Page : 35

in this section, we will only specifically look at the major theories of second language development.
Theories of Language Learning: Theories of Second Language

The Monitor Model Krashen's Monitor Model (1981; 1982) is the most comprehensive of existing SLA
theories. Therefore, it has enjoyed considerable prominence in SLA research. However, the theory is
also flawed in a number of respects. The Monitor Model consists of five central hypotheses. In addition,
it makes reference to a number of other factors which influence SLA and which relate to the central
hypotheses. Each hypothesis is briefly summarized below. Krashen's views on different causative
variables of SLA are also considered.

1. The Acquisition Learning Hypothesis This hypothesis claims that there are two distinctive ways of
developing competence in a second or foreign language. Acquisition is the 'natural' way- it occurs
subconsciously as a result of participating in natural communication where the focus is on meaning.
Learning occurs as a result of conscious study or classroom teaching of the formal properties (grammar)
of the language. (In storage, 'acquired knowledge is located in the language areas of the left
hemisphere; it is available for automatic processing. "Learnt' knowledge is metalinguistic in nature. It is
also stored in the left hemisphere, but not necessarily in the language areas; it is available only for
controlled processing. Thus, 'acquired' knowledge and 'leant knowledge are stored separately. In
performance, 'acquired' knowledge initiates both the comprehension and production of utterances.
'Learnt’ knowledge is available for use only by the Monitor. Learning, according to the theory, cannot
lead to acquisition.

2. The natural Order Hypothesis According to this hypothesis, the acquisition of grammatical structures
proceeds in a predictable order. Research shows that certáin grammatical structures or morphemes are
acquired before others in first language acquisition of English, and a similar natural order is found in
second language acquisition. That is, when the learner is engaged in natural communication tasks, he
will manifest the standard order. But when he is engaged in tasks where the learner can use
metalinguistic knowledge (e.g. grammatical knowledge), a different order will emerge.

Page: 36
3. The Monitor Hypothesis:
The Monitor is the device that learners use to edit their language performance. The acquired
linguistic system initiates utterances when we communicate in a second or foreign language.
Conscious learning or learnt knowledge can function only as a monitor or editor that checks and
repairs the output. This editing can occur either before the utterance is uttered or after. In either
case its use is optional. Krashen gives three conditions for its use: 1) there must be sufficient
time; 2) the focus is on form and not on meaning; and 3) the user must know the rule Krashen
recognizes that editing can also take place using 'acquired' competence. He refers to this as
editing by feel'.
4. The input Hypothesis:
 This hypothesis claims that people acquire language best when the input is slightly beyond their
current level of competence (i.e. the i+ 1 level). Thus comprehensible input refers to utterances
that the learner understands based on the context in which they are used as well as the language
in which they are phrased.
5. The Affective Filter Hypothesis:
Krashen incorporates the notion of the Affective Filter 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 is 'affective' because the factors that determine its strengths have to do
with the learner's motivation, self- confidence or, anxiety state. Learners with high motivation
and self-confidence and with low anxiety have low filters. They obtain and let in plenty of input.
Learners with low motivation, little self-confidence, and high anxiety have high filters and so
receive little input and allow even less in. The affective filter influences the rate speed of
development, but it does not affect the route.
Evaluation The Monitor Model has also attracted a lot of criticism. Here we will consider a few
of them:
1) The 'acquisition' - "learning' distinction has been called theological', in that it has been
formulated in order to confirm a specific goal, namely that successful SLA is the result of

Page: 37
acquisition' (James 1980, cited in Ellis, 1985). McLaughlin (1978) argues that the Monitor
Model is unreliable, because the 'acquisition-learning distinction is defined in terms of
'subconscious and conscious' processes which are not open to inspection, The first criticism,
then, is a methodological one. The 'acquisition-learning hypothesis is not acceptable because it
cannot be tested in empirical investigation.
2) A further objection concerns Krashen's claims that *acquisition' and 'learning' are entirely
separate, and that 'acquired' knowledge cannot turn into learnt' knowledge. Krashen refers to this
as the 'noninterface' position. McLaughlin (1978) along with many other researchers has
challenged this position on the basis that when 'learnt' knowledge is automatized through practice
it becomes *acquired' i.e. available for use in spontaneous conversation.
3) Krashert does not really explicate the cognitive processes that are responsible either for
'acquisition' or 'learning. Krashen does not explain what the learner does with input. If the
'acquisition-learning distinction is to have any power, it is surely necessary to specify in what
way the processes responsible for each knowledge type are different from each other which
Krashen does not do. Thus, despite its comprehensiveness, the Monitor Model is still a black box
theory.
4) McLaughlin (1978) points to the difficulty of distinguishing between introspectively 'rule'
application (as in Monitoring) and "feel".
5) The monitor Model is a 'dual competence' theory of SLA. That is, it proposes that the
learmer's knowledge of the L2, which is reflected in variable performance, is best characterized
in terms of two separate competences, which Krashen labels 'acquisition' and 'learning". The
available evidence, however, indicates that learners produce utterances which are formally
(structurally) different even when it is evident that they are focused on meaning. That is, what
Krashen calls 'acquired' knowledge is not homogeneous and therefore it makes little sense to
maintain a dual competence explanation (Ellis, 1985). The kinds of performance that result from
focusing on meaning and on form are best treated as aspects of a

Page: 39
2. The hypothesis-testing function: This function suggests that learners may use the method of
"trial and error" for testing her /his production expecting to receive a feedback. This feedback
can be applied in two ways: recasts and elicitations or clarifications requests.
3. The metalinguistic (reflective) function: Language is seen as a tool conducive to reflection on
the language used by the teacher, their partners and the student himself/herself. Output
production can serve this function.
To conclude, comprehensible input and comprehensible output are both required for successful
second language acquisition to take place.
The Acculturation Model:
"Acculturation" can be defined as the process of becoming adapted to a new cultureJohn
Schumann (1978) explains how acculturation affects SLA. Andersen (1980) þrovides an
elaborated version of Schumann's model called "the Nativization Model". The central premise of
the Acculturation Model, as Ellis (1985) explains, is that second language acquisition is just one
aspect of acculturation and the degree to which a-learner acculturates to -the target language
community will determine the degree to which he acquires the second language.
Acculturation, and hence SLA, is determined by the degree of social and psychological distance
between the learner and the target language culture.(Social distance is the result of a number of
factors which affect the learner as a member of a social group.) Psychological distance is the
result of various affective factors which Concern the learner as an individual. The social factors
are primary. They determine the amount of contact with the target language community (input).
(The psychological factors, on the other hand, determine how much input will be converted into
intake.
Schumann (1978) lists the various factors which determine social and psychological distance.
The social variables govern whether the overall learning situation is 'good or *bad'. An example
of a 'good learning situation is when 1) the Target Language Community (TLC) and Second
Language (L2C) view each other as socially equal; 2) the TLC and the L2C are both desirous
that the L2C will assimilate; 3)
Page: 40
both the TLC and L2C expect the L2 group to share social facilities with the TL group; 4) the
L2C is small and not very cohesive; 5) the 12C's culture is congruent with that of the TLC; 6)
both groups have positive attitude towards each other; and 7) the L2C envisages staying in the
TL area for an extended period. An example of a bad learning situation is when the conditions
are opposite to the one described above. Thus in a bad' learning situation the learner will receive
very little input. But it should also be remembered that the can be varying degrees of social
distance.
The psychological factors are affective in nature. They include 1) language shock- when the
learner experiences doubt and possible confusion when using the L2; 2) culture shock
experiences disorientationi, stress, fear, etc, as a result of differences between his/her own
culture and that of the TLC; 3) motivation; and 4) ego boundaries. When the psychological
distance is great, the learner will fail to convert available input into intake.
The Pidginization Hypothesis: Schumann suggests that the early stages of SLA are
characterized by the same processes that are responsible for the formation of pidgin languages.
When social and/or psychological đistances are great, the learner fails to progress beyond the
early stages and his language will be pidginized. Schumann mentions a Spanish speaker's
acquisition of L2 English in the United States. The learner, Alberto, was subject to a high degree
of social distance and so, failed to progress very far in learning English. His English was
characterized by many of the forms observed in pidgins. For example:
Negatives: 'no' + Verb.... "No touch my book".
Questions: uninverted………. "You go where?"
Absence of possessive and plural inflections: "Peter book" or, "three book"
Restricted verb morphology
Schumann suggests "pidginization may characterize all early SLA and persists". When
pidginization persists the learner fossilizes That is, s/he no longer revises her/his interlanguage
system in the direction of the TL. Thus early fossilization and pidginization are identical
(similar) processes.