Krashen's Monitor Model Assignment [PDF]

Zitiervorschau

Assignment No. : (1)

Class: BS-ENG-VIII

Subject: Applied Linguistics

Topic: “Krashen’s Monitor Model”

Submitted to: Madam Qudsia Ghouri

Submitted by: Asad Mahmood Roll No. 05 Session 2017-21

KRASHEN'S MONITOR MODEL OF SLA In the 1970s, an influential view of relationship between acquisition and learning was propounded by the American linguist Stephen Krashen. This is a brief description of Krashen's widely known and well accepted theory of second language acquisition (SLA), which has had a large impact in all areas of second language research and teaching since the 1980s. The Monitor Model of Krashen is probably the most widely cited theory of second language acquisition and has often dominated education debate in this field. Krashen's Monitor Model has been popular and influential because of its comprehensive nature and it moves from theory to classroom practice. It is comprised of five central hypotheses (1983):

1. The Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis 2. The Monitor Hypothesis 3. The Natural Order Hypothesis 4. The Input Hypothesis 5. The Affective Filter Hypothesis

1. The Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis According to Krashen, language is acquired, not learnt. The acquisitionlearning distinction is the most fundamental of all the hypotheses in Krashen's theory. There are two different ways of developing skills in a second language: learning and acquisition. Learning is a conscious Process that focuses the students' attention on the form of '1' language (structure). Acquisition, unlike learning, is a process similar to that by which we acquired our mother tongue, and which represents the subconscious activity by which we internalize the new language, putting emphasis on message (meaning) rather than on the form. The first hypothesis of Krashen’s Monitor Model, the acquisition-learning hypothesis, distinguishes between the processes of language acquisition and language learning. Krashen contrasts acquisition and learning as two distinct and separate language processes. Acquisition occurs passively and unconsciously through implicit, informal, or natural learning, resulting in implicit knowledge and acquired competence of a language; in other words, to acquire a language is to “pick up” a language by relying on “feelings” of correctness rather than conscious knowledge of language rules. In contrast to acquisition, learning occurs actively and consciously through explicit or formal learning and instruction, resulting in explicit knowledge about a language; learning results in metalinguistic knowledge and awareness. Furthermore, the acquisition-learning hypothesis states that both children and adults acquire language via access to an innate language acquisition device (LAD) regardless of age as well as that learning cannot become acquisition. The most important pedagogical implication of the first hypothesis of the Monitor Model is that explicit teaching and learning is unnecessary, indeed inadequate, for second language acquisition. According to Krashen there are two independent systems of second language performance: the „acquired system' and 'the learned system'. The 'acquired system' or 'acquisition' is the product of a subconscious process very similar to the process children undergo when they acquire their first language. It requires

meaningful interaction in the target language and natural communication in which speakers are concentrated not in the form of their utterances, but in the communicative act. The 'learned system' or 'learning' is the product of formal 'instruction and it comprises a conscious process which results in conscious knowledge 'about' the language, for example knowledge of grammar rules. According to Krashen 'learning' is less important than 'acquisition'.

Criticism of Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis: The first critique of Krashen’s Monitor Model is that the hypothesized distinction between acquisition and learning as posited by the acquisition-learning hypothesis, or, more specifically, determining whether the process involved in language production resulted from implicit acquisition or explicit learning, is impossible to prove. As Barry McLaughlin offers as anecdotal evidence, he feels that the German *Ich habe nicht das Kind gesehen “I have not seen the children” is incorrect based on intuition but also knows that the utterance is incorrect based on his knowledge of the rules of German grammar. Furthermore, critics consider the argument that learning cannot become acquisition questionable. Kevin R. Gregg offers anecdotal evidence of his personal experience learning a second language as counterevidence to the clear division between acquisition and learning: He initially consciously learned the conjugations of Japanese verbs through rote memorization, which ultimately led to unconscious acquisition. In his case, learning became acquisition. Both examples of personal experience with a second language illustrate the problem with stringently distinguishing the process of language acquisition from the process of language learning. Thus, the claim that acquisition is distinct from learning fails to withstand evidence-based criticism Although influential within the field of second language acquisition over the past few decades, the Monitor Model is not without criticism as illustrated by the major critiques of the learning-acquisition hypothesis. In most classrooms, learning is more emphasized than acquisition. We have been teaching grammar rule or rules of usage instead of facilitating acquisition of English in the classroom. However, in real life, when we take interest with speakers of our own language, we rarely focus our attention on the form of the speaker uses. Acquisition is, thus, untutored or naturalistic way. Acquiring a language is more successful and longer lasting than learning.

2. The Monitor Hypothesis Krashen's SLA theory was originally known as Monitor theory, perhaps because the central part of it was the Monitor Hypothesis. The monitor hypothesis explains the relationship between acquisition and learning and defines the influence of the latter on the former. The monitoring function is the practical result of learned grammar. According to Krashen, the acquisition system is the utterance initiator, while the learning system performs the role of the monitor or the editor. The Monitor is an editing device that may operate before language performance. The monitor acts in a planning, editing and correcting function when three specific conditions are met: that is the second language learner has sufficient time at his/her disposal, he/she focuses on form or thinks about correctness, and he/she knows the rule.

This hypothesis takes into consideration three kinds of Monitor users: i. Over-monitor users, i.e., students who are seldom trust their acquired competence, thus verifying every sentence they produce by using their learned competence. Such speakers are sure to speak hesitantly and with no fluency (introvert). Lack of self-confidence is frequently related to the over-use of the 'monitor'. ii. Under-monitor users; i.e., speakers who do not really care about correctness, only meaning. These speakers are usually very talkative (extrovert) even in their own mother tongue, and, although they make more mistakes than over-monitor users, they will also covey more meaning. iii. Optimal monitor users, or acquirers who manage to use Monitor only when it is appropriate. Optimal monitor users usually give the impression that they possess more competence tan under monitor users of the same level of acquisition. The monitor hypothesis, complements the acquisition-learning hypothesis by claiming that the only function of learning within second language acquisition is as an editor, or Monitor, for language use produced by the acquired system as well as to produce grammatical forms not yet acquired. The Monitor allows a language user to alter the form of an utterance either prior to production by consciously applying learned rules or after production via self-correction. In other words, the learned system monitors the output of the acquired system. However, according to the monitor hypothesis, explicit knowledge of a language rule is not sufficient for the utilization of the Monitor; a language user must also have an adequate amount of time to consciously think about and apply learned rules. Additionally, the three conditions required by the Monitor—time, focus, and knowledge—are, as Krashen asserts, “necessary and not sufficient,” meaning that, despite the convenement of all three conditions, a language user may not utilize the Monitor.

Criticism of the Monitor Hypothesis The major critique of the monitor hypothesis expands on the critique of the acquisition-learning hypothesis. According to the monitor hypothesis, the main purpose of language learning is to function as a Monitor for output produced by acquired system. However, as critics reveal through deeper investigation of the acquisition-learning distinction, to separate language learning clearly and adequately from language acquisition is impossible. Consequently, determining that the function of the learned system is as a Monitor only remains likewise impossible to prove. Additionally, that the claim of learning-as-Monitor applies only to output after production invites further criticism of the hypothesis; second language learners can and do use the learned system to produce output as well as to facilitate comprehension. Such questions and evidence, therefore, invalidate the central claim of the monitor hypothesis. Therefore, in spite of the influence of the Monitor Model in the field of second language acquisition, the third hypothesis, the monitor hypothesis, has not been

without criticism as evidenced by the critiques offered by other linguists and educators in the field.

3. The Natural Order Hypothesis The natural order hypothesis is based on research findings that the acquisition of grammatical structures follows a 'natural order' which is predictable. For a given language, some grammatical structures tend to be acquired early while others late. For instance, one of the structural items that we teach in most language programmes is the third Person singular of the simple present tense. Surprisingly, this is one of the structures acquired last. This is why we often complain of having intermediate, or even advanced, students who make mistakes with such a simple pattern. The Natural Order Hypothesis also accounts for students‟ mistakes and errors: Students make mistakes (or developmental errors) when the structure used has not been completely acquired. We can assume that mistakes will be present during the acquisition process. Consequently, the best way to correct the students' mistakes is to provide more input containing the structure in question

Criticism of the Natural Order Hypothesis The second critique of the Monitor Model surrounds the evidence in support of the natural order hypothesis. According to Krashen, that children acquiring English as a second language acquire the morphemes of the language in a predictable sequence similar but not identical to the sequence followed by children acquiring English as a first language confirms the validity of the natural order hypothesis. Furthermore, other morpheme studies on adults acquiring English as a second language show similar results. However, as Kevin R. Gregg argues, to generalize the results of a study on the acquisition of a limited set of English morphemes to second language acquisition as a whole is fallible. Morpheme studies offer no indication that second language learners similarly acquire other linguistic features (phonology, syntax, semantics, pragmatics) in any predictable sequence let alone in any sequence at all. Secondly, the natural order hypothesis fails to account for the considerable influence of the first language on the acquisition of a second language; in fact, the results of other studies indicate that second language learners acquire a second language in different orders depending on their native language. Therefore, although posited by the natural order hypothesis, second language learners do not necessarily acquire grammatical structures in a predictable sequence. Although the Monitor Model has been influential in the field of second language acquisition, the second hypothesis, the natural order hypothesis, has not been without criticism as evidenced by the critiques offered by other linguists and educators in the field.

4. The Input Hypothesis The input hypothesis is Krashen's attempt to explain how the learner acquires a second language. So, the Input hypothesis is only concerned with 'acquisition’ not 'learning'. Krashen's input hypothesis claims that language acquisition occurs through understanding messages or through receiving 'comprehensible input'. That is, in Krashen's view, perceptive language behaviours such as listening or reading play the major role in the learning process, including the development of speaking ability or the knowledge of grammar rules will follow automatically as long as a sufficient amount and type of input is provided. According to this hypothesis, the learner improves and progresses along the 'natural order' when he/she receives second language 'input' that is one step beyond his/her current stage of linguistic competence. For example, if a learner is at a stage 'i', then acquisition takes place when he/she is exposed to 'Comprehensible Input' that belongs to level 'i + 1’. Since not all of the learners can be at the same level of linguistic competence at the same time, Krashen suggests that natural communicative input is the key to designing a syllabus, ensuring in this way that each learner will receive some 1+1' input that is appropriate for his/her current stage of linguistic competence.

Criticism of the Input Hypothesis: Like for the acquisition-learning hypothesis, the first critique of the input hypothesis surrounds the lack of a clear definition of comprehensible input; Krashen never sufficiently explains the values of i or i+1. As Gass et al. argue, the vagueness of the term means that i+1 could equal “one token, two tokens, 777 tokens”; in other words, sufficient comprehensible input could embody any quantity. More importantly, the input hypothesis focuses solely on comprehensible input as necessary, although not sufficient, for second language acquisition to the neglect of any possible importance of output. The output hypothesis as proposed by Merrill Swain seeks to rectify the assumed inadequacies of the input hypothesis by positing that language acquisition and learning may also occur through the production of language. According to Swain who attempts to hypothesize a loop between input and output, output allows second language learners to identify gaps in their linguistic knowledge and subsequently attend to relevant input. Therefore, without minimizing the importance of input, the output hypothesis complements and addresses the insufficiencies of the input hypothesis by addressing the importance of the production of language for second language acquisition. Thus, despite the influence of the Monitor Model in the field of second language learning and acquisition, the input hypothesis, the fourth hypothesis of the theory, has not been without criticism as evidenced by the critiques offered by other linguists and educators in the field.

5. The Affective Filter Hypothesis Understanding a message is not enough to assure language acquisition; one must be open to the message so that it reaches the Language Acquisition Device (LAD). where statements are generated. Not all the input reaches the (LAD); somewhere along the way it is filtered, and only part of it is acquired. This filtering process takes place in the affective filter, which acts like the gate controlling the amount of input

The affective filter "opens" or "closes" to our mood that is, if we are relaxed and in a pleasant learning environment, more input will reach the LAD, while if we are tense or are in a negative environment, our efforts to provide input is fruitless. That is why, it is important to provide an appropriate acquisition environment in the class room, eliminating anxiety and encouraging students so they feel they can really acquire the language. Of course, proper motivation is the best way to open the filters. The Affective Filter hypothesis influences the rate of development in second language learning and the level of success in becoming bilingual. Stephen Krashen's theory of language learning has been the source of considerable controversy and academic discussion, but it has undoubtedly succeeded in bridging the gap between linguistic theory and actual language teaching by affecting the thinking and attitudes of many practicing teachers.

Criticism of the Affective Filter Hypothesis The final critique of Krashen’s Monitor Model questions the claim of the affective filter hypothesis that affective factors alone account for individual variation in second language acquisition. First, Krashen claims that children lack the affective filter that causes most adult second language learners to never completely master their second language. Such a claim fails to withstand scrutiny because children also experience differences in non-linguistic variables such as motivation, selfconfidence, and anxiety that supposedly account for child-adult differences in second language learning. Furthermore, evidence in the form of adult second language learners who acquire a second language to a native-like competence except for a single grammatical feature problematizes the claim that an affective filter prevents comprehensible input from reaching the language acquisition device. As Manmay Zafar asks, “How does the filter determine which parts of language are to be screened in/out?” In other words, the affective filter hypothesis fails to answer the most important question about affect alone accounting for individual variation in second language acquisition. Although the Monitor Model has been influential in the field of second language acquisition, the fifth and final hypothesis, the affective filter hypothesis, has not been without criticism as evidenced by the critiques offered by other linguists and educators in the field.

Conclusion: For many of us, Krashen's Second Language Acquisition theory has changed our concept of language teaching and has suggested new ideas for communicative language teaching. The model has been criticized by some linguists and isn't considered a valid hypothesis for some. It has however, inspired much research, and many praise its value. The theory underlies Krashen and Terrell's comprehensionbased language learning methodology known as natural approach (1983) .The Focal Skills approach, first developed in 1998, is also based on the theory.

The End