Job Discussion Forums

fluffyhamster · Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2016 1:55 am Post subject:

Because I prefer to try to discuss things even when the person I'm talking to seems in the wrong and refusing to accept linguistic facts.

From what little there is devoted to explaining this situational stuff, it does seem a little limited, and that surely had a fair bit to do with its demise. It could be that something's been missed in all the quasi-obituaries (for example, I'd be interested to know if its dialogues were mainly transactional and services-based, as certainly seems implied, or if they were ever more wide-ranging than that), but the fact that there aren't really any practising proponents of it left sort of speaks for itself, does it not?

See you around.

LongShiKong · Joined: 28 May 2007 Posts: 1082 Location: China

fluffyhamster · Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2016 2:55 pm Post subject:

Until you produce actual classroom clips or transcripts or even model scripts of native English SA teachers jabbering away in French or German or whatever for the benefit of their classes before launching into (or back into) the thus translated English, I'm afraid the linguistic facts of the matter are still very much "in doubt" and do not follow from just your reading and random bolding of a few passages from some half-forgotten book written for the teacherless learner. There is usually more continuity than change in LT (despite whatever now arguable limitations continuing to be part of pushed parcel - taking a longer-term view however, one could perhaps ironically if not quite justifiably ask 'Isn't there a risk of going back to Grammar-Translation if we don't insist on DM?'). I'm also confused as to how you're now saying that there is little difference between the SA and CLT but such a large one between the DM and the SA (maybe we should follow Richards & Rodgers and call this simply SLT). It might help to remember that Thornbury isn't CLT (even if he falls under, indeed considers himself largely under, that umbrella). In fact, nobody is a methodology in the abstract, and we can all "err" and "stray". Regardless, are you now going to quote from some DM rather than SA tome? Wouldn't it be easier for you (and your long-suffering reader[s] LOL) to simply accept that, on the balance of probabilities, the DM has likely been in more or less constant use and largely dominant since certainly GT was ousted if not discredited by the Reform Movement?

LongShiKong · Joined: 28 May 2007 Posts: 1082 Location: China

Seems the more you write the less you say. What is your point?

kpjf · Joined: 18 Jan 2012 Posts: 385

fluffyhamster · Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2016 6:32 pm Post subject:

@kpjf: I sort of meant future queries on other threads. I think I'll stop responding here now though, seeing as LSK obviously doesn't like anybody questioning his questions.

LongShiKong · Joined: 28 May 2007 Posts: 1082 Location: China

As with the recent thread on advanced students, all I see are strawman arguments that contribute nothing to the topic. Given the number of people viewing this topic, I'm frankly surprised FH's the only one even attempting a pushback, but seemingly ignorant of the of the distinctions between DM, SA (in its various incarnations), and CLT. From the beginning, a year ago, I thought I'd play devil's advocate here based on what I'd seen in that video several years ago (between Harmer and Thornbury).

Unfortunately, Duff didn't write a book for language teachers so we can only infer how his classroom practices may have differed from his contemporary SA adoptees.

fluffyhamster · Posted: Sat Jun 18, 2016 3:43 am Post subject:

Carry on inferring, LSK - about why it took a year for even the OP to respond to you. Or why I'm the only person who's so far tried to answer (while daring to disagree with) your questions here. Or about how I contribute nothing to discussions despite suggesting examples that are clearly better than those given apparently almost zero thought by so-called qualified people (Sorry, I didn't quite catch that versus Could you speak up a bit?, or Sorry, what does X mean? versus What do you mean by X? (and if you can't work out which are the better ones then you probably shouldn't be in language teaching)). Or last but not least about how "we" can indeed 'only infer' how Duff's classroom practices may (or may not) have differed from his contemporaries.

And with that, I really am outta here! Cheese on toast beckons.

LongShiKong · Joined: 28 May 2007 Posts: 1082 Location: China

fluffyhamster · Posted: Sat Jun 18, 2016 4:40 am Post subject:

Excuse me, but I'm not attacking you, I'm simply questioning your interpretation of the stuff you've quoted. The fact that you can't even distinguish between the two just confirms to me that you read far too much into things, and are the only one building strawmen here. And from what I can see, twowheel didn't have a question at all about your remark but merely left it at that (I doubt if he or she could make or even wanted to make head nor tail of it ultimately). You're the one who chose to then launch into an unwarranted "explanation" despite the year's hiatus and the very non-committal response. It shouldn't come as any surprise then if (that) twowheel doesn't respond (hasn't responded) any further, but I suppose you're still awaiting his or her thanks and adulation. I think you should try to concentrate more on what people say than on what they don't say, otherwise you're doing little more than putting words into mouths or claiming credit where none is really due.

The Duff stuff is of passing interest, so thanks for that, but I doubt it typifies the approach it's referring to if not "describing", at least not as it related to classrooms rather than to more or less teacherless FL learners. To think otherwise would seem IMHO to completely misconstrue and misrepresent what sort of book Duff had written, and its apparent main audience. Native teachers of English (or so at least the DM line goes) don't need to be translating as they can or must find other ways to convey meaning, especially if the teacher is monolingual and/or teaching a class composed of a mixture of nationalities and thus languages, as is often the case with English classes in the West certainly. This was just as true in Duff's time surely (only 70 years ago, in postwar Britain), and if he had been writing for teachers (rather than teacherless learners) there can be little doubt that his advice would've been much more similar to the DM line that Thornbury traces.

If Santi and Nomad wish to address me directly here or on other threads they are welcome to do so. They are also welcome to respond to your stuff too (substantial fare that it is), but I somehow doubt they will, and those advanced classes probably wore them out anyway!

This cheese on toast is tasty, by the way. And I needed something to read (and chuckle at) while eating it.

LongShiKong · Joined: 28 May 2007 Posts: 1082 Location: China

fluffyhamster · Posted: Sat Jun 18, 2016 6:37 pm Post subject:

Well, as I've pointed out several times now, Duff appears to have been writing for the teacherless learner, not the classroom teacher. It's How to Learn a Language, not How to Teach a Language (or indeed How to Teach English - Harmer's cornered the market for that title LOL).

LongShiKong · Joined: 28 May 2007 Posts: 1082 Location: China

fluffyhamster · Posted: Sun Jun 19, 2016 8:15 am Post subject:

Nope, I (we) have already covered that: "I thought it was so obvious it was written for the possibly independent learner that I cut the following from my earlier post...". All that you then said merely confirmed what I had already worked out just from the book's title and general style.

And with that, I really am out of here, as I'm understandably disinclined to keep going over the same points again and again.