Journal of Ultimate Research and Trends in Education

ISSN: 2685-4252 (Online) and ISSN: 2685-0540 (Print)

Vol. xx, No. xx, xxxx 20xx, pp: xx – xx
DOI: https://doi.org/10.31849/utamax.vxxx

Krashen's Monitor Model in L2 Acquisition: A Critical Review

Mahmudul Hassan
BGC Trust University Bangladesh, Chattogram, Bangladesh
akib.cu@gmail.com

ARTICLE HISTORY ABSTRACT

Received : 2022-08-25 Stephen Krashen is well-known for a set of theories collectively known as the
Revised : 2022-11-13 Monitor Model, which have made substantial contributions to the fields of
Accepted : 2022-11-20 language learning and writing. It is likely the most often quoted second
language acquisition theory and has frequently dominated education discourse.
KEYWORDS Originally published around forty years ago, the Monitor Model contains a
Affective filter series of ideas which have evolved and are still debated today. Despite
Critical evaluation widespread criticism, the theory has had far-reaching effects on second
Comprehensible input language research and instruction since its inception. Controversies surrounding
Second language acquisition
the Monitor Model propelled the discussion on what a theory of L2 acquisition
Critical review
ought to be. This paper evaluates Krashen's Monitor Model critically. It gives a
thorough analysis of the model's underlying assumptions, explains each of the
five hypotheses, and addresses objections to the theory based on relevant
empirical evidence. It also evaluates some of Krashen's rebuttals to some of the
objections made to his theories. The study reveals that despite the theoretical
flaws, some of Krashen's fundamental assumptions appear to be valid. The
research also concludes that Krashen's monitor model is still legitimate and
relevant because its core concepts have survived in some form despite years of
scathing criticism.

1. Introduction 1) The Acquisition Learning Hypothesis;

2) The Natural Order Hypothesis;
Beginning in the late 1960s, the study of second 3) The Monitor Hypothesis;
language acquisition (SLA) saw its first major 4) The Input Hypothesis; and
advances in the 1970s (Ortega, 2007). A number of 5) The Affective Filter Hypothesis.
competing explanations for SLA have been
proposed since then. Some have changed and Criticism by theorists and researchers, despite its
continued to have an impact, while others have popularity and significance, primarily for its
mostly fallen out of favor (VanPatten & Williams, definitional adequacy. Gitaski (1998) argues that
2015). Among them, Stephen Krashen's Monitor Krashen's paradigm cannot be precisely defined or
Theory, since its initial publication in 1977 and later empirically examined. It may be appropriate to
modifications, has garnered both enthusiastic question the adequacy of Monitor Theory as having
support and robust opposition. It was the first theory the explanatory capability in SLA for observable
to be developed specifically for SLA. Its concepts phenomena (Long, 1990; VanPatten, Keating, &
have since formed the basis for significant Wulff, 2020). However, there are many in the
developments in SLA theory. Krashen does not academic community who dismiss Krashen's thesis
directly link Monitor Theory to Chomsky's theory of and see his ideas as nothing more than historical
language, but the two seem to be related. Chomsky footnotes. Gregg (1984) and others in the academic
argues that humans possess a special faculty for community have gone so far as to argue that it is not a
learning new languages. This suggests that children's cohesive theory and that the term "theory" is
brains are pre-wired to process language, and all inappropriately applied to it. Krashen, however,
they need to learn a language is a stimulus in the vigorously refutes the counterevidence and insists
form of input. According to Krashen, this process is that his theories stand and that the data backs up his
also at work in second language acquisition. claims. Is Krashen correct that his core principles
Krashen's monitor theory rests on the following five hold true? Is it fair to generally dismiss Krashen's
hypotheses: ideas?
 In this research, I will first briefly summarize nativists argue that acquiring a new language requires
Krashen's argument and then analyze its detractors' a complex cognitive process, and that repetition and
main points. Next, I will assess Krashen's interviews imitation alone aren't enough because language
in which he responded to the criticisms of his work acquisition happens so quickly (Chomsky, 1965).
and show how he's right about some of the points he
Even though it is still used today in the form of
made. I will examine if Krashen is right when he
the Callan Method, Behaviorism was struck a fatal
asserts that his essential ideas have lasted and
blow by Chomsky's (1959) scathing critique of
continue to be addressed, albeit under different
Skinner's (1957) Verbal Behaviour (Entwistle, 2021).
names. I will also investigate whether Krashen's key
Chomsky (1959) claims that no precise assertion
principles are true and still applicable to L2 learning.
regarding the relative relevance of feedback from the
2. Theoretical Background environment is supported by either actual evidence or
known reasoning. Because, as Chomsky (1965)
According to Liu (2015), SLA is commonly argues, "A grammar of a language purports to be a
believed to be a field of study parallel to first description of the ideal speaker-hearer's intrinsic
language acquisition, hence discussing some of the competence," he concluded that humans must have
findings from research on L1 acquisition is necessary evolved to have certain linguistic information present
for understanding theories of SLA, like Krashen's from birth that helps children figure out the basic
Monitor Theory. Krashen's five hypotheses are based structures of language. His evidence is that children
on the idea that learning a second language is can construct correct sentences even when exposed to
conceptually identical to learning a first language (Lai deficient language input (baby babble) and without
& Wei, 2019). Because Krashen's Monitor Model is any explicit instruction. Rather than simply repeating
influenced by Noam Chomsky's work on first what they hear, they develop the ability to create
language acquisition, it is important to discuss some entirely new sentences.
of Chomsky's work here (Ellis, 1994).
In his analysis of second language acquisition,
Krashen's hypothesis is one of the few that can Stephen Krashen drew heavily on Chomsky's nativist
coexist with Chomsky's view of language acquisition theory. Chomsky's (1968) universal grammar (UG)
as a uniquely human capacity. In the '50s and '60s, and its application to second languages, as shown in
Chomsky shook up the study of language by recasting Krashen's monitor model, are both considered
it as a biologically grounded cognitive skill that is examples of nativist theory (Brown, 2000; Lightbown
specific to humans. His work shifted the focus of & Spada, 2006; Liu 2015). During a time when
linguistics from the outside to the inside of the human behaviorist approaches to education were falling out
mind. A nativist perspective, which he developed, of favor, Krashen's research was credited with
holds that some aspects of language and second- helping to shape more contemporary approaches to
language acquisition are hardwired into human language teaching, such as Communicative Language
beings. According to this view, children are born Teaching (Lightbown and Spada, 2006).
knowing how to organize and understand the
rudimentary rules and structures of a language. 3. Krashen's Hypotheses
Furthermore, nativists hold the view that all children,
regardless of their upbringing, possess a 'hardwired' 3.1 Acquisition vs Learning Hypothesis
ability to acquire a second language. In addition, Krashen distinguished between “two distinct and
these concepts form the basis of universal grammar, independent ways of developing competence in a
which every child is assumed to have access to second language” (p. 10). The definition of
(Lightbown and Spada, 2006, p. 15). The Universal acquisition states, “…language acquisition [is] a
Grammar (UG) theory proposes that despite their process similar, if not identical, to the way children
outward differences, all human languages share develop ability in their first language. Language
underlying similarities due to universal linguistic acquisition is a subconscious process… The result of
principles (Chomsky, 2000). language acquisition, acquired competence, is also
In contrast to B.F. Skinner's behaviorist learning subconscious” (1982, p. 10). He also suggests the
theories, nativism held that humans possessed no names “natural learning”, “informal learning” and
such innate tendencies. Behaviorists believed that “implicit learning” to describe the process of
children may pick up a language and other skills by acquisition. This method places an emphasis on
mimicking and repeating their parents, which natural communication, wherein speakers pay less
suggests that students could pick up a language by attention to the structure of their utterances and more
rehearsing and practicing the input they receive from attention to the communicative act.
others (Ellis, 2003; Skinner, 2005). For behaviorists Learning, which is the inverse of the acquisition
like B. F. Skinner, who used environmental system, is characterized as “conscious knowledge”,
manipulation to teach animals new behaviors, this “knowing about the language”, “grammar”, “rules” or
means that language is not a mental but rather a “explicit learning”. This method is the product of
mechanical process (Politzer, 1961). However, institutionalized schooling, and as a result, most
people acquire a second language in a classroom learning the third-person singular form of a verb. It
setting. has also been found that students are more likely to
learn nouns before they learn the possessives of
According to Krashen (1982), there is no
nouns (e.g. takes).
connection between the two processes of learning and
acquiring new knowledge; hence learning cannot In addition, the hypothesis states that the order of
become acquisition (Lai & Wei, 2019; Zafar, 2009). acquisition stays the same regardless of whether or
Krashen also hypothesizes that 'learning' is less not there is explicit instruction; to put it another way,
important than 'acquisition'. The dichotomy between the natural order of acquisition cannot be altered by
acquisition and learning came under heavy criticism. teaching and learning that is done explicitly. Krashen,
Gregg (1984) took issue with notions of "acquisition" on the other hand, emphasizes that the relevance of
as a path to competency, whereas "learning" is the the natural order hypothesis is not that a language
ability to enunciate rules (Lichtman & VanPatten, program syllabus ought to be based on the order in
2021). Similarly, Cook (1993) notes that there is little which the studies were conducted.
evidence to support this distinction; hence, the
Krashen does not separate grammatical
contrast between acquisition and learning reads more
morphemes from other linguistic components like
like an assumption than a hypothesis. It's not always
syntax or phonology; hence the Natural Order
clear which parts of a language a person naturally
Hypothesis is in a precarious position due to a lack of
knows and which ones they learnt (Gregg, 1984;
data and support from morpheme studies. According
McLaughlin, 1978). Because of this, it shouldn't be
to Gregg (1984), it is misleading to extrapolate from
shocking that many people want Krashen's definitions
research on the acquisition of a small set of English
of his theory to be more precise. Notwithstanding,
morphemes to the study of second language
Krashen continues to be unconcerned (McLaughlin,
acquisition as a whole. The notion that there is a
1978, 1987).
natural order is predicated primarily on studies of the
Another problem strongly related to Krashen's order of morphemes in English, which have already
duality between acquisition and learning is that been shown to be insufficient (Gass & Selinker, 1994;
learning cannot convert into acquisition. Specifically, McLaughlin, 1987). Critics Larsen-Freeman and
Krashen hypothesized that learned norms do not Long (1991) also point out that the morpheme
eventually become "internalized" as part of the ordering isn't explained (Fry, 2018). Others have
learner's broad, abstract implicit linguistic system but pointed to problems with the Bilingual Syntax
instead are stored in the learner's Monitor and used Measure, the data collection tool utilized in
only for revising their own output (Lichtman & morpheme research, as a possible explanation for the
VanPatten, 2021). This view contradicts the countless observed association (Fry, 2018; Hakuta & Cancino,
cases where L2 learners were expressly taught “rules” 1977; Ellis, 1994).
yet about which they were nonetheless able to build
The concept also fails to account for cultural and
intuitions and native-like competency. In this context,
linguistic differences among its potential subjects
Zafar (2009) cites the example of Polish-born author
(Block, 2003, p.21). To give just one example, a
Joseph Conrad (1857-1924), who began studying
learner of English as a second language whose first
English at the age of twenty-two and was
language is Bengali and another whose first language
subsequently accepted into the English canon the
is German cannot take the same path to learn English
following decade.
grammatical structures. However, by the mid-to-late-
3.2 The Natural Order Hypothesis 1980s, dozens of studies using a wide range of
research methods had reported on the acquisition of
Roger Brown showed in the 1960s that kids taught English as a second language by learners of varying
English as a first language exhibited "mastery" of a ages and with a wide range of first languages. The
set of bound and unbound morphemes in English that criticisms started to die down, and now morpheme
followed a relatively constant pattern over time orders are established as a fact in L2 acquisition,
(Brown, 1973). Other researchers, such as Bailey et al. which means that they are no longer contested
(1974), Dulay & Burt (1974), Krashen et al. (1977), (Lichtman & VanPatten, 2021; Hawkins, 2019; Long,
and Larsen-Freeman (1975), also reported evidence 1990). As a result, a theoretical explanation for such
of natural order from the outcomes of their research ordering is something that is being debated (Lichtman
on morpheme orders. Based on a synthesis of the & VanPatten, 2021).
findings of this line of research, Krashen (1982, p.12)
claimed that any person who learns a language would 3.3. The Monitor Hypothesis
acquire that language in a specific, consistent pattern.
The monitor hypothesis, which requires the use
This indicates that some language rules are acquired
of formal rules or conscious learning, investigates the
early on, while others are acquired later. For example,
connection between learning and acquiring, in
regardless of age, culture, or previous language
addition to the mutual influence that the two have on
knowledge, students studying English will first learn
one another. The ability to initiate speech is unique to
the plural form of a noun (e.g. students) before
the acquisition, but learning can alter these
expressions and affect how well they come across since monitoring seems to work best when the rules
(Krashen, 1982). Planning, editing, and correcting are learned are easy to apply and not too complicated.
all tasks that fall under the purview of the Monitor, a
The Monitor Hypothesis proposed by Krashen
cognitive process that necessitates the use of explicit
has likewise been criticized. Latifi et al. (2013) have
rules or deliberate learning. The monitor stores the
provided a critique of the Monitor Hypothesis by
knowledge until the time comes when the learner is
highlighting the fact that "He relegates language
ready to put it to use. According to Krashen (1982, p.
monitoring to a peripheral position in language
15), the purpose of learning is to watch and change
acquisition. It is seen as simply being a post-learning
the utterances that are made while the process of
process, a tool for the use of language in certain
acquisition is taking place. Moreover, according to
conditions". McLaughlin (1987) is another researcher
the monitoring hypothesis, there are three
who was not a fan of the theory because of how
prerequisites for the monitor to do its job properly
difficult it was to provide evidence of Monitor use
(Krashen, 1999). The first requirement is adequate
and how untestable it was. Gregg (1984) raises a
preparation time, during which the performer can
similar criticism, emphasizing that Krashen ends up
choose and apply the necessary grammatical rules.
contradicting himself with the Acquisition-Learning
Second, the performer should be thinking about the
Hypothesis in that he disregards the importance of
form rather than the meaning. The third requirement
comprehension by limiting the usage of the Monitor
for the effective use of a language is familiarity with
to 'learned' language, which only occurs in production.
its grammatical rules and associated notions. The
correct tense, rules of pluralization, the usage of Another argument against the monitor model
articles (a the), etc., are only a few examples of theory holds that, in everyday conversation, speakers
grammatical concepts that students should be familiar just don't have the mental bandwidth to focus on the
with (Krashen & Terrell, 1983). Although these three structure of their words and make minute adjustments
components are necessary for monitoring to occur, as they go. If that were the case, our speech would
they are not sufficient. Even if these prerequisites are slow down and sound a little weird due to all the
met, performers may not apply the learned knowledge pauses (Mitchell and Myles, 2004, p. 46; cited in
(Krashen, 1981). Kamal, 2022). Under- and over-users, according to
McLaughlin (1987), are terms that relate to the reality
According to Krashen (1981), there are three
that different students have different levels of
types of monitor users: "over-users," "under-users,"
proficiency with a given grammatical rule and that it
and "optimal users." Over-users use monitors too
would be imprudent to provide credit for this
frequently. Their lack of confidence and tendency to
variation to the monitor.
constantly correct themselves prevents them from
ever reaching true fluency in the target language. Another criticism levelled at the hypothesis is
Since they are so concerned with the correctness and that it fails to account for the role of the Monitor in
grammaticality of their words, they have trouble the interpretation of statements, as argued by Kasap
expressing themselves naturally. Under-users are & Peterson (2018), "we often do not use the
those who do not employ conscious knowledge. knowledge of grammar rules to understand certain
Instead, they produce a phrase using intuition. They phrases in a foreign language? Does not knowledge
do not care about using the monitor or correcting their of certain morphological, syntactic, semantic,
mistakes. Monitor under-users may have learned their phonetic and/or contextual rules make it easier for us
language and rely primarily on this method out of to understand unfamiliar words, for example?
personal preference or ignorance. Optimal users are Krashen's theory does not consider these questions."
those who use monitors appropriately. They strike a
healthy balance between editing their own speech and In addition, it is difficult to tell if a student is
speaking intuitively. monitoring the acquired system or the learned system
(Mitchell & Myles, 2004). While Krashen restricts
To monitor language, knowledge of semantics, the Monitor to second-language learners, Fry (2018)
vocabulary, and grammar is required. The conscious raises the important topic of how it functions for first-
learning that functions as a self-monitor can affect the language learners: "Does it exist? Are first language
output before or after a spoken or written speech learners more efficient Monitor users? The
(Krashen, 1982). The monitor evaluates student work restrictions Krashen places on the conditions on
for errors and ensures it is as error-free as it can be to Monitor use for second language users might lead one
serve as a mental accuracy-checking apparatus. The to suggest second language learners need to use their
way in which students use the monitor might be Monitor more efficiently".
incorrect, excessive, or suitable, depending on the
degree of confidence they have in their ability to 3.4 The Input Hypothesis
comprehend the material. When students want to The Input Hypothesis could be considered the
communicate more freely, they use the monitor less. most influential hypothesis in L2 acquisition, given
This means that accuracy suffers. Also, the simplicity that it attempts to address the question of how
of the knowledge learned is of the utmost importance, language is acquired. The utilization of
"comprehensible input," which Krashen (1985) in their newly acquired language before deploying it.
describes as the knowledge that learners already In addition, Krashen's paradigm emphasizes the
know in addition to the information that is one level significance of diverse linguistic features for
higher, is what makes acquisition feasible, as stated comprehensible input (Alahmadi, 2019). Though the
by Krashen (1985). According to Krashen (1985, Monitor Model has had a significant impact on the
1989), language cannot be learned through repeated study of second language acquisition, its fourth
repetition. Internal mechanisms, such as the learner's hypothesis, that of input, has not been without
mental processing of linguistic elements in response criticism from other linguists and educators in the
to the input they were given, may also contribute to area. Krashen suggested that the only method to learn
its acquisition. According to Krashen (1985, p. 2), the a language is by exposure to comprehensible input
only way to acquire a foreign language is to either and that we never learn a language through being
interpret messages or be exposed to input that is corrected, speaking, or studying. However, other
already simplified for the learner. In his theory, studies have since disproven this.
Krashen (1985) claims that the learner of a second
Another assertion made by Krashen (2010) is that
language is left with a collection of words that are
the process of genuine language acquisition occurs
viewed as incomprehensible noise if the target
involuntarily and is stored in the brain without our
language does not contain vocabulary that the second
conscious knowledge. In her study of the Canadian
language learner can grasp, whether spoken or written.
immersion program, Swain (1985) demonstrated that
Similar to the Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis and
the rate of acquisition was relatively stifled, despite
the Natural Order Hypothesis, the Input Hypothesis
the fact that learners were exposed to huge quantities
emphasizes acquisition above learning (Zafar, 2009).
of comprehensible input, which would seem to be the
Krashen (1985) hypothesized that the type of ideal setting according to the Monitor Model. Liu's
language that learners of the second language were (2015) study, which drew on the work of Berwick
exposed to has a significant role in determining how and Weinberg (1984), showed that a kid could learn
well they were able to acquire the target language. the passive form of a verb by using existing syntactic
Listening and reading are two of the most effective or lexical knowledge without the aid of extra-
ways for a learner to take in an input language that linguistic or contextual knowledge. These studies
has a structure just beyond their current competence, collectively lead to the argument that comprehensible
as stated by Krashen (1981). Krashen refers to this input is not the only component in an acquisition that
concept as "i+1," where "i" stands for the learner's plays a causal role. The successful acquisition of a
current level, and "1'' refers to the language features foreign language depends on a variety of factors. The
just a touch above that level. When evaluating the "1" affective filter, for example, can restrict
part, all of the following factors will be taken into comprehensible input when the learner lacks
consideration: context, outside knowledge, and motivation but permit it when the learner identifies
current competency (Lai & Wei, 2019). For a second- with the target language community and is worried
language learner at the "i" level, progress to the "1" about failing to acquire the target language.
level requires exposure to understandable material
The Comprehensible Input hypothesis proposed
comprising the "i+1" structure (Krashen, 1985).
by Krashen has to be complemented by other theories
Modifications to the level of "Comprehensible Input"
due to the fact that it is still incomplete and was not
are necessary when the child develops a more
adequately formulated. Since Krashen views input to
excellent command of the language. "we are able to
be the only variable that can have an effect on second
understand language with the help of context, which
language learning, he assigns the learner's
includes extra-linguistic information, our knowledge
participation in the process a minor part in the overall
of the world, and previously acquired linguistic
acquisition of the second language (Brown, 2007).
competence," as Krashen (1985) put it.
Long (1983) proposed the "Interaction Hypothesis" as
The theory's two implications are as follows: a solution to this problem. This hypothesis endeavors
first, proficiency in communication through to explain how comprehensible input can be produced
comprehensible input would emerge naturally rather most effectively, accepting the presumption that
than be taught; second, grammar is spontaneously comprehensible input is the driving force behind
learnt if "a sufficient amount of comprehensible language acquisition. Initially, Long proposed that
input" is obtained. Krashen (1985) cited speech input becomes comprehensible when students reflect
examples from a parent to a child, from an educator on it and negotiate its meaning through contact with
to a second language learner, and from a native their peers. Later, Long (1996) developed the idea
speaker of the target language to a language acquirer that the process of input modification and acquisition
as evidence to support the Input Hypothesis. relies heavily on interaction and the negotiation of
meaning between interlocutors and that interaction
The input hypothesis also posits that there will be
also provides learners with the chance to connect
a natural "silent period" while one is learning and
input and output.
acquiring a language but not yet creating any
language because the learner is seeking to feel fluent
 With his Comprehensible Output Hypothesis, exposure to the target language and enough
Swain (1995) argued that output is just as crucial as comprehensible input to succeed in learning a new
input, if not more so. This suggests that, contrary to language. Other factors, such as motivation, self-
Krashen's beliefs, the learner's output plays a confidence, and anxiety, also play a role in the
significant and autonomous part in the development success of second-language learners. The filter has an
of their communicative skill. Language output, which effect on acquisition because it limits the available
can include both verbal and written forms, can also input and can be set to either "high" or "low."
help students identify areas of improvement and Learners are more likely to take in a sizable
bridge gaps between their native language and the percentage or all of the input when their emotional
target language. Knowledge of this sort can help filter is "low," as is the case when they are motivated,
students learn more effectively, either by introducing self-confident, and have low anxiety levels. On the
them to new material or by assisting them to better other hand, second language acquisition may be
retain the material they already know (Swain 1995). hindered or prevented when the filter is "high", as
Schmidt (1990) proposed the Noticing Hypothesis, exemplified by the context in which the learner feels
which contrasts with Krashen's theory by highlighting uptight, self-conscious, or unmotivated (Krashen &
the significance of awareness and cognition in the Terrell, 1983).
learning process.
Some have questioned the validity of the
Krashen did not provide a wholly transparent Affective Filter Hypothesis on the grounds that it fails
definition for Input Hypothesis, Formulation (i+1), or to provide a sufficient description of the breadth of
Next Level (i+1). McLaughlin (1987) believes that the variables, the process by which an unmotivated
Krashen does not present evidence for the input learner eliminates information that is presented to
hypothesis; rather, he only suggests that some facts them, or the manner in which the affective filter itself
might be understood from the perspective of this develops or functions (Gass & Selinker, 2008, p.403).
theory. This is McLaughlin's key argument against
Further, the claim that affective factors alone
Krashen's research. Lightbown and Spada (2006), try
account for individual variation in second language
to give a much broader interpretation, in which i
acquisition has also been questioned. According to
represent "the level of knowledge already acquired",
Krashen (1982), most adult language learners
and +1 is a metaphor for language that is just a step
experience a "strengthening of the affective filter
beyond that level (Liu, 2015). McLaughlin (1987,
around puberty," but children's lack of this emotional
cited in Liu, 2015) considers formulation (i+1) as an
filter allows them to more easily acquire the target
unknown structure. The authors Lightbown and
language. However, differences in motivation, self-
Spada (2006) attempt to provide an alternative
confidence, and anxiety across children, which are
explanation. The method of determining the next
thought to account for child-adult disparities in
level in the natural order further demonstrates the
second language acquisition, show that this argument
haziness of the notion (Liu, 2015). This is because
cannot stand up to scrutiny (Latifi et al., 2013). In this
determining the "natural order" of development
context, McLaughlin (1987) provided evidence
makes it difficult to know which specific structure
supporting the idea that learning a second language
should be gained first.
throughout one's adolescent years is optimal. Along
Caregiver speech is not less complex than adult the same line, Brown (2007) asserts that there are an
speech, as shown by Newport et al. (1977) in areas unlimited number of instances in which adults have
such as clauses with deletion or movement of parts, achieved native-like proficiency. This casts doubt on
inquiries, and imperatives. This finding doubts the hypothesis that an affective filter blocks out
Krashen's (1985) hypothesis that simplified input, comprehensible input before it reaches the brain's
such as caretaker speech, will facilitate language language acquisition device.
acquisition (Gregg, 1984; Liu, 2015). Consistent with
these findings, Heath (1983), who showed that black 4. Krashen's Response to His Critics
children from middle-class homes learned to talk at a It is evident from a review of Krashen's critics
far higher level than their own by imitating what they that the Monitor theory raises numerous questions. It
heard in the environment (McLaughlin, 1987; Liu, was heavily attacked and disregarded by the majority
2015). Krashen's assertion is further undermined by of individuals. However, Krashen contends that his
the findings of Gleitman et al. (1984), who theories are here to stay and continue to be utilized
reanalyzed the data published by Newport et al. under other terms. Following are discussions of some
(1977) and found that exposure to sophisticated of Krashen's reactions to the criticisms of his theories,
maternal speech aids a child's language development as well as references to support some of his
(White, 1987; Liu, 2015). commentary. Krashen's response to the complaint that
3.5 The Affective Filter Hypothesis the Input Hypothesis is too simplistic to adequately
describe the complicated process of language
The fifth and final theory, the Affective Filter acquisition is as follows:
hypothesis, suggests that learners need more than just
 Some critics say, “No, it couldn’t be that simple. hypotheses—continue to be useful today, despite
It must be more complicated.” Such statements having been reframed using concepts like "implicit
are not arguments, but are statements of belief. I versus explicit learning," "ordered development," and
wonder if physicists reacted the same way when "a central role for communicatively embedded input"
Einstein said e = mc2. Did they say, “It couldn’t
Lichtman and VanPatten (2021) argue that there
be that simple, the formula must be much more
is more support for the natural order hypothesis now
complicated?” What matters, of course, is what
than there was back in the '70s and '80s. Kurniawati
the evidence says, not someone’s idea of how
(2021) provided evidence supporting the natural order
things should be (Latifi et el., 2013).
concept by detailing how a polyglot benefited from
In favor of Krashen, one could cite Ellidokuzolu her prior language learning when acquiring a new
(2008), who states, one. In addition, their findings show that language
instructors commonly use the concept of
"Despite the fact that comprehensible input
"comprehensible input," despite the fact that the term
hypothesis is not explanatory enough, it does not
itself is rarely used. Regarding the Input Hypothesis,
mean that the theory is deficient, since Newton
White (1987) states, “there is something essentially
also did not provide enough detail concerning
correct about the input hypothesis”.
how gravity takes place.”
In a similar vein, Jegerski (2021) argues that two
Krashen responded to McLaughlin's (1990)
of Krashen's central ideas continue to be valid and are
criticism of his distinction between subconscious
so widely accepted that they are no longer associated
(acquisition) and conscious (learning) processes by
with a particular theory. These ideas are the
stating, "Acquisition and learning are no more
distinction between acquisition and learning, as well
difficult to define empirically as their synonyms,
as the idea that acquisition occurs through the
implicit and explicit learning, terms that McLaughlin
comprehension of input. In support of Krashen's
and other critics have no problem using" (Latifi et el.,
thesis that only comprehensible input may contribute
2013).
to the development of a learner's interlanguage
Bialystok (1979, referenced in Lichtman & system, Schwartz (1993) and Zobl (1995) cited fresh
VanPatton, 2021) offered an early concept of implicit research on the consequences of giving learners
versus explicit knowledge that resembles Krashen's explicit positive and negative information.
notion of learning versus acquisition: “Those rules
Researchers such as Rubin (1975) have
which can be consciously entertained by the learner
recognized monitoring as an essential component of
are stored in ‘explicit knowledge’; those rules which
the learning process. In addition, Ellis (2003) defines
are honoured without attention to the rule or even an
monitoring as one of the five fundamental
ability to state it are stored in ‘implicit knowledge'."
components necessary for successful language
Similar to Krashen's assertion that learning cannot
acquisition. In her study, Jegerski (2021) provides
become acquisition, there is a growing consensus that
two explanations for the research procedures utilized
explicit information cannot become implicit
in language processing research, and links these
knowledge. (Rebuschat, 2015; Lichtman and
justifications back to Monitor Theory components.
VanPatten 2021).
Chen (2022) thinks that the affective filter hypothesis
Krashen was asked in a 2016 interview with is among the most cutting-edge research areas in
P'Rayan if his five theories were still relevant, and he Krashen's SLA theory. In her research, Kurniawati
responded: (2021) demonstrates that affective variables such as
motivation, self-confidence, anxiety, and personality
"…they have withstood the test of time – all traits play a significant impact in a second language
published evidence remains consistent with the learner's performance.
hypotheses."
Regarding Swain's (1985) assertion that outut
Scholars like Lichtman and VanPatten have generation is at least as significant as input, if not
conducted investigations backing up Krashen's more so, Krashen opines:
assertion that his views have endured. The authors
Lichtman and VanPatten (2021) evaluate the "Swain’s evidence is not convincing to me. Swain
continued relevance of Stephen Krashen's early only noted that children in French immersion
theories on L2 acquisition in light of subsequent classes after many years were not perfect in
empirical studies and theoretical development. They French and didn’t talk much in class and
conclude that Krashen's ideas and frameworks are concluded that output was a major factor in
still relevant and applicable today since they have acquisition. I have argued that the reason French
survived in some form or another, despite the fact that immersion students aren’t even better than they
they are frequently unacknowledged and categorized are, is a lack of certain kinds of input: They don’t
using new terminology. They contend that three of do pleasure reading in French and they don’t
Krashen's five hypotheses—the "Acquisition- interact with peers in French. The
Learning Distinction," "Natural Order," and "Input" Comprehension Hypothesis predicts that the
 problem is lack of input, not lack of output (Latifi to find better solutions to the issues raised, hastening
et el., 2013)." the advancement of theories concerning second
language learning. Controversies surrounding
Krashen was questioned by Latifi et al. (2013)
Monitor Theory's sufficiency have prompted
about the students for whom the "quiet period" lasts
discussions on the nature of an appropriate theory of
indefinitely. Krashen retorted with:
L2 acquisition (Lichtman & VanPatten, 2021; Jordan,
We don’t have any cases of lifetime silent periods 2004; Long, 1990; McLaughlin, 1987; Gregg, 1984).
with normal language acquirers. What we have Although Krashen's theory first appeared over 40
are cases in which the silent period lasts longer years ago, its adaptability is perhaps its greatest
than some people expect it to last, those strength. "The changes are additions and expansions.
unfamiliar with the language acquisition process I can’t think of any place in which any of the original
and whose expectations are based only on their hypotheses were wrong. (1) I added the “output filter”
own beliefs and very limited observations. to deal with cases in which people do not perform as
well as they could,'' Krashen notes (Latifi et el., 2013).
P'Rayan (2016) questioned Krashen on the
Last but not least, it appears that the Monitor theory is
criticism that he has updated his Monitor Model and
not flawless because it has some shortcomings; yet, it
the manner in which second-language learners absorb is a very systematic and thorough theory because its
the language numerous times since 1977. His
core principles are still correct. Krashen, when asked
response was:
to comment on his overall perception of his theory,
The revisions I have made are not fundamental stated, "I think it’s a good theory. ‘Good’ does not
changes but expansions: The hypotheses were necessarily mean ‘correct.’ ‘Good’ means that in
originally intended to explain phenomena in testing hypotheses that make up the theory, we make
adult second language acquisition, but we have progress" (Latifi et el., 2013).
found that they help explain what is going on in
child second language, first language, literacy References
development (eg Krashen 2004), and to some Alahmadi, N. S. (2019). The role of input in second
extent even animal language (Krashen, 2013). language acquisition: An overview of four
theories. Bulletin of Advanced English Studies,
5. Conclusion
3(2). 70-78
In this study, I have elucidated the Monitor
Bailey, N., Madden, C., & Krashen, S. D. (1974). Is
Model's fundamental ideas and concepts in detail.
there a "Natural sequence” in adult second
Before evaluating Krashen's comments critically, I
language learning? Language Learning, 24(2),
have also described the controversies surrounding the
235-243. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
Monitor Model and Krashen's responses to them.
1770.1974.tb00505.x
Concerning the subject of whether the core principles
behind the five components of Krashen's Monitor Berwick, R.C., & Weinberg, A.S. (1984). The
Model are still valid, I have demonstrated that they grammatical basis of linguistic performance.
have withstood the scrutiny and hence cannot be Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
discredited. From the analysis of Krashen's Monitor
Model, it is obvious that the theory poses various Bialystok, E. (1979). Explicit and implicit judgements
concerns. Certainly, there are problems with his of L2 grammaticality. Language Learning, 29(1),
hypothesis, but Krashen has also taken more than his 81-103. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
share of flak. Despite the severe criticism of 1770.1979.tb01053.x
Krashen's ideas, many of them have grown through Block, D. (2003). The social turn in second language
additions and refinements to survive. As some acquisition. Edinburgh University Press.
academics would have us believe, Krashen's Monitor
Theory's central ideas have not fully disappeared. Brown, H. D. (2007). Principles of language learning
These concepts are still relevant and are resurfacing and teaching (5th ed.). Addison Wesley
under other names, frequently without recognition. Longman.
Based on recent advancements in L2 research and the Brown, H. D. (2000). Principles of language learning
recent efforts of academics such as Lichtman & and teaching (4th ed.). White Plains, NY:
VanPatten and others referenced in this publication, it Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.
is obvious that fundamental notions concerning L2
acquisition today can be traced back to Krashen's Brown, R. (1973). A first language: The early stages.
seminal 1970s work. Harvard University Press.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4159/harvard.978067473246
In several instances, his theory's hypotheses 9
cannot be tested due to a lack of empirical evidence
and ambiguous term definitions. These limitations, Chen, Y. Y. (2022). A review of research on
while frustrating, have also spurred other academics Krashen’s SLA theory based on WOS database
 (1974-2021). Creative Education, 13(7), 2147- Gregg, K. R. (1984). Krashen's monitor and Occam's
2156. https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2022.137135 razor. Applied linguistics, 5 (2), 79-100.
https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/5.2.79
Chomsky, N. (2000). New horizons in the study of
language and mind. Cambridge University Press. Hakuta, K., & Cancino, H. (1977). Trends in second-
language-acquisition research. Harvard
Chomsky, N. (1968). Language and the mind. Harper
Educational Review, 47(3), 294-316.
and Row. https://doi.org/10.1037/e400082009-
https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.47.3.e03v062m647
004
45872
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspect of the theory of syntax.
Hawkins, R. (2019). How second languages are
MIT press.
learned. Cambridge University Press.
Chomsky, N. (1959). Review of verbal behavior by B
Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life
F Skinner. Language 35(1), 26-58.
and work in communities and classrooms.
https://doi.org/10.2307/411334
Cambridge University Press.
Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. De Gruyter https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511841057
Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783112316009
Jegerski, J. (2021). Krashen and second language
Cook, V. (1993). Linguistics and second language processing. Foreign Language Annals, 51, 318-
acquisition. Macmillan. 323. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12557
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-22853-9
Jordan, G. (2004). Theory construction in second
Dulay, H., & Burt, M. (1974). Natural sequences in language acquisition. John Benjamins Publishing.
child second language acquisition. Language https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.8
Learning, 24(1), 37-53.
Kamal, A. (2022). Critical appraisement of Monitor
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
Model. Research Journal in Advanced
1770.1974.tb00234.x
Humanities, 3(1). 64-74.
Ellidokuzoglu, H. (2008). Beyond the monitor model. https://doi.org/10.58256/rjah.v3i1.766
International Journal of Foreign Language
Kasap, S., & Peterson, R. (2018). An interview on the
Teaching, 4(1), 6–18.
role of input in second language learning.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and Learning Journal of Education and Practice,
teaching. Oxford University Press. 9(13), 81-87.
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language Krashen, S. (2010). The Goodman-Smith hypothesis,
acquisition (Oxford Applied Linguistics). Oxford the input hypothesis, the comprehension
University Press. hypothesis and the (even stronger) case for free
voluntary reading. In P. Anders (Ed.), Defying
Entwistle, T. (2021). The monitor model: A critique
convention, inventing the future in literacy
of its concepts and impact. Korea TESOL research and practice: Essays in tribute to Ken
Journal, 16(2), 127-138. and Yetta Goodman (pp. 56–99). Routledge.
Fry, C. (2018). Second language acquisition -
Krashen, S. D. (1999). Seeking a role for grammar. A
Krashen and his critics. University Study
review of some recent studies. Foreign Language
Document - Anth 6800. California State Annals, 32, 245-254.
University. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-
Gass, S. M., & Selinker, L. (1994). Second language 9720.1999.tb02395
acquisition: An introductory course. Lawrence
Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and
Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
implications. Laredo Publishing Company.
Gass, S. M., & Selinker, L. (2008). Second language Krashen, S. D., & Terrell, T. D. (1983). The natural
acquisition: An introductory course (3rd ed.).
approach: Language acquisition in the
Routledge.
classroom. Prentice Hall International English
Gitsaki, C. (1998). Second language acquisition Language Teaching.
theories: Overview and evaluation. Journal of Krashen, S. (1982). Principle and practice in second
Communication and International Studies, 4(2),
language acquisition. Pergamon Press.
89-98.
Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and
Gleitman, L. R., Newport, E. L., & Gleitman, H.
second language learning. Pergamon Press.
(1984). The current status of the motherese
hypothesis. Journal of Child Language, 11(1), Krashen, S., Houck, N., Giunchi, P., Bode, S.,
43-79. Birnbaum, R., & Strei, G. (1977). Difficulty
https://doi.org/10.1017/s0305000900005584 order for grammatical morphemes for adult 2nd
 language performers using free speech. Tesol https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
Quarterly, 11(3), 338-341. 1770.1978.tb00137.x
Kurniawati, N. (2021). Understanding Krashen Mitchell, R., & Myles, F. (2004). Second language
hypothesis of second language acquisition: A learning theories (2nd ed.). Arnold.
case study of a polyglot. International Journal of
Newport, E., Gleitman, H., & Gleitman, L. (1977).
Language Education and Culture Review, 7(1),
Mother, I’d rather do it myself: Some effects and
83-89. https://doi.org/10.21009/IJLECR.071.08
non-effects of maternal speech style. In C. E.
Lai, W., & Wei, L. (2019). A critical evaluation of Snow & C. A. Ferguson (Eds.), Talking to
Krashen’s monitor model. Theory and Practice children (pp. 109–149). Cambridge University
in Language Studies, 9(11), 1459-1464. Press.
https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0911.13
Ortega, L. (2007). Second language learning
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Long, M. (1991). An explained? SLA across nine contemporary
introduction to second language acquisition theories. In B. VanPatten, & J. William (Eds.),
research. Longman. Theories in second language acquisition: An
introduction (pp. 245-272). Lawrence Erlbaum
Larsen‐Freeman, D. (1975). The acquisition of
Associates.
grammatical morphemes by adult ESL students.
TESOL Quarterly, 9(4), 409–430. P'Rayan, A. (2016). One on one interview with
Professor Stephen Krashen. The Journal of
Latifi, M., Ketabi, S., & Mohammadi, E. (2013). The
English Language Teaching (India), 2(5), 31-34.
comprehension hypothesis today: An interview
with Stephen Krashen. Electronic Journal of Politzer, R. (1961). Teaching French: An introduction
Foreign Language Teaching, 10(2), 221-233. to applied linguistics. Ginn.
Lichtman, K., & VanPatten, B. (2021). Was Krashen Rebuschat, P. (Ed.). (2015). Implicit and explicit
right? Forty years later. Foreign Language learning of languages (Vol. 48). John Benjamins
Annals, 54(2), 283-305. Publishing Company. .
https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12552 https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.48.003int
Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (2006). How Rubin, J. (1975). What the "Good language learner"
languages are learned (3rd ed.). Oxford can teach us. TESOL Quarterly, 9(1), 41-51.
University. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586011
Liu, D. (2015). A critical review of Krashen’s input Skinner, B. F. (2005). Science and human behavior.
hypothesis: Three major arguments. Journal of Pearson Education.
Education and Human Development, 4(4), 139–
Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. Appleton-
146. doi:10.15640/jehd.v4n4a16
Century-Crofts. https://doi.org/10.1037/11256-
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic 000
environment in second language acquisition.
Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The role of consciousness in
Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, 2,
second language learning. Applied Linguistics,
413-468. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-
11(2), 129-158.
012589042-7/50015-3
https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/11.2.129
Long, M. H. (1990). The least a second language
Schwartz, B. D. (1993). On explicit and negative data
acquisition theory needs to explain. TESOL
effecting and affecting competence and linguistic
Quarterly, 24(4), 649-666.
behavior. Studies in Second Language
https://doi.org/10.2307/3587113
Acquisition, 15(2), 147-163.
Long, M. H. (1983). Linguistic and conversational https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263100011931
adjustments to non-native speakers. Studies in
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in
Second Language Acquisition, 5(2), 177-193.
second language learning. In G. Cook, & B.
https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263100004848
Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in
McLaughlin, B. (1990). “Conscious” versus applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H. G.
“Unconscious” learning. TESOL Quarterly, 24(4), Widdowson (pp. 125-144). Oxford University
617–634. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587111 Press.
McLaughlin, B. (1987). Theories of second language Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence:
learning. Edward Arnold. Some roles of comprehensible input and
comprehensible output in its development. In S.
McLaughlin, B. (1978). The monitor model: Some
Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second
methodological considerations. Language
Learning, 28(2), 309-332.
 language acquisition (pp. 235–253). Rowley,
MA: Newbury House.
VanPatten, B., Keating, G. D., & Wulff, S. (2020).
Theories in second language acquisition (3rd
ed.). Routledge.
VanPatten, B., & Williams, J. (2015). Early theories
in SLA. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.),
Theories in second language acquisition: An
introduction (2nd ed., pp. 17–35). Routledge.