![]() I had plenty of evidence showing me that there was something wrong with this theory of the silent period. Because second language learners already know how to speak in their first language, it can be extremely frustrating for them to not be able to convey their messages for months or even years. They are also confronting a new set of sounds (phonemes). They already know how to speak in their first language, and if they don’t speak in the second language is simply because they don’t have the vocabulary to convey the things that they want to say. Children (or adults) learning a second language are not “naturally” quiet either.Recent studies on babies’ processing of language in the brain confirm that each skill supports the other. Therefore, babies and infants are as active trying to understand what they hear as they are trying to produce sounds and speak. More importantly, they learn A LOT about language by doing so. In reality, ever since they are born, babies not only perceive the language that surrounds them, but they also start playing with sounds and trying to communicate in their own way with their caregivers. The cause of their inability to speak is developmental and not related to the amount of language one needs to comprehend before speaking. Babies are not quiet they may not say complete words or sentences, but they are definitely not quiet.There are two problems with this understanding of the silent period as a natural stage in the path towards language acquisition: Since this long period of muteness followed by speech is the “natural” way with the first language, then it makes sense to assume that this is the “natural” way to go with the second language as well: let your students listen for a while and wait for them to start speaking on their own. Only when they have a solid grasp of the language are they able to start speaking. According to this way of thinking, babies spend the first years listening and trying to comprehend what they hear. ![]() The origins of the silent period idea can be traced to a comparison with the years that babies typically take before they start talking in the first language. In fact, I think it is detrimental for the language learner for many different reasons. Secondly, in the case at hand, I think that the silent period is neither natural nor necessary. What do I think today? Firstly, I think that we have to be careful with pendulum moves, for as brilliant as they may sound in the moment. Also, not only is speaking not necessary, but it should not even be encouraged or forced. Listening is then presented as a fundamental step in language acquisition speaking is not fundamental in this respect. If we listen and we can understand, he argues, we will eventually be able to speak. Īt the core of Krashen’s approach ever since has been the primacy of listening to “comprehensible input” over everything else. So after that time in the late 70’s, the pendulum swung from the very artificial teaching of grammar to a more “natural” approach (BTW, that was the title of the foundational book written by Tracy Terrell and Stephen Krashen in 1977: The Natural Approach (Language Teaching Methodology). ![]() Why were his hypotheses so attractive? Because they represented a 180° departure from the very artificial teaching that was taking place at that time (and unfortunately keeps taking place today): grammar-based language instruction. Krashen’s fresh ideas were adopted without much questioning by language educators in the US and even abroad – such was (and is) his influence to this date. Indeed, I had internalized those hypotheses to the point that they had become my norm with my students and with my own kids as well. As many other language educators, I had learned by heart – and loved –linguist Stephen Krashen’s 5 revolutionary hypotheses that changed the curse of language education forever (he proposed them in the late 70’s and early 80’s). There was a time when I believed in the inevitability of the silent period as well. The “silent period” in second language acquisition refers to the period of time when the child or adult is first introduced to the second language and the time when he or she begins to speak. In fact, my skepticism has grown so much in one particular area that I can hardly contain myself when I hear it introduced to new teachers (or parents) as an inevitable (and natural) stage in second language acquisition: the “Silent Period.” During the years, I have become more and more suspicious of “natural approaches” to second language education.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |