1

Abstract

The models, acculturation by John Schumann and Monitor by Krashen, attempts to

instruct the second language learners how they will acquire the target language with ease. This
assignment deals with the Acculturation Model of John Schumann and Krashen’s Monitor Model
in the multi-dimensional ways. I have focused on the idea of the two models, analysis,
similarities, dissimilarities, the critical period for learning and conclusion based on the topic of
my assignment. Second language acquisition is such a process by which the second language
learners can learn the target language or a second language. Second language acquisition (SLA)
mentions that the scientific discipline is devoted to studying that process as well. It can also
involve many interrelated factors as well. SLA is a product of many factors belonging to the
learning in different ways. Second language acquisition stands in contrast to first language
acquisition. It is the study of how learners learn an additional language after they have acquired
their mother tongue. Second language refers to any language learned as well as a person's first
language. Though the idea is known as second-language acquisition, it can also integrate the
learning of third, fourth, or subsequent languages. Second-language acquisition refers to what
learners do. It does not mean to practices in language teaching although teaching can influence
acquisition.

There are some theories of second language acquisition and the issues desire to be
discussed. Each of them gives its own ways to explain how second language is acquired. These
are mentioned as follows:

 The Acculturation Model,

 Accomodation Theory,
 Discourse Theory,
 The Monitor Model,
 The Variabel Competence Model,
 The Universal Hypothesis, and
 A Neurofunctional Theory.
 2

In this study, I have been assigned to focus on The Acculturation Model and The Monitor
Model in the different ways as it has been said before. The discussion begins with analyzing the
basic concepts of both the theories.

The Acculturation Model

Acculturation is a process of adapting to a new culture. It is seen as an important aspect
of SLA because language is one of the observable expressions of culture. The base word of
acculturation is culture. Culture means a way of living and a way of life. Culture means that
there are certain ways and reasons in which individuals and groups of people speak, conduct
themselves, celebrate holidays and express their belief systems. As we can imagine, there is a
tremendous diversity of cultures around the world. Short descriptions of social factors are stated
below:

 Social Dominance
It relates to the perceive status of a group in relation to another.

 Integration pattern

It is one kind of assimilation which means to give up learners own lifestyle in favor of
accepting another language. Here the learners can acculturate themselves with their manner and
culture.

 Degree of enclosure of both groups

The second language group shares the same social facilities that are low enclosure. In
case of low enclosure, the learners can acquire the language quickly. On the other hand, because
of different social facilities that is called high enclosure. Here the learners con not learn the
language with ease.

 Degree of cohesiveness of second language group

 3

To acquire the language the learners should have a good contact with the target language
community then they will be able to learn the second language easily. It is called inter group
contacts known as non-cohesive. If the learners are within their own group in contacting the
persons called intra group contacts known as cohesive.

 Degree of congruence of the two cultures

The culture of the second language group may be similar or different to the target
language group. If the culture is similar, the learners can easily acquire the target language. The
dissimilar culture makes the learner’s learning difficult to acquire the second language.

 Inter-group attitudinal evaluations

The learners should take the attitudes of second language group in a positive way.
Otherwise, they are not able to acquire the target language with ease. Negative attitudes should
be avoided to overcome the hindrances of the target language learning.

 Intended length of residence of second language group members

This term deals with whether the second language group intends to stay a long time or a
short time. If the persons stay long in the country of second language group, they will acquire the
target language easily.

 Size
The learners should not emphasize on their own group to learn the second language. They
need to prepare themselves to acquire the target language giving up their own group whether in
the proportion of population the group size is small or large.
 4

Psychologically, a good learning situation is obtained if the second language learner does
not experience cultural shock, language shock and language stress. This good learning situation
is also determined by the second learner’s motivation and ego boundaries. Furthermore, John
Schumann stated that the early stages of SLA are characterised by the same process which leads
to pidginization.

For example, the process of simplifying and reducing form of speech in communication
between people with different languages.

Andersen expanded Schumann’s Acculturation Model by providing a cognitive

dimension. He used the concept of nativization and denativization to explain the learner’s
internal processing mechanism in acquiring the target language.

The Monitor Model Hypothesis

Krashen’s Monitor Model is very crucial in second language acquisition research. It is the
most comprehensive theories. this hypothesis was proposed by Krashen in 1987. The Monitor
Model views SLA from a different perspective in which a second language is acquired is based
on five central hypotheses. They are as follows
 The acquisition learning hypothesis
 The natural order hypothesis
 The input hypothesis
 The affective filter hypothesis
 The monitoring hypothesis

These are analyzed in a nutshell below:

Acquisition-Learning hypothesis:
 5

The distinction between acquisition and learning lies at the heart of Krashen’s theory. It
is used in second language knowledge storing this knowledge and to using it in actual
performance. Acquisition is a sub-conscious process which is used in natural communication. It
is an informal process. It is available for automatic processing.

On the other way, learning is a conscious process. It is a formal property of the language.
It is available for controlled processing.

In performance, acquired knowledge serves the major source for initiating both the
comprehension and production of literature. Learning knowledge can be acquired using the
monitor.

Natural-order hypothesis:

This is hypothesis is used in SLA which indicates that learners may follow a more or less
invarriant in order in the acquisition of formal grammatical features. The hypothesis affirms that
grammatical structures are acquired in a predictable order. In this process, firstly the teacher will
teach the student easy things. Secondly, he will teach them hard things.

The monitor hypothesis:

It is an error analysis process. It helps to know the weakness and shortcomings of the
learners through monitoring. Monitor is such a device that learners use to edit their language
performance. It utilizes “learnt knowledge” by acting upon and modifying utterance generated
from acquired knowledge.

According to Krashen, for the Monitor to be successfully used, three conditions must be
met:

 The learner must know the rule

 6

 The learner must focus on correctness

 The learner must have time to use the monitor

This is a very difficult condition to meet because it means that the speaker must have had
explicit instruction on the language form, he or she is trying to produce. He or she must be
thinking about form, and it is difficult to focus on meaning and form at the same time. Using the
monitor requires the speaker to slow down and focus on form.

The input hypothesis

In this hypothesis, second language is acquired through processing comprehensible input

hypothesis. This states that learners progress in their knowledge of the language when they
comprehend language input that is more advanced than their current level. Krashen called this
level of input "i+1", where "i" is the language input and "+1" is the next stage of language
acquisition.

Corollaries of the input hypothesis

 Talking is not practicing.

 When enough comprehensible input is provided, i+1 is present.

 The teaching order is not based on the natural order.

Krashen stresses yet again that speaking in the target language does not result in language
acquisition. Although speaking can indirectly assist in language acquisition, the ability to speak
is not the cause of language learning or acquisition. Instead, comprehensible output is the effect
of language acquisition. If language models and teachers provide enough comprehensible input,
then the structures that acquirers are ready to learn will be present in that input. According to
 7

Krashen, this is a better method of developing grammatical accuracy than direct grammar
teaching. Instead, students will acquire the language in a natural order by receiving
comprehensible input.

Affective filter hypothesis

It deals with how affective factors relate to SLA. It is also concerned with the
psychological process. Various affective factors include motivation, self-confidence and anxiety.
This hypothesis also states that learners' ability to acquire language is constrained if they are
experiencing negative emotions such as fear or embarrassment.

Environment is the most important factor to learn any new things. Native and non-native
teachers have different talents. Likewise, acquisition-inspired and learning-inspired language
programs require different talents.

The Similarities

The Acculturation Model deals with the idea that the first Language hinders with SLA.
Similarly, the Monitor Model cancels the view that there are some negative effects on SLA.
Motivation pertains to both the models. It lies in the psychological factor of acculturation model.
It convinces the learners to go forward for accepting the second language. In the same way, this
term motivation lies in the affective filter hypothesis of Krashen’s monitor model. It also makes
the learners to be enthusiastic to learn the target language or second language.

Acquisition and learning lie in the models-Schumann’s acculturation and Krashen’s

monitor. In the acculturation model the learners acquires the second language in the sub-
conscious way acculturating themselves with the target language group. When they attend the
various functions of second language, they will be able to acquire some experiences in a sub-
conscious way. In addition, with this acquisition they learn something because it is not like this
 8

that everything is learnt automatically. On the other hand, the learners can acquire the target
language in the very sub-conscious way from the acquisition-learning hypothesis of Krashen’s
monitor model. This hypothesis states that the learners can learn the second language sub-
consciously and consciously. That is why both the models play the same role to acquire the
target language.

The same goal to learn the second language belongs to the acculturation model by John
Schumann and monitor model by Krashen in case of acquiring the other communities’
languages. Both the models are the part of SLA.

These models are based on empirical study because the learners learn the language
through the practical experiences. Actually, both the theories are based on an empirical grounded
theory of SLA, which has been supported, by a large number of scientific studies.

"+1" theory can be utilized in both the models. It is the next stage of language
acquisition. The learners learn the language based on their existing knowledge.

The Acculturation Model does not consider that the first Language holds up with second
language acquisition. In the very same way, the Monitor Model can not accept the view that the
first language exposes negative effects on second language acquisition. Krashen and Ellis assert
that the first language could be utilized as a performance device. Ellis also states that whenever
the second language learners face difficult for any kind of rules in the second language, they
usually come back on their own native language. in addition, Ellis in 1986 told that instead of
using the acquired knowledge of second language, the second language learners try to exercise
their first language to initiate an utterance, replacing the lexical items of a target language, and
producing small corrections by dint of using the monitor model.

The Dissimilarities
 9

In the acculturation model, there is no monitoring situation to instruct the target language.
On the other hand, monitoring system plays the significant role in learning the second language
in the monitoring hypothesis. The instructors observe the learning environment to instruct the
learners the second language.

The input hypothesis of the monitor model is based on the grammatical issues in which
the psychological and social factors are ungrammatical.

In the acculturation model, the learners are motivated themselves to accept the target
language. On the other hand, the learners can be motivated by the instructor to overcome the
obstructions acquiring the second language.

Both the Acculturation and Monitor Models have the individual differences, which play
the very essential function in second language acquisition. Conversely, everyone can explain
these different expressions in the multi-dimensional ways. An individual person, who is able to
defeat the psychological distance as quickly as possible, he will be able to acculturate more
quickly. Therefore, he can probably acquire second language soon.

In the acculturation model, individual differences can be influenced. The success of

acquiring second language banks on how a person individually overcomes the problems of
language shock, cultural shock and cultural stress. Therefore, as a member of a particular social
group, this success is not the problem of the individual.

In terms of psychological distance, an integratively oriented learner is eager to meet, to

talk with or even wants to be like speakers of the target language. Thus, she or he finds it is easy
to acquire the target language. An instrumentally oriented learner, on the other hand, would
achieve a level of psychological solidarity, depending on his or her goal. If his or her goal is just
for survival, his or her language will be characterized with organization. However, if his or her
 10

goal is to infiltrate the target language group in order to manipulate them (e.g. spy), she or he can
acquire native-like competence.

The Monitor Model deals with individual differences in many ways. In terms of natural
order hypothesis, it claims that there is no individual variation in second language acquisition
because acquisition follows a natural route1. However, in terms of monitor hypothesis, it is
believed that individual differences that help the learners acquire the target language successfully
are affected by the acquisition system of other languages. Krashen said that there are three kinds
of second language learners. They are monitor over-users, monitor under-users and optimal
monitor users.

Monitor over-users are those who always want to use their conscious knowledge of the
second language to monitor their utterances. These kinds of learners often speak hesitantly, self-
correct in the middle of utterances, and so concerned with correctness. As a result, they cannot
speak fluently. The Monitor under-users are learners who have not “learned”, or if they have
learned, prefer not to use their conscious knowledge to monitor.2

The Differences in the Role of Formal Instruction

The Acculturation Model does not see that formal instruction is important. In other words
formal instruction has only an indirect effect o the success of learning the target language. On the
other hand, the Monitor Model regards that formal instruction is very important. This instruction
is used in terms of language learning. Grammatical rules that are taken to utilize as a means of
monitoring is achieved from the formal instruction.

1
Krashen, 1987, in Ellis, 1986
2
http://indramazykidz.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-similarities-and-differences.html, (12;45am,
13-04-15)
 11

The Differences in terms of Critical Period for Learning

The Monitor Model notices the critical periods in the perspectives of learning in many
ways. In terms of phonological progress, this theory claims that adults are not better to accept the
languages from the surroundings in which children have the ability to learn the languages from
their surroundings. It is difficult for the older learners to get native-like competence in
pronunciation than the younger learners. This model considers the critical period for learning
from affective filter point of view as well. It is obviously described that after puberty the
affective filter is likely to increase in strength. The augment of the affective filter creates second
more difficult for the second language learners to learn the second language.

In the Acculturation Model, there is critical period for learning. This model claims that
children are better to acquire the second language than adults. This happens when children are
unconsciously able to decrease the social or psychological distances. A young child, because he
has not built up years and years of cultural-bound view and view of himself, has fewer
perspective filter to readjust, and therefore moves through stages of acculturation more quickly,
and of course acquires languages more quickly.

Conclusion

Language acquisition is more efficient than language learning for attaining functional
skills in a foreign language not only in childhood. The question of language acquiring and
learning capacity in both the models of SLA is complex. The multifarious nature of language
itself necessarily leads to different interpretations of the idea of language learning and
acquisition capacity. For language teachers, the question then becomes how to incorporate into
our teaching practices our understanding of the way in which learning processes are impacted by
factors relating to age, environment, and prior linguistic and cultural experience in order to better
 12

assist second language learners. Both the models try to fill up their goal instructing the learners
second language despite having the dissimilarities of them.

Works Cited

 Schuman, 1978, The Pidginization Process: A Model for Second Language Acquisition,

Newbury House Publishers, Massachusetts.

 Ellis, Rod. 1986, Understanding Second Language Acquisition. Great Britain: Oxford

University Press.

 http://www.pdf-chaser.com/The-Perspective-of-Aculturation-and-Monitor-Models-in-

their-...html

 Valdes, Joyce Merryl. 1986, Culture Bound, Bridging the Cultural Gap in Language

Teaching, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

 http://indramazykidz.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-similarities-and-differences.html,

(12;45am, 13-04-15).

 Kind direction from Class Lectures