A Note
In this
post, you’ll get a glimpse of the journey of language teaching over centuries.
In the next post, you’ll learn in some depth how language learning and teaching
has been conceived in different ways at different periods of time
A Broad Overview of Language Teaching
Languages
have always existed in spoken and/or written modes. Formal language teaching
has concerned itself at a given period with one or both modes. There is no
language without its grammar and vocabulary. And the use or non-use of L1 in L2
learning is another aspect of language teaching. All these had their share in
shaping language teaching.
Before this
Century
Period
I
In
Ancient times, language learning was characterised by direct learning from native speakers and formal learning from bilingual manuals. Then came formal
teaching of language kernels, namely vocabulary and grammar.
Period
II
In
the Middle Ages, teaching was formal through books and the vernaculars were
slowly replacing Latin.
Period
III
And
Renaissance saw the vernaculars gaining ascendency as foreign languages. The
formal approach was monolingual and oral through memorisation, imitation and repeated
practice.
Period
IV
Between
the 16th and 18th centuries, a conflict is easily
noticeable in the principles of language teaching. Translation was the principal technique; however, Montaigne
believed in natural learning by direct exposure to the language in real
situations.
Period
V
The
19th century saw the culmination of what is known as
Grammar-Translation Method and the beginnings of reform in language teaching.
The focus was on the written mode and its understanding through grammatical
rules and analysis and its mastery through translation. Gouin, perhaps the best
known reformer, proposed alternative measures and reflected in them the way
children used language. Sweet provided to language teaching what it had lacked
all along—a theoretical base through incorporating truths from linguistics and
psychology. He prescribed primacy of speech, accuracy in pronunciation,
associating content with code.
Twentieth
century
The
job of this century was to improve upon and refine the one that Sweet had taken
up. Linguistics and psychology became the twin wheels of the language chariot.
While Jesperson merely reflected the changing mood and trends of the times,
Palmer made language teaching ‘scientific’ with selection, gradation and
presentation of language items. The influence of linguistics and psychology can
be seen in the insistence on ‘structure’ in situations, accuracy in oral and
written production, habit formation. West, as a field practitioner, felt the
need to develop reading more than anything else.
The
role of these allied disciplines was more keenly felt in what came to be called
the Audiolingual Method for it is a composition of structural linguistic
theory, contrastive analysis and behaviourist psychology. Speech-based
instruction for oral proficiency with accuracy was recommended, and to achieve
this “recognition and discrimination ...followed by imitation, repetition and
memorization” were to be the techniques. Code patterns through a variety of
drills and substitutions were to be reinforced to saturation by eliciting only
the correct response. The learner was just a passive receiver.
Such
theoretical sense was seriously questioned by Cognitivists who claimed the
learner to be an active and thinking participant in the learning process which
was one of problem solving, gradual discovery and insight. Unlike the
behaviourists, cognitivists believed that the learner learnt rather from
knowing he was making mistakes than from not being allowed to make mistakes.
Control
and direction of pedagogical practices through linguistic and psychological
truths about language and learning continued. A set of psycholinguists influenced
by Chomsky claimed that the language learner already has the rules at birth and
the exposure to language data only confirms the rules that are genetically
built into them.
Dodson’s
bilingual method added a new dimension to principles of language teaching
amidst these theoretical developments. It uses all the four skills
simultaneously, aims to develop fluency in speech through pattern drills and
hopes to achieve true bilingualism in the learner (by helping them to learn to
‘hop’ from one language to another) with judicious use of L1 restricted to the
teacher only.
Old as new
L1 and L2
Monolingual
or bilingual approach to teaching a foreign language dates back to ancient
times. Formal teaching in periods I, II, IV and V used bilingual manuals,
bilingual dictionaries and bilingual translations. Thus the need for L1 use in
L2 learning was considered vital. Dodson’s method is only a rethinking and
renaming of these early ideas. The monolingual approach initiated during
Renaissance—“neither the teachers nor the textbooks made use of the learner’s
mother tongue”—became the corner stone of what was known as the Direct Method
in the 19th and the early part of this century. Palmer’s situational
approach and the Audiolingual Method favoured monolingual approach though the
latter did use contrastive analysis to identify and prevent learner errors. And
West was not prejudiced against bilingual approach.
The two language
modes
In
Ancient times, middle ages, Renaissance, Montaigne, Locke, the written mode had
always followed the spoken mode:
“This pattern of education
continued...through bilingual manuals… at first orally... later
through reading...”
“...it was essentially oral approach, ...
the learner...to go through conversation manuals..”
“... by direct approach to language spoken by native speakers”
“Locke ... began to emphasize the natural
method...”
Situational
Method and Audiolingual Method followed this principle. Learning primarily
through written mode was recommended by Comenius: “language ... learned by
practice...especially reading...”, by West who “maintained that reading should
be given precedence...” and Jesperson said “ ... living language ...good
reading selections.”
Grammar
This
is another essential language area that has engaged the attention of language
teachers. It has had its place in language teaching:
(deductively) “serious attempt ... to ...
grammatical structures...” (ancient times)
“through grammar exercises of various
kinds...” (Middle Ages)
“...to such grammatical items as would cause
difficulty “ (Ascham)
“grammatical rules and paradigms” (Plotz)
whereas Comenius “... abstract rules of
grammar...” was for inductive method and Locke stressed usage as more important
than grammar “...language created by ...the common usage...” Jesperson echoes
Locke’s views: “...grammar ... subordinated ...to the understanding of the
language in its totality.” Palmer like Sweet emphasized grammar learning
through “...copious illustrative examples...” The Audiolingual Method was
inductive in its approach while cognitive code-learning, deductive. And
Hamilton avoided grammar completely.
Techniques
Imitation,
memorisation, repetitive practice as teaching techniques of the past are
reflected in the present in Situational Language Teaching and the Audiolingual
Methods through pattern drills and substitution tables. Translation was another
technique that the past handed down to the present. Repetitive practice of the
past reflects itself through Palmer as habit formation. Perception and cognition
of the present was visualised in the past by Comenius and Locke: “to see, think
and say”.
Conclusion
Principles
of language teaching then has always been basically the same though they may be
expressed in different terminologies. The only differences between the past and
the present are in the treatment of language for teaching purposes: scientific
and systematic and in the emphasis: learner and their interests as central
rather than the teacher and their aims.
___________________________________________________________________________
No comments:
Post a Comment