>Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 17:04:47 +0100 (BST)
>From: owner-relevance@linguistics.ucl.ac.uk
>To: relevance-approval@linguistics.ucl.ac.uk
>Subject: BOUNCE relevance@ling.ucl.ac.uk: Non-member submission from
[jose luis guijarro <guijarro@wanadoo.es>]
>
>>From guijarro@wanadoo.es Thu Sep 21 17:04:39 2000
>Return-Path: <guijarro@wanadoo.es>
>Received: from mail-f.bcc.ac.uk by crow.phon.ucl.ac.uk (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4)
> id RAA03934; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 17:04:39 +0100 (BST)
>Received: from smtp.wanadoo.es (actually host 61.220.36.62.in-addr.arpa)
> by mail-f.bcc.ac.uk with SMTP (PP) with ESMTP;
> Thu, 21 Sep 2000 17:04:10 +0100
>Received: from narbona.wanadoo.es (usuario1-36-179-150.dialup.uni2.es
[62.36.179.150])
> by smtp.wanadoo.es (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e8LG42s19252
> for <relevance@linguistics.UCL.ac.uk>;
> Thu, 21 Sep 2000 18:04:06 +0200 (MET DST)
>Message-ID: <000d01c023e7$09511460$96b3243e@wanadoo.es>
>Reply-To: jose luis guijarro <guijarro@wanadoo.es>
>From: jose luis guijarro <guijarro@wanadoo.es>
>To: relevance <relevance@linguistics.ucl.ac.uk>
>Subject: NEW or just BORING?
>Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 18:12:56 +0200
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>X-Priority: 3
>X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
>X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by smtp.wanadoo.es id
> e8LG42s19252
>Content-Length: 12885
>
>Dear members of the list!
>
>I have received (in another list) a message reviewing Green's _New
>Perspectives on Teaching and Learning Modern Languages_ which made me th=
>ink
>(a strange feat, I must say!). I then wrote a commentary to it, which, as=
> it
>deals with some RT issues, I thought I might as well copy it in this list
>for your benefit (you have also the right to be put to sleep, don't you?)=
>. I
>don't know wether my interpretation of RT corresponds to the general
>understanding of it on the issue at hand. If not, I would be delighted to
>hear your interpretations. Thanking you all, eager debaters (!!), here is
>the message:
>
>Dalila Ayoun (the reviewer) says, among other things:
>
>> The chapters dealing with the actual classroom methodologies all
>> express their deep dissatisfaction with the way the communicative
>> approach has taken over foreign language classrooms or rather with
>> the way it has been implemented, which barely distinguishes it from
>> the direct method for instance.
>
>JLG: Well, it sounds promising. Maybe the destruction of a long-lived myt=
>h
>is approaching. But, alack, alack!:
>
>>DA: Thus chapter IX stresses the need for a more meaningful and
>>challenging communication, in other words a revision of the content of
>>communication rather than the methodology itself.
>
>JLG: Here we go again: it's like a curse! Any idea with strong contagious
>potential (I would like to know WHY it has this potential, for, as I try =
>to
>describe below, it is almost senseless in the light of current Linguistic
>theory) becomes an endemic malady hard to eradicate. But... hear, hear!
>
>>DA: these points have been already made elsewhere in the literature alon=
>g
>> with the point underlying the need for negotiation of meaning in real-l=
>ife
>>interactions as is well supported by some of the empirical research cite=
>d
>>in chapter VII.
>
>JLG: As the editor of the book seems to be aware, his NEW PERSPECTIVES on
>teaching and learning modern languages, are after all NOT-SO-NEW. In fact=
>,
>they seem to repeat boring ideas that, if anything, misrepresent the real
>issues one would like to get solved by serious research.
>
>I haven't read the book, although the last part of the passage above info=
>rms
>us that the need for negotiation of meaning in real-life interactions is
>well supported by empirical research. What can this NEED be? I take it th=
>at
>people learn languages, or anything for that matter, in real-life
>interactions (a language class is, as far as I know, one of these real-li=
>fe
>interactions). No problem with that. But how come some people learn
>languages WITHOUT any interaction AT ALL, real or otherwise (?). Are they
>geniuses, extraterritorial, ... what? Of course real life interaction is =
>one
>of the known ways to learn languages! So what? Why do we need empirical
>research for that obvious fact? I repeat, I haven't read the book and may=
>be
>I am missing a revolutionary set of brilliant (old!! or, at least,
>not-so-new) ideas of which I am not aware of.
>
>Unluckily, what follows makes me doubt whether this is indeed the case.
>
>>DA: The context of communication, i.e., the
>> classroom and the curriculum, must be revisited. Again,
>> Thus, the question is not whether language learners would benefit
>> from opportunities to use all four skills in a motivating,
>> challenging communicative environment with a content-based approach
>> which creates interactive activities during which learners can
>> notice and correct their errors as they restructure their
>> interlanguage. The question is how to implement such an approach
>> and to create such an environment. P. Hood proposes in chapter VII
>> that these goals may be reached with the help of CALL (computer
>> assisted language learning). All schools would be online, they
>> would have networked multimedia packages and use an interactive
>> whiteboard for a greater availability of current material and
>> personalized instruction of all four skills.
>> CALL could also partially alleviate the motivation problem outlined
>> by Chambers in chapter III, although the study's findings reported
>> in that chapter indicate that computers and teaching methodology do
>> not have much importance compared to the students' opinion or
>> perception of their teachers -- especially at the primary level
>> where students are less likely to be self motivated.
>> The communicative approach could also benefit from a greater focus
>> on learner and teacher autonomy as advocated in chapter II by
>> D. Little who shows that autonomy is a natural tendency in human
>> behavior. Autonomy in language learning could lead to more
>> effective and meaningful communication as the learners would decide
>> curriculum content in collaboration with teachers as successfully
>> done in a handful of classrooms (Dam, 1995).
>> Thus the current state of foreign language learning and teaching is
>> very clearly described and understood.
>
>JLG: I fear I am in complete disagreement with this last optimistic
>assertion. But my disagreement is not important, really. After all, there
>are people who believe the earth is flat. Nobody would care about their
>beliefs nowadays. But what if they had SOME REASONS to believe it? And, m=
>ore
>important, what if those reasons gave us a BETTER REPRESENTATIONAL ARGUME=
>NT
>about the place we are living on? Of course, I don't think there be any
>reasons for believing the earth to be flat. But I do believe that there a=
>re
>mighty good reasons to forget about the important CENTRAL role of real-li=
>fe
>communication or, better and more elusively put, of a "challenging
>communicative environment with a content-based approach" in the fixing of
>linguistic structures (i.e., LEARNING) in the minds of potential learners.
>MIND YOU: I am not (repeat, NOT) saying that exercising your learned stuf=
>f
>is wrong. What I am saying is that this "modern" (?) way of doing is in
>principle not better than trying to learn vocabulary by rote, although I
>willingly concede that it might me "more fun" for hardly motivated
>kids --though this remains to be proved empirically. Let me start a brief
>summary of the reasons that make me so utterly a miscreant on these "mode=
>rn"
>ways:
>
>1) As we all know, and Konrad Lorenz (among others) showed, little ducks =
>are
>born with a device that IMPRINTS in their minds the "concept" `[MY MOTHER=
>]
>if certain physical conditions in the environment obtain, giving them the
>benefit of a protector in their early life.
>
>2) As we all know, and Noam Chosmy (among others) showed, little babies a=
>re
>born with a device that IMPRINTS in their minds the "linguistic
>representations" of their milieu if certain physical conditions obtain,
>giving them the benefit of a tool that helps them communicate with people
>during all their life.
>
>3) As we all know, Jerry Fodor considered that this inprintable language
>acquisition device we are all born with is in fact one of many modular
>devices we have in our minds that are mandatory, quick and hollow and whi=
>ch
>help us in sending information from the environment to what he called the
>central system(s).
>
>One of the characteristics of the fodorian modules is that its acquisitio=
>n
>follows a universal pattern and sequencing. That is, at a certain age, al=
>l
>babies follow THE SAME path at about THE SAME time of their lives and
>according to THE SAME temporal span. So far, so good.
>
>4) Now, in the middle of the chomskyan fashion of the seventies, some peo=
>ple
>got the idea that the ACQUISITION device for learning the mother tongue w=
>as
>somehow responsible for ALL learning of foreign languages' linguistic
>elements. Accordingly, they made a distinction between LEARNING a languag=
>e,
>which is what we, poor oldies, have done in getting a foreign language (m=
>ore
>or less!) in our heads, and ACQUIRING a language, which is what our lucky
>descendants are supposed to be doing in fixing the linguistic elements of
>the foreign languages they tackle.
>This distinction is a misrepresentation. There is no universal pattern in
>anything while one learns a foreign language. The discoverer of the mythi=
>cal
>Troy, Schliemann, learnt a foreign language every three months. John Lyon=
>s
>once told me that Spanish was a language one could learnt in 15 days. It
>took ME four years or so of my childhood! But then, it has taken me more
>than six years to give up the learning of Chinese in my adulthood. And so
>on!
>
>5) Moreover, the acquisition of a mother language is indeed natural. But
>that is because, according to Fodor, our modules are prewired and every
>single hint we get form the environment is immediately and EFFICIENTLY
>processed and becomes an asset for the final imprinting. This, of course,=
> IS
>NOT THE CASE while one learns a foreign language. Or, if it should be the
>case, it should also be empirically well fundamented --which to my knowle=
>dge
>is anything but.
>
>6) I am a fan of Relevance Theory. According to it, and if interpret it
>rightly, whenever we process information, we keep in our minds ONLY the o=
>ne
>that seems relevant to us. That is the only one that PRODUCTIVELY INTERAC=
>TS
>with our old information in order to give us either (a) totally new
>information, (b) reinforcement of old information, or (c) weakening and
>eventually erasing of old information.
>
>It is my contention that, during certain stages of foreign language
>learning, a real communicative content (or whatever!) will be loaded with
>lots and lots of information that is totally irrelevant to the student. I=
>t,
>therefore, will be processed as NOISE and be subsequently erased, with al=
>l
>the processing effort this certainly requires. As it does not have the
>benefits of relevant information, it tends to form a concrete wall of
>irrelevant stuff that slowly by slowly might do away with the (little)
>motivation the student might have had when he began learning.
>
>7) The defenders of the Communicative Faith tell us that, precisely, by
>doing natural meaningful activities, this problem should disappear, for t=
>he
>"meaningful" should help new linguistic information to become relevant. I
>wish somebody in the field would explain to me how this process comes abo=
>ut.
>Why not teach them directly a few vocabulary and grammatical forms and ha=
>ve
>them used in "traditional good old exercises"? Why indeed is the "meaning=
>ful
>approach" more relevant than the traditional one? I'm not saying it is no=
>t.
>What I am asking is WHY. I am a miscreant, and I don't believe by faith
>alone. I need solid reasoning and empirical proof.
>
>8) Lastly and (almost) incidentally, I am pretty sure that our communicat=
>ion
>ability (or, in Relevance Theory terms, our faculty to "optimize relevanc=
>e"
>of information in our communicative interactions) is also a module like
>device. Which means that it becomes settled and imprinted at a very early
>age and does not have to be taught again --or better, CANNOT be taught ag=
>ain
>and again... and again. The foreign language learner will use whatever me=
>ans
>he has at her disposal to engage in a communicative interaction with
>foreigners, as I am doing now with you people. (S)he may not use the righ=
>t
>(i.e., native) elements in the appropriate place and time (as I am sure I=
> am
>not), but (s)he will communicate, never fear! No problem in that angle.
>
>9) An intriguing problem, for which I haven't got an clear answer, is the
>developping of a module-like functioning of some consciously learned
>activities (i.e., driving a bike, or playing a piano) and representations
>(i.e., learning to read, or learning to look at birds professionally). Th=
>is
>development of foreign language representations in hollow, quick, (almost=
>)
>unconscious, and mandatory mental reactions is what I think confused the
>early advocates of the distinction between LEARNING and ACQUIRING. But, I
>insist, from a linguistic point of view (in the chomskyan tradition, that
>is) the similarity ends there. I wish somebody would point out to me whet=
>her
>this has been treated seriously somewhere.
>
>10) One of the authors of Relevance Theory, Dan Sperber, has argued that =
>the
>human mind might be a lot more modular than what Fodor thought. In fact, =
>it
>might be totally modular, in which case, to say that some functioning is
>modular is not to say very much. What he argues, I think rightly, is that
>there is not a uniform kind of mind modules. There might be a good number=
> of
>types, ranging from the micromodules which we call "concepts" to
>macromodules like what I mentioned before could be called the relevance
>device we use in acquiring information. All this is a very speculative fi=
>eld
>just now, I agree, but at least it might be a much more "new perspective =
>on
>teaching and learning modern languages"
>
>THE (happy?) END
>
>What do you think?
>
>Hasta pronto!!
>
>Jose Luis Guijarro Morales
>Facultad de Filosofia y Letras
>Avda. Gomez Ulla, 1
>11003 Cadiz (Espa=F1a)
>Tel. +34 956 015526
>Fax. +34 956 015501
>joseluis.guijarro@uca.es
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------------------------------------------
Robyn Carston
Department of Phonetics & Linguistics, UCL
Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, UK
Tel 020 7679 3174
Fax 020 7383 4108
URL http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/robyn/home.htm
-------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Sep 21 2000 - 21:58:38 GMT