UNIVERSITE ALASSANE OUATTARA DE BOUAKE

UFR-Communication, Milieu et Société

Département d’Anglais

ENSEIGNANT : Dahigo Guézé Habraham Aimé, PhD

Maître de conférences

LICENCE 2

Cours : METHODS OF LANGUAGE TEACHING

Enseignant: Pr. Dahigo Guézé Habraham Aimé

Maître de conférences

General objective: Methods in E.L.T are key aspects in the teaching profession. So, understanding the rationale underlying them can help the
professional as well as the researcher use them better or adapt them to any context. Their mastery is essential for the expertise. Therefore, this
course aims at helping students to understand the theories underlying the field of language teaching methodology.
Specific objectives: At the end of the course, students should be able to:
1/ understand the principles and theories underlying methods in E.L.T;

1
2/ Make sufficiently informed comments on existing methods;
3/ Make informed suggestions for the improvement of the existing and publish methods when necessary
Méthode d’enseignement: Cours magistraux et Travaux dirigés
Méthode d’évaluation : Analyse de documents ou questions sur le cours magistral

REFERENCES

Christison, M. (1998). Applying multiple intelligences theory in preservice and in-service TEFL education programs. English Teaching Forum,
36 (2), 2-13.
Dahigo, G.H.A (2011). Assessing the Vocabulary Teaching Methods in Legal Language Development: A case Study of the Faculty of Law at the
University of Bouaké in Côte d’Ivoire. Accra: PhD Thesis.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind. New York: Basic Books.
Howatt, A. (1984). A history of English language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2000). Techniques and principles in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lewis,M. (1997). Implementing the Lexical Approach: Putting Theory into Practice.U.K: Thomson, Heinle.
Pawley, A., & Syder, F. (1983). Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Native-like selection and native-like fluency. In J. Richards & R. Schmidt
(Eds.), Language and communication. London: Longman.
Richards, J., & Rodgers, T. (2001). Approaches and methods in language Teaching (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

2
COURSE CONTENT
I/ Methods of Language Teaching
A/ The concept of method in the didactics of English

« Method »,defined by McDonoug (2002) as the organization and design of the content of what is going to take place in the classroom constitutes

the translation of the the philosophy or assumptions and theories (approach) in didactic forms.It is often confused with technique which is made

up of the exercises and activities that take place in the classroom (pedagogy). From that definition of the concept that seems adopted by most

applied linguists,what is the nature of a method ?

A/ The nature of a teaching method

A method is prescriptive according to Dahigo (2015) contrary to an approach. As such,it does not leave any room for innovation. The second

thing, is that they can easily be mastered by an inexperienced teacher. Finally, most applied linguists acknowledge that there is no bad or good

method. If we agree with the nature of a method, it is clear that methods can be better appreciated in terms of its advantages and drawbacks.

1) The advantages of methods

As we already mentioned it, the first advantage of methods is that a knowledge of methods is part of the knowledge base of teaching, so it helps

to expand a teacher’s repertoire of techniques (see Larsen-Freeman and Diane,2016 : pxi). In other words, they serve as a foil for reflection that
3
can aid teachers in bringing to concious awareness the thinking that underlies their actions. Despite those positive aspects, methods are

reproached with the following things.

2) The disadvantages of methods

Methods may not be appropriate for particular contexts. For example, the reading method may not be appropriate for false-beginners in a foreign

language learning context. Prabhu (1990) assumes that the search for the best method is ill-advised. In other words, the applied linguist infers that

methodological labels tells us little about what really goes on in classrooms to speak like Katz (1996). Finally, Rajagofalan (2007) notes that

teachers experience a certain fatigue concerning the constant coming and going of fashions in methods. From the description of the nature of

methods above, can methods claim any sort of universality?

B/ The question of the universality of teaching methods

Questioning the universality of methods goes together with the causes of their decline. In fact, research seems to link the decline of methods to

progress in linguistic research. That may be true to some extent, but given that methods belong to the field of didactics which is an applied

science, we would side with Hinkel (2006) quoted in Larsen-Freeman and Diane (2016 : p xi) when he notes that the need for « situationally

relevant language pedagogy has brought the decline of methods ». Larsen-Freeman and Freeman even add that ;

It is clear that universal solutions that are transposed critically, and often

4
 accompanied by calls for increased standardization, and which ignore
indigeneous conditions, the diversity of learners, and the agency
of teachers are immanent in a modernism that no longer applies, if it ever did.
Larsen-freeman and Freeman 2008 :168
From what precedes, it is difficult to claim the universality of methods. That conclusion also shows that the nature of methods does not allow

standardization, for methods are contextual.

.II/ DESCRIPTION OF THE CHARACTERISTICS OF MAJOR METHODS IN E.L.T

Grammar-Translation Approach

 In this method, classes are taught in the students' mother tongue, with little active use of the target language.

 Vocabulary is taught in the form of isolated word lists.

 Elaborate explanations of grammar are always provided.

 Grammar instruction provides the rules for putting words together; instruction focuses on the form and inflection of words.

 Little attention is paid to the content of texts.

 Drills are exercises in translating disconnected sentences from the target language into the mother tongue, and vice versa.

 Little or no attention is given to pronunciation.

Direct Approach

5
  This approach was developed initially as a reaction to the grammar-translation approach in an attempt to integrate more use of the target
language in instruction.

 Lessons begin with a dialogue using a modern conversational style in the target language.

 Material is first presented orally with actions or pictures.

 The mother tongue is NEVER used. There is no translation.

 The preferred type of exercise is a series of questions in the target language based on the dialogue or an anecdotal narrative.

 Questions are answered in the target language.

 Grammar is taught inductively--rules are generalized from the practice and experience with the target language.

 Verbs are used first and systematically conjugated much later after some oral mastery of the target language.

 Advanced students read literature for comprehension and pleasure.

 Literary texts are not analyzed grammatically.

 The culture associated with the target language is also taught inductively.

 Culture is considered an important aspect of learning the language.

Reading Approach

 The approach is mostly for people who do not travel abroad for whom reading is the one usable skill in a foreign language.

 The priority in studying the target language is first, reading ability and second, current and/or historical knowledge of the country where
the target language is spoken.

 Only the grammar necessary for reading comprehension and fluency is taught.
6
  Minimal attention is paid to pronunciation or gaining conversational skills in the target language.

From the beginning, a great amount of reading is done in L2.

 The vocabulary of the early reading passages and texts is strictly controlled for difficulty.

 Vocabulary is expanded as quickly as possible, since the acquisition of vocabulary is considered more important that grammatical skill.

 Translation reappears in this approach as a respectable classroom procedure related to comprehension of the written text.

Audiolingual Method

 This method is based on the principles of behavior psychology.

 It adapted many of the principles and procedures of the Direct Method, in part as a reaction to the lack of speaking skills of the Reading
Approach.

 New material is presented in the form of a dialogue.

 Based on the principle that language learning is habit formation, the method fosters dependence on mimicry, memorization of set phrases
and over-learning.

 Structures are sequenced and taught one at a time. Structural patterns are taught using repetitive drills.

 Little or no grammatical explanations are provided; grammar is taught inductively.

 Skills are sequenced: Listening, speaking, reading and writing are developed in order.

 Vocabulary is strictly limited and learned in context.

 Teaching points are determined by contrastive analysis between L1 and L2.

 There is abundant use of language laboratories, tapes and visual aids.

7
  There is an extended pre-reading period at the beginning of the course.

 Great importance is given to precise native-like pronunciation.

 Use of the mother tongue by the teacher is permitted, but discouraged among and by the students.

 Successful responses are reinforced; great care is taken to prevent learner errors.

 There is a tendency to focus on manipulation of the target language and to disregard content and meaning. Hints for Using Audio-lingual
Drills in L2 Teaching

1. The teacher must be careful to insure that all of the utterances which students will make are actually within the practiced pattern.

2. Drills should be conducted as rapidly as possibly so as to insure automaticity and to establish a system.

3. Ignore all but gross errors of pronunciation when drilling for grammar practice.

4. Use of shortcuts to keep the pace of drills at a maximum. Use hand motions, signal cards, notes, etc. to cue response.

5. Drill material should always be meaningful. If the content words are not known, teach their meanings.

6. Intersperse short periods of drill (about 10 minutes) with very brief alternative activities to avoid fatigue and boredom.

7. Don’t stand in one place; move about the room standing next to as many different students as possible to check their production. Thus you will
know who to give more practice to during individual drilling.

Community language learning (CLL)

 This approach is patterned upon counseling techniques and adapted to the peculiar anxiety and threat as well as the personal and language
problems a person encounters in the learning of foreign languages.

8
  The learner is not thought of as a student but as a client.

 The instructors are not considered teachers but, rather are trained in counseling skills adapted to their roles as language counselors.

The language-counseling relationship begins with the client's linguistic confusion and conflict.

 The aim of the language counselor's skill is first to communicate an empathy for the client's threatened inadequate state and to aid him
linguistically.

 Then slowly the teacher-counselor strives to enable him to arrive at his own increasingly independent language adequacy.

This process is furthered by the language counselor's ability to establish a warm, understanding, and accepting relationship, thus becoming an
"other-language self" for the client.

 The process involves five stages of adaptation:

STAGE 1

 The client is completely dependent on the language counselor.

 1. First, he expresses only to the counselor and in English what he wishes to say to the group. Each group member overhears this English
exchange but no other members of the group are involved in the interaction.

2. The counselor then reflects these ideas back to the client in the foreign language in a warm, accepting tone, in simple language in
phrases of five or six words.

 3. The client turns to the group and presents his ideas in the foreign language. He has the counselor's aid if he mispronounces or hesitates
on a word or phrase. This is the client's maximum security stage.

 STAGE 2

9
  1. Same as above.

 2. The client turns and begins to speak the foreign language directly to the group.

 3. The counselor aids only as the client hesitates or turns for help. These small independent steps are signs of positive confidence and
hope.

 STAGE 3

 1. The client speaks directly to the group in the foreign language. This presumes that the group has now acquired the ability to understand
his simple phrases.

 2. Same as 3 above. This presumes the client's greater confidence, independence, and proportionate insight into the relationship of
phrases, grammar, and ideas. Translation is given only when a group member desires it.

 STAGE 4

1. The client is now speaking freely and complexly in the foreign language. Presumes group's understanding.

 2. The counselor directly intervenes in grammatical error, mispronunciation, or where aid in complex expression is needed. The client is
sufficiently secure to take correction.

 STAGE 5

 1. Same as stage 4.

 2. The counselor intervenes not only to offer correction but to add idioms and more elegant constructions.

 3. At this stage the client can become counselor to the group in stages 1, 2, and 3.

Suggestopedia

10
-This method developed out of belief that human brain could process great quantities of material given the right conditions of learning like
relaxation.

- music was central to this method.

- Soft music led to increase in alpha brain wave and a decrease in blood pressure and pulse rate resulting in high intake of large quantities
of materials.

- Learners were encouraged to be as “childlike” as possible.

- Apart from soft, comfortable seats in a relaxed setting, everything else remained the same.

The natural approach

 This method emphasized development of basic personal communication skills

 Delay production until speech emerge i.e learners don’t say anything until they are ready to do so

 Learners should be as relaxed a possible

 Advocate use of TPR at beginning level

 Comprehensible input is essential for acquisition to take place.

The Silent Way

 This method begins by using a set of colored wooden rods and verbal commands in order to achieve the following:

1) To avoid the use of the vernacular.

11
2) To create simple linguistic situations that remain under the complete control of the teacher .

3)To pass on to the learners the responsibility for the utterances of the descriptions of the objects shown or the actions performed.

4) To let the teacher concentrate on what the students say and how they are saying it, drawing their attention to the differences in pronunciation
and the flow of words.

5) To generate a serious game-like situation in which the rules are implicitly agreed upon by giving meaning to the gestures of the teacher and his
mime.

6) To permit almost from the start a switch from the lone voice of the teacher using the foreign language to a number of voices using it.

7) To provide the support of perception and action to the intellectual guess of what the noises mean, thus bring in the arsenal of the usual criteria
of experience already developed and automatic in one's use of the mother tongue.

8) To provide a duration of spontaneous speech upon which the teacher and the students can work to obtain a similarity of melody to the one
heard.

Materials

 The materials utilized as the language learning progresses include:

1) A set of colored wooden rods

2) A set of wall charts containing words of a "functional" vocabulary and some additional ones

3) A pointer for use with the charts in Visual Dictation

4) A color coded phonic chart(s) Tapes or discs

12
 5) films, drawings and pictures, and

6) A set of accompanying worksheets transparencies, texts, a Book of Stories.

Total Physical Response (TPR)

Total Physical Response (TPR) method as one that combines information and skills through the use of the kinesthetic sensory system.

 This combination of skills allows the student to assimilate information and skills at a rapid rate. The basic tenets are:

1) Understanding the spoken language before developing the skills of speaking.

2) Imperatives are the main structures to transfer or communicate information.

3) The student is not forced to speak, but is allowed an individual readiness period and allowed to spontaneously begin to speak when he/she
feels comfortable and confident in understanding and producing the utterances.

Procedure:

Step I The teacher says the commands as he himself performs the action.

Step 2 The teacher says the command as both the teacher and the students then perform the action.

Step 3 The teacher says the command but only students perform the action

Step 4 The teacher tells one student at a time to do commands

Step 5 The roles of teacher and student are reversed. Students give commands to teacher and to other students.

Step 6 The teacher and student allow for command expansion or produces new sentences.

Communicative language Teaching

13
  The method stresses a means of organizing a language syllabus. The emphasis is on breaking down the global concept of language into
units of analysis in terms of communicative situations in which they are used.

 There is negotiation of meaning.

 A variety of language skills are involved

 Material is presented in context

 It pays attention to registers and styles in terms of situation and participants.

 Fluency and accuracy (different competencies)

 Form and functions

 development of autonomous learners

TEACHING METHODS AND TEACHER & LEARNER ROLES

Method Teacher Roles Learner Roles

Context Setter Imitator
Situational Language Teaching
Error Corrector Memorizer
Language Modeler Pattern Practicer
Audio-lingualism
Drill Leader Accuracy Enthusiast
Needs Analyst Improvisor
Communicative Language Teaching
Task Designer Negotiator
Total Physical Response Commander Order Taker

14
 Action Monitor Performer
Counselor Collaborator
Community Language Learning
Paraphraser Whole Person
Actor Guesser
The Natural Approach
Props User Immerser
Auto-hypnotist Relaxer
Suggestopedia
Authority Figure True-Believer
Figure 2. Methods and Teacher and Learner Roles

Since the advent of audio-lingualism, progress in language teaching has originated from advancements in linguistic descriptions and learning
theories. That close relationship between language pedagogy, linguistics and the educational sciences is described by many researchers such as
Howatt (1984), Stern (1983), and McDonough (2004) to mention only those.
The works of the above mentioned applied linguists show that since the intrusion of structuralism as a theoretical basis for language teaching
towards the end of the 50s, and, the early 60s with the Reform movement, English language teaching has gone from the structural approach to the
communicative approach grounded in discourse analysis and the communicative theories initiated by Canale and Swain(1980).On the basis of the
communicative theories and principles, such approaches as the Notional approach, the Notional-Functional approach, the Natural approach ,etc,
have developed, giving the impression that the knowledge of the nature of the English language and the process of its learning were now
mastered.
Then, in the 90s, the Lexical Approach emerged claiming to be communicative, but questioning the old theories and principles. In addition,
attempts to implement the approach through the development of syllabuses have proved unsuccessful (Lewis, 1993).That situation leads to two
15
major questions. Firstly, is the approach clear enough for the practioners in the classrooms to implement it? That question which would call for
another type of research can be rephrased the following way: how far does the lexical approach challenge the methodological principles of users
of the communicative approach? Secondly, does it constitute an evolution or a revolution in English language teaching methodology?
The objective of this part is to show that the lexical approach represents the corollary of the shift in linguistic research in language teaching. We
also purport to describe the nature of the changes brought in language teaching by proponents of the lexical approach through a contrastive
analysis of the approaches.
I. Communicative Approaches and Lexical Approach: diverging views about the nature and learning of language.

Implying a level of approach consisting of a view on the nature of language and its learning, E.L.T is focused on the method including the
objectives of the teaching, the syllabus and a teaching technique (McDonough, 2004, p157).The objective of this chapter is to look at the
assumptions in the different approaches to pinpoint the similarities if any and the differences. That will allow us to see if the L.A model is a
complete change of philosophy in language teaching or just some adjustments. An approach being consistent with a method which itself is
consistent with a teaching technique, comparing the approaches will help understand classroom practice within each model of language
development. This part starts with a look at the nature of language in the two kinds of approaches and ends with a comparison of the views on
language learning.
I.1. The nature of language according to tenets of the communicative and lexical approaches: some contrasting views.
This part of the work purports to discuss the views of the approaches on the nature of language. The analysis starts with the language description
that influenced each approach to come up with the convergences and divergences. The second aspect of the analysis consists in looking at the
assumptions.

16
 A. The language descriptions

17
According to Stern1, theorists of the communicative approach brought into language teaching insights which they have derived from speech act
theory, discourse analysis and the ethnography of communication. Discussing the Lexical Approach, Lewis asserts that it is based on
developments in lexicography and corpus linguistics. From these two theoretical backgrounds, the two types of approaches have diverging views
on the nature of language. In fact, the Lexical Approach rejects the view that the nature of language is grammar to assert that it is lexis. While
tenets of the communicative approach like Littlewood say that it pays systematic attention to functional as well as structural aspects of language,
combining these into a more fully communicative view, proponents of the lexical approach assert that language consists of grammaticalised lexis,
not lexicalized grammaŗ (Lewis,1993).Here, we see that the nature of language according to the first group is grammar structures and language
functions when the second one views the grammar rules as subordinate to lexis. That position becomes even clearer when Nattinger and
Decarrico (1992) assert that language consists of multi-word chunks. That is, a phrase or groups of words which cannot be learnt as a unit.
William, LITTLEWOOD, Communicative Language Teaching, C.U.P, 1982, P2.
In the end, it is important to say that the Lexical approach acknowledges the usefulness of structural patterns, but lexical and metaphorical
patterns are accorded appropriate status because grammar is believed to be subordinate to lexis. In addition, grammar is seen as a receptive skill.
That diverging view on the nature of language surely has implications for learning within each approach.
B. The learning theories
The central hypothesis in the lexical approach is that, language occurs in only one way: by understanding what we hear or read in mother
languages, Lewis (1996, p22).In other words, learning is process oriented. In fact, the belief within the lexical approach is that, it is cognitive
involvement struggling, trying, hypothesing, revising, and other activities of this kind which are the basis of learning, Lewis (1996, p18).
Tenets of the lexical approach agree with Widdowson (1979, p12) a theorist of the communicative approach when he asserts that, knowing a
language is not only a matter of knowing how to form correct sentences, but how to use these sentences in acts of communication. But what
diverges the Lexical Approach from the Communicative Approach is the following assumptions of the proponents of the Lexical Approach. First,

18
they assert that it is possible to learn a language simply by listening to it spoken, Lewis (1996, p17).Second, it is believed that language is
retained in

19
chuncks, Nattinger and De Carrico (1992, p32).Third, the assumption is that, fluency is based on those lexical phrases, Lewis (1996, p19).
On the whole, proponents of the Lexical Approach do not see any real difference between L1 learning and L2 learning whereas those of the
communicative approach do. An eloquent example is provided by Hoff who puts that, grammar is a receptive skill which can be fuelled by the
need to communicate. He contradicts, here, the view of Littlewood who views grammar as a productive skill. E. HOFF, Language Development,
Wadsworth, 2001, p332. All these contradictory views on the nature of language and how it is learned have implications for applied linguistics,
mainly English Language Teaching (E.L.T).
II. The pedagogic implications
Convergent on the objectives in so far as they all have communication as the ultimate goal, the Lexical Approach differs from them on the
following aspects: the role of the teacher, the organization of the syllabus, the focus of the teaching, and the attitude to error.
2.1. The role of the teacher
Contrary to the other communicative approaches in which the teacher is the purveyor and orchestrator of the knowledge (Hutchinson and Waters,
1987), the role of the teacher in the L. A model of language development is one of a guide. His/her role is not to provide the learner with what
should be known, but draw the latter’s attention on it. Lewis (1993) talks about bringing about awareness" on the part of the learner. As such,
more and careful teacher talk is valued in the Lexical Approach while less teacher talk is prescribed in the other communicative approaches.
Last but not the least is the role assigned to the teacher when communication breakdown occurs in learner production. While the other
approaches suggest an intervention of the teacher by indicating the learner the mistake, its nature and correct it, the Lexical Approach proposes a
particular task of the teacher who is asked to play on the learner’s accurate observation and noticing. In the end, the teacher should make sure that
learners keep a well-organized notebook

20
according to the Lexical Approach, when such an initiative from the teacher is not advised in the other communicative approaches.
On the whole, the role of the teacher within the Lexical Approach is to encourage learner autonomy. As such the role of the teacher is one of a
facilitator, editor, consultant and advisor rather than an instructor as indicated in the other approaches. All these differences can also be seen
through the principles of syllabus content organization.
2.2. The organization of the syllabus
Though we acknowledge from our readings that there is no single definition of the term syllabus, history shows that it represents a programme
highly linked to the view of its initiator of the nature of language and how students learn it. In fact, when the other communicative approaches do
not reject the Chomskian view of language, the Lexical Approach rejects that view and proposes a purely lexical perspective of learning. So in
the place of grammar structures, the L.A proposes the grammar of the word known as collocation.
Meanwhile, tenets of the Lexical Approach assert that, the search for a strictly lexical syllabus is likely to be frustrating for theorist, teacher and
students (Lewis, 1996, p105). An evidence of that frustration is the Cobuild lexical syllabus. Advocates of the Lexical Approach do not propose a
syllabus like the other communicative approaches (Notional Approach, Notional/Functional Approach, and the Competency Based Language
Teaching etc).They rather propose eleven major ways in which lexis contributes as syllabus component:
1. Certain words deserve lexical rather than grammatical treatment. This type of words include such de-lexicalized words as have, get, put, take,
make do; function words known as prepositions and modal auxiliaries including would
2. An emphasis should be placed on the base form of lexical verbs. In other words, pay increased attention to the highly frequent present simple.
3. Semantically dense items can be de-contextualised. For example, despite the fact that a simple identification of signification cannot be
considered as mastery of a word, it is believed to take an appropriate and valuable basis for increased communicative power.
4. Collocation is thought to assume an important syllabus generating role.
5. Sentences exemplifying pragmatically identifiable institutionalized utterances should be offered to learners for reflection.
6. Sentence heads are good for syllabus content because unlike functions in communicative approaches, they are generalizable
21
7. Because it is an important cohesive device in spontaneous conversation, supra-sentential (tags, interested responses) lexical linking in syllabus
through lexically based exercises is more natural and more pragmatically effective.
8. Synonyms are believed to constitute key features of fluency, for they represent within the existential paradigm a particular example of supra-
sentential linking. In fact, the supra-sentential linking is the ability to use alternative language items as value synonyms, though they have
different signification. So synonyms can be of great value in a syllabus.
9. Instead of looking at grammar of the reported speech, proponents of the Lexical Approach would rather that the repertoire of synopsing verbs
be considered. Take the following sentences:- don’t drink alcohol, the father said. Reported speech: The father advised him not to drink alcohol.
Here, advised is a synopsing word.
10. We should get the learner recognize that a metaphor is part of everyday language. Then, that such metaphorical usage is often patterned in an
accessible way.
11. For tenets of the Lexical Approach, two fundamental skills that need be developed in the learner: the students’ ability to use the dictionary as
a learning resource, rather than reference work, and to help students identify lexical phrases in text ;( Willis, 1990, Lewis, 1993)
In a nutshell, it can be said that a lexical syllabus is a shift from grammar to vocabulary. In this way, collocations become the organizing
principle of the syllabus. That principle is completely different from the one guiding the other communicative approaches. Given that a syllabus
is consistent with a teaching method, it is clear that the focus of teaching in an L.A lesson will be different.

22
2.3. A diverging teaching focus
While the Lexical Approach claims a unified teaching of grammar, lexis and pronunciation, the other communicative approaches propose a
separate teaching of grammar, lexis and pronunciation. In other words, they propose an analytical approach of the teaching. In addition, the
Lexical Approach model suggests no gradation of the language to be taught when the others go for a gradation ranging from the simple to the
complex of the language. In addition, when the teacher within the lexical approach seeks to expand learners’ mental lexicon, the other
approaches suggest that the teacher seek to provide learners with grammar rules and language functions.
In the end, contrary to the other communicative approaches based on the behavioral three Ps (Presentation-Practice-Produce) and geared to a
tendency to control learners’ intake, the Lexical approach rejects the three Ps and aims at the development of learner’s awareness.
From what precedes, it is clear that the attitude in the two kinds of approaches will be different.
2.4. Attitude to error
The Lexical Approach rejects the view of the behaviorists accepted by tenets of the other communicative approaches according to which
language is right or wrong. For proponents of the Lexical Approach, language is rather about successful or unsuccessful communication.
Therefore, the norm in language teaching is no longer a matter of wrong or right, but what sort of language is produced by the learner or
tendencies to use the term of Halliday (1989). So, contrary to the other approaches, the Lexical Approach endorses Krashen’s view to regard
errors not as something to be corrected, but as a stimulus to expose students to further natural language around their current level, Willis (1990).
All the above diverging views highlight two major things. First, English language teaching has shifted to a post Chomskian period consisting of
focusing the teaching on the target language instead of the ideal innate capacity of the learner. Second, many research works have been directed
to second language learning as if the nature of a second language were different from that of the first one. The Lexical approach puts an end to
the debate by asserting that L1 and L2 learning constitute the same and unique process.

23