Monitor theory: Difference between revisions
imported>John Stephenson (note on name) |
imported>John Stephenson (clarification on the difference between 'monitor theory' and 'monitor hypothesis') |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{subpages}} | {{subpages}} | ||
''Not to be confused with the 'monitor hypothesis', one component of monitor theory.'' | ''Not to be confused with the 'monitor hypothesis', one component of monitor theory.''<ref>Authors usually refer to the five hypotheses as ''monitor theory'', e.g. VanPatten & Williams (2007: 25-26); Markee (1997: 25), though Stephen Krashen rarely uses the term in his books. He ''does'' refer to them as one theory, however, e.g. Krashen & Terrell (1983: 26), and in academic discussion he has explicitly used the term ''monitor theory'' to mean the five hypotheses, e.g. Krashen (1981b: 219-220).</ref> | ||
'''Monitor theory''' comprises five hypotheses about [[second language acquisition]] (SLA)<ref>e.g. Krashen ( | '''Monitor theory''' comprises five hypotheses about [[second language acquisition]] (SLA)<ref>e.g. Krashen (1981a); see also VanPatten & Williams (2007: 25-26); Markee (1997: 25).</ref> developed by [[Stephen Krashen]]: the ''acquisition-learning'' hypothesis; the ''monitor'' hypothesis; the ''natural order'' hypothesis; the ''input'' hypothesis; and the ''affective filter'' hypothesis. | ||
Monitor theory, as defined by Krashen, states that adult learners have two systems to enable them to develop their language ability: subconscious ''acquisition'' and conscious ''learning'', with acquisition being more important. Conscious learning is only available as a "monitor", i.e. learners can consciously 'edit' their 'output' (utterances or written work) to make themselves more fluent or comprehensible, based on what they have formally learned about the second language. This, however, has no effect on subconscious, true acquisition, and in its absence, output will be less 'accurate' or native speaker-like.<ref>Krashen (1981: 1-2).</ref> Each of the hypotheses relate to conditions that are necessary for acquisition to take place within a system that involves subconscious emergence of language alongside conscious monitoring: for example, the ''natural order'' hypothesis points towards a fairly fixed sequence of acquisition that adult language users go through when monitoring does not interfere much, and which is closer to [[first language acquisition]] by children. | Monitor theory, as defined by Krashen, states that adult learners have two systems to enable them to develop their language ability: subconscious ''acquisition'' and conscious ''learning'', with acquisition being more important. Conscious learning is only available as a "monitor", i.e. learners can consciously 'edit' their 'output' (utterances or written work) to make themselves more fluent or comprehensible, based on what they have formally learned about the second language. This, however, has no effect on subconscious, true acquisition, and in its absence, output will be less 'accurate' or native speaker-like.<ref>Krashen (1981: 1-2).</ref> Each of the hypotheses relate to conditions that are necessary for acquisition to take place within a system that involves subconscious emergence of language alongside conscious monitoring: for example, the ''natural order'' hypothesis points towards a fairly fixed sequence of acquisition that adult language users go through when monitoring does not interfere much, and which is closer to [[first language acquisition]] by children. | ||
The model has often proved controversial, though its hypotheses would seem to be supported by many [[linguistics|linguists]] and [[education|teachers]] - e.g. that lots of input is necessary, that there is a difference between acquisition and learning, etc.<ref>See e.g. Scrivener (2005:19), a handbook for teachers which points out that the alternative of a strong focus on explicit instruction has proved of little help to beginning learners.</ref> - it has also been strongly criticised due to the prevailing mood in [[applied linguistics]] that learned knowledge ''does'' form part of true acquisition.<ref>See Gregg (1984) for a strong critique.</ref> | The model has often proved controversial, though its hypotheses would seem to be supported by many [[linguistics|linguists]] and [[education|teachers]] - e.g. that lots of input is necessary, that there is a difference between acquisition and learning, etc.<ref>See e.g. Scrivener (2005:19), a handbook for teachers which points out that the alternative of a strong focus on explicit instruction has proved of little help to beginning learners.</ref> - it has also been strongly criticised due to the prevailing mood in [[applied linguistics]] that learned knowledge ''does'' form part of true acquisition.<ref>See Gregg (1984) for a strong critique.</ref> | ||
Revision as of 20:34, 4 August 2009
Not to be confused with the 'monitor hypothesis', one component of monitor theory.[1]
Monitor theory comprises five hypotheses about second language acquisition (SLA)[2] developed by Stephen Krashen: the acquisition-learning hypothesis; the monitor hypothesis; the natural order hypothesis; the input hypothesis; and the affective filter hypothesis.
Monitor theory, as defined by Krashen, states that adult learners have two systems to enable them to develop their language ability: subconscious acquisition and conscious learning, with acquisition being more important. Conscious learning is only available as a "monitor", i.e. learners can consciously 'edit' their 'output' (utterances or written work) to make themselves more fluent or comprehensible, based on what they have formally learned about the second language. This, however, has no effect on subconscious, true acquisition, and in its absence, output will be less 'accurate' or native speaker-like.[3] Each of the hypotheses relate to conditions that are necessary for acquisition to take place within a system that involves subconscious emergence of language alongside conscious monitoring: for example, the natural order hypothesis points towards a fairly fixed sequence of acquisition that adult language users go through when monitoring does not interfere much, and which is closer to first language acquisition by children.
The model has often proved controversial, though its hypotheses would seem to be supported by many linguists and teachers - e.g. that lots of input is necessary, that there is a difference between acquisition and learning, etc.[4] - it has also been strongly criticised due to the prevailing mood in applied linguistics that learned knowledge does form part of true acquisition.[5]
Footnotes
- ↑ Authors usually refer to the five hypotheses as monitor theory, e.g. VanPatten & Williams (2007: 25-26); Markee (1997: 25), though Stephen Krashen rarely uses the term in his books. He does refer to them as one theory, however, e.g. Krashen & Terrell (1983: 26), and in academic discussion he has explicitly used the term monitor theory to mean the five hypotheses, e.g. Krashen (1981b: 219-220).
- ↑ e.g. Krashen (1981a); see also VanPatten & Williams (2007: 25-26); Markee (1997: 25).
- ↑ Krashen (1981: 1-2).
- ↑ See e.g. Scrivener (2005:19), a handbook for teachers which points out that the alternative of a strong focus on explicit instruction has proved of little help to beginning learners.
- ↑ See Gregg (1984) for a strong critique.