The Monitor Theory

Eng. 526Trends in Educational Linguistics

Term Paper

A Critical Analysis of

Krashen’s Monitor Theory:

Implications for Foreign

Language Teaching

Written by:Enas Al.Musallam

Second semester 2005/2006

Enas I. Al-Musallam

1

The Monitor Theory

The most ambitious as well as the most controversial theory which attempts to provide an

overall account for SLA is Krashen’s Monitor Theory. This theory has had a large impact on

all areas of second language research and teaching since the 1980s; thus, received extensive

attention in the professional literature. Yet despite this impact, it received a great deal of

criticism. For these reasons, I attempt to provide a critical analysis of the theory’s five main

hypotheses in this paper. In addition, I aim to address what I consider to be some of the

theory’s implications for current ES/FL teaching by drawing on my own experiences in the

classroom as a teacher and as a student of English language.

1. The Monitor Theory:

Krashen has frequently changed some elements in his theory; which was actually not a

theory at all but merely a model in the beginning, and which has undergone quite few stages

of subsequent development culminating in the full-grown theory of the 1980s (Binnema, n.d.).

Without diving too deep into all these developments and refinements, a description of the five

main hypotheses of Krashen’s theory in its mature stage will be given.

1.1. The Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis:

The Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis holds that “adults have two distinct and

independent ways of developing competence in a second language: acquisition, which is

subconscious, and learning, which is conscious” (Gregg, 1984:79). Language acquisition is a

subconscious process similar to the way a child learns his first language—i.e. acquisition

takes place through natural language interactions. Language acquirers are not consciously

aware of the grammatical rules of the language, but may self-correct only on the basis of a

feel for grammaticality. Language learning, on the other hand, refers to the conscious

knowledge of a second language, knowing the rules, being aware of them, and being able to

Enas I. Al-Musallam

2

The Monitor Theory

talk about them. Therefore, language learning takes place predominantly in formal instruction.

Krashen claims that the two shall remain disparate (Krashen, 1981).

The Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis indicates that adults do not lose the ability to

acquire languages the way that children do, since krashen claims that adults can access the

same natural language acquisition device (LAD) that children use. He also assumes that

learning does not turn into acquisition (Stewart, n.d.; Larsen-Freeman &Long, 1991).

1.2. The Natural Order Hypothesis:

The Natural Order Hypothesis states that the acquisition of grammatical structures

proceeds in a predictable order. For a given language, some grammatical structures tend to be

acquired early, others late without regard to the first language of a given learner, his age, and

conditions of exposure. A series of research studies investigating morpheme acquisition

orders provided evidence for the Natural Order Hypothesis (Dulay & Burt, 1974; Fathman,

1975; Makino, 1980 as cited in Schutz, 2005). Although the agreement between individual

acquirers was not always 100% in these studies, there were statistically significant similarities

that reinforced the existence of a natural order.

This natural order does not necessarily depend on simplicity of form, yet it could be

altered by forcing another sequence in the teaching process. This natural order dictates the

way in which a language is acquired, but learning might follow another order (Gitsaki, 1998;

Wilson, 2000).

1.3. The Monitor Hypothesis:

The Monitor Hypothesis explains the relationship between acquisition and learning, and

defines the influence of the latter on the former. This hypothesis holds that formal learning

has only one function which is as a monitor for the learner’s output, whereas the acquired

Enas I. Al-Musallam

3

The Monitor Theory

system is the utterance initiator. The monitor functions properly when three specific

conditions are met: 1. there is sufficient time, 2. the focus of the interaction is on form rather

than meaning, and 3. the learner knows the rule in question (Krashen, 1981; Schulz, 1991;

Schutz, 2005). This monitoring involves self-correction on the base of learned language rules

and is completely different from the monitoring during acquisition; where no explicit rules

need to be involved.

Krashen (1981) suggests that there is individual variation among language learners

regarding 'monitor' use. He distinguishes those learners who use the 'monitor' all the time

(over-users); those learners who have not learned or who prefer not to use their conscious

knowledge (under-users); and those learners who use the 'monitor' appropriately when it does

not interfere with communication (optimal users). Optimal monitor users can use their learned

competence as a supplement to their acquired competence. Most of the time, however,

Krashen suggests leaving the monitor unemployed; and concentrating upon meaning rather

form.

1.4. The Input Hypothesis:

The Input Hypothesis answers the question of how a language acquirer develops

competency over time. It states that a language acquirer who is at “level I” must receive

comprehensible input that is at “level i+1.” In other words, we acquire only when we

understand language which contains structure that is 'a little beyond' our current level. This is

achieved with the help of context or exralinguistic information (Gitsaki, 1998; Wilson, 2000).

Evidence for the input hypothesis can be found in the effectiveness of caretaker speech

from an adult to a child, teacher-talk from a teacher to a language student, and foreigner-talk

from a sympathetic conversation partner to a language learner/acquirer (Krashen, 1981). This

Enas I. Al-Musallam

4

The Monitor Theory

hypothesis is also supported by the fact that the first second language utterances of adult

learners are often very similar to those of infants in their first language. Krashen also provides

the so-called ‘silent period’ as evidence for this hypothesis—i.e., children learning a second

language commonly speak very little in the target language for the first several months

(Romeo, 2000).

A result of this hypothesis is that language students should be given an initial ‘silent

period’ during which they can build up acquired competence in the language before beginning

to produce it. Krashen states, “In accordance with the Input Hypothesis, speaking ability

emerges on its own after enough competence has been developed by listening and

understanding” (as cited in Gregg, 1984, p. 90). Moreover, Krashen suggests that natural

communicative input is the key to design a syllabus, ensuring in this way that each learner

will receive some i+1 input which is appropriate for his/her current stage of linguistic

competence.

1.5. The Affective Filter Hypothesis:

The Affective Filter Hypothesis embodies Krashen’s view that a number of ‘affective

variables’ play a facilitative, but non-causal, role in second language acquisition. These

variables include: motivation, self-confidence and anxiety. Krashen claims that learners with

high motivation, self-confidence, a good self-image, and a low level of anxiety are better

equipped for success in second language acquisition. Low motivation, low self-esteem, and

debilitating anxiety can combine to 'raise' the affective filter and form a 'mental block' that

prevents comprehensible input from being used for acquisition. In other words, a high

affective filter inhibits acquisition, whereas a low affective filter promotes it. According to

Krashen, this filter is present in adults but not in children, and accounts for the failure of a

Enas I. Al-Musallam

5

The Monitor Theory

learner in acquiring a second language. (Larsen-Freeman & Long, 1991; The Monitor Model,

n.d.)

These five hypotheses of second language acquisition can be summarized as: 1.

Acquisition is inevitable and more important than learning. 2. In order to acquire, two

conditions are necessary. The first is comprehensible input containing i+1—i.e., structures a

bit beyond the acquirer’s current level, and second, a low or weak affective filter to allow the

input in (Wilson, 2000).

2. A Critique of the Monitor Theory:

Now that we have become acquainted with the basic features of Krashen’s theory, it is

important to take a closer look at the criticisms that have arisen considering his theory. I

believe that these criticisms stem from several issues. First, Krashen’s theory was one of the

first theories developed specifically to explain SLA. Second, his theory made a large number

of claims about a wide array of SLA phenomena, many of which seemed empirically

falsifiable, which thus attracted researchers critical of the idea. Finally, Krashen’s theory was

closely tied to recommendations for classroom practice; as a result, it seemed important to

test.

Serious concerns were first expressed by McLaughlin (1978), who acknowledges

Krashen’s attempt to develop an extensive and detailed SLA theory, but finds it inadequate in

that some of its central assumptions and hypotheses are not clearly defined. As a result, they

are not readily testable (Gitsaki, 1998). McLaughlin (1987, p. 56) states that, “Krashen’s

theory fails at every juncture...Krashen has not defined his terms with enough precision, the

empirical basis of the theory is weak, and the theory is not clear in its predictions” (as cited in

Binnema, n.d.). McLaughlin (1987) points out that Krashen never adequately defines

Enas I. Al-Musallam

6

The Monitor Theory

acquisition, learning, conscious or subconscious; without such clarification, it is extremely

difficult to independently determine whether subjects are “learning” or “acquiring” language

(Romeo, 2000).

Seliger (1979) also criticizes Krashen’s theory pointing out that it is too complex in that

it asks us to believe that human language users have two completely separate systems: one for

acquisition and one for learning— presumably each with its own neuro-physiological basis.

Although the idea of two separate linguistic systems is possible, it is improbable because such

a set up would be an inefficient way to store information (Low & Morrison, n.d). Moreover, I

believe that Krashen fails to explain the process of acquisition, or why learned information is

not accessible in the same way as acquired information is.

Gregg (1984) notes that Krashen’s use of the LAD gives it a much wider scope of

operation than Chomsky’s application. Krashen’s insistence that “learning” cannot become

“acquisition” is quickly refuted by the experience of anyone who has internalized grammar

that was previously consciously memorized. Drawing on my own experience in learning

English, I believe that at least some rules can be acquired through learning. For example, I

learned the rules of subject-verb agreement by memorizing charts provided by my teacher;

like most of my classmates, I produced predominantly error-free sentences within a few days

with no input other than some drills.

According to Gregg (1984), “If ‘learning’ cannot become ‘acquisition’, and if…most of

our knowledge of a second language is necessarily unconscious, then it makes little sense to

call ‘learning’ one of two distinct and independent ways of developing competence in a

second language” (p. 81). Indeed, Krashen did not provide any real evidence that people

require two completely separate systems in order to learn a language (The Monitor Model,

Enas I. Al-Musallam

7

The Monitor Theory

n.d.).  Furthermore, if two different systems for learning a language did exist, people would

not be able to master a language in a formal setting only, yet many do just that. The Saudi

context services as a prime example; many students succeed in learning English although they

are exposed only to the foreign language in the formal classroom setting.

Krashen further claims that language acquirers may self-correct only on the basis of a feel

for grammaticality, whereas language learners do so on the basis of grammar rules. Drawing

on my own experience as an English teacher, I once asked my students to judge two sentences

—Pick the book up/Pick it up*(1)— in order to provide them with the particle movement rule.

Surprisingly, some students said that the second sentence was incorrect. When asked why it

was incorrect, they responded that they felt that it was incorrect, although they did not know

the rule. It is important to note that my students are learners— not acquirers— according to

Krashen’s definition of language learning. Thus, Krashen’s view on self-correction must be

questioned.

The second hypothesis is simply that grammatical structures are learned in a predictable

order. Gregg (1984) argues that Krashen has no basis for separating grammatical morphemes

from, for example, phonology or syntax.  In addition, if individual differences exist, as

discussed in 1.2, then the hypothesis is not provable or falsifiable and is, in the end, not

useful.

The insufficiencies of this hypothesis become more apparent when examining it in terms

of comprehension and production. Many studies into the order of acquisition, especially those

in first language acquisition, are based on production. The fact that a learner uses a specific

grammatical feature does not necessarily mean that he uses it appropriately, or that he

1 The asterisk (*) indicates incorrect sentence.

Enas I. Al-Musallam

8

The Monitor Theory

understands how it works (McLaughlin, 1978, as cited in Romeo, 2000). Further, it is not

clear that the order is the same for comprehension and production.  If these two processes

differ in order, it is not clear how they would interact.

The Monitor Hypothesis holds that learning has only one function, which is to monitor

the learner’s output. McLaughlin (1978, as cited in Romeo, 2000) points out that restricting

learning to the role of editing production completely ignores comprehension. In fact, Krashen

fails to take into account the role that monitoring plays in the reception of language.

Throughout my experience in learning English, learning has played a role in both

comprehension and production. My claim is supported by the fact that teachers monitor

students’ output and learners monitor the output of their colleagues.

Furthermore, Krashen not only does not explain how this monitor operates, but he also

fails to prove that acquisition has no role in monitoring. McLaughlin raised these points in his

criticism, but Krashen (1979) did not answer them in his reply (Romeo, 2000). In addition,

Gregg points out that, by restricting monitor use to “learned” grammar and only in

production, Krashen in effect makes the Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis and the Monitor

Hypothesis contradictory. It is difficult to reconcile the contradiction since Krashen offers no

evidence for either of these hypotheses.

Krashen’s Input Hypothesis has also been criticized. McLaughlin claims that the concept

of a learner’s “level” is extremely difficult to define, just as the idea of i+1 is (The Monitor

Model, n.d.). I believe that educators also face difficulty in applying this rule in the classroom

since individual differences comes into play when determining the learners’ current levels.

Krashen did not provide solutions regarding this issue. Furthermore, many structures such as

passives and yes/no questions cannot be learned through context alone.

Enas I. Al-Musallam

9

The Monitor Theory

The Input Hypothesis maintains that increased input will result in more language

acquisition, and that increased output will not. However, no clear evidence exists for this

assumption. Romeo (2000) indicates that output of some kind is seen as a necessary phase in

language acquisition. On the one hand, teachers need students’ output in order to be able to

judge their progress and adapt materials to their needs. On the other hand, learners need the

opportunity to use the L2 because when faced with communication failure, they are forced to

make their output more precise. These arguments suggest that, if comprehensible input is

necessary, then so is comprehensible output. Yet this goes against Krashen’s hypothesis.

Researchers note several problems with the Affective Filter Hypothesis as well. Krashen

seems to indicate that the affective filter manifests itself at around the age of puberty.

However, he does not make any serious attempts to explain how and why this filter develops

only with the onset of puberty. Further, he does not explain how this filter would selectively

choose certain “parts of a language” to reject (Low & Morrison, n.d). Laser-Freeman and

Long (1991) state that “to provide…empirical content, Krashen would need to specify which

affect variables, singly or in what combinations, and at what levels, serve to ‘raise the filter’”

(p. 247). Clearly no explanation exists as to how this filter works. For example, is it sufficient

for one aspect of a learner’s affective state, such as motivation, to be positive, or do all

aspects have to be positive in order to lower the filter—and if so, to what degree? People who

are unmotivated, stressed, or worried will not learn as well. In fact, this idea is not just

applicable to language learning, but for any kind of learning. However, unlike Krashen, I

believe that this idea applies to prepubescent children as well.

In conclusion, some of Krashen’s Monitor Theory’s central assumptions and hypotheses

are not clearly defined and, thus, are not readily testable or falsifiable. In this vein, Gregg

Enas I. Al-Musallam

10

The Monitor Theory

(1984) states that “each of Krashen’s five hypotheses is marked by serious flaws: undefined

or ill-defined terms, unmotivated constructs, lack of empirical content and thus of

falsifiability, lack of explanatory power” (p.94). However, I believe that, despite the various

criticisms, Krashen's Monitor Theory of second language acquisition has had a great impact

on the way second language learning is viewed, and has initiated research seeking to discover

the order of acquisition.

3. Implications for Foreign Language Teaching:

Krashen’s Monitor Theory’s influence on language education research and practice is

undeniable. I will attempt to directly address what I consider to be some of the theory’s

implications for contemporary ES/FL teaching by drawing on my own experience in the

classroom as a teacher and as a student of English language.

According to Krashen, classroom teaching benefits students when it provides the

necessary comprehensible input to those students who are not yet at a level that enables them

to receive comprehensible input from “the real world” or do not have access to “real world”

language speakers. Classroom teaching can also help by providing students with

communication tools that enable them to make better use of the outside world, and when it

provides beneficial conscious learning for optimal monitor users (Schulz, 1991).

In fact, I believe the implications of this input factor are considerable for foreign

language teaching environments. The input factor points to the need for language proficiency

on the part of the teacher, who is frequently the only live source of input (other than that

provided by other learners) available to students. As a result, cooperative learning can be an

excellent way for foreign language students to acquire comprehensible input from their peers.

Enas I. Al-Musallam

11

The Monitor Theory

Second, the input factor points to the importance of instructional time in a conventional FL

program, suggesting that language institutions should increase program hours.

Moreover, the Input Hypothesis suggests language students should be given an initial

“silent period” during which they can build up acquired competence in the language before

beginning to produce it. However, I do not agree with Krashen on this point. Language

learners and acquirers should be encouraged to produce the target language gradually from the

beginning—i.e., students should be asked to produce words at the beginning, and

subsequently to form full sentences. To succeed in this process, language teachers must

provide production opportunities for their students from the first day.

Our pedagogical goals should not only include supplying comprehensible input, but also

creating a situation that encourages a low filter. The Input Hypothesis and the concept of the

Affective Filter have redefined the effective language teacher as someone who can provide

input and help make it comprehensible in a low anxiety situation (Wilson, 2000). I believe

that the atmosphere of the language classroom must be congenial. Language teachers can

make a difference in students’ motivation, anxiety levels, and self-images, by respecting their

students, listening to them, and taking note of what they say.

Furthermore, a correlate of this theory is that, when teachers correct output, they do not

help the student. The lack of in-class correction is a direct reflection of both the Affective

Filter Hypothesis, which suggests creating a low anxiety learning environment, and the

Natural Order Hypothesis, which claims that the teacher allows the natural order to take its

place by allowing students’ errors to occur. I agree with Krashen on this point; language

learners lose their motivation if they are continuously corrected.

Enas I. Al-Musallam

12

The Monitor Theory

4. The Monitor Theory and the Saudi Curriculum:

In this section, I aim to examine briefly how Krashen’s theory influenced the design of

the Saudi curriculum. Thus, it is evident that Krashen’s theory had relatively little—if any—

impact on the Saudi curriculum. Krashen’s hypotheses led to the belief that conscious

teaching and learning were not useful in the language learning process and that any attempt to

teach or learn language in a formal way was doomed to failure. However, as has been

discussed in the early criticism, the situation of teaching English in Saudi Arabia contradicts

Krashen’s view.

In addition, Krashen proposed that second language learners follow the “natural” order

of acquisition for grammatical morphemes. However, he points out that the implication of the

Natural Order Hypothesis is not that a language program syllabus should be based on it. An

examination of the grammatical component of the Saudi curriculum indicates that this order

has been altered and is arranged according to simplicity of form.

Finally, Krashen claims that speech cannot be taught directly; instead, it emerges on

its own as a result of building competence via comprehensible input. However, the Saudi

curriculum does not follow this claim. In fact, it provides activities that directly enhance

speaking. “Each unit will include a lesson that provides speaking activities” (English for

Saudi Arabia, 1421H, p. 2). Clearly, this goes against Krashen’s view.

5. Conclusion:

Krashen’s Monitor Theory is an example of a macro theory attempting to cover most of

the factors involved in second language acquisition: age, personality traits, classroom

instruction, innate mechanisms of language acquisition, environmental influences, input, etc.

Despite its popularity, the Monitor Theory has been criticized by theorists and researchers

Enas I. Al-Musallam

13

The Monitor Theory

mainly on the grounds of its definitional adequacy. Yet despite these criticisms, Krashen’s

Monitor Theory has had significant impact on SL/ FL teaching.

References

Enas I. Al-Musallam

14

The Monitor Theory

Binnema, J. (n.d.). A closer look at the Monitor Model and some of its criticism. Retrieved

December 28, 2006, from

http://viadrina.euv-frankfurt-o.de/~w3spz/hull/KrashensMonitorModel.html

English for Saudi Arabia. (1421H). K.S.A: Ministry of Education, Educational Development.

Gitsaki, C. (1998). Second language acquisition theories: overview and evaluation. Journal of

Communication and International Studies 4(2), 89-98.

Gregg, K.R. (1984). Krashen’s Monitor and Occam’s razor. Applied Linguistics, 5, 79-100.

Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Pergamon

Press.

Larsen-Freeman, D. & Long, M. (1991). An introduction to second language acquisition research.

England: Longman.

Low, G.& Morrison, D. (n.d.). Some new perspectives on monitoring and the language learner.

University of Hong Kong, Language Center.

Romeo, K. (2000). Krashen and Terrell’s “Natural Approach”. Retrieved December 28, 2006,

from http://www.stanford.edu/~kenro/LAU/ICLangLit/NaturalApproach.htm

Schulz, R. (1991). Second language acquisition theories and teaching practice: How do they fit? The

Modern Language Journal, 75, 17-26

Schutz, R. (2005). Stephen Krashen's theory of second language acquisition. Retrieved January 1,

2006, from http://www.sk.com.br/sk-krash.html

Stewart, B. (n.d.). Critical perspectives on learning vs. acquisition in Krashen’s Monitor Model.

Retrieved December 28, 2006, from

http://oak.cats.ohiou.edu/~rs831494/stuff_from_school_mac/Bodie/Krashen_final.doc

Enas I. Al-Musallam

15

The Monitor Theory

The Monitor Model. (n.d.). Retrieved January 1, 2006, from

http://www.auburn.edu/~keithcs/monitor.htm

Wilson, R. (2000). A summary of Stephen Krashen's "Principles and Practice in Second Language

Acquisition". Retrieved December 28, 2006, from

http://www.languageimpact.com/articles/rw/krashenbk.htm

Enas I. Al-Musallam

16