The Monitor Model

by Krashen
Lecture by: Dr. Rafia Bilal
Introduction
• Krashen's Monitor Model theory has been widely influential in the
field of second language acquisition (SLA), particularly with its
emphasis on comprehensible input and the natural process of
language learning. The five hypotheses it includes—acquisition-
learning distinction, natural order hypothesis, monitor hypothesis,
input hypothesis, and affective filter hypothesis—are designed to
explain how language is acquired and the factors that influence this
process.
The 5 Hypotheses:
It consists of five main hypotheses that describe how people acquire
and learn a second language. These hypotheses emphasize the
importance of natural communication and subconscious learning. They
are:
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
Key Idea: There are two distinct ways to develop language skills:
1. Acquisition: A subconscious process similar to how children acquire their first
language. It involves meaningful communication and is more effective for
fluency.
2. Learning: A conscious process that involves studying grammar rules and formal
instruction. It is less effective for communication.
The acquisition-learning hypothesis makes a distinction between acquisition and
learning. Acquisition is a subconscious process. In this process language acquirers
are not aware of the fact that they are acquiring a language. They are only aware of
the fact that they are using the language for communication. Acquisition is thus an
informal learning in a natural way. On the other hand, learning is a conscious
process. It involves both conscious knowledge of the rules of grammar of a second
language and practical use of the knowledge. It is, therefore, a formal learning in an
explicit way.
• But Krashen’s use of the terms ‘conscious’ and ‘subconscious’ are
questionable, since he does not clearly define them. The vagueness of
these terms impedes the reliability of the hypothesis. Then the way
Krashen draws a hard and fast boundary between acquisition and
learning is also disputable. Although he draws a distinction between
them, he does not think of the possibility that both of them can form
a synergic relationship rather than become mutually exclusive (Ellis,
1985).
2. The Monitor Hypothesis:
• Key Idea: The "monitor" acts as an editor, using conscious knowledge
of grammar rules to polish or correct language output.
• Conditions for use: The monitor is used only when:
• The learner knows the rule.
• The learner has enough time to apply it.
• The learner focuses on correctness.
• Limitation: Overuse of the monitor can hinder fluency by causing
hesitation.
• The acquired linguistic system initiates utterances when we communicate
in a second language. The monitor hypothesis maintains that conscious
learning can function only as a monitor or editor that checks and repairs
the output of the acquired system. This means that we may call upon
learned knowledge to correct ourselves when we communicate. Three
conditions limit the successful use of the monitor:
• a) Time: There must be sufficient time for a learner to choose and apply a
learned rule.
• b) Focus on form: The language user must be focused on correctness or on
the form of the output.
• c) Knowledge of rules: The performer must know the rules.
Types of Monitor-Users
• Overusers of the Monitor
• Characteristics:
• These learners tend to excessively rely on their conscious knowledge of grammar
rules when speaking or writing.
• They prioritize correctness over fluency and often stop speaking or writing to
think about the correct grammar or structure.
• This overuse can lead to hesitation, a lack of fluidity in communication, and the
suppression of natural language use.
• Implication:
• Overusers may experience a high affective filter because they are constantly
worried about making mistakes, which can impede their ability to engage in
spontaneous communication and hinder fluency.
• Underusers of the Monitor
• Characteristics:
• These learners rarely or never use their conscious grammar knowledge to correct
their language output.
• They tend to focus more on communication and fluency rather than accuracy, often
producing language that is grammatically imperfect but easily understood.
• They are more likely to engage in spontaneous conversation without worrying about
making grammatical errors.
• Implication:
• Underusers may make more mistakes, but they tend to speak more fluidly and
naturally. They benefit from a low affective filter, as they feel less anxious and more
confident about their communication, even if it's not entirely accurate.
• Optimal Monitor Users
• Characteristics:
• These learners use the monitor appropriately, applying conscious grammar knowledge only
when they feel it is necessary (for example, in writing or in more formal situations).
• They balance fluency and accuracy, using their subconscious language acquisition for
natural conversation and switching to conscious grammar knowledge when accuracy is
important (e.g., in a formal written context).
• They do not overthink their grammar, but they are still able to apply rules when they need
them.
• Implication:
• Optimal users can communicate effectively and fluently without losing accuracy when
needed. They maintain a low affective filter during casual communication but switch to a
higher level of monitoring when appropriate.
 Summary of the Three Types of Monitor Users:
The optimal use of the monitor is seen as the most desirable in language learning, where
learners can switch between fluency and accuracy as needed, without over-relying on
grammar rules in spontaneous communication.

Monitor User Type Characteristics Implications

Focus excessively on grammar
May have a high affective filter,
Overusers rules, leading to hesitation and a
inhibiting natural conversation.
lack of fluency.
Rarely use grammar rules
More fluent but may make
Underusers consciously, focusing on fluency
frequent errors.
over accuracy.
Use the monitor appropriately, Communicate effectively with both
Optimal Users
balancing fluency and accuracy. fluency and accuracy.
Criticism:
• Controversial “Monitor” Function
• The Monitor Hypothesis, which states that conscious knowledge of
grammar serves as a "monitor" to edit or correct language output,
has been criticized for oversimplifying how language users actually
process and produce language. Many argue that language production
involves more than just conscious editing—it also involves immediate,
context-dependent decisions and fluency-building practices.
3. The Natural Order Hypothesis
• Key Idea: Language structures are acquired in a predictable sequence,
regardless of the learner's age, first language, or exposure.
• Example: In English, learners often acquire the "-ing" verb form
before irregular past tense, regardless of formal instruction.
The Natural Order Hypothesis
• This hypothesis states that grammatical structures are acquired in a predictable order. Certain
structures tend to be acquired earlier than others. For example, the following chart shows the
order in which people learning English as a second language acquire grammatical morphemes.
• a) ing (progressive)
• b) plural
• c) coupla (to be)
• d) auxiliary (progressive)
• e) article (a, the)
• f) irregular past
• g) regular past
• h) third person singular (s)
• i) possessive ('s)
Criticism
• Lack of Universality
• Criticism: One of the main criticisms of the Natural Order Hypothesis is that it
claims a universal sequence of grammatical acquisition, but empirical studies
have shown that there is variability in the order in which learners acquire
grammatical structures. Learners do not always follow the same predictable
sequence, and different learners may acquire structures in different orders.
• Example: Some studies have found that learners may acquire certain
structures out of the order that Krashen predicts. For instance, some learners
might acquire third-person singular -s before the progressive -ing, or they
might acquire different structures at different rates depending on the context,
language environment, and individual differences.
• Influence of First Language
• Criticism: While Krashen argues that the natural order of acquisition is
independent of the learner’s first language, research has shown that a
learner's first language (L1) can have a significant influence on the order
in which they acquire certain grammatical features in a second language
(L2). This influence is particularly noticeable with structures that are
similar or different in the first and second languages.
• Example: A native Spanish speaker, for instance, may acquire some
aspects of English grammar differently from a native Mandarin speaker
due to differences in sentence structures, word order, or tense marking
between English and their respective L1s.
• Over-Simplification of Acquisition Processes
• Criticism: The Natural Order Hypothesis oversimplifies the complex
process of second language acquisition. Language acquisition is
influenced by a variety of factors, including motivation, social
interaction, cognitive processes, and learning strategies, but the
Natural Order Hypothesis focuses primarily on the order in which
grammar is acquired, neglecting these other important influences.
• Example: The hypothesis does not account for why some learners
acquire a specific structure earlier than others, despite being exposed
to the same input and grammar instruction.
4. The Input Hypothesis
Key Idea: Language is acquired when learners are exposed to
comprehensible input that is slightly beyond their current level
(denoted as i+1).
Application: Teachers should provide language input that is
understandable but challenging enough to promote progress.
• Criticisms of the Input Hypothesis
• Oversimplification: Critics argue that not all learners acquire language
in the same way, and factors like motivation, memory, and aptitude
play significant roles.
• Output is Important: Some linguists believe that practicing speaking
and writing (output) is essential for reinforcing acquisition.
• What Counts as i+1?: The hypothesis does not clearly define how to
determine the right level of input for individual learners.
• Core Principles of the Input Hypothesis
• Comprehensible Input
• Language acquisition occurs when learners are exposed to input (spoken or written
language) that is slightly beyond their current level of competence, represented as i+1:
• i: The learner’s current language ability.
• +1: The next stage of language development that the learner is ready to acquire.
• If the input is too simple (i), the learner won’t grow. If it is too advanced (i+2 or
higher), it may cause frustration and hinder learning.
• Understanding Before Production
• Learners acquire language through understanding input, not by practicing speaking or
writing.
• Speaking and writing naturally emerge once the learner has internalized enough
language.
• Acquisition, Not Learning
• Krashen distinguishes acquisition (subconscious) from learning (conscious study of
grammar rules). The Input Hypothesis deals exclusively with acquisition.
• Natural Progression
• Language acquisition is a gradual process. Learners progress through the
stages naturally when exposed to appropriate input, without needing explicit
instruction.
• Context and Clues
• Context, visual aids, and prior knowledge help learners understand input that
is slightly above their level, even if they don't know every word or rule.
• Examples of Comprehensible Input
• For Beginners:
• Listening to simplified stories with visuals, such as a picture book or a cartoon with captions.
• Speaking in short, clear sentences using gestures and familiar vocabulary.
(e.g., "This is a cat. The cat is sleeping.")
• For Intermediate Learners:
• Conversations where unknown words are explained using synonyms or context.
• Reading graded readers or texts designed for learners.
(e.g., "The cat climbed a tree because it was afraid of the dog.")
• For Advanced Learners:
• Watching movies or reading authentic texts with occasional new vocabulary or grammar.
• Engaging in discussions on familiar topics but with more complex sentence structures
• Criticisms of the Input Hypothesis
• Oversimplification: Critics argue that not all learners acquire language
in the same way, and factors like motivation, memory, and aptitude
play significant roles.
• Output is Important: Some linguists believe that practicing speaking
and writing (output) is essential for reinforcing acquisition.
• What Counts as i+1?: The hypothesis does not clearly define how to
determine the right level of input for individual learners.
5. The Affective Filter Hypothesis
• The affective filter hypothesis states how affective factors relate to
second-language acquisition process. The affective filter is a part of
the internal processing system. It subconsciously screens incoming
language based on affective factors such as, the acquirer's motives,
attitudes, and emotional states. The operation of the affective filter
(based on Krashen, 1982) can be seen in the following figure.
 Only when the filter shown in the figure is down or low, the input
can reach the LAD and result in acquired competence. According to
Krashen, it is necessary for the acquirers to be open to the input.
When the affective filter is up, the acquirer is able to understand
what is seen and read, but the input does not reach the LAD. This
occurs on account of the acquirer's lack of motivation, confidence, and
his concern with failure. The filter is down when the acquirer does not
feel worried and finds interest in becoming a member of the target
language group. The acquisition then gets easy and comes to fruition.
• What Is the Affective Filter?
• The affective filter is a metaphorical barrier that affects how much comprehensible input a learner
can process.
• When the filter is low, learners are open to receiving and processing input, making acquisition easier.
• When the filter is high, learners block or reject input, limiting their ability to acquire the language.
• Key Emotional Factors: The hypothesis identifies several factors that influence the level of
the affective filter:
• Motivation: High motivation lowers the filter, encouraging language acquisition.
• Self-Confidence: Learners with confidence are more likely to take risks and engage with the language.
• Anxiety: High anxiety raises the filter, creating a mental block that reduces comprehension and
retention.
• Attitude: A positive attitude toward the language, culture, and learning environment lowers the filter.
• How the Affective Filter Works
• Low Affective Filter:
• Occurs when learners feel comfortable, motivated, and confident.
• Allows more comprehensible input to reach the brain’s language acquisition device (LAD),
facilitating learning.
• Example: A relaxed classroom with supportive peers and an engaging teacher encourages
participation and comprehension.
• High Affective Filter:
• Occurs when learners experience fear, stress, or frustration.
• Blocks comprehensible input from being processed, regardless of the quality or quantity of
input.
• Example: A learner in a high-pressure environment with constant correction may become
self-conscious and stop engaging.
 Factors Contributing to a High or Low Filter

Low Affective Filter High Affective Filter

Relaxed and enjoyable environment Stressful or competitive setting
Encouraging and supportive teacher Harsh or overly critical feedback
Meaningful, engaging activities Boring or irrelevant materials
Acceptance of mistakes Fear of making errors
Interest in the language and culture Disinterest or cultural bias
Conclusion:
• While Krashen's Monitor Model has had a lasting influence on
language teaching, especially the focus on comprehensible input and
immersion techniques, its broad, unverified claims remain
controversial. Empirical scrutiny of many of Krashen’s hypotheses is
often seen as lacking, and researchers continue to debate the balance
between input, output, emotional factors, and other cognitive
processes in second language acquisition. Thus, while the model
provides valuable insights, it leaves the mechanisms behind language
acquisition in a somewhat dubious position.