S. Krashen
March, 2017
I propose
here that there are three options for targeting of grammar and vocabulary: not
targeting at all, and two types of targeting.
Nontargeted
input (NT): I argued for this option in Krashen
(2013). It rests on a corollary of the Comprehension
Hypothesis: Given enough comprehensible input, all the structures and vocabulary
items the acquirer is ready to acquire are present in the input, and naturally
reviewed. In other words, we don't have to aim at i+1; i+1 will be there.
NT asserts
that aspects of grammar will be acquired in the predictable natural order as
the result of exposure to comprehensible input.
Targeted Input
With
nontargeted input, unfamiliar vocabulary and unacquired grammar are made
comprehensible with the help of context, linguistic and non-linguistic. There are times,
however, when targeting is useful – when acquirers are or will soon be faced
with tasks that require knowledge of some specific vocabulary and/or grammar that
they have not yet acquired and that will not be comprehensible without special attention.
We can distinguish two kinds of targeting: The first
is consistent with the "skill-building" view of language development
and the second is consistent with the Comprehension Hypothesis.
Targeting 1
(T1):
1.
The goal is
full mastery of the rule or vocabulary in a short time, so complete that it can
be easily retrieved and used in production.
2.
The source
of the items to be targeted is external, from a syllabus made by others (not
the teacher). The teacher's job when doing T1 is to find a story or
activity that will provide extra exposure to and use of the target items. Thus,
Targeting 1 is a way of "contextualizing" grammar or vocabulary.
3.
T1 consists
of "practice" in using the target items. "Practice"
generally consists of skill-building, first consciously learning the new items,
and then "automatizing" them by using them in output, and getting
corrected to fine-tune conscious knowledge of the rule or meaning of the word.
"Automatizing" means converting explicit, or consciously learned
competence into implicit, or acquired competence. It has been argued that T1 does not result in
the automatization or acquisition of language (Krashen, 1982, VanPatten, 2016).
The best we can hope for with T1 is highly monitored performance.
Targeting 2
(T2):
1. Unlike T1, the goal of T2 is comprehension of the
story or activity, not full mastery of the targeted item in a short time. It can be done in a variety of ways, e.g. via
visual content (e.g. pictures), translation.
3. The source of the items to be targeted is internal;
e.g. the story.
4. This kind of targeting generally results in partial
acquisition, enough to understand the text. Full acquisition of the targeted
item develops gradually, when the item appears in the input again and again, in
other stories or activities, assuming that the targeted item is at the
students' i+1.
My previous arguments
(Krashen, 2013) against targeting are arguments against Targeting 1, not
Targeting 2.
Note that
even when a great deal of Targeting 2 is used, language acquirers will receive non-targeted
comprehensible/compelling input. This is probably not the case with targeting
1.
Table 1 The
contrast between targeting 1 and targeting 2
source of target
|
expectation
|
assumption
|
||||
external
|
Internal
|
rapid mastery
|
gradual
|
skill-building
|
Compr. Hyp.
|
|
T1
|
x
|
x
|
X
|
|||
T2
|
X
|
x
|
x
|
Sources:
Krashen,
S. 1982. Principles and Pratice in Second Language Acquisition. Available at www.sdkrashen.com.
Krashen,
S. 2013. The Case for Non-Targeted, Comprehensible Input. Journal of Bilingual
Education Research & Instruction 15(1): 102-110. Available at www.sdkrashen.com, "language acquisition"
section.
VanPatten,
B. 2016. Why explicit knowledge cannot become implicit knowledge. Foreign
Language Annals doi:10.1111/flan.12226.