SLA: Krashen’s The Monitor Model

• Five hypotheses on second language acquisition1. The Acquisition Learning Hypothesis2. The Natural Order Hypothesis3. The Monitor Hypothesis4. The Input Hypothesis5. The Affective Filter Hypothesis

1. The Acquisition Learning Hypothesis – applicable to the process of:

Internalizing new L2 knowledge (acquisition vs. learning)

Storing such knowledge(acquired knowledge for automatic processing and learnt knowledge for controlled processing)

Using in actual performance(acquired knowledge as the major source of initiating both the comprehension and production of utterances)*learnt knowledge for use only by the Monitor

2. The Natural Order Hypothesis - learners may follow a more or less invariant order in the acquisition of formal grammatical features

Affirms that grammatical structures are ‘acquired’ in a predictable order.

When the learner is engaged in natural communication tasks, he will manifest the standard order.

But when the task requires or permits the use of metalinguistic knowledge, a different order will emerge.

3. The Monitor Hypothesis – the device that learners use to edit their language performance

Utilizes ‘learnt knowledge by acting upon and modifying utterances generated from ‘acquired’ knowledge either before or after the utterance, albeit optional.

Has limited function in language performance even with adults

Conditions for its use: sufficient time; form-focused; user’s knowledge of the rule

*Editing (by ‘feel’) can take place using ‘acquired’ competence (but not developed).

4. Input Hypothesis – ‘acquisition’ takes place as a result of the learner having understood input that is a little beyond the current level of his competence(i.e. the i + 1 level )

Input that is comprehensible to the learner will automatically be at the right level.

5. The Affective Filter Hypothesis - how affective factors relate to SLA and the ground of the Acculturation Model

As proposed by Dulay and Burt (1977), the filter controls how much input the learner comes into contact with, and how much input is converted into intake.

It’s affective as its strength is determined based on:motivationself-confidenceanxiety state

• Causative Variables Taken into Account in the Monitor Model1. Aptitude

While attitude is related to ‘acquisition, aptitude only relates to ‘learning’.

2. Role of the first language The first language does not interfere with SLA but rather serves as a

performance strategy.

3. Routines and patternsFormulaic speech (consisting of routines and patterns) does not

contribute to ‘acquisition’.

4. Individual differencesThere is no variation in the acquisition process itself, but

there is in:1. the rate and the extent acquisition as a result of the amount of comprehensible input received, and the strength of the Affective Filter2. performance, brought about by the extent of the learner’s reliance on ‘learnt’ knowledge.

3 types of Monitor Users:1. over-users2. under-users3. optimal users (i.e. Those who apply conscious knowledge when it is appropriate.

5. Age affects the amount of comprehensible input that is

obtained influences the affective state of the learner After puberty the Affective Filter is likely to increase

in strength. Younger learners may get more than older learners. Age also affects ‘learning’; older learners are better

in studying language form and using ‘learnt’ knowledge in monitoring.

• Three Central Issues of the Monitor Model1. The ‘Acquisition-Learning’ Distinction

unreliable due to how the distinction is defined (McLaughlin, 1978)

unacceptable as it cannot be tested in empirical investigationContrary to what non-interface position suggests, ‘learnt’

knowledge automatized through practice becomes ‘acquired’ i.e. available for use in spontaneous conversation. (McLaughlin, 1978 et.al.)

no explanation about what the learner does with the input (Larsen-Freeman, 1983b)

2. Monitoring does not account for the reception of utterances, collaborative

activity between the learner and his interlocutor, and detailed discussion of how ‘learning’ takes place

only limited to syntax (overlooking learners and users ability to edit their pronunciation, lexis and discourse.

It is difficult to distinguish introspectively ‘rule’ application and ‘feel’ (the implicit use of ‘acquired’ knowledge to judge or modify an utterance).

We are able to attend to the form of our utterances without using conscious rules, and without being able to make explicit how modifications in the initial output have been affected.

3. VariabilityThe ‘dual competence’ theory of SLA is questionable as

learners produce utterances which are formally different even when it is evident that they are focused on meaning (an evidence is cited in Ellis’s, 1984b reference to a bingo game)

The aspects of a single but variable competence which contains alternative rules for realizing the meanings should be considered