Scribd
Upload
22 views

Monitor Model Theory

Uploaded by

whorahat
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
22 views

Monitor Model Theory

Uploaded by

whorahat
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Monitor Model Theory

Stephen Krashen is an educator and linguist who proposed the Monitor Model as his theory of
second language acquisition in his influential text Principles and practice in second language
acquisition in 1982. The Monitor Model posits five hypotheses about second language
acquisition and learning:

1. Acquisition-learning hypothesis
The Acquisition-Learning distinction is the most fundamental of all the hypotheses in
Krashen's theory and the most widely known among linguists and language practitioners.
According to Krashen there are two independent systems of second language performance:
'the acquired system' and 'the learned system'. The 'acquired system' or 'acquisition' is the
product of a subconscious process very similar to the process children undergo when they
acquire their first language. It requires meaningful interaction in the target language - natural
communication - in which speakers are concentrated not in the form of their utterances, but
in the communicative act.

The "learned system" or "learning" is the product of formal instruction and it comprises a
conscious process which results in conscious knowledge 'about' the language, for example
knowledge of grammar rules. According to Krashen 'learning' is less important than
'acquisition'.

2. Monitor hypothesis
The Monitor hypothesis explains the relationship between acquisition and learning and
defines the influence of the latter on the former. The monitoring function is the practical
result of the learned grammar. According to Krashen, the acquisition system is the utterance
initiator, while the learning system performs the role of the 'monitor' or the 'editor'. The
'monitor' acts in a planning, editing and correcting function when three specific conditions
are met: that is, the second language learner has sufficient time at his/her disposal, he/she
focuses on form or thinks about correctness, and he/she knows the rule.

It appears that the role of conscious learning is somewhat limited in second language
performance. According to Krashen, the role of the monitor is - or should be - minor, being
used only to correct deviations from "normal" speech and to give speech a more 'polished'
appearance.

Krashen also suggests that there is individual variation among language learners with regard
to 'monitor' use. He distinguishes those learners that use the 'monitor' all the time (over-
users); those learners who have not learned or who prefer not to use their conscious
knowledge (under-users); and those learners that use the 'monitor' appropriately (optimal
users). An evaluation of the person's psychological profile can help to determine to what
group they belong. Usually extroverts are under-users, while introverts and perfectionists are
over-users. Lack of self-confidence is frequently related to the over-use of the "monitor".

3. Natural order hypothesis


The Natural Order hypothesis is based on research findings (Dulay & Burt, 1974; Fathman,
1975; Makino, 1980 cited in Krashen, 1987) which suggested that the acquisition of
grammatical structures follows a 'natural order' which is predictable. For a given language,
some grammatical structures tend to be acquired early while others late. This order seemed
to be independent of the learners' age, L1 background, conditions of exposure, and although
the agreement between individual acquirers was not always 100% in the studies, there were
statistically significant similarities that reinforced the existence of a Natural Order of
language acquisition. Krashen however points out that the implication of the natural order
hypothesis is not that a language program syllabus should be based on the order found in the
studies. In fact, he rejects grammatical sequencing when the goal is language acquisition.

4. Input hypothesis
The Input hypothesis is Krashen's attempt to explain how the learner acquires a second
language – how second language acquisition takes place. The Input hypothesis is only
concerned with 'acquisition', not 'learning'. According to this hypothesis, the learner
improves and progresses along the 'natural order' when he/she receives second language
'input' that is one step beyond his/her current stage of linguistic competence. For example, if
a learner is at a stage 'i', then acquisition takes place when he/she is exposed to
'Comprehensible Input' that belongs to level 'i + 1'. Since not all of the learners can be at the
same level of linguistic competence at the same time, Krashen suggests that natural
communicative input is the key to designing a syllabus, ensuring in this way that each learner
will receive some 'i + 1' input that is appropriate for his/her current stage of linguistic
competence.

5. Affective filter hypothesis


Finally, the fifth hypothesis, the Affective Filter hypothesis, embodies Krashen's view that a
number of 'affective variables' play a facilitative, but non-causal, role in second language
acquisition. These variables include: motivation, self-confidence and anxiety. Krashen
claims that learners with high motivation, self-confidence, a good self-image, and a low level
of anxiety are better equipped for success in second language acquisition. Low motivation,
low self-esteem, and debilitating anxiety can combine to 'raise' the affective filter and form a
'mental block' that prevents comprehensible input from being used for acquisition. In other
words, when the filter is 'up' it impedes language acquisition. On the other hand, positive
affect is necessary, but not sufficient on its own, for acquisition to take place.

You might also like