Acquisition/Learning

Ellis (1982) describes two kinds of communicative approach. There is that which is informal, designed to engage the learner in the process of communication in the classroom. This emphasises the use of language as a means to some behavioural end. The teacher here abandons her traditional role of instructress and becomes more of a participant and facilitator. The other kind of communicative approach is formal, based on a syllabus of language items to be learnt, selected and graded into units for teaching in the traditional manner except, Ellis says, that the syllabus should be based on functions rather than on linguistic items and should suit the needs of the learner if it is to be truly communicative. The formal communicative approach is concerned with the product of communication.

Following Krashen, Ellis links the first of these with acquisition of language and the second with its learning. Stevick (1980) has described this distinction as 'potentially the most fruitful concept for language teachers that has come out of the linguistic sciences in my lifetime'. There has been a great deal of discussion and argument about it in the literature, about the validity of the concept in the first place and about the classroom implications in the second. What is the relationship between the two? Does the learner use his learnt knowledge to sort out or monitor his knowledge acquired in the informal and natural situation? Does he in fact need formal learning if he can acquire on his own, and if not, where does this put the teacher? Ellis in his article comes down in favour of both and supports the idea that learnt knowledge does transfer to acquisition, provided that the classroom offers communicative opportunities. It is these which activate the switch and allow the knowledge learnt in the formal situation to be used for authentic purposes. If he is right then there are very significant implications here for teaching methodology. Just how can appropriate communicative opportunities be created in the classroom? It is hoped that this book will go some way to answering this question, particularly concerning the young child. It must be noted that what has been discussed so far is very much the thinking of those involved with older learners of language. The applied linguists and their colleagues in higher education are not really catering for the school teacher, but perhaps the latter should be listening and reading nevertheless. I believe that there are things here which are relevant to the teaching of English language to young children and will try to make this plain as we go on. It is interesting, for instance, to look at communicative matters from another angle, one which does bring us nearer to the young child.