted this hypothesis from the study of Dulay and Burts study of what the y called the order of acquisition of grammatical morphemes in English by five to eight year old children learning English as a second language (1974). They established a chart of morphemes for their study.So, Krashen adopt the bringing close together of English morphemes and established his Natural Order Hypothesis. Krashen believed that there was no difference regarding the synchronization of the grammar structures. But later on Krashen develops his own idea about the order. He examines the study with both children and adults second language and illustrates the natural order of grammar structure according to his point of view. elude Average order of second language acquisition in English.In further description about the Natural Order Hypothesis Krashen explains three facts. * Krashen claims that natural order cannot be changed. Teacher cannot change the order through drills or exercises. If a teacher tries to drill a certain rule for several weeks the result will be zero. Because the acquirer will only acquire language when it is ready to acquire the certain rule. This fact is very much related to the Affective Filter Hypothesis.* The natural order of grammar structures do not depend on any obvious feature. It can go through complex to easier or easier to complex. Some rules acquired later which are sooner simple. On the other hand some rues acquired earlier which seem to be difficult in structures. It shows that curriculum designers might face problem that which one they should put earlier and which one in later.* The third fact is that the natural order is not the teaching order. So, if someone predicts that through learning the grammar structures he or she will acquire language proficiency, he/she might wrong. Because Krashen applied the Natural Order Hypothesis to extend the idea of the Input Hypothesis. The Natural Order Hypothesis actually helps to know how the perceivable remark can be acquired one by one. So the learners will acquire the language i n a natural order as a result of getting this comprehensible scuttlebutt.Criticism of Natural Order HypothesisKrashens Natural Order Hypothesis faces many dilettanteisms about the predictable natural order in second language learners acquisition of grammatical structure. His using of English morphemes as a model also causes criticisms. There are some important criticisms which really force linguists to rethink about Krashens Natural Order Hypothesis. These are, * Krashen claims that all L2 learners adopt the homogeneous constitution of acquiring language to attain proficiency. However there is some individuality between learners. Every learner does not go through the same order of morphemes tolearn grammar rules. Some adopts the-ing form at first and later on go through the other rules step by step. On the other hand some adopts the pronoun case (he/she, his/her etc.) at first. So, Krashens hypothesis does not concern about individuality.* Another criticism explains that all la nguages do not have the same morphemes. Some languages do not have the function of Copula or definite/indefinite article. So as a result the learners from this type of languages face problem acquiring the morphemes though these are the simplest one. The learners pick up the morpheme according to their first language acquisition. Here, Krashen actually totally overlooked the possibility of the influence of L1 on L2. On the other hand he also ignored the role of negative and constructive transferences.* Krashen claims that his model of natural order works for both adult and children. Critics raise questions about this generalization. That how did Krashen judge it as the both applied natural order for adult and children. Did the judgment was from instrument and task specific? A critic named Larsen-Freeman applied Krashens natural order model for both the adult second language learners and children second language learners and she found that the model really works but when she put it in some different tasks using different instruments, she could not found any similarity between adult learners score and children learners score. So, Krashens claim proved itself as unreliable because it does not work for every situation.So these are the criticisms regarding Krashens Natural Order Hypothesis. To evaluate our case study we have taken the help of these criticisms and we also found some problems in Bangladeshi context. The evaluation has given in the Analysis part.The Input HypothesisThe Input Hypothesis gives the answer of the question that how we acquire language. Regarding this hypothesis Krashen states that, the learners acquire language by witnessing excitant which is slightly beyond theircompetence. He also adds that when the learners understand the nitty-grittys of a language, they acquire language. The main theory of this hypothesis is i+1. Here i is learners present competence and i+1 is the input of the language which can be understood by the learners. Kr ashen calls this i+1 as the comprehensible input. He not only states that but also strongly claims that comprehending message can help to acquire language and there is no other fundamental process of language acquisition. Another point he claims that listening and reading comprehension are the primary important function of second language acquisition.There is one important point which should be noted that the Input Hypothesis and the Natural Order Hypothesis are interrelated. These two are combined to answer the question of how we move from one face to another of acquisition. That inwardness, Natural Order Hypothesis works for analyzing the Input Hypothesis that how learners move from i to i+1. The Natural Order Hypothesis helps to decide that which one should be the comprehensible input or i+1 in the classroom.There are two corollaries in the Input Hypothesis. These are, 1. The first corollary is that speaking is not the cause of language fluency but the result of language accu racy. It cannot be taught directly. It is acquired through comprehensible input.2. The second corollary is, if there is enough amount of comprehensible input the learner will automatically acquire competence from the teacher. There is no need to use grammar structure. That nitty-gritty there is no need to be finely tuned input which means the exact next grammar structure as i+1. It can also be roughly tuned input, like the nearer structures from the i.So, from this hypothesis we can understand that there is no need to use zero in acquiring language. The main important part is just to understand the messages. When we understand the messages of second language, the LAD starts to work. This is how we acquire language.The Affective Filter HypothesisThe Affective Filter Hypothesis describes us that how people face obstacles to acquire second language. It tells us about a get through named emotive filter which works as an obstacle in the way of acquiring language. The affective filter does not work directly as a hindrance but creates a mental overgorge in brain which prevents to acquire language. Krashen explains that if the affective filter is down then the comprehensible input reaches to the LAD and acquires competence but if the affective filter is up then the input does not reach to the LAD and acquisition does not happen.Krashen includes that there are some affective variables which control this affective filter. The affective variables include motivation, self-reliance and anxiety. This variables help to acquire second language very easily. But if someone has low motivation, low self-esteem and debilitating anxiety the student will face difficulties to acquire language. Because these low motivation, low self- esteem and anxiety will raise his affective filter and form a mental block which will become an obstacle to understand the input and acquire language.So, the Affective Filter Hypothesis helps to determine that why a specific learner faces problem i n dealing the comprehensible input though he/she has reached a native- like competence. The main point is one should have motivation, assumption and low anxiety if he/she wants to acquire second language. Many critics raised question against Krashens Theory of Second Language Acquisition. Some of them are reliable and the rest of them are from anti- Krashenites. From our opinion, though Krashen has applied many statements to prove his theory but the Natural Order Hypothesis really lacks in reliable informations. The hypothesis could not set with our Bangladeshi context. The discussion has given in the next section.