Larsen-Freeman and Long (1991, p.243) observe that Krashen's Monitor Theory (MT) can be summarized as follows:
“People acquire second languages only if they obtain comprehensible input and if their affective filters are low enough to allow the input 'in'. When the filter is 'down' and appropriate comprehensible input is presented (and comprehended), acquisition is inevitable. It is, in fact, unavoidable and cannot be prevented – the language 'mental organ' will function just as automatically as any other organ.” (quoted by Larsen-Freeman and Long 1991 from Krashen 1985, The Input Hypothesis: issues and implications, p. 4)
Taking the above excerpt into consideration, decide which of the statements below can correctly be internal commentaries to the theory, showing a strong understanding of the theory's assumptions:
I. Omission of any reference to three of the five “hypotheses” in the “summary” shows that MT consists de facto of just one causal statement involving two variables: Comprehensible Input (CI) and a “low affective filter” which are necessary and sufficient for second language acquisition.
II. Comprehensible Input is not the essential ingredient for second language acquisition. There are still some other fundamental factors thought to encourage or cause second language acquisition and which work towards contributing to CI, such as instruction and the affective filter.
III. MT is really much more powerful than Krashen's statement above would suggest, since an even more “essential ingredient” in MT is actually a language-specific innate endowment: Chomsky's Universal Grammar. It is this, not CI, which should make second language acquisition possible.
