Monitor theory: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Gareth Leng
(→‎Further Reading: to subpage)
mNo edit summary
 
(10 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{subpages}}
{{subpages}}
''Not to be confused with the 'monitor hypothesis', one component of monitor theory.''<ref>Authors often refer to the five hypotheses as ''monitor theory'', e.g. VanPatten and Williams (2015: 25-33); Markee (1997: 25), though Stephen Krashen rarely uses the term in his books. He ''does'' refer to them as one model, however, e.g. Krashen and Terrell (1983: 26), and in academic discussion he has explicitly used the term ''monitor theory'' to mean the five hypotheses, e.g. Krashen (1981b: 219-220).</ref>


{{langacq}}
'''Monitor theory''' comprises five [[hypothesis|hypotheses]] about [[second language acquisition]] (SLA)<ref>e.g. Krashen (1981a); see also VanPatten and Williams (2015: 25-33); Markee (1997: 25).</ref> developed by [[Stephen Krashen]]: the ''acquisition-learning'' hypothesis; the ''monitor'' hypothesis; the ''natural order'' hypothesis; the ''input'' hypothesis; and the ''affective filter'' hypothesis. Each hypothesis relates to conditions that are necessary for subconscious [[language acquisition|emergence of language]] to take place, and also assume that conscious learning can improve [[communication]] but does not lead to true acquisition.
'''Monitor theory''' refers to five hypotheses developed by the [[linguist]] [[Stephen Krashen]] to explain [[second language acquisition]] (SLA):


*the [[#Acquisition versus learning|acquisition-learning]] hypothesis;
{{TOC|right}}
*the [[#Monitoring|monitor]] hypothesis;
==Krashen's "five hypotheses"==
*the natural order hypothesis;
===Acquisition-learning hypothesis===
*the [[#Input|input]] hypothesis;
Monitor theory, as defined by Krashen, distinguishes two processes that enable learners to develop their language ability: subconscious ''acquisition'' and conscious ''learning''. Acquisition takes place subconsciously and instinctively, with the user developing true competence in the structures of the new language as they are exposed to and interact with it; it is only in this way that 'input' can become actual 'intake'. Learning, meanwhile, can only be used for 'monitoring' (see below).<ref>Krashen (1981a: 1-2).</ref>
*the [[#Affect|affective filter]] hypothesis.


==Acquisition versus learning==
===Monitor hypothesis===
The acquisition-learning distinction is the most fundamental of these and the most widely known among linguists. According to Krashen these are two independent systems of L2 performance; acquisition is a product of subconscious processing similar to children’s L1 acquisition and requires life-like L2 interaction, which focuses on communication rather than correctness, while learning occurs through formal instruction and comprises conscious processing, which results in knowledge about the L2, e.g. grammatical rules. Krashen believes ‘learned competence’ acts as a monitor or editor: that is, whereas ‘acquired competence’ is responsible for the fluent production of sentences, ‘learned competence’ consciously corrects them. He claims that learned knowledge enables learners to read and listen more, so acquisition is effective.
Language learners may very well experience formal teaching and learning of the target language, such as study of [[grammar]], rote [[memory|memorisation]], or [[examination|exam tests]] where thinking about the structure of the language is required. Such conscious learning, according to Krashen, is only available as a 'monitor', i.e. learners can consciously 'edit' their 'output' (utterances or written work) to make themselves more fluent or comprehensible, based on what they have formally learned about the second　language. This, however, has no effect on subconscious, true acquisition, and in its absence, output will be less 'accurate' or [[native speaker]]-like.<ref>Krashen (1981a: 1-2); VanPatten and Williams (2015: 26).</ref>


==Monitoring==
===Natural order hypothesis===
The monitor hypothesis asserts that a learner's learned system acts as a monitor to what they are producing. In other words, while only the acquired system is able to produce spontaneous speech (according to this theory), the learned system is used to check what is being spoken. The interlocuter therefore monitors their spontaneous speech using their learned system. The Monitor Model then predicts faster initial progress by adults than children, as adults use this ‘monitor’ when producing L2 utterances before having acquired the ability for natural performance, and adults will input more into conversations earlier than children. However, in the long term, SLA started in childhood will be superior in ultimate attainment as children will already have control of some L2 acquired before pubertal changes began inhibiting learning.
This hypothesis points towards a fairly fixed sequence of acquisition that adult language users go through when monitoring does not interfere much, and which is closer to [[first language acquisition]] by children. For example, grammatical [[morphology (linguistics)|morphemes]] appear to emerge in a particular order, with e.g. in [[English language|English]] the ''-ing'' ending being produced earlier than the third person singular ''-s''. Research reports some acquisition order consistency in support of this hypothesis.<ref>e.g. Larsen-Freeman (1975).</ref>


==Input==
===Input hypothesis===
The input hypothesis states that only comprehensible input will result in acquisition of the target language.  Krashen says that learners must be exposed to input that is just beyond their current level in order to make progress.  This concept is called i+1.  If the level of input is at i+1 the learner will make progress. If it is too high, for instance i+7, the learner will be unable to acquire it.
Krashen states that, fundamentally, there is only one way to acquire language: through 'comprehensible input'. This means that the linguistic material that the learner experiences has to be both processable and slightly beyond their current level of acquisition: Krashen refers to this level as ''i + 1'' ,where ''i'' is the current level of proficiency. The comprehension and processing of meaningful 'input' is therefore the priority for the early learner, while production-based activities, such as an early focus on [[speech|speaking]], may inhibit this. Similarly, a focus on the form of language, such as detailed discussion and practice of grammar rules, as opposed to a focus on [[semantics (linguistics)|meaning]], may block comprehensible input from becoming intake.<ref>VanPatten and Williams (2015: 26-27).</ref>


==Affect==
===Affective filter hypothesis===
The affective filter hypothesis asserts that a learner's emotional states act as adjustable filters that freely permit or hinder input necessary to acquisition. He suggests that adolescence and puberty are not good periods for SLA, as this ‘affective filter’ arises out of self-conscious reluctance to reveal oneself and feelings of vulnerability.  
The learner's attitude to the target language, their learning situation and the amount of [[stress]] they experience all have an impact on the extent of acquisition. A learner who is comfortable with their learning has a low 'affective filter', meaning that they are receptive to new input and more likely to convert it to intake. Pressure to perform, on the other hand, sets the filter high, blocking new acquisition. Krashen sees this phenomenon as one explanation for why second-language attainment varies a great deal from learner to learner, even in the same environment.<ref>VanPatten and Williams (2015: 27).</ref>


==Criticism==
==Criticism==
The model has proved controversial since its appearance in the early 1980s. Though its hypothesis would seem to be supported by many linguists and teachers - e.g. that lots of input is necessary, that there is a difference between acquisition and learning, etc.<ref>See e.g. Scrivener (2005:19), a handbook for teachers which points out that the alternative of a strong focus on explicit instruction has proved of little help to beginning learners.</ref> - it has also been strongly criticised due to the prevailing mood in [[applied linguistics]] that learned knowledge ''does'' form part of true acquisition.<ref>See Gregg (1984) for a strong critique.</ref>
Though monitor theory would broadly appear to be supported by many [[linguistics|linguists]] and [[education|teachers]] - e.g. that lots of input is necessary, that there is a difference between acquisition and learning, etc.<ref>See e.g. Scrivener (2005:19), a handbook for teachers which points out that the alternative of a strong focus on explicit instruction has proved of little help to beginning learners.</ref>, it has also been strongly criticised due to the prevailing mood in [[applied linguistics]] that learned knowledge ''does'' form part of true acquisition, and that more than just comprehensible input is necessary or helpful.<ref>See Gregg (1984) for a strong critique.</ref>


[[McLaughlin]] (1987) claims that none of the hypotheses is clear in its prediction, for example, the acquisition-learning distinction is not properly defined and the distinction cannot be empirically tested.  If only acquired forms can lead to spontaneous speech, as Krashen claims, then it should be impossible for anyone who learns a foreign language in a classroom, and is taught it in their native language, to ever be able to produce spontaneous speech in the target language.  This is clearly untrue.  Likewise, Krashen provides no criteria for establishing i+1, or for delineating different levels of input.  Similarly, the monitor hypothesis and the affective filter hypothesis are not falsifiable either.  For one thing, the value of a monitor that only notices mistakes after they are produced is questionable.  Furthermore, there is no way of determining how the monitor works or proving if it is even there at all.  If a learner produces a correct form in the target language, it is impossible to determine what caused them to produce that form.  There is no way to prove whether it was their acquired system or their learned system, if there is even a distinction between the two.  Similarly, there is no way to prove how the affective filter hypothesis filter works.  The affective filter hypothesis also fails to take into account why a motivated learner, whose affective filter should be down, could still have trouble learning a language.
==Footnotes==
 
{{reflist|2}}[[Category:Suggestion Bot Tag]]
However, continued interest in Krashen’s theory indicates this theory is far from pseudo-scientific. In determining an optimal SLA age, the variables these theories propose are not the only possibilities: affective factors, including motivation and fear, also influence language-learning attitudes. These factors can explain maturational differences in SLA: older learners often learn new languages for economic or academic reasons, and therefore work harder to reach their target fluency.
 
==The ''Natural Apporach''==
The theory underlies Krashen and [[Tracy D. Terrell|Terrell]]'s [[comprehension approach|comprehension-based]] [[language learning]] [[methodology]] known as the [[natural approach]] ([[1983]]).
 
 
 
 
==External links==
*[http://sdkrashen.com sdkrashen.com] Some of Stephen D. Krashen's books and articles, available on-line.
*[http://homepage.ntlworld.com/vivian.c/SLA/Krashen.htm Krashen's Comprehension Hypothesis Model of L2 learning] [[applied linguistics|Applied linguist]] Vivian Cook's page on Krashen's hypotheses.

Latest revision as of 16:01, 20 September 2024

This article is developing and not approved.
 Main Article
 Discussion
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
 
https://en.citizendium.org/wiki/index.php?title=Monitor_theory&printable=yes
This editable Main Article is under development and subject to a disclaimer.

Not to be confused with the 'monitor hypothesis', one component of monitor theory.[1]

Monitor theory comprises five hypotheses about second language acquisition (SLA)[2] developed by Stephen Krashen: the acquisition-learning hypothesis; the monitor hypothesis; the natural order hypothesis; the input hypothesis; and the affective filter hypothesis. Each hypothesis relates to conditions that are necessary for subconscious emergence of language to take place, and also assume that conscious learning can improve communication but does not lead to true acquisition.

Krashen's "five hypotheses"

Acquisition-learning hypothesis

Monitor theory, as defined by Krashen, distinguishes two processes that enable learners to develop their language ability: subconscious acquisition and conscious learning. Acquisition takes place subconsciously and instinctively, with the user developing true competence in the structures of the new language as they are exposed to and interact with it; it is only in this way that 'input' can become actual 'intake'. Learning, meanwhile, can only be used for 'monitoring' (see below).[3]

Monitor hypothesis

Language learners may very well experience formal teaching and learning of the target language, such as study of grammar, rote memorisation, or exam tests where thinking about the structure of the language is required. Such conscious learning, according to Krashen, is only available as a 'monitor', i.e. learners can consciously 'edit' their 'output' (utterances or written work) to make themselves more fluent or comprehensible, based on what they have formally learned about the second　language. This, however, has no effect on subconscious, true acquisition, and in its absence, output will be less 'accurate' or native speaker-like.[4]

Natural order hypothesis

This hypothesis points towards a fairly fixed sequence of acquisition that adult language users go through when monitoring does not interfere much, and which is closer to first language acquisition by children. For example, grammatical morphemes appear to emerge in a particular order, with e.g. in English the -ing ending being produced earlier than the third person singular -s. Research reports some acquisition order consistency in support of this hypothesis.[5]

Input hypothesis

Krashen states that, fundamentally, there is only one way to acquire language: through 'comprehensible input'. This means that the linguistic material that the learner experiences has to be both processable and slightly beyond their current level of acquisition: Krashen refers to this level as i + 1 ,where i is the current level of proficiency. The comprehension and processing of meaningful 'input' is therefore the priority for the early learner, while production-based activities, such as an early focus on speaking, may inhibit this. Similarly, a focus on the form of language, such as detailed discussion and practice of grammar rules, as opposed to a focus on meaning, may block comprehensible input from becoming intake.[6]

Affective filter hypothesis

The learner's attitude to the target language, their learning situation and the amount of stress they experience all have an impact on the extent of acquisition. A learner who is comfortable with their learning has a low 'affective filter', meaning that they are receptive to new input and more likely to convert it to intake. Pressure to perform, on the other hand, sets the filter high, blocking new acquisition. Krashen sees this phenomenon as one explanation for why second-language attainment varies a great deal from learner to learner, even in the same environment.[7]

Criticism

Though monitor theory would broadly appear to be supported by many linguists and teachers - e.g. that lots of input is necessary, that there is a difference between acquisition and learning, etc.[8], it has also been strongly criticised due to the prevailing mood in applied linguistics that learned knowledge does form part of true acquisition, and that more than just comprehensible input is necessary or helpful.[9]

Footnotes

  1. ↑ Authors often refer to the five hypotheses as monitor theory, e.g. VanPatten and Williams (2015: 25-33); Markee (1997: 25), though Stephen Krashen rarely uses the term in his books. He does refer to them as one model, however, e.g. Krashen and Terrell (1983: 26), and in academic discussion he has explicitly used the term monitor theory to mean the five hypotheses, e.g. Krashen (1981b: 219-220).
  2. ↑ e.g. Krashen (1981a); see also VanPatten and Williams (2015: 25-33); Markee (1997: 25).
  3. ↑ Krashen (1981a: 1-2).
  4. ↑ Krashen (1981a: 1-2); VanPatten and Williams (2015: 26).
  5. ↑ e.g. Larsen-Freeman (1975).
  6. ↑ VanPatten and Williams (2015: 26-27).
  7. ↑ VanPatten and Williams (2015: 27).
  8. ↑ See e.g. Scrivener (2005:19), a handbook for teachers which points out that the alternative of a strong focus on explicit instruction has proved of little help to beginning learners.
  9. ↑ See Gregg (1984) for a strong critique.
Retrieved from "https://citizendium.org/wiki/index.php?title=Monitor_theory&oldid=981450"