Copyrighted Material Monitor Model 437 Monitor Model The monitor hypothesis Ali Shehadeh United Arab Emirates University The third hypothesis states that our fluency in L2 performance is due to what we have acquired, not what we have learned. Learning is only available as a Monitor, or editor. Our acquired competence initiates utterances, and later these are referred to the conscious rules in the output system. To use the Monitor, three conditions should be met: (i) time: the learner must have enough time to utilize conscious rules; (ii) focus on form: the learner must be thinking about correctness; and (iii) knowledge of rules. The Monitor Model is one of the most widely discussed and ambitious theories in second language acquisition (SLA). The Model evolved in the late 1970s in a series of articles (e.g., Krashen, 1977), but was developed and modified in subsequent writings by the author himself (e.g., Krashen, 1981, 1982, 1985). The Model consists of the following five hypotheses which together, according to Krashen, constitute a theory that accounts for all phenomena in SLA research and practice. The acquisition-learning hypothesis This hypothesis states that adults, unlike children, have two different and independent means for developing ability in L2: the learning ability and the acquisition ability. The former is conscious, the latter is subconscious. Further, what is learned cannot be acquired. It remains separate. Krashen states: “Monitor Theory hypothesizes that adults have two independent systems for developing ability in second languages, subconscious language acquisition and conscious language learning” (Krashen, 1981: 1). [italics in original] The natural order hypothesis This hypothesis states that acquisition in an L2 context (both children and adults) occurs in a predictable order. Krashen and Terrell (1983) cite evidence from morpheme studies (e.g., Dulay and Burt, 1974) that shows that some grammatical forms and structures tend to be acquired early such as (for example)–ing (progressive), plural, and copula (to be), and some tend to be acquired late like third person singular -s and possessive -s. Krashen and Terrell argue that for our instruction in L2 to be effective, we should teach learners along this universal, natural route of acquisition. The input hypothesis The fourth hypothesis attempts to answer the important question of how we acquire language. It states that a necessary condition for language acquisition to occur is that the acquirer understands input that contains structure “a bit beyond” his or her current level of competence. In other words, if an acquirer is at stage i, the input he or she understands should contain i + 1. Krashen (1985: 2) explains: “humans acquire language only in one way-by understanding messages, or by receiving ‘comprehensible input’. … We move from i, our current level, to i + 1, the next level along the natural order, by understanding input containing i + 1.” That is, we acquire only when we understand the language that contains structure a little beyond where we are now. Krashen (1981: 57) argues that comprehensible input is the only “causative factor” for SLA, claiming that “comprehensible input is responsible for progress in language acquisition” (Krashen, 1982: 61). The role of output is only to provide opportunities for generating more comprehensible input via feedback. Accordingly, speaking itself is not necessary for acquiring an L2. Krashen (1982: 60) states: “It is, in fact, theoretically possible to acquire language without ever talking.” The affective filter hypothesis The fifth and last hypothesis states that certain personality characteristics predict success, such as self-confidence, motivation, and low anxiety. Conversely, learners with less self-confidence, lack of Provided by Taylor & Francis - Shehadeh, 31.07.2012 Copyrighted Material 438 Monitor Model motivation, and high anxiety are less successful in SLA. The filter, a mental block, with the former group is low, with the latter it is high. Krashen (1985: 3–4) writes: “When the filter is ‘up’, the acquirer may understand what he hears and reads, but the input will not reach the Language Acquisition Device (LAD). … The filter is ‘down’ when the acquirer is not concerned with the possibility of failure in language acquisition and when he considers himself to be a potential member of the group speaking the target language.” Krashen (1985: 4) summarizes the Monitor Model in the following way: “We can summarize the five hypotheses with a single claim: ‘people acquire second languages only if they obtain comprehensible input and if their affective filters are low enough to allow the input in.’ When the filter is ‘down’ and appropriate comprehensible input is presented (and comprehended), acquisition is inevitable. It is, in fact, unavoidable and cannot be prevented-the language ‘mental organ’ will function just as automatically as any other organ.” The Monitor Model gained support and raised criticism, at the same time, among language teachers, applied linguists, and researchers. On the one hand, the Model won a lot of support in the 1970s and 80s, in particular from the advocates of an approach to Communicative Language Teaching methodology which postulates that learners need only be provided with comprehensible input whereby they only focus on meaning and communication, receive no or minimal explicit instruction, rules, or error correction. On the other hand, the Model was heavily criticized by other researchers and SLA scholars. In particular, it was argued that the acquisition-learning distinction is artificial rather than real (e.g., Schmidt, 1995), and that the claim that ‘learned’ knowledge does not convert to ‘acquired’ is not real either because many people have had their conscious L2 knowledge automatized to become acquired through practice (see, McLaughlin, 1987; Schmidt, 1995). Similarly, several SLA researchers have also argued the Monitor Model favors the role of comprehension (input) while de-emphasizing at the same time the importance of production, or learner output (e.g., Swain, 1985; Shehadeh, 1999). Swain, in particular, has strongly argued that comprehen- sible input is not sufficient for successful SLA, but that opportunities for learners to produce comprehensible output are also necessary. Specifically, Swain argued that understanding new forms is not enough and that learners must also be given the opportunity to produce them. Swain therefore doubts that interactions and comprehensible input on their own are sufficient for SLA: “Conversational exchanges … are not themselves the source of acquisition derived from comprehensible input. Rather they are the source of acquisition derived from comprehensible output: output that extends the linguistic repertoire of the learner as he or she attempts to create precisely and appropriately the meaning desired” (Swain, 1985: 252). See also: input enhancement, morpheme acquisition orders, naturalistic and instructed learning, Output Hypothesis, theoretical constructs in SLA, Universal Grammar (UG) and SLA References Dulay, H. and Burt, M. (1974). Natural sequence in child second language acquisition. Language Learning, 24/1, 37–53. Krashen, S. (1977). The monitor model for adult second language performance. In M. Burt, H. Dulay and M. Finocchiaro (eds), Viewpoints on English as a Second Language, pp. 152–161. New York: Regents. ——(1981). The ‘Fundamental Pedagogical Principle’ in second language teaching. Studia Linguistica, 35/1, 50–70. ——(1982). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon. ——(1985). The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. London: Longman. Krashen, S. and Terrell, T. (1983). The Natural Approach: Language Acquisition in the Classroom. New York: Prentice-Hall. McLaughlin, B. (1987). Theories of Second Language Learning. London: Edward Arnold. Schmidt, R. (1995). Consciousness and foreign language learning: A tutorial on the role of attention and awareness in learning. In R. Schmidt (ed.), Attention and Awareness in Foreign Provided by Taylor & Francis - Shehadeh, 31.07.2012 Copyrighted Material Monitoring 439 Language Learning, pp. 1–63. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Shehadeh, A. (1999). Non-native speakers’ production of modified comprehensible output and second language learning. Language Learning, 49/4, 627–75. Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass and C. Madden (eds), Input in Second Language Acquisition, pp. 235–53. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Monitoring Judit Kormos Lancaster University Self-monitoring, which involves checking the correctness and appropriateness of the produced spoken output, is an important component of speech production, which has three additional key components: (1) conceptualization, that is, planning what one wants to say, (2) formulation, which includes the grammatical, lexical, and phonological encoding of the message, and (3) articulation, in other words, the production of speech sounds. One of the basic mechanisms involved in producing and monitoring speech is activation spreading. Activation spreading is a metaphor adapted from brain research, which is based on the finding of neurological studies that neural networks consist of interconnected cells (neurons) that exchange simple signals called activations via the connections they have with each other (Hebb, 1949). The speech processing system is assumed to consist of consecutive, hierarchical levels, among which information is transmitted in terms of activation spreading. The conceptualization of monitoring processes constitutes a major difference between the two major theories of first language (L1) speech production: spreading activation theory (the latter name is somewhat misleading because as just mentioned, both models assume that the way information is transmitted in the speech processing system is activation spreading) (e.g., Dell, 1986) and modular theories (e.g., Levelt, 1989). Spreading activation theories allow for the backward flow of activation from a lower level of processing to the higher level, whereas in modular theories, activation can only spread forwards. Consequently, in spreading activation theory, if an error occurs in one specific process, a warning signal is immediately issued, and activation flows backwards to the previous level, from which processing will restart. Therefore in this theory, monitoring is assumed to be an inherent feature of the perception and production processes, and no separate monitoring device is postulated (Dell, 1986). The claims of the spreading activation theory concerning monitoring have been subject to serious criticism because if errors were detected automatically, the monitor would perceive all the errors, which, in turn, would all be automatically corrected (Levelt, 1989). Empirical research, however, shows that even L1 speakers do not correct every mistake in their speech (Levelt, 1989). In modular models of speech production and monitoring such as Levelt’s (1989) Perceptual Loop Theory, errors are not noticed at the level they are made, but only once the erroneous fragment of speech has been phonologically encoded or later when it is articulated. Hence in this view, bits of message that contain an error need to be encoded again from the level of conceptualization. In this model the same mechanism is applied for checking one’s own message as for the perception and checking of other speakers’ utterances. In order to avoid the necessity for reduplication of knowledge, in Perceptual Loop Theory the speech comprehension system is used for attending to one’s own speech as well as to others. The outcome of the production processes is inspected in three monitoring loops (i.e., direct feedback channels leading back to the monitor). The first loop involves the comparison of the preverbal plan, which contains the conceptual specifications for the message to be conveyed, with the original intentions of the speaker before the plan is linguistically encoded. In this loop the preverbal plan might need modification because the speaker might find that the formulated message is not appropriate in terms of its information content or in the given communicative situation. In the second loop the phonetic Provided by Taylor & Francis - Shehadeh, 31.07.2012