Teaching English in the Priy Classroom | Page 29

to instil it and, therefore, it recognises the learner’s contribution and creativity to the process of acquisition. Considering ways of making input comprehensible, especially during the initial steps of second language learning, Krashen (1987) claims that teachers should make use of pictures and realia and use simplified language, imitating the way parents speak to their children, what is known as ‘caretaker speech’ (see Clark and Clark 1977). Krashen (1987: 64) refers to such simplified language as a ‘simple code’ stressing that it is characterized by the following features which assist acquisition: (1) a simple code is used to communicate meaning, not to teach language, (2) it is ‘roughly tuned’ not ‘finely tuned’ to the learners’ current level of linguistic competence and (3) it is used in speech that follows the ‘here-and-now’ principle- that is, it is directed to what the learner can perceive in the immediate environment. As it was stressed from the beginning, Krashen’s theory is reception-based; hence it de-emphasises the role of the learner’s output in language development. Indeed, Krashen (1987: 60) claims that it is possible to acquire language without ever talking. For Krashen (1987: 60), then, the role output can play to the process of acquisition is that it can increase both the quantity and quality of comprehensible input which is directed to the learner. Long (1985: 378) adopts a similar view to that of Krashen, claiming that the causative variable in the input-output relationship is comprehensible input, something which, he argues, can be investigated in terms of three steps: Step 1: Show that (A) linguistic/ conversational adjustments promote (B) comprehension Step 2: Show that (B) comprehensible input promotes (C) acquisition. Step 3: Show that (A) linguistic/ conversational adjustments promote (C) acquisition (Long 1985: 378) However, not all researchers share the view that comprehensible input is sufficient for a person to acquire language. Swain (1985: 236) stresses that ‘…although comprehensible input may be essential to the acquisition of a second l