This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (May 2008)

The monitor hypothesis (often spelled Monitor hypothesis) is one of five hypotheses developed by the linguist Stephen Krashen to explain second language acquisition (SLA). These comprise

• the acquisition-learning hypothesis;
• the monitor hypothesis;
• the natural order hypothesis;
• the input hypothesis;
• the affective filter hypothesis.

The acquisition-learning distinction is the most fundamental of these and the most widely known among linguists.

Contents 1 Monitor hypothesis 2 Three conditions for use of the monitor 3 Difficulties using the monitor 4 Criticism 5 References 6 Further reading 7 External links

[edit] Monitor 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, the learned system is used to check what is being spoken.

Before the learner produces an utterance, he or she internally scans it for errors, and uses the learned system to make corrections. Self-correction occurs when the learner uses the Monitor to correct a sentence after it is uttered. According to the hypothesis, such self-monitoring and self-correction are the only functions of conscious language learning.^[1]

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 adult learners will input more into conversations earlier than children.^{[citation needed]}

[edit] Three conditions for use of the monitor

According to Krashen, for the Monitor to be successfully used, three conditions must be met:

1. The acquirer/learner must know the rule
   This is a very difficult condition to meet because it means that the speaker must have had explicit instruction on the language form that he or she is trying to produce.^[1]
2. The acquirer must be focused on correctness
   He or she must be thinking about form, and it is difficult to focus on meaning and form at the same time.^[1]
3. The acquirer/learner must have time to use the monitor
   Using the monitor requires the speaker to slow down and focus on form.^[1]

[edit] Difficulties using the monitor

There are many difficulties with the use of the monitor, making the monitor rather weak as a language tool.

• Having time to use the monitor: there is a price that is paid for the use of the monitor- the speaker is then focused on form rather than meaning, resulting in the production and exchange of less information, thus slowing the flow of conversation. Some speakers over-monitor to the point that the conversation is painfully slow and sometimes difficult to listen to.^[1]
• Knowing the rule: this is a difficult condition to meet, because even the best students do not learn every rule that is taught, cannot remember every rule they have learned, and can't always correctly apply the rules they do remember. Furthermore, every rule of a language is not always included in a text nor taught by the teacher ^[1]
• The rules of language make up only a small portion of our language competence: Acquisition does not provide 100% language competence. There is often a small portion of grammar, punctuation, and spelling that even the most proficient native speakers may not acquire. While it is important to learn these aspects of language, since writing is the only form that requires 100% competence, these aspects of language make up only a small portion of our language competence.^[1]

Due to these difficulties, Krashen recommends using the monitor at times when it does not interfere with communication, such as while writing.^[1]

[edit] Criticism

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 linguists praise its value.^{[citation needed]}

The theory underlies Krashen and Terrell's comprehension-based language learning methodology known as the natural approach (1983). The Focal Skills approach, first developed in 1988, is also based on the theory.^{[citation needed]}

[edit] References

[edit] Further reading

• Gregg, K.R. (1984). 'Krashen's Monitor and Occam's Razor.' Applied Linguistics 5(2): 79-100.
• Krashen, S.D. (1982). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.
• Krashen, S. (1985). The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. New York: Longman.
• Krashen, S.D. (1996). 'The case for narrow listening.' System 24(1): 97-100.
• Krashen, S.D. (2003). Explorations in Language Acquisition and Use. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
• Krashen, S.D. and Terrell, T.D. (1983). The Natural Approach. New York: Pergamon.
• VanPatten, B. and Williams, J. (eds) (2007). Theories in Second Language Acquisition: an Introduction. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
• White, L. (1987). 'Against comprehensible input: the input hypothesis and the development of second language competence.' Applied Linguistics 8(2): 95-110.
• Lightbown P. and N. Spada, How languages are learned, Oxford University Press, p. 38-40.

[edit] External links

• sdkrashen.com Some of Stephen D. Krashen's books and articles, available on-line.
• Krashen's Comprehension Hypothesis Model of L2 learning Applied linguist Vivian Cook's page on Krashen's hypotheses.