The following account of Krashen’s Monitor Model is an extract (pgs.

261 – 264) from:

Ellis, R. (1985) Understanding Second Language Acquisition, OUP, Oxford.

The Monitor Model

Krashen’s Monitor Model has enjoyed considerable prominence in SLA research. In so far as it is probably the
most comprehensive of existing theories, this is justified. However, as I shall attempt to show later, the theory is
seriously flawed in a number of respects, in particular in its treatment of language-learner variability.
The Monitor Model consists of five central hypotheses. In addition, it makes reference to a number of other
factors which influence SLA and which relate to the central hypotheses. Each hypothesis is briefly summarized
below. Krashen’s views on the different causative variables SLA are also considered. A full account of the Monitor
Model is available in Krashen (1981a; 1982), and in Krashen and Terrell (1983).

The five hypotheses

1 The acquisition learning hypothesis

The ‘acquisition—learning’ distinction lies at the heart of Krashen’s theory. It is applicable to the process of
internalizing new L2 knowledge, to storing this knowledge, and also to using it in actual performance.
‘Acquisition’ occurs subconsciously as a result of participating in natural communication where the focus is on
meaning. ‘Learning’ occurs as a result of conscious study of the formal properties of the language. In storage,
‘acquired’ knowledge is located in the left hemisphere of the brain (in most users) in the language areas; it is
available for automatic processing. ‘Learnt’ knowledge is metalinguistic in nature. It is also stored in the left
hemisphere, but not necessarily in the language areas; it is available only for controlled processing. Thus,
‘acquired’ and ‘learnt’ knowledge are stored separately. In performance, ‘acquired’ knowledge serves as the
major source for initiating both the comprehension and production of utterances. ‘Learnt’ knowledge is available
for use only by the Monitor (see Hypothesis (3) below).

2 The natural order hypothesis

The natural order hypothesis draws on the SLA research literature that indicates that learners may follow a more
or less invariant order in the acquisition of formal grammatical features. The hypothesis affirms that grammatical
structures are ‘acquired’ in a predictable order. Thus when the learner is engaged in natural communication tasks,
he will manifest the standard order. But when he is engaged in tasks that require or permit the use of
metalinguistic knowledge, a different order will emerge.

3 The Monitor hypothesis

The Monitor is the device that learners use to edit their language performance. It utilizes ‘learnt’ knowledge by
acting upon and modifying utterances generated from ‘acquired’ knowledge. This can occur either before the
utterance is uttered or after. In either case its use is optional. Krashen argues that Monitoring has an extremely
limited function in language performance, even where adults are concerned. He gives three conditions for its use:
(1) there must be sufficient time; (2) the focus must be on form and not meaning; and (3) the user must know the
rule. Krashen recognizes that editing can also take place using ‘acquired’ competence. He refers to this as editing
by ‘feel’. However, this aspect of L2 performance is not developed.

4 The input hypothesis

This states that ‘acquisition’ takes place as a result of the learner having understood input that is a little beyond the
current level of his competence (i.e. the i + 1 level). Input that is comprehensible to the learner will automatically
be at the right level.

5 The affective filter hypothesis

This deals with how affective factors relate to SLA, and covers the ground of the Acculturation Model. Krashen
incorporates the notion of the Affective Filter as proposed by Dulay and Burt (1977). The filter controls how
much input the learner comes into contact with, and how much input is converted into intake. It is ‘affective’
because the factors which determine its strength have to do with the learner’s motivation, self-confidence, or
anxiety state. Learners with high motivation and self-confidence and with low anxiety have low filters and so
obtain and let in plenty of input. Learners with low motivation, little self-confidence, and high anxiety have high
filters and so receive little input and allow even less in. The Affective Filter influences the rate of development,
but it does not affect the route.
Causative variables taken into account in the Monitor Model

Krashen also discusses a number of other factors, each of which figures conspicuously in the SLA research literature.

1 Aptitude
Krashen argues that aptitude only relates to ‘learning’. That is, the learner’s aptitude predicts how well he will
perform on grammar-type tests that provide the right conditions for the operation of the Monitor. In contrast,
attitude is related to ‘acquisition’ (see Hypothesis 5 above).

2 Role of the first language

Krashen rejects the view that the first language interferes with SLA. Rather, he sees the use of the first
language as a performance strategy. The learner falls back on his first language when he lacks a rule in the
L2. He initiates an utterance using his first language (instead of ‘acquired’ L2 knowledge) and then substitutes
L2 lexical items, also making small repairs to the resulting string by means of the Monitor.

3 Routines and patterns

Krashen rejects the view that formulaic speech (consisting of routines and patterns) contributes to
‘acquisition’. In his opinion, formulas play a performance role only by helping the learner to ‘outperform his
competence’. They are not broken down, and their separate parts are not, therefore, incorporated into the
learner’s creative rule system. Rather ‘acquisition’ catches up with the routines and patterns; that is, the
structural knowledge contained in the formulas is developed separately.

4 Individual differences
Krashen claims that ‘acquisition’ follows a natural route (Hypothesis 2). Thus there is no individual variation
in the acquisition process itself. However, there is variation in the rate and extent of acquisition as a result of
the amount of comprehensible input received, and the strength of the Affective Filter. There is also variation
in performance, brought about by the extent of the learner’s reliance on ‘learnt’ knowledge. Krashen indicates
three types of Monitor Users: (1) over-users, (2) under-users, and (3) optimal users (i.e. those who apply
conscious knowledge when it is appropriate).

5 Age
Age influences SLA in a number of ways. It affects the amount of comprehensible input that is obtained;
younger learners may get more than older learners. Age also affects ‘learning’; older learners are better suited
to study language form and also to use ‘learnt’ knowledge in monitoring. Finally, age influences the affective
state of the learner; after puberty the Affective Filter is likely to increase in strength.