applying applied linguistics

Chomsky, Plato, and a CP's Pathway | Robert Haines | June 17th, 2005

Chomsky once advised Applied Linguists that he couldn't see any relation between his ideas and what happened in a classroom. His devotees have overlooked that, alas.

McDave

Dave, you've not only struck upon something at the heart of the nature/nurture debate surrounding language and learning, but you've also raised an important issue for those among us (CPs) who might find themselves standing at a crossroads: in one direction, Applied Linguistics, and Pedagogy in the other.

It's not necessarily an 'either/or' situation; a healthy mix is desirable. I do, however, think one has to consider: Do I want to teach primarily language, or do I want to teach people?

This, I feel, is more than mere wordplay: Chomsky has also noted that he believes language learning to be 99% motivation. Universal Grammar and 'black boxes' aside, I agree that motivation is instrumental (better when intrinsic though!) in (language) learning.

Researchers struggle to quantify motivation; hard science prefers 'hard' data. More 'medieval thinking' (always a matter of defining terms, I know) might allow us to accept mystery and paradox into our language learning research, letting go of the egocentric quest to clinically analyze, categorize and explain away every atom of what makes teaching and learning so meaningful.

Rob

Re: Chomsky, Plato, & a CP's pathway | Elizabeth | June 17th, 2005

I have just read the comments on Chomsky. From what I understand about the whole Chomsky/Halliday debate, Chomsky has a theoretical view of grammar (which doesn't necessarily match up with what happens in practice) and Halliday's SFG is more practical (based on how we actually communicate). Correct me if I am wrong.   In addition, both are different from traditional grammar.

I can see one or the other (Chomsky or Halliday's approach) could have great implications for language modeling, computer translation programmes etc, but what about from the perspective of language teaching and learning?

I have to admit, that I am one of the many English language teachers who went through the British education system in the 1970's and 1980's (I think that Julian mentions us in the FND module) and never really got to grips with the grammar and metalanguage (at least I have learnt one term from GLE) of the English language, because it wasn't taught in schools at that time. I often still feel unsure of many of the grammatical concepts that my students have difficulties with and know that many of my German students have a much better grasp (theoretically) of the 'rules' of traditional grammar than I do. What I also don't see (and hopefully will become clear from your answers or further reading) is why are we focusing on SFG in GLE (and also in AWD) when:

• Although I find the SFG material interesting, I feel that my time could possibly be better spent improving my mastery of traditional grammar?

• It's not something that my students are familiar with and the concepts and terminology that I am studying are not something I can directly use to help my students in the classroom?

I know that SFG (and its counterparts) are new models and probably 'the way forward', but at the moment I am really not sure how reading about them will help me or my students on a daily basis. All comments are welcome :-)

Have a great weekend.

Elizabeth Renshaw
Bonn, Germany

PS: I have just checked the Discussion Archive and found this link in the GLE section entitled Halliday in the Classroom. It is related to my questions, but doesn't really answer them. However, you may like to take a look.

Editor's Note: For readers not familiar with SFG, click here to read an introductory article about it by Halliday.

Re: Chomsky, Plato, & a CP's pathway | Glyn Hughes | June 17th, 2005

Hi Elizabeth,

I am currently tying to finish a GLE assignment in time for 1 July so I thought I'd have a stab at answering your questions.

I am doing a comparative analysis of 2 different written corpora and I found that, although I didn't really have any intention of focusing on SFG, when it came to describing the language patterns that were in my concordance lines, the only way I felt I could do it clearly was using SFG labels (pre-modifier, head, post-modifier and also deictic, numerative, classifier, epithet, thing). Trying to use parts of speech was just too confusing and contradictory to allow me to analyse what I wanted to look at. From that point of view, I think SFG is a very powerful tool for analysis of language.

As regards your first comment, as I understand it (which is I admit not at all fully), Hallidayan and Chomskyan perspectives on grammar don't just differ in terms of how language can be analysed but on the more fundamental level of what language is. Chomsky tends to view it primarily as an abstract system whereas SFG views it first and foremost as a means of communication. This has implications in terms of how you label language but also in terms of how you believe it is processed and therefore taught and learned.

Glyn

Re: Chomsky, Plato, & a CP's pathway | Paul Raper | June 18th, 2005

Does this not bear out what I have mentioned about our method school system?

In almost every instance of students wishing to go on to take a Cambridge exam, CPE, CAE, FCE BEC etc, we have to teach formal grammar.

The school over the past years prior to my taking on the role as Director of Studies, had an abysmal success rate in these exams, less than 50%. In my first year of taking over and introducing formal grammar and writing as a supplement to the method, the rate went up to over 80%, and at one point we achieved a 100% pass rate. We currently run at somewhere around 90 to 95%.

Paul

Re: Chomsky, Plato, & a CP's pathway | Chris Baldwin | June 18th, 2005

Hi all,

Paul wrote:

"Does this not bear out what I have mentioned about our method school system?"

Not necessarily- well done for the good results, but it doesn't disprove Chomsky. It shows that the method in use before wasn't compatible with the exams, but tells us nothing about whether we are born with grammar or not, as the Chomsky view as I see it doesn't say that we all have the same grammar, but that the predisposition exists, rather like having holes in the ground for the foundations of a house, but the freedom to build as you like (as the language develops), thus giving rise to certain features common to all languages, but other potential features which don't exist. This doesn't preclude the need for grammar instruction to pass a grammar-based exam because the structures on the underlying foundations are different.

As far as classroom practice goes- this is another story: do we want to understand the brain, or help the kids to talk propa enlis?

I'm interested in both, and am sure that they relate, but maybe in ways that don't help our job?

Have a good one.

Chris
Italy
(typing with one hand after a bike accident)

Grammar and meaning | Robert Haines | June 21st, 2005

Chris, I hope your hand is healing well. Thanks to those of you continuing the Chomsky/Halliday thread. It might not be entirely appropriate to contrast these two views of language/grammar, because it's possible they complement each other in ways we don't yet understand. Dunno...

There are so many possible definitions of 'grammar' (I've seen lists generated on discussion lists) that it can be deceiving to believe we're all on the same page when we use the term.

Learning how to pass exams says little, in my opinion, about a person's ability to use language for communication. That's not to take away from Paul's indirect self-promotion/congratulation- way to go! After all, his students want to pass exams and he's helping them do that. But, what does research tell us about the role of explicit grammar instruction in SLA? Can o' worms opened.

One of the problems I have with Halliday's SFG is constantly reading how functional it is, and how it focuses on language for communication, which sounds great to me. Unfortunately, I have up to now, in my limited exposure to Halliday's work, seen only an analytical, atomistic approach to language.

Doesn't grammar have a lot more to do with social relationships? My students want to talk, using language (English), much more than they want to talk about language. They want to make meaning, but I, like Elizabeth (if I understand her correctly), don't see how Mr. Halliday's language analysis helps my students and I on a daily basis. Is there a more holistic approach to grammar out there somewhere?

Rob

Grammar & learning affordances | Robert Haines | June 21st, 2005

"In non-linear systems tiny, seemingly trivial differences in input can lead to huge differences in output.... Chaotic systems are not predictable but they are stable in their irregular patterns."

That's James Hillman writing about Chaos Theory in 'The Soul's Code' (Random House, 1996) as quoted from Dunn, J. and Plomin, R. Separate Lives: Why Siblings Are So Different. New York: Basic Books, 1990.

He goes on to write:

"Chaos theory gives great importance to 'sensitive dependence' on initial conditions."

Could we consider grammar to be one of the non-linear systems described above? And aren't the affordances we provide learners the 'initial conditions'?

Rob

Chomsky's Lexicalizing tendency | Robert Haines | June 22nd, 2005

David Singelton, in Language and the Lexicon: An Introduction (2000), offers a summary of 'The Chomskyian perspective' (pp.23-28) that seems to suggest Mr. Chomsky has been listening to someone, and has adapted his theories accordingly. In short, there has been a 'lexicalizing tendency' in Chomskyian linguistics as his colleagues have uncovered the importance of the Lexicon. Of course, this perception of Chomsky's shifting stance serves the premise of Singelton's book, but his arguments are convincing.

A note on grammar and the teaching/learning of grammar: What about the notion of parentese? I learned my grammar the old-fashioned way: I listened to the responses of my parents and peers then used this input to hypothesize and generate output. Eventually, without ever explicitly analyzing so much as an indirect object, I could grammar (verb).

Why shouldn't we be able to help language learners grammarize language by scaffolding their utterances and written work, i.e. via parentese?

Example of student's written work: (invented)

Yesterday I play soccer con Nuvia. She play very well.

Example of teacher response: (invented)

I understand that you played soccer with Nuvia yesterday. She plays very well. Do you also play well?

Perhaps a poor example; I should find something authentic. I hope it illustrates the approach to using grammar though.

Rob

Re: Chomsky, Plato, a CP's pathway AND SFG | Elizabeth | June 29th, 2005

Hello everyone,

Thanks to those who got back to me on Chomsky, Halliday and the point of studying systematic functional grammar (SFG). All of your responses helped and I now have a couple more comments to share.

One of my major question marks regarding my current MSc studies (apart from 'Why on earth did I choose GLE anyway?') is why spend so much time on SFG? What use will it be to me?

Firstly, when I put this question to Paul Emmerson (who you may know, or know of, in his role as teacher trainer or business English materials writer), who I know has also recently completed a masters degree, he commented that he thought there were lots of things that people learn about masters courses that are interesting and worth knowing about but not particularly or directly relevant to day-to-day teaching practice. I don't know whether this helped or not?!

Secondly, having studiously followed the suggestions in the GLE module and worked through Bloor and Bloor (2004) chapters 1, 2, 12 and 3 (in that order) I have now just discovered chapter 11 'Applications of Functional Analysis'. This helped a lot to put the grammar into context.   I now see that Systematic Functional Linguistics (SFL) also has/has had many uses including:

•  Improving writing in science and technology (research into styles and techniques used in scientific writing has/can help teachers identify what to teach in order to help students to improve)

•  'Valued texts' (research identifying the characteristics of a 'valued text' and learning how to specifically help students to improve their writing

•  Language development and language teaching (in general, a better way of analysing language will then enable us to be able to teach it better)

•  And so on...

Bloor and Bloor also agree to some extent with Paul Emmerson's earlier comments. They open this chapter with the statement:

"Perhaps the main message of this book is that language is worth studying for its own sake." (p. 212)

Then they go on to write in the summary:

"The fact that functional linguistics has proved to be an effective tool for practical analysis in such a wide variety of research can act to some extent as a justification for the model". (p. 231)

Any comments?

Elizabeth Renshaw
Bonn, Germany

Applied linguistics & linguistics applied | Robert Haines | June 29th, 2005

My only reply, Elizabeth, is that I've also noticed how there seems to be an application to teaching, that thing most of us CPs do for a living, at the end of many papers, books, etc. that are required reading. It would be nice to see more of an integrated approach. Come to think of it, one example might be Interaction in the Language Curriculum: Awareness, Autonomy & Authenticity (van Lier, L. 1996). That is required reading for the MET though, and it could just be the more technical modules that seem so far removed from our everyday activities as teachers.

Like a broken record, I'll repeat that I think it comes down to the question: Do you want to teach language, or do you want to teach people?   Of course, here integration is also most desirable. It's just very difficult to see the people sometimes when a module focuses so heavily on language as such. The idea of 'shared knowledge' is about as close as it comes on the GLE and AWD perhaps.

Rob

Re: Applied linguistics & linguistics applied | Sue Garton | June 30th, 2005

Hi Elizabeth, Rob and all,

I'm joining this thread with my other hat on- that of ex-cp on the programme (in the days before it went modular) to tell you my personal experience on this one.

When I did the DME module as was then (Descriptions of Modern English), I too wondered what relevance Halliday could possibly have to my day-to-day life in the classroom.   However, once I'd finished the module, I gradually realised that I was able to offer explanations and answer my students' queries in a much more satisfactory way than before (well, at least I thought so!). Initially, this wasn't even a conscious thing, but I remember in a class one day giving some explanation and then thinking 'hey, where did that come from?' That was when I realised that Halliday was indirectly actually very useful in the classroom after all! I'm afraid I can't remember what the point was but I vaguely recollect that it was something to do with the order of words in a clause.

Rob, interesting that you should say, 'Do you want to teach language, or do you want to teach people?' My research into EFL teacher beliefs about teaching and learning shows that we're very much split down the middle between those whose beliefs are oriented to people and those whose beliefs are oriented towards what I've called 'process'.

Best,

Sue

Re: Applied linguistics & linguistics applied | Rob Haines | June 30th, 2005

Sue, and everyone, thanks for joining the discussion as an ex-cp. My experience corroborates your research into EFL beliefs about learning and teaching.

I'm interested in learning more about your use of 'process' to describe those of us who want to teach language. I like to think of process-orientation as a more holistic approach, meaning that those of us who want to teach (primarily) language would be regarded as more product-oriented.

Rob

Re: Applied linguistics & linguistics applied | Elizabeth | July 1st, 2005

Hi Sue and everybody else!

Thanks for your comments.

Re Halliday:  I have say that the same is happening to me.  It's a little bit like the acquisition of new language (Krashen, etc.). In the same way that bits of language (not learned but acquired) pop up conversation out of nowhere- the same thing has started to happen with grammar explanations with links to SFG in the classroom.  This was a very useful point that you made. I haven't finished GLE yet and have by no means finished Bloor and Bloor's book or even started Halliday's, but from what I have read, SFG seems to make sense, and although the links to use in the classroom are not very obvious, they do seem to exist.

Re 'process' versus 'product':  I would believe that, in order to teach people effectively, it is our duty to these people to understand the processes involved (how people learn, how language works, how communication happens etc.). My initial question about the links between Halliday and the classroom only arose because, with so much to learn and so little time (!!) I want to concentrate on the processes that are most relevant to the people I work with.

Re 'Do you want to teach language, or do you want to teach people?'
Do we want to teach people or do we want to help them to learn?

That's enough on grammar and English.  I now have to leave and start my German tax return. Nightmare!!!

Have a great weekend.

Elizabeth

A chord | Martin Lovatt | July 1st, 2005

Hi Elizabeth,

I have come into this discussion very late as I've been away- and actually I don't have anything insightful to add except to say that your comment 'Do we want to teach people or do we want to help them to learn?' really struck a chord with me. In my view, helping them to learn is exactly what I'm trying to do. I would only add 'in their chosen way (rather than mine)' for your quote to be perfect for me.

Succinctly done.

Best,

Martin
Fukuoka, Japan

P.S. And that's the point of the Aston course, too, right?

Re: Teacher beliefs | Sue Garton | July 4th, 2005

Hi Rob and everyone else,

Rob wrote:

I'm interested in learning more about your use of 'process' to describe those of us who want to teach language. I like to think of process-orientation as a more holistic approach, meaning that those of us who want to teach (primarily) language would be regarded as more product-oriented.

There were two reasons for using 'process', rather than product. One very simple reason is that, as my research is non-judgmental, I was keen to avoid a term that could be seen to have negative connotations, at least by some in the field. Unfortunately, I think that 'product' rather runs that risk. More substantially, a focus on product is part of the belief system of this particular group of teachers, but it's not the whole story. There is more a concern with the learning process, which is indeed more holistic. It's very complex to explain in a few words, but I'm in the process of writing it up in article form and I'll send it to the group when it's done - it would be very useful to get feedback from you, before I send it off.

All the best,

Sue

 

Archive Categories