The Monitor Model Theory1. Acquisition-Learning Theory2. Monitor Hypothesis3. Natural Order Hypothesis4. Input Hypothesis5. Affective Filter Hypothesis Stephen Krashen

Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis

• Acquisition is a sub-conscious process, as in the case of a child learning its own language or an adult 'picking up' a second language simply by living and working in a foreign country.

• Learning is the conscious process of developing a foreign language through language lessons and a focus on the grammatical features of that language.

Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis• According to Krashen learned language cannot

be turned into acquisition. It is pointless spending a lot of time learning grammar rules, since this will not help us become better users of the language in authentic situations. At most, the knowledge we gain about the language will help us in direct tests of that knowledge or in situations when we have time to self-correct, as in the editing of a piece of writing.

Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis

• Gass and Selinker (1994) criticize this hypothesis. They claim that it does not show evidence of the distinction between acquisition and learning as two separate systems.

• However, Krashen said that many can produce language fluently without having been taught any rules and there are many that know the rules but are unable to apply them whilst speaking (Lightbown and Spader, 1999).

Natural Order Hypothesis• Language is acquired in a predictable

order by all learners. This order does not depend on the apparent simplicity or complexity of the grammatical features involved. The natural order of acquisition cannot be influenced by direct teaching of features that the learner is not yet ready to acquire.

Natural Order Hypothesis• It is claimed that the natural order of

acquisition is very similar for a native-English child learning its own language and for an adult learning English as a foreign language.

• For example, the ’-ing’ form (present continuous) will be acquired early on and almost certainly before the ’-s’ inflection in the third person present simple (she likes, he eats, etc.)

Natural Order Hypothesis• As Krashen points out, much of the

frustration experienced by teachers and their students in grammar lessons results from the attempt to inculcate a grammatical form which the learner is not yet ready to acquire.

Monitor Hypothesis• We are able to use what we have

learned (in Krashen's sense) about the rules of a language in monitoring (or self-correcting) our language output.

• Conscious editor or monitor works. • Clearly, this is possible in the correction

of written work. It is much more difficult when engaging in regular talk.

Monitor Hypothesis• Krashen states that it is often difficult to use the

monitor correctly since the rules of a language can be extremely complex.

• Two examples from English are the rules about the articles (a/the) and the future "tense".

• Even assuming the learner has a good knowledge of the rule in question, it is difficult to focus on grammar while simultaneously attempting to convey meaning (and possibly feeling).

• Most normal conversation simply does not provide enough time to do so.

Monitor Hypothesis• There are variations in use of the monitor that

affect the language that learners produce. • Acquired language skills can lead to improved

fluency but overuse of the monitor can lead to a reduction in fluency (Krashen, 1988).

• Moreover, Krashen (1988) believes that there is individual variation among language learners with regard to ‘monitor’ use.

Monitor Hypothesis• He claims that the learners who use the

‘monitor’ all the time are ‘over-users’, often producing stilted language, whereas ‘under-users’ will often speak quickly but with a lot of errors. • Learners who use the monitor

appropriately are considered ‘optimal-users’.

Monitor Hypothesis• These find a good balance between speed

and accuracy, continuing to refer to want they have learnt but acknowledging the importance of communication. • He emphasizes that lack of self-

confidence is the major cause for the over-use of the ‘monitor’.

Input Hypothesis• We acquire language in one way only: when

we are exposed to input (written or spoken language) that is comprehensible to us.

• Comprehensible input is the necessary but also sufficient condition for language acquisition to take place. It requires no effort on the part of the learner.

Input Hypothesis• Krashen now refers to this as the Comprehension

Hypothesis. • It states that learners acquire language when

they are exposed to input at i+1, where i is the current state or stage of language proficiency.

• Learners use their existing acquired linguistic competence together with their general world knowledge to make sense of the messages they receive in language just beyond where they currently are (the +1).

Input Hypothesis• Given comprehensible input at i+1, acquisition

will take place effortlessly and involuntarily.• This theory has clear implications for language

teachers; namely, that their language instruction should be full of rich input (both spoken and written language) that is roughly tuned at the appropriate level for the learners in the class.

Affective Filter Hypothesis• Comprehensible input will not result in

language acquisition if that input is filtered out before it can reach the brain's language processing faculties. The filtering may occur because of anxiety, poor self-esteem or low motivation.

Affective Filter Hypothesis• Learners with a low affective filter will

not only be efficient language acquirers of the comprehensible input they receive. They are also more likely to interact with others, unembarrassed by making mistakes for example, and thus increase the amount of that input.

Affective Filter Hypothesis• He claims that learners who are highly

motivated, self-confident and less anxious are better equipped for success in SLA.

• Low motivation, low self-esteem, and high anxiety contribute to raise the affective filter which prevents comprehensible input from being used for acquisition.

Affective Filter Hypothesis• In other words, if the filter is high, the

input will not pass through and subsequently there will be no acquisition.

• On the other hand, if the filter is low and the input is understood, the input will take place and acquisition will have taken place.

Affective Filter Hypothesis• Gass and Selinker (1994) criticize the Filter

Hypothesis because it does not explain how it works? Or how the input filter works?

• However, others see that it as something that can be seen and applied in the classroom and that it can explain why some students learn and produce better language than others (Lightbown and Spader, 1999).

• Thank you for listening

• Haifa Alzmami.