Monitor Model: Stephen Krashen’s Five Hypotheses for Second

Language Acquisition

Introduction: The work of Stephen Krashen has been both highly influential in the fields of
bilingual and ESL education and exceedingly controversial in public forums and psycho-
linguistic research. Although following the dialogue between advocates and dissenters of
Krashen‟s ideas would be quite didactic for us since it would expose us to many of the burning
issues in the field, this section simply outlines his most notable ideas of second language
acquisition. We must be careful in reading his five hypotheses because many of his positions
seem like facts, due in part, to his influence in shaping the thinking in SLA and ESL research.
Many of his ideas are intuitively satisfying; however, we should understand that what seems to
be true does not always withstand further experimental and empirical evidence.
Krashen‟s main claims are typically categorized and labeled in the following manner:
(1) Acquisition/Learning Hypothesis
(2) Monitor Hypothesis
(3) Natural Order Hypothesis
(4) Input Hypothesis
(5) Affective Filter Hypothesis
Since the names themselves do not unambiguously express his claims, I have written a brief
summary for each hypothesis, followed by longer, more detailed descriptions.

Krashen's Five Hypotheses: A Brief Summary

(1) Acquisition-versus-Learning Hypothesis: Acquiring a language is a qualitatively different
process from learning a language, the former is done subconsciously while the latter is a
conscious endeavor. Language learning is therefore different from language acquisition.
(2) Monitor Hypothesis: The aspects of language that are learned are not used for impromptu
speech, but are used to edit or “monitor” output (i.e., language production).
(3) Natural Order Hypothesis: Language is acquired in a particular order; therefore, a
learner‟s L1 or explicit L2 instruction has only a minor impact on the overall language
acquisition process.
(4) Input Hypothesis: Linguistic input for learners is beneficial when it is comprehensible
and slightly more advance than their current level of competency. (“i + 1” means “input + next
level”).
(5) Affective Filter Hypothesis: Language acquisition is hindered when the learner is
undergoing negative affect (embarrassment, low self-esteem, fear, depression). When negative
emotions interfere with cognitive function, the affective filter is metaphorically “filtering” out
important linguistic information.
Krashen's Five Hypotheses (A Detailed Discussion)
(1) Acquisition-versus-Learning Hypothesis
Early in the semester, we worked together to figure out the grammar rules to form yes/no
questions in English. The rules were, (a) front the first auxiliary verb of the main verb phrase; (b)
if no auxiliary verb exists, add “do”, front “do”, place tense on “do”, and make “do” agree with
the subject if in the simple present tense; and (c) if the main verb is a be-verb, front the be-verb.
Before completing this exercise, all of you already knew how to make yes/no questions in
English. Did any of you ever learn the grammar of „yes/no questions‟ through explicit,
metalinguistic instruction? No, probably not. Let’s look at another example:
(Ex. 1a) They stole the big green book.
(Ex. 1b) *They stole the green big book.
(Ex. 1c) *They stole big green five books.
If any of us remember a rule related to adjectives, it is probably that adjectives in English appear
before the noun they modify, not after. Although that is true, we unconsciously acquired another
adjectival rule: if a noun phrase has more than one adjective, the color-adjective must appear
closest to the noun it modifies while the number-adjective must appear furthest from it. Notice
how many very important (and highly productive) rules of English were not taught to us at all,
but rather acquired subconsciously. Krashen claims that the major processes in first and second
language acquisition share more similarities than differences. And such, older children,
teenagers, and adults need to acquire their second language as children do with their first
language. Given the appropriate environment (interlocutors who are patient, who modify their
input, who show genuine interest in the learner, and who show respect to the learner’s thoughts
and feelings), adult learners can internalize (subconsciously acquire) the grammar rules of a
second language and use these rules in spontaneous speech. If they do not go through
acquisition, they will LEARN language and some of its grammar rules. As a result, their
production, when based on LEARNING, will only have one function: to edit speech as it is being
produced, making our speech slow, stilted, choppy, and awkward. When we learn language, we
are simply developing the skill to edit or monitor spontaneous speech. Sometimes spontaneous
speech is poor and needs a lot of editing, other times it’s pretty comprehensible and only needs to
be tweaked.

(2) Monitor Hypothesis

The parts of language that is learned, and not acquired, contribute to what we linguists like to
call “the grammar police.” The grammar police don’t tend to deal with the complex rules, such
as yes/no question formation or adjective order, but rather focus on pet peeves of language
etiquette. For example, many American English speakers under the age of 30 tend to use the
pronoun/subordinator “that” for both animate AND inanimate objects because this is how they
acquired the rule.
(Ex. 2a) I have a car that’s been making a strange noise.
(Ex. 2b) I have a daughter that’s been very sick lately.
(Ex. 2c) I have a daughter who’s been very sick lately.
In Standard American English, (2a) is perfectly fine because “that” is a pronoun for “car” and
“car” is an inanimate object. Likewise, (2c) follows the rules of Standard English because “who”
is reserved for human or animate objects, such as when referring to “daughter”. The problem is
with (2b) which uses the pronoun “that” to refer to a human, “daughter”. Standard English finds
the use of “that” in (2b) to be ungrammatical and if a professor or teacher is vigilant, they will
circle it when they are grading an essay. Later, after having received many circles and direct
grammar instruction, a speaker who has grown up saying “that”, might self-correct by saying
something along the lines as, “I have cousin that’s in . . . who’s in the military.” This right
here is what Krashen is talking about with the monitor model. A speaker who has acquired “that”
for both animate and inanimate objects, will correct others (or self-correct) using the standard
language grammar rule that was LEARNED later in life, after a different rule had already been
ACQUIRED.
Personally, I self-correct my use of “Me and my wife . . .” to “My wife and I . . .” when I am
around important people. I acquired the “Me and (name) . . .” subject construction quite naturally
growing up, but throughout my years of schooling and after hundreds of reprimands from
teachers and older folks, I now sometimes self-correct if I want to sound “proper”. Most of the
time I don’t, and when people try to point it out to me, I just say, “I’m a linguist, do you want to
see my badge?” This is my way of saying, “Don’t grammar police me, we all write the laws of
language.” It sounds tough, doesn’t it?

(3) Natural Order Hypothesis

When you begin to break down grammar into its numerous categories and rules, it is a logical
line of inquiry to figure out what is learned first, either by first or second language learners. Once
a general pattern is identified, you’d then want to know why acquisition occurs in this particular
order. It turns out that not one single factor can explain all, or even most, of the cases; rather it is
a series of variables that tend to influence the order of acquisition.
It was believed during the early years of language acquisition research that frequently spoken
words would be acquired first. The rationale wasn’t that crazy either. After all, if a learner hears
“on” 300+ times a day, but “spoon” just twice, it’s only logical that “on” would be acquired first.
It turns out that frequency, though influential with content words, doesn’t have a strong effect on
function words, such as, articles (“the” and “a/an”) or prepositions (“on”, “from”, “above”).
Articles are the most frequently used words in the English language, yet, they contain some of
the most difficult rules to master. (For a review of article grammar rules, consult:
http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/540/01/) So, is the difficulty or complexity what
prevents learners from acquiring a grammar rule during the early stages of language acquisition?
No. Subject-verb agreement (adding “–s” to third- person-singular verbs in the present tense) is a
straight-forward grammar rule that is quite easy to explain.

Third-Person-Singular Subject-Verb Agreement [morpheme “-s”]

1st Person Singular: I [walk | sing | invest | eat | write | call] every day
2nd Person Singular: You [walk | sing | invest | eat | write | call] every day
3rd Person Singular: He/She [walks | sings | invests | eats | writes | calls] every day
1st Person Plural: We [walk | sing | invest | eat | write | call] every day
2nd Person Plural: You [walk | sing | invest | eat | write | call] every day
3rd Person Plural: They [walk | sing | invest | eat | write | call] every day

Yet, despite its small morpheme, “-s”, and the unambiguous and simple grammar rule, the third
person singular “-s” is not acquired until the learner is at an advance stage of acquisition.
Therefore, certain grammar rules in English that deal with the use of morphemes and word order
are acquired in a particular order that usually does not correspond to relative ease of the rule or
frequency of its use. Krashen interprets this observation as evidence that explicit grammar
instruction is a hopeless cause given that language learners tend to follow predictable stages or
order when acquiring a second language.

(4) Input Hypothesis

Over the years, many researchers and lay persons of second language acquisition have
propagated strong misconceptions about the role of input in cognitive processing. Perhaps you
have heard people say, “You can’t learn French in the classroom. You need to just go to France
and be surrounded by the language. You need to hear it all of the time and then you’ll start
picking it up.” Although living abroad generally has a positive influence on language learning,
results are not based on just hearing random, de-contextualized conversations in the target
language. Rather, the positive results emerge from the relationships that you develop and the
quality of modified input that your interlocutors offer you. Overhearing conversations, or
watching TV sit-coms, or even listening to the radio is going to sound like one long stream of
noise; it would be about as meaningful as the rumble of a train in the distance.
Krashen’s input hypothesis states that language acquisition is best facilitated by comprehensible
input. In order for input to become comprehensible, the learner must understand the topic and
context of the conversation; otherwise, the words will not be associated to any meaning. Krashen
uses the simple equation of “i + 1” to communicate the acquisition process: [“i” meaning “input”
and “contextual knowledge”] + [“1” meaning “new linguistic knowledge” or “the next level”].
It is certainly not difficult to conceptualize the main idea behind this equation and perhaps it is
an inherent characteristic of the learning process in general, but the big question is: What does
the “1” stand for? What amount of new information is the right amount? Research that has
investigated this kind of inquiry puts the “1” at a relative small amount of linguistic information.
Let’s imagine that you are teaching children how to read and a passage that they are reading has
exactly 100 words. How many new words could you introduce and expect a child to understand
through the context of the story? Any guesses? About 3-5 new words. Yes. Only 3-5 new words
that the learner does not already know would be the correct amount. This means that a reader (a
child or an adult learning their second language), would need to know 95-97% of the words in a
paragraph in order to be able to guess the new words from the linguistic context. When language
learners are asked to read and comprehend 10-12 new words in a 100-word paragraph, they
typically won’t understand the main idea or other important details of the text.
Why is this? Well, in order to guess the meaning of a word that is unknown, you really need to
know what all of the other words in the sentence mean. You also need to gather a lot of
information before you’re able to accurately predict their possible meanings. For this reason, if
two content words in the same sentence are unknown to a young reader, they will have a very
difficult time understanding the meaning of the sentence. You can apply the same logic to
acquiring grammatical morphemes or other rules of syntax. Too many new rules and words do
not only contribute to cognitive overload, but they become quite difficult to decipher using the
clues that are found in the text. For this reason, Krashen strongly emphasizes comprehensible
input and claims that input that is too advanced will hardly have any positive effects on the
acquisition process.

(5) Affective Filter Hypothesis

Finally, the emotional and psychological state of the learner has been observed to negatively
affect the acquisition process. Stress, fear, embarrassment, anger, or any other kind of negative
affect tends to distract learners and prevent them from concentrating on the meaning of the
message in the target language. “Old school” grammar classrooms often times put students “on
the spot” by making them give a right-or-wrong answer in front of peers and scolding children
for not memorizing vocabulary words or grammar rules. Students typically look down so they
won’t be called on by the teacher; they avoid any kid of interaction and become extremely
nervous just at the thought of giving an answer publicly. Creating such a tense and face-
threatening environment usually raises the students‟ affective filters, and as a result, language is
at best “learned” and at worst “hated”, but rarely is it “acquired”. For this reason, contemporary
methods to language teaching do not focus on explicit grammar correction, but instead place
learners in meaningful, reciprocal interactions that encourage communication and collaborative
projects.

Seminal books by Stephen Krashen

Krashen, S.D. (1981). Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Oxford:
Pergamon.
Krashen, S.D. (1982). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford:
Pergamon.