Towards a receptive paradigm in foreign language teaching

Yıl 2017, Cilt: 2 Sayı: 1, 20 - 39, 30.01.2017

Hasanbey Ellidokuzoğlu

Öz

There are a growing number of language teaching experts and practitioners who assert that the Communicative Language Teaching has failed to meet the expectations of language teachers and students. The article attributes this failure to the theories of “language” and of “language learning” underlying the Communicative Language Teaching. Particularly problematic in this regard is the general human learning theory of “cognitivism”, which, when applied to language teaching, encourages production practice from the very beginning on the basis of the domain-general assumption that practice makes perfect. Studies on language acquisition, however, have demonstrated that when learners are allowed to remain silent at the beginning level and are given ample amount of input, their subsequent language development is much faster and healthier. Currently, there is a paradigm shift in the making,a shift towards receptive methodologies. Research highlights the importance of receptive experience in language development via extensive listening and reading, and strongly suggests that use of our general learning ability does notwork well for language acquisition. Rather, optimal language acquisition, first and second, is the result of the functioning of adomain specific mental capacity nourished via rich receptive experience, not through premature production practice

Anahtar Kelimeler

Communicative Language Teaching, paradigm shift, language acquisition, modularity, receptive skills

Kaynakça

• Andrewes, S. (2005). The CLT police: Questioning the communicative approach. Modern English Teacher, 14, 5-11.
• Asher, J. (1965). The strategy of the total physical response: An application to learning Russian. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 3, 291-300.
• Aslan, A. (2016). Language teaching models in teacher training programs. Turkish Online Journal of English Language Teaching (TOJELT), 1(3), 135-143.
• Baretta, A. (1987). The Banglore Project: Description and evaluation. In S. J. Savignon & M. S. Berns (Eds.), Initiatives in communicative language teaching II (pp. 83-106). Massachusetts: Adison-Wesley.
• Bax, S. (2003). The end of CLT: A context approach to language teaching. ELT Journal, 57, 278-287.
• Bley-Vroman, R. (1989). What is the logical problem of foreign language learning? In S. Gass & J. Schachter (Eds.), Linguistic perspectives on second language acquisition (pp. 41-68). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
• Burger, S. (1989). Content-based ESL in a sheltered psychology course: Input, output, and outcomes. TESL Canada Journal, 6, 45-59.
• Carston, R. (1988). Language and cognition. In F. J. Newmeyer (Ed.), Linguistics: The Cambridge survey. Vol. III. (pp. 38-69). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
• Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
• Cromer, R. F. (1991). Language and thought in normal and handicapped children. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
• Dziedzic, J. (2012). A comparison of TPRS and traditional instruction, both with SSR. International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching 7(1): 4-6.
• Dupuy, B. (2000). Content-based instruction: Can it help ease the transition from beginning to advanced foreign language classes? Foreign Language Annals, 33, 205-233.
• Ellis, R. (1989). Are classroom and naturalistic acquisition the same? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11, 305-328.
• Ellis, R. (1990). Instructed second language acquisition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
• Fodor, J. (1983). The modularity of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Goldschneider, J. M., & DeKeyser, R. M. (2001). Explaining the natural order of L2 morpheme acquisition in English. Language Learning, 51(1), 1-50
• Hafiz, F., & Tudor, I. (1990). Graded readers as an input medium in L2 learning. System 18, 31-42.
• Hammond, R. (1989). Accuracy versus communicative competency: The acquisition of grammar in the second language classroom. Hispania, 71, 408-417
• Harmer, J. (2007). The practice of English language teaching (4th ed.). Essex: Pearson Education Limited.
• Hunter, D., & Smith, R. (2012). Unpackaging the past: ‘CLT’ through ELTJ keywords. ELT Journal, 66, 430-439.
• Ioup, G., Boustagui, E., El Tigi, M., & Moselle, M. (1994). Reexamining the Critical Period Hypothesis: A case study of successful adult SLA in a naturalistic environment. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 73-98
• Işık, A. (2000). The role of input in second language acquisition. ITL Review of Applied Linguistics, 129, 225-274.
• Jackendoff, R. (1993). Patterns in the mind: Language and human nature. New York, NY: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
• Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1995). Beyond modularity: A developmental perspective on cognitive science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Kasper, G. (1997). The role of pragmatics in language teacher education. In K. Bardovi-Harlig & B. Hardford (Eds.), Beyonds methods: Components of second language teacher education (pp.113-136). The McGraw-Hill: New York.
• Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. New York, NY: Pergamon Press.
• Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. London: Longman
• Krashen, S. (1999). Seeking a role for grammar: A review of some recent studies. Foreign Language
• Annals, 32(2): 245-257.
• Krashen, S. (2003). Explorations in language acquisition and use. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
• Lafayette, R., & Buscaglia, M. (1985). Students learn language via a civilization course – a
• comparison of second language acquisition environments. Studies in Second Language
• Acquisition, 7, 323-42.
• Larsen-Freeman, D., & Long, M. (1991). An Introduction to second language acquisition research. London: Longman.
• Lee, S.Y. (2007). Revelations from three consecutive studies on extensive reading. RELC Journal, 38, 150-170.
• Lightbown, P.M. (2002). The role of SLA research in L2 teaching. Applied Linguistics, 23(4), 529- 535.
• Long, M. (1988). Instructed interlanguage development. In L.M. Beebe (Ed.) Issues in second language acquisition: Multiple perspectives. (pp.115-141) New York, NY: Newbury House.
• Mason, B. (2006). Free voluntary reading and autonomy in second language acquisition: Improving TOEFL scores from reading alone. International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 2, 2- 5.
• McLaughlin, B. (1987). Theories of second language learning. London: Edward Arnold.
• Nida, E. A. (1982). Learning by listening. In R. W. Blair (Ed.) Innovative approaches to language teaching (pp.42-53). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
• Norris, J.M., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50(3), 417-528.
• Pienemann, M. (1989). Is language teachable? Applied Linguistics, 10(1), 52-79.
• Piaget, J. (1980). Schemes of action and language learning. In M. Piattelli-Palmarini (Ed.) Language and Learning: The Debate between Jean Piaget and Noam Chomsky (pp.164-167). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd.
• Pippins, D., & Krashen, S. (2016). How well do TPRS students do on the AP? International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 11, 25-33.
• Piske, T. & Young-Scholten, M. (2009). Input matters in SLA. Bristol: Multilingual Matters
• Porcaro, J.W. (2011). Task-based language teaching: Principles, perceptions, and practice. Modern English Teacher, 20, 25-29.
• Postovsky, V.A. (1982). Delayed oral practice. In R.W. Blair (Ed.) Innovative approaches to language teaching (pp.67-76). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
• Richards, J.C. (1984). The secret life of methods. TESOL Quarterly, 18(1), 7-24.
• Richards, J.C., & Rodgers, S. T. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
• Robb, T., & Susser, B. (1989). Extensive reading vs skills building in an EFL Context. Reading in a Foreign Language, 5, 239-51.
• Rose, K.R., & Kasper, G. (2001). Pragmatics in language teaching. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
• Saengboon, S. (2006). CLT revisited. NIDA Language and Communication Journal. 11, 136-148.
• Sarı, R. (2013). Is it possible to improve writing without writing practice? International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 8, 6-10.
• Schwartz, B. (1993). On explicit and negative data effecting and affecting competence and linguistic behavior. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 147-163.
• Sharwood-Smith, M. (1981). Consciousness-raising and second language learner. Applied Linguistics, 2(2), 159-168.
• Sharwood-Smith, M. (2008). Revisiting the role of consciousness with MOGUL. In Z-H. Han (Ed.). Understanding second language process (pp:1-15). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
• Sheen, R. (1994). A critical analysis of the advocacy of the task-based syllabus. TESOL Quarterly, 28(1), 127-151.
• Smith, N., & Tsimpli, I. (1995). The mind of a savant: Language learning and modularity. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
• Smith, K. (2006). A comparison of “pure” extensive reading with intensive reading and extensive reading with supplementary activities. International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 2(2), 12-15.
• Sorensen, A. P. (1967). Multilingualism in the Northwest Amazon. American Anthropologist. 68, 670-684. 02a00030/pdf from
• http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1525/aa.1967.69.6.
• Swan, M. (1985). A critical look at the communicative approach. English Language Teaching Journal, 39(1), 2-12.
• Stern, H. H. (1992). Issues and options in language teaching. Oxford, UK.: Oxford University Press.
• Thornbury, S. (2006). An A-Z of ELT: A dictionary of terms and concepts used in English language teaching. Oxford, UK.: Macmillan Education.
• Truscott, J. (2015). Consciousness and second language learning. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
• Turkish Military Academy (n.d.). Foreign languages. Retrieved December 10, 2014 from http://www.kho.edu.tr/eng_academics/Departments/foreign_languages/foreign_lang_ mainpage.html
• VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction: Theory and research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
• Varguez, K. (2009). Traditional and TPR Storytelling instruction in the Beginning High School Spanish Classroom. International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 5(1), 2-11.
• Vásquez, C., & Sharpless, D. (2009). The role of pragmatics in the master's TESOL curriculum: Findings from a nationwide survey. TESOL Quarterly, 43(1), 5-28.
• Watson, B. (2009). A comparison of TPRS and traditional foreign language instruction at the high school level. International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching 5(1), 21-24.
• Widdowson, H.G. (1978). Teaching language as communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Widdowson, H.G. (1985). Against dogma: A reply to Michael Swan. English Language Teaching Journal, 39(3), 158-161.
• Wolfe, D., & Jones, G. (1982). Integrating total physical response strategy in a level 1 Spanish class. Foreign Language Annals, 14, 273-80.