Krashen's Monitor Model proposes five hypotheses about second language acquisition: 1) Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis, 2) Natural Order Hypothesis, 3) Monitor Hypothesis, 4) Input Hypothesis, and 5) Affective Filter Hypothesis. The Monitor Hypothesis suggests that learned grammatical rules are used to edit and modify language output. However, critics argue that the acquisition-learning distinction is unreliable and difficult to empirically test. They also note limitations in how the model accounts for factors like rule application, reception of utterances, and variability in learner output.

1. SLA: Krashen’s The Monitor Model
• Five hypotheses on second language
acquisition
1. The Acquisition Learning Hypothesis
2. The Natural Order Hypothesis
3. The Monitor Hypothesis
4. The Input Hypothesis
5. The Affective Filter Hypothesis

2. 1. The Acquisition Learning Hypothesis –
applicable to the process of:
Internalizing new L2 knowledge
(acquisition vs. learning)
Storing such knowledge
(acquired knowledge for automatic processing and
learnt knowledge for controlled processing)
Using in actual performance
(acquired knowledge as the major source of initiating
both the comprehension and production of utterances)
*learnt knowledge for use only by the Monitor

3. 2. The Natural Order Hypothesis - learners may
follow a more or less invariant order in the acquisition of
formal grammatical features
Affirms that grammatical structures are ‘acquired’ in a
predictable order.
When the learner is engaged in natural communication
tasks, he will manifest the standard order.
But when the task requires or permits the use of
metalinguistic knowledge, a different order will
emerge.

4. 3. The Monitor Hypothesis – the device that
learners use to edit their language performance
Utilizes ‘learnt knowledge by acting upon and
modifying utterances generated from ‘acquired’
knowledge either before or after the utterance, albeit
optional.
Has limited function in language performance even
with adults
Conditions for its use: sufficient time; form-focused;
user’s knowledge of the rule
*Editing (by ‘feel’) can take place using ‘acquired’
competence (but not developed).

5. 4. Input Hypothesis – ‘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.

6. 5. The Affective Filter Hypothesis - how affective
factors relate to SLA and the ground of the Acculturation
Model
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’s affective as its strength is determined based on:
motivation
self-confidence
anxiety state

7. • Causative Variables Taken into Account in the
Monitor Model
1. Aptitude
 While attitude is related to ‘acquisition, aptitude only
relates to ‘learning’.
2. Role of the first language
 The first language does not interfere with SLA but
rather serves as a performance strategy.
3. Routines and patterns
Formulaic speech (consisting of routines and patterns)
does not contribute to ‘acquisition’.

8. 4. Individual differences
There is no variation in the acquisition process itself,
but there is in:
1. the rate and the extent acquisition as a result of
the amount of comprehensible input received,
and the strength of the Affective Filter
2. performance, brought about by the extent of the
learner’s reliance on ‘learnt’ knowledge.
3 types of Monitor Users:
1. over-users
2. under-users
3. optimal users (i.e. Those who apply conscious
knowledge when it is appropriate.

9. 5. Age
 affects the amount of comprehensible input that is
obtained
 influences the affective state of the learner
 After puberty the Affective Filter is likely to increase
in strength.
 Younger learners may get more than older learners.
 Age also affects ‘learning’; older learners are better
in studying language form and using ‘learnt’
knowledge in monitoring.

10. • Three Central Issues of the Monitor Model
1. The ‘Acquisition-Learning’ Distinction
unreliable due to how the distinction is defined
(McLaughlin, 1978)
unacceptable as it cannot be tested in empirical
investigation
Contrary to what non-interface position suggests,
‘learnt’ knowledge automatized through practice
becomes ‘acquired’ i.e. available for use in
spontaneous conversation. (McLaughlin, 1978 et.al.)
no explanation about what the learner does with the
input (Larsen-Freeman, 1983b)

11. 2. Monitoring
 does not account for the reception of utterances,
collaborative activity between the learner and his
interlocutor, and detailed discussion of how ‘learning’
takes place
 only limited to syntax (overlooking learners and users
ability to edit their pronunciation, lexis and discourse.
 It is difficult to distinguish introspectively ‘rule’
application and ‘feel’ (the implicit use of ‘acquired’
knowledge to judge or modify an utterance).
 We are able to attend to the form of our utterances
without using conscious rules, and without being able
to make explicit how modifications in the initial
output have been affected.

12. 3. Variability
The ‘dual competence’ theory of SLA is questionable as
learners produce utterances which are formally
different even when it is evident that they are focused
on meaning (an evidence is cited in Ellis’s, 1984b
reference to a bingo game)
The aspects of a single but variable competence which
contains alternative rules for realizing the meanings
should be considered