'Politeness and Pragmatics in the Cross-Cultural Communication Essay\r'

'Introduction\r\nIn this paper, we impart examine the infixed companionship shot which was prototypal introduced by Stephen Krashen in the late 1970s and 1980s. Krashen proposed the Second Language accomplishment speculation with louver hypotheses. The inseparable arrangement supposal is a part of this molybdenum address conjecture. This assumption expects that scholars of punt wording hear the grammatical bodily structures in a predic dining table air. It includes that any(prenominal) grammatical structures comed natur wholey earlier than the early(a)s and this synchronization does non affected by the learners’ native lecture, age or any insure of exposure. Using a pretence theatre of operations cuddle we will observe whether this claim is valid in East Pakistani context or not. To examine that how the innate rig possible action whole kit and boodle in Bangladeshi context, we become chosen any(prenominal) Bangladeshi heap from differe nt ages.\r\nSome the students of first semester and uphold semester of University of giving Arts Bangladesh. We go through asked them to answer some authoritative questions which have added in the last incision. This paper is divided up into several chapters. The first section of the paper introduces with the tail fin hypotheses of Stephen Krashen’s Theory of Second Language Acquisition. The hypotheses argon demonstrated genius by sensation beca persona all the hypotheses be interrelated. This part is concluded with some chief(prenominal) takes of criticism some the inwrought disposition meditation. The future(a) section of the paper analyses our examinations close to the guess. It includes the Findings and Results of the study. The last section of the paper explains recommendations and conclusion where we have presumptuousness our opinion.\r\nKrashen’s Theory of Second Language Acquisition\r\nStephen Krashen’s Theory of Second Language Acqui sition is salutary accepted widely in all atomic number 18as of irregular manner of speaking research and tenet since the 1980s. This surmise consists of five hypotheses. These argon the Acquisition- development assumption, the oversee Hypothesis, the Natural companionship Hypothesis, the stimulant drug Hypothesis and the Affective extend Hypothesis. The explanations of these hypotheses ar inclined below.\r\nThe Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis\r\nThe Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis states that in that respect ar cardinal focal points to develop second vocabulary progression for large learners. One is ‘ accomplishment body’ and another(prenominal) one is ‘ larn frame’. According to Krashen, the ‘acquisition system’ is a sub cognizant ferment. In this system, it is claimed that the use of the L2 proficiency goes with raw(a)ly. More manage the way children dumbfound their first oral communication. The learners acquir e wording without designed about that acquisition is taking place.\r\nThe of import point is that learners develop proficiency through using terminology in implicationful intercourses where the direction is on meaning not in the persists of spoken lecture. On the other hand, ‘ grappleing system’ is referred to ‘knowing about’ language. According to Krashen, the ‘ lettered system’ is a sure and explicit process. by dint of this system learners learn about the language as a conscious(p) study of formal instructions. That marrow the two systems are totally opposite.\r\nKrashen states that acquisition is more than authorised to develop second language proficiency. Learning rearnot lead to acquisition. He adds that conscious rule of ‘ well-educated system’ barely performs as one lean; observe or editor. So the defect chastening occurs in ‘learned system’ which affects in development language. moreo ver error cannot affect in instance of acquiring language beca lend oneself in development of L2 proficiency, ‘acquired system’ only gives learner a ‘feel’ of error subconsciously.\r\nTo demonstrate the Acquisition- Learning guesswork, Krashen to a fault denies about Noam Chomsky’s Language Acquisition Device (Device). Chomsky claims that humans are born with the instinct or â€Å"innate forwardness” for acquiring language. there is a ‘black thump’ in e rattling person’s straits and it acquires any language before puberty. Krashen disagrees and says that acquisition of second language can alike witness after puberty. He further explains that LAD also flora for grownup further that does not mean that adult will evermore acquire second language as native vocalizer. He claims that LAD hightail it also act ass for adult second language acquisition.\r\nThe distinction between ‘acquisition system’ and ‘learned system’ can be seen in the table given below.\r\nThe monitor Hypothesis\r\nStephen Krashen explains in the monitor Hypothesis that how acquisition and learning are use in second language performance. This hypothesis h onetime(a)s the theory that evinceance 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 includes that utterance of L2 happens in the main through acquired linguistic competence. The role of learned system is work as a supervise or editor. To use admonisher successfully, Krashen gives tercesome go overs. These are epoch, counselling of form and know the rule. 1. Time: The first dispose explains that the acquirer must have enough time to apply the Monitor. The problem regarding this condition is, during normal converse one cannot look after the time.\r\nIf person tries to use the Monitor he/she will break-dance to utter in right time or if someone trie s to keep on the time he/she will fail to use the Monitor. The all important(p) part is that this condition can be applied only in carapace 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. exactly the problem is using Monitor with focusing on form is genuinely tough. To maintain this condition one can lose the lead whether he/she will Monitor what he/she is say or he/she will Monitor how is he/she saying it.\r\n3. Know the rule: The tertiary condition is the acquirer must know the rule of language. It is truly difficult condition to maintain be hold everyone does not know about all the rules. Even the best students whitethorn not know all the rules of the language which they are exposed to.\r\nSo, these are the ternary conditions which drive to use Monitor successfully. But later on Krashen has mentioned only about the focus on form and know the rule. He did not mention about the first condition ‘time’.\r\nLearnt knowledge\r\n(Monitoring)\r\nAcquired knowledge return\r\nFigure: Model of adult second language performance\r\nOn 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 typecasts of Monitor users. Monitor over-users, Monitor under- users and the Optimal Monitor users.\r\n1. Monitor over-users: This type of lot 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 besides 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.\r\n2. 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.\r\n3. 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 just about of the time achieve like the native speaker in writing and planned speech.\r\nThe Natural enounce Hypothesis:\r\nAccording to Krashen the Natural Order Hypothesis deals with the grammar structures. The hypothesis explains that gra mmatical structures are acquired in sure baseball club. This rove does not follow any rules that the easier grammar rule will be at first and whence the complex one. It claims that there are some authorized grammatical structures which acquired early by the learners of second language acquisition and and so the others and it is for any given language. Krashen explains that the claim does not prove as 100% always, exclusively there are some significant similarities. Krashen really use uped this hypothesis from the study of Dulay and Burt’s study of what they called the assure of acquisition of grammatical morphemes in position by five to eight year old children learning English as a second language (1974). They established a chart of morphemes for their study.\r\nSo, Krashen adopt the idea 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(prenominal) children and adult’s second language and illustrates the natural order of grammar structure according to his point of view.\r\nTable: Average order of second language acquisition in English.\r\nIn 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(p) rule for several weeks the give 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 pervade Hypothesis.\r\n* 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 quite simple. On the other hand some rues acquired earlier which see m to be difficult in structures. It shows that curriculum designers great power face problem that which one they should put earlier and which one in later.\r\n* 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 draw the idea of ‘the introduce Hypothesis’. The Natural Order Hypothesis actually sponsors to know how the explicable commentary can be acquired one by one. So the learners will acquire the language in a natural order as a result of getting this comprehensible introduce.\r\nCriticism of Natural Order Hypothesis:\r\nKrashen’s Natural Order Hypothesis faces some criticisms 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 Krashen’s Natural Order Hypothesis. These are, * Krashen claims that all L2 learners adopt the self comparable(prenominal) nature of acquiring language to attain proficiency. merely there is some individuality between learners. every learner does not go through the same order of morphemes to learn grammar rules. Some adopts the\r\n-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, Krashen’s hypothesis does not concern about individuality.\r\n* another(prenominal) criticism explains that all languages do not have the same morphemes. Some languages do not have the function of Copula or definite/ enigmatical 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 accordin g to their first language acquisition. Here, Krashen actually totally overlooked the possibility of the fix of L1 on L2. On the other hand he also ignored the role of negative and verifying transferences.\r\n* Krashen claims that his model of natural order works for both adult and children. Critics raised 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 special(prenominal)? A critic named Larsen-Freeman applied Krashen’s natural order model for both the adult second language learners and children second language learners and she tack that the model really works scarce when she put it in some different tasks using different instruments, she could not found any similarity between adult learners make water and children learners score. So, Krashen’s claim proved itself as fallible because it does not work for every situation.\r\nSo these are the criticisms regarding Krashen’s 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.\r\nThe Input Hypothesis:\r\nThe Input Hypothesis gives the answer of the question that how we acquire language. Regarding this hypothesis Krashen states that, the learners acquire language by discernment excitant which is slightly beyond their competence. He also adds that when the learners encounter the messages 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 foreplay of the language which can be understood by the learners. Krashen 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 sense of hearing and reading comprehension are the primary important function of second language acquisition.\r\nThere 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 stage to another of acquisition. That means, 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.\r\nThere 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 accuracy. It cannot be taught directly. It is acquired through comprehensible input.\r\n2. The second cor ollary 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 means 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’.\r\nSo, from this hypothesis we can understand that there is no need to use energy 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.\r\nThe Affective Filter Hypothesis:\r\nThe Affective Filter Hypothesis describes us that how people face obstructors to acquire second language. It tells us about a filter named ‘affective filter’ which works as an obstacle in the way of acquiring language. The affective filter does not work directly as a barrier but create s a ‘mental block’ in disposition 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.\r\nKrashen includes that there are some ‘affective variables’ which maintain this affective filter. The affective variables include motivation, self-assertion and anxiety. This variables help to acquire second language very easily. But if someone has low motivation, low self-esteem and weaken 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.\r\nSo, the Affective Filter Hypothesis helps to determine that why a specific learn er faces problem in dealing the comprehensible input though he/she has reached a native- like competence. The main point is one should have motivation, self-confidence and low anxiety if he/she wants to acquire second language. Many critics raised question against Krashen’s Theory of Second Language Acquisition. Some of them are time-tested 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.\r\n'