Page 28 - BRIDGES - ISSUE 7

sideration of the ’affective filter and Conclusion B I B L I O G R A P H Y :
'
’monitor’ hypotheses. The first sug-
gests affective factors influence SLA A way to discuss the differences be- Chomsky, N. (1965) Aspects of the
and predicts, in short, a mental block, tween child and adult SLA is to de- Theory of Syntax, Cambridge, MA:
caused by affective factors, that pre- scribe them in termsof cognition, psy- MIT Press
vents input from reaching the lan- chological andsocial psychological dif- Cook, V. (1993) Linguistics and Sec-
guage acquisition device (see Krashen, ferencesas well as in terms of biologi- ond Language Acquisition:
1985:100).Explaining the differences cal differences. There was a need to MacMillan Press
between adult and child SLA, the hy- discuss Krashen’s Monitor Theory Flynn, S. & O’Neil, W.(eds.) (1988)
pothesis proposes that "children have separately, (although it drawsfrom all Linguistic Theory and Second Lan-
an advantagein languagedevelopment aforementioned areas) in terms of guage Acquisition
because their affective filter is lower. being importantlyone of the few theo- Academic Publishers
Adult learners on the other hand,are riesconcerned with an overall account Gethin,A.& Gunnemark,E.V. (1996)
likely to have higher affective filters of SLA.Nevertheless,Gass&Selinker TheArt and Scienceof LearningLan-
because of eventsoccurring in adoles- (1994:246) argue that at present there guages. Intellect
cence[...]increased self consciousness, is noconsensus as to whychildren are Gass,S.& Selinker, L, (1994) Second
feelings of vulnerability, and a lower more able to achieve native-like flu- Language Acquisition:An Introduc-
self-image- all of which, presumably, encyin a second language than adults. tory Course. Lawrence Erlbaum As-
interfere with language A concluding point in thisway might sociates Publishers
leaming"(McLaughlin,1987:54). be that although most of the observed Ginsberg, E,H. (1997) Language
Krashen introduces to the distinction differences are undisputed, the ways Development.Brooks/Cole Publishing
between acquisition and learning the that certain of the theoretical consid- Company
concept of the ’monitor’ hypothesiz- erations on the topic contradict each Klein, W. (1986) Second Language
ing that "acquisition and learning are other,can lead us to suggest that fur- Acquisition. Cambridge University
used in very specific ways. Normally ther research and theoryevaluation is Press
acquisition ’initiates’our utterances in needed, in advance, and towards the Krashen, S. (1982) Principles and
a second language and is responsible aim of agreement among linguistson Practice in Second Language Acquisi-
forourfluency.Learning has onlyone an overall theory of SLA and an ac- tion. Pergamon Press
function, and that is as a Monitor, or count for theobserved differences. Lenneberg,E.H. (ed.)(1967) Biologi-
editor" (1982:15). Krashen (1982:18) cal Foundations of Language, New
suggests that "some of the individual On the other hand, this may not be York:Wiley
variation we see in adult second lan- possible at the present given the na- McLaughlin, B. (1987) Theories of
guage performance can be accounted ture of the experience of acquiring a Second-Language Learning. Edward
for in termsin termsof differential use second language itself. AsSchumann Arnold
of the conscious monitor", and distin- (1983:55 cited in Tarone and Yule, (1985) Second Language Ac-
guishes between monitor ’over-users’ 1989:6) has argued, different view- quisition in Childhood: volume 2:
and ’under-users’ as well as the ’opti- points "can coexist as two different School Age Children. Lawrence
mal monitor user’ as the aim of sec- paintings of the language learningex- Erlbaum Associates Publishers
ond language pedagogy. As perience [...] neither position is cor- Phillipson, R.,et. al. (1990) Foreign/
McLaughlin points out (1987:29), the rect; they are simply alternate repre- Second Language Pedagogy Re-
monitor seeks among others thing to sentations of reality". search.Multilingual
explain a differentiation between adult Matters
and child SLAaschildren are thought Tarone, E. & Yule, G. (1989) Focus
to be superior language learners be- on the Language Learner. Oxford
cause theydo not use the monitor, and University Press
are not as inhibited as older learners. Widdowson, H.G. (1984) Explora-
tions in Applied Linguistics 2. Oxford
University Press

31