The Psychological Bases of Second Language Learning
Leon A. James
ÊÊÊÊÊÊ The topic of this paper is the
psychological bases of second language learning, but the subject that really
concerns me is that human being we refer to as ãthe learnerä and I consider a mere
coincidence the fact that I happen to focus at this time on the activity
involved in second language learning. 1 consider this kind of topical
subdivision quite arbitrary, convenient and helpful for certain purposes, but
at the same time potentially harmful when its arbitrariness and artificiality
are forgotten and the division taken as real. Many factors, conditions, and
situations in the educational system at all levels conspire to concretize and
reify divisions in learning topics which originate from considerations that are
separate from and irrelevant to the learning process itself. It is my feeling
that the reasons that maintain curricÐular compartmentalization are either
unrelated or actually detrimental to the student and the process of educaÐtion.
Disciplinary specialization has distinct advantages for certain purÐposes: for
conducting research of a certain kind, for becoming a so-called expert in the
field and the social. intellectual, and economic advantages that go along with
having the status of an expert in our society, for professional and
sociopolitical reasons having influence and so on. But it seems tome that too
often considerations of this kind are allowed to interfere with the best
interests of the student and his education.
The author,
Visiting Fellow in the
Department
of Psychology, McGill
University,
delivered this lecture at
Indiana
University, Bloomington, on
November
18, 1970.
ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ Consider the
trappings that surÐround the academic subject of second language learning,
professional, educaÐtional, academic and political: the FL profession with its
organizations. conÐventions, journals, licensing proceÐdures, and career
opportunities; the FL literature and research, themselves subdivided into areas
of specialization and methodological applications; the sociopolitical
activities that revolve around the maintenance of ethnic identity, the
specialized laws enacted with these interests in mind, and so on.ÊÊ These various divergent lines of interaction
are somehow expected to converge into a meaningful topical unit of a classroom
subject. But do they?
ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ ãSecond language learningä as a
classroom subject is one thing, and being a bilingual person is another thing,
and these two things have often very little to do with one another. I believe that
both of these can have valid educational objectives, but to confuse them is to
neutralize the advantages that either may have to offer. When I went to high
school I took Latin and Ancient Greek as school subjects and it was clear to
me. and it seemed so to the teacher as well, that the objective was not that of
producing a bilingual individual. But when I took Flemish, and Spanish, and
German, and French, and Hebrew, a confusion existed: the objective was
ostensibly to produce a multilingual individual but the educational actiÐvities
surrounding these subjects did not differ much from those involving Latin and
Greek.
ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ This was over
twenty years ago, and it is now a matter of historical interest in FL education
how this kind of confusion was supposedly eliminated. We speak of the advent of
the audio-lingual age in FL teaching and we even have dates associated with the
inauguÐration of this new era. The last three or four generations of high
school and college students are products of the language laboratory and of
pattern practice and the activities that these imply are supposed to attest to
the changing educational objectives of second language learning. The objecÐtive
of the current ãmodernä era in FL education is to produce a living viable
bilingualism that is involved in talking, reading, and writing in two or more
languages.
ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ I shall deal in a moment with the
reasons that make me believe that such an objective is quite inadequate, ill
defined, and unrealistic, but for the present, let us examine the degree of
success of our current educational objectives in FL teaching. On the one hand,
the number of students taking a FL has steadily increased over the years so
that currently it is estimated that as many as 80% of all high school students
in this country are exposed to such a course at one time or another in their
educational career. and at the college level this proportion is even higher.
This state of affairs attests to the vigor and influence of a profession
dedicated to the universalization of FL learning. Let us consider that as a
success.
ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ But now, let us consider some other
criteria. How do the students involved in this massive effort feel about it, do
they think they are getting anything worthwhile out of it? What proportion of
them achieve a state of living bilingualism whereby they can talk, read, and
write bilingually? Here, we are entering an area of great controversy and on
past occasions when 1 have had the opportunity of discussing this issue in my
writings and talks I found myself doing it in an atmosphere of polemics and
defensiveÐness. For the very act of raising the issue becomes a potential
threat to that vast constituency of established and vested interests that is
the FL profession. The question is threatening only because we have allowed a
conÐfusion to arise between the interests of a profession and the interests of
the student population while they should have been kept separate in the best
interests of both.
ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ I shall not go into the details of an
empirical and experimental nature to support the following two claims: (1) that
a majority of high school and college students remain unimpressed by the value
of FL study and a good number of them have very distinctly negative attitudes
towards these courses, and (2) that the proportion of students who develop
sufficient comÐpetence in their second language to make it possible for them to
use it outside the classroom is extremely small. I have attempted in some preÐvious
writings (see Jakobovits 1970) to document the studentsâ negative attiÐtudes
and their total lack of bilingual. ity but these two facts are so wideÐspread
and well known to all conÐcerned that they in themselves are not the points of
controversy. The controÐversy revolves around the explanation that accounts for
these facts. There are those who claim that the fault lies in the audiolingual
method. This is countered by the proponents of that method by laying the blame
on its misapplication in the form of the uninspiring use of language laboraÐtories
and rigid boring pattern practice exercises in the classroom. There are those
who view the studentsâ negative attitudes towards FL study as a symptom of a
wider educational maÐlaise that affects all courses and subÐjects that a
"rebelliousä younger generation no longer finds ãrelevant.ä There are
those who consider the notion of ãFLs for everyoneä a totally unrealistic and
misplaced objective. There are those who advocate FLES programs as the only
viable ones given the alleged relationship between early age and language
learning. And, so goes on the gamut of claims and counterclaims, fault-finding
and whiteÐwashing.
ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ I believe we should attempt to extricate
ourselves from this level of discourse and take another look from a different
vantage point. In the remainder of this paper, I would like to outline what it
would take to achieve this new perspective on FL learning.
To begin
with, let me state a number of premises that need prior discussion and some
subsequent agreeÐment:
(1)
Bilingualism entails biculturalÐism.
(2)
Bilingualism cannot as a rule be achieved in the FL classroom.
(3) There are valid educational obÐjectives in
learning a second language that are other than the attainment ofÊÊÊÊÊÊ
ÊÊÊÊÊ bilingualism.
(4)
Learning a second language has associated with it factors and considerÐations
that are unique to it and are
ÊÊÊÊ different
from learning other school subjects.
(5) When a
large proportion of students fail to learn a second language in school, their
ãfailureä is not a reflection of
ÊÊÊÊÊ the teacherâs competence or the method
he uses.
Ê
(6) The
conditions that hold under a mass educational system are unfavorÐable to the
development of an effecÐtive
FL
curriculum.
Iâd like
to take up each of these points in turn.
1.Ê Bilingualism
and biculturalism.
ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ I suppose it would be possible to define
bilingualism in a way that would invalidate the proposition that bilingualism
entails biculturalism. In fact. peoples use of the term, both academic and
other. varies considerÐably from one extreme that defines bilingualism as a
state of linguistic interference involving two or more languages, to the other
extreme that reserves the term to describe the state of an individual who is
equally at home in two or more languages under all conditions of usage and in
addition sounds indistinguishable from native speakers of either language.
Actually, one can argue with some merit that the proposition that bilingualism
entails biculturalism holds true for both of these extreme definitions, as well
as all those in between. In that case, we need to discuss what it is to be
bicultural.
ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ We are faced here with exactly the same
problem as that of bilingualism. I find it useful to think of biculturalism in
terms of the sharing of two cultures that have some identifiable identity of
their own. This is ultimately a matter of classificatory convenience. Thus, in
the case of political or national reaÐsons, cultural boundary lines are set up
that may or may not overlap with the boundaries set up on the basis of
economic, religious. ideological, or hisÐtorical reasons. Thus, I,
along with many of my fellow Canadians, conÐsider Canada a bilingual and
bicultural country, meaning English and French, and this is a matter of
historical classification. In fact, the Canadian population is made up of a
number of other ethnic-linguistic groups as well and this has become on the
part of the latter groups a point of contention to the work and official
designation of the Royal Commission on Bi-lingualÐism and Bi-culturalism
ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ It is clear, then, that biculturalism
can be defined on the basis of a number of different and equally releÐvant
criteria. Therefore, it is important to always be clear as to the particular
criteria used in any discussion.
ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ I would like for my present purÐposes to
define biculturalism in terms of a communications criterion. ComÐmunication
between. two individuals is made possible as a result of their sharing certain
types of knowledge and certain types of inferential reasoning behavior. The
shared knowledge inÐcludes a linguistic code, semantic structures, certain
attitudes, rules of conversation, and rules of the social and physical order of
things. The shared inferential reasoning behavior includes expectations of what
leads to what under particular conditions. When people interact on repeated
occasions and do so for mutual beneÐfit, they will learn each otherâs comÐmunicative
premises. Thus, subgroups of habitual interactants form cultural or subcultural
identities. When a member of one subgroup interacts with a member of another
subgroup he has to readjust his communication premises. It is at this point
that he begins the process of becoming bi-culÐtural.
ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ Now, if we look at the nature of this
readjustment process. we note that it involves acquiring new knowÐledge, new expectations,
and new ways of making inferences. A new linguistic code or changes in she
linguistic code may or may not be involved. Thus bilingualism is not a
prerequisite for biculturalism. Or to put it another way, while bilingualism
always entails b biculturalism, biculturalism entails bilingualism only in the
special inÐstance where a new linguistic code is to be acquired when
interacting with a member of the second culture. It is this special case that
we are faced with in learning a second language, but the properties of the
general class of which it is an instance should always be kept in mind. Unless
this is done it would be difficult to distinguish the learning of a second
language front the learning of an alternate code for communicaÐtion within a
subculture such as the language of the deaf or the Morse Code. For instance, if
two friends decided one day to leam finger spellÐing and started interacting
that way, this would not be an instance of biculturalism. I suppose you might
call this an instance of unicultural bi-codalÐism, Bilingualism, on the other
hand, is more than bi-codalism, since the second language is not intentionally
patterned on the first. It includes a reorganization of knowledge as embodied
in the phonological, syntacÐtic, lexical, and semantic structures of that
language as well as certain socioÐlinguistic rules. This reorganization of
knowledge contains different comÐmunication premises and constitutes
biculturalism. It is for this reason that I stated that any degree of bilingualism
entails some degree of biculturalism.
ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ This way of looking at second language
learning allows a different perspective on FL teaching. The latter thus becomes
a question of training in biculturalism. Once this premise is accepted, the
problems involved in FL teaching methodology take on differÐent dimensions. I
believe that the issues involved in bicultural training are more productive
than those inÐvolved in bilingual training. I do not have time here to explore
this issue in detail. Let me simply sketch some of the parameters that I think
might be involved in such an investigation.
ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ To begin with, a focus on bicultural training would give a more appropriate status to the role of language training per se. There is a widespread attitude among teachers and educators involved in FL training, which is shared also by students and their parents, that masÐtering the elementary mechanics of language is a necessary prerequisite for getting to the subsequent stage of some degree of bilingualism, this latter stage being the really worthwhile aspect of the experience because it then allows the incipient bilingual to come into contact with the culture of the people either directly through oral communication or indirectly through reading and exposure to the mass media. The assumption that lies behind this attitude seems to me to give an unwarranted amount of weight and importance to a particular form of bicultural communication, that which is directly mediated by the second code. Yet it seems to me that other forms of bicultural communication are equally worthwhile for various purÐposes and under many conditions. For instance, the amount of bilingualism gained through a few weeks travel in Japan is fairly negligible when unsupÐported by prior or concurrent language training, yet the degree of biculturalÐism one might absorb during the same time may have very lasting conseÐquences for the individual. Similarly a serious interest in Oriental art, or Eastern philosophy, or even the reguÐlar practice of karate, may transform an ethnocentric unicultural individual into a culturally more sophisticated person, who, even though he may know nothing of a second language, is well on his way to bicultural and multicultural competency. On what bases can it really be claimed that mastering the mechanics of a second language is a superior educational obÐjective to these other forms of biculÐruralism, especially when that kind of demand actually stands in the way of bicultural experiences, as I believe it does for the majority of students in our FL programs? I think educators must face this issue head on and reexamine their attitude towards the universalization of the FL curriculum in its current manifestation. I have grave doubts about the value of cramÐming knowledge down the throat of anyone, whether it be a FL, or OrienÐtal art, or trigonometry. I believe that expending massive educational efforts in teaching FLs in the absence of a genuine interest in that type of knowlÐedge is not only futile but harmful. It seems to me that for the educational process to be effective it ought to be dispensed in a miserly fashion: give only as much as is demanded. To feel comfortable with this kind of educaÐtional philosophy, the teacher must have two prior beliefs: one is that merely acquiring facts in the absence of an intrinsic interest is not ultimateÐly very useful, hence to attempt it is futile; the other is a belief in the intrinsic worth of the individual, that what matters is the process of satisfyÐing his creative and intellectual needs that in fact exist, rather than needs defined for him by others. Are FL teachers prepared to take off the colored glasses of their provincial perÐspective and view the problem in its wider educational implications? I shall have a few more things to say on this issue in the last section of my presenÐtation
2.Ê Can
bilingualism be achieved in the classroom?
ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ Earlier, I stated the answer to this
question in the negative. Let me now elaborate. When FL teachers and administrators
are faced with the fact that the vast majority of their students do not attain
a state of functional bilingualism at the end of their trainÐing. their most
common reaction is to look around for more effective methÐods of teaching. This
is not an irraÐtional or surprising reaction. But if repeated searches for the
best method fail to graduate a greater proportion of bilinguals, another
conclusion should be seriously considered, namely that bilingualism cannot as a
rule be achieved in the classroom. There are a number of considerations that
can serve to rationalize this conclusion. Let me mention a few.
ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ
ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ (a) Developing communicative coinÐpetence
in a language requires condiÐtions in which communicative needs exist. One can
put this in a slightly different way which might be more useful: the degree of
communicative competence acquired by an individual is proportional to the
extent of his communicative needs. Now, what are the communicative needs of an
AmerÐican student in the classroom taking French, say? I canât think of very
many that cannot be satisfied in English, short of the case of the pupil who
falls in love with his pretty unilingual French teacher. While being present in
FL classes where the use of English was forbidden, I have repeatÐedly noted
that whenever a genuine communicative need arose, the stuÐdents automatically
and insistently lapsed into the use of English. CarryÐing on a classroom
discussion on some topic did in a few instances create genuine communicative
needs when the students got involved in the subÐject, but the requirement of
using the second language was purely artificial and by the time the painful
process of constructing a reasonably correct senÐtence was achieved, the need
has come and gone and the discussion turnedÊ
into an artificial language exercise. I am not knocking the usefulness
of discussions in the FL classroom; in fact, I believe they are distinctly more
advantageous than pattern practice exercises. But I am drawing yourÊ attention to the difficulty of crating
genuine communicative needs in the classroom setting, and hence, accordÐing to
the proposition I stated above, to the difficulty of developing funcÐtional
bilingualism.
ÊÊÊÊ (b)ÊÊÊÊ Achieving functional bilingualÐ ism in the
classroom requires a fairlyhigh degree of FL aptitude. I take aptitude to be an
inverse function of time required to achieve a set criÐterion. Thus, even
though it may be the case that almost all adults are capable of becoming
bilingual, only a small proportion of them could achieve that status given the
time limitations that hold in the school setting.
ÊÊÊÊ (c)ÊÊÊÊ Achieving functional bilingualÐism in the
absence of extensive contact with unilingual native speakers reÐquires an
integrative orientation on the part of the learner. By ãintegrative
orientationä I mean an attitude whereÐby the learner identifies with native
models and perceives an intrinsic value in acquiring cultural characteristics
that the native models possess, includÐing their language. It is simply the
fact that the vast majority of American students do not have such an integraÐtive
orientation towards foreign models.
ÊÊÊÊÊ
ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ In the absence of any of the three conditions that I stated, namely genuÐine communicative needs, high aptiÐtude, and integrative orientation, let alone their combination, it is then unrealistic to expect that the classÐroom can produce very many funcÐtional bilinguals.
3.Ê Are there valid objectives in lcarnÐing a
second language other than biÐlingualism?
ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ Earlier I stated the answer in the
affirmative. (And here I can almost hear the sigh of relief on the part of FL
teachers whom I have not as yet totally alienated and who are still listening
to me.) That are some of these objectives?
ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ Let me start with the extrinsic ones.
American culture attaches value to FL learning. While this attitude is neither
simple nor universal, it has been strong and pervasive over the years and has
made possible the recent drive towards universalization of the FL curriculum in
our schools. LanÐguage loyalty and maintenance activÐities on the part of
ethnic groups in this country have remained very strong and active. I would
guess that no less than half of the Americans living today can count in their
parental or grandÐpa rental generation an individual whose first language is
other than English. In addition, there still lingers today the traditional
European value whereby one is not fully educated unless one ãknowsä a second
language. Further more, many Americans have come to believe that international
peace requires greater understanding and contact between the peoples of the
world and thus by taking a FL course in school they feel that they are somehow
contributing to world peace. Finally, many more Americans today travel abroad,
or at least consider travelling abroad, and this fact is conÐsistent with the
study of FLs.
ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ It should be noted that some of these
extrinsic motivations to FL study may not in fact be valid from the point of
view of an impartial observer. That is, one may be considÐered to be an educated
person even though one is unilingual in English; one may not actually
contribute to world peace by enrolling in a FL course; one may not make use of
Spanish while travelling in France and Italy; and so on. But this is not the
point. Given a prevalent cultural value for FL study, it can be considered a
valid educational objective to have a strong and active FL curriculum.
ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ Now, to mention some other objecÐtives
that might be more intrinsic in nature. Exposure to a FL constitutes bicultural
training. The teacher may be a foreigner. The content of the dayâs lesson may
offer a new perspective on a different social order. Or it may be a foreign
magazine, or a movie, or a book, or a meal. A new insight may be gained on the
neighbors next door or on the foreign dignitaries that the president is seen
meeting on the White House steps. History, geography, and anthropology may take
on a slightly different perspective, one that might be closer and more relevant
to perÐsonal experience. Language, as a device for communication, becomes more
concretized as the individual leaves the automatic, unthinking facility of his
native language and moves into the painful, halting hesitancies of a foreign
tongue as be deliberately tries to place the adjectives and verbs in their
proper order. For the first time, the artificial structuredness of human
language enters his awareness and becomes a living reality. There are
undoubtedly rare but recurrent moments when he feels the architectâs elation
when viewÐing the finished product of his imaginÐation as he beholds that rare
phenomÐenon of a novel well-formed sentence in the second languaae for which he
himself is responsible. Then, for the very few, there is that supreme satisÐfaction
that comes from viewing a French movie without having to bother to read the
English subtitles, or settling down with a novel without pencil and dictionary
- The mere conÐtemplation of these two delights is sufficient to drive many a
student to one more hour of a boring language laboratory session.
ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ Finally, let me mention along with these
intrinsic values, a more esoteric argument that comes out of the
psycholinguistâs bag. In this view, uniÐlingual speakers are compared to the
egocentrism of young children who innocently believe that the word is the
thing, and the concept is the word. The semantic structure of a language
reflects the conceptual framework of speakers of that language, a notion that
has led to the development of such serious disciplines as ethnolinguistics and
cognitive anthropology. Learning a second language requires the acquisition of
a new semantic structure that reflects a new order of things in the world. The learner makes the momentous discovery that lo
and behold the world isnât as it is, and the cognitive dissonance that this realizaÐtion
creates may very well transform him into a more understanding, more humble,
more compassionate, more flexible thinking human being.
ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ These, then, are some of the values of
FL study other than functional bilingualism and I submit that they are not
unimportant. Let no FL teacher, contemplating the so-called failure of the FL
curriculum, feel defensive or sheepish about his contribution to the
educational development of our youth. The attainment of bilingualism is by no
means the only justifiable objective of a FL program.
4.Ê Learning a second language is unÐlike learning
other school subjects.
ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ I have already
referred to some of the particular attitudes that revolve around the study of
FLs and these attach to it a cultural significance that is distinctly different
from that of other school subjects. But now I have in mind another sort of
difference which is related to the developmental learning steps involved in
studying a second language and their attitudinal consequences. That
ãmathematics is difficultä is a common piece of folkÐlore that most students
and parents hold with unshakable conviction. Not to run into trouble there is
no mean achievement, let alone be good in it. That ãSpanish is a cinchä while
ãGerman is for the brainy peopleä are also interesting little bits of knowledge
that you can discover when you spend your time administering opinion surÐveys
to high school students, as I and some of my academic colleagues are fond of
doing. But very few students enrolling in a second language course have any
inkling of the pain they have let themselves in for by that action. Imagine how
difficult it is to learn how to talk! This canât be! There must be something
wrong somewhere! Either the teacher is no good or I have no aptitude for
languages. And there goes another lost cause.
ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ There are three kinds of problems that
face second language learners that I feel are unique: the self-evaluations
concerning rate of progress and degree of achievement, the peculiar cumulaÐtive
nature of their developing compeÐtence, and the psychological resistance to
flee expression. Let me discuss these in reverse order.
ÊÊÊ
ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ There appears to be a qualitative
difference for many learners in the significance they attach to making errors
while speaking in a FL versus getting an answer wrong in another school
subject. Getting the wrong answer for a problem in algebra or the wrong date
for an historical battle is a pity because of the grade missed but there is
something either sacrilegious or idiotic in unintentionally murdering a
sentence. There is an interesting psychological phenomenon here that would
surely be worth further investiÐgation, but for the moment, let us simply note
that this attitude serves to inhibit and retard the expressive leap in a second
language. Teachers, too, I might add share this attitude with their students
and although their raÐtionalization for it might be different (for instance,
ãit is more difficult to unlearn errors later onä) their low tolerance for
phonological distortions and syntactic irregularities no doubt serves to
maintain the studentsâ resistÐance to communicative speech. (I canÐnot go into
this now, but I have no doubt that error analysis would show up developmental
patterns that necesÐsitate intermediary forms of speech for which correction is
futile and attitudinally harmful.)
ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ Next, another
second language learning problem is that so much of it is initially in the form
of latent knowlÐedge and progress seems so uneven to the learner. For instance,
the so-called ãactiveä skills÷speaking and writing÷ are far behind the
ãpassiveä skills of listening and reading, and while the latter proceed in
noticeable steps, the former seem never to get off the ground. Actually,
"active" and ãpasÐsiveä are misnomers here because the deep structure
analysis of a sentence is similar whether you generate it or someone else does
it for you. The only passive thing about listening is that your peripheral
vocal apparatus creates less disturbance in the air than when you talk, but
syntactically you are equally active in both situations. This is not to say
that the processes are identical÷otherwise they would develÐop at comparable
rates÷but the nature of the difference might not be what we suppose it to be
ÊÊÊ
ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ There are, furthermore, problems
associated with diagnosing areas of difficulty. A mistake in an algebra problem
can be traced to a forgotten formula (that can then be relearned) or an error
in subtraction (that can be shrugged off). Not so when an expresÐsion in the FL
is misunderstood or when a sentence fails to materialize in the quivering
throat of the student. When second language learners are asked to list their
major problems. one that is high on almost everyoneâs list is vocabulary. This
is a doubtful assessÐment and experienced teachers know this. Another common
candidate is gender and verb tense. But here too there are reasons to believe
that the problem is more complex than that. There is room here for a great deal
of more systematic observations than we now have available and 1 am simply throwing
the problem up for discusÐsion.
ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ Finally, the third kind of problem that
seems to be peculiar to second language learning, one that is not unconnected
to the other two, is the studentâs self-evaluation of the rate of his progress
and the extent of his achievement. He seems to share with many a teacher and
parent the deluÐsion that he ought to know more than he does at any one point
and that unless he ultimately achieves funcÐtional, easy going, native-like
fluency in his expressions his efforts have been in vain. As I have pointed out
earlier, not only is bilingualism not the sole valid objective of FL study, but
that objective is quite unrealistic for many learners within the school system.
and perhaps teachers could play a more active and constructive role in the
formation of more realistic self-evaluaÐtions on the part of their students.
5.Ê The
relation between student ãfailureä and teacher ãfailure.ä
ÊÊÊ
ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ There is a very pernicious sort of any serious attempt
to investigate the problem. And yet, it seems to me that there are cogent
arguments against the monolithic timeory. We know that reading in oneâs native
language is a specialized skill, and particularly when it conies to reading
textbook English, the variance to be found there in individual differences in
competence does not seem to match the much smaller variance in competence we
can note in the daily use of native English speakers. Similarly, the skill with
which the French Canadian bus driver in Montreal handles me in English, when
the need arises, totally belies his English competence as soon as I engage him
in ~m political discussion. The same non-communicative situaÐtion arises with
the English saleslady to whom 1 make conversation in French after she has very
competently sold me the piece of merchandise in French.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ
ÊÊÊÊÊ
ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ Thus
observation supports the separateness of various communicative skills in a
language. There remain then two problems in this connection.Ê First, is there not a minimum common core of
linguistic knowledge that transcends specialized communicative settings and
that should be taught to all language learners? And second, is the teaching of
specialized goals justifiable and feasible given a great deal of heteroÐgeneity
in need and unpredictability in later use?ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ
ÊÊÊÊ
ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ Neither of these questions, seems
to me, is amenable to a pat answer, but I believe that it is possible to set
guideÐlines that apply differentially to particÐular situations.
ÊÊÊÊÊ
ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ In
the first instance it ought to be recognized that the resources available e to
any particular language training y program, be it in a high school setting I or
a special language school, are limited. Certain decisions have then to be made
about the priority of needs toÊ be met.
Then one must examined whether the learning conditions in that school and the
larger community are favorable for meeting the priorited needs. For instance,
offering a converÐsational course in Russian in a high school and community where
there is one living speaker of Russian is asking her for trouble, unless it is made quite and clear to all
concerned that bilingualism is not the goal of the course. Or, offering an
audiolingual course in German to chemistry majors in college whose sole
interest is to decipher journal articles, can only be done at the chagrin of
the students and the peril of the teacher. And to teach the ãtwo active skills
and the two passive skillsä to Thai coikwe students who only wish to get
through their engineering texts is not only futile, as experience shows, but
positively heartÐless. Obviously, we have to proceed with deliberar&
panning in the specialization of second language courses, but equally obviously
a proÐcess of unfreezing the current monoÐlit.hic programs is long overdue.
6.Ê Towards compensatory or individuÐated FL
instruction.
ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ The last of my six premises stated that
an effective FL curriculum is not possible under present conditions of mass
education. There is nothing so peculiar to FL instruction that this should be
true only of it and not of other school subjects, and so my premise here is but
an expression of the more general thesis that effective education and mass
teaching do not go together. By ãmass teachingä I wish to refer to the teaching
that is guided by the principle that pupils are in school to be fed x amount of
knowledge divided up in y units and
chunks and administered in t amount of time. Thus it is not merely a question
of teacher-student ratio but the concepÐtion itself of the educational process.
ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ I am in
agreement with Carl Rogers student centered conception of the educational
process where the responÐsibility for learning is placed where it truly
belongs, on the student and not on the teacher. I donât know who it was that
said that that which can be taught is not worth learning, and that which is
worth learning cannot be taught. A teacherâs role is that of a catalyst that
under the right condiÐtions can facilitate the studentâs learning. This of
course is an ideal model, a conception, a guiding princiÐple. It is neat and
oversimplified. What are the right conditions? What happens in the meantime,
while the right condiÐtions decide to appear on the scene? Can the teacher
create these condiÐtions? I donât think anyone has the answers to these
questions. but this state of ignorance need not render us helpless. There are
little things that can be tried by the teacher. He need not wait for official
policy and the expertâs over-all program. ftâs a quesÐtion of attitude on the
part of the individual human being that is in the person of the teacher and the
quality of relationships he can tolerate when interacting with those other
individual human beings that are in the person of the student.
ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ For instance, in one type of a FL class
the students and the teacher must be willing to play a particular kind of a
game whereby they pretend that they know no English and the only possible mode
of interaction is either nonverbal or through the medium of the target
language. Now, the students, if they become truly involved in this game, would
attempt to use the knowledge of the teacher for facilitating the interaction
within the rules of the game. They would ask for instance, ãHow do you say
thus-and-thus in French?ä and then would repeat it. At any time, the
information the students are asking is determined by, not what is in lesson no.
16 in a textbook, but the communicative needs of the moment that the
person-to-person interaction creates. I have tried this year to create such a
classroom for the French class in an English school in the Montreal area with
the cooperaÐtion of a teacher and although what I have just described did take
place in some measure, another interesting, and to me unexpected. thing
happened as well. These were ninth graders who have had two or three years of
French classes before in the usual classroom setting and knew that they would
be returning to that setting following this experimental year for them. After
about three weeks of instruction along the student centered, teacher-as-facil
itator pattern, they introduced certain demands into the situation. They wanted
the teacher to lecture on the use of the subiunctive and to assign reading and
writing homework. They furthermore insisted on being corÐrected by the teacher.
What a marvelÐlous development. Can you imagine students demanding a grammar
lecture and homework! When I interviewed them after about two months of
instruction they were critical of the course because they felt they werenât
learning enough ÷and this despite a visible and tangible increase in cornÐmunicative
facility on their part which could be noted on a set of tests I devised for
them. Needless to say, the teacher gladly acceded to the demands for
granunatical explanations and homework assignments for those students who
wanted them for, alÐthough this was the sentiment of a majority of them, it was
by no means unanimous.
ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ It seems to me that arrangements of this
sort can be set up in most classÐrooms whatever the specialized goals are of
subgroups of students in the class. While it would be nice if a separate
teacher were available for each subgroup, we cannot at the moment afford this
kind of luxury of resources, but neither is it necessary for as I indicated
earlier, it is not merely a question
of teacher-student ratio, but an attitude on the part of teacher and student
towards the kind of relationship they have.
ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ This completes my discussion of the six
premises I stated at the beginning I should like to summarize briefly. There
are valid educational objectives in learning a second language that are other
than the attainment of bilingualÐism. Bilingualism is a process of
enculturation and although the acquisition of some forms of biculÐturalisin
represents a realistic and worthwhile goal, the achievement of a state of
bilingualism is not to be expected for the majority of students. Learning a FL
in school has associated with it certain
unique aspects and the students successes or failures in learning are not a
reflection of the teacherâs competence or the language teaching method he uses.
Instead. they are a joint function of the studentâs attitudes, needs, and
aptitude, the quality of the existing relationship between the teacher and the
student. and the specific objective of the course in terms of the specialized
language skills the teacher and the student agree upon to pursue.
ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ These, to me, are the major premises
that define the psychological bases of second language learning.
REFERENCE
James. L
A. 1 970. Foriegn LanÐguage L earning: A Psycholinguistic
A analysis of the Issues. Rowley,
Mass:ÊÊÊ Newbury House Publishers