The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
THE MONITOR MODEL: SOME METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS
Abstract
The Monitor Model has been proposed (Krashen 1975, 1977a) as a general model for adult second‐language performance. The model claims that adult second‐language performers have two means of internalizing the rules of a target language: (1) language acquisition, which is primarily subconscious, is not influenced by overt teaching or error correction, and is very similar to primary language acquisition in children; (2) language learning, which involves the conscious representation of pedagogical rules, and is influenced by teaching and error detection. The model hypothesizes that learning is available to the adult second‐language performer only as a Monitor—that is, people use conscious grammar only to alter the output of the acquired system. This paper examines the Monitor Model and presents a methodological critique of the research on which the model is based. An attempt is made to provide an outline of an alternate model that more parsimoniously accounts for the data and that ties into a theory of human information processing generally.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Shiffrin, R. M., & Schneider, W. (1977) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.84.2.127 · Cited by 7,335
Controlled and automatic human information processing: I. Detection, search, and attention.
Schneider, W., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1977) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.84.1.1 · Cited by 5,902
Cited by
Ritchie, W. C., & Bhatia, T. K. (1996) · Handbook of Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1016/b978-012589042-7/50003-7 · Cited by 747
Writing Expertise and Second‐Language Proficiency*
Cumming, A. (1989) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/j.1467-1770.1989.tb00592.x · Cited by 641
Consciousness-Raising and the Second Language Learner1
SMITH, M. S. (1981) · Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1093/applin/ii.2.159 · Cited by 530
The Structural Syllabus and Second Language Acquisition
Ellis, R. (1993) · TESOL Quarterly · doi:10.2307/3586953 · Cited by 482
SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNING: AN INFORMATION‐PROCESSING PERSPECTIVE1
McLaughlin, B., Rossman, T., & McLeod, B. (1983) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/j.1467-1770.1983.tb00532.x · Cited by 348
Self-citationThe Relationship Between Second Language Acquisition Theory and Computer‐Assisted Language Learning
CHAPELLE, C. A. (2009) · The Modern Language Journal · doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00970.x · Cited by 301
Robinson, P. (1996) · Studies in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1017/s0272263100014674 · Cited by 226
The role of foreign language aptitude in a model of school learning
Skehan, P. (1986) · Language Testing · doi:10.1177/026553228600300207 · Cited by 64
Metadata
- Authors
- McLaughlin, B.
- Venue
- Language Learning
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1978-12
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 309-332
- ISSN
- 0023-8333 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-9922
- OpenAlex
- W1969104348
- Cited by
- 257
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 34.36
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
