0. INTRODUCTION
The aim of this paper is to provide general -- but detailed
-- information about one of the most recent and the most
promising approaches to language teaching, the Natural
Approach. Yet, I will not only introduce the very well-known
facts about the approach but also strive to clarify the
principles of the approach, which are often misinterpreted
by language teachers and methodologists. Another important
point is, of course, its applicability to foreign or second
language classes. Accordingly, the application of the
Natural Approach theory to language classes will be
explained in detail.
I. BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY
The Natural Approach (NA) is a product of Stephen Krashen,
an applied linguist at the University of Southern California
and Tracy Terrell, a teacher of Spanish in California.
Krashen's work on second language acquisition and Terrell's
teaching experiences form the bases of the Natural Approach.
The principles and practices of this new approach have been
published in "The Natural Approach" (Krashen and Terrell,
1983). The book contains theoretical sections prepared by
Krashen and sections on implementation and classroom
procedures prepared mostly by Terrell. The most striking
proposal of the NA theory is that adults can still acquire
second languages and that the ability to 'pick up' languages
does not disappear at puberty. Thus, Krashen's contribution
to Chomsky's LAD proposition is that adults follow the same
principles of Universal Grammar. The theory behind the NA
implies that adults can acquire all but the phonological
aspect of any foreign language, by using their ever-active
LAD. What makes adults different from 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.
In their book, Krashen and Terrell refer to their method of
picking up ability in another language directly without
instruction 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 and traditional as the
method of acquiring a language in its natural environment, a
method which has been used for hundreds of thousands of
years.
The term 'natural' emphasizes that the principles behind the
NA 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. The Natural Method (or the Direct Method) and the
Natural Approach differ in that the former lays more
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, like TPR, is regarded as a comprehension-based
approach because of its emphasis on initial delay(silent
period) in the production of language. What is novel is that
the NA focuses on exposure to input instead of grammar
practice, and on emotional preparedness for acquisition to
take place.
II. THEORETICAL BASIS OF THE NATURAL APPROACH
II.1. 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 messages in the TL. 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); that is, via 'comprehensible input'.
II.2. Theory of Language Learning
(1) The Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis
Krashen, in his theory of second language acquisition
(SLA)suggested that adults have two different ways of
developing competence in second languages: Acquisition and
learning. "There are two independent ways of developing
ability in second languages. 'Acquisition' is a subconscious
process identical in all important ways to the process
children utilize in acquiring their first language, ...
[and] 'learning' ..., [which is] a conscious process that
results in 'knowing about' [the rules of] language" (Krashen
1985:1).
Krashen believes that the result of learning, learned
competence (LC) functions as a monitor or editor. That is,
while AC is responsible for our fluent production of
sentences, LC makes correction on these sentences either
before or after their production. This kind of conscious
grammar correction, 'monitoring', occurs most typically in a
grammar exam where the learner has enough time to focus on
form and to make use of his conscious knowledge of grammar
rules (LC) as an aid to 'acquired competence'. The way to
develop learned competence is fairly easy: analyzing the
grammar rules consciously and practising 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. In other words, what you consciously learn does
not necessarily become subconsciously acquired through
conscious practice, grammar exercises and the like. Krashen
formulates this idea in his well-known statement that
"learning does not became acquisition". It is at this point
where Krashen receives major criticism.
(2) The Natural Order Hypothesis
According to the 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 SLA. The average order of acquisition of
grammatical morphemes for English as an 'acquired' language
is given below:
-Ing -------- Aux
--------- Irregular
------ Regular Past
Plural -----> Article
----> Past
----------> 3rd Singular
Copula
-------------------------------- Possessive
The implication of natural order is not that second or
foreign language teaching materials should be arranged in
accordance with this sequence but that acquisition is
subconscious and free from conscious intervention
(Ellidokuzoglu, 1992).
(3) The Input Hypothesis
This hypothesis relates to acquisition, not to learning.
Krashen claims that people acquire language best by
understanding input that is a little beyond their present
level of competence. Consequently, Krashen believes that
'comprehensible input' (that is, i + 1) should be provided.
The 'input' should be relevant and 'not grammatically
sequenced'. The 'input' should also be in sufficient
quantity as Richards pointed out:
".. child acquirers of a first language are provided with
samples of 'caretaker' speech, rough - tuned to their
present level of understanding, ..[and] adult acquirers of a
second language [should be] provided with simple codes that
facilitate second language comprehension."
(Richards, J. 1986:133)
(4) The Monitor Hypothesis
As is mentioned, adult second language learners have two
means for internalizing the target language. The first is
'acquisition' which is a subconscious and intuitive process
of constructing the system of a language. The second means
is a conscious learning process in which learners attend to
form, figure out rules and are generally aware of their own
process. The 'monitor' is an aspect of this second process.
It edits and make alterations or corrections as they are
consciously perceived. 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, the monitor should have
only a minor role in the process of gaining communicative
competence. Similarly, Krashen suggests three conditions for
its use: (1) there must be enough time; (2) the focus must
be on form and not on meaning; (3) the learner must know the
rule.
(5) The Affective Filter Hypothesis
The learner's emotional state, according to Krashen, is just
like an adjustable filter which freely passes or hinders
input necessary to acquisition. In other words, input must
be achieved in low-anxiety contexts since acquirers with a
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.
III. APPLICATION OF THE FIVE HYPOTHESES TO FOREIGN /
SECOND LANGUAGE CLASSES
1. Application of the Hypotheses: In this part, we
will try to sift through the practical value of the approach
for foreign or second language classes by taking its
theoretical bases into consideration.
i. The Acquisition-Learning
Distinction
The first and the most useful hypothesis, the
acquisition-learning hypothesis tells us that we should
balance class time between acquisition activities and
learning exercises. It is important to realize that students
or any human being cannot both learn and acquire at the same
time because one can focus on only one thing at a time,
either on form or on meaning. Therefore, there must be a
separation between acquisition and learning activities in FL
classes and the relative weight of acquisition classes
should be over that of learning classes.
The NA instructor does not expect students at the end of a
particular course to have acquired a 'specific grammar
point'. Instead s/he does expect them to display their
comprehension. It is necessary and inevitable, as has been
mentioned earlier, to employ two separated classes: Input
and grammar classes (i.e., acquisition and learning
classes). In input classes, students are given as much
comprehensible input as possible. In grammar classes,
however, grammar rules are presented deductively or
inductively depending on the age of the students (also on
whether they are field-independent or field-dependent). The
role of grammar classes is to produce 'optimal monitor
users' and to aid comprehension indirectly. Therefore, the
core of the NA is acquisition activities which have a
purpose other than conscious grammar exercises such as
audiolingual drills and cognitive learning exercises.
ii. The Monitor Hypothesis
What is implied by the Monitor Hypothesis for FL classes is,
therefore, to achieve optimal monitors. Students may monitor
during written tasks (e.g., homework assignments)and
preplanned speech, or to some extent during speech. Learned
knowledge enables students to read and listen more so they
acquire more. Especially in early stages, grammar
instruction speeds up acquisition. This is one of the
reasons why adults are faster than children in terms of the
rate of achievement. However, the NA teacher wishes his
students to use the monitor where appropriate.
iii. The Input Hypothesis
As for the application of the Input Hypothesis, the
instructor should provide input that is roughly-tuned. The
teacher should always send meaningful messages and 'must'
create opportunities for students to access i+1 structures
to understand and express meaning. For instance, the teacher
can lay more emphasis on listening and reading comprehension
activities. Extensive reading is often preferred because of
ample amount of input provided. Outside reading is also
helpful (e.g., graded readers, magazines and the like).
iv. The Natural Order Hypothesis
The Natural Approach teacher should be tolerant against
errors. He uses a semantic syllabus for acquisition
activities and grammatical syllabus for grammar lessons
(i.e., for learning sessions). As is known "the grammatical
syllabus assumes that we know the correct natural order of
presentation and acquisition, we don't: what we have is
information about a few structures in a few languages."
(Krashen, 1983: 72). Therefore, the teacher will not
organize the acquisition activities of the class about
grammatical syllabi and only 'meaning' errors are to be
corrected in a positive manner.
v. The Affective Filter Hypothesis
The application of this hypothesis would be that acquisition
should be achieved in a low-anxiety environment. The teacher
creates a comfortable atmosphere in the classroom by
lowering the affective filter. There is no demand for early
production speech and no radical concern for correctness in
early stages of acquisition. This, of course, reduces the
anxiety of students considerably. Our pedagogical goal in an
FL class should, then, not only include providing
comprehensible input but also creating an atmosphere that
fosters a low affective filter.
2. The Syllabus
The syllabus underlying the Natural Approach is topical and
situational. It is a semantic, or notional syllabus, simply
"a series of topics that students will find interesting and
the teacher can discuss in a comprehensible way" (Krashen,
1985:55). The focus of each classroom activity is organized
by topic, not grammatical structures. What is more
interesting is that Krashen and Terrell have not specified
or suggested the functions which are believed to derive
naturally from the topics and situations. Therefore, basic
communication goals (both written and oral) are achieved
mainly through topics and situations; and each topic and
situation includes various language functions that the
students will acquire.
As discussed earlier, a grammatical syllabus may be used in
learning classes where learners are given conscious
knowledge about the target language. Needless to say, the
relative weight of acquisition activities is to be over that
of learning activities. Similarly, practice of specific
grammatical structures is not focused on in the above
mentioned semantic syllabus.
3. Learning/Teaching Activities
Learners remain silent during the first stage. This does not
mean they are inactive. What they do in this stage is to
understand the teacher talk that focuses on objects in the
classroom or on the content of pictures. Students are only
expected to respond to teacher commands without having to
say anything. The purpose of the beginning stage is not to
make students perfect but to help them proceed to the next
stage.
When students feel ready to produce speech, the teacher asks
questions and elicit one word answers. This is the second
stage where the teacher asks yes/no questions, either- or
questions, and wh-questions that require single word
utterances. Students are not expected to use a word actively
until they have heard it many times. Pictures, charts,
advertisements are utilized to proceed to the third stage
where acquisition activities are emphasized (e.g., group
work and whole class discussion).
The NA instructor uses techniques that are borrowed from
other methods and adapted to meet the requirements of the NA
theory. Among these techniques are TPR activities of Asher,
Direct Method activities in which gesture and context are
used to elicit questions and answers, and group work
activities that are often used in Communicative Language
Teaching. But, what makes the NA different is that every
specific technique has a theoretical rationale. That is, the
Natural Approach theory is so strong that within its
framework classroom activities can be accounted for. This
feature of the NA makes it superior to other methods like
Communicative Language Teaching which lacks a sound theory
of language learning.
4. Teacher Roles
We may speak of three crucial roles for the NA teacher.
Firstly, the teacher is the primary source of input that is
understandable to the learner. It is the teacher that
attempts to maintain a constant flow of comprehensible
input. If s/he maintains students' attention on key lexical
items or uses context to help them, the students will
'naturally' be successful. Secondly, the teacher creates a
friendly classroom atmosphere where there is a low affective
affective filter. Thirdly, the teacher chooses the most
effective materials and employs a rich mix of classroom
activities.
5. Learner Roles
The language acquirer is regarded as a processor of
comprehensible input. S/he is challenged by input that is a
little beyond her/his present level of competence. S/he is
expected to be able to assign meaning to this input through
dynamic use of context and extralinguistic information.
Acquirers' roles, in fact, vary according to their stage of
linguistic development. Some of their roles are to make
their own decisions on when to speak, what to speak about,
and what linguistic expressions to use while speaking.
IV. CONCLUSION
We are on the eve of a new paradigm shift in foreign
language teaching methodology. The Communicative Approach or
'PPP' is no longer a dogmatically accepted best method. Its
impact is about to fade away. Methodologists are in search
of a successor of the CA. The Natural Approach with its
strong learning theory and easily applicable techniques is
the strongest nominee for the most common method of the 21st
century.
Using our reasoning faculty, we can speed up the process of
reaching the conclusion that the NA or comprehension-based
methods are more efficient than grammar-based ones.
Otherwise, we have to follow the footsteps of old-fashioned
ELT literature which is preconditioned against the NA. Such
a literature will most probably seek the successor of the
Communicative Approach among production-based methods. If we
are to follow this literature, then we are to accept losing
another decade before arriving at comprehension-based
methods.
