The Monitor Theory

Eng. 526
Trends in Educational Linguistics
Term Paper
A Critical Analysis of
Krashens onitor Theory!
"mplications for #oreign
Language Teaching
$ritten %y!
Enas Al.usallam
&econd semester 2''5(2''6
Enas I. Al-Musallam
1
The Monitor Theory
The most ambitious as well as the most controversial theory which attempts to provide an
overall account for SLA is rashen!s Monitor Theory. This theory has had a lar"e impact on
all areas of second lan"ua"e research and teachin" since the 1#$%s& thus' received e(tensive
attention in the professional literature. )et despite this impact' it received a "reat deal of
criticism. *or 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+*L teachin" by drawin" on my own e(periences in the
classroom as a teacher and as a student of En"lish lan"ua"e.
1. The Monitor Theory:
rashen has fre,uently chan"ed some elements in his theory& which was actually not a
theory at all but merely a model in the be"innin"' and which has under"one ,uite few sta"es
of subse,uent development culminatin" in the full-"rown theory of the 1#$%s -.innema' n.d./.
0ithout divin" too deep into all these developments and refinements' a description of the five
main hypotheses of rashen!s theory in its mature sta"e will be "iven.
1.1. The Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis:
The Ac,uisition-Learnin" 1ypothesis holds that 2adults have two distinct and
independent ways of developin" competence in a second lan"ua"e3 ac,uisition' which is
subconscious' and learnin"' which is conscious4 -5re""' 1#$637#/. Lan"ua"e ac,uisition is a
subconscious process similar to the way a child learns his first lan"ua"e8i.e. ac,uisition
ta9es place throu"h natural lan"ua"e interactions. Lan"ua"e ac,uirers are not consciously
aware of the "rammatical rules of the lan"ua"e' but may self-correct only on the basis of a
feel for "rammaticality. Lan"ua"e learnin"' on the other hand' refers to the conscious
9nowled"e of a second lan"ua"e' 9nowin" the rules' bein" aware of them' and bein" able to
Enas I. Al-Musallam
:
The Monitor Theory
tal9 about them. Therefore' lan"ua"e learnin" ta9es place predominantly in formal instruction.
rashen claims that the two shall remain disparate -rashen' 1#$1/.
The Ac,uisition-Learnin" 1ypothesis indicates that adults do not lose the ability to
ac,uire lan"ua"es the way that children do' since 9rashen claims that adults can access the
same natural lan"ua"e ac,uisition device -LA;/ that children use. 1e also assumes that
learnin" does not turn into ac,uisition -Stewart' n.d.& Larsen-*reeman <Lon"' 1##1/.
1.2. The Natural Order Hypothesis:
The =atural >rder 1ypothesis states that the ac,uisition of "rammatical structures
proceeds in a predictable order. *or a "iven lan"ua"e' some "rammatical structures tend to be
ac,uired early' others late without re"ard to the first lan"ua"e of a "iven learner' his a"e' and
conditions of e(posure. A series of research studies investi"atin" morpheme ac,uisition orders
provided evidence for the =atural >rder 1ypothesis -;ulay < .urt' 1#76& *athman' 1#7?&
Ma9ino' 1#$% as cited in Schut@' :%%?/. Althou"h the a"reement between individual ac,uirers
was not always 1%%A in these studies' there were statistically si"nificant similarities that
reinforced the e(istence of a natural order.
This natural order does not necessarily depend on simplicity of form' yet it could be
altered by forcin" another se,uence in the teachin" process. This natural order dictates the
way in which a lan"ua"e is ac,uired' but learnin" mi"ht follow another order -5itsa9i' 1##$&
0ilson' :%%%/.
1.3. The Monitor Hypothesis:
The Monitor 1ypothesis e(plains the relationship between ac,uisition and learnin"' and
defines the influence of the latter on the former. This hypothesis holds that formal learnin"
has only one function which is as a monitor for the learner!s output' whereas the ac,uired
Enas I. Al-Musallam
B
The Monitor Theory
system is the utterance initiator. The monitor functions properly when three specific
conditions are met3 1. there is sufficient time' :. the focus of the interaction is on form rather
than meanin"' and B. the learner 9nows the rule in ,uestion -rashen' 1#$1& Schul@' 1##1&
Schut@' :%%?/. This monitorin" involves self-correction on the base of learned lan"ua"e rules
and is completely different from the monitorin" durin" ac,uisition& where no e(plicit rules
need to be involved.
rashen -1#$1/ su""ests that there is individual variation amon" lan"ua"e learners
re"ardin" CmonitorC use. 1e distin"uishes those learners who use the CmonitorC all the time
-over-users/& those learners who have not learned or who prefer not to use their conscious
9nowled"e -under-users/& and those learners who use the CmonitorC appropriately when it does
not interfere with communication -optimal users/. >ptimal monitor users can use their learned
competence as a supplement to their ac,uired competence. Most of the time' however'
rashen su""ests leavin" the monitor unemployed& and concentratin" upon meanin" rather
form.
1.. The !nput Hypothesis:
The Input 1ypothesis answers the ,uestion of how a lan"ua"e ac,uirer develops
competency over time. It states that a lan"ua"e ac,uirer who is at 2level I4 must receive
comprehensible input that is at 2level iD1.4 In other words' we ac,uire only when we
understand lan"ua"e which contains structure that is Ca little beyondC our current level. This is
achieved with the help of conte(t or e(ralin"uistic information -5itsa9i' 1##$& 0ilson' :%%%/.
Evidence for the input hypothesis can be found in the effectiveness of careta9er speech
from an adult to a child' teacher-tal9 from a teacher to a lan"ua"e student' and forei"ner-tal9
from a sympathetic conversation partner to a lan"ua"e learner+ac,uirer -rashen' 1#$1/. This
Enas I. Al-Musallam
6
The Monitor Theory
hypothesis is also supported by the fact that the first second lan"ua"e utterances of adult
learners are often very similar to those of infants in their first lan"ua"e. rashen also provides
the so-called Esilent period! as evidence for this hypothesis8i.e.' children learnin" a second
lan"ua"e commonly spea9 very little in the tar"et lan"ua"e for the first several months
-Fomeo' :%%%/.
A result of this hypothesis is that lan"ua"e students should be "iven an initial Esilent
period! durin" which they can build up ac,uired competence in the lan"ua"e before be"innin"
to produce it. rashen states' 2In accordance with the Input 1ypothesis' spea9in" ability
emer"es on its own after enou"h competence has been developed by listenin" and
understandin"4 -as cited in 5re""' 1#$6' p. #%/. Moreover' rashen su""ests that natural
communicative input is the 9ey to desi"n a syllabus' ensurin" in this way that each learner
will receive some i+1 input which is appropriate for his+her current sta"e of lin"uistic
competence.
1.". The A##ecti$e %ilter Hypothesis:
The Affective *ilter 1ypothesis embodies rashen!s view that a number of Eaffective
variables! play a facilitative' but non-causal' role in second lan"ua"e ac,uisition. These
variables include3 motivation' self-confidence and an(iety. rashen claims that learners with
hi"h motivation' self-confidence' a "ood self-ima"e' and a low level of an(iety are better
e,uipped for success in second lan"ua"e ac,uisition. Low motivation' low self-esteem' and
debilitatin" an(iety can combine to CraiseC the affective filter and form a Cmental bloc9C that
prevents comprehensible input from bein" used for ac,uisition. In other words' a hi"h
affective filter inhibits ac,uisition' whereas a low affective filter promotes it. Accordin" to
rashen' this filter is present in adults but not in children' and accounts for the failure of a
Enas I. Al-Musallam
?
The Monitor Theory
learner in ac,uirin" a second lan"ua"e. -Larsen-*reeman < Lon"' 1##1& The Monitor Model'
n.d./
These five hypotheses of second lan"ua"e ac,uisition can be summari@ed as3 1.
Ac,uisition is inevitable and more important than learnin". :. In order to ac,uire' two
conditions are necessary. The first is comprehensible input containin" iD18i.e.' structures a
bit beyond the ac,uirer!s current level' and second' a low or wea9 affective filter to allow the
input in -0ilson' :%%%/.
2. A Critique of the Monitor Theory:
=ow that we have become ac,uainted with the basic features of rashen!s theory' it is
important to ta9e a closer loo9 at the criticisms that have arisen considerin" his theory. I
believe that these criticisms stem from several issues. *irst' rashen!s theory was one of the
first theories developed specifically to e(plain SLA. Second' his theory made a lar"e number
of claims about a wide array of SLA phenomena' many of which seemed empirically
falsifiable' which thus attracted researchers critical of the idea. *inally' rashen!s theory was
closely tied to recommendations for classroom practice& as a result' it seemed important to
test.
Serious concerns were first e(pressed by McLau"hlin -1#7$/' who ac9nowled"es
rashen!s attempt to develop an e(tensive and detailed SLA theory' but finds it inade,uate in
that some of its central assumptions and hypotheses are not clearly defined. As a result' they
are not readily testable -5itsa9i' 1##$/. McLau"hlin -1#$7' p. ?G/ states that' 2rashen!s
theory fails at every Huncture...rashen has not defined his terms with enou"h precision' the
empirical basis of the theory is wea9' and the theory is not clear in its predictions4 -as cited in
.innema' n.d./. McLau"hlin -1#$7/ points out that rashen never ade,uately defines
Enas I. Al-Musallam
G
The Monitor Theory
acquisition, learning, conscious or subconscious& without such clarification' it is e(tremely
difficult to independently determine whether subHects are 2learnin"4 or 2ac,uirin"4 lan"ua"e
-Fomeo' :%%%/.
Seli"er -1#7#/ also critici@es rashen!s theory pointin" out that it is too comple( in that
it as9s us to believe that human lan"ua"e users have two completely separate systems3 one for
ac,uisition and one for learnin"8 presumably each with its own neuro-physiolo"ical basis.
Althou"h the idea of two separate lin"uistic 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 rashen fails to e(plain the process of ac,uisition' or why learned information is
not accessible in the same way as ac,uired information is.
5re"" -1#$6/ notes that rashen!s use of the LA; "ives it a much wider scope of
operation than Ihoms9y!s application. rashen!s insistence that 2learnin"4 cannot become
2ac,uisition4 is ,uic9ly refuted by the e(perience of anyone who has internali@ed "rammar
that was previously consciously memori@ed. ;rawin" on my own e(perience in learnin"
En"lish' I believe that at least some rules can be ac,uired throu"h learnin". *or e(ample' I
learned the rules of subHect-verb a"reement by memori@in" charts provided by my teacher&
li9e most of my classmates' I produced predominantly error-free sentences within a few days
with no input other than some drills.
Accordin" to 5re"" -1#$6/' 2If Elearnin"! cannot become Eac,uisition!' and ifJmost of
our 9nowled"e of a second lan"ua"e is necessarily unconscious' then it ma9es little sense to
call Elearnin"! one of two distinct and independent ways of developin" competence in a
second lan"ua"e4 -p. $1/. Indeed' rashen did not provide any real evidence that people
re,uire two completely separate systems in order to learn a lan"ua"e -The Monitor Model'
Enas I. Al-Musallam
7
The Monitor Theory
n.d./. *urthermore' if two different systems for learnin" a lan"ua"e did e(ist' people would
not be able to master a lan"ua"e in a formal settin" only' yet many do Hust that. The Saudi
conte(t services as a prime e(ample& many students succeed in learnin" En"lish althou"h they
are e(posed only to the forei"n lan"ua"e in the formal classroom settin".
rashen further claims that lan"ua"e ac,uirers may self-correct only on the basis of a feel
for "rammaticality' whereas lan"ua"e learners do so on the basis of "rammar rules. ;rawin"
on my own e(perience as an En"lish teacher' I once as9ed my students to Hud"e two sentences
8Pick the book up/Pick it up*
(1)
in order to provide them with the particle movement rule.
Surprisin"ly' some students said that the second sentence was incorrect. 0hen as9ed why it
was incorrect' they responded that they felt that it was incorrect' althou"h they did not 9now
the rule. It is important to note that my students are learners8 not ac,uirers8 accordin" to
rashen!s definition of lan"ua"e learnin". Thus' rashen!s view on self-correction must be
,uestioned.
The second hypothesis is simply that "rammatical structures are learned in a predictable
order. 5re"" -1#$6/ ar"ues that rashen has no basis for separatin" "rammatical morphemes
from' for e(ample' phonolo"y or synta(. In addition' if individual differences e(ist' as
discussed in 1.:' then the hypothesis is not provable or falsifiable and is' in the end' not
useful.
The insufficiencies of this hypothesis become more apparent when e(aminin" it in terms
of comprehension and production. Many studies into the order of ac,uisition' especially those
in first lan"ua"e ac,uisition' are based on production. The fact that a learner uses a specific
"rammatical feature does not necessarily mean that he uses it appropriately' or that he
1
The asteris9 -K/ indicates incorrect sentence.
Enas I. Al-Musallam
$
The Monitor Theory
understands how it wor9s -McLau"hlin' 1#7$' as cited in Fomeo' :%%%/. *urther' it is not
clear that the order is the same for comprehension and production. If these two processes
differ in order' it is not clear how they would interact.
The Monitor 1ypothesis holds that learnin" has only one function' which is to monitor
the learner!s output. McLau"hlin -1#7$' as cited in Fomeo' :%%%/ points out that restrictin"
learnin" to the role of editin" production completely i"nores comprehension. In fact' rashen
fails to ta9e into account the role that monitorin" plays in the reception of lan"ua"e.
Throu"hout my e(perience in learnin" En"lish' learnin" 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 collea"ues.
*urthermore' rashen not only does not e(plain how this monitor operates' but he also
fails to prove that ac,uisition has no role in monitorin". McLau"hlin raised these points in his
criticism' but rashen -1#7#/ did not answer them in his reply -Fomeo' :%%%/. In addition'
5re"" points out that' by restrictin" monitor use to 2learned4 "rammar and only in
production' rashen in effect ma9es the Ac,uisition-Learnin" 1ypothesis and the Monitor
1ypothesis contradictory. It is difficult to reconcile the contradiction since rashen offers no
evidence for either of these hypotheses.
rashen!s Input 1ypothesis has also been critici@ed. McLau"hlin claims that the concept
of a learner!s 2level4 is e(tremely difficult to define' Hust as the idea of i+1 is -The Monitor
Model' n.d./. I believe that educators also face difficulty in applyin" this rule in the classroom
since individual differences comes into play when determinin" the learners! current levels.
rashen did not provide solutions re"ardin" this issue. *urthermore' many structures such as
passives and yes+no ,uestions cannot be learned throu"h conte(t alone.
Enas I. Al-Musallam
#
The Monitor Theory
The Input 1ypothesis maintains that increased input will result in more lan"ua"e
ac,uisition' and that increased output will not. 1owever' no clear evidence e(ists for this
assumption. Fomeo -:%%%/ indicates that output of some 9ind is seen as a necessary phase in
lan"ua"e ac,uisition. >n the one hand' teachers need students! output in order to be able to
Hud"e their pro"ress and adapt materials to their needs. >n the other hand' learners need the
opportunity to use the L: because when faced with communication failure' they are forced to
ma9e their output more precise. These ar"uments su""est that' if comprehensible input is
necessary' then so is comprehensible output. )et this "oes a"ainst rashen!s hypothesis.
Fesearchers note several problems with the Affective *ilter 1ypothesis as well. rashen
seems to indicate that the affective filter manifests itself at around the a"e of puberty.
1owever' he does not ma9e any serious attempts to e(plain how and why this filter develops
only with the onset of puberty. *urther' he does not e(plain how this filter would selectively
choose certain 2parts of a lan"ua"e4 to reHect -Low < Morrison' n.d/. Laser-*reeman and
Lon" -1##1/ state that 2to provideJempirical content' rashen would need to specify which
affect variables' sin"ly or in what combinations' and at what levels' serve to Eraise the filter!4
-p. :67/. Ilearly no e(planation e(ists as to how this filter wor9s. *or e(ample' 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 filter8and if so' to what de"reeL Meople who are
unmotivated' stressed' or worried will not learn as well. In fact' this idea is not Hust applicable
to lan"ua"e learnin"' but for any 9ind of learnin". 1owever' unli9e rashen' I believe that
this idea applies to prepubescent children as well.
In conclusion' some of rashen!s Monitor Theory!s central assumptions and hypotheses
are not clearly defined and' thus' are not readily testable or falsifiable. In this vein' 5re""
Enas I. Al-Musallam
1%
The Monitor Theory
-1#$6/ states that 2each of rashen!s five hypotheses is mar9ed by serious flaws3 undefined or
ill-defined terms' unmotivated constructs' lac9 of empirical content and thus of falsifiability'
lac9 of e(planatory power4 -p.#6/. 1owever' I believe that' despite the various criticisms'
rashenCs Monitor Theory of second lan"ua"e ac,uisition has had a "reat impact on the way
second lan"ua"e learnin" is viewed' and has initiated research see9in" to discover the order of
ac,uisition.
3. Implications for Foreign Language Teaching:
rashen!s Monitor Theory!s influence on lan"ua"e 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+*L teachin" by drawin" on my own e(perience in the
classroom as a teacher and as a student of En"lish lan"ua"e.
Accordin" to rashen' classroom teachin" 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 2the real world4 or do not have access to 2real world4
lan"ua"e spea9ers. Ilassroom teachin" can also help by providin" students with
communication tools that enable them to ma9e better use of the outside world' and when it
provides beneficial conscious learnin" for optimal monitor users -Schul@' 1##1/.
In fact' I believe the implications of this input factor are considerable for forei"n
lan"ua"e teachin" environments. The input factor points to the need for lan"ua"e proficiency
on the part of the teacher' who is fre,uently the only live source of input -other than that
provided by other learners/ available to students. As a result' cooperative learnin" can be an
e(cellent way for forei"n lan"ua"e students to ac,uire 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 *L
pro"ram' su""estin" that lan"ua"e institutions should increase pro"ram hours.
Moreover' the Input 1ypothesis su""ests lan"ua"e students should be "iven an initial
2silent period4 durin" which they can build up ac,uired competence in the lan"ua"e before
be"innin" to produce it. 1owever' I do not a"ree with rashen on this point. Lan"ua"e
learners and ac,uirers should be encoura"ed to produce the tar"et lan"ua"e "radually from the
be"innin"8i.e.' students should be as9ed to produce words at the be"innin"' and
subse,uently to form full sentences. To succeed in this process' lan"ua"e teachers must
provide production opportunities for their students from the first day.
>ur peda"o"ical "oals should not only include supplyin" comprehensible input' but also
creatin" a situation that encoura"es a low filter. The Input 1ypothesis and the concept of the
Affective *ilter have redefined the effective lan"ua"e teacher as someone who can provide
input and help ma9e it comprehensible in a low an(iety situation -0ilson' :%%%/. I believe
that the atmosphere of the lan"ua"e classroom must be con"enial. Lan"ua"e teachers can
ma9e a difference in students! motivation' an(iety levels' and self-ima"es' by respectin" their
students' listenin" to them' and ta9in" note of what they say.
*urthermore' a correlate of this theory is that' when teachers correct output' they do not
help the student. The lac9 of in-class correction is a direct reflection of both the Affective
*ilter 1ypothesis' which su""ests creatin" a low an(iety learnin" environment' and the
=atural >rder 1ypothesis' which claims that the teacher allows the natural order to ta9e its
place by allowin" students! errors to occur. I a"ree with rashen on this point& lan"ua"e
learners lose their motivation if they are continuously corrected.
Enas I. Al-Musallam
1:
The Monitor Theory
. The Monitor Theory an! the "au!i Curriculum!
In this section' I aim to e(amine briefly how rashen!s theory influenced the desi"n of
the Saudi curriculum. Thus' it is evident that rashen!s theory had relatively little8if any8
impact on the Saudi curriculum. rashen!s hypotheses led to the belief that conscious
teachin" and learnin" were not useful in the lan"ua"e learnin" process and that any attempt to
teach or learn lan"ua"e in a formal way was doomed to failure. 1owever' as has been
discussed in the early criticism' the situation of teachin" En"lish in Saudi Arabia contradicts
rashen!s view.
In addition' rashen proposed that second lan"ua"e learners follow the 2natural4 order
of ac,uisition for "rammatical morphemes. 1owever' he points out that the implication of the
=atural >rder 1ypothesis is not that a lan"ua"e pro"ram syllabus should be based on it. An
e(amination of the "rammatical component of the Saudi curriculum indicates that this order
has been altered and is arran"ed accordin" to simplicity of form.
*inally' rashen claims that speech cannot be tau"ht directly& instead' it emer"es on its
own as a result of buildin" competence via comprehensible input. 1owever' the Saudi
curriculum does not follow this claim. In fact' it provides activities that directly enhance
spea9in". 2Each unit will include a lesson that provides spea9in" activities4 -En"lish for
Saudi Arabia' 16:11' p. :/. Ilearly' this "oes a"ainst rashen!s view.
#. Conclusion:
rashen!s Monitor Theory is an e(ample of a macro theory attemptin" to cover most of
the factors involved in second lan"ua"e ac,uisition3 a"e' personality traits' classroom
instruction' innate mechanisms of lan"ua"e ac,uisition' environmental influences' input' etc.
;espite its popularity' the Monitor Theory has been critici@ed by theorists and researchers
Enas I. Al-Musallam
1B
The Monitor Theory
mainly on the "rounds of its definitional ade,uacy. )et despite these criticisms' rashen!s
Monitor Theory has had si"nificant impact on SL+ *L teachin".
)eferences
Enas I. Al-Musallam
16
The Monitor Theory
.innema' N. -n.d./. A closer look at the Monitor Model and some o its criticism. Fetrieved
;ecember :$' :%%G' from http3++viadrina.euv-fran9furt-
o.de+OwBsp@+hull+rashensMonitorModel.html
!nglish or "audi Arabia. -16:11/. .S.A3 Ministry of Education' Educational ;evelopment.
5itsa9i' I. -1##$/. Second lan"ua"e ac,uisition theories3 overview and evaluation. #ournal o
$ommunication and %nternational "tudies 6-:/' $#-#$.
5re""' .F. -1#$6/. rashen!s Monitor and >ccam!s ra@or. Applied &inguistics' ?' 7#-1%%.
rashen' S. -1#$1/. "econd language acquisition and second language learning. >(ford3 Mer"amon
Mress.
Larsen-*reeman' ;. < Lon"' M. -1##1/. An introduction to second language acquisition research'
En"land3 Lon"man.
Low' 5.< Morrison' ;. -n.d./. "ome ne( perspecti)es on monitoring and the language learner.
Pniversity of 1on" on"' Lan"ua"e Ienter.
Fomeo' . -:%%%/. *rashen and +errell,s -.atural Approach/' Fetrieved ;ecember :$' :%%G' from
http3++www.stanford.edu+O9enro+LAP+IILan"Lit+=aturalApproach.htm
Schul@' F. -1##1/. Second lan"ua"e ac,uisition theories and teachin" practice3 1ow do they fitL
+he Modern &anguage #ournal, 01, 17-:G
Schut@' F. -:%%?)' "tephen *rashen2s theor3 o second language acquisition' Fetrieved Nanuary 1'
:%%G' from http3++www.s9.com.br+s9-9rash.html
Stewart' .. -n.d./. $ritical perspecti)es on learning )s' acquisition in *rashen,s Monitor Model'
Fetrieved ;ecember :$' :%%G' from
http3++oa9.cats.ohiou.edu+Ors$B16#6+stuffQfromQschoolQmac+.odie+rashenQfinal.doc
Enas I. Al-Musallam
1?
The Monitor Theory
+he Monitor Model' -n.d./. Fetrieved Nanuary 1' :%%G' from
http3++www.auburn.edu+O9eithcs+monitor.htm
0ilson' F. -:%%%/. A summar3 o "tephen *rashen2s 4Principles and Practice in "econd &anguage
Acquisition4' Fetrieved ;ecember :$' :%%G' from
http3++www.lan"ua"eimpact.com+articles+rw+9rashenb9.htm
Enas I. Al-Musallam
1G