Krashen's Monitor and Occam's Razar

not applicable - theoretical critique

Not applicable

The standard theoretical demolition of Krashen's Monitor Model, and the reason input-hypothesis claims are treated in this archive as unfalsifiable rather than as refuted. Note the registered title contains the publisher's typo ("Razar"); it is recorded verbatim.

Argues that each of Krashen's five hypotheses is either incoherent, untestable, or unsupported by the evidence adduced for it. The acquisition-learning distinction is defined so that no observation could distinguish acquired from learned knowledge; the Monitor hypothesis is unfalsifiable because any correct output can be attributed to either system; the natural-order and input hypotheses rest on evidence that does not bear the weight placed on it. The practical consequence for a school is not that comprehensible input is useless - it plainly is not - but that "provide comprehensible input and acquisition follows" is a slogan without an operationalisation, and cannot be compared against explicit instruction in a trial because it does not specify what would count as failure.

Not applicable.

The critique has been restated and extended repeatedly (McLaughlin 1987 and the standard SLA textbooks) and has never been answered on its own terms. Krashen's framework remains widely taught and widely used in language teaching, which is a fact about practice rather than about evidence.