REVIEWS

84

Classification in Remedial

Teaching. Starting from the hypothesis that there is some

pattern in the errors made by children with spelling difficulties in their native language,
the author describes a program that will detect and analyse spelling errors made by a child
in the course of free writing, providing feedback to the child when an error is made, and
providing
information
to the teacher about the types of errors that the child most
frequently makes (p. 299). She discusses problems and possible solutions.
The last article (6) to be mentioned here is the only example where the computer is used in
the sense of total
teaching.
In Computer-Based- Teaching in Applied Linguistics
Bore110 and Italiani point out some problems about the teaching of linguistic subjects at
university
level. Their experiences in preparing and practically
testing an experimental
course in generative grammar showed them that the applications
of Computer Assisted
Instruction
(CAI) methods to the linguistic field may be of notable interest (p. 92).
All conceptions
have in common the desire to profit by those typical functions which a
computer can fulfil better than any other technical medium; but in no case is there any
intention
of replacing the teacher by it. The computer
only provides supplementary
assistance for the individual
learner mostly referring to his extramural
activities.
Annemarie
Institut fur Unterrichtswissenschaft/Medieninformation
des Forschungsund Entwicklungszentrum
fur objektivierte
Lehr- und Lernverfahren
D-4790 Paderborn
Federal Republic of Germany

Krashen,
Oxford:
Series).

Hauf and Ottmar

Hertkorn

Stephen D., Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning.

Pergamon
Press, 1981, 151 pp., $10.00. (Language
Teaching
Methodology

In recent years there has been growing interest in the development

of an appropriate
theory of second language acquisition.
This interest is well documented
in an impressive
number of relevant publications
(Brown 1976, Eckman and Hastings 1979, Felix 1980,
Gingras 1978, Hatch 1978, Hullen and Jung 1979, Kettemann and St. Clair 1980, Richards
1978, Ritchie 1978, Schumann
1978, to name just a few). Though all of these books give a
rather good insight into different aspects of second language acquisition (and offer some
theoretical explanations)
it also becomes clear that a general theoretical frame of reference
is still missing.
In this situation
the author of the most praised and criticized model in the field, the
Monitor Theory, comes out with his first book the title of which raises hopes for a
systematic treatment
of the topic that fits the diverse pieces of theory and empirical
evidence in second language research and practice together. These hopes for an integrated

REVIEWS

85

theory disappear quickly as soon as one realizes that the book contains a collection of
articles and papers that have already appeared in journals of conference proceedings
roughly since 1977. In other words, it is neither an updating of Krashens model nor an
extension of what is known so far nor even a newly written summary of his approach. But
in order to find out to what extent a simple revision of earlier papers can bring about the
desired breakthrough in formulating a theory of second language acquisition I will first
look at the content of the book, then try to consider for whom it may have been written,
check whether the book can satisfy the potential demands of different readerships, and
finally try to evaluate the contribution of Krashens model in comparison to other theories
in the field.
In an introduction in which the original sources of the nine contributions are clearly
indicated, the author states his central claim: the distinction between acquisition and
learning. He shows how adult learners internalize the rules of a second language and how
the two different kinds of internalization influence their second language performance.
Acquisition is described as an unconscious process which is unaffected by overt teaching
or external error correction and which is very similar to the way children build up the
ability to use their mother tongue. Language learning, on the other hand, is a conscious
process which involves explicit identification, representation and memorization of the
target language rules and which therefore is open to influence of teaching and error
correction.
A second central claim of the theory attributes different functions to acquisition and
learning in adult language performance. While acquisition has the function to
initiate utterances, conscious learning is available to the performer only as a Monitor
(2), that is, the explicit knowledge a learner has at his/her disposal can be used only as a
device to control and, if necessary, correct the output based on the implicit knowledge
system. But successful Monitor use is only possible under constrained conditions: the
performer must have enough time, must be focussed on form and must know the rule.
These conditions may be met in grammar tests, for example, but rarely when the learner is
involved in natural communication with native speakers (Krashen 1979: 155). Therefore,
according to Krashen, learning about a language in the typical formal classroom is of
little help in fluent conversation. Seen that way the Monitor seems to be a marginal
phenomenon in adult second language performance. But despite the fact that the stress of
the theory was always on acquisition and not on learning, a term related to the latter
supplied the name for the theory. Though this choice was somewhat unfortunate and
perhaps even misleading, in the meantime there is an established association between the
name and the author of the theory. Maybe this association will loosen with time when one
recognizes the shift in Krashens thinking to the input-hypothesis with an increasing
emphasis on the analysis of conditions of optimal learning environments and of characteristics
of the learners intake (cf. Chapters 8 and 9).
While the misnomer was accepted without harm, one basic criticism has limited the
acceptability of the Monitor theory. The point has been made before and must be
repeated here: since the central assumption, the distinction between acquisition and
learning, is not accessible to empirical testing, the theory as a whole is immune to
falsification. As far as I can see, the author does not make the slightest effort in the book

86

REVIEWS

to meet this criticism. He circumvents

the problem by referring to a number of related
topics which seem to support his central claim, or to put it the other way around: the
author reinterprets
relevant findings within the large field of second language learning
in terms of his monitor
model and gives one possible explanation
for a number of
empirically observable phenomena,
but evidence in the strict sense is not presented.
The number of topics treated that way in the nine chapters
the belief that the Monitor theory is the long expected
second language learning.

of the book could well lead to

comprising
general theory of

Chapter 1 gives a first impression

of individual
variation in Monitor use and describes
three types of language performers
based on case histories (optimal Monitory
users,
overusers, and underusers).
Chapter 2 addresses two topics. It tries to explain the well established fact that language
attitudes and language aptitude are unrelated to each other but that both are predictive
for second language achievement.
On the other hand it discusses Piagets stage of formal
operations
as one source of the child-adult
differences in language performance.
A review of some literature concerning the relation between second language proficiency
and the formal versus informal
distinction
between different learning environments
is
given in Chapter 3. Krashen more or less succeeds in subsuming the controversial
research
evidence into his frame of reference, but only by looking at a very selected sample of the
relevant literature.
Chapter 4 deals with R. Browns finding that children with English as their first language
acquire some morphemes in a regular order and its influence on second language research,
namely the search for similarities by replicating morpheme studies with second language
learning children and adults. It shows step by step the development
of the Monitor version
of the natural
order hypothesis,
that When performance
is monitored,
the natural
order is disturbed
(52) and includes some objections
to this view.
Chapter 5 presents the theoretical background
and the empirical basis for the observation,
that the Ll may act as an alternate utterance
initiator
in the target language when the
performer has not yet sufficient knowledge of the L2. So it may happen, especially under
conditions
where a foreign language
is learned within the Ll cultural
context, that
sentences are produced in the L2, which show a Ll surface structure filled up with L2
lexicon (68).
As a first glance into the unsettled field of neurolinguistics,
Chapter 6 starts with several
explanations
of the so-called critical period for language acquisition.
As a result of this
discussion,
adults would have good reasons for continuing
their attempts at learning a
second language as would teachers of adults for remaining in their profession. The second
part of this chapter gives information
about the disputed roles the two hemispheres of the
brain may play in different cognitive and language functions.

87

REVIEWS

In Chapter 7 the potential relations between prefabricated

and patterns) to acquisition and learning are discussed.

formulaic

speech (routines

Chapter 8 summarizes
what the Monitor theory has to say to teachers of adult second
language learners. It describes the conditions under which the classroom compared to the
outside world can provide the adult learner with a sufficient amount of intake [intake is
first of all input that is understood
(p. 102)] and how some newer teaching approaches
more or less help to build up favorable intake conditions.
Chapter 9 elaborates upon the
intake hypothesis by inquiring about the characteristics
of caretaker speech and the way
these characteristics
help to acquire ones first language. The question is then discussed in
rather
broad
terms whether
simplified
codes like teacher-talk,
foreigner-talk,
or
interlanguage-talk
have properties similar to caretaker speech and may therefore work in
an analogous manner in second language acquisition.
Confronted
with this diversity of topics, written for different occasions
styles, one has to ask to what readership the book might be aimed.

and in so different

Assuming
the articles were predominantly
written for teachers, teacher-trainers
and
curriculum-constructors,
then it comes a little late. Many within the teaching profession
(at least in Europe) favor communicative
approaches
of language learning and teaching
and tried to realize most of Krashens practical suggestions years before they were made.
Although
pedagogical
slogans like comprehensible
input,
low affective filter or
real communication
are not new in substance,
if they are embedded into differing
wide-ranging
contexts
with a variety of interesting
information
under a unifying
theoretical frame of reference they may give impulses to teachers to discover some new or
good reasons why they do what they do. This seems reason enough to recommend
this
book to the classroom teacher, even if one disagrees with Krashens basic claims. It is
surely one of the merits of his writing to take common knowledge and coin adhesive terms
that have a good chance to become landmarks
for orienting the daily teaching practice.
Among other things this may explain the fascination
the author obviously has for many
teachers. If the European reader bears in mind that the main topic is second (not foreign)
language acquisition and learning, s/he gets a book of thought-provoking
facts and ideas.
Perhaps there is one exception: Chapter 4. This chapter about the morpheme studies is
comprehensible
input only if the reader is familiar with some specialized jargon,
for
example, if the kind of operations behind an abbreviation
like BSM* are known. If not,
s/he reads a step-by-step
development
of an argument
leading to some changes in a
hypothesis without being able to check the proper meaning of each step. Here a little more
care in editing would have been of great help.
As for the research community
as a potential readership of this book, one can be pretty
sure that a collection of slightly revised, already available papers is of limited value, if not
annoying.
This readership would expect, if not a systematic treatment of the theory, at
least a more thorough revision with a stricter explication
of the theoretical
terms and
hypotheses and some involvement
with the still open, frequently asked questions.
Editors Note: BSM stands for Bilingual SyntaxMeasure.
It is a test that employs cartoon-type
to identify a students control over basic syntactic structures in both English and Spanish.

pictures

in order

88

REVIEWS

The most urgent question concerns the theoretical

and empirical status of the central
claim and consequently
that of the related claims and hypotheses. In other words, is there
a valid way to test the hypotheses of the Monitor theory without an empirical criterion for
distinguishing
between what was acquired
from what was learned
in the performers
output? To give some illustrative
examples: How can one test whether an utterance is
initiated by acquired
knowledge and perhaps monitored
by learned
knowledge if
one cannot distinguish
empirically
whether an utterance is initiated by acquired
or
learned
LZ-knowledge,
whether it is initiated by Ll or L2, whether it is monitored
at
all, or whether it is monitored
with a misunderstood
and therefore wrongly applied
L2-rule, to specify just some constellations
in second language learners productions?
How
can one check that the way of initiating and monitoring
a learners utterance is directly
dependant
on the way the second language was internalized,
if one cannot distinguish
empirically in the performers
output the acquired
from the learned?
Or, how can
one test the rather strong hypothesis,
that there is no transfer
from learned
to
acquired
knowledge
if, again, it is impossible
to distinguish
the two sources of
knowledge
in the performers
output ? The dependency
of the hypotheses
on the
untestable central claim makes the Monitor theory as a whole unvulnerable,
their practical
application
has therefore a questionable
basis.
Despite this rather harsh critique about the general structure of the Monitor theory and
some of its details, one has to keep in mind that immanent
criticism always risks the
danger of throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
To reach a fair evaluation
of the
Monitor theory, one has to take into account the state of the art in second language
acquisition/learning
theory. Without comparing the Monitor theory with every potential
rival theory, one can say that theoretical
rigor is not a characteristic
of this field of
research. The theories are too general in scope, the terminology
and the hypotheses interwoven with too many implicit assumptions
to allow for experiments that could result in a
clear decision regarding the superiority of one of any two theories.
Taking this for granted, what does the Monitor theory mean for research and teaching
practice? It is an effort towards an integrated theory of second language acquisition
and
learning and a frame of reference in need of explication,
precision, and refinement,
that
is, of further development.
Despite this need and despite the fact that it is still a long way
from a general theory of second language acquisition and learning, the Monitor theory is
the most wide-ranging
and elaborated theory in the field. If one works in that field, one
must therefore examine Krashens contributions
carefully. Whether this collection is the
best opportunity
to engage in his way of thinking or whether one should wait for his next
book* seems to be a matter of taste or practicability.
Fritz Sang
Max-Planck-Institut
fur Bildungsforschung
Lentzealle 94
D-1000 Berlin 33
Federal Republic of Germany
*Editors

Note: Readers

may like to note that his next book has now been published:

KRASHEN,
Press.

Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford and New York: Pergamon

S. D. (1982)

89

REVIEWS

REFERENCES
BROWN,

Learning

H. D. (ed.) (1976)

(Language

Learning

Pupers in Second Languuge Acquisition. Michigan:

Special

Research

Club

in Language

Issue No. 4)

ECKMAN, F. R. and Hastings, A. J. (eds.) (1979) Studies in First and Second Language Acquisition.
Massachusetts:
Newbury House.
FELIX,
Beitrage

S. W. (ed.) (1980) Second

zur Linguistik 125).

Language Development.

Trends

GINGRAS,
R. C. (ed.) (1978) Second-Language Acquisition
Virginia: Center for Applied Linguistics.
HATCH,
Newbury
HULLEN,
Englisch).

E. M. (ed.) (1978) Second

House.
W. and Jung,

Language Acquisition.

and Issues.

Tubingen:

Narr

Rowley,
(Ttlbinger

& Foreign Language Teaching. Arlington,

A Book

of Readings.

L. (1979) Spruchstruktur und Spracherwerb. Dusseldorf:

KETTEMANN,
B. and St. Clan, R. N. (eds.) (1980) New Approaches
(Tlibinger Beitrage zur Linguistik 87).

to Language

Rowley,

Bagel/Francke
Acquisition.

Massachusetts;
(Studienreihe
Ttlbingen:

Narr

KRASHEN,
S. D. (1977) Some issues relating to the Monitor Model. In: Brown, H. D., Yorio, C. A., Crymes,
R. H. (eds.), ON TESOL 77, Teaching and Learning English as Second Language: Trends in Research and
Practice. Washington D.C.: TESOL.
RICHARDS,
J. C. (ed.) (1978) Understanding Second and Foreign Language Learning. Issues and Approaches.
Rowley, Massachusetts:
Newbury House.
RITCHIE,
Press.

W. C. (1978) Second Language Acquisition Research: Issues and Implications. New York: Academic

SCHUMANN,
Massachusetts:

J. H. (1978) The Pidginization Process: A Model for Second Language Acquisition.

Newbury House.

Rowley,

Wode, Henning,
Learning a Second Language. An Integrated View of Language Acquisition. Ttibingen: Narr, 1981, 350 pp., DM 48.00. (Ttibinger Beitrage zur Linguistik. Series A:
Language Development 1).
Students and researchers interested in second/foreign language acquisition will welcome
the publication of the results of Henning Wodes investigations into the process of
naturalistic second language learning. For several years Wode has reported selected
aspects of his research in journal articles and short monographs. The present book, which
represents a fuller documentation and analysis than anything published to date, constitutes a major empirical advance in the study of developmental aspects of second and
foreign language learning.
Despite the subtitle of the book, the research reported in Learning a Second Language is
motivated by some rather specific concerns, namely (a) to identify similarities or
differences in the formal characteristics of language learning across different learning
situations, such as first language learning, naturalistic second language acquisition,
foreign language learning; (b) to develop a psycholinguistic explanation to account for the
results found. Wode is particularly interested in using language acquisition research to
identify those language-specific cognitive capacities which appear to be involved in
development presupposes specific linguo-cognitive
language learning. Language