Methodology in Language Learning: WE'RE ALL IN THIS TOGTHER

 

To understand the role of English and, therefore, English language teaching in these different circles, we must first unpack the issues around how to define a language. We will therefore begin with a discussion of language variety and standard language, and then move on to discuss who is a native speaker and who can teach English. All languages vary depending on characteristics of the user—age, gender, region, social class, and ethnicity—and the use to which the language is put—speaking or writing to whom, about what, for what purpose, using what medium of communication. “To the extent that speakers share knowledge of the communicative constraints and options governing a significant number of social situations, they can be said to be members of the same speech community”, linguistic study of language use in speech communities is called sociolinguistics. Speech communities are not homogeneous and speakers can belong to a number of different speech communities. So, for example, while you might belong to a specific regional speech community, intersecting with this and extending it, you also belong to a speech community that uses language of your age group, which is not intelli gible to those from a different age group. What delineates a speech community is its members’ recognition that they share sufficient rules of communication that they can understand the sociocultural meanings conveyed through their communicative acts.

Dialect is used as an overarching term to describe varieties that vary because of geographical area, social class, gender, ethnicity or age. In some of the literature, sociolect is used for varieties that vary because of social class. We will use the general term dialect here to refer to all variation according to attributes of the user of the language. First, however, is the issue of how to differentiate a language from a dialect. While people may have folk notions about how they differ, linguistically, there are no definitive rules for identifying a language, only sociocultural conventions. One criterion that has been used is that of mutual intelligibility—if speakers can under stand each other, then they speak the same language. However, this criterion does not stand up in practise. Swedish and Danish are mutually intelligible. In fact, speakers who live close to the borders are more easily able to understand speakers of the other language than speakers from the same country who live at great distances. Yet, all agree that Swedish and Danish are languages. On the other hand, speakers of different dialects of Chinese are not intelligible to each other; yet they agree that they all speak Chinese. It has therefore been said that a language is a dialect with an army and a navy. In other words, determining whether a variety is a language or a dialect depends on political history.

Sociolinguists analyze both the linguistic features of varieties and also the condi tions of their use. While this is a fascinating area of linguistics, for our purposes here, it is sufficient to note this language universal of variation and now go on to discuss one particular category of varieties, namely standard varieties, because of its use and misuse in education.

What is standard English? An extensive literature argues for speakers (and writers) adhering to a standard, with a contesting literature arguing that a standard is a sociocultural construct, not a linguistic one. The former argument is usually made by government or the media, abhorring “falling” standards. The latter argue that which variety becomes a “standard” does so because of political and economic power, not because of any inherent status of the language itself. Rather, it is the variety used by the powerful. The native speaker (NS) is a sociocultural construct, not identifiable linguistically. Yet it plays a large part in framing how English is taught and by whom in all three circles. The NS has long been viewed as having a special status with the commonly held definition that an NS is someone who was exposed to a language and learned it from birth. The creation of the NS allows for the nonnative speaker to be defined against a norm. In the field of ELT, as we discuss below, this has led to unsustainable practises in hiring teachers, unsustainable practically and ethically.

Being born in a country does not in and of itself result in one learning the language of the country. Most countries are multilingual and the official language is therefore not the home language of many of the population. A child may be born in one country, but the family moves to another—the child may or may not acquire the language of the country of their birth, depending on opportunities to learn it in the new land. Thus, the common definition of NS does not hold up against real language users. There is still no consensus on a definition of NS. However, there seems to remain a need for such a definition. “We need it as a model, a goal almost as an inspiration”.

NS can be defined—either one, several, or all of the following:

• first language acquired

• acculturation through growing up in a speech community

• linguistic and communicative competence

• acquisition through formal education or daily use

• dominance, frequency, and ease of use

• nationality

 • identification with a speech community or recognition by a speech community

 • ability to differentiate between one’s own variety and the standard

• ethnicity

 • monolingualism

 • variety used.

If there are so many criteria that can lead to native-like performance, how valuable a concept is it for ELT? Further, all of these criteria can be refuted. For example, linguists who may not speak a language may be able to differentiate between varieties. People of the same ethnicity may speak a variety of a different language, depending on their own life experiences. So, all these criteria contribute in some way to the language someone uses, but are not particularly helpful in trying to define NS—it is too broad to meaningfully operate as a means of determining the target learners should be aiming for and that teachers should teach.

©

 

University of Oxford - post gradual studies 2009 'English Language Teaching'

 

Bibliography:

 

1.      Blundell, Lesley and Stokes, Jackie, Task listening, Cambridge University Press, 198r.

 

2.      Gore, Lesley, Listening to Maggie, Longman, 1979.

 

3.      McClintock, John and Stern, Borje, Let's listen, Heinemann Educational Books, 1974.

 

4.      Maley, Alan and Moulding, Sandra, Learning to listen, CambridgeUniversity Press, 198 I.

 

5.      Scott, Wendy, Are you listening?, Oxford University Press, 1980.

 

6.      Stokes, Jacqueline StClair, Elementary task listening, CambridgeUniversity Press, 1984.

 

7.      Underwood, Mary and Barr, Pauline, Listeners (series), Oxford University Press, 1980.

 

8.      Abbs, Brian and Jones, T., Cloudsongs, Longman, 1977.

 

9.      Abbs, Brian and York, N., Skyhigh, Longman, 1975

 

10.  Jones, Christopher, Back home, Longman, 1980.

 

11.  Kingsbury, Roy, and O'Shea, Patrick, Seasons and people and other songs,Oxford University Press, 1979.

 

12.  Wilson, Ken, Mister Monday and other songs for the teaching of English,Longman, 197r.

 

13.  Wilson, Ken and Morrow, Keith, Goodbye rainbow, Longman, 1974.

 

14.  Seidl, Jennifer and McMordie, W., English idioms and how to use them, Oxford University Press, 1978.

 

15.  Wilson, F. P. (ed. ), Oxford Dictionary of English Proverbs, Oxford University Press, 1970.

 

16.  Brown, Gillian, Listening to spoken English, Longman, 1977.

 

17.  Brown, Gillian, 'Understanding spoken language', TESOL Quarterly 12:2, 1978.

 

18.  Brown, Gillian and Yule, George, Teaching the spoken language, Cambridge University Press, 1983.

 

19.  Byrne, Donn, 'Listening comprehension', Teaching oral English, Longman, 1976.

 

20.  Crystal, David and Davy, Derek, Investigating English style, Longman, 1969:

 

21.  Curfs, Emile, 'Listening deserves better', Modern English Teacher 9:3, 1982.

 

22.  Geddes, Marion, 'Listening', inK. Johnson and K. Morrow (eds. ),

 

23.  Communication in the classroom, Longman, 1981. Geddes, Marion and White, Ron, 'The use of semi-scripted simulated authentic speech and listening comprehension', Audio-visual Language journal, 1978.

 

24.  Littlewood, William, Communicative language teaching, Cambridge University Press, 198I.

 

25.  Maley, Alan, 'The teaching of listening comprehension skills', Modern English Teacher, 1978.

 

26.  Porter, Don and Roberts, Jon, 'Authentic listening activities', English Language Teaching]ournal, 1981.

 

27.  Richards, Jack C., 'Listening comprehension', TESOL Quarterly, 1983

 

28.  Rivers, Wilga, 'Hearing and comprehending', Teaching foreign language skills (revised edn.), University of Chicago Press, 1980. Widdowson, Henry, Teaching language as communication, Oxford University Press, 1978. The teaching of listening comprehension, British Council, E.L. T. Documents Special, 1981

 

29.  Blom, J. P., & Gumperz, J. J. (1972). Social meaning in linguistic structures: Code-switching in Norway. In J. J. Gumperz & D. Hymes (Eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics (pp. 407–434). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

 

30.  Cadman, K., & O’Regan, K. (Eds.). (2006). Tales out of school: Identity and English language teaching. Series “S”: Special Edition of TESOL in Context.

 

31.  Canagarajah, A. S. (2001). Critical ethnography of a Sri Lankan classroom: Ambiguities in student opposition to reproduction through ESOL. In C. N. Candlin & N. Mercer (Eds.), English language teaching in its social context (pp. 208–226). London: Routledge.

 

32.  Davison, C. (2001). ESL in Australian schools: From the margins to the mainstream. In B. Mohan, C. Leung & C. Davison (Eds.), English as a second language in the mainstream: Teaching, learning and identity (pp. 11–29). Harlow: Pearson Education Ltd.

 

33.  Gardner, R. C., & Lambert, W. E. (1972). Attitudes and motivation in second language learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

 

34.  Gollnick, D. M., & Chinn, P. C. (2006). Multicultural education in a pluralistic society (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

 

35.  Nieto, S. (1992). Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of multicultural education. New York: Longman. Norton, B. (199

 

36.  Norton, B. (2000). Identity and language learning: Gender, ethnicity, and educational change. Essex, England: Longman.

 

37.  Tannen, D. (1990). You just don’t understand me. New York: Morrow.

 

38.  Toohey, K., Day, E., & Manyak, P. (2007). ESL learners in the early school years. In J. Cummins & C. Davison (Eds.), International handbook of English language teaching (Vol. II, pp. 626–638). New York: Springer.

 

39.  Wong, S.-L. C., & Grant, R. (2007). Academic achievement and social identity among bilingual students in the U.S. In J. Cummins & C. Davison (Eds.), International handbook of English language teaching (Vol. II, pp. 681–691). New York: Springer.