An early 90s view of Krashen

From Heny, Jeannine, Learning and Using a Second Language, in Language, Introductory Readings, by Virginia P. Clark et al., ed., St. Martin’s Press, 1994, p. 178.
“Is there some way to make second-language teaching as “natural” as possible? Above all, should we not avoid teaching grammar rules, concentrating just as mothers do, on what is being said, not how to say it? At least one outspoken scholar, Stephen Krashen, responds with a clear “yes’. Influenced by the Chomskian framework, K makes a distinction between “learning” and “acquisition.” For him, “learning” occurs when we consciously memorize grammar rules. It is basically like the actitity that goes on when one learns geographical or historical facts. “Acquistion,” in contrast, is the result of innate processes, and happens naturally when a child, unconsciously and without concerted effort, mysteriously absorbs the principles of her native tonge. For Krashen, “learning” provides a speaker with a monitor, or a set of forma, consciously available grmmatical rules. But, he claims, the monitor is of very little use: since it works at a speed much slower than mormal speech, it can at best be used in written forms like essays or letters. Some learners seem to be aware of this rather clumsy appatratus while speaking a second language: they are aware of their mistakes, they “hear” them. But they cannot correct them and maintain reasonable fluency. Consciously memorized grammatical rules, for K, play virtually no role in producing correct sentences. Some adults tend to feel that grammatical rules help them, but, for K’s followers, catering to this feeling would be misguided. Real mastery of L2 has its basis in acquisition, not learning. And to promote acquistion, the teacher must simply provide “CI”, that is, sentences a learner can understand. The learner herself will do the rest.”
I feel she misleads by insinuating that, as she writes, “this inductive idea” grew into a naturalistic approach (a clear reference to Krashen’s & Terrell’s Natural Approach) which tried to teach a 2nd language “in essentially the same way a child learns his native language: by imitation and practice.” Not true, of course. Later she says that current naturalistic approaches, based on Chomsky, are gaining ground within a greatly changed framework. I did not see any elaboration of that last remark. IOW, as is seen so often on listservs, the assumption still is that CI, tprs, communicative, natural approaches simply replicate the L1 process; patently untrue.
She has an out b/c she characterizes only earlier “inductive” approaches and says post-Chomskian scholars work in a greatly changed framework, whatever that means. Interestingly, Krashen is mentioned in the bibliography for the article only once, and then under another scholar’s name, and not at all in the index to the book. Heny could have easily cited one of Krashen’s books from the 80s. What’s strange is not that she ignored K but that she covers his theories (hypotheses) extensively for an article of this kind, 2 pages, yet one would search almost in vain for any mention of his work in the bibliographies (incl. the one for the book as a whole) or the index. I’ve seen this before and written about it on this blog.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *