KIYMAZARSLAN

A PROMISING APPROACH
TO SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION:
THE NATURAL APPROACH (NA)

Vedat KIYMAZARSLAN*

ABSTRACT

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 and successful second language acquisition, the Natural Approach
(NA). This article discusses not only the very well-known facts about the
approach but also the principles of the approach, which, I believe, will help
language learners and teachers to reconsider their strategies in learning and
teaching a foreign language (FL). 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. INTRODUCTION

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.

* Turkish Military Academy, Directorate of Education, Department of Foreign Languages

72
 KIYMAZARSLAN

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 LAD1 proposition is that adults follow the same
principles of UG2. 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 Method3 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 Method4 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 (Total Physical Response)5, 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.

1
Language Acquisition Device: a theoretical device that control innate linguistic peculiarities
2
Universal Grammar: grammar true for all languages
3
a method focusing mostly on grammatical rules as the basis for translating from the second to the native language
4
a method stressing active oral interaction, spontaneous use of language and little or no grammar analysis
5
an approach or technique emphasizing listening accompanied by commands and physical responses

73
 KIYMAZARSLAN

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'.

74
 KIYMAZARSLAN

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. In other
words, the order of acquisition of grammatical morphemes for English (or any other
language) as an “acquired” language is not much known either by teachers or learners. It
would therefore be pointless for language learners to start their language learning experience
just through conscious exposure to grammatical rules, or useless for teachers to insistently
keep on presenting grammar points in their classes.

As Ellidokuzoğlu (1991) puts it in his article “Grammar Can Make a Difference. But
How?”, 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. And learners should thus not follow
such a sequence, which is, in fact, impossible to realize such a complicated task.

(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:

75
 KIYMAZARSLAN

".. child acquirers of a first language are provided with samples of ‘caretaker’
speech6, 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. WHAT THEN DO THE AFOREMENTIONED “FIVE HYPOTHESES”

MEAN TO US, LANGUAGE LEARNERS AND TEACHERS?

Now, we will look back at the hypotheses respectively and discuss their significance
for learners and teachers alike:

6
the language used by parents when they talk to their children

76
 KIYMAZARSLAN

III. 1. 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.

The Natural Approach learner, accordingly, needs to understand the above

mentioned distinction and adapt his or her strategies around these principles. If outside the
classroom, he can even create a virtual classroom in his mind that separates “input” and
“grammar” sessions. This will assuredly accelerate his acquisition process. In his virtual
input classes, he should be eager enough to get as much comprehensible input as possible
via listening and reading without focusing on tasks which require conscious engagement. He
needs to remember that grammar also helps acquisition, yet the time he would devote to
input session is second to none.

III. 2. The Monitor Hypothesis

What is implied by the Monitor Hypothesis for FL classes is, therefore, to achieve

77
 KIYMAZARSLAN

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. 3. The Input Hypothesis

As for the application of the Input Hypothesis, the instructor should provide input
that is roughly-tuned7. 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).

III. 4. 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.

III. 5. 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

7
a little beyond one’s present level of language competence

78
 KIYMAZARSLAN

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. Accordingly, when learners do create such an atmosphere in their minds, they will
more likely to speed up their acquisition process, and enjoy acquisition the target language.

IV. APPLICATION OF THE “HYPOTHESES” INTO FOREIGN LANGUAGE

CLASSES

IV. 1. The Syllabus

The syllabus underlying the Natural Approach is topical and situational. It is a

semantic, or notional syllabus8, 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.

IV. 2. Learning and 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.

8
a type of syllabus organized around functional , pragmatic communication between and among people

79
 KIYMAZARSLAN

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-questions9 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 Asher10, 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.

IV. 3. 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
filter. Thirdly, the teacher chooses the most effective materials and employs a rich mix of
classroom activities.

IV. 4. 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

9
questions beginning with wh- as in what, who, when et cetera
10
Asher, J. (1977). Learning Another Language through Actions: The Complete Teacher’s Guidebook. Los
Gatos, CA: Sky Oaks Productions.

80
 KIYMAZARSLAN

extralinguistic information11. 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

Here are a few words on grammar. The Natural Approach does not claim that should
overlook “grammar”, and emphasize the importance of receptive skills per se; rather it
suggests that grammar is significant, yet a part of our acquired knowledge and that there is
very little likelihood- almost no- for us acquiring it consciously. Therefore, grammar cannot
be taught in a traditional, or to put it more precisely “new”, fashion. What FL learners really
need to know is to approach “grammar” in a different way from now on, and to lay their
usual learning strategies aside by approaching grammar within the framework of the Natural
Approach. What language teachers need to know is soon to implement the principles of the
NA in their classes and see the difference.

We are on the eve of a new paradigm shift in foreign language teaching

methodology. The Communicative Approach or “PPP12” 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.

11
information signaled by actions, shapes or things around us other than the language itself
12
presentation-practice-production / well-known CLT or CA order in teaching L2s

81
 KIYMAZARSLAN

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Brown, H. D. (1987). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. New York. Prentice
Hall Regents.

Dulay, H., M. Burt & S. Krashen. (1982). Language Two. Oxford University Press.

Ellidokuzoğlu, H. (1991). Grammar Can Make a Difference. But How? TTR. Bogazici
University.

Eubank, L. (ed.). (1991). Point Counterpoint: Universal Grammar in the Second Language.
John Benjamins.

Ellis, R. (1994). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford University Press.

Hyltenstam, K. & M. Pienemann. (eds). (1985). Modeling and Assessing Second Language
Acquisition. Multilingual Matters.

Krashen, S. (1981). Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Oxford:
Pergamon Press.

Krashen, S. and Terrell, T. (1983). The Natural Approach: Language Acquisition in the
Classroom. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Krashen, S. (1985).The Input Hypothesis. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Krashen, S. (1993).The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. Laredo Publishing

Company.

Larsen-Freeman, D. & M. Long. (1991). An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition

Research. Longman.

Richards, J. and Rodgers, T. (1986). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching.

Cambridge University Press.

FOR CITATION:

Kiymazarslan, V. (2000). A Promising Approach to Second Language Acquisition: The

Natural Approach (NA). Science Journal of Army Academy, 1(2), 72-82.

82