Job Discussion Forums

[Sashadroogie]

Don't think art is a suitable parallel for language learning. Sure, they are both related to communication, but trying to catagorise EFL into arty -isms does not have much going for it. And I doubt that anyone is going to 'revolutionise' language learning a la Wagner or Kandinsky. Maybe the nerd in the lab who designs the translator brain implant, but that's not likely soon either.

[coledavis]

If by post-modern, you mean there's a lot of bombast, then yes, it's post-modern. Having experienced the enlightenment in the move from grammar translation to more naturalistic methods, I hope that we may at some point enter a scientific age. But I'm not holding my breath.

[daniel_hayes]

I feel that Structuralism could help EFL. Someone call Levi-Strauss.

[coledavis]

Isn't that the guy who keeps getting arrested for harassing hotel staff?

[daniel_hayes]

Ha. Just because a man uses public money to hire escorts, and takes part in a so-called sex ring, his theories on structuralism are in no way demeaned.

[Sashadroogie]

Pah! What is 'meaning' but an agreed term of reference?! Your 'escorts' could be any man's 'friend-with-benefits'.

[Sashadroogie]

[coledavis]

Julian Assange - might have said - structuralism is friendly and helpful.

[Cool Teacher]

[Cool Teacher]

[Sashadroogie]

'Essentialistc'?! Brilliant!

Of course, all just ever-changing guises for good old-fashioned linguistic 'imperialistictivity'...

[sisyphus]

One of the problems in Applied Linguistics is the fact that the subject isn't very scientific despite attempts to make it appear so. Most of Linguistic theory which should inform methodology is based on theoretical assumptions i.e generative grammar which are difficult to verify despite Chomsky's assertions (i.e poverty of the stimulus, Critical Period etc). On the other extreme you have empiricism and theories based on the 'fact' that children simply learn everything (nothing is innate). The arguments of course are centuries old and will probably never be solved (unless we can develop better investigations into brain functions). The point I'm trying to make is that newbies shouldn't get worked up about the various methodology (i.e. CLT v Grammar) because noone actually knows which is best.

[fluffyhamster]

This thread might've taken off a bit more had it not been for the questionable use of 'behavioural' (and then 'function' (etc?)). The biggest question mark must however hang over the apparent notion that conversation and usage somehow get in the way of teaching grammar and vocabulary. (Presumably the OP means student conversation, as opposed to teacher talk? If so, I'm sympathetic to the argument that students often won't learn much by simply talking amongst themselves, but any "monologic" teacher talk might then need to be more conversational than lecturial in order to compensate). Then again, not every new item needs to be contextualized in speech, or may be better or more deeply understood when studied outside that particular setting (though speech will still be involved in that learning, unless it is completely silent individual reading or something).

[coledavis]

I agree with most of the notion that much of linguistics is pseudoscientific. Having said that, some very useful experimental work has been carried out, particularly relating to vocabulary acquisition.

With regards to the latest comment, I think that communication is useful because it gives the learner a chance to rehearse their learning and thus to reinforce it (and this is a truly behavioural perspective). Yes, Fluffyhamster, the original wording did rather detract from what was a very useful question.

[fluffyhamster]

I'd hesitate to call the more or less incidental use of language by a learner "reinforcement" in anything but an extremely generalized sense - or do they really need a gold star every time they re-use the articles (incl. the zero) correctly?