Krashen의 Monitor theory 연구

Abstract

One of the best known and most influential theories of second language acquisition (SLA) of the late 1970s and early 1980s was Krashen's Monitor Theory (MT). While this theory was very popular among English teachers in America, MT has received a great deal of criticism in the SLA literature. Because it was one of the first 'theories' developed specifically to explain SLA, it was in the best position to be subjected to empirical tests. The purpose of this thesis is to carefully examine what the criticisms have been and to evaluate the value of MT. There are two independent ways of developing ability in second language(SL). 'Acquisition' is an unconscious process identical to the manner in which children acquire their mother tongue, while 'learning' is a conscious process that results in 'knowing about' a language. People acquire the structures of SL in a predictable order. The learning process serves only as an editor or Monitor. We appeal to learning to make corrections, to change the output of the acquired system before we speak or write. The Input Hypothesis (IH) claims that humans acquire language in only one way -by understanding messages, or by receiving 'comprehensible input'. The 'comprehensible input' contains structures at our next 'stage' - structures that are a bit beyond (i+l) our current level of competence (i). Comprehensible input is necessary for acquisition, but it is not sufficient. The 'affective filter' is a mental block that prevents acquirers from fully utilizing the comprehensibble input they receive for language acquisition (LA). Therefore, a less active affective filter is better in acquiring languages. Krashen tried to prove his MT in a deductive way by considering simplified input, the silent period, age differences, the effect of exposure, method comparison research, and the success of bilingual programs. The criticisms of MT have been analyzed from three perspectives: first, in a theoretical perspetive, second, in a methodological perspective, and third, comparisons of the other SL studies against MT. McLaughlin and Gregg criticized MT severly because it cannot be a theory of SLA. The central problems with the theory can be itemized as follows. a) The aquisition-learning distinction is not clearly defined, and it is impossible to determine which process is operating in a particular case. Hence, a central claim of the theory, that 'learning' cannot become 'acquisition' cannot be tested empirically. b) Krashen has forced severe restrictions on the conditions required to use the monitor. Because the monitor is so restricted in its application, 'learning' can easily be dispensed with as an integral part of gaining facility in a second language. c) IH is untestable because no definition is given of the key concept 'comprehensible input.' The argument that effective input contains structures just beyond the syntactic complexity of those found in the current grammar of the acquirer leads nowhere because it assumes a non-existent theory of acquisition sequences. d) The Affective Filter Hypothesis is also of questionable validity because Krashen has provided no coherent explanation for the development of the affective filter and no basis for relating the affective filter to individual differences in language learning. Furthermore, in methodological perspectives, there are some problems. First, in the validity of the empirical study of acquisition-learning distinction (Krashen et. al. 1978) is doubtful. Second, the morpheme studies are of questionable methodological validity because these studies, strictly speaking, were not a longitudinal study, and they measured accuracy of use in obligatory contexts rather than acquisition sequence. They also focused on final form and provided little information about the acquisitional process. Third, the discrete test (Krashen et al. 1978) should show different order from Natural Order as MT predicted. But the result which was identical to the Natural Order wasn't explained by Krashen. Several SL studies showed different explanations about SLA. Some acquisition is based on input which is not comprehensible. Formulaic expressions (McLaughlin 1984) and canned speech (Hatch) are acquired by memorizing, neither understanding the whole expression fully nor nencessarily understanding it correctly. Furthermore. some acquisition is not based on input at all. Zobl (1983) suggested that the learners must process a "proJection device" to enable them to learn by internal processes. It is claimed that not only output (Long 1983, Swain 1985) but also the instruction plays an important role (Long 1983) in developing L2 competence. MT is not considered to be a complete theory of SLA. As White (1987) pointed out, there is still a need for a more precise input hypothesis. MT is not without merit for language pedagogy and research. It claimed that meaningful conversation is important for communicative competence, and it has stimulated the on-going research in SLA.;본 논문은 L2능력개발 이론 중에서 S.D.Krashen의 Monitor Theory의 내용을 살펴보고, 특히 1980년대 후반에 들어서 비판받고 있는 부분을 분석 연구하여, Monitor Theory에 대한 종합적인 평가를 하는 데 그 목적이 있다. 1970년대 후반에서 부터 일련의 실험연구 결과를 통해 1980년대 초반에 들어서 하나의 L2습득 이론으로 발전된 Monitor Theory는 '습득-학습 가설' '자연적순서 가설' 'monitor 가설‘input 가설' '감정 여과기 가설'의 다섯가지 가설로 구성된다. L2능력개발은 습득과 학습이라는 두 가지 독립된 과정에 의해서 진행되고, 이중 학습은 언어 발화의 형태를 수정하는 monitor 역할을 할 뿐이다. L2습득은 감정여과기가 낮은 상태에서 comprehensible input이 LAD(Languageacqusition device)에 접근하여 이루어 지는데, 이때 L2구문은 예측가능한 순서로 습득된다. 이러한 Monitor Theory에 대한 비판은 크게 세 부분으로 나누어 볼 수 있다. 첫째, 이론 성립의 문제점에 관한 것이고, 두번째는 방법론적인 문제로, Monitor Theory가 하나의 이론으로 성립되는 과정에서 설명력이 부족하고, 용어의 정의가 정확하지 않으며, 가설간의 일관성이 결여되어 하나의 이론으로 성립되기 어렵다고 비판된다. 또, 실험연구에 사용된 방법이 인위적이라는 비판은 이론의 타당성을 더욱 의심케한다. 마지막으로, Monitor Theory 이후에 L2능력 개발에 대해 진행된 연구들은 L2습득이 낮은 감정여과기 상태에서 comprehensible input만을 통해서 이루어진다는 Krashen의 주장과는 달리, 이해되지 않은 input이나, input이 없는 상태에서도 L2습득은 일어나며, Krashen이 간과했던 언어 발화와 교수도 L2능력 개발에 중요한 역활을 하고 있음을 보여준다. 이러한 연구결과는 L2능력개발에서 comprehensible input 만을 강조한 Monitor Theory가 L2능력 개발을 충분히 설명하지 못한다는 것을 암시한다. 본 연구에서는 다양한 비판을 통해 이 이론이 L2능력 개발을 충분히 설명하지 못했다는 것을 확인할 수 있었다. 그러나, 이 Monitor Theory가 이론적으로는 L2능력개발에 대한 새로운 연구를 주도하였고, 교육적인 면에서는 기존에 성행했던 audio-lingual approach를 비판하고, 실제 의미있는 언어 사용을 강조하여 communicative competence획득을 목표로 했다는 점에서 그 가치가 인정된다. 그리고 몇몇 부분은 수정되었지만 Monitor Theory를 반영한 Natural Approach가 지금까지 사용되고 있다는 것은 Monitor Theory가 교육적인 면에서 효과가 있다는 것을 보여준다 하겠다.