IN PRESS: (APRIL 1982 ISSUE OF CAAL)
BULLETIN OF THE CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF APPLIED LINGUISTICS
AUTHENTIC LANGUAGE TEACHING
THROUGH
CULTURE-SIMULATION IN THE CLASSROOM
LEON A. JAMES
DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII
O.ÀÀÀÀ OVERVIEW.
1.ÀÀ Introduction. This article tries to show that language teaching is authentic
when it arranges a classroom environment that simulates culture learning.
Learning to talk occurs naturally and by absorption when it is ontological. To
gain an understanding of what is ontological I will discuss a topic that is
familiar to the language teacher, namely, the ontology of an utterance
(i.e., its derivational history of depth). The discussion draws closely
from Emanuel Swedenborg, mediately from Noam Chomsky, and distantly from
Gustave Guillaume.
2.ÀÀ Clarifying
Definitions. The central issue for language teaching concerns the
attempt to provide an effective learning environment for achieving communicative-competence.
I mean to offer a solution to this problem by describing the classroom
conditions that will produce it. Earlier and less evolved formulations were
given as ?authenticity? in language teaching (James, 1972), as ?the authentic
teacher?s profile? (James and Gordon, 1974), and ?transactional engineering for
language teachers? (James and Gordon, 1976; 1978b; 1979b, c).
3.ÀÀ Community-Classroom. Realizing the need for a communicative context, language
teachers often try to provide and encourage œœcommunicative activities?? which
simulates culture learning. This article provides some new theoretical
justifications for this practice, and indicates what are some of the principles
for arranging an authentic culture-learning environment in the language
classroom. Attention is drawn to the usual ?anti-social forces? in schools
and classrooms that inhibit social
talk, and how this anti-sociality may be counteracted through interpersonal
exchanges and activities that provide social opportunities for relationship. To
mark this new climate of sociality, I use the term ?community?classroom? (James
and Gordon, 1978a; 1979a).
4.À Culture?learning is ontological. A classroom milieu is authentic when
the learning that goes on there is ontological. Learning that is not
ontological does not follow the natural order of development and is
inauthentic. The latter may lead to memory-knowledge about the target language
but does not produce language use or communicative?competence. In the history
of development of a child?s walking it is clear that this activity is acquired
through maturation (self-instruction and discovery); in the same way, talking
also has a natural history of development which is ontological and natural
(learning through automatic absorption). Authentic language teaching has regard
to this ontological sequence, and arranges for classroom procedures that
replicate this sequence. This sequence is the same as the ontological
sequence of any utterance, i.e., its synchronous depth.
5.ÀÀ Ontology is the analysis of depth. We are used to think of the derivational history of an
utterance in terms of the metaphor of the depths of a lake or body of water:
the surface is visible while the œunderlying? depths descend to the bottom
which is called œthe base?. In this view, to produce a sentence (to generate
it) is a process that starts at this base bottom and gradually ascends to the
surface through undergoing a series of ?transformations?; to understand a
sentence, one starts from the surface and, dipping below into the depths, one
arrives at the base or bottom which generated it to begin with. In contrast
to this view, I am presenting the reverse metaphor of a balloon or rocket
that rises from the surface and disappears up and into the depths of the
atmosphere, and deep space. Thus, to generate an utterance, the process
must start in the upper depths of the atmosphere high above, then
descends to the surface where it becomes visible and audible; to
analyze (understand, interpret) an utterance, the process starts at the surface
and ascends into the depths through corresponding transformations.
6.ÀÀ The three discrete degrees of depth of
utterance. A graphic notation
is introduced which is to serve as a tool to help the language teacher
understand how to create a community ?classroom environment that replicates
authentically the ontology of talking. The graphic notation is
developed for several views on language teaching: pragmatic (goals,
means, effects and uses), morphological (function, structure, form), pedagogic
(intentional and striving issues, linguistic-cognitive issues, presentation-performance
issues), and social psychological (introducing community
integration forces, mining the enhanced learning
capacities, achieving more elevated objectives). These views are in turn
explored in the synthetic sequence (diachronic) which is the, same as
the derivational history or ontology, and in the analytic sequence
(synchronic) which is the same as the understanding or interpreting process.
7.ÀÀ The three degrees of depth in authentic
language teaching. The
teacher?s pedagogic impulse comes from ideological strivings and intentions
these descend out of the high depths of inner process and externalize into
classroom management practices that create the social milieu for learning to
take place; from this intermediate existence, the teacher?s strivings finally
descend to the surface in visible manifestation where they are evident in the
new acquisitions and performances of the students. To state this another way,
inside the learning is the method, and inside the method is the teacher?s
striving and effort. In still other words, the teacher?s strivings actualize
in the students? learning?s through the instructional method.
8.ÀÀ Case history illustrations. The metaphor sets of depth previously described can be
combined into one graphic chart. Then we add a few others from case
histories, and now we have a graphic pedagogic chart which provides a
theory, a justification, and a direction for authentic language teaching. I
then model possible readings of the chart, trusting that language teachers will
then be able to extend the chart for their own personal pedagogic model.
9.ÀÀ Conclusions.
Authentic language teaching raises a number of research issues for the coming
decade: that talk is spontaneous when intentional; that intentionality comes
from community integration of the individual; that community-classroom
procedures serve to integrate the individual, and therefore, provide the impulse
to talk.
1.ÀÀ INTRODUCTION. I am grateful to Andre Boudreau, the editor, for inviting me to give this presentation. He is among those who
remember my course in psycholinguistics, which I gave at Laval University in
the Fall of 1963 at the behest of Professor William Mackey. It was a socially
friendly atmosphere for which I was grateful, but for me intellectually, it was
somewhat innocent. I was a brand new Ph.D., McGill style, coming into the
Gallic frame of academic thought! Though really a Rumanian (from birth), McGill
turned me into an American. The bicultural marriage lasted only a year, and
much to the expressed chagrin of my Laval friends, I disappeared into a career
in the States as a Wallace Lambert trained social psychologist. But before I
left Quebec I had the good fortune of attending almost a dozen lectures by Dr.
Roche Valin on Gustave Guillaume?s linguistic-cognitive method of analysis.
At the time I understood little of it (I now must confess) though I was impressed by Dr. Valin?s masterful expositions; through him I found the œmethode psycho-mecanique? very beautiful, very attractive. A few years later I came across a review written by John Carroll, then at Harvard, discussing Guillaume? s work and its significance for language teaching. I remember being very much chagrined at Carroll?s totally negative view on psychomechanics. It was obvious to me even then (thanks to Valin?s lectures) that Carrol had completely misunderstood Guillaume?s method, thinking of it as sort of mystical rather than beautifully rational, which is how I saw it through Valin.
Perhaps then I internalized some of Valin-Guillaume, and
some readers of this article may see influences from that source. In that case
I am happy and grateful to acknowledge this intellectual debt. Readers will
also see the influence of Noam Chomsky in my focus on depth of utterance and my
description of sentence production as an ontological activity. I have always
thought that Chomsky and Guillaume were quite compatible and mutually enriched
each other. Of course there might
also be the view that I had misunderstood both
and the pleasantness between them was only my own fancy. Readers must decide
whether what I have brought together is genuine and useful.
My most
recent intellectual debt goes to Emanuel
Swedenborg whose ideas on the nature
of ?depth? are restated in what follows. He was an eighteenth century scholar
known for his works in science, engineering, metallurgy, anatomy, theology,
psychology, and other fields of knowledge. There has been a steady increase in
the number of English translations of his works since 1850 so
that now E. Swedenborg has one of the longest list of titles to his name in
the National Union Catalogs. I believe that I am the first to introduce
his ideas on "depth? to linguistics and education. Van Dusen (1974; 1971)
is the first to my knowledge to introduce Swedenborg?s notion of depth in
psychology.
Of course, Freud talked of depth of psychodynamic activity
but his method of dream and word analysis as not rationally compelling and so
could not be universally adopted or used. There is also the idea of depth in
folk knowledge as when we?re taught that LaFontaine?s fables have a moral -- the latter being the formers deep structure. And so it is
with our enjoyment of singing, the message being carried by the lyrics
reflecting a deeper universe of feelings and strivings. Rather than say that here
is a new idea or definition of depth it will be obvious that there is only one
idea traveling throughout these various domains of intellectual endeavor.
Depth leads me to the idea of ontology in that prior gives
rise to later in causal or pragmatic
sequences. The learning of an utterance is nothing but its
ontology just as learning to walk is nothing but physical maturation. Ontology and language learning are one sphere,
the sphere of culture learning, which
is nothing but socialization. I will show that culture learning is arrangeable
in the classroom; this I call culture?simulation techniques. And this
is the real and pragmatic meaning of authenticity, namely that which simulates culture learning in an effective believable
way. How to achieve this is the subject of this article.
2.À CLARIFYING DEFINITIONS. Language teaching will mean the instructional
attempt to provide an effective learning environment for achieving
communicative competence. Thus, though I don?t teach a language I am
nevertheless concerned professionally with language teaching since my social
psychology or psycholinguistics involves issues that pertain to creating an
effective learning environment for language acquisition (James, 1967; 1970a;
James and Gordon, 1974). Communicative-competence is a term we started using
fifteen years ago when we were all desperate about the fact that though
students passed the courses and the tests, they showed little inclination to
talk or read. Other terms cluster closely with communicative-competence,
namely, language use, liberated speech, linguistic proficiency, degree of
bilingualism, functional language skills, oral and written literacy,
transactional engineering, and others (see James, 1970b; 1972; and Savignon,
1972).
The attempt to provide an effective learning environment for
achieving communicative-competence is indeed the central issue for language
teaching, and I mean to offer here a solution to the question of how to achieve
this. My brief answer is contained in the title of this article; I will now
outline this orientation (see also James & Gordon, 1979b, c; 1978b; 1976).
3.À COMMUNITY?CLASSROOM. I?ve been teaching the same introductory college course for the past twenty years, which is forty times! I?ve
discovered a similar problem language teachers have: though my students passed
the tests and exams in Social Psychology, yet they did not talk social
psychology. Memory-knowledge yes, use of knowledge no! It took me fifteen years
(or thirty semesters) to discover the conditions which make my students talk
social psychology. These classroom procedures and the learning environment they
create may be called community-classroom. I mean to offer the same
solution to language teachers since the common focus is how to get people to
talk. Of course people will talk when they want to say something. To want to
say something requires a social impulse for communication, and this impulse
comes only when the individual is integrated in community, e.g., in social
relations. Community-classroom procedures create a learning environment which
bring forth the impulse to talk.
Consider the way in which the impulse to talk is inhibited
in classrooms. As the child gets older, classes get larger and more anonymous,
until they produce an atmosphere of social and academic intimidation, stress,
and anomie. There is competition, secretiveness, even a distrust in collective
work and rewards. Yet it is plain to everyone that everything we do as
individuals is always within the context of a community or group. Independent
work is only a point of view, a sort of game, an agreement to overlook the
factors that make competition possible, namely the underlying community or
state of integration of the individual within social groups and activities.
By overlooking community (and pretending inauthentically) we
create a disadvantageous environment for learning, since learning is social. It
is a community affair, not individual, since the latter cannot learn alone and
apart from others. These disadvantages have become handicaps to the extent that
students are now used to feeling anomie and alienation in the classroom. This is manifested
by the plain facts of student behavior in the classroom. Students are scared to
talk to each other! What an astonishing revelation it is for a teacher to wake
up one day not to this fact -? for well we all know it, but to the fact that
this is socially abnormal! People who sit together week after week,
studying the same books, taking notes on the same lectures, sharing the
tribulations of the same tests -? and yet afraid to talk to each other,
pretending in the hallways they don?t know each other, hiding their work and
feeling uncomfortable showing it to peers, hiding one?s not-understanding,
inhibiting the authentic flow of opinion exchange, of mutual facilitation and
aid.
That this is abnormal took a long time to sink into my
understanding, chiefly because of false and distracting ideas such as my
colleagues were wont of enumerating, namely, that students aren?t motivated
anymore as they used to be, that their intelligence is dropping steadily with
each generation, that the textbook is uninteresting, that the size is too
large, that they are not well prepared, and so on to many other distracting
notions. But eventually came the simple observation that it was a socially
abnormal situation that causes these blocks to authentic exchanges in the
classroom. I then began to systematically introduce instructional
procedures intended to counteract the forces of anti-sociality. Solitary
quizzes were turned into dyadic and triadic quizzes with one ?secretary? and
three names on the test sheet. Textbooks had to be shared since there were not
enough for everyone to walk home with one. Telephone numbers were exchanged and
plans for joint work were laid. Quizzes and reports prepared by students were
read by all. Contacts were established across semesters through cassette tapes
and videotapes and photographs and written advice from the Alumni from prior
generations. Bonus points were given and were allowed to ?travel? (i.e., given
away to someone who needed it more for grades). And many other such things (see
my descriptions in James and Gordon, 1978a; 1979a).
The results were plainly to be seen. Students no longer felt
alienated from each other. Visitors to class (and viewers of the videotape
sequences we have) are confronted with the uncommon sight of students talking
social psychology with each other. From this talk comes reflection, and
from this, deeper understanding. Understanding something leads you to have
opinions and observations, and so the springboard for the utterance is laid,
and indeed springs from the depth of the person s sociality. Increased
student productivity was impressive. Typed reports began to assume
extraordinary proportions with most students producing such unheard of things
as one hundred typed pages! Suddenly they were empowered where before they were
handicapped, and the difference was nothing but a switch from a socially
abnormal setting to one of community.
Authentic language teaching can take the same road of community?classroom. In
the language course also the aim is not merely knowledge of language but use of
it, and this means learning in community wherein lies the depth that evokes
talk (see James and Gordon, 1976; 1978b; 1979b). Of course many others have
drawn attention to this idea and a good language teacher always provides some
of this in the form of social activities, games, summer camps, travel abroad,
dramatic productions, culinary enjoyments, and so on. I hope that what I say
here, the theory that I am proposing, will be seen to be consistent with much
that has already taken place in language teaching recently, and act to
strengthen it through further justification and confirmation ( see also the
work in TESOL -- such as ?Community
Language Learning? and ?suggestopaedia? and others less way out).
4.À CULTURE-LEARNING IS ONTOLOGICAL. When a
teacher is looking around for ways to turn the classroom into a community?classroom,
let the teacher consider that the attainment of objectives in actual life is
always a matter of ontology or gradual development from inner to outer, or from
earlier to later. Hence for the culture-simulation procedures to be
authentic they must be ontological. If they are not ontological, then they
cannot be authentic. I shall describe in the next section how we know what is
ontological; but before that, let me confirm the idea that culture-simulation
techniques that are non?ontological are also inauthentic.
Consider the reason why there is such a gross difference in value
between a genuine Rubens and a near-perfect copy of it. Not so much because
they look different -- even the expert need magnifying instruments to be able
to tell the difference; but really because the two paintings have a different
ontology or history of development. The œbiography? of the forgery is
brief and simple; the motive and
impulse that brought it to life is not an authentic replica of what we value
artistically. Is this not also the case with synthetic diamonds? Their value is
relatively low because their ontology is inauthentic; their biographic history
is a mechanical and electric subterfuge despite the brilliancy with which it
simulates that which took thousands of years to produce ontologically. Finally,
consider whether you would be happy that the test scores of your students
greatly improves after they are coached in a prep course or workshop designed
to improve student scores on such tests. The reason this procedure wouldn?t be
of great value is that the results are achieved through a procedure that is not
authentically correspondent to its ontology. As is well known, test scores have
validity in that they are predictors of performance and achievement; but as
soon as you disturb the normal situation (ontological development) and set up
an inauthentic procedure that does not replicate the ontological procedure,
then the results achieved are worthless as predictors.
The overall conclusion one can draw from these case
histories is that results must be achieved through authentic pedagogic
procedures or else they are spurious and ultimately ineffective. And authentic
means that which simulates well the ontological procedures that naturally occur
in culture learning and socialization. The reason students don?t learn to talk
after years of language study is because the linguistic knowledge this person
accumulates is not accomplished in an authentic manner due to lack of knowledge
in language teaching regarding the natural ontology of learning to talk.
The reason for a lack of know how in this is attributable to the misconceptions
existing as to the real nature of depth in ontology. I shall now present
an analysis of the meaning of depth through an issue that is completely
familiar to language teachers and linguists, namely what is the depth of an
utterance. Indeed, linguistic analysis and grammar are nothing but the
explanation of the depth of an utterance.
5.À ONTOLOGY IS THE ANALYSIS OF DEPTHS Though I have dealt professionally with the notion of
?depth in language? for twenty years (e.g., James and Miron, 1967; Steinberg
and James, 1971) I dare confess that it is only recently that I came to
understand it through Emanuel Swedenborg?s explanations. This I am going to
share with you now.
The reason it took me so long to get this idea straight has
to do with the spatial metaphor we?ve been using for depth. Thus we have
learned to say that an utterance is a surface object (?form? and
?structure?) whose ontology or ?derivation
history? starts at the ?base? (bottom or earliest) and winds itself up to the
surface through intermediate depths (?transformational history?).À I am afraid that despite the great
perspicuity of generative-transformationalists (like Noam Chomsky) and that of
generative semanticists (like the Lakoffs and the Fillmores) and of
psycholinguists (like Roger Brown) and of cognitive psychologists (like Bruner)
they all got misled by the metaphor of the lake or body of water in their thinking
about depth of language or depth of cognitive processing. Thus the model based
on this metaphor contains this very difficulty, and I can only wonder how what
I am going to present is going to affect existing linguistic and cognitive
theories. Time and history will tell. But now to my presentation.
I will show in the next section that an utterance has in
fact three levels or degrees of depth (surface, intermediate, deepest) but that
the true metaphor upon which the model is to be based is the metaphor of depth
we get from a balloon or other rising and descending object in the atmosphere
above the surface of the earth. Thus we should have to change the way we think
of depth and therefore the way we talk about it; we should have to say that the
depth of an utterance rises or ascends as it gets ?deeper? into
the atmosphere; and then that the ontology of an utterance descends to the
surfaces and ascends to its depths. I shall now present the argument (chiefly
Swedenborg?s) that may serve to confirm this reversed view of the depth of an
utterance.
6.À THE THREE DISCRETE DEGREES OF DEPTH OF
UTTERANCE. I have stated that authentic language teaching means
community-classroom procedures that simulate well the ontology of learning to
talk (culture?learning). I have argued that effective culture?learning
simulation is nothing but a genuine replica of the ontology of an utterance. I
am now going to present a method of graphic notation that will allow you to
analyze the depth of an utterance in accordance with an ontological model based
on the rising and descending balloon metaphor.
Note that the balloon metaphor works well for models of
bureaucratic organization. The regular workers occupy the lower floors while
the top executives occupy the top floors. The higher the floor, the deeper you
go into the organizational framework of the company. The penthouse is for the
president or the chairman of the board; to get to the inmost executive branch
where all decisions originate (i.e., most prior in time and first in line) you?ve
got to ascend; to get from the outside (bottom surface) to the inmost depths
(or origin) you must ascend, then you descend to the surface, to the
outermost, the ultimate, the least central. Again, to go to the center, or the
deeper, or the prior, or the higher, you ascend; to go to the surface, the
periphery, the outermost, you descend.
Now to the utterance. To go to the depths of the utterance
you must ascend to that which is prior; to go to the surface of an utterance
you must descend to that which is subsequent. To go into the depths of an
utterance means to consider its ontology, i.e., derivational history. This is
the question, Where do utterances come from? Consider several views on
this question, yet all must be consistent and mutually interrelated. First, the
?pragmatic view.
ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ
ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ THE PRAGMATICÀ GOALSÀÀÀÀÀÀ MEANSÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ EFFECTS
VIEWÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ 1ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ 2ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ 3
ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ 6ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ 5ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ 4
ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ
This
graphic notation shows that the pragmatic view on the degrees (levels) of depth
identifies the goal as the First Cause of action, the means as
the immediate or next cause of action, and the effects as the ultimate
and final condition of the action sequence (surface). Thus, taking any action
whatsoever, whether an expression, gesture, movement, or thought and utterance,
we find its ontology or derivation history starting at the very top or
at its deepest level in what we call the goal of the act. Without a goal
there is no act, no impulse to act. For example, as you walk, the goal
(destination) is constantly providing the energy or impulse needed to complete
the act. If the goal changes or vanishes, there is no arrival at your
destination! Hence, viewed pragmatically, the goal or intention
of an utterance is its center, top, and inmost depth.
The goal is first, is prior most. Second, is the means. The
goal descends into the means. While there is one goal, one striving end, there
are many means, many methods. Means may be equated with tools, instruments, and
vehicles. These are the intermediate degree of depth for they are the immediate
cause of an act (utterance). To have an intention, then a means of expression,
then at last a sensible manifestation (visual and/or auditory, etc.) that is
the ontological sequence of an act, viewed pragmatically. The last step is at
the very bottom, which is the surface; that is where the effects,
results, and consequences come into visible and outer
manifestation. Note that at the surface
degree
(stage 3), all particulars become visible, observable. Prior to this lowest
existence of an act, the history of the act is incomplete. There are no
particulars possible except at the surface level (lowest and outermost degree).
The
origin of the utterance (or any act) is the ideal or generic state of
that utterance; its essence, or Esse. Here, at stage 1, only necessary
truths exist. These ideal generic necessary truths correspond to
?intentional structures? (Kates, 1981; James, 1982); these are invariant and
correspond to the inmost or deepest of an utterance; also highest. Then, at
stage 2, the utterance descends into its vehicle or means. Finally, at stage 3,
the utterance is descended completely and is in its outermost externals (surface
phonology and visuals).
Consider the same three synthetic stages in the derivational
history of depth of utterance, but from the morphological view:
ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ
ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ THE MORPHOLOGICALÀÀ FUNCTIONÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ STRUCTUREÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ FORM
ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ VIEWÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ 1ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ 2ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ 3
ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ 6ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ 5ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ 4
Once again we start with the
origin of an utterance (stage 1) which in
the morphological view may be termed the function
of an utterance because it is nothing
else than the goal or intention of the speaker that is the origin
and prior most of an utterance. Next,
the function descends into the structure (stage 2) since this is nothing else
than the vehicle, means, or instrumentation by which the intention or goal
or function is being embodied. Finally, at stage 3, the structure descends into
the form, which is nothing but the external outermost of the utterance,
its ultimate existence as an effect in articulation and vision (or
audition), i.e., its use.
Now consider the pedagogic view for the language teacher or
applied linguist:
ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ
ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ THE PEDAGOGICÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ INTENTIONALÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ LINGUISTIC-ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ PRESENTATION
ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ VIEWÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ ISSUESÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ COGNITIVEÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ PERFORMANCE
ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ ÀISSUESÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ À ISSUES
ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ 1ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ 2ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ 3
ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ 6ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ 5ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ 4ÀÀÀÀÀÀ
