The Input Hypothesis: Krashen views the whole process of language learning through five integral hypotheses, which we can find very interesting if we did not account for the big leaks that each of those hypotheses has while reading them. It makes a lot of sense to differentiate between learning and acquisition, as Krashen does, claiming that acquisition happens subconsciously and we produce language by the knowledge we gain; whereas learning is a conscious process entailing realizing “rules” and being able to talk about them. This differentiation reminds us of the two major types of cognitive knowledge: Procedural Knowledge and Declarative Knowledge, to which Krashen never connects his hypothesis, claiming that acquisition is guided by Universal Grammar through the Language Acquisition Device and that learning can never be turned into acquisition in a formal setting. He also thinks that the learned knowledge acts as a filter or a monitor on the acquired knowledge which is responsible for production, but he does not account for this monitor in comprehension in both L1 and L2 settings. Supporting these claims, Krashen studied the order of morpheme acquisition to assume that language is acquired in a predictable order controlled by the Universal Grammar, but he ended up noticing differences and variations in the order. The last two hypotheses of Krashen, which mainly account for second language learning, are the Input and the Affective Filter Hypotheses. People acquire second languages only if they obtain comprehensible input (i + 1) and if their affective filters are low enough to allow the input ‘in’. Though (i) is not definable for each learner and the nature of the filter’s function is unknown, this claim still makes a whole lot of sense to me because neither the behaviorists’ (habit formation) nor the mentalists’ (the LAD and UG) are convincing. Since