THE MONITOR MODEL

The Monitor Model…

O introduced by Stephen Krashen

O deductive approach

O Five hypotheses that form the theory:

1) The Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis

2) The Monitor Hypothesis

3) The Natural Order Hypothesis

4) The Input Hypothesis

5) The Affective Filter Hypothesis

The Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis

Adult second language learners develop

competence in a second language in two

distinct and independent ways :

O acquisition: a subconscious process

identical in all important ways to the

process children utilize in acquiring their

first language

O learning: a conscious process that results

in ‘knowing about’ language.

Acquisition vs Learning

Subconscious

acquisition Conscious learning

O Needs natural

communication in the

target language.

O Informal situations.

O Depends on attitude.

O Uses grammatical

‘feel’.

O Formal situations.

O Depends on

aptitude.

O Uses grammatical

‘rules’.

Conscious learning does not become unconscious

acquisition for three reasons:

O Sometimes there is ‘acquisition’ without ‘learning’-

that is, some individuals have considerable

competence in a second language but do not know

very many rules consciously

O There are cases where ‘learning’ never becomes

‘acquisition’-that is, a person can know the rule and

continues to breaking it

O No one knows anywhere near all the rules

For Krashen,

O adult acquirers have access to the same

LAD (Language Acquisition Device)that

children use.

O Chomsky’s distinction between to

‘cognize’ and ‘know’ is quite similar to the

acquisition-learning distinction.

Criticism to Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis

O The acquisition –learning distinction is not

clearly defined.

O The theory ‘Learning cannot become

acquisition’ cannot be empirically tested.

O The theory of acquisition is not consistent

with current linguistic theory.

The Monitor Hypothesis

O Learning has only one function, and that is asa Monitor or editor and that learning comesinto play only to make changes in the form ofour utterance, after it has been produced bythe acquired system. Acquisition initiates thespeaker’s utterances and responsible forfluency. Thus, the Monitor is thought to alterthe output of the acquired system before orafter the utterance is actually written orspoken, but the utterance is initiated entirelyby the acquired system.

The three conditions for Monitor use

Time: In order to think about and use

conscious rules effectively, a second

language performer needs to have sufficient

time.

Focus on form: To use the Monitor effectively,

the performer must also focus on form or

thinking about correctness.

Know the rule: This condition is very

formidable as the students are exposed only

to a small part of the total grammar of the

language.

O Children are

superior language

learners as they do

not use the Monitor

and are not as

inhibited as older

learners.

Monitor over-users are learners who attempt

“monitor” all the time.

Monitor under-users are learners who prefer not to

use their conscious knowledge.

Optimal Monitor users are learners who use the

“monitor” appropriately.

According to Krashen, the role of the monitor is

or should be minor.

Criticism to Monitor Hypothesis

O The Monitor requires such restricted

conditions for its operation that it cannot

be thought to be representative of the

learner’s internal, conscious knowledge of

the target language.

O The argument related to adult children

differences is based on unproven

assumptions.

The Natural Order Hypothesis

O We acquire the rules of language in apredictable order, some rules tending to comeearly and others late. The order does notappear to be determined solely by formalsimplicity and there is evidence that it isindependent of the order in which rules aretaught in language classes.

O Those whose exposure to second language isnearly all outside of language classes do notshow a different order of acquisition fromthose who have had most of their second-language experience in the classroom.

"Average" order of acquisition of grammatical morphemes for English as a second language

(children and adults)

Criticism to Natural Order Hypothesis

O This hypothesis is based largely on the

morpheme studies, which are of

questionable methodological validity and

which provide little information about

acquisitional process.

O There is no theory provided to show why

some things are learned before others.

The Input Hypothesis

O Human acquires language in only one

way-by understanding messages, or by

receiving ‘comprehensible input’ … We

move from i, our current level, to i + 1, the

next level along the natural order, by

understanding input containing i + 1.

O Speaking is a result of acquisition and not its

cause. Speech cannot be taught directly but

emerges on its own as a result of building

competence via comprehensible input.

O If input is understood, and there is enough of it,

the necessary grammar is automatically

provided. The language teacher needs not

attempt deliberately to teach next structure along

the natural order – it will be provided in just the

right quantities and automatically reviewed if the

student receives a sufficient amount of

comprehensible input.

Lines of evidence for the Input Hypothesis

O The silent period

O Age differences

O The effect of exposure

O Lack of access to comprehensible input

O Immersion and sheltered language

teaching

O The success of bilingual programs

O The reading hypothesis

O Silent period: Some children who come to a newcountry where they are exposed to a newlanguage are silent for a long period of time.During this time, they are making use of‘comprehensible input’.

O Age Differences: Older acquirers progress morequickly in the early stages because they obtainmore comprehensible input than do youngerlearners.

O The effect of exposure: The longer people live ina country, the more proficient their language.

O Lack of access to comprehensible input: Hearingchildren of deaf parents with little exposure tocomprehensible input are severely delayed inlanguage acquisition.

O Immersion and sheltered language teaching:

These methods are effective because they

provide learners with comprehensible input

through the use of subject-matter instruction they

can understand.

O The success of bilingual programmes: These

programmes provide children with

comprehensible input that leads to second-

language learning.

O The reading hypothesis: The Input Hypothesis

may apply to the acquisition of writing style. And

writing competence comes only from large

amounts of self-motivated reading for pleasure

and/or interest.

Criticism to Input Hypothesis

O This hypothesis is untestable as the key

concept «comprehensible input» is not

defined.

O It fails to account for the elimination of

incorrect intermediate forms, and provides

no way of distinguishing between different

instructional methods.

The Affective Filter HypothesisComprehensible input

may not be utilized by

second-language

acquirers if there is a

mental block that prevents

them from fully profiting

from it. The affective filter

acts as a barrier to

acquisition: if the filter is

down, the input reaches

the LAD and becomes

acquired competence; if

the filter is up, the input is

blocked and does not

reach the LAD.

The filter is … The filter determines…

The filter is that part of

the internal processing

system that

subconsciously screens

incoming language

based on what

psychologists call

‘affect’: the learner’ s

motives, need, attitudes,

and emotional states.

O Which language

models the learner will

select

O which part of language

will be attended to first

O when the language

acquisition efforts

should cease

O how fast a learner can

acquire a language

O Learners with a low affective filter: high motivation, self-confidence, a good image, and a low level of anxiety

Are better equipped for success in SLAO Learners with a high affective filter: low self-

esteem and a high level of anxietyForm a mental blockO When the filter is high, it blocks language

acquisition.O The low affective filter is desirable.

For Krashen,

O Children have an advantage in language

development because their affective filter

is low.

O Adult learners are likely to have higher

affective filters because of events that

occur in adolescence.

Criticism to Affective Filter Hypothesis

O There is no coherent explanation for the

development of the affective filter and no

basis for relating the affective filter to

individual differences in language learning

O The hypothesis is incapable of predicting

with any precision the course of linguistic

development and its outcome.

To summarize, Krashen's Theories of

Second Language Acquisition consist of five main hypotheses:

1) Language acquisition is different from language

learning and language acquisition is the only way

competence in a second language occurs. (The

Acquisition/Learning Hypothesis)

2) Grammatical structures are acquired in a

predictable order and it does little good to try to

learn them in another order. (The natural order

hypothesis)

3) People acquire language best from

messages that are just slightly beyond their

current competence: i+1 (The input

hypothesis)

4) Conscious learning operates only as a monitor or

editor that checks or repairs the output of what has

been acquired. (The Monitor Hypothesis)

5) The learner's emotional state can act as a

filter that impedes or blocks input necessary

for language acquisition. (The Affective Filter

Hypothesis)

Prepared based on the book ‘ Theories of

Second-Language Learning’ by Barry

McLaughlin

THANKS FOR

LISTENING

Kübra OKUMUŞ