The 1960s 1980s and their Effect on Additional Language Teaching

The 1960s brought about many changes to language learning studies, namely through the groundbreaking theories of Chomsky and Lenneberg, who sought to understand the process of learning a language, be it an L1 or AL. First of all, Chomsky introduced the theory of Universal Grammar, referring to the inborn ability of children to acquire language and understand grammar. According to this theory, each individual is born with the ability to learn a language, due to the fact that we are born with a hypothetical tool he called the Language Acquisition Device. Chomsky argued that the Language Acquisition Device was hard-wired to the brain and held the fundamental rules for language, thus helping us learn language. Universal Grammar means that humans have an innate predisposition to learn and use them.

Furthermore, we find Lenneberg’s 1967 Critical Period Hypothesis, which claimed that language is instinctive to humans, but with the condition that it must be acquired or learnt before the age of puberty. From puberty, our capacity to learn languages decreases. Evidence for this hypothesis lies in the case of feral children who, having not come into contact with language during this “critical period”, have not been able to fully acquire language to the extent of children not brought up in linguistic isolation. That said, this “evidence was based on the relearning of impaired L1 skills, rather than the learning of a second language under normal circumstances (Abello-Contesse, 2008, p. 170). Current research, however, make reference to multiple critical periods or sensitive periods. The “critical period” coined by Lenneberg is between the ages of 2 and 13 and implies a somewhat abrupt end, beyond which language would never fully be acquired.

However, other authors including Bee Chin & Wigglesworth, (2007) claim that the cut-off point is by no means so strict and, while some continue to argue that pre-pubescent children are capable of applying strategies that allow them to be more effective language learners than their adult counterparts, other factors, aside from neurological ones, also play a part in a language learners ability to learn. According to Bee Chin & Wigglesworth (2007, p. 12-13) such factors include “aptitude, attitude, identity and motivation”. Here, attitude and motivation are key, especially if we consider whether the language learner is learning the language in a formal or natural context. For example, the motivation of an adult learner learning a language in order to secure a good job may result in him or her advancing much faster than a primary school pupil

19

learning English at school. Furthermore, older learners tend to have specific characteristics that can facilitate language learning for example, a greater learning and analytical capacity, pragmatic skills and deeper knowledge of the real world as well as the functioning of their own L1(s) (Celaya, 2012 p. 6, see also Celaya & Navés, 2009; Muñoz, 2006). The superior cognitive maturity of older learners can give them an advantage on younger learners when we consider aspects such as syntax or skills and strategies related to literacy (Cummins & Swain, 1986). On the contrary, some features of language learning are more difficult for adults to acquire, such as oral fluency of pronunciation due to the fact that “these appear to be among the least cognitively demanding aspects of L1 and L2 proficiency” (Muñoz, 2006, p. 8). What is more, the “saturation” effect as well as reduced hours dedicated to learning in an adult’s life is considerably less compared to that of a child.

Towards the end of the 1960s and the 1970s, the Humanistic Approach and its subsequent methods emerged seeking alternatives to grammar-based approaches. Among these were the Silent Way, introduced by Gattegno, Suggestopedia, developed by Lozanov, Neurolinguistic Programming developed by Bandler and Grinder, or Curran’s Community Language Learning. Once again, L1 use and translation were not encouraged. Supporters of The Total Physical Response Method, developed by Asher, for example, emphasized the importance of conveying meaning, and claimed it ought to be done so through the use of gestures, actions and imperatives which required a physical response from learners rather than translation.

The 1970s saw the revolutionary series of hypotheses set out by Krashen on second language acquisition. These five hypotheses had implications for language learning which resonate nowadays. Comprehensible input must be presented as often as possible, and whatever can aid comprehension should be used. Reading and listening are the main points of focus in the classroom, speaking, on the other hand, is allowed to develop with time and not forced. A relaxed classroom climate is essential in ensuring that the affective filter is kept low, allowing students to focus on meaningful communication as opposed to focussing on form.

The five hypotheses of Krashen are the following (Richard & Rogers, 2014):

1. The Acquisition-Learning hypothesis: In the Acquisition-Learning hypothesis, Krashen distinguishes between acquisition and learning in that acquisition is when language is subconsciously picked up, whereas learning is a conscious process that involves aspects such as error correction or explicit instruction. Acquisition refers to

20

the naturalistic way in which a child acquires their first language, while learning refers to a non-naturalistic process.

2. The Monitor hypothesis: The Monitor hypothesis refers to when the acquired language system initiates an utterance and the learning systems acts as a monitor, by calling on previously learnt knowledge, to check the utterance for errors and correct them. This can only take place, however, if the learner is provided with enough time to select and apply a learnt rule, if the learner is focussing on form rather than fluency and, lastly, if the learner has knowledge of the rule.

3. The Natural Order hypothesis: In this hypothesis, Krashen claims that learners acquire aspects of language in what can be considered a predictable order and that this is case for both first and second language acquisition. According to the Natural Order hypothesis, similar errors occur in learners even if they do not share the same L1, because errors represent naturalistic development processes.

4. The Input hypothesis: This hypothesis makes reference to the connection between the input a learner receives, that is to say, the language they are exposed to and the learner’s acquisition of that language. It refers to acquisition of language rather than the learning of language and insists that language is acquired best if the input is comprehensible, that is to say, just beyond their current level, i+1. The Input hypothesis emphasizes that learners are not taught to speak fluently, but rather this fluency appears over time as the learner develops linguistic competence due to understanding input.

5. The Affective Filter hypothesis: Krashen claims that the attitude or state of mind of the learner can be viewed as an adjustable filter that can allow for input to pass and allow for acquisition, or alternatively, block such input. He refers to low affective filters and high affective filters, the former being desirable as it deters less input necessary for acquisition. Research into second language acquisition has identified three types of attitudinal variables: motivation, self-confidence and anxiety. In general, learners with higher motivation, self-confidence and self-image tend to achieve better results. On the other, high levels of personal and classroom anxiety are hindering to second language acquisition.

From these hypotheses, the Natural Method was born (Krashen & Terrell, 1983), drawing also on the Direct Method. The principles of the Natural Method, as its name would suggest, are considered to comply with the principals of naturalistic language learning, drawing on how young children acquire their L1(s). In line with Krashen’s hypotheses (presented above), the Natural Method placed great emphasis on the need for high input or exposure to the language

21

being learnt, and comprehension was the main priority. Language was understood as a means of communication and, thus, it was considered that grammatical structures should not be dealt with explicitly neither by the teacher nor the student.

The 1970s also witnessed the development of more communicative approaches for example communicative language teaching which set off from the development of second language acquisition as well as communicative competence (Hymes, 1972) and put emphasis on interaction as both a means to an end as well as the end goal in itself in language learning. Both the Natural Method and communicative language teaching, prioritized meaning over form and fluency over accuracy. Language was, above all, about communication and, for that reason, focus on form was only to contribute in order to communicate, not as a point of interest on its own grounds (Cook, 2010). The effects these developments had on the use of L1 and translation were considerable. Evidently, the student’s L1 had no place in the AL class, given that the target language remained the language of instruction. Furthermore, due to the fact that, until then, the use of translation had been considered a decontexualised classroom activity solely focused on form, meant that this practice was actively dismissed.