Seminar and assignment prepared by Nisa Teresa John

THE NATURAL APPROACH

INRODUCTION

The natural approach is an approach of language teaching developed by Stephen Krashen and Tracy Terell in the late 1970s and early 1980s. It aims to foster naturalistic language acquisition in a classroom setting and to this end it emphasizes communication and places decreased importance on conscious grammar study and explicit correction of students’ errors.

            The natural approach was created in 1947, by Terrel, a Spanish teacher in California, who wished to develop a style of teaching based on the findings of naturalistic studies of second-language acquisition. Later, Terrel collaborated with Krashen to develop further the theoretical aspects of the method.

            This approach was strikingly different from the mainstream approach in the United States in the 1970s and early 1980s, the audio-lingual method. While the audio-lingual method prized drilling and error correction, these things disappeared almost entirely from natural approach. Terrel and Krashen contrasted it with the grammar-based approaches, which they characterized as new inventions that had misled teachers.

NATURAL APPROACH

An “approach” differs from a “method” in that while the former focuses on ‘what to teach’, the latter stresses on ‘how to teach’. Thus at the onset, one should keep in his/her mind that ‘natural approach’ is entirely different from ‘natural method’ of teaching English language.

            The pioneers to apply the notion of innateness in second language pedagogy are Stephen Krashen and Tracy Terrel. According to Krashen, second-language acquisition is analogous to the way in which a child would acquire his/her first language. The concept implies that language can be learned effectively without formal study of structure and form. The Natural Approach is a product of Stephen Krashen and Tracy Terrell. They published their views in their book The Natural ApproachThthehhkhe Natural Approach. The book contains 
theoretical sections prepared by Krashen and sections on implementation and classroom procedures prepared mostly by Terrell.

            The most striking proposal of Natural Approach is that adults can still acquire second languages. They argue that the ability to ‘pick up’ languages does not disappear at puberty thus questioning the notion of a critical period of language acquisition. Krashen’s contribution to Chomsky’s LAD proposition is that adults follow the same principles of Universal Grammar.

The theory behind Natural Approach implies that adults can acquire all but phonological aspect of any foreign language, by using their ever-active LAD. What makes adults different from their children is their abstract problem solving skills that make them consciously process the grammar of a foreign language. Therefore, adults have two paths to follow: Acquisition and Learning. However children have only one: Acquisition.

            An “explosion of research on second language” in the seventies recognized the importance of the individual’s construction of language, thus raising questions about the role played in language learning by the learner’s motivations, perceptions and initiative. Research in language learning, particularly, that which contrasted first and second language learning, led to search for new methods. The work of the American applied linguist Krashen and his distinction between acquisition and learning provided a theoretical foundation from which to understand the important role of communication in second-language learning.

            In their book, Krashen and Terrell refer to their method of picking up ability in another language directly without intrusion in its grammar as the traditional approach. they consider their approach as a traditional one whereas many methodologists consider Grammar Translation Method as the traditional method. For Krashen, even Grammar Translation method is not as old as the method of acquiring a language in its natural environment, a method which has been used for hundreds or thousands of years.

The term “Natural” emphasizes that the principles behind the Natural Approach are believed to conform to the naturalistic principles found in successful second language acquisition. One may think that the natural approach and the natural method are similar. However, Natural Approach is different from Natural Method. Natural Method lays emphasis on teacher monologues, formal questions and answers and error correction. Krashen and Terrell note that the natural approach is in many ways “the natural, direct method rediscovered” and it is similar to other communicative approaches being developed today. The Natural Approach is regarded as a comprehension- based approach because of its emphasis on the initial delay (silent period) in the production of language. What is novel is that Natural Approach focuses on exposure to input instead of grammar practice and on emotional preparedness for acquisition to take place. This approach envisages 3 stages:

1)      Aural comprehension (listening)

2)      Early speech production

3)      Speech activities for natural language acquisition, just as her child would learn his/her mother tongue.

Thus, the initial silent period should be followed by aural comprehension and speech production. Natural Approach aims to develop communicative competence of the learners in a natural way. The teacher will be always using the target language (ie, language which we are trying to teach). No amount of corrections is provided by the teacher, but a lot of homework and assignments which are corrected.

THEORETICAL BASIS OF NATURAL APPROACH

Theory of language

Krashen regards communication as the main function of language. The focus is on teaching communicative abilities. The superiority of meaning is emphasized. Krashen and Terrell believe that a language is essentially its lexicon. They stress the importance of vocabulary and view language as a vehicle for communicating meanings and messages. According to Krashen, acquisition can take place only when people comprehend the messages in the Target language. Briefly, the view of language that the Natural Approach presents consists of ‘lexical items’, ‘structures’ and ‘messages’. The lexicon for both perception and production is considered critical in the organization and interpretation of messages. In Krashen’s view, acquisition is the natural assimilation of language rules by using language for communication. This means that linguistic competence is achieved via input containing structures at the “interlanguage +1” level (i+1), where I is the present level of competence of the learner; ie, via comprehensible input.  

“Acquisition requires meaningful interaction in the target language—natural communication—in which speakers are concerned not with the form of their utterances but with the messages they are conveying and understanding.”—Stephen Krashen.

There are 5 hypotheses to understand how language learning and acquisition are possible.

          1)      The Acquisition- Learning Hypothesis

Krashen, in his theory of second-language acquisition suggested that adults have two different ways of developing competence in second-languages: acquisition and learning.

Acquisition is a subconscious process identical in all important ways to the process children utilize in acquiring their first language. Learning is a conscious process that results in knowing about the rules of the language.

Krashen believes that the result of learning, learned competence functions as a monitor or editor. That is, while acquired competence is responsible for our fluent production of sentences, learned competence makes correction on these sentences either before or after their production. This kind of conscious grammar correction, ‘monitoring’ occurs primarily in a grammar examination where the learner has enough time to focus on form and to make use of his conscious knowledge of grammar rules as an aid to acquired competence. The way to develop learned competence is fairly easy- analyzing the grammar rules consciously and practicing them through exercises. But what Acquisition/Learning distinction hypothesis predicts is that learning the grammar rules of a foreign/ second language does not result in subconscious acquisition. Krashen formulates his well known statement: “learning does not become acquisition”.

         2)      The Monitor Hypothesis

Adult second language learners have two means for internalizing the target language—acquisition and conscious learning. The monitor is an aspect of the second process. It edits and makes alterations or corrections, as they are consciously perceived. Conscious learning checks the output of what has been acquired. Krashen believes that fluency in second language performance is due to what ‘we have acquired’, not ‘what we have learned’. Adults should do as much acquiring as possible for the purpose of achieving communicative fluency. Therefore, monitor should have only a minor role in the process of gaining communicative competence. Similarly, krashen suggests three conditions for its use:

a)      There must be enough time.

b)      The focus must be on form and not on meaning.

c)      The learner must know the rule.

         3)      The Natural Order Hypothesis

According to this hypothesis, the acquisition of grammatical structures proceeds in a predicted progression. Certain grammatical structures or morphemes are acquired before others in first language acquisition and there is a similar natural order in second language acquisition. The average order of acquisition of grammatical morphemes for English as an acquired language is given below:

            -ingàauxilliaryà irregularàregular pastà pluralàarticleàpastàthird singular

Inductive approach is used here.

         4)      Input Hypothesis

This hypothesis relates to acquisition, not to learning. Krashen claims that people acquire language best by understanding the input that is little beyond their present level of competence. Consequently, Krashen believes that comprehensible input (i+1) should be provided. The input should be relevant and not grammatically sequenced. The input should be in sufficient quantity as Richards pointed out: “child acquires of a first language are provided with samples of caretaker speech, rough- turned to their present level of understanding. Adult acquirers of second language should be provided with simple codes that facilitate second language comprehension”.

       5)      Affective Filter Hypothesis

The learner’s emotional state, according to Krashen, is just like an adjustable filter that freely passes or hinders input necessary to acquisition. In other words, input must be achieved in low-anxiety contexts since acquirers with low affective filter receive more input and interact with confidence. The filter is affective because there are some factors which regulate its strength. These factors are self-confidence, motivation and anxiety state.

CONCLUSION

The natural approach enjoyed much popularity with the language teachers, particularly with the Spanish teachers in the United States. Markee, a linguist, puts foreward 4 reasons for the success of this method:

·         The method was simple to understand, despite the complex nature of the research involved.

·         It was also compatible with the knowledge of second-language acquisition at that time.

·         Krashen stressed that teachers should be free to try the method and that it could go alongside their classroom practices.

·         Krashen demonstrated the method to many teachers’ group, so that they could see how it would work in practice.