Monitor Theory Article Index for
Monitor
Website Links For
Monitor
 

Information About

Monitor Theory




  • the acquisition-learning hypothesis;

  • the monitor hypothesis;

  • the natural order hypothesis;

  • the input hypothesis;

  • the affective filter hypothesis.


The acquisition-learning distinction is the most fundamental of these and the most widely known among linguists.


ACQUISITION-LEARNING HYPOTHESIS


According to Krashen these are two independent systems of L2 performance; acquisition is a product of subconscious processing similar to children’s L1 acquisition and requires life-like L2 interaction, which focuses on communication rather than correctness, while learning occurs through formal instruction and comprises conscious processing, which results in knowledge about the L2, e.g. grammatical rules. Krashen believes ‘learned competence’ acts as a monitor or editor: that is, whereas ‘acquired competence’ is responsible for the fluent production of sentences, ‘learned competence’ consciously corrects them. He claims that learned knowledge enables learners to read and listen more, so acquisition is effective.


MONITOR HYPOTHESIS


The monitor hypothesis asserts that a learner's learned system acts as a monitor to what they are producing. In other words, while only the acquired system is able to produce spontaneous speech (according to this theory), the learned system is used to check what is being spoken. The interlocutor therefore monitors their spontaneous speech using their learned system. The Monitor Model then predicts faster initial progress by adults than children, as adults use this ‘monitor’ when producing L2 utterances before having acquired the ability for natural performance, and adults will input more into conversations earlier than children. However, in the long term, SLA started in childhood will be superior in ultimate attainment as children will already have control of some L2 acquired before pubertal changes began inhibiting learning.


THE NATURAL ORDER HYPOTHESIS


Krashen based this hypothesis on observation that, like first language learners, second language learners seem to acquire the features of the target language in predictable sequences. Contrary to intuition, the rules which easiest to state (and thus to 'learn') are not necessarily the first to be acquired.
For example, the rule for adding an -s to third person singular verbs in the present tense is easy to state, but even some advanced second language speaker fail to apply it in rapid conversation. Further, Krashen observed that the natural order is independent of the order in which rules have been learned in language classes. Most of Krashen's original evidence for this hypothesis came from the 'morpheme studies', in which learners' speech was examined for the accuracy of certain grammatical morphemes. While there have been many criticism of the morpheme studies, subsequent research has confirmed that learners pass through sequences or stages in development.


INPUT HYPOTHESIS


The input hypothesis states that only comprehensible input will result in acquisition of the Target Language . Krashen says that learners must be exposed to input that is just beyond their current level in order to make progress. This concept is called i+1. If the level of input is at i+1 the learner will make progress. If it is too high, for instance i+7, the learner will be unable to acquire it.


AFFECTIVE FILTER HYPOTHESIS


The affective filter hypothesis asserts that a learner's emotional states act as adjustable filters that freely permit or hinder input necessary to acquisition. He suggests that adolescence and puberty are not good periods for SLA, as this ‘affective filter’ arises out of self-conscious reluctance to reveal oneself and feelings of vulnerability.


CRITICISM


The model has been criticised by many linguists and isn't considered a valid hypothesis for some. Its continuing value in the field is mostly for its historical significance, and the research it has inspired, although several professionals praise its merits.

The theory underlies Krashen and Terrell 's Comprehension-based Language Learning Methodology known as the Natural Approach ( 1983 ).


FURTHER READING


  • Gregg, K.R. (1984). 'Krashen's Monitor and Occam's Razar.' ''Applied Linguistics'' 5(2): 79-100.

  • Krashen, S.D. (1982). ''Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition''. Oxford: Pergamon.

  • Krashen, S. (1985). ''The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications''. New York: Longman.

  • Krashen, S.D. (1996). 'The case for narrow listening.' ''System'' 24(1): 97-100.

  • Krashen, S.D. (2003). ''Explorations in Language Acquisition and Use''. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

  • Krashen, S.D. and Terrell, T.D. (1983). ''The Natural Approach''. New York: Pergamon.

  • VanPatten, B. and Williams, J. (eds) (2007). ''Theories in Second Language Acquisition: an Introduction''. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

  • White, L. (1987). 'Against comprehensible input: the input hypothesis and the development of second language competence.' ''Applied Linguistics'' 8(2): 95-110.

  • Lightbown P. and N. Spada, How languages are learned, Oxford University Press, p. 38-40.



EXTERNAL LINKS