Theory of language
Krashen
and Terrell see communication as the primary function of language, and
since their approach focuses on teaching communicative abilities, they
refer to the Natural
Approach as an example of a communicative approach. The Natural Approach
"is similar to other com
municative
approaches being developed today" (Krashen and Terrell 1983: 17). They
reject earlier methods of language teaching, such as the Audiolingual
Method, which viewed grammar as the central component
of language. According to Krashen and Terrell, the major problem with
these methods was that they were built not around "actual theories of
language acquisition, but theories of something else; for example, the
structure of language" (1983: 1). Unlike proponents of
Communicative Language Teaching, however, Krashen and Terrell give
little attention to a theory of language. Indeed, a recent critic of
Krashen suggests he has no theory of language at all (Gregg 1984). What
Krashen and Terrell do describe about the nature of language emphasizes
the primacy of meaning. The importance of the vocabulary is stressed,
for example, suggesting the view that a language is essentially its
lexicon and only inconsequently the grammar that determines how the
lexicon is exploited to produce messages. Terrell quotes Dwight Bolinger
to support this view:
The quantity
of information in the lexicon far outweighs that in any other part of
the language, and if there is anything to the notion of redundancy it
should be easier to reconstruct a message containing just words than one
containing just the syntactic relations. The significant fact is the
subordinate role of grammar. The most important thing is to get the
words in. (Bolinger, in Terrell 1977: 333).
Language
is viewed as a vehicle for communicating meanings and messages. Hence
Krashen and Terrell state that "acquisition can take place only when
people understand
messages in the target language (Krashen and Terrell 1983: 19). Yet
despite their avowed communicative approach to language, they view
language learning, as do audiolingualists, as mastery of structures by
stages. "The input hypothesis states that in order for acquirers to
progress to the next stage in the acquisition of the target language,
they need to understand input language that includes a structure that is
part of the next stage" (Krashen and Terrell 1983: 32). Krashen refers
to this with the formula "I + 1" (i.e., input that
contains structures slightly above the learner's present level). We
assume that Krashen means by structures something at least in the tradition of what such linguists as Leonard Bloomfield and Charles Fries meant by structures. The
Natural Approach thus assumes a
linguistic hierarchy of structural complexity that one masters through
encounters with "input" containing structures at the "1 + 1" level.
We
are left then with a view of language that consists of lexical items,
structures, and messages. Obviously, there is no particular novelty in
this view as such, except that messages are considered of primary
importance in the Natural Approach. The lexicon for both perception and
production is considered critical in the construction and
interpretation of
messages. Lexical items in messages arc necessarily grammatically
structured, and more complex messages involve more complex grammatical
structure. Although they acknowledge such grammatical structuring,
Krashen
and Terrell feel that grammatical structure does not require explicit
analysis or attention by the language teacher, by the language learner,
or in language teaching materials.
Krashen and Terrell make
continuing reference to the theoretical and research base claimed to
underlie the Natural Approach and to the fact that the method is unique
in having such a base. "It is based on an empirically grounded
theory of second language acquisition, which has been supported by a
large number of scientific studies in a wide variety of language
acquisition and learning contexts" (Krashen and Terrell 1983: 1). The
theory and research are grounded on Krashen's views of language
acquisition, which we will collectively refer to as Krashen's language
acquisition theory. Krashen's views have been presented and discussed
extensively elsewhere (e.g., Krashen 1982), so we will not try to
present or critique Krashen's arguments here.
The
Acquisition/Learning Hypothesis claims that there are two distinctive
ways of developing competence in a second or foreign language. Acquisition is
the
"natural" way, paralleling first language development in children.
Acquisition refers to an unconscious process that involves the
naturalistic development of language proficiency through understanding
language and through using language for meaningful communication.
Learning, by contrast, refers to a process in which conscious
rules about a language are developed. It results in explicit knowledge
about the forms of a language and the ability to verbalize this
knowledge. Formal teaching is necessary for "learning" to occur,
and correction of errors helps with the development of learned rules.
Learning, according to the theory, cannot lead to acquisition.
The
acquired linguistic system is said to initiate utterances when we
communicate in a second or foreign language. Conscious learning can
function only as a monitor or editor that checks and repairs the output of the acquired system. I he Monitor Hypothesis
claims that we may call upon learned knowledge to correct ourselves when
we communicate, hut that conscious learning (i.e., the learned system) has only this function. Three conditions limit the successful use
of the monitor:
1. Time. There must be sufficient time for a learner to choose and apply a learned rule.
2. Focus on form. The language user must be focused on correctness or on the form of the
output.
3. Knowledge of rules. The performer must know the rules. The monitor does best with rules that are simple in two ways. They must be simple to describe
and they must not require complex movements and rearrangements.
THE NATURAL ORDER HYPOTHESIS
According
to the Natural Order Hypothesis, the acquisition of grammatical
structures proceeds in a predictable order. Research is said to have
shown that certain grammatical structures or morphemes are acquired
before others in first language acquisition of English, and a similar
natural order is found in second language acquisition. Errors are signs
of naturalistic developmental processes, and during acquisition (but not
during learning), similar developmental errors occur in learners
no matter what their mother tongue is.
The
Input Hypothesis claims to explain the relationship between what the
learner is exposed to of a language (the input) and language
acquisition. It involves four main issues.
First, the hypothesis relates to acquisition, and not to learning.
Second, people acquire language best by understanding input that is slightly beyond their current level of competence:
An
acquirer can "move" from a stage I (where I is the acquirer's level of
competence) to a stage I +1 (where I + 1 is the stage immediately
following I along some
natural order) by understanding language containing I + 1. (Krashen and
Terrell 1983: 32)
Clues
based on the situation and the context, extra linguistic information,
and knowledge of the world make comprehension possible.
Third,
the ability to speak fluently cannot be taught directly; rather, it
"emerges" independently in time, after the acquirer has built up
linguistic competence by understanding input.
Fourth,
if there is a sufficient quantity of comprehensible input, I + 1 will
usually be provided automatically. Comprehensible input refers to
utterances that the learner understands based on the context in
which they are used as well as the language in which they
are phrased. When a speaker uses language so that the acquirer
understands the message, the speaker "casts a net" of structure around
the acquirer's current level of competence, and this will include many
instances of I + 1. Thus, input need not be finely tuned to a learner's
current level of linguistic competence, and in fact cannot be so finely
tuned in a language class, where learners will be at many different
levels of competence.
Just
as child acquirers of a first language are provided with samples of
"caretaker speech," rough-tuned to their present level of
understanding, so adult acquirers of a second language are provided
with simple codes that facilitate second language comprehension. One
such code is "foreigner talk," which refers to the speech native
speakers use to simplify communication with foreigners. Foreigner talk
is characterized by a slower rate of speech, repetition,
restating, use of Yes/No instead of Who- questions, and other changes
that make messages more comprehensible to persons of limited language
proficiency.
Krashen
sees the learner's emotional state or attitudes as an adjustable filter
that freely passes, impedes, or blocks input necessary to acquisition. A
low affective filter is desirable, since it impedes or
blocks less of this necessary input. The hypothesis is built on research
in second language acquisition, which has identified three kinds of
affective or attitudinal variables related to second language
acquisition.
1. Motivation. Learners with high motivation generally do better.
2. Self-confidence. Learners with self-confidence and a good self-image tend to be more successful.
3. Anxiety. Low personal anxiety and low classroom anxiety are more conducive to second language acquisition.
The
Affective Filter Hypothesis states that acquirers with a low affective
filter seek and receive more input, interact with confidence, and are
more receptive to the input they receive. Anxious acquirers have
a high affective filter, which prevents acquisition from taking place.
It is believed that the affective filter (e.g., fear or embarrassment)
rises in early adolescence, and this may account for children's
apparent superiority to older acquirers of a second language.
These five hypotheses have obvious implications for language teaching. In sum, these are:
1. As much comprehensible input as possible must be presented.
2.
Whatever helps comprehension is important. Visual aids are useful, as
is exposure to a wide range of vocabulary rather than study of syntactic
structure.
3. The focus in the classroom should be on listening and reading; speaking should be allowed to "emerge."
4.
In order to lower the affective filter, student work should center on
meaningful communication rather than on form; input should be
interesting and so contribute to a relaxed classroom atmosphere.
Design
Objectives
The Natural Approach "is for beginners and is designed to help them become intermediates." It has the expectation that students
will
be able to function adequately in the target situation. They will
understand the speaker of the target language (perhaps with requests for
clarification), and will be able to convey (in a non-insulting
manner) their requests and ideas. They need not know every word in a
particular semantic domain, nor is it necessary that the syntax and
vocabulary be flawless—but their production does need to be understood.
They should be able to make the meaning clear but not necessarily
be accurate in all details of grammar. (Krashen and Terrell 1983: 71)
However,
since the Natural Approach is offered as a general set of principles
applicable to a wide variety of situations, as in Communicative Language
Teaching, specific objectives depend upon learner needs and
the skill (reading, writing, listening, or speaking) and level being
taught. Krashen and Terrell feel it is important to communicate to
learners what they can expect of a course as well as what they should
not expect. They offer as an example a possible goal and no goal
statement
for a beginning Natural Approach Spanish class.
After
100-150 hours of Natural Approach Spanish, you will be able to: "get
around" in Spanish; you will be able to communicate with a monolingual
native speaker of Spanish without
difficulty; read most ordinary texts in Spanish with some use of a
dictionary; know enough Spanish to continue to improve on your own.
After 100—150 hours of Natural Approach Spanish you
will not be able to: pass for a native speaker, use Spanish as easily as
you use English, understand native speakers when they talk to each
other (you will probably not be able to eavesdrop successfully); use
Spanish
on the telephone with great comfort; participate easily in a
conversation with several other native speakers on unfamiliar topics.
(Krashen and Terrell 1983: 74).
The syllabus
Krashen
and Terrell (1983) approach course organization from two points of
view. First, they list some typical goals for language courses and suggest which of these goals are the ones at which the Natural Approach aims. They list such goals under four areas:
1. Basic personal communication skills: oral (e.g., listening to announcements in public places)
2. Basic personal communication skills: written (e.g., reading and writing personal letters)
3. Academic learning skills: oral (e.g., listening to a lecture)
4. Academic learning skills: written (e.g., taking notes in class)
Of these, they note that
the Natural Approach is primarily "designed to develop basic
communication skills - both oral and written (1983: 67). They then
observe that communication goals "may be expressed in terms of
situations, functions and topics" and proceed to order four pages of
topics and situations "which are likely to be most useful to beginning
students" (1983: 67). The functions are not specified or suggested but
are felt to derive naturally from the topics and
situations. This approach to syllabus design would appear to derive to
some extent from threshold level specifications.
The
second point of view holds that "the purpose of a language course will
vary according to the needs of the students and their particular
interests" (Krashen and Terrell 1983: 65).
The
goals of a Natural Approach class are based on an assessment of student
needs. We determine the situations in which they will use the target
language and the sorts of topics they will have to communicate
information about. In setting communication goals, we do not expect the
students at the end of a particular course to have acquired a certain
group of structures or forms. Instead we expect them to deal with a
particular set of topics in a given situation. We do not organize
the activities of the class about a grammatical syllabus. (Krashen and
Terrell 1983:71)
From
this point of view it is difficult to specify communicative goals that
necessarily fit the needs of all students. Thus any list of topics and
situations must be
understood as syllabus suggestions rather than as specifications.
As
well as fitting the needs and interests of students, content selection
should aim to create a low affective filter by being interesting and
fostering a friendly, relaxed atmosphere, should provide a wide
exposure to vocabulary that may be useful to basic personal
communication, and should resist any focus on grammatical structures,
since if input is provided "over a wider variety of topics while
pursuing communicative goals, the necessary grammatical structures are
automatically provided in the input" (Krashen and Terrell 1983: 71).
From
the beginning of a class taught according to the Natural Approach,
emphasis is on presenting comprehensible input in the target language.
Teacher talk focuses on objects in the classroom and on the content
of pictures, as with the Direct Method. To minimize stress, learners are
not required to say anything until they feel ready, but they are
expected to respond to teacher commands and questions in other ways.
When
learners are ready to begin talking in the new language, the teacher
provides comprehensible language and simple response opportunities. The
teacher talks slowly and distinctly, asking questions and
eliciting one-word answers. There is a gradual progression from Yes/ No
questions, through either-or questions, to questions that students can
answer using words they have heard used by the teacher. Students are not
expected to use a word actively until they have heard it many
times. Charts, pictures, advertisements, and other realia serve as the
focal point for questions, and when the students' competence permits,
talk moves to class members. "Acquisition activities" - those that focus
on meaningful communication rather than language form -
are emphasized. Pair or group work may be employed, followed by
whole-class discussion led by the teacher.
Techniques
recommended by Krashen and Terrell are often borrowed from other
methods and adapted to meet the requirements of Natural Approach theory.
These include command-based activities from Total Physical
Response; Direct Method activities in which mime, gesture, and context
are used to elicit questions and answers; and even situation-based
practice of structures and patterns. Group-work activities are often
identical to those used in Communicative Language Teaching, where
sharing
information in order to complete a task is emphasized. There is nothing
novel about the procedures and techniques advocated for use with the
Natural Approach. A casual observer might not be aware of the philosophy
underlying the classroom techniques he or she observes. What
characterizes the Natural Approach is the use of familiar techniques
within the framework of a method that focuses on providing
comprehensible input and a classroom environment that cues
comprehension of input, minimizes learner anxiety, and maximizes
learner self-confidence.
Learner roles
There
is a basic assumption in the Natural Approach that learners should not
try to learn a language in the usual sense. The extent to which they can
lose themselves in
activities involving meaningful communication will determine the amount
and kind of acquisition they will experience
and
the fluency they will ultimately demonstrate. The language acquirer is
seen as a processor of comprehensible input. The acquirer is challenged
by input that is slightly beyond his or her current level of
competence and is able to assign meaning to this input through active
use of context and extralinguistic information.
Learners'
roles are seen to change according to their stage of linguistic
development. Central to these changing roles are learner decisions on
when to speak, what to speak about, and what linguistic
expressions to use in speaking.
In the pre-production stage students
"participate in the language activity without having to respond in the
target language" (Krashen and Terrell 1983: 76). For example, students
can act out
physical commands, identify student colleagues from teacher description,
point to pictures, and so forth.
In the early-production stage, students
respond to either-or questions, use single words and short phrases,
fill in charts, and use fixed conversational patterns (e.g., How are
you? What's your name?).
In the speech-emergent phase, students
involve themselves in role play and games, contribute personal
information and opinions, and participate in group problem solving.
Learners have four kinds of responsibilities in the Natural Approach classroom:
1. Provide
information about their specific goals so that acquisition activities
can focus on the topics and situations most relevant to their needs.
2.
Take an active role in ensuring comprehensible input. They should learn
and use conversational management techniques to regulate input.
3. Decide when to start producing speech and when to upgrade it.
4.
Where learning exercises (i.e., grammar study) are to be a part of the
program, decide with the teacher the relative amount of time to be
devoted to them and perhaps even complete and correct them
independently.
Learners
are expected to participate in communication activities with other
learners. Although communication activities are seen to provide
naturalistic practice and to create a sense of camaraderie, which
lowers the affective filter, they may fail to provide learners with
well-formed and comprehensible input at the I + 1 level. Krashen and
Terrell warn of these shortcomings but do not suggest means for their
amelioration.
The
Natural Approach teacher has three central roles. First, the teacher is
the primary source of comprehensible input in the target language.
"Class time is devoted primarily to providing input for
acquisition," arid the teacher is the primary generator of that input.
In this role the teacher is required to generate a constant flow of
language input while providing a multiplicity of nonlinguistic clues to
assist students in interpreting the input. The Natural
Approach demands a much more center-stage role for the teacher than do
many contemporary communicative methods.
Second,
the Natural Approach teacher creates a classroom atmosphere that is
interesting, friendly, and in which there is a low affective filter for
learning. This is achieved in part through such Natural
Approach techniques as not demanding speech from the students before
they are ready for it, not correcting student errors, and providing
subject matter of high interest to students.
Finally,
the teacher must choose and orchestrate a rich mix of classroom
activities, involving a variety of group sizes, content, and contexts.
The teacher is seen as responsible for collecting materials and
designing their use. These materials, according to Krashen and Terrell,
are based not just on teacher perceptions but on elicited student needs
and interests.
As
with other non-orthodox teaching systems, the Natural Approach teacher
has a particular responsibility to communicate clearly and compellingly
to students the assumptions, organization, and expectations of
the method, since in many cases these will violate student views of what
language learning and teaching are supposed to be.
The
primary goal of materials in the Natural Approach is to make classroom
activities as meaningful as possible by supplying "the extra-linguistic
context that helps the acquirer to understand and thereby
to acquire" (Krashen and Terrell 1983: 55), by relating classroom
activities to the real world, and by fostering real communication among
the learners. Materials come from the world of realia rather than from
textbooks. The primary aim of materials is to promote
comprehension and communication. Pictures and other visual aids are
essential, because they supply the content for communication. They
facilitate the acquisition of a large vocabulary within the classroom.
Other recommended materials include schedules, brochures,
advertisements, maps, and books at levels appropriate to the students,
if a reading component is included in the course. Games, in general, are
seen as useful classroom materials, since "games by their very nature,
focus the student on what it is they are doing and use the
language as a tool for reaching the goal rather than as a goal in
itself" (Terrell 1982: 121). The selection, reproduction, and collection
of materials places a considerable burden on the Natural Approach
teacher. Since Krashen and Terrell suggest a syllabus of topics and
situations, it is likely that at some point collections of materials to
supplement teacher presentations will be published, built around the "syllabus" of topics and situations recommended by the Natural Approach.
We
have seen that the Natural Approach adopts techniques and activities
freely from various method sources and can be regarded as innovative
only with respect to the purposes for which they are recommended and
the ways they are used. Krashen and Terrell (1983) provide suggestions
for the use of a wide range of activities, all of which are familiar
components of Situational Language Teaching, Communicative Language
Teaching, and other methods discussed in this book. To illustrate
procedural
aspects of the Natural Approach, we will cite examples of how such
activities are to be used in the Natural Approach classroom to provide
comprehensible input, without requiring production of responses or
minimal responses in the target language.
1.
Start with TPR [Total Physical Response] commands. At first the
commands are quite simple: "Stand up. Turn around. Raise your right
hand."
2.
Use TPR to teach names of body parts and to introduce numbers and
sequence. "Lay your right hand on your head, put both hands on your
shoulder, first touch your nose, then stand up and turn to the
right three times" and so forth.
3.
Introduce classroom terms and props into commands. "Pick up a pencil
and put it under the book, touch a wall, go to the door and knock three
times." Any item which can be brought to the class can be
incorporated. "Pick up the record and place it in the tray. Take the
green blanket to Larry. Pick up the soap and take it to the woman
wearing the green blouse."
4.
Use names of physical characteristics and clothing to identify members
of the class by name. The instructor uses context and the items
themselves to make the meanings of the key words clear: hair, long,
short, etc. Then a student is described. "What is your name?" (selecting
a student). "Class. Look at Barbara. She has long brown hair. Her hair
is long and brown. Her hair is not short. It is long." (Using mime,
pointing and context to ensure comprehension).
"What's the name of the student with long brown hair?" (Barbara).
Questions such as "What is the name of the woman with the short blond
hair?" or "What is the name of the student sitting next to the man with
short brown hair and glasses?" are very
simple to understand by attending to key words, gestures and context.
And they require the students only to remember and produce the name of a
fellow student. The same can be done with articles of clothing and
colors. "Who is wearing a yellow shirt? Who is wearing a brown
dress?"
5. Use
visuals, typically magazine pictures, to introduce new vocabulary and
to continue with activities requiring only student names as response,
The instructor
introduces the pictures to the entire class one at a time focusing
usually
on one single item or activity in the picture. He may introduce one to
five new words while talking about the picture. He then passes the
picture to a particular
student in the class. The students' task is to remember the name of the
student with a particular picture. For example, "Tom has the picture of
the sailboat. Joan has the picture of the family watching television"
and so forth. The instructor will ask questions like
"Who has the picture with the sailboat? Does Susan or Tom have the
picture of the people on the beach?" Again the students need only
produce a name in response.
6. Combine
use of pictures with TPR. "Jim, find the picture of the little girl
with her dog and give it to the woman with the pink blouse."
7. Combine
observations about the pictures with commands and conditionals. "If
there is a woman in your picture, stand up. If there is something blue
in your
picture, touch your right shoulder."
8. Using
several pictures, ask students to point to the picture being
described. Picture 1. "There are several people in this picture. One
appears to be a
father, the other a daughter. What are they doing? Cooking. They are
cooking a hamburger." Picture 2. "There are two men in this picture.
They are young. They are boxing." Picture 3 ...
(Krashen and Terrell 1983: 75-7)
In
all these activities, the instructor maintains a constant flow of
"comprehensible input," using key vocabulary items, appropriate
gestures, context,
repetition, and paraphrase to ensure the comprehensibility of the input.
The
Natural Approach belongs to a tradition of language teaching methods
based on observation and interpretation of how learners acquire both
first and second languages
in non-formal settings. Such methods reject the formal (grammatical)
organization of language as a prerequisite to teaching. They hold with
Newmark and Reibel that "an adult can effectively be taught by
grammatically unordered materials" and that such an approach is,
indeed, "the only learning process which we know for certain will
produce mastery of the language at a native level" (1968: 153). In the
Natural Approach, a focus on comprehension and meaningful communication
as well as the provision of the right kinds of
comprehensible input provide the necessary and sufficient conditions for
successful classroom second and foreign language acquisition. This has
led to a new rationale for the integration and adaptation of techniques
drawn from a wide variety of existing sources. Like Communicative
Language Teaching, the Natural Approach is hence evolutionary rather
than revolutionary in its procedures. Its greatest claim to originality
lies not in the techniques it employs but in their use in a method that
emphasizes and meaningful practice activities, rather than
production of grammatically perfect utterances and sentences.
Tidak ada komentar :
Posting Komentar