Krashen’s monitor model proposed five hypotheses related to SLA. First, the acquisition-learning hypothesis suggests that learning is different from acquisition. What is learnt is not the same as what is acquired and only acquired language is readily available for natural, fluent communication. Second, the monitor hypothesis argues that the “acquired system” is responsible for fluency and intuitive judgement about correctness while the “learned system” only acts as a monitor to polish what the acquired system produces. Third, the natural order hypothesis states that, just like the first language, second language is learnt under a predicted sequence. Forth, the input hypothesis proposes that when a learner is exposed to the language input just beyond his/her current level of competence, acquisition will occur. Lastly, the affective hypothesis suggests that there are imaginary barriers called affective filters which prevent learners from acquiring language from the available input. The affects include motives, attitudes and emotional state which determine the acquisition process.
Teaching Implications of Innatism
The innatism emphasizes the innate contribution of language learning. Therefore teachers should understand that different students have different innate ability and teaching should follow their internal potential. Critical period hypothesis suggests that learning of language after the critical period may not be as easy as the childhood learning and so early second language learning may have an advantage over the adults’. Krashen’s “monitor model” further suggests that language teaching should not only focus on the language rules as knowing the rules does not mean to have acquired the rules. Students who spend too much time in searching for the rules in their mind before speaking may affect their speaking fluency. Instead, teachers should encourage fluent speaking by putting less emphasizes on the rules. As the natural order hypothesis suggests that there is a predicted natural sequence in language acquisition, language teaching should also follow the sequence. However, since Karshen argued that what first acquired in the natural sequence are not the easiest rules to be learnt, the teaching sequence may not start from the easiest. The input hypothesis is also useful in teaching which suggests that language teaching should not be too difficult or too easy for the learners but reach an appropriate level just beyond students’ current level. As to improve this, I suggest that language teaching should be in a small group in order to enable teachers to provide teaching activities suitable for students at different level
Interactionist
Some interactionist theories are influenced by psychological learning theories. Hatch (1992) and Michael Long (1983) believe that much second language acquisition takes place through conversational interaction. Long agrees with Krashen that input at a right level is important for language acquisition. Despite of this similarity with the innatist theory, interactionist focuses more on analyzing the input given in order to acquire is successfully. Long (1983) suggests that modified interaction, similar to the child-directed speech in first language acquisition is essential to second learning. The modified speech acts as comprehensive input so as to enhance acquisition process. In interactionist’s view, the modified speech does not mean simplified linguistic forms but the opportunity to interact with other speakers, who are at a much advance level than the learners.
Teaching Implications of Interactionist Theories
Interactionist supports interaction in language learning. Therefore teachers should provide more chances for students to interact with each other but not just paying attention to teach the language rules and practice mechanic drilling. Although interactionist agrees that interaction with speakers at a more advance level enhance language acquisition, it is impossible for a beginner to acquire a second language from a native speaker unless his/her speech is modified. Therefore, while interacting with students, teachers should modify their speech to the right level for students. In order to increase the effectiveness of interaction to SLA, speech from teachers can be elaborated, decreased in speed and accompanied by gesture and contextual cues. Comprehension checks, clarification requests and self-repetition or paraphrase are also useful in modifying the speech. (Lightbown and Spada.)
The theories which influence me most in my future teaching career
None of the theories can stand alone to explain second language acquisition. Despite of this, the Interactionist theories are most influential to my future teaching. I agree with many recent researchers such as Hatch and Long that much SLA takes place through conversational interaction, but other theories are also important in language teaching such as the Behavorism which focuses on imitation, is important to early language learning. However, I find interaction most useful in language learning because it does not only improve students’ linguistic competence but also communicative competence. It provides a chance for students to improve their speaking skills by listening to the others and recognizing their own mistakes. Different ways of how things are said can also be learnt and so it enhances students’ semantic ability. Apart from these advantages, interaction is more welcomed by students because it is considered to be more interesting than the other teaching methods such as drilling and memorizing linguistic rules based on other theories. Through causal interaction, students’ confidence in speaking a second language can also be enhanced. As the ultimate aim of speaking a language is for interaction and communication between each other, I believe there is a lot to learn from a normal and realistic language setting and that is an interaction setting.
Conclusion
There are many useful theories which help us to understand second language acquisition. Krashen’s monitor model of Innatism and Interactionism has suggested many useful ideas such as the natural acquisition sequence and the importance of modified interaction for SLA. These theories have brought about a lot of future teaching implications and so the teaching of second language has greatly benefited from these theories.
By: Leung Ka Man, Carmen
University no.: 2002702080
Bibliography
Ellis, R., 1997, Second Language Acquisition, London, Oxford University Press
Klein, W., 1986, Second Language Acquisition, New York, Cambridge University Press Lightbown, Pasty M. and Spada, How languages are learned, London, Oxford University Press
