Chapter 2

English Language Teaching Methods

To analyse the curriculum of English language teaching and to evaluate its

effectiveness, knowledge of the principles underlying the curriculum is a

prerequisite. The pedagogic theories that form the basis of the actual practice in and

out of classrooms, has to be studied. Through continuous analysis and research

English language teaching methodology has been subjected to reform and change.

The reforms and the adoption of new methods were the result of the need felt by the

teaching community.

In Kerala, the Higher Secondary school curriculum was redesigned in

accordance with constructivist principles in 2005-2006. The shift of paradigm from

behaviourist to constructivist was undertaken with the aim of making the higher

secondary curriculum a natural continuation of the curriculum up to the secondary

level. In keeping with the general shift in paradigm, the English language curriculum

also was revised.

The revised constructivist curriculum was introduced to the teachers through

two Sourcebooks which delineate the salient aspects of the curriculum. The

Sourcebook 2 declares the nature and quality of the revised second language

curriculum as: “The proposed methodology, activity based, process-oriented and

child centred approach, operates in the constructive paradigm which would be

helpful for the learners to construct language appropriate to various communicative

contexts” (14). A theory based analysis of the curriculum and evaluation of the

28

pedagogic practices necessitate a study of the theory of constructivism and the

theories of English Language Teaching.

Constructivism presents a radically different view about the process of

education. Constructivist language classrooms view education as a meaning making

process and centre their attention on the construction of knowledge and language by

learners. Constructivist language pedagogy is primarily inspired by the findings of

Jerome Bruner and Lev Vygotsky. The mind is the focus of constructivist thought;

the working of the mind is deemed to be of central importance in education. Bruner

highlights the constructive power of the mind saying: “Constructivism is no where

more compelling than in the psychology of art and creativity. Blake, Kafka,

Wittgenstein, and Picasso did not find the worlds they produced, they invented

them” (The Process 97).

Constructivism itself is the product of theoretical evolution and has inspired

pedagogic practitioners in the realm of language. Language pedagogy has been

trying to reform itself over many decades. All the teaching methods aimed to suit

themselves better to the mind of the learner so that learning occurs more effectively

and quickly. As Stern observed, “One of the main features of the development of

language pedagogy has been the continuous attempt to renew language teaching

through changes in teaching method” (Issues 6). Constructivist ideas were taken up

by scholars to illumine language teaching methodology and practice. Traces of

constructivism are found in Stephen Krashen’s Natural Approach, in the Total

Physical Response approach, Community Language Learning, Suggestopedia and

Communicative Language Teaching. It is to be noted that the various methods

29

evolved from the realizations that resulted from previous pedagogical practices.

Elizabeth Murphy points out that: “Although new methods or approaches signify a

certain break from the old, they nonetheless maintain a link with the past by

incorporating positive aspects of previous paradigms” (2.2.1).

The history of pedagogic reform in language can be traced back to the final

decades of the nineteenth century. It was a time when the Grammar Translation

method came under pedagogic doubt and criticism. There is almost no comparison

between constructivist language teaching and the Grammar Translation method

which was the offshoot of the notion that education is largely about the knowledge

of classical languages like Latin and Greek. These languages were studied with the

objectives of learning how to read classical Greek and Latin texts, to enable

. . . understanding the fundamentals of grammar and translation, and

gaining insights into some important foreign influences Latin has had

on the development of other European languages. The method used

to teach it overwhelmingly bore those objectives in mind, and came

to be known (appropriately!) as the Classical Method. It is now more

commonly known in Foreign Language Teaching circles as the

Grammar Translation Method. (Web. English Raven.Com. 17 July

08)

Though it was acclaimed and practiced for quite some time as the only

possible method to teach and learn language, as time elapsed its weaknesses became

evident. There was in it an element of coercion as it did not give any consideration

to the workings of the student mind. The classroom experience of those students of

the past, who learned the second language following the precepts and practices of

this method, was dull as there was nothing that catered to their curiosity or the finer

30

aspects of their individual interests and tastes. In course of time, due to its

narrowness the method was sidelined in favour of others which seemed better.

Frustrations in the academic circles about the limitations of the Grammar

Translation method led to the emergence of the Direct Method. “The principles

emphasized the importance of listening and speaking the foreign language.

Meaningful contexts for learning, inductive teaching of grammar and avoidance of

translation were some of the principles put forth. These principles provided the

foundation for the Direct Method” (Murphy, 2.2.3). The central premise of the

Direct Method was that by conscious avoidance of the first language and by learning

to think in the target language, the students would learn to communicate in the target

language. The meaning to be communicated was yoked with the target language

and the spontaneous use of the target language was encouraged. The method gave

due place to listening and speaking the target language. The Direct Method gave

some consideration to the role of meaning making as it realized the value of

meaningful contexts for learning.

As the Direct Method was found deficient also for historical and political

reasons it was abandoned in favour of the Audio-lingual Method. The turmoil of the

World Wars and the military moves created a need for learning languages. The

soldiers participating in the wars needed to converse in foreign languages to

communicate with their soldiers from different countries, speaking different

languages. To meet demands of this situation, the "Army Method" was suddenly

developed to build communicative competence. The method, however, did not have

strong theoretical backing

31

The ‘methodology’ of the army method, like the direct method, is

derived from the intensity of contact with the target language rather

than from any well-developed methodological basis. It was a program

innovative mainly in terms of the procedures used and the intensity of

teaching rather than in terms of its underlying theory. (Richards and

Rogers 45)

Though the Audio-Lingual or Army method was new in some aspects it shared

some features of the Direct Method. Both the methods emphasized the use of the

target language and aimed to teach grammar inductively. The need for language in

actual conversation was sharply realized and as such great emphasis was given to

conversation practice. As the method led the learners to rather quick communicative

competence and as it had the backing of Skinner’s findings, it was hailed as the ideal

method to learn languages. The middle of the twentieth century also witnessed the

emergence of theorists like B F Skinner, Thorndike, Ferdinand Saussure and

Leonard Bloomfield. Their theories lend their colours to the Audio-Lingual Method

and made it seem all the more learned. The underpinnings of their theories gave

currency to the strategies of the Audio-Lingual Method. Indians participated in the

World Wars in support of their colonial masters. The participation of Indian soldiers

in the World Wars contributed to their learning of the English language from the

military contexts and the war front.

The Audio-Lingual Method was strongly influenced by behavioural

psychology and structural linguistics theory. Structuralism proposed the notion that

diverse phenomena do not occur by themselves in isolation. All phenomena occur in

relation to other phenomena as they all form part of a whole. All of them have a

32

structure that is definite though their structure may not be defined. In diverse areas

of knowledge the structuralists attempted to perceive the structure of the whole and

the relation of the elements with other elements and with the whole. Ferdinand de

Saussure the originator of Structuralism applied structuralist theories to the study

and understanding of language. Structuralism became a subject of serious study and

scholars dedicated themselves to further the advances made by it. Saussure’s theory

of structuralism was made more specific by Leonard Bloomfield who aimed at

making the study of language scientific by dissociating it from mundane and

unstudied notions. His theories were restrictive in nature but in the height of the

popularity of his theory it stood up to question prevailing philosophy, pedagogy and

language teaching methods. He strongly believed and propagated the notion that

repetition and habit formation ensure language learning. As such his theory echoed

the claims of B F Skinner. Bloomfield’s theory was received without much criticism

as it appealed to the commonsense reasoning of the time. Vivian Cook points out

that the “Bloomfieldian version of language acquisition was the commonplace of

linguistics before Chomsky” (Chomsky’s 76).

By simplifying language learning to the bare equation of imitation and

repetition, Bloomfield dismissed the realm of meaning with out a meaningful

explanation. As meaning is an elusive factor in language he dismissed it as irrelevant

and taught his followers to do the same and to concentrate on the stimulus-response

equation. It could be assumed quite logically that the days of Bloomfield’s theories

and notions witnessed the death of meaning to the immeasurable detriment of

pedagogic practices in the realm of language.

33

Like Bloomfield, Skinner considered language as originating from physical

needs and serving to satisfy physical needs or ends. Both of them gave no

consideration to the role of the mind in the learning of language. He used

sophisticated laboratory equipment and conducted elaborate experiments to prove

how behavioural rules operate on particular organisms. His theories including that of

Stimulus-Response were founded on the proof from his elaborate experiments.

Skinner erred by making his theoretical conclusions about man from his experiments

with the lower animal species. The behaviourist theories of skinner were underlined

and established by the findings from Pavlov’s experiments with dogs and Edward L.

Thorndike’s experiments with cats. Their influence in the realm of language led to

the adoption of massive drilling and habit formation based on the conviction that

language is only verbal behaviour.

In language teaching the behaviourist paradigm with its inherent methods

was introduced with rigor. The textbook and the teacher dominated the language

classrooms. From the kindergarten to the tertiary level the students memorized

language data in the name of language learning. At the kindergarten level the

students were taught stories and songs, which they learned assiduously as it was

forced on them by the teachers and the textbook. Songs like -Johnny Johnny, Yes

Papa, Twinkle, twinkle little star, and Ba ba black sheep; became synonymous with

kindergarten education. These songs and similar stories were taught to the students

and they had to repeat them till they learnt them by rote. The students were

meticulously taught language in fragments like - This is a book/This is a pen/This is

a ball/This is a bat etc. In the higher classes the same method of data drilling

34

continued emphasizing habit formation, repetitive drills; avoidance of errors

mimicry and rote memorization.

In the behaviourist paradigm education was considered as the mission of

intervening in the environment of the student. The mind of the student was

considered as a ‘tabula rasa’ to be written on by the teacher the textbooks and the

classroom procedures giving no consideration to the inner psychological aspects of

the student mind. The behaviourist curriculum consisted of textbooks workbooks

and the omniscient presence of the teacher and through these agencies, data was

drilled into the minds of the students. Memory power was equated with intelligence

and it was tested in the examinations. The spirit of competition ruled in the classes

and in the examinations and the students left school with the awareness that life is a

big competition. They also learned to be submissive to teachers in the name of

discipline and learning. As Jerome Bruner pointed out Behaviourism was charged

with the notions of original sin, primary process, and ego centrism – “All of them

imply that there should be something rooted out, replaced or compensated, the

pedagogy that resulted was some view of teaching as surgery, suppression,

replacement, deficit filling or some mix of them all” (Bruner 124). Despite its many

drawbacks behaviourism ruled the realm of academics for long as the only way to

teach and to learn.

In the middle of the twentieth century, even while the behaviourist practices

were being actively embraced in academic circles critical thought about the

behaviourist paradigm led to further pedagogic advances. The demerits of the

paradigm came to view and various new methods were experimented in classrooms.

35

New linguistic theories in the 1960s challenged the structural view of language as

well as the behaviourist view of language learning. Noam Chomsky’s

Transformational Generative grammar dismantled the Structuralist assumptions and

posed a new framework of acquisition of languages. According to Chomsky

innovation and the formation of new sentences and patterns help the creation of new

utterances from the learner’s underlying knowledge of abstract rules. Chomsky’s

references to innateness of human capabilities conflicted with skinner’s emphasis on

observable behaviours. Through this book he introduced for the first time the notion

of an innate language system. Through his Critique on Skinner’s Verbal Behaviour

he destroyed the elaborate foundations of Locke’s Empiricism and Skinner’s

Behaviourism. Chomsky’s theory presented language as a property of the human

mind and sought to explain how human beings acquire it. Language for him was ‘the

system of principles, conditions and rules that are elements or properties of all

human languages … the essence of human language’ (Chomsky, Reflections 29).

His theory embraced and brought together all languages and the disparities between

languages was resolved.

Chomsky disproved the arguments of Skinner and the behaviourists

regarding language learning. Skinner had asserted that people learn language from

their elders and use language as they learned. Chomsky pointed out that people

understand sentences that they have never heard or used previously. Language arises

in situations and people understand the language in keeping with the situations and

the combination of words and ideas. Language use is creative and is not a product of

imitation and repetition. Chomsky also proved that language is stimulus-free; that

36

the language use of people is independent of stimuli. He provided an intellectual

counter to the behaviourist notion of stimulus-response. Skinner had asserted that

language learning depended on reinforcement of children’s utterances by elders.

Chomsky pointed out that parents and elders do not encourage and reinforce all

correct expressions of the child or discourage incorrect ones.

The behaviourists reached their conclusions about human learning based on

experiments conducted with animals. Chomsky pointed out that humans are different

from animals. Parrots pick up cards and chimpanzees ride bicycles, dogs and cats

respond to bells and food and some animals like chimps may utter a few words if

given thorough training. But these accomplishments by animals and birds are

achieved through the rigorous and continuous training given to them. Skills are

learned through practice, but learning a human language is not the same as learning

a skill like cycling. Chimpanzees and parrots may utter a few words or sentences but

they cannot use the human language intelligently to express their needs or their

thoughts. They can only repeat words and sentences as a skill, which they learned

through practice.

In addition to refuting the logic that the behaviourists put forward, Chomsky

presented a better view of human language and language learning potential. One of

Chomsky’s central claims is that the language faculty is species-specific. No other

species of living things are known to be equipped with language ability. The

language organ is an exclusive property of the human brain. All children learn to

speak language because they are genetically designed to speak language. Humans

learn language not as a skill but they acquire it as knowledge through an intuitive

37

theory-construction process. This human quality or gift is not shared by the lower

animal species. Chomsky proved the inability of animals to speak ironically bringing

in the point about the inability of human beings to fly: “the distinction between

jumping and flying is arbitrary, a matter of degree; people can really fly, just like

birds, only not so well” (Chomsky, Reflections 71)). The human mind and its

constructiveness were brought to focus by Chomsky’s theory of language.

Chomsky’s theories of language supported the theories of constructivism upheld by

Jean Piaget, Jerome Bruner and Lev Vygosky and they can be blended to arrive at

better pedagogic practices.

Till the 1960s linguistics followed the E-language tradition and linguists

collected samples of language and based on the collected samples they described

language. E-language linguists collected sentences ‘understood independently of the

properties of the mind’. The E-language approaches framed theories that emphasized

the physical manifestations of language and also those that treat language as a social

phenomenon ‘as a collection (or system) of actions or behaviours of some sort’. The

grammar that emerged based on the samples of language as used in everyday life

aimed to describe the regularities and the irregularities of language and such “a

grammar is a collection of descriptive statements concerning the E-language”

(Chomsky Knowledge, 20).

The radical leap from the superficial E-language approach to the in-depth I-

language approach began with Chomsky and his revolutionizing theories; “the shift

of focus from the dubious concept of E-language to the significant notion of I-

language was a crucial step in early generative grammar’ (Chomsky, Some notes

38

10). He realized that only an I-language approach is capable of generating an

organic and binding theory of language. The basic premise of I-language linguistics

is that language is an intrinsic feature of the mind. Chomsky’s linguistics centred on

I-language and aimed to discover as to the elements of language knowledge. Such an

approach takes into consideration the sprouting, growth and flowering of language

in the mind of the speaker. It completely does away with the E-language concepts

and methods and considers language as ‘a system represented in the mind/brain of a

particular individual’ (Chomsky, Language 36). Chomsky’s theories of language

aimed to analyze and study the mind rather than the environment and dismissed the

E-language approaches as futile: “E-language, if it exists at all, is derivative, remote

from mechanisms and of no particular empirical significance, perhaps none at all”

(Chomsky, Linguistics 10).

Chomsky’s UG theory was an offshoot of his I-language approach and is

innatist in nature. He claimed that language is a capacity that is specific to the

human species and that it is innate in the genetic structure of human beings.

Universal Grammar or UG is a common possession of all human beings despite the

large variety of human languages across the world. UG is “the system of principles,

conditions, and rules that are elements or properties of all human languages … the

essence of human language” (Chomsky, Reflections 29). Chomsky postulated that

language belongs to the realm of knowledge and it is knowledge that all human

beings are genetically equipped to acquire. UG theory deals with the knowledge of

language and it explores the internal structure of the human mind.

39

The UG theory has a few sub theories that wedge into its framework. The

first of these theories is the Principles and Parameters theory. It claims that the

knowledge of language depends on the knowledge of the principles that are common

to all languages and parameters that vary from language to language. “Universal

Grammar summarizes the differences between languages in terms of a limited

choice between a few possibilities, known as a parameter” (Cook 15). To know a

particular language thus implies that the speaker has knowledge of principles that

are common to all languages and parameters of the particular language. The

differences in parameters result in different languages, the “complexes of properties

differentiating otherwise similar languages are reducible to a single parameter, fixed

in one or another way” (Chomsky, Lectures 6). The acquisition of a language means

merely the acquisition of principles and parameters.

All languages have their specific structure and the utterances are formed in

keeping with the principles and parameters of structure in the language. An

individual speaker has to acquire the structure of the language to produce utterances.

To produce sentences anyhow would hinder communication with the other speakers

of the language. “Any human being who knows any language therefore includes the

principle of structure-dependency within their knowledge of language” (Cook 12).

The arrangement of words in a sentence is ruled by structural rules. Knowledge of

language means knowledge of the rules that regulate the structure of sentences in the

language. The concept of Structure-dependency asserts that knowledge of language

rests on the structural relationships in the sentence. Structure-dependency therefore

is a universal principle of language; “all known formal operations in the grammar of

40

English, or of any other language are structure-dependent’ (Chomsky, Problems 30).

A language exists and grows through its lexicon. It is the lexicon that

differentiates languages from each other. The Principles and Parameters theory

realizes the importance of the words in a language. To know a language means to

know the words in it; their sounds meanings and their respective uses and the

positions where they occur in sentences. The Principles and Parameters theory

encompasses also the Projection Principle. The Projection Principle implies that the

syntax of a language has to include the characteristics of lexical items. “The lexical

entry is said to ‘project’ on to the syntax; the lexical specifications of the word

ensure that the syntax has a particular form. This is summed up in a central principle

known as the Projection Principle” (Cook 19). In any language the words cannot

occur anyhow; there are restrictions on which words can occur in which

constructions. Chomsky points out that the “lexical structure must be represented

categorically at every syntactic level” (Chomsky, Knowledge 84). The features and

qualities of each lexical item in the language are recorded in its lexical entry. The

speaker’s knowledge of the occurrence restrictions for all the words in the language

is included in such entries in their mental lexicon. A speaker has thousands of words

in his mental lexicon, which he uses to express meanings he has in mind. The

lexicon as a list of words and their meanings is not separate from the syntax, the

lexical items are loaded with syntactic features and their use in sentences is dictated

by their syntactic qualities. As a result syntax itself is simplified by the avoidance of

many rules, as the lexical items themselves are charged with meanings and

functions.

41

The Projection Principle is a universal feature of human language. It is this

feature of language that makes the acquisition of language easy for the child. As

children become familiar with the words they also imbibe effortlessly the syntactic

features of the words and gradually learn the accurate use of words in sentences as

“the properties of lexical items project onto the syntax of the sentence”. It is this

feature of projection that enables children to acquire language without the deliberate

learning of rules. “UG theory emphasizes not only the importance of syntax but also

the crucial role of vocabulary in the knowledge of language” (Cook 20, 21). In the

process of language acquisition, the child acquires a massive amount of vocabulary.

Each item of vocabulary is acquired with its own pronunciation, meaning and

syntactic features. Children assimilate the characteristics of thousands of words are

with ease and speed. “A large part of ‘language learning’ is a matter of determining

from presented data the elements of the lexicon and their properties” (Chomsky,

Some Concepts 8). The principles and parameters of language are in a way

concerned directly with the lexical items of languages. The hypothesis about the

learning of the lexicon, known popularly as Lexical learning hypothesis, makes the

claim that parameters belong to lexical items rather than to principles. The vital role

of the lexicon in language acquisition was highlighted by Chomsky when he said

“there is only one human language apart from the lexicon, and language acquisition

is in essence a matter of determining lexical idiosyncrasies” ( Chomsky, Some notes

419).

Chomsky, concentrating his attention on I-language made suggestions about

the language faculty. He claimed that the language faculty is independent of other

42

mental faculties. He pointed out that the language faculty has particular features that

are not shared with other mental abilities; “syntax seems to observe a property of

‘structure-dependency’, unable to make use of linear and arithmetical properties that

are much easier to implement outside the language faculty” (Chomsky, Language

16). He suggested that the independence of language faculty could be deduced from

the very nature of language acquisition. Children do not learn Principles such as

Structure-dependency as they learn other skills like cycling or roller skating. The

acquisition of language is attained by other ways that are not based on mere

repetition

In the absence of more definite evidence, the uniqueness of language

principles such as Structure-dependency points to an autonomous

area of the mind devoted to language knowledge, a ‘language

faculty’, separate from other mental faculties such as mathematics,

vision, logic and so on. Language knowledge is separate from other

forms of representation in the mind; it is not the same as knowing

mathematical concepts. (Cook 31)

He also presented the notion that in the human brain there is an area that is dedicated

entirely to the acquisition and use of language. Just as the body is described in terms

of bodily organs that have specific roles and functions, he described the mind in

terms of mental organs like the logic organ, the mathematics organ, the

commonsense organ, and the language organ. “We may usefully think of the

language faculty, the number faculty, and others as ‘mental organs’, analogous to the

heart or the visual system or the system of motor coordination and planning”

(Chomsky, Rules and 39). As such Chomsky’s theory is at the same time

psychological and biological in essence. By extension, he related the principles of

43

UG to the physical aspects of the brain; “the abstract study of states of the language

faculty should formulate properties to be explained by the theory of the brain”

(Chomsky, Knowledge 39). Chomsky’s theory of language is not delimited to the

boundaries of particular languages but is relevant in the case of all languages and

language acquisition. All people in the process of acquiring language become aware

of the principles and parameters of the language they learn and they also acquire the

principles of Projection and Structure-dependency.

Chomsky explains language acquisition saying that children are equipped

with a Language Acquisition Device, LAD, by birth. They hear the words and

sentences used by their parents, caretakers and others around them. The linguistic

data that they receive often tends to be crude, broken and unfinished. The raw

material of language that they receive is processed in their minds but they attain the

capacity to use the language for their purposes. From the input that the children

receive and the output that they bring forth in their actual communication, the

process that goes on in their minds can be deduced. The capacity and functioning of

the LAD can be sufficiently understood from the knowledge of language that the

children acquire from the data that they receive.

Having some knowledge of the characteristics of the acquired

grammars and the limitations on the available data, we can formulate

quite reasonable and fairly strong empirical hypotheses regarding the

internal structure of the language acquisition device that constructs

the postulated grammars from the given data. (Chomsky, Language

113)

44

The LAD is “a procedure that operates on experience acquired in an ideal

community and constructs from it, in a determinative way, a state of the language

faculty” (Chomsky, Language 69). Chomsky’s conceptualisation of the Language

Acquisition Device is thus a powerful metaphor for language acquisition.

Central to Chomsky’s theory of Universal Grammar is the poverty-of-

stimulus argument which is directly concerned with language acquisition and LAD.

A human being’s knowledge of language is complex and abstract though the

experience of language that is received is comparatively limited. The richness and

abundance of the knowledge of language has no one to one correspondence with the

language experience that is received. To elaborate this in terms of the language

acquisition device would be to say that the input into the LAD is limited and

insufficient but the output is rich and abundant. “This is the conundrum called

‘Plato’s problem’ which is at the heart of Chomskyan ideas of language acquisition”.

Plato’s own explanation to the problem was that it all originated from memories of

previous existence; Chomsky attributed it to the innate properties of the mind. The

poverty-of-the-stimulus argument “claims that the nature of language knowledge is

such that it could not have been acquired from the actual samples of language

available to the human child” (Cook 82, 86). To explain further would be to say that

if the child’s mind constructs knowledge of language from the insufficient data, that

the child’s mind is equipped with the power to construct the knowledge of language.

The insufficiency of the input is compensated by the UG in the mind itself. The

mind is not just a processor of the input; it on the other hand contributes things of its

own.

45

In Chomsky’s writings related to UG, the nature of evidence available to the

child is a recurrent theme. Language evidence available to the child has a crucial

role in language acquisition. Children acquire language from the linguistic evidence

that they get. If they get no evidence they will learn no language at all. With

sufficient evidence, they can acquire any language with ease be it German, French or

English. The evidence that children get can be either positive or negative. Negative

evidence consists of explanations, corrections of wrong sentences that clarify as to

what is not to be done in the use of language. In the case of first language

acquisition, children get mostly positive evidence. Children have to learn from

positive examples of language that is used by their elders and parents rather than

from what they don’t say. “In principle, children must be able to learn language

simply from example of language spoken by others (positive evidence), without

correction, explanation etc (negative evidence)” (Cook 92). This notion of

Chomsky’s sharply contradicted the theories of the structuralists and the

behaviourists who strongly upheld the role of elders in the learning of language

accomplished by children. The third type of evidence that children get is indirect

negative evidence, which help children to know what types of sentences normally do

not occur in the language use by elders. All these three types of evidences help

children in the acquisition of language. However, all these three types of evidences

do not play an equal role. Chomsky qualifies their roles saying, “there is good

reason to believe that direct negative evidence is not necessary for language

acquisition, but indirect negative evidence may be relevant” (Chomsky, Lectures 9).

This again is dependent on occurrence uniformity and the amount of language taken-

up by the child/learner.

46

Chomsky’s notions about language and language acquisition differed from

those of the behaviourists on several points. The behaviourists considered the mind

of the child as a tabula rasa to be filled in by the parents at home and by teachers

and books in school. Chomsky put forward the notion that the learning of language

is not accomplished by filling in language data from the outside environment. It is

not the same as learning geography or learning to ride a bicycle. We do not actually

learn the language, but rather the grammar grows in the mind naturally. “In certain

fundamental respects we do not really learn language; rather grammar grows in the

mind” (Chomsky, Rules 134). It is the development of the organism from the inside

in response to limited but vital experience from outside. He compared it to the

sprouting of a seed. For a seed to sprout and to grow it needs a suitable environment,

which includes air water, and earth but the sprouting is done by the seed itself as if

in response to a biological setting. With the congenial environment the seed has to

sprout, it cannot do anything else. The environment only facilitates the realization of

its inherent potentialities. “Chomsky argues that language acquisition more akin to

growing than to learning; it is the maturing of the mind according to a preset

biological clock” (Cook 106).

Language is not deliberately learned, because it is something that we inherit

through our genes. To speak a language, there are not many prerequisites; we need

not possess a specific brain size or require a special type of interaction with

language speaking adults. “The requirements for learning a human language are to

be a human being and to have the minimal exposure to language evidence necessary

to trigger the various parameters of UG”(Cook 107). The physical basis of UG is in

47

human physiology rather than psychology. “Universal grammar is part of the

genotype specifying one aspect of the initial state of the human mind and brain…”

(Chomsky, Rules 82). However this does not mean that all human beings can speak

and use language with equal facility. The ability and dexterity in the use of language

also is dependent on the intellectual and mental capabilities. The variation in the

abilities of human individuals, it is reflected in the language abilities too.

Acquisition and use of language vary from individual to individual depending on the

nature and quality of their abilities, which they inherit through their genes.

Chomsky’s theories marked the beginning of a new epoch in the realm of

language studies. His UG theory and the other arguments led to a reconsideration of

existing pedagogic practices. He presented a holistic view of languages and was

concerned with features that are common to all languages. Clarifying UG he pointed

out that

… there are only a certain small number of languages possible

because the combinations of the different values for the various

parameters are limited; each possible human language must have one

of these combinations. Human languages are limited to the ‘finitely

many (in fact relatively few) possible core grammars’. (Chomsky, On

the representation 17)

Chomsky saw linguistics as a science that develops by making deeper accounts of

human language in general rather than limited accounts of particular languages;

“real progress in linguistics consists in the discovery that certain features of given

languages can be reduced to universal properties of language and explained in terms

of these deeper aspects of linguistic form” (Chomsky, Aspects 35).

48

Chomsky’s theories of language helped to reinstate the human mind to its

proper esteem. “The theory of language is simply that part of human psychology that

is concerned with one particular ‘mental organ’, human language” (Chomsky,

Reflections 123). In fact they helped to open the eyes of the academic world to look

on man as a species that is special and a lot different from lower animals like apes,

dogs and cats. His notions about Universal Grammar, Language Acquisition Device,

and his poverty-of-the-stimulus argument helped pedagogic practitioners and

linguists to look on language anew. Chomsky’s theories helped to trigger further

research in the realm of language and language pedagogy. Chomsky’s theories have

not widely been translated into pedagogic practice. His theoretical findings have

inspired the academic world to look in the direction of the mind and human

psychology to arrive at better pedagogic practices.

The innovations that brightened language pedagogy in the seventies were

given a new direction by Chomsky’s theories. Methods such as Community

Language Learning, the Silent Way, Suggestopaedia, Total Physical Response and

Natural Approach received positive responses and took the attention away from the

skill and drill approach towards communication. All these methods had in them a

shadow of some of the elements of Chomsky’s theories though they were not a total

rendering of Chomsky’s theories into pedagogic practice. All of them took into

consideration the importance of constructing the language in the mind through

strategies that are effective in stimulating the minds of the students. All these

methods shared the thrust on meaning and the easy capturing of meaning by the

mind through language. They tried to seize in their own ways the best methods and

49

practices that would contribute to the learning of language and were charged by

sympathy for the human mind and its workings influenced by the notions propagated

by the humanist movement.

The humanist movement was the result of the combining of ideas developed

in the fields of general education and psychology. Humanism influenced education

to look upon the learner as a true human being and considered education as a

lifelong process. Humanist psychology insisted on giving importance to the whole

person and to high level health and well being. It gave consideration to the need for

change and development and the human motivation towards self realization.

Humanist philosophy with its thrust on the subjective needs of the learner influenced

language teaching and made significant contributions to language teaching/learning.

Methods such as Asher’s Total Physical Response, Curran’s Community Language

Learning CLL, Gattegno’s Silent Way, and Lozanov’s Suggestopedia struck popular

imagination by embodying the humanistic approach to language teaching. The

humanistic movement in language teaching, contained a respect for the feeling of the

students, valued social relationships and encourage friendship, co-operation, gave

importance to responsibility, intellect and the need of the learner for self

actualization.

The humanist language learning practices expanded the range of insights and

pedagogical resources available to teachers. The humanist theories argued for a

positive and human approach to the mind and its workings. It realized that the mind

is not an entity that is separate and distant from the physical realities and also that

the physical realities can be modified to suit the mind better. The influence of

50

humanist theories helped to make pedagogy more student-friendly and invited

positive academic thought in line with the workings of the student mind and psyche.

Though humanist theories and practices had their peculiar novelty most humanistic

methods failed to take into account learner variability and the ways in which this

influences the process of teaching/learning.

Traces of Humanism and Constructivism are found in Community Language

Learning, which gained some currency in the seventies. By encouraging teachers to

see their students as "whole" persons, Community Language Learning introduced an

approach that was new. It gave prime consideration to affective factors in the

learning process. The students’ individuality and specialties of disposition were

taken into active consideration to lower the anxiety caused by the educational

context. The teachers tried to put the students at ease with themselves, with each

other and with the classroom atmosphere. The teachers cast off the air of serious

moralizing masters and communicated with the students and encouraged

communication among the students. The interaction among the learners as a

miniature community and the teachers’ empathetic understanding of the student

mind, were utilized to help the learning processes. The method gave serious

attention to the feelings, intellect and the interpersonal relationships of the students.

The teaching learning experience became humane and student-friendly, giving

consideration to the inner lives of the students as whole beings. The method aimed

to take the students from dependence on the teacher to independence, empowering

them through assistance to achieve freedom. This stream of thought and action had

in it a reflection of Vygotsky’s notion of the Zone of Proximal Development ZPD,

51

according to which the learner is assisted by a more competent peer to reach higher

levels of learning and proficiency. The positive aspects and practices of the method

were also a reaction against the behaviourist pedagogic practices which gave no

consideration to the workings of the student mind.

The method was criticized for giving undue emphasis to affective factors at

the expense of intellectual aspects and for blindly assuming the motivation of the

students to learn. The method also demanded the teachers’ command over two

languages, the mother tongue and the target language to make the learning sessions

effective. Though the method had its drawbacks it enjoyed the attention of the

academic world and helped to attract the students into the language. Despite its

drawbacks it is a fact that the method had in it a cognitive turn and the way it

addressed the affective factors made it different from earlier methods. Some of its

strikingly positive elements could be used effectively in combination with other

teaching methods.

In the 1970s the Silent Way method also emerged suggesting its practices as

a solution to the problems of language teaching. The strategies of the method

contained an element of novelty and in some significant ways differed from the

existing methods. The Silent Way as a method for language learning contained a

fusion of cognitive principles and discovery learning and as such was advancement

on the existing methods and practices. The key feature of the method, as suggested

by its name, is the silence of the teacher. Silence was used as a tool to trigger

thought and learning. The teacher spoke only if the situations direly demanded her

speech. The method aimed to develop the thinking process of the students and the

52

construction of language in the mind through minimum help from the teacher who

remains silent most of the time. The use of charts, rods and gestures filled the

vacuum created by the teachers’ silence and it was presumed that these tools help

the students eventually to use the language for self-expression.

By offering scope for experimental learning, the method gave space for

student independence. The use of the silence of the teacher makes the approach

unique. Its view regarding student independence is in some ways a reflection of

ideologies of community language learning. By considering student errors positively

it extended its sway into the theories of constructivist learning. The encouragement

given to group work and the use of the target language in the Silent Way method

were signs of the positive evolution towards constructivist theories.

Suggestopedia gathered academic attention quickly after the Silent Way or

even coexisted with it and complemented its practices. By introducing a

psychological perspective to learning it invited the attention of the academic world

to the fact that psychological barriers like fear and anxiety hamper learning.

Suggestopedia was also an offshoot of humanist pedagogic thought and it gave

prime consideration to the workings of the human psyche. Like Community

Language Learning, Suggestopedia considered relaxation of the mind as the basis of

education, the means to achieve concentration and retention. Soft comfortable chairs

and softer Baroque music to increase alpha brain waves and decrease blood pressure

and heart rate were used in the classes to supplement the learning. The teacher was

given the complete control over the classes and it was his/her duty to take the

students on a relaxed joyride to the vistas of learning. The radical realization about

53

the barriers to learning created by psychologically unbalancing factors and the

unique method of overcoming them by using the method of de-suggestion

contributed positively towards the evolution of constructivist theories and practices.

The method of using (de)suggestion in pedagogy became a positive realization

towards enriching pedagogic practices.

Suggestopedia has been praised for its psychological basis but has been

criticized as entailing too many paraphernalia, which ordinary classes cannot afford.

However, it has also been noted that the methods of Suggestopedia could be

fruitfully combined with other methods of language teaching. Though the method

did not enjoy currency for long, it brought into the focus of the academic world that

affective factors are to be given due consideration in the teaching learning situation.

The TPR method, like Suggestopedia gave importance to the idea that

learning should be stress-free and must involve as much fun and joy as possible.

While Suggestopedia was concerned almost solely with the solutions to

psychological factors that hamper learning, the TPR approach was more positively

inclined in as much as that it said that language learning could be made more

effective by linking language and motor activity. It drew on the "trace theory” which

postulates that memory is stimulated and increased when it is closely associated with

motor activity. The method relies on physical response to language as the means to

facilitate language learning. Substantial amount of listening and comprehension is

combined with physical responses like smiling, grabbing and looking, before

learners begin to use the language orally.

54

The TPR method carried in it traces of constructivist principles, as it was

concerned with constructing language in the mind of the student by suitably linking

activity and language. The method drew heavily on the basic principles of language

acquisition and took into account the way young learners respond to language

physically before they actually begin to speak. TPR won popularity among teachers

of foreign languages who generously adopted its technique in the classrooms. It is

acclaimed as being highly effective at entry levels, and is considered as a standard

requirement in the instruction of young learners. It is also admired for its simplicity,

which makes it accessible to a wide range of teachers and learning environments.

With the Natural approach which came in as a sequel to the TPR method

language pedagogy neared constructivism as never before. Stephen Krashen’s

theories of Second language acquisition served as its theoretical base while it

accommodated the findings of Suggestopedia and the Silent way. Based on Stephen

Krashen's theories about second language acquisition, Krashen and Tracy Terrell

developed the Natural Approach in the eighties. Like the TPR method, the Natural

approach advocated the need for a silent phase, allowing time for spoken production

of language to "emerge" naturally. It also demanded that the learning process should

be rid of tension and stress. In addition to these principles, which the natural

approach shared with the TPR method it gave priority to ‘language acquisition’

which is quite different from ‘language processing’. As in constructivist practices,

in the Natural Approach students are given plenty of comprehensible input by the

teacher, which facilitates the acquisition of language. The comprehensible input that

is given to the students in a natural and realistic manner facilitates the construction

55

of language in the minds of the students. Meaning is considered as the essence of

language and vocabulary its heart. Grammar and rule learning are cast aside to bring

in ease into the language learning situations. The students are also given the freedom

to use the mother tongue along with the target language. The student mistakes are

not corrected so as to enable them to use the language without inhibitions about

making errors. Meaning making processes are facilitated in the classroom

procedures enabling the students to construct meanings as best as they can. The

emphasis given to meaning making processes and the tolerance of errors proclaim its

constructivist leanings.

Krashen's theories and the Natural approach received criticism, particularly

about the recommendation of a silent period that is terminated when students feel

ready to emerge into oral production, and the idea of comprehensible input. Critics

point out that the emergence of the students is unpredictable as different students

will emerge at different times depending on their capabilities. There may even be

cases wherein the students never emerge into language at all. They also point out

that the idea of comprehensible input is vague and indefinable as what is

comprehensible to some students may be incomprehensible to others. These factors

can create a classroom that is essentially very difficult to manage unless the teacher

is highly skilled. However, these and other criticisms of the method can be ignored

to an extent as this was the first attempt at creating an expansive and overall

"approach" rather than a specific "method".

Research on second language in the seventies recognized the importance of

the individual’s construction of language taking into consideration the learner’s

56

motivation and initiative. The growth of psycholinguistics, socio-linguistics and an

interest in semantics led to the emphasis on real-world language use. The work of

the Stephen Krashen and his distinction between acquisition and learning provided a

theoretical basis to give place to communication in second language learning.

According to Krashen, second-language acquisition is analogous to the way in

which a child would acquire his/her first language. The concept implies that

languages can be learned effectively without formal study of structure and form. By

the middle of the eighties, these insights and the realizations derived from the

alternate methods like Suggestopedia, Community language Learning, TPR and the

Natural Approach merged to form the communicative approach to language teaching

known also as CLT. It won credence and following by its emphasis on meaning,

fluency, interaction, communicative competence, tolerance of errors and the

acceptance of creative factors in both teaching and learning. The approach is still

considered by many as the only suitable method to teach language.

Communicative Language Teaching originated in the mid 1960s in its

rudimentary form, as a result of the discontent about audio-lingualism and grammar

translation method. It had in view the real world communicative needs of the

student. A major role in its development was played by the Council of Europe’s

Modern Languages Project, MLP, which was set up in 1963. MLP was an ambitious

initiative to promote language teaching and learning in Europe. It embraced school

and adult education. Its aim was to promote ‘learner centred, motivation based’

approach to teaching.

57

Richards and Rogers sum up the main characteristics of the communicative

view of language as follows

1. Language is a system for the expression of meaning.

2. The primary function language is interaction and communication.

3. The structure of language reflects its functional and communicative

uses.

4. The primary units of language are not merely its grammatical and

structural features, but categories of functional and communicative

meaning as exemplified in discourse. (Approaches 71)

The Communicative Language Teaching method was embraced earnestly in

the pedagogic circles and was for some time considered the only method possible in

language teaching. David Nunan lists five basic characteristics of Communicative

Language Teaching as follows

1. An emphasis on learning to communicate through interaction in the

target language.

2. The introduction of authentic texts into the learning situation.

3. The provision of opportunities for learners to focus, not only on the

language but also on the learning process itself.

4. An enhancement of the learner's own personal experiences as

important contributing elements to classroom learning.

5. An attempt to link classroom language learning with language

activation outside the classroom. (279)

In comparison with the methods that preceded it, the Communicative

Language Teaching approach had certain qualities that made it appear academically

modern. The tolerance of errors and the prime focus on communication made it

admirable. The thrust given to meaning, actual performance and the placing of

58

language teaching and learning in the heart of active day-to-day life won much

active following. A salient feature of the approach was that it took in materials from

actual day-to-day life such as magazines, newspapers and graphic and visual sources

around which communicative activities could be constructed. Techniques such as

role-plays, simulations as well as a variety of games are used in actual classrooms to

build up the linguistic competence of the students. These strategies helped to ward

off rote learning. Errors are tolerated and seen as a normal phenomenon in the

communicative processes. Interaction is an important feature of the communicative

classroom. Through grouping, pairing, and co-operative relationships students are

given the opportunity to express their own individuality.

As the approach centred on actual communication in real or simulated

situations, it naturally led to a restructuring of the traditional teacher- student roles.

The teacher initiated and led the process of actual communication done by the

students and served as a guide who monitored their progress in the most unobtrusive

way. The actual communicative classroom situation “often requires teachers to

acquire less teacher-centred classroom management skills” (Approaches 78).

Teachers are responsible for monitoring learners and catering to the language

learner’s needs by organizing the classroom as a platform for communication. The

teacher’s role is not that of faultfinder, but that of a teacher-counsellor who presents

models of effective communication. Littlewood describes the role of the teacher in

CLT as that of a “facilitator of learning” a consultant, advisor, coordinator of

activities, classroom manager, co-communicator, “human among humans” who

“Steps out of his didactic role” (Communicative 94).

59

The communicative approach to language teaching has seen a decline as the

whole realm of language teaching became alive with radically new and more

rational findings about what ideal language teaching methods and methodologies

should be. Along with CLT trends towards individualization developed in language

teaching and learning. Work on individualization took place in the 1960s and 1970s.

In the individualized approach, the structure of the programme is flexible. This

approach accommodates the interests, needs and abilities of individual learners

giving due consideration the undeniable fact that learners progress at varying rates.

The practical results of the work on individualization did not rise up to the levels

expected in theory. It turned out to be concentrating on materials, and inclined

towards teacher centeredness. It paved the way to elaborate teaching procedures and

not learning procedures.

Upon the realization that the methods of individualization in actual practice

led to teacher centeredness as the teacher designed all the strategies according to

discretion, the practices that followed CLT and Individualization were highly

swayed by learner centeredness. Learner centeredness is reflected in the activity

organization and the consideration given to learner autonomy, “there is of course no

neat and historical divide between these perspectives … many teachers for example

still subscribe enthusiastically to one or another school of humanistic language

teaching and CLT continues to provide the dominant paradigm in mainstream

language teaching”. Learner centred activities help to counter the problems created

by large classes, low-tech materials and inadequate course books. The potential of

the learner is to be taken into consideration while language learning activities are

60

attempted. The learners have their own ideas, experiences opinions and expertise,

what they need is the language to express all these. “Encouraging the learners to

express their own ideas freely is a more direct route to fluency than one where the

teacher imposes irrelevant topics in the hope that with time, learners will be able to

say what they really want to” (Tudor 12, 14).

The needs of learners are analyzed constantly as an ongoing process. The

activities are chosen in the light of the current needs of the learners and activities are

designed by teachers accordingly. Leaner interest in issues is kept in focus and

topics of current interest and relevance are used to trigger activities and this

contributes to make the learning experience open ended. Learners are given the role

of authors as they are involved in preparing and using the practice materials. In this

approach, the pace of learning may be slow initially as there are no ready made texts

to follow. As the activities progress, the pace of progress also increases. This helps

to elicit the involvement of the students throughout as the teacher is always mindful

of the pace of the individual students. As the materials are not ready made and

available in advance, the element of surprise is maintained continually. They are

surprised about the initiation and about the results. Peer teaching and correction are

part of the method. The students work together and learn from each other. As the

work is done together it helps to pool together the resources of the individuals. This

in turn helps the development of group solidarity. Learners work with one another

and not against each other; they collaborate and do not compete.

The perspective in learner centeredness which gave attention to the working

of the learner minds

61

. . . accorded a crucial role to the subjective or process-oriented needs

of learners”. In other words, “to the way in which various cognitive,

affective and attitudinal factors influence learner’s reactions to

teaching procedures … Learners explore both their objective and

their subjective learning needs in collaboration with their teacher as

part of a shared process of discovery. (Tudor 22)

The advance of language pedagogy has been in the direction of the learner and the

workings of his mind. With learner centeredness, it achieved a greater concentration

and momentum in the direction of subjective orientation.

The methods of learner centeredness gradually contributed to the notion and

practice of learner autonomy. The notion has become clearer over time. From the

1980s most emphatic trend in language pedagogy and in education as a whole has

been to shift the focus from the teacher, the text book and the evaluation procedures

to the learner. The learner has been brought to the focal position in pedagogic

practices. The learners’ age, tastes, and previous knowledge are given consideration

in curricular practices and in the adoption of pedagogic strategies. The autonomy of

the learner is recognized and the whole curriculum planning is influenced by the

beliefs about the autonomy of the learner. As David Little points out, “the concepts

of learner autonomy and independence have gained momentum, the former

becoming a 'buzz-word' within the context of language learning” (Learner 2). Like

communicative language teaching which preceded learner autonomy, it is becoming

an unquestionable goal and an integral part of language learning methodologies.

Time, energy and money are spent for its promotion and implementation. It is a

truism that one of the most important spin-offs of more communicatively oriented

62

language learning and teaching has been the premium placed on the role of the

learner in the language learning process (Wenden, Learner xi). It is realized that

education has to breathe the spirit of independence, the teacher student relationship

and the education procedures have to cater to the spirit of independence as the

“proper aim of teaching is precisely to affect those inner processes that...cannot in

principle be made subject to external control, for they are just, in essence, the

processes germane to independence, to autonomy, to self-control” (Hawkins, The

Roots 44).

The most popular definition of learner autonomy is that of H. Holec. He

defined it as 'the ability to take charge of one's learning' (Autonomy 3). As a large

number of scholars have studied the idea, definitions abound. As scholars view it in

their own individual and origin always, separate and several aspects of learner

autonomy are brought into focus. The relevant literature presents innumerable

definitions of autonomy and other synonyms for it, such as 'independence', 'language

awareness' 'self-direction' and 'andragogy' which testifies to the importance attached

to it by scholars. The term autonomy has sparked considerable controversy and

linguists and educationists have failed to reach a consensus as to what autonomy

really is. D. Little considered learner autonomy as 'essentially a matter of the

learner's psychological relation to the process and content of learning— a capacity

for detachment, critical reflection, decision-making, and independent action'

(Learner 4). It is not something done to learners; therefore, it is far from being

another teaching method. Autonomy can be explained as the learner's willingness

and capacity to control or oversee her own learning and qualify as an autonomous

63

learner when he independently chooses aims and purposes and sets goals; chooses

materials, methods and tasks; exercises choice and purpose in organizing and

carrying out the chosen tasks; and chooses criteria for evaluation. The autonomous

learner takes an active role in the learning process, generating ideas and availing

himself of learning opportunities, rather than simply reacting to various stimuli of

the teacher. The varied views about autonomy of the learner have been analyzed by

Benson and Voller and they point out that the term autonomy has come to be used in

at least five ways

for situations in which learners study entirely on their own;

for a set of skills which can be learned and applied in self-directed

learning;

for an inborn capacity which is suppressed by institutional education;

for the exercise of learners' responsibility for their own learning;

for the right of learners to determine the direction of their own

learning. (Autonomy 2)

The teacher and the texts purvey due importance and consideration to the learner

who now occupies the central position in the classroom situation and is regarded as

having the “capacity for detachment, critical reflection, decision-making, and

independent action” (Little, Learner Autonomy 4).

Learners are expected to assume greater responsibility towards their learning.

However, learner autonomy does not sideline the teacher into insignificance. The

teacher is a resourceful presence, a sure guide, an inspiration. As such the role of the

teacher is analogous to the facilitator roles assigned to the teacher in constructivist

classrooms. Learner autonomy is a process that grows in the academic situation

64

rather than a product of academic work. It is dynamic process of becoming on the

part of the students, which makes them open to interventions and capable of lateral

thinking.

Learner autonomy being a process, it has to be kindled and nourished by the

presence of the teacher. The design of the curriculum has to cater to the demands of

the concept of learner autonomy. It is the curriculum that determines the roles of the

teachers, students and the texts and therefore, strategies that effectively contribute to

the autonomy of the learner have to be thoughtfully designed. When the teacher’s

moves are in keeping with the stipulations of such a curriculum, the learners gain the

chance to grow in autonomy. Individual learners differ in their learning habits,

interests, needs, and motivation, and develop varying degrees of independence

throughout their lives. The teacher in an autonomous classroom takes into

consideration the needs and capabilities of the individual students and guides them

to autonomy.

The basis of the notion of learner autonomy is that the learner has the

freedom to make his/her choices and it also means that he/she is not to become a

victim of choices made by others. In this way it shares humanistic ideas like

responsibility, intellectual development and self actualization. The students learn

better when they are in charge of their own learning. What is learned autonomously

by oneself is more permanent, more meaningful and more focused on processes.

Economically, too this has advantages. The society may not have the resources

enough to cater to all the learning needs of its members. When learners take the

responsibility for learning, it becomes economically more feasible. Moreover, as far

65

as good teachers are concerned, it caters to the ideal of good teaching and ideal

teacher – learner relationship. It is a fact that no good and sensible teacher would

desire to maintain or foster dependency in her students. She would love to see her

students autonomous and self reliant. Learner autonomy is taken into consideration

in designing language curricula as it has its own advantages and fosters future

learning and contributes to make learning a lifelong process. It is seen that the

progress of language teaching methods is in the direction of giving more importance

to the mind of the learner. The mind of the learner and its workings are given prime

consideration on the realization that it is the mind that has to be actively engaged to

facilitate the construction of language in the mind. As the learning of English and

other second languages in the separate parts of the world is gaining more

importance, language teaching methods are getting canalized in the direction of

Second Language Acquisition.

In the light of globalisation and international political and business

relationships the learning of languages receives a thrust in all nations across the

globe as never before. Every nation is aware of the need for learning other languages

and second and third language learning becomes common. The advancements in the

fields of language learning linked with the progresses in other areas of learning and

knowledge are fused to make up the realm of Second Language Acquisition.

“Second language acquisition research (SLA research) has developed into a wide-

reaching and somewhat amorphous field of enquiry, drawing on and contributing to

a number of distinct disciplines – linguistics, cognitive psychology,

psycholinguistics, socio-linguistics, and education”. The roots of SLA research

66

could be located in the latter half of the twentieth century. Rod Ellis notes that

“Although it is not possible to set a precise date on when second language

acquisition (SLA) research first established itself as a field of enquiry, there is a

general agreement that it took place around the end of the 1960s” (Rod, The Study 9,

1). It was the time when Chomsky came forward with his radical theory of the

innateness of language and UG theory creating a revolution in the intellectual circles

of the time. It was also the time when Stephen Krashen illumined language

pedagogy by his findings about second language acquisition and second language

learning. The progress of Second Language Acquisition research has since then been

making its impact in pedagogic circles.

Since the emergence of Krashen, second language acquisition and second

language learning are seen as entirely different. Language acquisition and language

learning are considered as entirely separate and are treated with different pedagogic

orientations

Language acquisition is very similar to the process children use in

acquiring first and second languages. It requires meaningful

interaction in the target language –natural communication - in which

speakers are not concerned with the form of their utterances but with

the messages they are conveying and understanding. (Krashen,

Second 5)

It is realized that for acquisition to take place the correction of student errors and the

deliberate teaching of grammar rules is not required. Based on their feel about the

language the language acquirers themselves do the correction of errors. In the case

of the younger language acquirers, caretakers and other native speakers are of great

67

help as they modify their speech to suit the age and tastes of the younger ones.

Language learning unlike language acquisition is a conscious process. It is done

deliberately and the learner is aware that he is doing a learning activity to become

facile in the use of a particular language. In the case of the acquirers, language

acquisition takes place as a part of their life as the use of language is intimately

connected with the needs of their daily life both physical and otherwise. Conscious

language learning depends on the learning of rules and the correction of errors

committed by the learners. “Error correction, it is maintained, helps the learner come

to the correct mental representation of the linguistic generalization” (Krashen,

Second 5).

Krashen enriched second language acquisition research by his findings,

which have served to give meaningful direction to linguists and pedagogic

practitioners. His Natural Approach was itself based on language acquisition

theories, which were tested and proved through a series of scientific studies. As he

himself claimed it was based on an empirically grounded theory of second language

acquisition. He realized the vital role that input plays in facilitating language

acquisition. He pointed out that

. . . language acquisition occurs in only one way: by understanding

messages. We acquire language when we obtain comprehensible

input, when we understand what we hear or read in another language.

This means that acquisition is based primarily on what we hear and

understand, not what we say. (Krashen, The Natural 1)

Krashen’s emphasis of the role of meaningful and comprehensible input has

been a radical one as it influenced pedagogic practices. The comprehensibility of the

68

input is a vital factor in facilitating the acquisition of language by learners of all ages

and tastes. When input that is given to the students is above their level of

understanding it cannot in anyway contribute to acquisition.

According to research in second language acquisition, it is thought

that acquisition can take place only when people understand

messages in the target language. Incomprehensible input (e.g.

listening to an unknown language on the radio) does not seem to help

language acquisition. We acquire when we focus on what is being

said, rather than how it is said. We acquire when language is used for

communicating real ideas. (Krashen, The Natural 19)

Krashen also enriched second language acquisition theory, practice and research

through his six major assumptions, which he preferred to call hypotheses. His

hypotheses about acquisition, learning, natural order, monitor, input and affective

filter serve as guidelines to studies in second language acquisition.

SLA research has established itself as a prime area of academic pursuit in the

realm of language pedagogy and concerns itself with the description and explanation

of the process of second language acquisition with the aim of enlightening language

teaching practice and methodology. It aims to provide language teachers with

insights to construct their own theories and practices.

Studies in second language acquisition take up learner language seriously to

get valid insights into the process of language acquisition. Their manner of language

acquisition and their speed and accuracy are subjected to analysis to reach

conclusions that are valuable. Ellis Rod points out that “An obvious starting point in

the study of second language (L2) acquisition is the study of the language that

69

learners produce at different stages of their development. Learner language can

provide the researcher with insights into the process of acquisition” (Rod 43).

Different approaches are adopted to describe the learner language; while some study

the errors committed by the L2 acquirers, others study the developmental patterns or

variability or the pragmatic features.

SLA research enriches itself by searching in diverse directions on the

realization that a perfect theory of SLA has not been formed.

It is probably true to say that SLA research, some twenty-five years

after its inception as an identifiable field of enquiry, is characterized

by facts, opinions, explanations, positions, and perspectives that

frequently exist an uneasy state of complementarity and opposition.

(Rod 689)

The ideal theoretical framework has to be formed by conducting studies in the areas

of sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics, cognitive psychology, neurology, neuro-

linguistics and the like. However this does not mean that the SLA theory that

evolves will be an admixture of the theories and findings of these separate branches

of academic pursuit. Academic pursuit in SLA has succeeded

. . . in broadening the overall scope of SLA research, in identifying

the essential issues in need of investigation, in developing methods

for studying them, and in collecting an enormous amount of

information about them. Also, the discovery of competing and

overlapping phenomena might e seen as evidence of the principal

strength of SLA research – a willingness to explore a wide range of

issues by means of alternative paradigms and methods. (Rod 689)

70

It is found that the theories and practices of SLA blend easily with the theories and

practices of constructivism. There is much similarity in the basic tenets of

constructivism and second language acquisition.

Since the nineteen sixties, the realm of language education has witnessed

massive changes due to the emergence of a variety of highly rational theories

including the theories of second language acquisition, Chomsky’s theories of

innateness and UG and constructivist theories. The cognitive turn of academic

pursuit in the realm of language education has been significant. Behaviourist

theories were cast aside in favour of more rational and cognitive theories. Stephen

Krashen and Noam Chomsky illumined the realm of language acquisition and their

theories added vigour and mileage to the pedagogic practices. Chomsky’s theories of

language helped to formulate clear notions about language acquisition and use.

Chomsky’s Innateness Hypothesis is based on few indisputable facts about language

acquisition

All children regardless of I.Q level can acquire language;

Children acquire language effortlessly and in a relatively short period

of time.

Children do not have to be taught formally to acquire language;

Language is a complex system;

Children discover the system of language from a small unsystematic

amount of data;

Language acquisition involves very little imitation;

Language acquisition is an active process, involving ‘mental

computation’: children say things that they have never heard from

adults, e.g. camed. (Anandan 59)

71

His theories blend with the cognitive theories of Piaget, Vygotsky and

Bruner. Piaget’s view point namely, that the learner learns things when she is

developmentally ready to do so as learning follows development, is the starting point

of Cognitive theory (Anandan 42). Cognitive theories emphasized the importance of

meaning in human learning. They put forward the view that acquiring knowledge by

the human mind is a process of constructing meanings. Meanings cannot be forced

on to the mind by the compelling tactics of repetition and rote memorization.

According to them, learning is a meaningful process of relating new events or items

to already existing cognitive concepts, leading to further constructions in a

meaningful manner. Krashen’s theory of comprehensible input wedge into

constructivist theories which consider learning as the construction of meaning in the

mind. Krashen pointed out the importance of comprehensibility of input in the

language learning situations. It was an idea that looked small and even negligent but

its relevance is intense and undeniable.

The cognitive notions about language acquisition, the procedure of selecting

appropriate vocabulary, grammatical rules and pragmatic conventions governing

language use are much different from the previous notions. They put forward the

argument that language acquisition is a holistic process, not analyzable as stimulus

response associations. Language learners pay attention to the particular aspect of

language that they are attempting to understand and produce and become able to use

certain parts of their knowledge through experience and practice. SLA theories, the

findings of cognitive science and the contributions of Piaget and Vygotsky together

have illumined the constructivist practices in language education. Vygotsky

72

contributed to constructivist thought by linking human development with the socio

cultural environment; thereby lending to constructivist epistemology, a social

inclining. Vygotsky’s social constructivist theories inspire educational practitioners

and constructivist classrooms. Constructivist methodology upholds learner centred

education that is driven by the knowledge skills and attitudes of the student. Under

this paradigm, students become active discoverers and constructors of their own

knowledge.

The theories of second language acquisition and constructivism find a more

definite direction in the Whole Language approach. “The definition of Whole

Language emerges from adopting a holistic view of the language that treats language

as an integrated whole rather than a conglomerate of separate and independent

skills” (Jangid 13). The Whole Language approach stems from a philosophy that

draws on a variety of perspectives and disciplines

. . . among them language acquisition and emergent literacy

psycholinguistics and socio-linguistics, cognitive and developmental

psychology, anthropology and education. it is also based upon the

successful practise of teachers who have implemented in their

classrooms some of the insights from these disciplines or who are

‘natural’ Whole Language teachers, based upon their own insights,

and observations of how children learn. (Weaver 4)

Under the Whole Language approach language is taken as a whole and is not

fragmented into skills. The approach expects the children to learn to read and write

as gradually and naturally as they learned to talk. Direct instruction and correction of

mistakes is limited to minimum and the students are encouraged to participate in the

73

learning processes. Literacy skills and strategies are developed through whole and

authentic literacy events and the curriculum is permeated with real reading and

writing experience. The learning processes within the classroom are integrated with

the whole life of the child. As such the learning processes take on continuity with

the life of the students. There are as many definitions of Whole Language as there

are Whole Language practitioners who interpret it and modify it according to their

own understanding of it. “Classroom teachers themselves define and redefine Whole

Language as they increasingly manifest their philosophy in their teaching” (Jangid

14).

The Whole Language approach supports the concept of active learning,

which can be explained as the transactional model of learning. In this kind of

learning the learner is always engaged either physically, mentally or both. Learning

is made possible by the transactions of the learner with the external environment

which may include books, people, other media or anything surrounding him/her. The

concept and practice in the transactional model of teaching is different from the

traditional transmission model of teaching in the following ways

1. In the transaction model of teaching, the emphasis is on learning rather

than teaching and learning is facilitated by the teacher instead of being

controlled by her.

2. The transactional model of teaching is based on Vygotsky’s cognitive

and social model of learning and Piaget’s constructivism rather than on

behaviourist models.

3. Learning is seen as a complex cognitive process, which can be

facilitated by the teacher and peer interaction rather than habit

formation.

74

4. Risk taking is encouraged and errors are seen as essential for learning

rather than as a sign of incompetence or failure.

5. It is expected that learners will be at different stages of their learning or

development and will develop at their own pace and in their own time.

Thus there is no concept of failure.

6. The ability to apply knowledge across a wide range of tasks and

contexts and to think in novel ways is encouraged and is considered a

sign of learning, rather than encouraging the reproduction of correct

answers. (Weaver 9)

Learning in the Whole Language approach involves bringing together personal and

social knowledge. This stream of thought is definitely on par with the theories and

practices of constructivism. Social constructivist theories uphold the value of

transaction among learners and between learners and more learned peers. The Whole

Language Approach and constructivist practices address the mind of the learners and

hold the capabilities of the learner in high esteem.

Language teaching methods and pedagogic practices in general cannot be

complete without taking into consideration theories about human mind and

intelligence. It can be seen that as the language teaching methods progressed in the

latter half of the twentieth century, understanding about human intelligence was also

progressing. Better understanding about the human mind in the light of cognitive

theories and constructivist practices also led to the emphasis on deeper analysis and

understanding of human intelligence. Dissatisfaction with the theory of IQ and the

behaviourist evaluations of the human mind and realizations from constructivist

experiments led to a more scientific study about human mind and intelligence. The

constructivist notions of Piaget and Vygotsky gave momentum gave clearer insight

75

into the workings of the human mind. The humanist beliefs and practices which

were sympathetic towards the needs of learners prompted deeper thought on human

intelligence. These factors combined led to the emergence of the theory of Multiple

Intelligences which presented the mind as an amalgam of diverse aspects and

abilities. Multiple Intelligence theory offered “a pluralistic view of mind,

recognizing many different and discrete facets of cognition, acknowledging that

people have different cognitive strengths and contrasting cognitive styles” (Gardner

6).

The human intelligence cannot be measured by the testing measures usually

undertaken. The traditional testing done in schools and IQ tests conducted in and out

of schools only attempt to measure verbal and mathematical aspects of intelligence.

Gardner identified seven types of intelligences in human beings which included

Linguistic intelligence, Logical mathematical intelligence, Spatial intelligence,

Musical intelligence, Bodily kinaesthetic intelligence, Interpersonal intelligence and

Intrapersonal intelligence. Of these multiple intelligences “. . . all seven of the

intelligences have equal claim to priority” though much of our testing is based on

this high valuation of verbal and mathematical skills. Gardner also said that the

number of intelligences could exceed this list and emphasised the point that human

intelligence is multi-faceted, plural in its basic nature. “Each intelligence is based, at

least initially, on a biological potential which then gets expressed as a result of the

interplay of genetic and environmental factors”. This accounts for the differences

between individuals regarding abilities. Human cognitive competence is understood

better when described in terms of abilities, talents mental skills, which may be

76

termed aptly as intelligences. Though intelligence is pluralistic in nature, “. . . the

general faculty of intelligence does not change much with age or with training or

with experience. It is an inborn attribute or faculty of the individual.” (Gardner 7,

88, 15) The MI theory explains why when one is good at mathematics; he may not

be good at language and relationships. This is due to the predominance of one type

of intelligence over others. All humans possess certain core abilities in each of the

intelligences.

The MI theory has much relevance in education as it enables educators to

look upon the student mind in a better and more scientific manner. Each student is

unique as far as his cognitive powers are concerned. Every student has his own

peculiar combination of ‘intelligences’ and therefore he should not be compared

with any other student. The present concept of uniformity is foolish to the levels of

condemnation as it sees education as a levelling process. “It has now been

established quite convincingly that individuals have quite different minds from one

another. Education ought to be so sculpted that it remains responsive to these

differences” (Gardner 71). Educational practices ought to ensure is that each student

receives education that maximizes his/her potential. This will necessitate the

abandoning of uniform schooling, and schools have to be redesigned in an

individual-centred manner to cater to the intelligence demands of the individual

students. Educators need to consider each individual child’s tendencies, proclivities

and goals and design methods accordingly. The traditional subjects and information

need to be taught in unconventional ways to suit the intelligences realizing that

“intelligences are best thought of as bio-psychological constructs: they constitute

77

cognitive resources by virtue of which an individual may effect a meaningful

connection to a content area” (88). In an ideal classroom, the students can be

provided with a rich variety of materials which trigger their intelligences; and

ideally, education should be the cultivation of the multiple intelligences. The general

trend in education is to emphasize uniformity and give no consideration to the

individuality of the individuals. The insights from MI theory when mixed with

constructivist pedagogic practices can help to bring in new teaching techniques

giving consideration to individual students, considering each of them as distinct and

special. MI theory only illumines constructivist theories and practices. Close

analysis reveals that both these theories illumine each other and highlight the need

for special attention to individual students. Though mass education has its

advantages it accompanied by disadvantages of which scholars are becoming more

keenly aware. As Rousseau said,

. . . each individual is born with a distinctive temperament … we

indiscriminately employ children of different bents on the same

exercises, their education destroys the special bent and leaves a dull

uniformity. Therefore after we have wasted our efforts in stunning the

true gifts of nature, we see the short lived and illusory brilliance we

have substituted die away, while the natural abilities we have crushed

do not revive. (116)