APPLIED LINGUISTICSUNIT 1
A. The Need for Applied Linguistics
Language is the heart of human life. Without it, many of our most important activities are inconceivable. Almost all of our activities use language for interaction to each other. And the other important activities don’t use language, for example sexual relations, preparing and eating food, manual labour, etc.
Throughout history and across the world, people have used language for gossip and chat, flirt and seduce, play games, sing songs, tell stories, etc. Such activities seem to be intrinsic to human life, as natural to us as flight is to birds. People do them without concious analysis. It does not seem that we need to know about language to use it effectively.
B. The Scope of Applied Linguistics
Since language is implicated in so much of our daily lives, there is clearly a large and open-ended number of quite disparate activities to which applied linguistics is relevant. So even with these example, the scope of applied linguistics remain rather vegue. To get at a more precise definition of the field we need to classify to be more specific. These are can be identified under three headings as follows:
1. Language and Education
This area includes:
? First-language education, when a child studies their home language or languages.
? Additional – language education, often divided into second – language education, when someone studies their society’s majority or official language which is not their home language, and foreign-language education, when someone studies the language of another country.
? Clinical linguistic : the study and treatment of speech and communication impairments, whether hereditary, developmental, or acquired (through injury, stroke, illness, or age).
? Language testing: the assessment and evaluation of language achievement and proficiency, both in first and additional languages, and for both general and specific purposes.
2. Language, Work, and Law
This area includes:
? Workplace communication: the study of how language is used in the workplace, and how it contributes to the nature and power relations of different types of work.
? Language planning: the making of decisions, often supported by legislation, about the official status of languages and their institutional use, including their use in education.
? Forensic language: the deployment of linguistic evidence in criminal and other legal investigations, for example, to establish the authorship of a document, or a profile of a speaker from a tape-recording.
3. Language, Information, and Effect
This area includes:
? Literary stylistics: the study of the relationship between linguistic choices and effects in literature.
? Critical discourse analysis (CDA) : the study of the relationship between linguistic choices and effects in persuasive uses of language, of how these indoctrinate or manipulate (for example, in marketing and politics) and the counteracting of this through analysis.
? Translation and interpretation: the formulation of principles underlying the perceived equivalence between a stretch of language and its translation, and the practices of translating written text and interpreting spoken language.
? Information design: the argument and presentation of written language, including issues relating to typography and layout, choices of medium, and effective combinations of language with other means of communication such as pictures and diagrams.
? Lexicography: the planning and compiling of both monolingual and bilingual dictionaries, and other language reference works such as thesauri.
C. Linguistics and Applied Linguistics: A Different Relationship
The academic discipline concerned with the study of language in general. Like any discipline, linguistics look for generalities underlying actual appearances, and so in some degree is bound to represent an abstract idealization of language rather than the way it is experienced in the real world.
One particularly influential type of idealization is that used in the generative linguistics introduced by Noam Chomsky from the late 1950s onward. In his view, the proper subject matter of linguistics should be the representation of language in the mind (competence), rather than the way in which people actually use language in everyday life (performance). Chomsky’s claim is that this internal language is essentially biological rather than social and is separate from, and relatively uninfluenced by, outside experience. The relationship between this highly abstract model and ordinary experience of language is very remote.
Chomsky’s linguistics, however, is not the only kind. In sociolinguistics, the focus is as the name suggest – very much upon the relation between language and society. Sociolinguistics endeavours to find systematic relationships between social groupings and contexts , and the variable ways in which languages are used. In functional linguistics the concern is with language as a means of communication, the purposes it fulfils, and how people actually use their language. In recent years a particularly important development in the investigation of language use has been corpus linguistics.
These approach to linguistic study seem much closer to the reality of experience than Chomsky’s, and therefore more relevant to the concerns of applied linguistics. Their purpose moreover is to describe and explain and not, as it in applied linguistics, to engage with decision making. What is needed in all cases and perhaps particularly in those approaches where the relevance of linguistics seems self-evident is constant medlatlonbetween two discourses or orders of reality, that of everyday life and language experience. They are very different and difficult to reconcile, but the attempt to make each relevant to the other is the main challenge for applied linguistics and the justification for its existence.
Linguistic theory and description cannot, then, be deployed directly to solve the problems with which applied linguistics is concerned. One important reason is the nature of the problems themselves. They, too, like models of linguistics is not simply a matter of matching up findings about language with pre-existing problems might be changed. It may be that when problems are reformulated from a different point of view they become more amenable to solution. This changed perception may then, in turn, have implications for linguistics.
The methodology of applied linguistics must therefore be complex. It must refer to the findings and theories of linguistics, and making these theories relevant to the problem in hand. Conceived of in this way, applied linguistics is a quest for common ground. It establishes a reciprocal relationship between experience and expertise, between professional concern with language problems and linguistics.
Cook, Guy. 2003. Applied Linguistics. Oxford University Press: New york.
CHAPTER 1 APPLIED LINGUISTICS Applied Linguistics Guy Cook Oxford University Press
The need for applied linguistics Language is at the heart of human life. Without it our most important activities are inconceivable. Language use is a natural phenomenon beyond conscious control.
Applied linguistics is the academic discipline concern with the relation of knowledge about language to decision making in the real world, and sets out to investigate problems in which language is implicated.
The scope of applied linguistics Language is implicated so much in our daily lives, so there is a lot of activities to which applied linguistics is relevant. In order to get a more precise definition we need to classify the areas of study of applied linguistics.
I Language and education This area includes: first language education, second-language education, clinical linguistics and language testing. II Language, work and law This area includes: workplace communication, language planning and forensic linguistics. III Language, information and effect This area includes: literary stylistics, critical discourse analysis, translation and interpretation, information design and lexicography.
Linguistics and applied linguistics a difficult relationship… Linguistics: is the academic discipline concerned with the study of language in general. In some degree is bound to represent an abstract idealization of language. One particularly influential type of idealization is that used in the generative linguistics by Noam Chomsky. The representation of language in the mind (competence) the way in which people use language in everyday life (performance)
Chomsky’s linguistics is not the only kind, we also have…. Sociolinguistics attempts to find systematic relationships between social groupings and contexts, and the variable ways in which languages are used.
In Functional linguistics the concern is with language as a means of communication, and how people actually use their language. Corpus linguistics looks for the frequencies and combinations in words that are not usually revealed by intuition.
Applied linguistics is not simply a matter of matching up findings about language with pre-existing problems but of using findings to explore how the perception of these might be changed. The methodology of applied linguistics must refer to findings and theories of linguistics, and making these relevant to the problem in hand.
PRESCRIBING AND DESCRIBING: POPULAR AND ACADEMIC VIEWS OF ‘CORRECTNESS’ Ericka Guadalupe Alvarado Rodriguez
At the heart of the aspiration to relate theory to practice is a constant tension between language as viewed by the expert and language as everyone’s lived experience- including the applied linguist’s own.
Children’s language at home and school Every parent knows young children speak idiosyncratically. A child growing up in an English – speaking family, for example might say ‘I brang it’ , even though everyone around them says ‘I brought it’ to mean the same thing.
At school, however, the situation is very different. Here the child is expected, and taught , to use the language ‘correctly’. Not only are English – speaking children expected to say the words ‘ I brought it’ clearly and properly pronounced, but also to write them correctly spelt and punctuated.
Indeed, teaching children their own national language is, in many people’s view synonymous with eliminating such deviations. Within the school context by far the most controversial aspect of this situation involves the relationship of the standard form of the language dialects.
The standard is generally used in written communication, taught in schools, and codified in dictionaries and grammar books. Dialects are regional and social – class varieties of the language which differ from the standard in pronunciation, grammar, and vocabulary, and are seldom written down at all.
The teaching of the standard can be viewed in two quite contradictory ways. It can be seen as conferring an unfair advantage upon those children who already speak a variety close to it, while simultaneously denying the worth of other dialects damaging the heritage of those children who speak them. On the other hand the standard exists, has prestige and power, and provides a gateway to written knowledge.
In the educational theory from 1960 the claim made by educational sociologist Basil Bernstein , that some social – class variations indicate not only differences but deficits. In Bernstein’s view the language used in some sections in society is a restricted code which lacks the full resources of more elaborated code of the standard. This view has been hotly contested by others who argue that all varieties are equally complex, functional, and expressive.
Schools are a good barometer of both language use and social values, and their approach to teaching the national language or languages , which is much the same all over the world, arises from two facts: A language – any language – is a subject to enormous variation. Many people are intolerant of this variation.
Given the depth of feeling which such apparently trivial differences can arouse, applied linguistics need to approach such debates with both caution and respect.
Description versus prescription Thus linguists tend to favor description over prescription and argue that, from a linguistics point of view , the standard is neither superior nor more stable than any other variety, to justify their views they point to such facts as the following: If there was never any deviation from the norm then languages would never change. If a single standard was absolute and unassailable then regional standards would never gain independence.
Dialects have their own consistent rule governed grammars, every bit as complex and expressive as those of standard forms. The standard form of language is often similar to the usage of the most economically and politically powerful class of region. The grammar written language differs considerably from that of speech even among speakers whose variety is closest to the standard, and writing carries more prestige and authority. Some supposedly correct forms have been invented and imposed by grammarians through analogy with another language.
Linguists may assume a superior air and insist that their concern is with objective description, but in taking that stance they necessarily distance themselves from people’s everyday experience of language. Linguists concern is that knowledge as an end in itself rather then with based upon action based upon that knowledge.
For applied linguistics , however , withdrawal is not an option; it is committed by definition to engagement with problems in the world in which language is implicated. Applied linguistics have a responsibility to investigate the reasons behind the impasse between descriptivist and prescriptivism, to engage with the practical consequences of holding one view or another , and to mediate between academic and public concern.
While there is force in descriptivist arguments , there are also valid reservations to be made about them: to talk about language at all, there must be some preexisting notion of what it does and does not count as an example. In deciding what does count as an example of the language, linguists often base their decisions upon native- speaker use or judgement.
Despite descriptivist insistence on the equality of all varieties , it is nevertheless the standard which is most often used in their analyses while other varieties are described as departures from it. if linguists are concerned with describing and explaining facts about language, then the widespread belief in prescriptivism and the effect of this belief on the language use , is itself a fact about language which needs describing and explaining . Paradoxically to advocate description and outlaw prescription is itself perspective.
An applied linguistics perspective To make any head way have the difficult task of trying to find points of contact in the contrary views so that necessary decisions can be made. Descriptivist tell us that all language varies, that all language carries markers of social identity. A major task for an applied linguistic is to investigate what it means to know a language and to use it well.
Language is a lived experience intimately involved with peoples sense of worth and identity. It does not lend itself to easy or simple answers , and it cannot for this reason be treated. language has aspects of a nature that eludes casual speculation, and that can be enriched by academic research. The task of applied linguistics is to mediate between these two very different perspectives. It’s a difficult task but it is what applied linguistics des and what makes it worthwhile.
Reflection of Chapter 2 Prescribing and describing: popular and academic views of “correctness”-Guy Cook
Well, what I understood is that children are in trouble dealing with grammar structures and use of language because their parents at home are wrong in grammar or they use incorrect phrases of language.
So I think it has to exist a strong communication between teachers, parents and students and making per week or per month an assembly to help to proof the incorrect use of language in children
PRESCRIBING AN DESCRIBING :
POPULAR AND ACADEMIC VIEW OF ‘CORRECTNESS’
A. Children’s language at home and school
As every parent knows, young children speak idiosyncratically. A child growing up in an English-speaking family, for example, might say ‘I brang it’, even though everyone around them says ‘I brought it’ to mean the same thing. Even when the child does say ‘I brought it’, they may still not pronounce the words as adults most anxious ones-are usually indulgent of such deviations. They are the stuff of anecdotes and affectionate memories rather than serious concern. It is clear after all what the child is saying, and most idiosyncrasies disappear of their own accord.
Within the school context by far the most controversial aspect of this situation involves the relationship or the standard form of the language to dialects. The standard is generally is used in written communication, thought in schools, and confidied in dictionaries and grammar books. Dialects are regional and social class varieties of the languages which differ from the standard in pronunciation, grammar, and vocabulary, and are seldom written down at all. The teaching of the standard can be viewed in two quite contradictory ways.
In Bernstein’s view, the language used in some sections of society is a restricted code which lacks the full resources of the more elaborated code of the standard. Not surprisingly, this view has been hotly contested by others who argue that all varieties are equally complex, functional, and expressive.
Schools are a good barometer of both language use and social values, and their approach to teaching the national language or languages, which is much the same all over the world, arises from language-is subject to enormous variation. There are differences between individuals, social groups, generations, and nations, and language is used differently in speech and writing, and in formal and informal situations. The second fact is that many people are intolerant of this variation. The struggle for a single ‘standard’ way of using the language and care very deeply about achieving this norm.
B. Description versus prescription
The academic discipline charged with the study of language. Decisive and authoritative judgements can be found. Linguistics tend to favour description (saying what does happen) over prescription (saying what ought to happen) and argue that, from a linguistics point of view, the standard is neither superior nor more stable than any other variety. To justify their views they point to such facts as the following ;
1. if there was never any deviation from the norm then languages would never change. We would all still by saying ‘wherefore art you? Instead of ‘why are you?’
2. if single standard was absolute and unassailable then regional standards would never gain independence. Webster’s American Dictionary of the English Language would have the same standing as a bad piece of school work, and would be as incorrect to write colour in Washington in London
3. dialects have their own consistent rule governed grammars, every bit as complex and expressive as those of standard forms.
4. The standard form of a language is often very similar to the usage of the most economically and politicallypowerfull class or region.
5. the grammar of written language differs considerably from that of speech, even among speakers whose variety is closest to the standard, and writing carries more prestige and authority.
6. some supposedly correct forms have been invented and imposed by grammarians through analogy with another language.
While all of these arguments appear to have a kind of relentless logic to them, they depend on a detachment from social reality and are very much at odds with a deeply felt public view of language.
Academic do not have a monopoly either on knowledge or on rational argument. The same is true in many analogous domains – for example, medicine, nutrition, or childcare – where everyday activity, vital to people’s well being, is also the subject of academic research. While there is force in descriptivist arguments, there are also valid reservations to be made about them:
1. To talk abouot a language at all, there must be some preexisting notion of what does and does not count as an example. Descriptivists may accept, as instances, some examples of dialectal forms which hard-line prescriptixists would exclude, but there are always others-from another language for example-which they reject.
2. In deciding what does count as an example of the language, linguistics often base their decisions upon native-speaker use or judgement.
3. Despite descriptivists insistence on the equality of all varieties, it is nevertheless the standard which is most often used in their analyses while other varieties are described as departures from it,
4. If linguistics are concerned with describing and explaining facts about language, then the widespread belief in prescriptivism, and the effect of this of this beliefs on language use, itself a fact about language which needs describing and explaining.
5. Paradoxically, to advocate description and outlaw prescription is itself p respective.
C. An applied linguistics perspective
There is clearly material here for a head-on collision- and this indeed is what regularly happens when the two sides exchange influenced either by appeals to logic or to evidence. This is because adherence to one side or the other is often as much emotional and ideological as rational. Descriptivists, on the one hand, are passionate believers in an objective science of language; prescriptivists, on the other, feeling that their very identity and heritage is at stake, have an equally strong desire to impose conformity. Given the incompatibility of the two views, it is unrealistic that people holding either will simply make way for the other. To make any headway, applied linguistics has the very difficult task of trying to find points of contact in the contrary views so that necessary decisions can be made.
The first step is to recognize that, as points of view, they cam be taken as different perceptions which need not be seen as competing alternatives. Thus it is unquestionably the case, as descriptivists tell us, that all language varies, that all language carries markers of social identity, and that there is no way of establishing the relative superiority of a form of speaking on linguistic grounds. When varieties are preferred or stigmatized it can only be for sociopolitical or ideological reasons.
The merits of the rival arguments for descriptivism and prescriptivism and there is certainly a degree of truth on both sides in many practical activities it is simply impossible to proceed without some notion of correct language use.
Cook, Guy. 2003. Applied Linguistics. Oxford University Press: New york.
LANGUAGE IN THE CONTEMPORARY WORLD
LANGUAGE IN THE CONTEMPORARY WORLD
A. Language and Languages
The term language is used in the singular, as though language were a single unitary phenomenon. Yet, although languages have common properties, from the point of view of their users it is the differences that count. People do not speak language as an abstraction, but particular languages. And from a practical perspective the most salient feature is that these languages are mutually incomprehensible. When we hear an unknown language, we cannot even make out the boundaries between words. Reading it is not better because, even if it uses familiar symbols, we do not know what the word mean.
These simple facts mean that one of the main problems in which language is implicated is how speakers of different languages can communicate whit each other. There are two possible solution : one is for one, or both, sets of speakers to learn the others language, and the other is to employ a translator.
B. Attitude to Languages
Native speaker of a language usually regard it as in some sense their own property. Yet they do not reason other people acquiring it. They was nothing in the process and are flattered to share something so highly valued. Yet, however many people learn their language, they still regard it as theirs. They feel that outsiders cannot identify with it quite as they do. To them it remains familiar and intrinsic, to others it remains foreign and something apart.
Here again, as with the issue of correctness, there is a marked difference between popular and academic belief. Those, while linguist regard all languages as equal and arbitrary systems of fulfilling the same function, this is far from how they are perceived by language users. Some languages are popularity regard as being less complex than others. For example, one reason often given for the spread of international English is that it is easier to learn. Some languages are regarded as being more beautiful, and all are regarded as carrying the spirit of a particular nation or people. Those Latin is widely believe to be more logical, or German more efficient or French more romantic than other languages and so on.
C. The languages of nations: boundaries and relationships.
In addition to academic linguistic and popular approach, there are two other ways in which languages can be compared, both of which are of particular importance in the contemporary world. These are by number of speakers and by geographical distribution. While the world’s largest languages, such as Chinese, English, Hindi, Spanish, and Arabic, have hundreds of millions of speakers and are frequently used beyond their homelands, the majority of the world’s languages are much smaller, some with only a few hundred speakers. Smaller languages are confined to restricted areas and specific ethnic groups, and are often vulnerable. Among the world’s estimated 6.000 languages,language death now occurs increasingly frequently.
Powerful nations have frequently asserted their unity by promoting one single majority language in a standard written from while simultaneously suppressing or ignoring minority languages. Yet there is also an ironic consequence to the successful promotion of one language. In those nations which have spread their language beyond their own borders the result has often been a multiplication rather than a reduction of the languages within them.
All nations have substantial linguistic groups within their borders, making cross linguistic communication an international as well as an international affair. On a personal level this means that many individuals as perhaps even the majority of the world’s population bilingual or multilingual. They must change tongue to go to work or school, to speak to elderly relatives, or deal with bureaucracy, making this code switching a salient and significant part their daily experience. In Africa for example it is common to switch between a small local language, a dominant regional language, and a former colonial language such as French, English, or Portuguese.
D. The growth of English
Whereas in the past, English was but one international language among others it is now increasingly in a category of its own.
In addition to its four hundreds million or so first-language speakers, and over a billion people who live in a country where it is an official language, English is now thought as the main foreign language in virtually every country, and used for business, education, and access to information by a substantial proportion of the world’s population. Consequently the role of other international languages such as French or Russian has diminished drastically. As with geographical areas, so with areas of activity. French is no longer the international language of air traffic control, or dominant and diplomacy. German and Russian are no longer internationally necessary for scientific study. Nor is it just a question of native-speaker numbers. Although Putonghua remains the world’s largest first language, it has not gained ground as either an official second language or a foreign language.
In recent years the growth of English has been further accelerated by a startling expansion in the quantity and speed of international corporations, linked to expanding US power and influenced, ensures an ever-increasing use of English in business. Films, songs, television programmes, and advertisements in English are heard and seen in many countries where it is not the first nor even a second language, both feeding and reflecting this growth. The dominant language of the internet is English and with the frequent absence of available software for writing systems other than the Roman alphabet, electronic mail is often conducted in English, even among people who share another language.
This new situation means that, for a large proportion of the world’s population, the learning and use of English as an additional language is both a major language need-often one upon which their livelihood depends and also one of the salient language experiences of their lives. In addition, both non-native and native speakers are involved in Teaching English as a foreign language (TEFL) as teacher, planners, administrators, publishers, and testers. For these reasons alone, the teaching and learning of English has generated tremendous personal, political, academic, and commercial interest. Accompanied (both as caused and effect) by globalization, and virtually unchallenged US military and economic ascendancy, the growth of English raises important concerns about the dangers of linguistic and cultural homogeneity.
E. English and englishes
In the case of smaller and less powerful languages, limited to a particular community in a particular place, this is both unexceptionaland unremarkable. Once, however a language begins to spread beyond its original homeland the situation changes and conflicts of opinion begin to emerge. Thus even until surprisingly recently, many British English speakers regarded American English as an impure deviation, rather as they might have regarded non standard forms within their own islands. While such feeling of ownership are to be expected, they quickly become, as they are in the USA, more numerous and more internationally powerful than speakers of the parent.
There is a similar relationship between South America and Castilian Spanish, and the Portugueses of Brazil and Portugal. Yet despite the inevitability of this process, there is still possessiveness and attempts to call a halt. Few people nowadays would question the legitimacy of different standard Englishes for countries where it is the majority language. We talk of standard American English, standard Australian English, and so on. Still contested by some, however, is the validity of standard for countries where, although English may be a substantial or official language, it is not that of the majority. Thus there is still opposition, even within the countries themselves, to the notion of Indian English, Singapore English, and so on. Far more contentious, however, is the possibility that, as English becomes more and more widely used, recognized varieties might emerge even in places where there is no national native speaker population or official status.
F. Native speakers
All this raises issues about the very term native speakers. We need to look at some of the common assumptions about what it means to be a native speaker. Firstly, there is the question of personal history. Native speakers are considered to be people who acquired the acquired the language naturally and effortlessly in childhood, through a combination of exposure, the child’s innate talent for language learning, and the need to communicate. Secondly, there is a question of expertise. Native speakers are seen as people who use the language, or a variety of it, correctly, and have insight into what is or is not acceptable. Thirdly, there is a question of knowledge and loyalty. Being a native speaker, it is assumed, entails knowledge of, and loyalty to, a community which uses the language.
In many cases this threefold definition is relatively unproblematic, particularly for small languages spoken mostly in one particular place. Take Icelandic culture. Spoken 300.000 Icelanders on an island of 100.000 square kilometers. Most people there have grown up speaking Icelandic, are expert in its use, and identity with Icelandic culture. In the case of larger and more widely distributed languages however, and most especially in the case of English, serious problems with the usual definitions of native speaker begin to emerge. Many English speakers whether in the inner, outer, or expanding circle grew up with and use another language in the home. Their cultural loyalty is wholly or partly to a non-English-speaking community and they may well be opposed to the dominant English-speaking culture, feeling what their own language and values are threatened.
Necessarily reflect upon their expertise. Many such English speakers use the language just as expertly as the traditionally defined native speakers. certainly there are often though by no means always minors differences of accent, phrasing, or confident in grammaticality judgements. Yet these are just as often accompanied by additional expertise traditionally defined native speakers may not have.
Here, it is important to take stock of those aspects of language proficiency which the traditional definition of the native speaker does not include. Firstly, if says nothing about in proficiency in writing but only about proficiency in speech. Indeed, some native speakers are illiterate, and many of those who can write do so inaccurately (lovly new potato’s) or clumsily (revise customer service arrangement presently under implementation). Secondly, the native speaker’s knowledge of the language is implicit rather than explicit. He or she uses the roles correctly in other word, but can not necessary explain them. For example, trey asking the average native speaker to explain the different between “shall” and “will”. Lastly, traditional native speakerness implies nothing about size vocabulary, range of style or ability to communicate across diverse community in all of these aspects of proficiency, it is quite common to find that the expertise of the non-native speaker exceeds that of many native speaker.
G. English as a Lingua Franca (ELF)
What matters in its use is clarity and comprehensibility rather than conformity to one of the existing standards. Indeed, being native speaker in the traditional sense does not necessarily imply expertise in ELF, and of the purposes of international communication native speakers may need to adjust their language to a new norm.
This rapid growth of ELF should be a major concern to contemporary applied linguistics. We need to consider whether the current situation is unprecedented, whether it has produced a new set of language related problems. These are pressing issues, affecting in one way or another everyone who learns or uses English, native and nonnative speaker alike.
Different approaches to teaching English did not just occur by in response to changing geopolitical circumstances and social attitudes and values, as well as to shifts of fashion in linguistics which, for all its apparent objectivity, was itself subject to social change. Thus each successive movement in ELT has had its own particular stance on language learning, and on what English is, reflecting the ideology of its time.
Cook, Guy. 2003. Applied Linguistics. Oxford University Press: New york.
ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING
ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHINGEnglish language teaching (ELT) is a widely used teacher-centered term, as in the English language teaching divisions of large publishing houses, ELT training, etc. Teaching English as a second language (TESL), teaching English to speakers of other languages (TESOL) and teaching English as a foreign language (TEFL) are also used. The related expansion of its use and learning, have generated intense interest in how and whether it is possible to improve the result of English teaching, and consequently in the study of language pedagogy and of second-language acquisition (SLA). In English language learning and teaching, which explains methodology and context, and explains abbreviations (e.g., the difference between ESL and EFL, or TESOL as a subject and an organization). For information on foreign language teaching in general, see language education and second language acquisition. And it is the differences of them, HYPERLINK “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_language” o “English language” Englishas a second language (ESL), English for speakers of other languages (ESOL) and English as a foreign language (EFL) all refer to the use or study of English by speakers with different native languages. The precise usage, including the different use of the terms ESL and ESOL in different countries, is described below. These terms are most commonly used in relation to teaching and learning English, but they may also be used in relation to demographic information.
Indeed, in the early days of the discipline, applied linguistics and the study of the teaching English as a foreign language (TEFL) were considered to be one and the same. Teaching English as a foreign language (TEFL) refers to teaching English to students whose first language is not English. TEFL usually occurs in the student’s own country, either within the state school system, or privately, e.g., in an after-hours language school or with a tutor. TEFL teachers may be native or non-native speakers of English. TEFL that uses literature aimed at children and teenagers is rising in popularity. Youth-oriented literature offers simpler material (“simplified readers” are produced by major publishers), and often provides a more conversational style than literature for adults. Children’s literature in particular sometimes provides subtle cues to pronunciation, through rhyming and other word play. One method for using these books is the multiple-pass technique. The instructor reads the book, pausing often to explain certain words and concepts. On the second pass, the instructor reads the book completely through without stopping.
The Master of Arts in Teaching English Language Arts is designed to enhance the professional knowledge and teaching skills of practicing teachers from elementary through community college who are interested in supporting their students’ achievement in literacy. The broad-based program may combine work from several university resources, including courses in English, Literacy Education, and the Boise State Writing Project. The program works within the teacher’s current instructional context to connect research and theory in literacy learning with effective classroom teaching practices.
A. Grammar Translation Language Teaching
In the schoolroom of Europe at the close of the nineteenth century, the teaching of modern foreign languages was heavily influenced by the more established and prestigious academic study of the dead classical language, Latin and Ancient Greek. Modern language learning, it was assumed, brought students into contact with the great national civilization and their literatures. It trained minds in logical thought, developed elegant expression, and perpetuated the study of the language as an academic discipline.
Grammar-translation language teaching is a number of methods and techniques have evolved for the teaching of English and also other foreign languages in the recent past, yet this method is still in use in many parts of India. It maintains the mother tongue of the learner as the reference particularly in the process of learning the second/foreign languages. And the definition of the grammar-translation language teaching is the oldest method of teaching English. The main principles on which the Grammar Translation Method is based are the following:
Translation interprets the words and phrases of the foreign languages in the best possible manner.
The phraseology and the idiom of the target language can best be assimilated in the process of interpretation.
3. The structures of the foreign languages are best learned when compared and contrast with those of mother tongue.
B. The Direct Method
The direct approach learners need to learn inductively by using only the target language in the classroom and learning the oral skills (listening and speaking) before the written ones (reading and writing). New type of student immigrant, business people, and tourist created a new kind of classroom population. In the language schools and evening classes which catered for them, the student did not necessary share the same first language, making it simply impossible for instruction to proceed through first language explanation and translation. In addition, the new type of student needed spoken as well as written language, and they needed it fast.
Language learning experts (they were not then called applied linguists) responded to this challenge with radical new ideas about how languages should be taught. They advocated a direct method in which the students own languages were banished and everything was to be done through the language under instruction. In many ways the direct method classroom, by insisting on one language and outlawing bilingualism, emulated the most repressive of monolingual nations.
The direct method established a concept of language learning very different from that implicit in grammar translation. Knowledge of a language was no longer an object of scholarship attainable simply by hard work. Success was to be measured instead by the degree to which the learner’s language proficiency approximated to that of the native speaker, a goal which was not at that time seen as problematic. This led the way to further changes in both popular and applied linguistics ideas about how a language might be learned.
Natural Language LearningThe early direct method had been a revolution, but not a complete one. Many of the characteristics of grammar-translation had survived. There was still explanation and grading of grammar rules, and that language was devided into discrete areas such as vocabulary or pronunciation practice. Teachers than had to do much as they had done before, but without recourse to either first language explanation or translation. This meant that, in practice, grammar rules had to be worked out by students from examples, because an explanations would demand language beyond the level of the rule being explained, while the meaning of new vocabulary had to be either guessable from the context, or perhaps illustrated of mimed. This last resort is possible, if often ridiculous, for a word denoting something specific and physical, like ‘butterfly’ but imagine the plight of teachers trying to mime more general words such as ‘creature’ or abstract ones such as ‘specification’.
In the 1970s and 1980s, these academic problem of the direct method were bypassed by radical ‘new’ ideas. The so called natural approach revived the notion previously promulgated under exactly the same in the nineteenth century, that an adult learner can repeat the route to proficiency of the native speaking child. The idea was that learning would take place without explanation or grading, and without correction of errors, but simply by exposure to ‘meaningful input’. This approach was based upon theorizing and research in SLA which purported to show that learners, whatever their first language, would follow an internally determined neither explicit instruction nor conscious learning had any effect.
The natural approach is an object lesson in what applied linguistics should not be. For it sought to impose upon teacher, without consultation and without consideration for their existing practices and beliefs, ideas based upon academic research and theorizing. Its view of SLA, moreover, was derived directly from mainstream linguistics research into child first language acquisition, where the early stages are largely internally driven and impervious to instruction. This research was then assumed to be directly relevant, indeed imperative to changes in the way languages were taught. In addition, the approach was culturally intensive, it was developed in the USA and then exported as globally relevant without regard to differing educational traditions or language-learning contexts. It paid no heed, for example, to variations in class size or to concepts of teacher role. Most damning of all, however, is the fact that the research on which it was based is seriously flawed in that instruction does effect learning and there are variations depending on the language being learned.
The natural approach, with its suggestion that learning need not involve hard work, was superficially seductive and there is no doubt that it attracted many followers in its day. While now seldom followed in its extreme form, it continues to exert a considerable influence. Conscious learning, correction of errors, practice activities, and attention to form all kept at arm’s length, only readmitted with some reluctance and disdain, while what are perceived as their opposites natural and meaningful and real activities retain something of a sacred aura.
The communicative approachA roughly the same time as the development as the natural approach, there emerged a far more durable new movement known as the communicative approach orcommunicative language teaching (CLT), which rapidly became, and still remains, the dominant orthodoxy in progressive language teaching. The theories behind it have had a profound and far-reaching effect, not only in language teaching but in many other applied linguistic areas too.
In practice, both CLT and the natural approach can lead to similar meaning focused activities and for this reason they have often been confused. The resemblance, however, is superficial for, their underlying rationales are deeply opposed. The focus of CLT was primarily and necessarily social, concerned as it was with the gold of successful communication. In contrast, the natural approach was essentially psychological, based upon the idea, derived from first language acquisition studies, the attention to meaning would somehow trigger the natural cognitive development of the language system. The essence of CLT is a shift of attention from the language system as end in it self to the successful use of the t system in context; that is to say from an emphasis on form to an emphasis on communication. Language learning success to be assessed neither in terms of accurate grammar and pronunciation for their own sake, nor in terms of explicit knowledge of the rules, but the ability to the think with the language, appropriately, fluently and effectively.
The richer strands of the CLT movement were nor therefore advocating the abandonment of attention to form as advocates of the natural approach were, but rather to changes of emphasis. The first was that, in addition to mastery of form, learners need other kinds of ability and knowledge if they are to communicate successfully. The second was that form should be approached in the context of there usefulness rather than as an end in them self. In other word, the traditional sequence of language learning was reversed. Whereas in the past, whether in grammar translation or in direct method teaching, the emphasis had been upon mastery of form first and their use letter, CLT student considered first what hey needed to do It the language and then learn the form which would fulfil those need. Teacher and material designers were urged to identify things learners to do it the language (i. e conduct a need analysis) and simulate these in the classroom. This shift of emphasis from the means to the ends of language learning has had far-reaching consequences at both the macro level of syllabus and curriculum design and at the micro level of classroom activity. At the macro level, there was been the development of language for specific purposes (in the case of English, English for Specific Purposes (ESP)) which tries to develop the language and discourse skills which will be needed for particular jobs (English for Occupational purposes (EOP)) or for particular fields of study (English for Academic Purposes(EAP) ).
At the micro level there has been the development of task-based Instruction (TBI), in which learning is organize around tasks related to real world activities, focusing the student attention upon meaning and upon meaning successful task completion. While the rationale for ESP is entirely social, working back from student objectives in the outside words to syllabus content, TBI attempts to unite the perspective with one which is also psycholinguistic. Its argument, based on SLA a research finding is that the case to acquisition are attention to meaning rather than form, negotiation with another speaker, and the motivation created by real world relevance. In this respect TBI is indirect line of descent from both the natural and the communicative approach.
All of f these developments of the communicative approach differ markedly from the various kind of teaching which presented them. While, traditional approaches, the emphasis was on formal practice, and element of the language systems where is selected and taught step by step, in CLT the emphasis became quite different. Language, it was argued, is best handled all at once, as it would be in the real world, as this is the learner’s ultimate goal. Consequently there is little point in breaking things down artificially better to get started straight away.
This, at least, was the ideal. In practice, as has often since been pointed out, communicative activities could lead to limited proficiency and a constraining and conformist model of language use. Thus, at its worst, emphasis on functions rather than forms could degenerate into learning phrase-book-like lists of thing to say in particular situation. Concentration upon communicating meaning from the outset could lead to inaccurate if temporarily successful language use which, uncorrected, could than fossilize, preventing the learner from further development for more complex use. The focus upon ends was, in practice interpreted in a utilitarian way, seeing work and the transaction of mundane information as the limit of the learner’s need, thus denying attention to the aesthetic, playful, and creative aspects of language use, and its role and creating and maintaining relationship. Above all, the belief that communication would be aided by situationally and culturally appropriate use of language was often rather thoughtlessly interpreted to mean that the foreign learner of English should conform to the norms and conventions of an English speaking community. The sum of all of these limitation was the denial to learners of the resources needed to develop a creative command of the language which would enable them to express their own individual and social meanings. Ironically, the communicative approach could often stifle rather than promote the richest kind of communication.
This well-documented slippage between theory and practice illustrates a particular kind of applied linguistic problem. It also emphasizes the importance of considering more closely and issue which is at the heart of all applied linguistic enquiry; what it means to learn, to know, and to use a language. To examine this problem and to extend our discussion of areas other than language teaching, we will benefit from closer assessment of the theory from which CLT derives.
There are a number of reasons. It is clear that changes in approaches to teaching have no single cause. They came about partly in response to changing perceptions of ‘good’ language use, partly in response to developments in linguistics, and partly in response to changing political and demographic circumstances. Success in language learning, moreover, is not an absolute category. It varies with the values of the age and with many other factors beside, for example, what the language is to be used for, by home, and in what circumstances. Answers to applied linguistics problems, in other words, if this one is anything to go by, are not likely to be settable, final, or value-free.
The error comes, though, when those approaching such problem do so with dogmatic certainty, taking a perspectives and values of their own time and place as the only ones which can ever apply. To combat such dogmatism, and to counter unthinking fads and fashion, a great deal is to be gained, in ELT as in other areas of activity, by placing problems in wider historical and cultural perspective. By doing this, applied linguistic can make a crucially contribution to debate.Conclusion
Teaching one to one is something most English teachers will do sooner or later. Teaching one to one can help improve your teaching salary, and give you some flexibility in scheduling. Of course, teaching one to one has its drawbacks as well. Here’s a quick rundown on the art of teaching English one to one, as well as some strategies and tips to help you get started or improve your one to one teaching skills.
English language teaching (ELT) is a widely used teacher-centered term, as in the English language teaching divisions of large publishing houses, ELT training, etc. Teaching English as a second language (TESL), teaching English to speakers of other languages (TESOL) and teaching English as a foreign language (TEFL) are also used. The related expansion of its use and learning, have generated intense interest in how and whether it is possible to improve the result of English teaching, and consequently in the study of language pedagogy and of second-language acquisition (SLA).
In applied linguistics, the grammar translation method is a foreign language teaching method derived from the classical (sometimes called traditional) method of teaching Greek and Latin. The method requires students to translate whole texts word for word and memorize numerous grammatical rules and exceptions as well as enormous vocabulary lists. The goal of this method is to be able to read and translate literary masterpieces and classics.
Cook, Guy. Applied Linguistics. 2003. Oxford University Press. New York.
LANGUAGE AND COMMUNICATIONUNIT 5
LANGUAGE AND COMMUNICATION
A. Knowing a Language
Traditional grammar-translation language teaching, assumed that knowing the rules of a language and being able to use them were one and the same thing. Yet there are many cases where someone knows the rules of a language but is still not a successful communicator. They may, for example, not use the language fast enough or they may understand what is being said and have something to say themselves, but still somehow fail to join in. or perhaps their language seems stilted and old-fashioned, for example, they may say things like ‘whom do you want?’ or it’s raining cats and dogs. Or they may send the wrong kinds of signals with their body and tone of voice, shaking their head instead of nodding it, sounding bored or unfriendly when do not intend to or they may understand the literal meaning of what is said , but not why it is said. They fail to realize that something is a joke, for example, and take offence.
In other words, knowing the grammar and vocabulary of the language, although essential, is one thing being able to put them to use involves other types of knowledge and ability as well.
B. Linguistic Competence
Despite this rather obvious point, isolating the formal systems of language (i.e. its pronunciation, grammar, and vocabulary) either for learning or for analysis, is a useful first step. However, the adoption of traditional language-teaching methods need not imply that this is all that learning a language involves, but only that a sound knowledge of the rules and an accurate, if slow, deployment of them is the basis for further development.
We need to take further account of his ideas because they have been so extraordinarily influential in all areas of language study. A good deal of applied linguistic work has either followed on from them, or defined itself in opposition to them.
Chomsky’s idea is that the human capacity for language, as illustrated by a child’s acquisition of the language around them, is not the product of general intelligence or learning ability, but an innate, genetically determined feature of the human species. We are born with considerable pre-programmed knowledge of how language works, and require only minimal exposure to active our connection to the particular language around us rather as a bird learning to fly adapts to the environment outside the nest. In this view, the newborn infant brain already contains a Universal Grammar (UG) which forms the basis of competence in the particular language the child goes on to speak. This linguistic competence is seen as modular, that is to say separate from other mental abilities. In addition, language is separated from other factors involved in its use such as body language or cultural knowledge.
C. Communicative competence
A Hymes observes, a person who had only linguistic competence would be quite unable to communicate. They would be a kind of social monster producing grammatical sentences unconnected to the situation in which they occur. What is needed for successful communication, Hymes suggest, is four types of knowledge: possibility, feasibility, appropriateness, and attestedness.
Firstly, a communicatively competent speaker knows what is formally possible in a language. i.e. whether an instance conforms to the rules of grammar and pronunciation.Secondly, a communicatively competent person knows what is feasible. This is apsychological concept concerned with limitations to what can be processed by the mind, and is best illustrated by an example. The rules of English grammar make it possible to expand a noun phrase, and make it more specific, by adding a relative clause. A thirdcomponent of communicative competence is knowledge of appropriateness. This concerns the relationship of language or behavior to context, and as such covers a wide range of phenomena. Its importance is clear if we consider its opposite, inappropriateness. And Hymes’ fourth component of communicative competence is knowledge of attestedness.
D. The influence of communicative competence
In speech therapy it justified an increased emphasis on social knowledge and skills in addition to deficiencies in grammar and pronunciation. In translation it strengthened the case for seeking an equivalent effect rather than only formal and literal equivalent.
The biggest single influence however, as is so often the case in applied linguistics has been upon the teaching of English as a foreign language. There were a number of contributory factors. Some advocates of the communicative approach found common cause with the so-called ‘natural’ approach and the idea, the foreign-language learner can repeat the child’s acquisition of language through use and exposure alone. In this version of CLT, the emphasis did not really shift away from grammar as the sole yardstick of success, there was just a different route to attaining that end.
In addition, CLT often over-reacted against the past. The new emphasis, mention above, was almost exclusively upon appropriateness, while the other elements of communicative competence received little attention. Focus upon what is possible was rejected as old-fashioned, while the notions of feasibility and attestedness, being more difficult to grasp, had little or no impact.
A typical ‘communicative’ activity might involve simulating the successful ordering of a meal in a restaurant in London or New York, or knowing how to make polite requests and apologies at a party. Communicative competence remains, however, an extremely powerful model for applied linguistics, not only in language teaching but in every area of enquiry. It moves beyond the rarefied atmospheres of theoretical linguistic and traditional language teaching, and while itself also an idealized model, can aid the process of referring linguistic abstraction back to the actually from which it is derived.
It has also contributed to a growing interest in the analysis of language use, not only as a source of examples illustrating an underlying system but also as social action with important effects both at the micro level of personal experience and at the macro level of social change.
Cook, Guy. 2003. Applied Linguistics. Oxford University Press: New york.
CONTEXT AND CULTURE
In linguistics, however, language is very obviously abstracted from experience in order to be better understood as a system, enabling grammatical regularities to be seen more clearly, even perhaps providing an insight into the representation of language in the mind. For applied linguistics, such analysis of language are relevant to understanding the eperience of language in use, but they must be combined with another kind of analysis to.
In the actual experience of language its for parameters are neither as discrete nor as static as the model is sometimes taken to suggest. Yet it is a different kind of abstraction from description of the formal system of grammar and sound, and it views, language from a different perspective.
These other factors are many. All of the following, for the example, might be involved in interpreting a real encounter: tone of voice and facial expression, the relationship between speakers, their age, sex, and social status, the time and the place, and the degree to which speakers do or do not share the same cultural background. Collectively, such factors are known as context and they are all relevant to whether a particular action or utterance is, to use Hymes’ term, appropriate.
A. Systematizing context: discourse analysis
To demonstrate this, applied linguistics has drawn upon, and also developed, discourse analysis, the study of how stretches of language in context are perceived as meaningful and unified by their users. Three areas of study which contribute to this field are paralanguage, pragmatics, and genre studies.
When we speak we do not only communicate through word. A good deal is conveyed by tone of voice, whether we shout or whisper for example, and by the use of our bodies, whether we smile, wave our hands, touch people, make eye contact, and so on. Such communicate behavior, used alongside language, is paralanguage.; convincing research suggest that paralinguistic messages can outweigh linguistic ones, especially in establishing and maintaining relationships. For this reason, understanding of paralanguage is relevant in any professional activity involved with effective communication, developing effective communication in others, such as media training, speech therapy, and language teaching.
Writing has paralanguage too. Written words can be scribbled, printed, painted, and their meaning can be amplified or altered by layout, accompanying pictures, and diagrams. Indeed, we must use some facial expression when we speak or make some choice of script or front when we write.
At a time when new technologies mix writing and visual effects in ways which may be altering fundamentally the nature and process of communication, there is a pressing need to integrate findings from these areas. The study of visual communication and computer-mediated communication (CMC) are growing areas in applied linguistics, and likely to be increasingly important in the future.
Pragmatics in the discipline which studies the knowledge and procedures which enable people to understand each other’s words. Its main concern is not the literal meaning, but what speakers intend to do with their words and what it is which makes this intention clear. Meaning in other words, varies with circumstances and it is easy to think of situations in which all of these responses might be both effective and appropriate. Meaning also changes with the kind as communicative event to which words belong.
Events of this kind are described as genres, a term defined by the applied linguist John Swales as a class of communicative events which share some set of communicative purposes. Other possible examples of genres include conversations, consultations, lessons, emails, web pages, brochures, prayers, news bulletins, stories, jokes, operas, and soap operas.
All these elements of discourse interpreting paralanguage understanding pragmatic intention, and distinguishing different genres are part of a person’s communicative competences integral to their use and understanding of language.
As with languages, there is disagreement over the degree to which cultures, for all their obvious disparity, reflect universal human attributes. Some argue that the differences are superficial and that cultural conventions everywhere realize the same basic human needs. With cultural conventions, however, the consequences may be less apparent but more damaging. There is not only an absence of understanding, but potential for misunderstanding too.
The same costumes, in others words, can send quite different signals, with potentially disastrous results for cross-cultural understanding. In major role for applied linguistics is to raise awareness of the degree to which the meaning of behavior is culturally relative, thus combating prejudice, and contributing to the improvement of community relations and conflict resolution in general.
C. Translation, culture, and contextTheories and practices of translation have changed but at their heart is a recurring debate, going back to classical times, about the degree to which a translator should attempt to render exactly what is said, or intervene to make the new text flow more smoothly, or achieve a similar effect as the original. This is by no means a simple matter. Word-for-word translation is impossible if the aim is to make sense. This is clear even when translating the most straightforward utterances between closely related languages.
In many cases translation decisions can be a major factor in cross-cultural understanding and international affairs. In every translation something must be lost. One cannot keep the sound and the word order and the exact nature of the phrase.
D. Own language : rights and understanding
This accounts for the widespread notion in literary and religious study that something essential is lost if texts cannot be read in the original. To a agree this view is motivated by some vague belief in the spirit of the language, more precisely it derives from a belief that important ideas and traditions are specific to a particular language.
These needs, which have been reffered to as language right, have clear implications for language planning. They are implicit in a good deal of national and international legislation, ensuring the possibility of own language use both in formal transactions and schools. On the other hand, there are many context where language rights are denied and linguistic majorities impose upon minorities, often through oppressive legislation. Which increasing frequency such conditions contribute to languages dying out completely. In extensively multilingual and multicultural societies there are pressure groups seeking to preserve linguistic diversity and others seeking to restrict it.
E. Teaching culture
At first glance it seems sensible, when learnig a language, also to study the culture of the people who speak it. For example, while learning Icelandic would expect to study the lifestyle of the Icelanders. Thus, teaching materials could reasonably include an element of Icelandic studies with descriptions of the treeless landscape, the historic links with Denmark, the importance of the fishing industry, and so on. For students such material would be both necessary and motivating as they are luckily to be studying the Icelandic language if they are not also interested in Icelandic culture.
Such variations, and the role of English as a global lingua franca, raise doubts about the association in many EFL materials of the English language with specific culture practices, usually those of the dominant mainstream culture in either Britain or the USA. For some learners, whose need is to engage directly with one or other of these, such cultural bias may be valid, but for others, whose need is to use English outside such communities or who do not wish to absorb either British or American culture, the issue is considerably more complex.
This in turn, raises the larger issue of whether language and culture can be dissociated, and whether English can become the vehicle not only of specific local cultural identities but of ‘world culture’ as well.
In linguistics the linguistic relativity hypothesis, which hold that language determines a unique way of seeing the world, has fallen from favour under the influence of Chomsky’s emphasis on language as a biological rather than a social phenomenon. Yet, whatever the degree to which the language which we speak can determine our ways of thinking, it is certainly true that the linguistic choices we make within that language both reflect our ideology and influence the opinion of our audience.
Cook, Guy. 2003. Applied Linguistics. Oxford University Press: New york.