Second Language Acquisition and Learning: Rethinking the Pedagogical Applicability of Stephen Krashen’s Monitor Model

Second Language Acquisition and Learning: Rethinking the Pedagogical Applicability of Stephen Krashen’s Monitor Model

Mzamani J Maluleke1*, Aleck Mapindani2

1University of Venda. 2Greater Zimbabwe University

The monitor model, being one of its kind postulating the rigorous process taken by learners of second language, has since its inception in 1977, stirred sterile debates the globe over. Since then, Krashen has been rethinking and expanding his hypothetical acquisition notions, improve the applicability of his theory. The model has not been becoming, and it therefore faces disapproval on the basis of its failure to be tested empirically and, at some points, its contrast to Krashen’s earlier perceptions on both first and second language acquisition. In this paper, the writers deliberate upon Krashen’s monitor model, its tenets as well as the various ways in which it impacts, either negatively or positively upon educational teaching and learning.

Keywords: Acquisition; Rigorous process; Stephen Krashen; Monitor model; Hypothetical acquisition; Language Acquisition Device

Free Full-text PDF

How to cite this article:
Mzamani J Maluleke, Aleck Mapindani. Second Language Acquisition and Learning: Rethinking the Pedagogical Applicability of Stephen Krashen’s Monitor Mode. International Journal of Social Research, 2020; 4:50. DOI: 10.28933/ijsr-2020-09-0805


1. Abukhattala, I. (2013) Krashen’s Five Proposals on Language Learning: Are they Valid in Libyan EFL Classes. English Language Teaching, 6 (1): 128-131.
2. Alahmadi, N.S. (2019) The Role of input in Second Language Acquisition: An Overview of Four The-ories. Bulletin of Advanced English Studies, 3(2), 70-78.
3. Bahrani, T. (2011) The Implications of the Monitor Theory for Foreign Language Teaching. Asian So-cial Science, 7 (10): 281 – 284.
4. Brown, H.D. (2007) Principles of language learning and teaching (5th edn.). New York: Addison Wesley Longman.
5. Butzkamm, W. (2009) The language acquisition mystique: tried and found wanting. ForumSpra-che, 2: 83 – 93.
6. Cho, K.S and Krashen, S. (2019) Why don’t we take advantage of the power and pleasure of reading. Language and Language Teaching, 8(1),38-42.
7. Chomsky, N. (1975) Reflections on Language. New York: Pantheon.
8. Corder, S.P. (1967) The significance of learner’s
a. errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 11: 13-28.
9. Corder, S.P. (1973) Pedagogic Grammar. In W.R. Rutherford & M.S. Smith (eds.), Grammar and Second Language Teaching, (pp. 123 – 145). New York: Newbury House.
10. Dempster E.R. and Reddy, V. 2007. Item reada-bility and science achievement in TIMMS 2003 in South Africa. Science Education, 91(6), 906-925.
11. Dascomb, A.E. (2019) Language Education Pol-icy in Developing Nations from Colinisation to postcolonisation, International Journal of Society, Culture and Language, 7(1), 16-26.
12. Edu-Baundoh, D.F. (2016) Identity and Repre-sentation Through Language in Ghana: The Postcolonial Self and the Other. International Journal of Society, Culture and Language, 4(1), 34-44.
13. Ellis, R. (2004). The definition and measurement of L2 explicit knowledge. Language Learning, 54, 2: 227 – 275.
14. Ellis, R.; Tanaka, Y. and Yamakazi, A. (1994) Classroom interaction, comprehension and the acquisition of L2 word meanings. Language Learning, 44(3): 449 – 491.
15. Gitsaki, C. (1998). Second language acquisition theories: overview and evaluation. Journal of Communication and International Studies, 4(2): 89-98.
16. Graciá, O. (2009) Bilingual education in the 21st century, a global perspective. Malden, MA: Blackwell publishers.
17. Hinkel, E. (2013) Research findings on teaching grammar for academic writing. English Teaching, 68(4): 3 – 21.
18. Hiver, P. and Dörnyei, Z. (2015) Language teacher immunity: a double-edged sword. Applied Lin-guistics, Advance Access, 1 – 20.
19. Krashen, S.D. (1981) Second Language Acquisi-tion and Second Language Learning. California Pergamon Press.
20. Krashen, S.D. (1982) Principles and practices in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
21. Krashen, S.D. (1985) The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. London: Longman Group Ltd.
22. Krashen, S.D. (2003) Exploration in language ac-quisition and use. The Taipei lecturers. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
23. Krashen, S.and Bland, J. (2014) Compelling Comprehensible input, Academic Language and School Libraries. CLELE Journal, 2(2): 1-12.
24. Latifi, M.; Ketabi, S. and Mohammadi, E. (2013) The comprehension hypothesis today: an inter-view with Stephen Krashen. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 10(2): 221- 233.
25. Lightbrown, P.M. (2000) Classroom SLA research and second language teaching. Applied Linguis-tics, 21 (4), 431-462.doi.10.1093/applin/21.4.431
26. Long, M. (1996) The role of the linguistic envi-ronment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie & T. Bathia (eds.), Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, pp 413 – 468. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
27. McLaughlin, B. (1978) The monitor model: Some methodological considerations. Language Learn-ing, 28: 309-332.
28. McLaughlin, B. (1991) Theories of second lan-guage acquisition. London: Arnold.
29. Marton, W. (1990) Some remarks on the an-ti-pedagogical aspects of Krashen’s Theory of second language acquisition. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia XXIII.
30. Martin, I.M. and Ellis, N.C. (2012) The roles of phonological short –term memory and working memory in L2 grammar and vocabulary learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34 (3): 379-413.
31. Mpanza, C.D. (2018) Achieving optimal use of indigenous African languages in South Africa schooling in the wake of African Renaissance. African Renaissance, 15(2), 215-225.
32. Mutekwa, A. (2013) The challenges of using the communicative approach (CA) in the teaching of English as a Second Language (ESL) in Zimba-bwe: implications for ESL teacher Education. Af-rica Education Review, 10(3): 539-553.
33. Payne, M. (2012) Exploring Stephen Krashen “i + 1” acquisition model in the classroom. Linguistics and Education, 22(4): 419-429.
34. Poudel, P.P. (2019) The medium of instruction p-olicy in Nepal: Towards critical engagement on the ideological and pedagogical debate. Journal of language and Education, 5(3), 102-110.
35. Saville-Troike, M. (2006) Introducing second lan-guage acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-versity Press.
36. Schachter, J. (1988) Second language acquisition and its relationship to universal grammar. Applied Linguistics, 9(3): 219-235.
37. Shechter, D.A. (2018) Overcoming the grammar barrier in foreign language learning: the role of television series. Journal of Language and Educa-tion, 4(2), 92-104. Doi.10/17323.2411-7390.2018-4-2-92-104.
38. Spada, N. and Lightbrown, P.M. (2008) Form – focused instruction: isolated or integrated? TESOL Quarterly, 42 (2): 181-207.
39. Swain, M. (1985) Communicative competence: some roles of comprehensive output in its de-velopment. In S. Gass & C. Madden, (eds.), Input and Second Language Acquisition, (pp. 235- 253). Rowley, M.A. Newbury House.
40. Swain, M. (1995) Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B Seidehofer (eds.), Principles and practices in ap-plied linguistics: Studies in honor of H.G. Widdowson (pp. 125 – 144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
41. Tricomi, E.T. (1986) Krashen’s second-language acquisition theory and the teaching of edited American English. Journal of Basic Writing, 5(2): 59-69.
42. Wheeler, G. (2003). Perspectives: Krashen, a victim of history. TESL Canada Journal, 20(2): 92-99.
43. VanPatten, B. and Williams, J. (eds.) (2007) The-ories in Second language Acquisition. New York: Routledge.
44. Wilson, R. (2000) A summary of Stephen Krash-en’s “Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition”. Language Impact.
45. Zafar, M. (2009) Monitoring the ‘Monitor’: A Cri-tique of Krashen’s Five Hypotheses. The Dhaka University Journal of Linguistics, 2 (4): 139 – 146.