Title: Second Language applications: Krashen´s Monitor Model and the Cognitive Perspective

With the past of the time, the process of acquiring a new language has change in many aspects since the
field researches done in 1950’s. All the learning theories what were presented by the best-known
linguistics and researchers were aimed to establish the necessary methodology to overcome the
difficulties coming up when you are teaching a second language. The first and most influential at the
time was the theory of Noam Chomsky about universal Hypothesis, which states that every human being
has a language acquisition device that allow the reception and input of information leading to the
development of the language. Although, years latter Stephen Krashen present a Monitor Hypothesis
which explain the relationship of the acquisition and learning, consequently giving a definition of the
influence and consequence of one into the other as a result of the grammar learned. Besides the common
factor of these two theories is the fact that they are centered on the cognitive perspective. During this
essay we will explain the Monitor Model of Krashen and the Cognitive Perspective.

First, on the cognitive theory the acquisition process of a language is based on the work of Piaget, which
goes around the idea of students can learn new things when they are developmentally ready to learn. The
cognitive psychologists focus on the importance of the meaning, knowing and understanding. Meaning
has a vital role in the learning process of any person. If we refer to learning is a meaningful process when
new events happen to bring new cognitive models and concepts to our life. Knowing are the
representations which lead to the particular guided performance for the language acquisition based on
the system and involving appropriate vocabulary, grammatical rules, pragmatic conventions and more.
This theory is also concentrated on the reinforcement and conditioning, which shapes that adults learners
getting a second language could enjoy from some grammatical explanations in accordance of the
efficiency and appropriateness of such explanations. Some cognitive psychologists believe that language
learning is a holistic process, which is not analyzable as stimulus-response because learner pay attention
to any aspect of the target language. On the contrary, learners go gradually taking some parts of their
knowledge, experience and practice to understand and produce the language in case.

Then, the Monitor hypothesis establishes the presence of a mental process in the mind of a learner, which
include several environmental and psychological aspects that affect the normal development of the
language acquisition. By this information, the view of the development of the language learning widens
consideration the atmosphere of the learner as a shaper of the process making unique models on every
learner. That is how the monitor hypothesis clarify the relationship between the acquisition and the
learning taking the influence of one over the other. According to the work of Krashen the acquisition
system acts like a utterance initiator, the learning system perform the role of the monitor or editor.
Therefore, this monitor acts in planning, editing and correction where there has to be three specific
conditions: The second language learner has to have enough available time, focus on think or form
accuracy and the must know well the rules. On this way, the role of the conscious learning comes to
limit the language performance in a certain degree. To Stephen Krashen the monitor role is less when is
used only to correct derivations of the normal speech and give a more polished appearance.
Besides, during his work Krashen distinguish that there were some individual variations on the language
learners when they get to use the “monitor”. He finally arrive to the conclusion that there are some
learners that use this monitor all the time, they are mostly known as over-users; a group of learners who
have no idea or chose not to use the conscious knowledge, known as under-user: but those learners who
have learn to use the monitor appropriately are the optimal users. Then, an evaluation of the person
psychological profile can help us to determine the kind of users they are. Mostly all the extrovert learners
are under-users, in comparison with the perfectionist learners are over users. That is how she determine
that the lack of self-confidence is often related to the over use of the monitor on the learner life.

In conclusion, Stephen Krashen holds a wider vision of the cognitive and linguistic development, since
takes external factors involved in the language acquisition process. Krashen’s theory seems to be a proper
theory for the current learning approaches. He also warns that over-monitoring can cause language
production to be more adapted towards accuracy than fluency. One of the most important implications
of language acquisition theories is the fact that the methodology, linguistic and teacher should view the
acquisition process of a second language as a matter and as an instance of nature. Therefore, educational
linguist should adapt language model for classroom in a creative from leading on innovated applications
for syllabus development and the design of instructional systems, practices, techniques, strategies and
procedures in the language classroom.

CONCLUSION
The most important implication of language ac)uisition theories is obviously the fact that
appliedlinguists, methodologist and language teachers should view the ac)uisition of a language not only
as a matter of nurture but also an instance of nature. "n addition, only when we distinguish between a
general theory of learning and language learning can we ameliorate the conditions &< education. To do
so, applied linguists must be aware of the nature of both &? and &< ac)uisition and must consider the
distinction proposed in this study.3idgway <===, ?G0 notes that the educational linguist not the
applied linguist0 is a practitioner who applies and adapts the policies of others in the classroom
creatively. "f the educational linguist is to adapt language models proposed by others applied linguists0
for classroom practice, it becomes more important how/ he or she will adopt them. ow, for instance,
should s'he utili4e the findings of 5&A studies conducted on syntax or natural order and use them for
hisor her particular classroom settings+ ow should grammar points be handled+ 5hould they be taught
inductively or deductively+ 8r should there be a balance between grammar lessons and ac)uisition lessons
1ust as proposed by the proponents of the 2onitor 2odel+ ow should vocabulary teaching be like and
how should a syllabus be designed+ ow will the results of language planning proposed by the
government be implemented+ 2ost of these how/ )uestions can be answered properly only through a
detailed analysis and a thorough understanding of language ac)uisition theories. ere, on the shoulders
of the methodologists lays )uite a heavy responsibility. As we often see, linguistics and T$J&'T$5& are
largely based on the nurturist facet of language ac)uisition, emphasi4ing discourse and ethnolinguistic
studies. "t would, of course, be unwise to deemphasi4e such studies and their role in accounting for
language ac)uisition and reaching a possible theory of educational linguistics. owever, in this article it
has been shown that language ac)uisition is also a considerable matter of innate factors. Phat is then the
role of that nature/ part of theories in the overall sketch of language ac)uisition and methodology+"n
addition, the author wishes to emphasi4e the necessity of the subfield educational psycholinguistics/.
"n 5tubbsO point of view ?@>B:<>G0, a thorough description of language in use, language variation,
levels of language such as phonology, morphology and syntax, semantics and discourse will form the
bases of a complete educational theory of language. "f such a theory is expected to be beneficial to foreign
and second language teaching, then it shouldnot only include these environmentalist components but also
include the subfield educational psycholinguistics/ which would mainly focus on naturist/ accounts
as discussed in previous parts of this article. The inclusion of educational psycholingustics in this sense
will make the current position of applied linguistics and language teaching far stronger. o longer should
mind and innateness be treated as dirty words inker, ?@@D:<<0. This will most probably lead to
innovative proposals for syllabus development and the design of instructional systems, practices,
techni)ues, procedures in the language classroom, and finally a sound theory of &< teaching and learning

https://www.sk.com.br/sk-krash-english.html

 Crystal, David The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language. Cambridge University Press,

1997.
 Krashen, Stephen D. Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Prentice-
Hall International, 1987.
 Krashen, Stephen D. Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning.
Prentice-Hall International, 1988.
Comparative Essay Chomsky and Krashen’s
theories: Similarities and Differences

Language, including learning processes and acquisition discoveries, has probably become one of the
most researched fields since 1950’s. Leading theories presented by renowned theorists and their
findings have established the methodology necessary to cope with difficulties risen from the teaching
of a second language (L2). The present essay will discuss similarities and differences from two of the
main authors who have contribute to language teaching and learning theories through their works, such
as Noam Chomsky’s Universal Hypothesis Theory and Stephen Krashen’s Monitor Model.

According to what has been said above, one similarity that these authors share is that their language
models are centered on the cognitive field. Chomsky states that every human being possesses a “LAD”
(Language Acquisition Device) that allows the development of language through the reception of an
input (information on the mother tongue language or L1) which is transformed in a new linguistic unit
– or output- by the LAD.

Krashen also establishes the existence of a mental process in the mind of an L2 learner. He also talks
about a mental process that includes several environmental and psychological aspects that affect
language acquisition. This information enlarge the view on the topic of language development by
considering not only what occur in an individual’s brain, but also how the students’ atmosphere while
learning a language can shape the process in a unique form.

While Chomsky depicts his theory with a triple diagram that represents the entrance of input to the
brain, the existence of the LAD and finally, the output; Krashen illustrates his theory including five
elements that enrich the acquisition process (see the Natural Order Hypothesis; The Acquisition/
Learning Hypothesis; The Monitor Hypothesis; The Input Hypothesis; The Affective Filter Hypothesis)
(Krashen’s Comprehension Hypothesis Model of L2 learning, 2014), which in this case can be applied
for L1 development and L2 acquisition.

As a contrast, what seems irrelevant for Chomsky represents a nuclear point for Krashen in order to
develop a wider landscape for the language development process. This leads us to differences between
both authors.

Another similarity relevant to mention is related to the grammatical aspect of language. Both authors
stated that language development is reached through a certain order that helps to the acquired
grammatical elements through the understanding of comprehensible input. Chomsky’s Universal
Grammar Theory and Krashen’s Natural Order Hypothesis state that comprehensible input is essential
to make the acquisition process possible, since the brain needs an initial element to work with and
develop further structures to create an develop a new language , either L1 or L2 (Cook, 2010. pp. 137-
157).

Between the differences it can be stated that Chomsky believes there is a period in the learners’ life in
which language development stalled and if it occurs, it takes long time and little learning. However,
Krashen claims that difficulties during a language learning process are always present, but the critical
period of Chomsky can be resolved by using alternatives routes to achieve the learning.
As a conclusion, the main authors reviewed through this essay highlight the importance of the
acquisition process, including different elements related to it. In general terms, Stephen Krashen seems
to hold a wider vision of the cognitive and linguistic development, since takes external factors involved
in the language acquisition process. It is fair to say, that Noam Chomsky settles the milestone of the
cognitive theories for language acquisition, even though it is centered on the encrypted processes that
may occur in the human brain. This is the main reason why Krashen’s theory seems to be a proper
theory for the current learning approaches.

References

Cook, V. (2010) The Relationship between First and Second Language Acquisition revisited. In E.
Macaro (Ed.), The Continuum Companion to Second Language Acquisition. (pp. 137-157). Web
Version.

Krashen’s Comprehension Hypothesis Model of L2 learning. Notes by Vivian Cook. Retrieved April
11, 2014 from http://homepage.ntlworld.com/vivian.c/SLA/Krashen.htm

https://portfoliocrodriguez.wordpress.com/2014/06/25/comparative-essay-chomsky-and-krashens-
theories-similarities-and-differences/

Monitor Hypothesis

The monitor hypothesis involves the acquisition center being monitored by the learning system. So the
acquisition center would produce language and what the student is/has been learning will allow the
student to monitor output. If the output matches, then no problem, but if the language produced is not
correct, then the monitoring of the learning system will help correct the acquisition center.

However, Krashen warns that over-monitoring can cause language production to be more geared
towards accuracy than fluency.
Stephen )rashen*s Theory of Second +anguage ,c uisition
&anguage ac)uisition does not re)uire extensive use of conscious grammatical rules, and does not re)uire
tedious drill.Ac)uisition re)uires meaningful interaction in the target language - natural communication -
in which speakers are concerned not with the form of their utterances but with the messages they are
conveying and understanding.The best methods are therefore those that supply 9comprehensible input9
in low anxiety situations,containing messages that students really want to hear. These methods do not
force early production in the second language, but allow students to produce when they are 9ready9,
recogni4ing that improvement comes from supplying communicative and comprehensible input, and not
from forcing and correcting production."n the real world, conversations with sympathetic native speakers
who are willing to help the ac)uirer understand are very helpful.
Introduction

5tephen Krashen 6niversity of 5outhern #alifornia0 is an expert in the field of linguistics, speciali4ing
in theories of language ac)uisition and development. 2uch of his recent research has involved the study
of non-$nglish and bilingual language ac)uisition. !uring the past <= years, he has published well over
?== books and articles and has been invited to deliver over G==lectures at universities throughout the
6nited 5tates and #anada.This is a brief description of Krashen9s widely known and well accepted theory
of second language ac)uisition, which has had a large impact in all areas of second language research
and teaching since the ?@>=s.
Description of Krashen's Theory of Second Language Acquisition
Krashen9s theory of second language ac)uisition consists of five main hypotheses:

the ,c uisition-+earning hypothesis

the onitor hypothesis

the 0atural 1rder hypothesis

the nput hypothesis

and the ,2ective ilter hypothesis

he
"onitor
 hypothesis explains the relationship between ac)uisition and learning and defines the influence of the
latter on the former. The monitoring function is the practical result of the learned grammar. According
to Krashen, the ac)uisition system is the utterance initiator, while the learning system performs the role
of the 9monitor9 or the 9editor9. The 9monitor9 acts in a planning, editing and correcting function when
three specific conditions are met: that is, the second language learner has sufficient time at his'her
disposal, he'she focuses on form or thinks about correctness, and he'she knows the rule."t appears that
the role of conscious learning is somewhat limited in second language performance. According to
Krashen, the role of the monitor is - or should be - minor, being used only to correct deviations from
*normal* speech and to give speech a more 9polished9 appearance.Krashen also suggests that there is
individual variation among language learners with regard to 9monitor9 use. e distinguishes those
learners that use the 9monitor9 all the time over-users0% those learners who have not learned or who
prefer not to use their conscious knowledge under-users0% and those learners that use the 9monitor9
appropriately optimal users0. An evaluation of the person9s psychological profile can help to
determine to what group they belong. 6sually extroverts are under-users, while introverts and
perfectionists are over-users. &ack of self-confidence is fre)uently related to the over-use of the
*monitor*
#ognitive Theory: The &anguage Ac)uisition Niew #ognitive theory is based on the work of
psychologists. iagetOs work, which dwells on the idea that students can learn things when they are
developmentally ready to do so since learning follows development, can be regarded as a starting point
of the cognitivist ideas. #ognitive psychologists emphasi4ed the importance of meaning, knowing and
understanding. According to them, QmeaningO plays an important role in human learning. Q&earningO
is a meaningful process of relating new events or items to already existing cognitive concepts./
rown, .!. ?@>I:DI0% and it is thought to involve internal representations that guide performance.
"n the case of language ac)uisition, these representations are based on language system and involve
proceduresfor selecting appropriate vocabulary, grammatical rules, and pragmatic conventions
governing language use.!avid Ausubel cited in rown, ?@>I:>=0, who critici4ed the popular
Audiolingual method for itstheory based on reinforcement and conditioning, stated that adults learning a
second language could profit from certain grammatical explanations. Phether adults do really profit from
such explanations depends on ?0 the suitability and efficiency of the explanation, <0 the teacher,
G0 the context, and D0 other pedagogical variables. Though children do not use
deductive presentations of grammar and they do not have superior cognitive capacities, they ac)uire their
mother tongue )uite successfully. #ognitive psychologists see second language ac)uisition, on the other
hand, as the building up of knowledge systems that can eventually be called automatically for speaking
and understanding/ &ightbown and 5pada, ?@@G:< 0. &anguage learning, in this sense, has some
(estalt characteristics in that language learning is a wholistic process and not analysable as stimulus-
response associations. &anguage learners pay attention to any aspect of the language that they are
attempting to understand and produce. Then, step by step, they become able to use certain parts of their
knowledge through experience and practice."n short, the cognitivists claim that language ac)uisition can
be automatically attained. owever it is not clear how it will be automati4ed. And what &? structures
can be automati4ed through practice in &< and what structures can be transferred to &< are not clearly
accounted for

The 2onitor ypothesis As mentioned before, adult second language learners have two means for
internali4ing the target language. The first is Qac)uisitionO which is a subconscious and intuitive process
of constructing the system of a language. The second means is a conscious learning process in which
learners attend to form, figure out rules and are generally aware of their own process. The QmonitorO is
an aspect of this second process. "t edits and makes alterations or corrections as they are
consciously perceived. Krashen ?@> : 0 believes that QfluencyO in second language performance
is due to Qwhat we have ac)uiredO, not Qwhat we have learnedO: Adults should do as much ac)uiring
as possible for the purpose of achieving communicative fluency. Therefore, the monitor should have
only a minor role in the process of gaining communicative competence. 5imilarly, Krashen suggests three
conditions for its use: ?0 there must be enough time% <0 the focus must be on form and not on
meaning% G0 the learner must know the rule. 5tudents may monitor during written tasks e.g.,
homework assignments0 and preplanned speech, or to some extent during speech. &earned knowledge
enables students to read and listen more so they ac)uire more
The 2onitor 2odel has been critici4ed by some linguists and methodologists 2c&aughlin ?@>I: B0,
notes that the model fails at every 1uncture by claiming that none of the hypotheses is clear in their
predictions. Jor example, he notes that the ac)uisition-learning distinction is not properlydefined and that
the distinction between these two processes cannot be tested empirically. Although it is true that some
parts of the theory need more clarification, it would be harsh to suggest that the 2odel is a pseudo-
scientific. asanbey personal communication0 define ac)uisition as follows: Any systematic
linguistic behavior, the rules of which cannot be verbali4ed by its performer is the outcome of ac)uisition.
5o if one uses a specific language rule in proper contexts and if the same person cannot articulate the
underlying language rule which determines its proper context, then that person is said to have ac)uired
the rule in )uestion. 8n the other hand, if a person can verbali4e a language rule, with or without its proper
implementation during performance then that person is said to have conscious knowledge of that rule.
5o one might have ac)uired and learned the same rule in theory./ Phile writing these very sentences, "
have displayed a curious example of committing an error which proves the ac)uisition-learning
distinction. "n the statement asanbey personal communication0 define ac)uisition as follows/ the
verb define should have an -s/ attached to it. ", as an $J& learner'teacher of $nglish for about <= years,
consciously/ know when to attach that suffix to the verbs. ut when it comes to fluent writing and
speaking during which only subconsciously ac)uired rules have a say, " fre)uently miss that third person
singular ]s. 5o " andmany other &< learners who commit this error in spite of knowing the underlying
rule at a conscious level, are the irrefutable evidence proving the distinction between ac)uisition and
learning. The on-going interest in KrashenOs theory and the emergence of articles supporting his theory
in recent 1ournals also proves that his theory is far from being pseudo-scientific. ere is a typical
example: KrashenOs Qac)uisition-learningO distinction has met harsh criticism but the theory he put
forward deserves a more sympathetic reappraisal. Jirst of all, the theory is not insulated against
falsification. The results of the studies examining the effects of explicit positive and'or negative evidence
in formal learning are not inconsistent with it. 3ecent studies on the ac)uisition of functional categories
lends support to the existence of the natural order in $nglish &<. "t is also possible to single out ma1or
dimensions on which processes and products of the Qac)uiredO and QlearnedO systems differ using the
principles of markedness and differences in computational complexity./ Cobl, ?@@ :G 0 5o far
eight theories of language ac)uisition have been discussed see Appendix for a brief account of other
theories and a classification of theories based on the distinction made here0. "t can be seen that none of
the theories is complete and most of them need developing. $ach theory,however, is important for their
implications and provides invaluable information as to how a language is ac)uired. and how language
teaching should take place

CONCLUSION
The most important implication of language ac)uisition theories is obviously the fact that
appliedlinguists, methodologist and language teachers should view the ac)uisition of a language not only
as a matter of nurture but also an instance of nature. "n addition, only when we distinguish between a
general theory of learning and language learning can we ameliorate the conditions &< education. To do
so, applied linguists must be aware of the nature of both &? and &< ac)uisition and must consider the
distinction proposed in this study.3idgway <===, ?G0 notes that the educational linguist not the
applied linguist0 is a practitioner who applies and adapts the policies of others in the classroom
creatively. "f the educational linguist is to adapt language models proposed by others applied linguists0
for classroom practice, it becomes more important how/ he or she will adopt them. ow, for instance,
should s'he utili4e the findings of 5&A studies conducted on syntax or natural order and use them for
hisor her particular classroom settings+ ow should grammar points be handled+ 5hould they be taught
inductively or deductively+ 8r should there be a balance between grammar lessons and ac)uisition lessons
1ust as proposed by the proponents of the 2onitor 2odel+ ow should vocabulary teaching be like and
how should a syllabus be designed+ ow will the results of language planning proposed by the
government be implemented+ 2ost of these how/ )uestions can be answered properly only through a
detailed analysis and a thorough understanding of language ac)uisition theories. ere, on the shoulders
of the methodologists lays )uite a heavy responsibility. As we often see, linguistics and T$J&'T$5& are
largely based on the nurturist facet of language ac)uisition, emphasi4ing discourse and ethnolinguistic
studies. "t would, of course, be unwise to deemphasi4e such studies and their role in accounting for
language ac)uisition and reaching a possible theory of educational linguistics. owever, in this article it
has been shown that language ac)uisition is also a considerable matter of innate factors. Phat is then the
role of that nature/ part of theories in the overall sketch of language ac)uisition and methodology+"n
addition, the author wishes to emphasi4e the necessity of the subfield educational psycholinguistics/.
"n 5tubbsO point of view ?@>B:<>G0, a thorough description of language in use, language variation,
levels of language such as phonology, morphology and syntax, semantics and discourse will form the
bases of a complete educational theory of language. "f such a theory is expected to be beneficial to foreign
and second language teaching, then it shouldnot only include these environmentalist components but also
include the subfield educational psycholinguistics/ which would mainly focus on naturist/ accounts
as discussed in previous parts of this article. The inclusion of educational psycholingustics in this sense
will make the current position of applied linguistics and language teaching far stronger. o longer should
mind and innateness be treated as dirty words inker, ?@@D:<<0. This will most probably lead to
innovative proposals for syllabus development and the design of instructional systems, practices,
techni)ues, procedures in the language classroom, and finally a sound theory of &< teaching and learning
https://www.academia.edu/25599387/Overview_of_Learning_Theories