English Literature

Definition of the Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis

The first hypothesis of Krashen’s Monitor Model, the acquisition-learning hypothesis, distinguishes between the processes of language acquisition and language learning. Krashen contrasts acquisition and learning as two distinct and separate language processes. Acquisition occurs passively and unconsciously through implicit, informal, or natural learning, resulting in implicit knowledge and acquired competence of a language; in other words, to acquire a language is to “pick up” a language by relying on “feelings” of correctness rather than conscious knowledge of language rules.

In contrast to acquisition, learning occurs actively and consciously through explicit or formal learning and instruction, resulting in explicit knowledge about a language; learning results in metalinguistic knowledge and awareness. Furthermore, the acquisition-learning hypothesis states that both children and adults acquire language via access to an innate language acquisition device (LAD) regardless of age as well as that learning cannot become acquisition. The most important pedagogical implication of the first hypothesis of the Monitor Model is that explicit teaching and learning is unnecessary, indeed inadequate, for second language acquisition.

Criticism: The first critique of Krashen’s Monitor Model is that the hypothesized distinction between acquisition and learning as posited by the acquisition-learning hypothesis, or, more specifically, determining whether the process involved in language production resulted from implicit acquisition or explicit learning, is impossible to prove. As Barry McLaughlin offers as anecdotal evidence, he feels that the German *Ich habe nicht das Kind gesehen “I have not seen the children” is incorrect based on intuition but also knows that the utterance is incorrect based on his knowledge of the rules of German grammar.

Furthermore, critics consider the argument that learning cannot become acquisition questionable. Kevin R. Gregg offers anecdotal evidence of his personal experience learning a second language as counterevidence to the clear division between acquisition and learning: He initially consciously learned the conjugations of Japanese verbs through rote memorization, which ultimately led to unconscious acquisition. In his case, learning became acquisition. Both examples of personal experience with a second language illustrate the problem with stringently distinguishing the process of language acquisition from the process of language learning. Thus, the claim that acquisition is distinct from learning fails to withstand evidence-based criticism

Although influential within the field of second language acquisition over the past few decades, the Monitor Model is not without criticism as illustrated by the major critiques of the learning-acquisition hypothesis.

Definition of the Natural Order Hypothesis

The second hypothesis, the natural order hypothesis, argues that the acquisition of grammatical structures occurs in a predictable sequence. The natural order hypothesis applies to both first language acquisition and second language acquisition, but, although similar, the order of acquisition often differs between first and second languages. In other words, the order of acquisition of a first language is different from the order of acquisition of that same language as a second language.

However, regardless of native language, all language learners of any single second language appear to follow the same predictable order; for example, learners of English as a second language generally acquire the grammatical structure of yes-no questions before the grammatical structure of wh- questions. Furthermore, according to the hypothesis, the order of acquisition remains the same regardless of explicit instruction; in other words, explicit teaching and learning cannot change the natural order of acquisition.

Criticism: The second critique of the Monitor Model surrounds the evidence in support of the natural order hypothesis. According to Krashen, that children acquiring English as a second language acquire the morphemes of the language in a predictable sequence similar but not identical to the sequence followed by children acquiring English as a first language confirms the validity of the natural order hypothesis. Furthermore, other morpheme studies on adults acquiring English as a second language show similar results.

However, as Kevin R. Gregg argues, to generalize the results of a study on the acquisition of a limited set of English morphemes to second language acquisition as a whole is fallible. Morpheme studies offer no indication that second language learners similarly acquire other linguistic features (phonology, syntax, semantics, pragmatics) in any predictable sequence let alone in any sequence at all.

Secondly, the natural order hypothesis fails to account for the considerable influence of the first language on the acquisition of a second language; in fact, the results of other studies indicate that second language learners acquire a second language in different orders depending on their native language. Therefore, although posited by the natural order hypothesis, second language learners do not necessarily acquire grammatical structures in a predictable sequence.

Although the Monitor Model has been influential in the field of second language acquisition, the second hypothesis, the natural order hypothesis, has not been without criticism as evidenced by the critiques offered by other linguists and educators in the field.

Definition of the Monitor Hypothesis

The third hypothesis, the monitor hypothesis, complements the acquisition-learning hypothesis by claiming that the only function of learning within second language acquisition is as an editor, or Monitor, for language use produced by the acquired system as well as to produce grammatical forms not yet acquired. The Monitor allows a language user to alter the form of an utterance either prior to production by consciously applying learned rules or after production via self-correction. In other words, the learned system monitors the output of the acquired system.

However, according to the monitor hypothesis, explicit knowledge of a language rule is not sufficient for the utilization of the Monitor; a language user must also have an adequate amount of time to consciously think about and apply learned rules. Additionally, the three conditions required by the Monitor—time, focus, and knowledge—are, as Krashen asserts, “necessary and not sufficient,” meaning that, despite the convenement of all three conditions, a language user may not utilize the Monitor.

Criticism: The major critique of the monitor hypothesis expands on the critique of the acquisition-learning hypothesis. According to the monitor hypothesis, the main purpose of language learning is to function as a Monitor for output produced by acquired system. However, as critics reveal through deeper investigation of the acquisition-learning distinction, to separate language learning clearly and adequately from language acquisition is impossible. Consequently, determining that the function of the learned system is as a Monitor only remains likewise impossible to prove.

Additionally, that the claim of learning-as-Monitor applies only to output after production invites further criticism of the hypothesis; second language learners can and do use the learned system to produce output as well as to facilitate comprehension. Such questions and evidence, therefore, invalidate the central claim of the monitor hypothesis.

Therefore, in spite of the influence of the Monitor Model in the field of second language acquisition, the third hypothesis, the monitor hypothesis, has not been without criticism as evidenced by the critiques offered by other linguists and educators in the field.

Definition of the Input Hypothesis

The fourth hypothesis, the input hypothesis, which applies only to language acquisition and not to language learning, posits the process that allows second language learners to move through the predictable sequence of the acquisition of grammatical structures predicted by the natural order hypothesis. According to the input hypothesis, second language learners require comprehensible input, represented by i+1, to move from the current level of acquisition, represented by i, to the next level of acquisition. Comprehensible input is input that contains a structure that is “a little beyond” the current understanding—with understanding defined as understanding of meaning rather than understanding of form—of the language learner.

Second language acquisition, therefore, occurs through exposure to comprehensible input, a hypothesis which further negates the need for explicit instruction learning. The input hypothesis also presupposes an innate language acquisition device, the part of the brain responsible for language acquisition, that allows for the exposure to comprehensible input to result in language acquisition, the same language acquisition device posited by the acquisition-learning hypothesis. However, as Krashen cautions, like the time, focus, and knowledge required by the Monitor, comprehensible input is necessary but not sufficient for second language acquisition.

Criticism: Like for the acquisition-learning hypothesis, the first critique of the input hypothesis surrounds the lack of a clear definition of comprehensible input; Krashen never sufficiently explains the values of i or i+1. As Gass et al. argue, the vagueness of the term means that i+1 could equal “one token, two tokens, 777 tokens”; in other words, sufficient comprehensible input could embody any quantity.

More importantly, the input hypothesis focuses solely on comprehensible input as necessary, although not sufficient, for second language acquisition to the neglect of any possible importance of output. The output hypothesis as proposed by Merrill Swain seeks to rectify the assumed inadequacies of the input hypothesis by positing that language acquisition and learning may also occur through the production of language. According to Swain who attempts to hypothesize a loop between input and output, output allows second language learners to identify gaps in their linguistic knowledge and subsequently attend to relevant input. Therefore, without minimizing the importance of input, the output hypothesis complements and addresses the insufficiencies of the input hypothesis by addressing the importance of the production of language for second language acquisition.

Thus, despite the influence of the Monitor Model in the field of second language learning and acquisition, the input hypothesis, the fourth hypothesis of the theory, has not been without criticism as evidenced by the critiques offered by other linguists and educators in the field.

All theorists of language-learning agree that second language input of some form is necessary for learning a new language. It is also necessary to be able to understand and process the input for second language acquisition to take place. This is because second language acquisition (SLA) occurs on a development continuum.

We travel along this continuum by receiving what Stephen Krashen (1982, 1985) termed “comprehensible input.” Comprehensible input is that input which is slightly beyond the current level of competence of the language learner. If i is the language learner’s current level of competence in the foreign language, then i + 1 is the next immediate step along the development continuum. Therefore, if the goal is to assist the language learner progress in their task, it is essential to provide the student/learner with comprehensible input [i +1].

This methodology is incorporated into the Mango course. It is like teaching a child how to dance. Most people would not enroll their infant who cannot yet walk in a ballet class with the hopes that by simply immersing them in the environment they will jump to their feet and perform a saut de chat. The child must first learn to crawl, then to stand, then to walk, and so on. With the Mango program, we start the student off with a conversation in order to orient them to the context of what they are about to learn. We then parse the conversation into smaller sentences. These sentences are then broken down piece by piece into their “elemental components” and slowly built back up to form the original sentence.

If you only learn phrases in chunks, how will you know the individual meaning of each word, much less how to create new sentences and phrases with them?

Definition of the Affective Filter Hypothesis

The fifth hypothesis, the affective filter hypothesis, accounts for the influence of affective factors on second language acquisition. Affect refers to non-linguistic variables such as motivation, self-confidence, and anxiety. According to the affective filter hypothesis, affect effects acquisition, but not learning, by facilitating or preventing comprehensible input from reaching the language acquisition device. In other words, affective variables such as fear, nervousness, boredom, and resistance to change can effect the acquisition of a second language by preventing information about the second language from reaching the language areas of the mind.

Furthermore, when the affective filter blocks comprehensible input, acquisition fails or occurs to a lesser extent then when the affective filter supports the intake of comprehensible input. The affective filter, therefore, accounts for individual variation in second language acquisition. Second language instruction can and should work to minimize the effects of the affective filter.

Criticism: The final critique of Krashen’s Monitor Model questions the claim of the affective filter hypothesis that affective factors alone account for individual variation in second language acquisition. First, Krashen claims that children lack the affective filter that causes most adult second language learners to never completely master their second language. Such a claim fails to withstand scrutiny because children also experience differences in non-linguistic variables such as motivation, self-confidence, and anxiety that supposedly account for child-adult differences in second language learning.

Furthermore, evidence in the form of adult second language learners who acquire a second language to a native-like competence except for a single grammatical feature problematizes the claim that an affective filter prevents comprehensible input from reaching the language acquisition device. As Manmay Zafar asks, “How does the filter determine which parts of language are to be screened in/out?” In other words, the affective filter hypothesis fails to answer the most important question about affect alone accounting for individual variation in second language acquisition.

Although the Monitor Model has been influential in the field of second language acquisition, the fifth and final hypothesis, the affective filter hypothesis, has not been without criticism as evidenced by the critiques offered by other linguists and educators in the field.