BEYOND "Beyond the Monitor Model"
by Hasanbey Ellidokuzošlu
Introduction
Beyond the Monitor Model (BMM) is a book of collected articles written by
authors reflecting on Krashen’s theory of second language acquisition-the
Monitor Model (MM)- and his Natural Approach (NA). The authors represent
different positions in terms of their attitude to the model: some are ‘anti-‘,
some are rather ‘neutral’, though there is hardly any who is ‘pro’. The book is
comprehensive in that there is almost no minute detail left untouched. It should
be great pleasure to read such an in-depth analysis of the theory, for anyone
interested in Krashen’s SLA theory (or MM) and the NA.
That the authors represent a wide
range of geographical distribution from the Old to the New World renders the
book even more interesting. The involvement of famous figures like C.Brumfit,
J.Yalden, W.Littlewood, T.Pica, etc makes the book real enticing to read.
My evaluation will be of three basic
parts: topics related to theoretical, practical and miscellaneous issues. A
‘chrono-pagical’ order will not be followed. Rather, a mixed -though hopefully
not confusing- reference style is chosen to better capture the
interconnectedness among the ideas of various authors.
I would like to start with the comment made by Gregg that the Monitor Model (MM)
is no theory. He says:
[T]elling me that ‘comprehensible input’ in a ‘low affective filter’ environment
will lead to acquisition, even if it were true, would not give me a theory of
[SLA] that explains what the process is and how it works. It is true that
Krashen lets us down; he gives us no explanation, hence no theory (p.38 in BMM)
Gregg is right in his criticism that MM is not explanatory enough to fully
account for SLA. One would definitely wish to see a more detailed theory capable
of specifying the psycholinguistic processes involved in SLA. This is not to
say, however, the MM provides ‘no’ explanation at all. Otherwise, Gregg’s whole
article (and his other articles written against MM so far) would be a vain
attempt. If there is no theory around, why do so many people (including Gregg)
try to refute it. One can say the MM is a pseudo-theory but cannot claim its
‘no-ness’.
Gregg, the linguist, might be
excused in his over-exaggeration when one consider the richness and specificity
displayed in Chomskyan linguistics. Compared to that, any SLA theory including
the MM might be viewed as no theory or next-to-nil. Gregg’s contempt toward any
theory in our field is evident in his following remark:
“[C]ommunicative competence” evidently is no more than a fancy way of saying
“ability to communicate”; it has no theoretical content whatever. (italics not
added) (p.50 in BMM)
Neither communicative competence not the MM is devoid of theoretical content. No
less than a considerable amount of theorists have contributed to both theories,
theorists who are no less theoretical than Gregg. Claiming the absence of any
theoretical content in either of these theories is at best due to Gregg’s
ignorance or indifference. While supporting his assertion of the ‘no-ness’ of
the MM, Gregg says:
“An explanans for one explanandum can itself be the explanandum for another
explanans...For example, Krashen’s Input Hypothesis, which tell us that “humans
acquire language in only one way-... by receiving ‘comprehensible
input’...,treats what should be an explanandum as if it were only
explanans’.(p.39in BMM)
Gregg frequently refers to gravitation when exemplifying what a good or bad
theory is. He resembles the input-based explanation to the statement ‘The apple
fell from the tree because its stem broke’, as both provide explanandum
requiring further explanation. There are two points which should be underlined
here. First, it required a Newton to discover the gravitational force as the
causal factor behind the fall of an apple. This may seem too easy a discovery
for us, who start the maze from the cheese in the box, thus discover the route
to the initial point quite easily. But when one places himself at the starting
point of the maze, the task of discovery becomes real burdensome. Even
Aristotle, a man of high intelligence, suggested that stones fall on the ground
because it is where they belong.
Similarly, it required a Krashen to
discover the crucial ingredient of SLA: comprehensible input (CI from now on).
Once “the cheese” is found people tend to say ‘Plenty of CI is, and always has
been, important (Rivers, p.86 in BMM). Then one wonders why theorists had
resorted to the concepts like ‘pattern practice’, ‘habit formation’, etc before
Krashen. Even after the MM, there are people like White, who suggests that ‘it
is often incomprehensible input that leads learners to make correct hypotheses
about L2 structure’ (Van Patten, p.229 in BMM), still others like Swain who
emphasizes the role of Output (Shannan, p.14 in BMM). In the midst of such
diverse ideas, the discovery of CI is no descent discovery.
The second point to be made about
the explanatory power of the MM is that theories differ in the extent to which
they account for their target phenomena. Neither the theory of gravity nor that
of Chomsky’s Government & Binding has full explanatory power. For instance,
Gregg claims that it is not enough to say that the apple fell because its stem
broke. This is not explanans but explanandum, a datum to be explained. Gregg
seems to imply that a good explanans is the one which attributes the falling of
an apple to the gravitational force between the apple and the earth. But one can
even consider this as another explanandum: what is gravitation? How does it
connect two distant objects? Philosophers of science has only recently (i.e.
quite a while after Newton) began to talk about the existence of gravitons,
particles which are supposed to carry the gravitational force between two
objects. Just like photons, which are assumed to carry light but which we cannot
directly observe, gravitons cannot be observed; we just assume that they exist.
Then how do we know that they exist? From their effects of course. In other
words, when two objects like the earth and the moon come together, there emerges
a force that attracts them toward each other, proportional to their mass and
inversely proportional to the distance in-between; and we speculate that this
gravitational force is carried with the help of some particles which don’t even
observe.
Turning back to our field, Krashen
speculates that when an L2 learner and ample amount of comprehensible input come
together, acquisition takes place, proportional to the comprehensibility and
pleasurability of input and inversely proportional to the stress in the
environment. How? Well, we don’t know the details of how, just like we don’t
know the details of how gravitation takes place. The problem is no one has
blamed Newton for not putting forward a theory; his theory has proved to be
valid across a wide variety of circumstances. Similarly Krashen’s theory
emphasizing the importance of CI in SLA has also been proven by many studies
showing the effectiveness of input-based methodologies. But Krashen’s theory is
the most frequently criticized theory in our field. It is true that there are
some weak points in MM but these present no major problem from a pedagogical
point of view, just like Newton’s theory of gravitation satisfies almost
everybody except some philosophers of science whose area of concern is deeper
than down-to-earth practical level.
Another point concerning Krashen’s theory in a general sense is the degree of
similarity/difference between L1 and L2 acquisition. One of the main proponents
of the fundamental difference hypothesis was Lenneberg who suggested that
“[A]utomatic acquisition from mere exposure to a given language seems to
disappear after puberty, and foreign languages have to be learned through a
conscious and labored effort’ (1967, p.176)
A similar view is articulated by Dunlop who says:
“I have doubts about Krashen because of his seeming insistence on adults having
access to the same LAD as pre-pubescent children” (p.221 in BMM)
Only a Westerner can be brave enough to claim that ‘in the large majority of
cases, a grammar of a second language is not acquired’ (Greg,p.40 in BMM). I’m
saying a Westerner because in underdeveloped third world countries, where
bilingualism or even multilingualism is the norm rather than exception, a second
(or third) language is ACQUIRED without any reference to conscious learning or
to written material. There are some tribes in Africa for instance, where a
‘post-pubescent’ male can marry a girl from another tribe provided that he can
speak that tribe’s language. And the way to pick up that second language is not
through formal classroom instruction but through real communication with the
members of the target community. Among such African people any critical period
hypothesis will only be laughed off.
A fact which is so obvious to the
uneducated seems so disputable to the sophisticated and well-educated
theoreticians! Probably the main reason why some Westerners believe in such a
hypothesis is the failure of the majority of classroom L2 learners, the failure
of imitating the child in his amazing success to acquire a new language, either
mother or other. Nonetheless, there are sizable amount of successful learners
even in the educated societies, which renders a strong Critical Period
Hypothesis (CPH) disputable at best. This is acknowledged by one of the authors
in the book:
“In a natural environment, people do learn second languages without being
presented with explicit rules of grammar. At least, some people do.” (Trampe,
p.165 in BMM)
These successful exceptions do not prove the CPH, however. Rather these people’s
success in SLA after puberty is the concrete evidence in favor of LAD’s active
presence in the brind (brain+mind) of adults:
The truth of the matter is that in classroom language research, the same
processes involved in naturalistic SLA... are observed in the verbal behavior of
formal learners in spite of attention to grammar and grammar practice (Van
Patten, p.225 in BMM).
If there were only one adult capable of acquiring an L2 using the very same
processes that a child uses, it would be sufficient to negate the CPH, provided
that the operation of the human brind is universal enough to make such a
generalization. If not, a doctor in America should not take care of the patients
in Africa considering the culture-specificity of human biology (or psychology)!
This is not the way that scientific philosophizing should be done. As to the
number of such successful acquirers, we have quite a number in educated
societies, millions in the third world countries, and billions throughout the
history of mankind.
At a telepress conference with D. Brown, we asked him if the (CPH) is still
valid. He stated, just like Krashen, that the CPH applies only to the field of
phonology. This means in all other areas of language –morphology, syntax,
lexicon, etc the LAD is still active. Why not phonology, then? Probably because
pronunciation has to do with muscle plasticity rather than the brain’s
elasticity. Even after puberty, the brain is elastic enough to internalize a
second (or third) language basically in the same manner it picks up the first.
However, since muscles regulating the articulators are somewhat fixed after a
certain age, attaining a native-like accent may not be possible for some adults.
The inefficiency in phonology is, therefore, due to a physical problem rather
than a mental one.
Somewhat related to the phonology
problem, Trampe asks:
“The Monitor Theory is indifferent
to two important areas of language learning – pronunciation and vocabulary. What
aspects of the sound system and lexicon are, respectively learned or acquired?
The MM, being primarily concerned
with morpho-syntax, says almost nothing about those two areas. Famous morpheme
studies of the 70s, on which much of the theory rests, were basically
morphology-oriented, as their name implies. What is even more interesting is
that Krashen, himself, acknowledges the importance of vocabulary without saying
almost anything about lexical acquisition in the MM. For him, words carry much
more meaning than morpho-syntax. Thus, he seems to be a bit contradictory in
having almost nothing to say in his comprehension oriented theory while implying
the superiority of lexicon over morpho-syntax in comprehension. However, this
weakness- the overemphasis on morpho-syntax- is not peculiar to the MM.
Linguist’s preoccupation with morpho-syntax at the expense of lexicon has always
been a criticized point. The same is true for applied linguists. Almost every
theory put forward by L2 learning theorists has been based on grammar more than
anything else. This is not to say that MM that the MM should be excused for this
weakness. It is the duty of future researchers/theorists to bridge that gap to
reach a fuller picture of SLA.
Vocabulary and phonology are not the only areas which are lacking in the MM:
Monitor theory is almost exclusively a psycholinguistic theory; the social
context of SLA is ignored ( Ellis,p 149 in BMM).
It is true that language is not only
a cognitive phenomenon. It is both cognitive and social. It is also true that
social appropriacy rules have almost no place either in MM or in Natural
Approach (NA). The justification for this, mentioned in his book “The Input
Hypothesis” is that the acquisition of L2 grammar is hard enough a task for L2
performers. Trying to teach the “ culture – specific” social appropriacy rules
is nothing but overburdening the learners. Therefore, Krashen says, a neutral
style for L2 learners would be sufficient to solve the problems that may arise
due to appropriacy conditions. It is worth mentioning here that
“Appropriacy” is not a new dimension of meaning, to be added everywhere to
lexical and structural meaning. It is a category that applies to certain items
only ... and the vast majority of the other words, expressions, and Sentences of
the language are unmarked for social or situational appropriacy (Swan, 1985)
Lack of social context in the MM does not pose a great (practical) problem (in
NA) when one considers the largely universal nature of sociolinguistic rules:
It seems reasonable to assume that the relation of linguistic and pragmatic
features.... is characteristic of all languages. If we consider second language
learners, therefore, it appears that ... much of their previous experience [in
L1] will remain relevant in the second language. (Wilkins, 1983, p.31)
The
criticisms raised against the Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis:
Having mentioned the comments on the MM in a general sense, we may handle more
minute issues about specific hypotheses. Probably Krashen’s claim that “learning
does not become acquisition” is the most frequently criticized statement.
The basic tenet of Krashen’s Monitor Theory is that consciously learned rules
are available only for monitoring. The theory predicts that such rules never
become subconscious. (Trampe, 159 in BMM)
Krashen’s intention in his oft-criticized statement is “NOT” that once a rule is
consciously learned, it can never be acquired. This is often misunderstood.
“Learning does not become acquisition” means that rules cannot be acquired
through conscious learning and subsequent practice but through exposure to input
bearing the rules. That is, it is the exposure to such input which leads to
acquisition irrespective of whether one has learned the rules or not. Suppose
that a learner/acquirer A has consciously learned a rule X, whereas B has not.
Provided that A and B are exposed to the same amount of CI having X, they will
both acquire the structure, the theory predicts. But A cannot acquire X without
being exposed to the input bearing X, even if he practices a lot. That is what
is meant by “learning does not become acquisition”; not that learned rules can
never be acquired.
Another criticism of the distinction between acquisition and learning is that it
cannot be falsified:
[T]he theory is formulated in such a way that it is unfalsifiable; no real
attempt is made to explain the mechanism of language acquisition, or,
particularly, of language learning (p. 23 in BMM).
Two major criticisms of the distinction between learning and acquisition are
that it cannot be tested. (Ellis, 1986) and that learning and acquisition are
poorly defined (McLaughlin, 1987) (Shannon, p.10 in BMM)
It is true that neither of the two processes have been operationally defined in
terms of psycholinguistic processes taking place in the brind. Nonetheless, it
is always possible to provide an operational definition on acquisition; Here is
a tentative one: “Any type of systematic behavior whose underlying rules cannot
be articulated by the performer is said to be based on subconscious knowledge.”
As to the unfalsifiability issue,
I’d like to quote Peter af Trampe’s statement, who believes that the distinction
is testable:
[T]he theory makes one interesting and falsifiable prediction: formally acquired
(“learned”) rules can never become subconscious. (p. 329 in BMM) (italics added)
So the distinction is falsifiable, in the first place. Second it is already
“falsified” for many opponents of the MM who believe that learning does become
acquisition through practice:
[W]hat has been consciously learned may be used without conscious attention once
it has become very familiar, after, for instance, much practice in use. (Rivers,
p.74 in BMM)
Rather than viewing Acquired Competence and Learned Competence [AC and LC from
now on] as two distinct knowledge systems, many applied linguists consider them
as the end points along a continuum, between which seepage is possible through
practice:
The majority of the language teachers... view learning and acquisition as more
interconnected. (Shannon, p. 11 in BMM)
Acquisition and learning are not... two separate, opposing forces. They are,
rather, two ends of a continuum. (Yosio, p. 135 in BMM)
We should recognize that “acquisition” and “learning” are aspects of highly
complex processes that lead to knowledge, which is differentiated continuously
rather than dichotomously. (Ellis, p. 156 in BMM)
[T]here is one idea that Mrs.Walters [an FL teacher] finds intuitively
unconvincing. This is that “monitored” and “unmonitored activities constitute
two separate categories, drawing on two separate knowledge systems, rather than
being at two end of a continuum. (Littlewood, p. 202 in BMM)
The reason why I allocated so much space for so many quotations, all expressing
the same point of view is to show how common this view is and has always been,
among the language teachers. This is such a deeply-rooted idea that it still
prevails in the minds of applied linguists, language teachers –and most
importantly- textbook writers:
If learning cannot “become” acquisition, for example, then either most language
teaching in the last past two thousand years has been mistaken or Krashen’s
formulation of the nature of learning is far away from what most teachers
understand by the term practice. (Brumfit, p. 269 in BMM)
Krashen’s reply to such a comment would probably be that SLA history is not
two-thousand years old but almost as old as human history and that throughout
this long period, people have acquired rather than learned L2s, considering the
rather short history of linguistic sciences:
Even today with the vast amount of linguistic knowledge available about the
languages of the world, it is likely that most ability to communicate in another
language is acquired in what we will call “traditional” ways... This is as true
in the marketplace of underdeveloped regions of Africa as it is in the case of
the so-called guest workers in various industrialized countries of the world.
(Krashen and Terrell, 1983, p. 7)
So what looks counter-intuitive for modern EFL teachers does not necessarily run
counter to the intuitions of billions of L2 learners throughout the history of
mankind. But then what forces modern teachers to believe in the Interface
Position (IP from now on) which allows the seepage of the learned items into AC?
Let’s examine the basis of this belief.
There seems to be no reason or evidence for seeing them [AC and LC] as so
distinct. Her (a language teacher) experience makes her believe, too, that there
is more interflow between the systems than this- for example, that items which
have first been learned consciously have eventually become available for
spontaneous use.
In other words, intuitively it looks as if we first learn certain rules and
after a while [we] tend to use them automatically (or subconsciously). The
question which needs to be asked at this point is “whether there is a casual or
temporal link between our learning and subsequent acquisition”. It may well be
the case that acquisition takes place not because of our previous learning but
because of CI that we have been exposed to in the meantime. Krashen suggests
that “learning-and-then-acquisition experience” is a temporal rather than a
casual one and that the underlying causal factor is CI which comes in between.
Non-Interface
Position versus Interface Position:
One way to test Krashen’s Non-Interface Position (Non-IP from now on) is to
observe the effect of formal (grammar) instruction upon the process of
acquisition. If one can show, for instance, that consciously learned rules can
be acquired in the order they are presented in class, then the
acquisition-learning distinction might be falsified. Before analyzing the
research results in this regard, it should be pointed out that IP does not deny
CI’s causal role in SLA. It differs from Non-IP in that it allows the existence
of an alternative path to AC, through conscious learning and practice. In other
words, according to IP one can acquire a rule either through exposure to input
or through conscious learning practice. However, Krashen as a Non-IP advocate
relying on the principle of Occam’s Razor, assumes that there is only one path
to AC:
If learning should become acquisition, any rule can be acquired at any time via
the alternative route. Thus the evidence for the natural order, and evidence the
natural order is independent of the teaching order is evidence against the
interface position (Krashen, 1985, p. 41)
Now let’s see what research tells us about the alterability or inalterability of
the Natural Order through formal instruction:
This result showed that exclusive exposure to the linguistic environment of the
classroom did not alter the overall course of SLA among the instructed subjects.
So powerful were their own contributions to the language learning process that
classroom conditions could not suppress or reroute their path of morpheme
acquisition with any degree of significance. (Pica, p. 178 in BMM)
The review of research on the effect of instruction on SL [L2] development
suggests... [that] formal SL instruction does not seem able to alter acquisition
sequences. (Larsen-Freeman and Long, 1991, p. 321)
Even Ellis, who harshly criticizes Krashen’s Non-IP in this book (p. 156 in BMM)
seems to have accepted the inalterability of the Natural Order NO from now on)
in his earlier writings :
[I]nstruction does not appear to influence the order of development. No matter
what order grammatical structures are presented and practiced in the classroom,
learners will follow their own “built-in” syllabus. (Ellis, 1984, p.150)
Ellis is contradicting himself by supporting two opposing views. On the one hand
there is the irrefutable fact that NO is inalterable through conscious learning,
on the other hand, there is the idea that learning becomes acquisition. If we,
as teachers, methodologists, textbook writers, close our ears to decades of
research findings then it is more than normal that
Thirty years of concentrated SLA research has produced very little that is both
conclusive and directly and positively relevant to classroom language teaching
and learning (Lightbown, 1985; Ellis 1990). Although many, myself included, had
high hopes for direction from research, most fundamental pedagogical questions
remain unresolved by evidence from research. (Krahnke, p. 242 in BMM)
Such a disappointment is unavoidable when one is the slave of his/her unsound
intuitions--like “learning does become acquisition”. So long as we resist
changing our intuitions even after they are negated by dozens of research (cited
in Ellis, 1984), we should not accuse others but ourselves. Krashen has been one
of the first theoreticians in applied linguistics who was brave enough to
challenge these entrenched dogmas and who built up a methodology which minimizes
the role of form-focused grammar instruction and emphasizes the role of “input”,
whose crucial role is accepted almost by everyone:
"All cases of successful first and second language acquisition are characterized
by the availability of Comprehensible Input" (Larsen-Freeman & Long, 1991, p.
142)
"For the knowledge system of a particular language to grow, the acquirer must
have exposure to instances or exemplars of that particular language. Without
such exposure language development will not take place " Schwartz, 1993, p. 148)
"(T)here is a consensus among second language researchers that input is an
essential component of second language acquisition" (VanPatten, 1996, p. 13)
Krashen has been “the key figure” in our field, who has effectively drawn our
attention to the importance of input. There might be some weak points in his
theory but undervaluing his theory because of these minor weaknesses is nothing
but throwing the baby with the bathwater. In other words, these weaknesses
should not move our attention away from this crucial causal factor in SLA:
[T]eachers and researchers alike may lose sight of very important role that
input plays in language development as the push to challenge Krashen’s monitor
theory becomes fashionable in foreign language teaching circles. (VanPatten, p.
226 in BMM)
How many textbooks do we have in the ELT market, accompanied by a set of, say,
fifty or more listening cassettes. How many teachers of English encourage their
students to read extensively rather than intensively. Isn’t it true that the
total amount of listening and reading input in or outside class is kept at a
minimum either to secure more time for intensive reading or inductive/deductive
teaching of grammar? The amount of input necessary L1 acquisition to take place
is expressed in thousands of hours of auditory input. We shouldn’t accuse our
students of not producing after so much practice when we are providing them
minimum amount of CI. Without exposing them to an ample amount of input, we
cannot expect them to produce output, no matter which grammar teaching technique
we use:
Teaching grammar is often so ineffectual precisely because teachers assume that
the transfer of knowledge and skills gained in grammar class to more or less
spontaneous production tasks will occur automatically. Yet more often it does
not, and it is precisely in this area that the learner should be helped by some
pedagogical devices. Thus the Monitor Model, by questioning the validity of
explicit teaching, can make us rethink the problem of transfer and look for more
satisfying solutions. (Marton, p.69)
The solution offered in MM is to abandon the IP position and seek success in the
separation of meaning-based acquisition activities from form-focused learning
tasks and giving emphasis to the former much more than the latter.
The
criticisms raised against the Natural Order Hypothesis:
Having handled the criticisms raised against the acquisition-learning
distinction hypothesis, let’s have a look at the NO hypothesis. One common
objection concerns variability observed in the performance of L2
speakers/writers.
The presence of variability in the learner’s output is potentially problematic
for the Natural Order Hypothesis [which] states that the rules of the target
language are acquired in a predictable order. (Ellis, p. 151 in BMM)
First of all, Krashen does not deny variability. What is more, he implies the
existence of such flexibility in his statement that the NO hypothesis “allows
the possibility that structures may be acquired in groups, several at about the
same time” (Krashen and Terrell, 1983, p. 28). The claim that variability poses
a problem for the problem is indicative of Ellis’ misinterpretation of the
function of the NO hypothesis in the MM.
The major function of the NO hypothesis is to prove the impermeability of LAD,
its resistance to conscious learning/teaching attempts. It “does not state that
every acquirer will acquire grammatical structures in the exact the same order”
(ibid, p.28) nor it aims to account for the acquisition order of all structures
in a second language. To achieve its main function –showing the independence of
the acquisition process from learning- it is enough to show the inalterability
of the acquisition order of even two structures. If a structure X is acquired
after Y, even though the teaching/learning order is the reverse –that is YX-
then one can suggest the inalterability of NO and thus the impermeability of
LAD. A critical study supporting such a suggestion was carried out by Pienemann,
who deliberately tried to beat the natural order through experimental
manipulation. Despite conscious teaching/learning efforts in which latest
acquired items are presented first and emphasized most, however, Pienemann found
that classroom learners still followed the footsteps of naturalistic “acquirers”
in picking up the L2 grammar rules:
[T]here are two general findings which are important in the present context: (1)
formal [classroom] learners develop their language stepwise, despite the
scheduling of the teaching, and (2) –more importantly- in the same order as has
been reported for the natural acquisition of German (Pienmann, 1989, p. 71-2)
Interestingly Ellis is one of those researchers, who tried to change the NO with
no success. In a study of German L2 acquisition he tried to elicit a different
order of three German rules by reversing the natural order of these rules in a
classroom context. At the end, he compared his subjects’ acquisition order with
naturalistic acquirers:
A comparison of this sequence with that reported for naturalistic learners of
German revealed no difference, despite the fact that the order in which the
rules were introduced and the degree of emphasis given to the rules in the
instruction differed from the naturalistic order. The results of this study
support the claim that the classroom and naturalistic L2 acquisition… follow
similar routes (Ellis, 1989, 305).
To sum up, as long as the inalterability of NO is shown, the natural order
distinction hypothesis fulfills its function; it does not have to account for
variability nor does it have to deny it.
In fact, inalterability of the NO is
just one way of proving the existence of Acquisition-learning distinction.
Another is the difficulty experienced in removing the fossils. Although one may
consciously know the correct usage, L2 users still resort to their fossilized
forms. This is basically because of, what Fodor, calls “informational
encapsulation” of the language module (i.e. LAD). If someone cannot properly
perform a rule that he consciously know, his performance should be based on a
non-conscious knowledge system. (I have just committed such a mistake a sentence
ago basically because third person singular –s has become a fossil that I cannot
eradicate even though I consciously know the rule for more than two decades. In
the unedited version of my Doctoral Dissertation there were about 70 such
mistakes! If you ask me why I could not have acquired it even after 20 plus
years of exposure to input, I would say “because of the misleading input full of
–s mistakes that I have received from my peers and students).
The
criticisms raised against the Input Hypothesis:
The most important hypothesis in the
MM, which became the title of one of Krashen’s books, is the Input Hypothesis.
In fact no one denies the importance of input as “it is clearly the case that
one cannot learn a second language without any input” (Hatch, 1983, p. 84). Some
critics therefore tend to imply that it is no innovation:
Plenty of comprehensible input is, and always has been, important (Rivers, p.86
in BMM).
I really wish that CI had always been given due emphasis as its importance
deserves. Unfortunately it is not. Let’s consider the most popular three methods
of L2 teaching: Grammar Translation Method (GTM), Audiolingual (ALM) and
Communicative Approach (CA). (Other methods like CLL, Silent Way, Suggestopedia,
TPR, and even Natural Approach might be considered marginal). In GTM, the focus
is on conscious teaching of grammar and on intensive reading. Isn’t there any
input? Of course there are scraps of input even in the Silent Way. The point is,
however, GTM is input-poor. How about ALM? After all, listening is an important
skill. But it is sentence-level listening (largely) and the focus is not very
much on comprehension but on imitation and reinforcement through repetition thus
on production. Also there is a “hidden” structure in ALM input which is tried to
be instilled in the minds of the learners, a feature which makes input
nonsensical and boring. CA is not much different considering the popularity of
its P.P.P. version (rather than task-based CA). The main aim in PPP is still to
instill a specific structure and to expect learners to produce output bearing
that structure. Again we’re confronted with inductive teaching plus
production-based activities in place of input-based (meaning-focused)
receptive/acquisition activities. In short, paradigm shifts from GTM to ALM and
from ALM to CA have not focused our attention on input but some other things:
Krashen’s theory does contain some elements that make it worthy of
consideration… One is, after all, the emphasis put on the role of meaningful
input in the process of language acquisition. Although this role is in fact
obvious, it has sometimes been disregarded. Krashen’s theorizing has made
certain contemporary educators and teachers aware of the principle that input
must come first (Marton, p. 68 in BMM).
I hope one day L2 methodologists will not only “understand or acknowledge” the
importance of CI but also put this “understanding” into practice. Unless a due
emphasis is placed on a comprehension, it seems that we will waste more decades
trying to “pound water in a mortar” (to use a Turkish phrase) by focusing on
production and inductive teaching of grammar.
The
criticisms raised against the Monitor Hypothesis:
The hypothesis which has given its name to the MM is the Monitor Hypothesis. The
main criticism raised against the monitor is the lack of operational definition:
There are problems associated with the Monitor. First, it is impossible to
observe. And if observable, how does one determine if a learner were
“Monitoring” (editing by rule) or “monitoring” (editing by “feel”) (Shannon,
p.13 in BMM).
Krashen seems to accept this weakness of lack of operational definitions
prevalent in other parts of the MM.
I agree that it would certainly be desirable to pinpoint precisely individual
acquirer’s level, and be able to operationalize all the hypothetical constructs
utilized in current SLA theory. (Krashen, 1985, p. 68)
However this deficiency does not negate the existence of monitoring with small
“m” or with capital “M”. The former is the subconscious’ editing valid in L1
production whereas the latter is typical of L2 performance, where one can
articulate the rules he is using during the Monitoring process. So one way of
distinguishing the two is to ask the performer if s-he edits by consulting the
rules he is consciously know, or some kind of feel which he cannot describe. One
may question the validity of such an introspective research technique if s-he
wishes to limit the scope of psychological research to the observable and the
measurable, a positivist obsession which delayed the development of social
science for decades.
Another criticism is that
[A]dolescents are more successful learners than children. This runs counter to
Krashen’s claim that children are more successful because they are not burdened
by the Monitor (Shannon, p.13 in BMM)
Just the opposite. Krashen, while reflecting upon age differences, suggests that
older learners are superior in terms of rate of acquisition because “they are
able to get more comprehensible input.” (Krashen and Terrell, 1983, p.45)
The
criticisms raised against the Affective Filter Hypothesis:
The last hypothesis in the MM is the
Affective Filter (AF) hypothesis, and one of the major criticisms raised against
it is
There is nothing contained in the hypothesis that can assist teachers in
lowering the Filters of their students, other than the identification of the
major types of affect that may be involved. (Krahnke, p.245 in BMM)
One really wonders if Krahnke has read any of Krashen’s writings. Krashen
explains how to lower the filter by saying that:
This is done in several ways. First, the fact that there is no demand for early
speech production reduces the anxiety of the students considerably.... [Second],
errors of any form are not corrected directly.... Finally, the requirement that
the input be interesting to the students will contribute to a more relaxed
classroom. (Krashen and Terrell) (pp. 59-60)
Criticisms
on pedagogical aspect of the Monitor Model:
Having handled some of the criticism raised against the MM form a theoretical
point of view, we may examine some of the practical objections.
Krashen believes that ... where language learning in an informal
environment.[that is “acquisition”] is available, the value of instruction is
actually nil. (Marton, p. 57 in BMM)
Again just the opposite. Krashen prefers a classroom setting to a natural one,
especially for the initial stages of SLA. His justification is that outside is
full of noise (incomprehensible input) for the beginner whereas inside the
classroom he can collect CI much more easily. So, the main role of classroom
according to Krashen, is to give more CI and convert the outside environment
into an input-rich setting for L2 learners.
Another criticism concerns the emphasized role of teacher-talk as an important
source of input:
[T]eacher-talk exercises a la Krashen have become increasingly unpopular are no
longer so extensively used in newer language learning materials. They are
referred to as being old-fashioned, mechanistic and therefore out-of-date.
If we are to judge the effectiveness of a technique in the light of the
bandwagonist principle of popularity, then yes, teacher-talk is old-fashioned.
Fortunately, there are some new methods (even newer then CA) like the Lexical
Approach, which value the significance of the teacher-generated input:
Many initial teacher training courses present the slogan Reduce teacher talking
time (TTT), increase student talking time (STT). This is an over-simplification.
... [T]here is clear evidence from work done by Krashen, Prabhu (who based a
whole programme in India on students responding to controlled teacher input),
Asher’s TPR, and others, that students’ general abilities develop most rapidly
in the early stages if the approach largely based on controlled listening. (
Lewis, 1993, p. 10)
Similarly O’Neil, in his “Confession of an Embarrassed Eclectic” says
I think of all the informal, brief “spoken paragraphs” which teachers use as
models for their students’ own production as essential to language teaching, And
I am constantly astounded when I see teachers refusing to do this because they
associate it with being “teacher centered”.
We are likely to suffer more if we keep borrowing the ideas of general education
and directly implement such concepts as “learner-centeredness”, “individual
variation” etc. in our language teaching methodology. Language acquisition is a
unique type of learning. Unless we accept this fact and design L2 teaching
methods based on domain-specific theories of SLA, we will be trying to teach
mathematics, not the language.
I’d like to finish my practical part of my paper, with a comment which really
bothers me a lot:
As far as methodology goes, what is gathered together in the The Natural
Approach is a cross-section of communicative techniques (Yalden, p. 259 in BMM)
It is true that even Krashen, himself, views NA under the umbrella of CA. To
tell the truth, I cannot. Especially the PPP version of CA – which is, by the
way, the most common interpretation—is so different from NA, I personally
consider it almost as distant as GTM or ALM. The most drastic difference between
CA and NA is that the former rests on a language theory-i.e. communicative
competence (while the latter of a language learning theory, i.e. MM); CA (or
PPP) has no clearly articulated theory of language learning. Second, NA is
mostly comprehension oriented, whereas CA is production-based. Third, there is
no structural grading in NA, whereas there is a hybrid syllabus of structures
and functions in PPP ( Task-based CA is similar to NA in that respect, but still
production-oriented). There are many other minute differences which need not to
be mentioned here. It is enough to scan the names of the critics of NA to see if
NA and CA are similar. Many of these are CA-oriented theorists like Brumfit,
Littlewood and Yalden, just to name a few. So how can one claim the fundamental
similarity between the two methods? Then what is the point in saying
The Natural Approach is in fact an attempt to work out a retroactive theory of
second language teaching that runs counter to newer developments in second
language teaching theory. (Yalden, p.260 in BMM)
If what is meant by “second language teaching theory” is PPP, yes! It is better
that NA runs counter to it. But one should also acknowledge that task-based CA
and NA are more similar than different as both divorce form-on-form from
meaning-based tasks. If task-based CA is supported some more comprehension tasks
more than is the case now, then there would be no difference between the two.
Only then one can view NA as a communicative method.
Some miscellaneous issues in BMM:
I’d like to finish my paper touching
upon miscellaneous comments made by the authors in the MM.
In fact, one wonders why so many theorists and practicing language teachers seem
to have jumped so readily on the newest anti-pedagogical bandwagon [of Krashen]
in total disregard of the long tradition of solid scholarship and highly
effective teaching. ( Marton, 60 in BMM)
I really wish that there were such a bandwagon with the help of which we could
propagate the importance of input in L2 classes. Unfortunately there is no NA
bandwagon which is populated by teachers and especially text-book writers. It is
true that among the L2 theorists there is a hot debate going on about the
validity of the MM. But it is just an academic warfare. The MM has almost no
manifestation in the ELT market. It is as marginal and silent as silent way. To
give a concrete example of this silence, there is no single course-book of NA
written in English (though the Spanish book is the most commonly-used one in the
USA). Under these circumstances the mere survival of NA (or the MM), even in the
professional literature, is the concrete evidence of its strength.
A related question that comes to mind is if Krashen’s MM or NA is so strong,
then why doesn’t it have any influence on the ELT market. The answer can be
found in the article Titled “The Secret Life of Methods” written by Jack
Richards who claims that:
Although differences between methods often reflect opposing views of the nature
of language and of language-learning processes, the reasons for the rise and
fall of methods are often independent of either the theories behind those
methods or their effectiveness in practice. (p.32)
It is somewhat difficult to believe but one of the main reasons why NA is devoid
of popularity is attributable to its being American or to its non-British
nature:
The British Council has for many years served the interests of British
methodologists by providing an instant and international outlet for their ideas,
as well as funds to present their latest speculations at international forums
and conferences. it is doubtful if communicative language teach¬ing or the
British approach to syllabus and program design could have been established so
rapidly without the council's help. John Munby, for example, is a British
Council employee. Even before the publication of his book Communicative Syllabus
Design (1978), in which a model for the design of ESL courses is proposed, the
Munby model had been presented in British Council-sponsored workshops and used
as the basis for several council consultancy projects in different parts of the
world. No one can blame the British for selling things British, but one wonders
what the consequences might have been if, in the early 1970s, the council had
adopted Curran's or Gattegno's methods as a basis for its global language
teaching operations. (ibid, p.40)
Another interesting criticism is
Many of Krashen’s statements concern matters that have been taken for granted in
Europe. (Freudenstein, p. 213 in BMM)
It is as if the discussions of the last fifteen years or so in Europe had never
happened, although many of the techniques he suggests in the Natural Approach
have been practiced all over the Europe for many years. (Ibid, p. 219 in BMM)
It may be true that Krashen is not very well-informed about what happens in the
old world. But it is equally valid for the Europeans, and especially Freudstein
himself, that they are not aware of what is happening in the New World. This
ignorance is apparent in his statement that
Research is necessary to support or reject his hypotheses, and until it has been
conducted, his [Krashen’] theory remains a mixture of facts, experience, hopes,
and speculations. (ibid, p.212 in BMM)
While reading the book, one really feels puzzled as to which of the critics we
should believe in. Almost all of them are against the MM, but they are
disproving each other’s claims. So I will not use my sentences to negate the
aforementioned claim.
In fact, Krashen does refer to a lot of recent research on language learning.
(Trampe, p.32 in BMM)
Krashen’s early work was focused on a number of areas related to second language
acquisition, including lateralization of the brain, the critical period,
adult-children differences, acquisition sequences, and the effect of formal
learning environments. These explorations, in addition to a consideration of
current research, ultimately contributed to his theoretical formulations.
(Shannon, p.8 in BMM)
I leave it to the reader to assess these contradictory remarks on the empiric
basis of MM. Again let me finish the paper using a quotation from one of
Krashen’s harshest critics:
Krashen’s “theory” currently has no rival in terms of comprehensiveness or of
popularity. Thus if Krashen has not produced a theory of L2A, presumably no one
has. (Gregg, p. 37 in BMM)
REFERENCES
Barasch, R. M. & James, C. V. (eds.) (1994) Beyond the Monitor Model. Boston,
Massachusetts: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Ellis, R. (1984) Classroom second language development. Oxford: Pergamon
________ (1989).“Are classroom and naturalistic acquisition the same?SSLA,II:
305-328
Hatch, E. M. (1983). Simplified input and SLA. In R. W. Anderson (Ed.)
Pidginization and creolization as language acquisition. (pp. 64-86) Rowley, MA:
Newbury
Krashen, S.D. (19859 The Input Hypthesis. London: Longman.
Krashen, S.D. and Terrell, T. (1983) The Natural Approach. New Jersey: Alemany
Press
Larsen-Freeman, D. and Long, M.H. 1991. An introduction to second language
acquisition research. London: Longman.
Lewis, M. (19939. The Lexical Approach. London: LTP
McLaughlin, B. 1987. Theories of second language learning. London: Edward
Arnold.
Pienemann, M (1989) Is language teachable? Applied Linguistics 10: 52-78
Richards, J.C. (1985) “The Secret life of Methods”. In The Context of Language
Teaching. (pp. 32-45). New York: CUP.
Schwartz, B. (1993). On explicit and negative data effecting and affecting
competence and linguistic behavior. SSLA, 15: 147-163
Swan, M( 1985). A critical look at the communicative approach. ELT Journal
39/1-2
Wilkins, D. (1983) “ Some issues in communicative language teaching in
Perspectives in Communicative Language Teaching. London: Academic Press
6
Print This Article
TOP
