THE CONTEXT OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE TEACHING
Leon A. James and Barbara Gordon: Rowley, Mass.; Newbury
House, 1974. pp. 286.
ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ Apparently, the principal author of this work has given up on previous attempts to apply psycholinguistics to the foreign language classroom as in his Foreign Language Learning: A Psycholinguistic Analysis of the Issues (Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House, 1970). He has therefore turned to applyÐing socio-linguistics, or more exactly, sociology to the problems of teaching foreign languages. As a result, the truly innovative suggestions in the text owe their original impetus to persons such as Garfinkel (Studies in EthnoÐ-methodology (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1968)) and Goffman (Relations in Public (New York: Basic Books, 1971)). These persons have studied the context of conversational interchanges intensively and have thus developed the rules to describe these inter-changes. James and Gordon have developed a methodology, which they call Transactional Engineering Analysis, to employ the findings of these sociologists.
ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ The authors of this work see their transactional engineering analysis as synthesizing the teaching of the basic skills in language learning÷the teachÐing of pronunciation, vocabulary and sentence patterns÷with ãadvanced language training designed to liberate the student from speaking sentences to partaking in a conversational exchangeä (p. 60). They envision this as being done by the use of pattern practices, which in effect are constructed according to the rules governing conversational interchanges such as the rules for conversation openers. Thus a pattern practice may be constructed as follows:
Ê Ê 1.ÊÊÊÊ May I please join you now?ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ May I please join you now?
ÊÊÊ 2.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ go
now?ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ May I
please go now?
ÊÊÊ 3.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ leave?ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ May I please
leave now?
ÊÊÊ 4.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ use
your telephone?ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ May I please use
your telephone?
ÊÊÊ 5.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ leave
it here?ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ May I please
leave it here?
ÊÊÊ 6.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ borrow
your umbrella?ÊÊÊÊ May I please borrow
your umbrella?
(The
above is adapted from p. 65 of the work under review.) It is this type of
exercise, which these authors use to lend legitimacy to their claim that
transactional engineering analysis is a new rationale for an old habit, patÐtern
practice.
There is
no doubt that pattern practices could be written with more finesse and with
more common sense behind their composition. The rationale provided by James and
Gordon certainly will aid in this dimension of language textbook writing. But
what of the great debates, which caused James to reject the ALM and pattern,
practice in his earlier work and to seek a new rationale for the pattern
practice at least in the present work? What of the questions of
stimulus/response learning versus innate mechÐanisms, and conditioning versus
cognition, questions which occupied the methodologists of a previous decade?
Evidently, if the present work is any indication, these questions are now of
little relevance. They have been left for concerns such as the rules governing
conversational exchanges, which somehow can be fashioned into a method for
teaching foreign languages.
ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ This is not to say that the text deals exclusively with transactional engiÐneering analysis. On the contrary, the first chapter deals with the possibility of becoming bilingual under the title of ãThe Psychology of FL Learning.ä The second chapter deals largely with individualization of instruction in FL learning while the third and fourth chapters deal largely with transactional engineering analysis. The fifth chapter is largely the text of a speech deÐlivered by James at the 1972 TESOL convention in Washington, D.C. under the title of ãFreedom to Teach and Freedom to Learn.ä The chapter, like the speech, recommends that teachers throw off all social restraints so that they can do their ãthing,ä whatever that may be. This is a rather unrealistic goal since all societies place restraints on the behavior of memÐbers within the society, including teachers. The sixth chapter is concerned primarily with an encounter workshop. The remaining chapters, seven, eight and nine, are back to the topic of transactional engineering analysis.
There are
two very irritating aspects of the work under review: (1) The use of trite
sayings, which are obviously biased, and (2) The sexist view of the teaching
situation, which seeps through the use of pronouns. Among the first, consider
the following:
ã...lo
and behold the world isnât as it is.. .ã (p. 11)
ãAnd there goes another lost cause . . .ã (p. 12)
ãWitch hunting must at all costs be avoided.ä (p. 97)
ãIf you are an old-fashioned old-timer, you are no doubt
ready to scoff at all that we have written in this chapter. 0. K. Goodbye. It
was nice knowing you. Donât call us, [sic] weâll call you.ä (p. 101)
ãOh, so much idealism! Sitting in our ivory tower . . .ã (p.
101)
ãIs it really possible? Isnât it dangerous? It may even be
immoral! Isnât it subversive . . .?ã
(p. 112)
ãThe girls are out fighting for their rights.ä (p. 155)
The
second of these may be inadvertent, but it is nevertheless there. For instance,
on page 84, the word teacher is pronominalized by ãheä; in this instance, the
comment is favorable: ã...he is honest and searching...ä On page 127, the word
teacher is pronominalized by she; in this instance, the view of the teacher is
considerably less flattering: ãShe is encountering a great deal of trouble in
her task...She has reached a frustrating and incomprehensible impasse. What can
she do?ä It is strange that Ms. Gordon would let herself be associated with
such a faux pas.
James W. Ney
Arizona State University