3rd year English Psycholinguistics 2024/2025

Chapter 4

CHAPTER FOUR
Krashen's Monitor Model
1- Introduction
Second language acquisition theories were developed along the lines of first language
acquisition theories. Studies in linguistics have focused on second language acquisition
investigating how a second language is acquired, describing different stages of development and
assessing whether second language acquisition follows a similar route to that of first language
acquisition. Krashen’s Monitor Model evolved in the late 1970s in a series of articles (Krashen
1977, 1978) and was elaborated and expanded in a number of books (Krashen 1981, 1982, 1985;
Krashen and Terrell 1983). Krashen’s theory has achieved considerable popularity among second-
language teachers in the United States. On the other hand, the theory has been seriously criticized
on various grounds by second-language researchers and theorists.
2- Acquisition/Learning Hypothesis
Learners acquire language through a subconscious process during which they are unaware of
grammatical rules. This happens especially when they acquire their first language. They repeat what
is said to them and get a feel for what is and what is not correct. In order to acquire a language, they
need a source of natural communication, which is usually the mother, the father, or the caregiver.
Language learning, on the other hand, is the result of direct instruction in the rules of language.
Language learning is not an age-appropriate activity for very young children as learning
presupposes that learners have a conscious knowledge of the new language and can talk about that
knowledge. They usually have a basic knowledge of the grammar.
Acquisition Learning
unconscious process intentional process
does not presuppose teaching presupposes teaching
the child controls the pace the teacher controls the pace

Learning does not “turn into” acquisition. Our conscious learning process and our subconscious
acquisition process are mutually exclusive.
3- Monitor Hypothesis
The “Monitor” is a “device” for “watchdogging” one’s output, for editing and making
alterations or corrections as they are consciously perceived. Acquisition “initiates” the
speaker’s utterances and is responsible for fluency. Thus the Monitor is thought to alter the
output of the acquired system before or after the utterance is actually written or spoken, but

Dr. Haddaji 1
3rd year English Psycholinguistics 2024/2025
Chapter 4

the utterance is initiated entirely by the acquired system. This hypothesis has important
implications for language teaching. Krashen argued that formal instruction in a language
provides rule isolation and feedback for the development of the Monitor, but that production
is based on what is acquired through communication, with the Monitor altering production to
improve accuracy toward target language norms. Krashen’s position is that conscious
knowledge of rules does not help acquisition, but only enables the learner to “polish up” what
has been acquired through communication. The focus of language teaching should not be
rule-learning but communication.
4- Natural Order Hypothesis
The Natural Order Hypothesis states that we acquire the rules of language in a predictable
order, some rules tending to come early and others late (Krashen 1985). This “natural” order
of acquisition is presumed to be the result of the acquired system, operating free of conscious
grammar, or the Monitor. The principal source of evidence for the Natural Order Hypothesis
comes from the so-called “morpheme’ studies” (Dulay and Burt 1974) Krashen also
maintained that there is a “natural” sequence for the development of the negative, the
auxiliary system, questions, and inflections in English. To conclude, Krashen’s argument for
the Natural Order Hypothesis is based largely on the morpheme studies, which have been
criticized on various grounds and which, by focusing on final form, tell us little about
acquisitional sequences.
5- lnput Hypothesis
This hypothesis postulates that humans acquire language in only one way – by
understanding messages, or by receiving ‘comprehensible input’…We move form i, our
current level, to i+1, the next level along the natural order, by understanding input containing
i+1 (Krashen 1985). An important part of the Input Hypothesis is Krashen’s recommendation
that speaking not be taught directly or very soon in the language classroom. Speech will
‘emerge’ once the acquirer has built up enough comprehensible input (i+1). Comprehensible
input is the route to acquisition and information about grammar in the target language is
automatically available when the input is understood. Evidence: the silent period – during
this period, learners are presumably building up their competence in the target language by
listening. Krashen argued that they are making use of the ‘comprehensible input’ they receive.
Once competence has been built up, speech emerges.
6- Affective Filter Hypothesis

Dr. Haddaji 2
3rd year English Psycholinguistics 2024/2025
Chapter 4

According to the Affective Filter Hypothesis, comprehensible input may not be utilized
by a second-language acquirers if there is a ‘mental block’ that prevents them from fully
profiting from it (Krashen 1985). 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. Krashen maintained that
acquirers need to be open to the input and that when the affective is up, the learner may
understand what is seen and read, but the input will not reach the LAD. This occurs when
the acquirer is unmotivated, lacking in confidence, or concerned with failure. The filter is
down when the acquirer is not anxious and is intent on becoming a member of the group
speaking the target language. Many researchers agree with Krashen on basic assumptions,
such as the need to move form grammar-based to communicatively oriented language
instruction, the role of affective factors in language learning, and the importance of
acquisitional sequences in second-language development.

Criticism of Monitor Model

1. Barry McLaughlin (1978, 1990) sharply criticized Krashen’s rather fuzzy distinction
between subconscious (acquisition) and conscious (learning) processes.

2. There is no interface – no overlap – between acquisition and learning. Instruction in

conscious rule learning can indeed aid in the attainment of successful communicative
competence in a second language.

3. Krashen’s Input Hypothesis claims that success in a foreign language can be

attributed to input alone. Such a theory ascribes little credit to learners and their own
active engagement in the pursuit of language competence. First of all, it is important
to distinguish between input and intake. The latter is the subset of all input that
actually gets assigned to our long-term memory store. Second language learners are
exposed to potentially large quantities of input, only a fraction of which becomes
intake.

4. Krashen presents the i+1 formula as if we are actually able to define i and 1, and we
are not.

5. The notion that speech will ‘emerge’ in a context of comprehensible input sounds
promising, but we are left with no significant information on what to do about the
students for whom speech does not ‘emerge’.
Dr. Haddaji 3
3rd year English Psycholinguistics 2024/2025
Chapter 4

Despite the various criticisms, Krashen's Monitor Theory of second language acquisition
had a great impact on the way second language learning was viewed, and initiated research
towards the discovery of orders of acquisition.

Dr. Haddaji 4