Krashen’s “monitor model” The acquisition-learning hypothesis The monitor hypothesis The natural order hypothesis The input hypothesis The affective filter hypothesis

Krashen’s “monitor model” The acquisition-learning hypothesis (1) Acquisition: we acquire L2 knowledge as we are exposed to samples of the L2 which we understand with no conscious attention to language form. It is a subconscious and intuitive process. Learning: we learn the L2 via a conscious process of study and attention to form and rule learning.

Krashen’s “monitor model” The acquisition-learning hypothesis (2) Krashen argues that “acquisition” is a more important process of constructing the system of a language than “learning” because fluency in L2 performance is due to what we have acquired, not what we have learned. Learning cannot turn into acquisition. Many learners may “know” rules but fail to apply them. Learners need to do as much acquiring as possible in order to achieve communicative fluency.

Krashen’s “monitor model” The monitor hypothesis (1) The acquired system acts to initiate the speaker’s utterances and is responsible for fluency and intuitive judgments about correctness, whereas the learned system acts only as a monitor, making minor changes and polishing what the acquired system has produced.

Krashen’s “monitor model” Summary Krashen’s “monitor model” (i.e., acquisition vs. learning, monitor, natural order, comprehensible input, and affective filter) has been very influential in supporting communicative language teaching (CLT), which focuses on using language for meaningful interaction and for accomplishing tasks, rather than on learning rules. Most teachers and researchers see Krashen’s hypotheses intuitively appealing, but those hypotheses are hard to be tested by empirical evidence.

Information processing Cognitive psychologists working in this model see L2 acquisition as the building up of knowledge systems that enables the learner to use the language automatically. They do not assume that there is a difference between acquisition and learning. Two important models: attention-processing (noticing) model and restructuring Model

Information processing Attention-processing (noticing) model: It is assumed that there is a limit to the amount of information a human can pay attention to and learn at one time. Gradually, through experience and practice, learners become able to use certain parts of the language automatically. Automatic language performance may originate from intentional or conscious learning; i.e., noticing (McLaughlin & Schmidt). Everything we come to know about the language was first “noticed” consciously before we learn it.

Information processing Restructuring Model: Sometimes things which we know and use automatically may not be explainable in terms of a gradual build-up of automaticity through practice. They seem rather to be based on the interaction of knowledge we already have, or on the acquisition of new knowledge (without extensive practice) which fits into an existing system and causes it to be restructured. This can lead to a positive or negative outcome. e.g. “I saw” → “I seed” or “I sawed” – overapplying the general rule.

Connectionism Connectionists argue that what is innate is simply the ability to learn, not any specifically linguistic structure. They attribute greater importance to the role of the environment in language learning, and see the input as the principal source of linguistic knowledge. Eventually, a learner develops stronger mental ‘connections’ between the elements s/he has learned, and thus one situational or linguistic element will activate the other(s) in the learner’s mind.

The Interactionist Position Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory Language development takes place in the social interactions between individuals. L2 learners advance to higher levels of linguistic knowledge when they collaborate and interact with speakers of the L2 who are more knowledgeable than they are (Lantolf). A learner is capable to learn in the zone of proximal development (ZPD) when there is support from interaction with a more advanced interlocutor.

Summary There is no agreement on a “complete” theory of second language acquisition yet. Each theoretical framework has a different focus and its limitations. Behaviorism: emphasizing stimuli and responses, but ignoring the mental processes that are involved in learning. Innatism: innate LAD, based on intuitions Information processing and connectionism: involving controlled laboratory experiments where human learning is similar to computer processing. Interactionist position: modification of interaction promotes language acquisition and development.