Continuing our discussion about Krashen’s hypotheses on language acquisition, let’s look at the Monitor Hypothesis. It is perhaps the least understood hypothesis and the hardest to explain so let’s try some word pictures!
Think of those special cars made for driver’s education. The acquisition system is the young but eager teen sitting in the driver’s seat. He is excited to be on the road and give the appearance of someone who has been driving forever. However, sitting in the instructor’s seat is the learning system MONITORING with his foot on the chicken brake. The learning system has studied the textbook and participated in many simulations. He knows that the acquisition system is still maturing as a driver and closely MONITORS his conversational navigations with a desire for adherence to the grammatical rules of the road. A very conscientious learning system might step on the chicken brake too many times and can frustrate the acquisition system who really wants to just enjoy the ride.
Another analogy? Think back to the little cartoon angel and devil that would sit on the character’s shoulder encouraging her to make one decision or another. There is no angel or devil when it comes to the learning and acquisition systems but, we are all aware of that feeling when a little voice inside our head starts to tap us on the shoulder second guessing the words we have just spoken. For example, even a native-English speaker might question his use of “me” or “I” in a particular statement causing him to subvocalize a grammar rule learned years before. That voice inside our heads is the monitor of which Krashen is speaking.
As we can imagine, a monitor functioning on overdrive would cause a speaker, and especially a writer, to shut down and give up. If an ELL’s mind is so focused on adherence to grammatical rules as he attempts to communicate, it will be impossible to for him to expound on a topic with any depth. This is especially where we can see how a student’s personality can impact his learning of language. A Type-A, perfectionist might employ his monitor to a greater extent than the more laid-back person who is content that his audience just “get the gist” of what he is saying without concern for correct conjugations or pronouns. In some temporary or informal contexts, the underuse of a monitor is not a problem. However, with our desire to build academic language, we want to help each learner find his sweet spot of using the monitor appropriately; not too much so as to prevent the utterance of meaning and not too little so as to be unable “to be understood by people not accustomed to interacting with ELLs” (from ELPS Speaking Proficiency Level Descriptors).
Next week, we will look at the Natural Order Hypothesis to understand how the knowledge and use of Language Proficiency Levels can aid teachers in finding that sweet spot of Monitor use.