Learning Japanese as a Second Language: A Processability Perspect ...

5. Affective filter hypothesis: This concept was initially proposed by Dulay and Burt (1977). In the 1970s many experiments were conducted and affective variables for SLA were examined. The results suggested that the three most crucial variables for SLA were motivation, self-confidence, and anxiety; that is, learners with high motivation, good self-confidence, and low anxiety tend to achieve best in SLA.

Based on this idea, Krashen (1982) hypothesised that ‘these attitudinal factors relate directly to acquisition and not learning’ (p. 31), and that an affective filter operates strongly against those whose attitudinal factors are not optimal; in other words, even though the learner understands the input, he/she does not acquire competence if the affective filter is high (i.e., if the attitudinal factors are not optimal).

To summarise, in Krashen’s monitor theory acquisition is more important than learning, and the learner acquires competence when he/she receives input containing ‘i+1’ and his/her affective filter is low.

Krashen’s monitor theory has attracted criticism, mainly due to the insufficient explanations provided for each hypothesis and the untestable characteristics of the model. McLaughlin (1978) criticised the ‘acquisition-learning’ distinction, as defined by ‘subconscious’ and ‘conscious’ processes, as being unreliable because there are no psychological measures and the distinction cannot be tested in an empirical investigation. The monitor hypothesis is also unreliable because the only evidence for this is the language learner’s own account, and it is not open to objective evaluation analysis. In addition, Krashen only referred to the syntax of the production of utterances; monitoring does not explain their reception (Morrison & Low, 1983). Krashen conflated monitoring and learning, and he provided no discussion of how learning takes place (Ellis, 1985). Also, he did not account for morpheme order and other developmental sequences (Pienemann & Johnston, 1987a). Other criticisms have noted that there is no explanation of why children do not have a ‘filter’ (Gregg, 1984), and that there is a lack of classroom evaluation studies for its teaching application (Pienemann & Johnston, 1987a). In conclusion, monitor theory is a