The Natural Approach and Second Language Acquisition

In 1983, Tracy Terrell and Stephen Krashen proposed a new philosophy of language teaching and learning in their book The Natural Approach.

Terrell and Krashen second language theory became well known in the United States and around the world which has great impact on all areas of second language.

The Natural Approach principles descend from the communicative approach because it views communication as the primary function of language. Terrell and Krashen believe that second language learners should learn the way they acquired their native language which means not focusing on mastering language structures but on using the language and improving communicative skills.

This means that language acquisition takes place if language acquirers are exposed to sufficient meaningful messages in the target language.  The Natural Approach is based on five main hypotheses; the Acquisition-Learning hypothesis, the Monitor hypothesis, the Natural Order hypothesis, the Input hypothesis, and the Affective Filter hypothesis.

This essay argues that The Natural Approach is a successful language theory that proved its validity in the fields of language learning and teaching despite the criticism that it received in several areas. There are two main sections in this essay.

The first section outlines the theoretical background of The Natural Approach and its impact on the field of second language acquisition. The second section discusses the implications of this theory on language teaching and classroom.

The first hypothesis in the Natural Approach is the Acquisition-Learning distinction. Krashen (1982, p. 3,4) describes it as the most fundamental among all. He distinguishes two systems in second language development.

The first one is language acquisition which is the ability to “pick up” the language naturally the way children do. It occurs from the interaction with the people who speak the native language. The process of acquiring the language occurs subconsciously which means that acquires are not aware that they are acquiring a language.

We have “feel” for correctness. Grammatical sentences “sound” right, or “feel” right, and errors feel wrong, even if we do not consciously know what rule was violated  (Krashen, 1982, p. 10).

The second way is language learning. It refers to the conscious knowledge of language and the awareness of having grammatical rules with the ability to talk about them. It results from explicit knowledge of grammatical rules and formal teaching. Krashen(1982) in the Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis claims that adults are like children in their ability to “pick up” a language.

According to Krashen, acquisition is a powerful process and it is the lead actor in second language competence.

However, he doesn’t neglect the role of conscious learning but limits its role in the whole process. In fact Krashen states that there is no need for the conscious knowledge of structures unless used as a Monitor for the language acquisition. Thus the Monitor hypothesis was needed to explicate the distinction between acquisition and learning (Krashen, 1982).

While the acquisition is responsible for initiating language utterances, learning on the other hand functions as a Monitor or editor.  The Monitor makes necessary changes or corrects the output of the acquired system.

Krashen (1982, p.5) suggests three conditions for language performers in order to use the conscious knowledge as a Monitor. Second language learners need enough time to use the rules effectively. Beside time they need to think of the correct forms of utterances they are producing and under what rules they are produced.

The monitor takes place whenever the learner is consciously engaged in learning. For example, when learners are drilling a dialogue they focus on particular features of grammar such as learning how to be polite. Consider the following dialogue:

A: Would you pass the salt please?

B: Here you are.

Krashen (1982, p.6) explains that there are three types of language learners. The first type is Monitor Over –users who use their knowledge of language all the time and overcorrect their utterances which makes them hesitant and unable to speak fluently.

The second type is Monitor under-users who rely completely on the acquired system and do not use their conscious knowledge to monitor their utterances but they have a feel of correctness. The third type is the optimal monitor users. They use the monitor when it is appropriate especially in ordinary conversations. However, when they plan writings or speeches, they correct the output for more accuracy.

Krashen (1982) claims that second language learners go through similar stages that of first language acquirers which offer a basis for second language acquisition. This is explained by the Natural Order hypothesis. He provided significant statistics of the similarities among first and second language learners based on research findings such as Brown, Dulay and Burt (Krashen, 1983. P.3). These studies show certain morphemes acquired by children and adults at an early stage such as the progressive marker (ing) as in (She is eating an apple).

However, other morphemes such as the third person singular marker (s) as in (Mary’s book) are acquired later. He also provides evidence of the Natural order hypothesis which is the developmental errors which are errors made by the learners while acquiring the language such as placing the negative marker outside the sentence, as in; No Sara eat it. Another predictable error is made in forming wh- questions such as what he is watching? (Krashen, 1983, p.4)

Krashen (1985) restated the question of how we acquire the language by explaining that in order for the learners to move from one stage to another they need to understand structures that are a little beyond their current level. It is necessary for the learners to focus on the meaning of the message not on the form or structure in order to develop their linguistic competence.

Krashen explains that learners have the ability to understand because they use the context, knowledge of the world and other extra linguistic information to comprehend the messages directed to them. This explanation is related to the Input hypothesis.

Krashen argues that acquisition does not take place if learners are exposed with explicit grammar rules and structures. However, they acquire the structure naturally if they are provided with the appropriate tasks and activities. The input hypothesis is concerned with acquisition only not learning.

The fifth hypothesis in Krashen’s theory explains the affective variables that assist second language acquisition. These variables include; motivation, self confidence and anxiety. He explains that lowering or raising motivation, self image or anxiety can control the amount of comprehensible input received. (Krashen, 1982, p.7)

Analyzing the theoretical background of a second language theory is important but what is more important for teachers and scholars is how to apply such claims into the classroom.

The natural Hypothesis consists of areas that are of big interest for teachers such as the input hypothesis, form versus meaning, the silent period, motivation and anxiety and grammar teaching. The following lines looks analytically at these areas.

The input hypothesis implies that learners improve their competence not through explicit teaching of linguistic structures but simply through successful communication that helps them acquire unacquired grammar automatically. (Krashen, 1985). In fact the nature of classroom communication determines how and what second language learners learn. Musumeci (1996) uses the term negotiation to describe the nature of communication between teachers and learners.

Language teachers should provide communicative context through discussions of “familiar topics and visual aids” (Krashen, 1985, p.2). The communicative aspect of teaching provides students with meaningful input that make learners entirely absorbed in the communicative task.

This is shaped through face to face interactions such as debates, conversations, dialogues, songs and language games that get learners to smile, talk and acquire. For example, to introduce the “present simple”, teachers should not teach the form of this structure but expose learners to situations where this rule is used.

Therefore such grammar lessons should be about “”Giving and getting personal information”, “expressing opinions” or “asking for directions.” Focusing on meaning over form does not mean that form is not as important. Actually form contributes to meaning and is part of meaning.

It matters whether to say “The student helped the teacher” or “The teacher helped the student” and also matters whether to say “If I study hard I will pass” or “If I studied hard I would have passed.”

Different forms tell us essential information about who did what, how, and to whom. It is teachers’ role to make learners aware of how form is related to meaning.

Krashen introduced the silent period which is a phenomenon that can be noticed easily in first language acquisition. Most children are silent for a long period with limited memorized phrases before they feel ready to talk. (Krashen ,1982, 1985) argues that this is a normal condition which happens during first language acquisition and thus should be considered in L2 too.

This knowledge increased my awareness of the effect of the silent period on the production of my learners. Waiting for my students to be ready to talk after a particular lesson does not only increase their motivation but also increases the quality of their output.

The students used longer responses for personal details other than the sentences provided in their book (three or four sentences). Some shy students produced sentences such as “I like a doctor” to convey her ambition to be a doctor. Although this sentence is grammatically wrong, this could be evidence that the silent period might encourage creati

ve ideas beyond the structures provided. Many students in my class seem to use silence as a trial period.

The affective filter lies at the core of the teaching and learning success. No matter how clever or skilful the learners are, they will not be able to learn effectively if they are disinterested or unmotivated. In fact motivation is the seed to confidence and high self-esteem.

Ryan (2001, p. 3) explains that motivation is the “critical element to cognitive and social development.” Indeed, language learners will not be able to experience real communication or enjoy learning if they don’t have a positive view about their own learning. Moreover, learners need to sustain a considerable level of anxiety in order to push them forward.

However, when the level of anxiety increases, successful language learning is hindered. As Eyseneck (1979, p.64) explains, the more anxious the learners are, the more disrupted in their thinking and reasoning they get. For any teacher who has spent any time teaching English as a foreign language these factors are self-evident and intuitively cor

rect.

There is no doubt that grammar is a tool to construct sentences and create meaning. However, there have been debates on whether grammar should be taught or not. Teachers constantly aim to enhance the communicative competence of their students yet they still limit them by rules. Hence, teachers need to create a balance.

Personally, while I expose my students to more communicative tasks, I provide them with a rule as a guide to their learning. They might not use it immediately but they can use it in the future. In addition, instructed language is necessary to avoid fossilization in learners.

It is important to know that language is flexible tool. It might require great coherence, formal grammatical accuracy or linguistic complexity when giving formal speech or academic writing which is not the case when being in a party amongst friends.

Learners need to know this fact about language in order to communicate effectively. It is the teachers’ role to establish language activities with a degree of freedom and enjoyment guided by a number of controlled language exercises.

In conclusion, the five hypotheses; the Acquisition-Learning hypothesis, the Monitor hypothesis, the Natural Order hypothesis, the Input hypothesis, and the Affective Filter hypothesis have landed upon amazing facts about learning and teaching a second language.

This theory can give teachers criteria for professional decisions and give them a sense of control in the classroom and their professional development. An experienced teacher knows how to link theory with practice and has the ability to balance and control all the elements to fit in the classroom environment.

The natural approach provides teachers with skills and knowledge for both personal development and career advancement. Although Krashen’s approach has come under considerable academic criticism over the years such as the controversy of teaching grammar and the silent period it is, by far, the most influential and predominant theory in use today. Regardless of any particular linguist’s position, each theory has core concepts that foster significant research in second language teaching and learning.

References:

• Eysenck, H. J. (1979). The structure and measurement of intelligence. New York: Springer- Verlag
• Krashen, S. D,. (1982). Principles and Practice in Second language Acquisition. Great Britain. Pergmon Press.
• Krashen, S. Terrel, T. (1983). The natural approach: language acquisition in the classroom. US: Alemany Press.
• Krashen,D, Stephen. (1985). The input hypothesis. US. Longman Group Limited.
• Musumeci, D. (1996). Applied Linguistics. Teacher-Learner Negotiation in Content-Based Instruction, 17 (3), 286-325

By

Wafa Zone

Email: mariyastaff-at-hotmail.com