Comparison between Natural Approach and Communicative language teaching

This is a comparison between Natural approach and Communicative Language Teaching.

NATURAL APPROACH COMMUNICATIVE LANGUAGE TEACHING
Communication is the primary purpose of language so language is viewed as primarily messages and meaning. Little attention is paid to theories of language learning. Structures and grammar are mastered in stages but are not considered the central component of language. Language is lexical so vocabulary is stressed.
Language is viewed as the ability to perform different kinds of functions. While many theories of CLT exist, all refer in some way to communicative competence as the goal of language teaching.
NA is supported by Krashen is second language acquisition theory (Krashen&
Terrell, 1983) called the Monitor Model.
This model describes the processes as acquisition and learning and the necessary conditions as comprehensible input in a low anxiety setting. This theory relies on five hypotheses:
-Acquisition/learning hypothesis: acquisition is natural and unconscious
(childlike) and learning is rules based and conscious -Monitor hypothesis: conscious learningísonly function is to correct acquired language.
-Natural order hypothesis: grammatical structures are acquired in a natural order.
-Input hypothesis: challenging input produces fluency over time.
-Affective filter hypothesis: anxiety prevents acquisition so lowering affective filters results in better acquisition. CLT is described by no specific theory of language learning, but Richards and
Rodgers suggest three underlying principles: -Communicative principle: real communication activities promote learning.
-Task principle: meaningful task activities promote learning.
-Meaningfulness principle: meaningful and authentic language use activities engage learners, thus promote learning.
These principles relate to conditions for language learning, but the implied process is acquisition rather than learning as defined by Krashen.