Critique on Second Language Acquisition: Monitor Theory

Quinn Arthur A. Pedroso                                                                      

 MAELT - 1                         

Critique on Second Language Acquisition: Monitor Theory

One of the distinct characteristics of being human is the ability to communicate with a system of symbols and signs through language. It serves as gauge which separates us from the rest of the beings on this planet. Despite this innate attribute, humans tend to differ in their ability to grasp language. Some learners are anxious in conveying their thoughts using their L2 while others are more natural in producing their second language. So, how do learners gain proficiency in language use in relation to their L2?

According to Linguist, Stephen Krashen, gaining proficiency in a language relies on how one perceives it. In his Monitor Theory, Krashen introduced five vital hypotheses which are crucial in developing one’s proficiency in language: Acquisition – Learning, Monitor, Natural Process, Input, and Affective Filter (Pour & Sayyadian, 2015). Perrin (2007) summarized this theory by stating that the various hypotheses of Krashen opines that natural acquisition from comprehensible input is a far more important factor in mastering a foreign language than the conscious learning of formal rules. The latter only comes into play as a monitor, and only if the speaker has enough time, is concerned with correctness of form, and knows the relevant rule. This assertion implies that proficiency in a particular language relies on the comprehensible input given to L2 learners. For them to become fluent in their second language, they need to be exposed in an environment where they could acquire language naturally. Bilash (2009) also supports this claim by stating that the optimal way a language is learned is through natural communication. She elaborates further that the ideal second language teacher should create a situation wherein language is used in order to fulfill authentic purposes; this will help students to ‘acquire’ the language rather than ‘learn’ it.

In contrast to the above notions, Zafar (2009) in his article, ‘Monitoring the ‘Monitor,’ debunked the idea that acquisition and learning are indeed independent constructs of language proficiency. He pointed out that Krashen did not specify on a particular variable that would discriminate one from the other. In other words, the latter failed to put a tangible demarcation between the two constructs. Also, he does not believe that acquisition has a great role in generating utterance and comprehension of the second language.    

Despite this disparaging view, most researchers and teachers still gravitate to Krashen’s Monitor Theory. Nolan (2001) cited that “Krashen’s theory applies in general to all learning. Students acquire knowledge in different ways than they do when they are specifically taught skills…all of this material is put to use, most of the time being processed through a filter of sorts, which Krashen calls the monitor. This is where the rules are applied and the form is checked. If it is not right, it is corrected to fit the rules”. In this aspect, the theory might prove the effect of internal and external factors in language acquisition. If the affective filter of an individual is high, he or she might be too conscious in expressing his or her thoughts in the second language. An impediment in fluency and production of L2 might result if the learner overthinks of the adverse feedback he or she might get if the audience notice mispronunciation, grammatical errors, or faulty parallelism.