CHAPTER 2. Communicative Language Teaching 25 and language learning naturally results from this input as it triggers learners to constantly formulate hypotheses and have prospective expectations about the patterns of the language (cf. Dulay & Burt, 1975, who later inspired Stephen Krashen to formulate his monitor theory); Second, the interactional theory, which claims that language acquisition results from the natural interaction between children and their environment, more speci cally, parents or caregivers (cf. Rudd & Lambert, 2011) and, nally, Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory of learning, which postulates that language learning primarily occurs during social interactions between individuals followed by individual internalization of social behaviors (cf. Lantolf, 1994). As a result of the introduction of this skill-model of learning, CLT teaching practices came to be founded on key notions such as input-focused attention (creative construction theory), meaningful interaction (interactional theory), negotiation of meaning, feedback and sca olding (sociocultural theory). KRASHEN’S HYPOTHESES Another important shi of focus occurred when Stephen Krashen introduced di erent hypotheses relating to second language acquisition. As part of the monitor hypothesis, Krashen (1978) explains the relationship between acquisition and learning: the acquisition system is responsible for spontaneous L2 production, while the learning system acts as a safeguard by monitoring and editing L2 production. According to Krashen, the role of the monitor is minor and varies per learner as a function of, for instance, the degree of self-con dence. In his acquisition-learning hypothesis, Krashen (1981) distinguishes between language acquisition resulting from a subconscious process in an inductive and learnercentered approach and language learning that emerges from a conscious process of learning through formal instruction in a deductive and teacher-centered approach. According to Krashen, language learning o en involves translation and the use of the L1 and only results in language knowledge, while language acquisition focuses on communication and results in mastery of the language in conversation. In the a ective lter hypothesis, Krashen (1982) distinguishes a number of a ective variables which facilitate second language acquisition: motivation, self-con dence, anxiety and personality. In Krashen’s view, successful learners are extroverted and selfcon dent, have a low level of anxiety and a high level of motivation. Low motivation, low self-esteem, anxiety and introversion, on the other hand, can raise the a ective lter and impede language acquisition. In his input hypothesis, Krashen (1985) explains that the process of acquisition starts with comprehensible input which he de nes as “i+1” (one step beyond the current level of linguistic competence) in line with Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1978). Krashen claims that language acquisition follows a natural order, which should be guiding for teachers when designing a syllabus.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw