Karolina Kaczmarek

12059128

Words: 3082

Critically evaluate Krashen’s monitor Model.

The phenomenon of First Language Acquisition is regarded as one of the most

enigmatic and enchanting issues in the study of human language evolution. Yet, the

difference between children’s ability to master a language to a native-like degree and

adults’ failure to do so becomes a controversial issue. Soon after, research on second

language acquisition appears and many theories, methods are developed. Accordingly,

one such theory called ‘Monitor Theory’ by Steven Krashen is born.

As follows, this essay will investigate Krashen’s Monitor Model. Firstly, it will

present ideas that contributed to the formulation of the theory, at the same time; the

theory itself will be explained. Subsequently, focus will be shifted to some of the

hypothesis that underpin the model, such as the acquisition/learning hypothesis, monitor

hypothesis and comprehensible input hypothesis. Finally, so as to shed some objectivity,

criticism of the hypothesis mentioned above will be provided.

First of all, in order to investigate Krashen’s Monitor Theory, it is worth to focus

on some of the first acquisition research findings as it is believed that much of the work

on second language acquisition, also in the example of Krashen, is based on the issues

from First Language Acquisition research. As Lightbown and Spada (2006:37) state, the

1
concept of The Monitor Model is said to be influenced by Chomsky’s work on the first

language acquisition. Accordingly, some points related to Chomsky’s work on First

Language Acquisition will be presented below.

A revolution in the field of linguistics may be attributed to the research conducted

by Noam Chomsky, who at the same time is associated with the term innativism. Name

of this theory comes from the presumption that all languages are ‘innate’ that means

inborn and possess universal principles applicable to all languages. Moreover, these

principles are regarded as the components of Universal Grammar that every child is

equipped with (Lightbown and Spada, 2006:15). It all means that any language, in some

aspects, is similar to another. However, it is argued that there are exceptions, which do

not apply to all languages and these are defined as parameters of a language (Ellis,

1994:43).

Yet, in his research on First Language Acquisition, Chomsky criticizes the

behaviourist’s views on language acquisition by claiming that children do not learn a

language through ‘habit formation,’ they, rather, posses inborn ability to learn a language

subconsciously, which explains why in the case, where there is insufficient input,

children still master the language with grammatical correctness and postulate creativity in

that language. It all means that in a situation where parents talk to a child using simplified

language (e.g. less sophisticated vocabulary), use one word utterances or even repeat

sounds uttered by a child, still that child learns the language with perfection (De Bot,

Lowie and Verspoor, 2005:29). Furthermore, it should be pointed out that some of these

sentences are novel ones, which a child has not heard before. Though, as Chomsky

highlights, there must be an ‘input’ presented to children that would enable them to verify

2
principles and parameters, which are endowed in LAD (language acquisition device),

only then, he stresses, will the process of acquisition begin (ibid.). In other words, one

example of a language produced by a parent will aid a child to activate LAD responsible

for learning.

Accordingly, some of the ideas presented above gave foundation to the research

on the Second Language Acquisition. Though, a prominent research has been conducted

by Steven Krashen, an expert in linguistics, who is highly criticized for his theories as

many of them are claimed to lack evidence, one of such theories is the Monitor Model.

Nevertheless, in the times when teaching methodologies based on behaviourism lost on

their credibility, Krashen’s work was said to give profound contribution to recent

language teaching methodologies e.g. Communicative Language Teaching, and proved

that ‘comprehensible input’ contributes to learners progress (Lightbow and Spada, 2006 :

38). Yet, the idea of comprehensible input became questionable due to inexplicability of

the term comprehensible, as it is difficult to state what is accessible to individuals and

what is not.

Next paragraphs aim to explain Krashen’s Monitor Model and focus on this aspect

in more detail. Additionally, different ideas will be presented, as well as, contrasting

views will be quoted. As follows, the idea of second language learners processing

language in the same way as first language learners, led Krashen to the assumption that

people learn a language through understanding it. As De Bot et al. (2005:35) write,

Krashen believed that “meaningful input and communication within that language”

contribute to success in language learning. Moreover, he criticized the idea of ‘talking

about a language’ by which he understood the study of grammar rules.

3
 However, Krashen’s negligence of grammar of a language may be criticized in the

example of the distinction between ‘accuracy’ and ‘fluency’ oriented teaching. It is

because according to Krashen these two are the result of acquisition and not learning

(Krashen, 1989:9). To illustrate, a fluent learner is the one who is able to communicate in

the target language without being grammatically correct, whereas accurate learner is the

one, who presents knowledge of grammar rules and manages applying them efficiently in

speech and writing. To contradict, Ur (1991:103) writes when we teach learners accuracy

we want them to “get the language right i.e. correct sounds, words, sentences, yet, in

fluency we want them to concentrate on the message”. As it can be seen Ur, in contrast to

Krashen holds the opinion that both accuracy and fluency can be taught in class.

Yet, it could be argued whether first language acquisition does not resemble

second language learning process. It means that Krashen’s claim that these two processes

look alike is disputable. To illustrate, Chomsky argues that after ‘critical period’ learners

do not have access to UG (Ellis 1994). Therefore, in the accuracy/fluency terms, it may

be assumed that it is not possible for these concepts to be acquired.

However, Cook (2003 cited in Lightbown and Spada, 2006:35) and others claim

that there is “logical problem of second language acquisition” which means that learners

have to have access to UG as they possess greater knowledge about a language than the

one that could be given to them in the input.

These and other aspects led Krashen to introduce one of his most challenging

theories known as Monitor Model Theory. As follows Krashen’s Monitor Theory,

developed in “late 1970s”, and is based on five hypotheses, namely: the acquisition-

learning hypothesis, the monitor hypothesis, the natural order hypothesis, the input

4
hypothesis and the affective filter hypothesis. Moreover, it is a model that aims to explain

second language learning processes (McLaughlin, 1987:19). Yet, it can be assumed that

the monitor model deals with various aspects.

Firstly, it focuses on learner’s production and investigates the variety in their

performance, as various learners are said to use the monitor to a different degree.

Secondly, it gives insight to second language teaching. An example of this would be the

Natural Approach, in which it is implemented (Krashen and Terell 1983 cited in Barash

and James, 1994:8). Thirdly, it stresses the importance of comprehensible input, without

paying attention to the role of output. Furthermore, postulates that learning and

acquisition are different terms, which do not correlate (ibid.). These are only few

examples mentioned in order to present the variety of aspects surrounding his work.

Yet, the Monitor Model is criticized by many researchers, who unanimously claim

that much as his theory seems reasonable, still it lacks evidence. Despite the criticism,

however, it should be remembered that Krashen’s research is valuable and “should be

given credit for attempting to bring together research findings from a number of different

domains” (McLaughlin, 1987:19).

Accordingly, the basis for the Monitor Theory is the distinction between the

concept of acquisition and learning. Nevertheless, in order to focus on this aspect, it is

important to explain the notion of acquisition and learning. According to Krashen

(1989:8) acquisition is the process that accompanies children’s first language acquisition

and is regarded as subconscious. It means that when children learn a language they are

not aware of it and, at the same time, they do not possess prior knowledge of a language.

5
On the contrary, learning is defined as a conscious process by which an individual gets to

know a language with the use of “rules or grammar” of that language (ibid.).

Contrary to this Schmidt (1990 cited in De Bot, 2005:7) argues that by

‘subconscious’ one may understand ‘without awareness’. He goes on to explain that this

term may actually mean that somebody failed to notice something and gives an example

of ‘subliminal learning’ in which individuals when sleeping can to pick up a language.

However, this stance is criticized by many and claimed to be inexplicable.

Nonetheless, in the first of his hypothesis called acquisition-learning hypothesis,

Krashen states that “adults have two distinct and independent ways of developing

competence in a second language” (Krashen 1982 cited in Gregg, 1984:79). The terms

distinct and independent may imply that in the Krashen’s point of view acquisition and

learning should be treated as separate. Also, as observed, he seems to give priority to

acquisition, whereas considers learning as a secondary matter. Such a stance is dictated

by the belief that owing to acquisition rather than the things he/she has learnt an

individual is able to perform in a second language (ibid.).

However, Gregg (1984 cited in McLaughlin, 1987:21-22) opposes Krashen’s

learning/acquisition division by stating that in some instances learning may actually

become acquisition. To support his view, he gives an example of drilling Japanese

gerundive forms, where there is no input provided and discovers that these learners, in the

end, are able to produce these forms in a an error-free manner. This, according to him,

proves that in some cases learning can turn into acquisition, for instance, when using

drills without meaningful input.

6
 Yet, it remains disputable how to differentiate, whether the knowledge that an

individual presents has been acquired or learnt. As Ellis (1994) states it is problematic to

distinguish between these two. Moreover, there is no method that could unequivocally

specify what is the source of learner’s performance, whether acquisition or formal

instruction. Also, McLaughlin (1987) argues that Krashen failed to provide a coherent

explanation of terms conscious (learning) and subconscious (acquisition). In contrast, he

adds that Krashen only specified that acquisition can be related to what learners feel,

whereas, learning may be based on the knowledge about a rule. Still, according to him,

such division is vague as there may be instances of learners giving “feel answers” in

cases, where they cannot express the rule, which they have used earlier (McLaughlin,

1987:21).

From a teacher’s perspective, priority given to the idea of acquisition can be very

frustrating. On the one hand, there may be teachers who would like to teach about

grammar of a language and use formal instruction. On the other hand, there may be the

ones who, even if willing to implement Krashen’s ideas in their teaching, such as the

concept of “language rich environment”, are prone to face various constraints, i.e. lack of

materials and realia, which can be available in real context (Barasch and James, 1994:10).

Therefore, the best solution for a teacher is to advocate eclectic approach by inferring the

best ideas, which correspond with their teaching beliefs.

This paragraph will focus on the Monitor hypothesis. As follows, the concept of

monitor resembles a device that checks the individual’s utterances and emends them

when necessary. Moreover, this notion is said to deal with the knowledge that has been

learnt and not acquired. As Krashen states, “learning has only one function, and that is as

7
a Monitor or Editor” (Krashen 1982 cited in McLaughlin, 1987:24). In other words, when

an individual utters something, which is regarded as acquired knowledge, at the same

time, the monitor (learnt knowledge) investigates, whether the utterance that is in the

phase of production, agrees with that what is stored in the monitor. Soon after this

process, the examined utterance becomes output (Cook, 1993:52). As Krashen (1989)

admits, Monitor use cuts the amount of information that can be processed and its

performance is time-consuming. In addition, Lightbown and Spada (2006:37) note that

the main condition for monitor to function is time. During this time, an individual with

the use of the rules learnt focuses on production.

Also, Gregg (1984 cited in McLaughlin, 1987) makes an interesting point. He

writes “the Monitor Hypothesis claims that 'learning' is available only for use in

production, not in comprehension,” and he contradicts this statement by giving example

of his own experience with Japanese. Accordingly, Gregg states that in order to

comprehend some forms he was ”using acquired knowledge and consciously made use of

rules that he had learnt”. The point here is that sometimes individuals apply the rules they

have learnt in new situations in order to understand new information.

Yet, the scope of the monitor’s use can vary from one individual to another.

Hence, there are monitor “over-users”, individuals, who aim for perfection in correctness,

though they inhibit output, monitor under-users, who are not concerned with correctness,

therefore their production is opulent, yet ungrammatical (Skehan, 1989: 3). Additionally,

Ellis (1994) writes that Krashen differentiates also optimal monitor users, who preserve

balance in the aspects mentioned above. Again, McLaughlin (1989) undermines the

distinction of under and over-users, as to him these terms mean that certain learners vary

8
according to the ability of using a particular grammar rule and claims that giving the

credit for it to the monitor seems improvident.

A further argument questioning the vulnerability of the monitor is the need of

time, rule and form that should be provided in order for the monitor to function. In the

example of time Krashen states that an individual requires time to plan the conversation

and check/retrieve it with rules. Yet, in the study conducted by Hulstijn and Hulstijn in

1984, who investigated the concept of time and form, there occurred to be no influence of

time on the Monitor and vice verse. In other words, learners with less time given and

urged to focus on form, presented more accurate speech. Yet, the same learners who had

more time and were told not to focus on form did not vary in their performance

(McLaughlin, 1987:25).

Another criticism of the monitor model hypothesis is the fact that in natural

situation, speakers do not have enough time to think on the form of their utterance and

modify (monitor) it in such a detail. If that was the case, then, our speech would be

delayed and seem rather odd with lots of intervals (Mitchell and Myles, 2004:46). To

conclude, it could be stated that additional time does not necessarily influence the

Monitor use. Consequently, Krashen himself agreed on this conclusion (1982 cited in

McLaughlin, 1987). This leads to the conclusion that the monitor hypothesis is rather

vague.

Moreover, the idea of Monitor model seems to contradict the acquisition/learning

distinction. As McLaughlin argues, if the monitor aims to assess our performance and

that is the only means to learn, then it does not play any role in learners’ competence

9
(1987:27). If that is the case, then the first acquisition/learning hypothesis seems to be

superfluous.

However, the most influential of Krashen’s hypothesis, which seems to have

influenced second language learning research the most, is the Input Hypothesis.

Accordingly, Krashen postulates that in order for individuals to acquire, two conditions

have to be met, namely there has to be comprehensible input, which he defines as the i+1,

i.e. “structures a bit beyond the acquirer’s current level”. Secondly, there has to be “low

or weak level of affective filter” (Larsen-Freeman and Long, 1991:224). By affective

filter Krashen understands the barrier that blocks an individual from accessing the input.

Thus, there is also the importance of meaning, a point that has not been raised so far.

Accordingly, when a learner understands a message, it can be assumed that the process of

acquisition takes place (McLaughlin, 1987:36). Moreover, Gregg (1984:97) writes that

Krashen’s hypothesis is outlined in four parts. As follows, the input hypothesis is

concerned with acquisition not learning. Secondly, people acquire owing to

“comprehensible input, context or extralinguistic information”. Thirdly, as soon as the

individual conceives the meaning, the comprehensible input will be automatically

provided. Lastly, the ability to produce is said to emerge, it cannot be taught (ibid.). What

Krashen intends to say here, is that second language learners have to know the meaning

first; only then will they master new information. Secondly, it is owing to an individual

acquisition system when they will start to produce language, as it cannot be enforced by a

teacher. Needless to say, in claiming so, he underpins the idea of formal instruction.

Nevertheless, in the case of comprehensible input (i+1), it occurs vague to define

the ‘i’ which is stated as a level of a language that learners already posses (White,

10
1987:96). It is because teachers may have difficulty in perceiving that level. As White

(ibid.) argues only the learners may know what their current level of knowledge is,

therefore, the attempt to guess that level may be highly demanding if not impossible.

Furthermore, Gregg (1984:87) makes a strong argument that it is not possible for learners

to comprehend a knowledge that “they have not acquired as yet”, he calls it a paradox. To

oppose, Krashen clarifies that in order to comprehend something, an individual relies on

the context or the knowledge about the world (Krashen 1982 cited in Gregg, 1984).

However, the idea of schemata ingrained in an individual seems to be inexplicit, as

Krashen does not prove, whether this knowledge is taught or acquired.

In conclusion, it could be stated that apart from Krashen’s ingenuity in an attempt

to account for second language learning process, much of his research lacks strong

evidence in order to be regarded as valid. As presented, some of the hypotheses

postulated by Krashen contradict each other. It is clearly visible in the example of

acquisition/ learning hypothesis and monitor hypothesis mentioned. Moreover, the idea of

comprehensible input presented, seems to be unjustifiable and problematic, making

teachers uncertain, which steps to undertake in order to make their teaching effective.

Lastly, as argued, it can be assumed that Krashen’s theory does not prove anything; and

stated that it rather brings indecision on the topic of second language learning.

Accordingly, as presented, owing to the criticism thrown on Krashen’s theory, more

research is needed in order to refute or acknowledge his theory as justified and useful in

practice.

11
Bibliography

Barasch, R.M., and James, C.V., (1994). Beyond the Monitor Model: Comments on
Current Theory and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Wadsworth: Heinle and
Heinle Publishers.

Cook, V., (1993). Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition. Basingstoke:

Macmillan.

De Bot, K., Lowie, W., and Verspoor, M., (2005). Second Language Acquisition: an
advanced resource book. New York: Routledge.

Ellis, R., (1997). Second Language Research and Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.

Ellis, R., (1994). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.

Gregg, K.R., (1984). Krashen’s Monitor and Occam’s Razor. Applied Linguistics
Journal. Volume 5/2. [online] Available from:
http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/5/2/79?
maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=monitor+theory+critic
ism&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT [accessed at 29th November
2008]

Krashen, S., (1989). Language Acquisition and Language Education: Extensions and
Applications. London: Prentice Hall International.

12
Larsen-Freeman, D., and Long, M.H., (1991). An Introduction to Second Language
Acquisition Research. London: Longman.

Lightbown, P.M. and Spada, N., (2006). How Languages are Learnt. 3rd ed. Harlow:
Longman.

McLaughlin, B. (1987). Theories of Second-Language Learning. London: Edward

Arnold.

Mitchell, R., and Myles, F., (2004). Second Language Learning Theories. 2nd ed. New
York: Hodder Arnold.

Skehan, P., (1989). Individual Differences in Second Language-Learning. New York:

Routledge.

Ur, P., (1991). A Course in Language Teaching: practice and theory. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.

White, L. (1987). Against Comprehensible Input: the Input Hypothesis and the
Development of Second-language Competence. Applied Linguistics Journal. Volume 8/2.
[online]. Available from: http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/8/2/95 [accessed at
29th November 2008]

13
14