Stephen Krashen’s monitor theory tried to provide two explanations of how exactly a second language learner acquires or learns a second language. His theory, although developed around twenty years ago, had an undeniable influence on many linguists and teachers alike. However, there have also been many opponents to his hypotheses. By taking a closer look at Krashen’s theory one will realise that there are a variety of ambiguities and paradoxes involved. Other linguists have conducted studies that show evidence for a different relationship of the two ways of acquiring a second language.
First of all, this essay will provide definitions of the two ways in which a learner can acquire a new language, according to Krashen, which are spontaneous language acquisition and guided language acquisition or using Krashen’s terms acquisition and learning. I will go on trying to demonstrate just how many errors and inadequacies Krashen’s theory contains by providing a summary of Krashen’s monitor theory, containing all of Krashen’s ambiguous ideas. After having gained a general overview of Krashen’s monitor model, objections and criticisms to Krashen’s hypotheses by some of his harshest critics will follow.
In the very last part of this research, I will try to outline some more recent views on the relationship of spontaneous and guided language learning, based on research and studies conducted by other linguists. This will demonstrate that Krashen’s monitor model is not the ideal description of the way learners acquire or learn a second language.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Spontaneous Language Learning
3. Guided Language Learning
4. Krashen’s monitor theory
5. Criticism of Krashen’s theory
6. Recent views on Spontaneous and Guided Language Acquisition
7. Conclusion
Objectives and Topics
This research paper examines Stephen Krashen’s monitor theory, specifically exploring the distinction between spontaneous and guided language acquisition, while analyzing its scientific validity through contemporary critical perspectives and recent empirical research.
- Theoretical foundations of Krashen’s monitor model.
- Distinction between spontaneous ("natural") and guided language learning.
- Critical review of the five central hypotheses of the monitor theory.
- Evaluation of empirical evidence regarding language acquisition vs. learning.
- Analysis of recent developments in second language acquisition research.
Excerpt from the book
Krashen’s monitor theory
In the late 1970s and early 1980s Stephen Krashen developed a theory which outlines the relationship between the two terms discussed above. Krashen has, however, used two different terms to describe the same ideas outlined above. He differentiates between language “acquisition” and language “learning”. The term “acquisition” corresponds with the term spontaneous language learning and “learning” corresponds with guided language learning. His theory about their relationship is shown in a model known as the monitor model. The five hypotheses of his model are summarised below:
1.) The Acquisition vs. Learning Hypothesis: Acquisition happens subconsciously and is similar to the process of first language acquisition. It is based on the interaction with speakers of the language i.e. by communication with native speakers, where the grammatical correctness is secondarily to the content and meaning of the utterance. Learning, on the other hand, occurs consciously and importance is placed on the form i.e. an utterance is produced by using specific rules, which have been learned at some stage. It is “knowing about” or “formal knowledge” of a language (Krashen, 26) and cannot turn into acquisition (Krashen, 83)
2.) The natural order hypothesis: Acquiring rules of the second language follows a specific, “predictable” order, known as the natural order. Krashen’s natural order hypothesis merely suggests an order in acquisition not learning. When learning a second language in a guided environment, instructors should “reject grammatical sequencing in all cases where our goal is acquisition” (Krashen, 14)
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: Presents the basic concepts of the paper and outlines the research objective to critique the validity of Krashen's monitor model.
2. Spontaneous Language Learning: Defines the natural acquisition process as it occurs in social environments through everyday communication and interaction.
3. Guided Language Learning: Explains the artificial "domestication" of language learning typically found in classroom settings focusing on correctness.
4. Krashen’s monitor theory: Details the five core hypotheses of the monitor model: acquisition vs. learning, natural order, monitor, input, and affective filter.
5. Criticism of Krashen’s theory: Analyzes the objections from prominent linguists regarding definitional ambiguities and lack of empirical evidence.
6. Recent views on Spontaneous and Guided Language Acquisition: Reviews contemporary studies that challenge the strict division between the two learning approaches.
7. Conclusion: Summarizes that while influential, Krashen’s theory suffers from overgeneralizations and scientific inconsistencies.
Keywords
Krashen, Monitor Theory, Spontaneous Language Learning, Guided Language Learning, Second Language Acquisition, Acquisition vs. Learning, Input Hypothesis, Affective Filter, Natural Order, Linguistic Competence, Error Correction, Language Teaching, Applied Linguistics, Empirical Evidence, Pedagogical Methods
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this research paper?
The paper examines the theoretical basis of Stephen Krashen’s monitor theory and assesses why it has been a subject of significant academic debate.
What are the central themes discussed in the text?
The core themes include the difference between spontaneous (natural) and guided (instructed) language learning, the validity of Krashen's five hypotheses, and the role of empirical research in second language acquisition.
What is the core objective of the research?
The goal is to demonstrate that Krashen’s monitor model is not an ideal or fully accurate description of how learners acquire a second language by highlighting its errors and lack of empirical support.
Which scientific methods are primarily referenced?
The paper relies on a literature review of theoretical linguists like Gregg and McLaughlin, as well as an analysis of specific studies by researchers such as Dvorak, Seliger, and DeKeyser.
What topics are covered in the main section of the paper?
The main section covers the definitions of acquisition and learning, the detailed breakdown of the monitor model hypotheses, and a critical analysis of the arguments presented by Krashen's critics.
How is the paper characterized by its keywords?
The paper is characterized by terms linking cognitive psychological processes of learning with linguistic input, social environment, and the critique of established acquisition theories.
Why does the author consider the "Input Hypothesis" dubious?
The author argues that Krashen fails to provide empirical proof, and the conditions for the formula "i + 1" are difficult to test or objectively define in a classroom context.
How does the paper view the relationship between "learning" and "acquisition"?
Contrary to Krashen’s strict separation, the paper suggests, supported by modern linguistic views, that "learning" can indeed lead to or turn into "acquisition" through appropriate practice and exposure.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Anja Benthin (Autor:in), 2005, Krashen's Monitor Theory on the Relation between Spontaneous and Guided Language Learning, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.hausarbeiten.de/document/299196
