Teacher Discussion Forums

Can anyone tell me in a few words about the essence of audiolingual approach and what is wrong with it? I have heard it is discredited. I think it must be one step forward than grammar-translation.

There seems to be a widely held perception amongst language teachers that methods and approaches have finite historical boundaries - that the Grammar-Translation approach is dead, for example. Similarly, audiolingualism was in vogue in the 1960s but died out in the 70s after Chomsky?s famous attack on behaviourism in language learning.

In this context, it is worth considering for a moment what goes on in the typical language learning classroom. Do you ever ask your students to repeat phrases or whole sentences, for example? Do you drill the pronunciation and intonation of utterances? Do you ever use drills? What about choral drilling? Question and answer? If the answer to any of these questions is yes, then, consciously or unconsciously, you are using techniques that are features of the audiolingual approach.

This approach has its roots in the USA during World War II, when there was a pressing need to train key personnel quickly and effectively in foreign language skills. The results of the Army Specialized Training Program are generally regarded to have been very successful, with the caveat that the learners were in small groups and were highly motivated, which undoubtedly contributed to the success of the approach.

The approach was theoretically underpinned by structural linguistics, a movement in linguistics that focused on the phonemic, morphological and syntactic systems underlying the grammar of a given language, rather than according to traditional categories of Latin grammar. As such, it was held that learning a language involved mastering the building blocks of the language and learning the rules by which these basic elements are combined from the level of sound to the level of sentence. The audiolingual approach was also based on the behaviourist theory of learning, which held that language, like other aspects of human activity, is a form of behaviour.

In the behaviourist view, language is elicited by a stimulus and that stimulus then triggers a response. The response in turn then produces some kind of reinforcement, which, if positive, encourages the repetition of the response in the future or, if negative, its suppression. When transposed to the classroom, this gives us the classic pattern drill- Model: She went to the cinema yesterday. Stimulus; Theatre. Response: She went to the theatre yesterday. Reinforcement: Good! In its purest form audiolingualism aims to promote mechanical habit-formation through repetition of basic patterns. Accurate manipulation of structure leads to eventual fluency. Spoken language comes before written language. Dialogues and drill are central to the approach. Accurate pronunciation and control of structure are paramount.

While some of this might seem amusingly rigid in these enlightened times, it is worth reflecting on actual classroom practice and noticing when activities occur that can be said to have their basis in the audiolingual approach. Most teachers will at some point require learners to repeat examples of grammatical structures in context with a number of aims in mind: stress, rhythm, intonation, "consolidating the structure", enabling learners to use the structure accurately through repetition, etc. Question and answer in open class or closed pairs to practise a particular form can also be argued to have its basis in the audiolingual approach, as can, without doubt, any kind of drill.

Although the audiolingual approach in its purest form has many weaknesses (notably the difficulty of transferring learnt patterns to real communication), to dismiss the audiolingual approach as an outmoded method of the 1960s is to ignore the reality of current classroom practice which is based on more than 2000 years of collective wisdom.

PS - i didn't write this, it was taken from the following website

http://www.onestopenglish.com/News/Maga ... /Audio.htm

Thanks for post, Adam

I think that bits and pieces of different "approaches" CAN be helpful as long as they help achieve the desired end. Teacher must see what works or doesn't work in a particular situation or circumstance and then act accordingly.

I used the audio-lingual approach repeatedly for a number of years. As a way of easily getting reserved classes to talk and participate it truly is unmatched, as well as the amazing results it produces with beginners. Many critics attack it on political grounds from an individualist point of view becuase the most powerful norm in an audio-lingual class is conformity, which critics argue, should not be learned as the most powerful norm of the langauge they are learning. Unfortunately for its critics, the audio-lingual method won't die, or even just go away: it is showing many signs of rejuvenation in the unlimited area of English For Specific Purposes, most obviously with those kinds of organizations needing to train their people with some conversational routines that apply to their jobs.

May I add that both the grammar-translation and the audiolingual methods were pruned to some extent - and unfortunately so - on their transference to school and language-institute classroom. The g-t method grew out of the system whereby young gentlemen used to have their personal Latin and French tutor at home to prepare them for the de-rigueur Tour of Europe and for equally de-rigueur displays of rapier-sharp wit and repartee when they entered the Commons. So, after a tedious morning pouring over exceptions to Latin third-declension feminine noun plural formation or French anterior perfect subjunctive or whatever, they would knock back the claret at lunchtime and spend the afternoons riding around Daddy's estates spouting forth in the tongues of Plato or Molière - in other words, practising extensively. Similarly, during the intensive WW2 a/l instruction, learners would spend the afternoons in extensive conversation - a somewhat desirable measure when you urgently needed to master the tones of Mandarin or Cantonese so as not to cause uncontrollable convulsions of mirth in native Chinese listeners. Cheers, john.

May I add that both the grammar-translation and the audiolingual methods were pruned to some extent - and unfortunately so - on their transference to school and language-institute classroom. The g-t method grew out of the system whereby young gentlemen used to have their personal Latin and French tutor at home to prepare them for the de-rigueur Tour of Europe and for equally de-rigueur displays of rapier-sharp wit and repartee when they entered the Commons. So, after a tedious morning pouring over exceptions to Latin third-declension feminine noun plural formation or French anterior perfect subjunctive or whatever, they would knock back the claret at lunchtime and spend the afternoons riding around Daddy's estates spouting forth in the tongues of Plato or Molière - in other words, practising extensively. Similarly, during the intensive WW2 a/l instruction, learners would spend the afternoons in extensive conversation - a somewhat desirable measure when you urgently needed to master the tones of Mandarin or Cantonese so as not to cause uncontrollable convulsions of mirth in native Chinese listeners. Cheers, john.

The grammar translation method is one of the few methods that is dangerous to the learners native language. This is mainly due to the constant comparison of the second language to the learners first langauge. The result when applied on a wide scale is not grammar translation, but grammar transference, meaning transference, cultural transference, value transference: the native language must pursue symmetry with the notions of the second language in order to maintain a status of translationability. The student slowly surrenders the values inherent in his or her native langauge in order to accommodate or keep up the face of having values of the second language, which is precisely the hidden goal of the method - to do away with the values inherent the native language by weakening it by comparison to the second langauge. However, the weakness of this method, and the reason why it isn't used so much, is that it is inefficient at teaching the second langauge, in fact its doesn't really teach the second langauge to be used at all, rather it transforms or conquers the native langauge. The effects of the grammar translation method are with us today resulting from the teaching of Latin throughout Europe, and as a result many European langauges were transformed into mutations of it.

Repeatedly the audio-lingual demostrated to be much more efficient at teaching the second language, most noticably with spoken langauge where the grammar-translation method is a extreme failure. Most importantly, the audio-lingual didn't refer or require the use of students native langauge in anyway, and so secured the students from a sublime conquest of their native langauge. Many places that used audio-lingual extensively in when it was popular, such as South Africa, now are multi-linugual societies. Not so much the case with countries that were subjected to grammar-translation method, there is plenty of evidence that these societies not only experienced transformation of their native langauge as a result of the grammar-translation's use, but in many cases an extinction of it. Audio-lingual's respect for the native langauge of the speaker seems to be overlooked by critics because their concern about promoting individuality as a social norm in the classroom against the conformity that goes along with the audio-lingual approach.

I just happened across this thread. It is extremely interesting, and well conducted. My congratulations to all of you.

Larry Latham

My Dingaling wrote:The grammar translation method is one of the few methods that is dangerous to the learners native language. This is mainly due to the constant comparison of the second language to the learners first langauge.

Thanks for an interesting post, MyDingaling. Sorry, I could not quite grasp what exactly do you man by "dangers to the native language" of the grammartranslation approach. I feel that more danger is not to learner's native, but to TARGET language. This is where the grammar-translation does the most harm, because the kids who are taught a foreign language starting from grammar can never learn a foreign language in a natural way and therefore their "language knowledge" is a set of sterilized grammar rules and some skills to manipulate them at the very best. Here in Lithuania I have seen more than enough of this! The strange thing is that at the same time here we have another example - Russian, which most people learned naturally as a second language, because it was widely used during the Soviet occupation period. And most Lithuanians speak it so fluently! This situation stands so much worlds apart from the situation with English, which was never widely used here, therefore all attempts to teach it with grammar-translation approach in schools resulted that most Lithuanians do not speak English or even if they speak a little, that is very very weird sort of English So I think the key is to start teaching English here the way we learned Russian during the occupation period - the natural way. That is not to say that they did not teach Russian grammar at schools back then, but the key to massive Russian language proficiency were not the grammar classes at schools, but the natural and massive contact with that language NOT FOR THE SAKE OF LANGUAGE ITSELF, BUT FOR COMMUNICATION PURPOSES! And boy that did the trick!

V.

Someone please explain to me the correct meaning of "grammar-translation method".
I know what "grammar" means, ditto for "translation"; I don't quite understand what "method" combines grammar instruction with translating. Maybe this method is in use in a limited number of countries, none that I have been to (or lived in; I did visit Lithuania and both of its neighbours).
I did learn foreign languages under teachers that discharged their duty in a relatively traditional way. But they never referred to their teaching as "grammar-translation method" because we almost never translated.
Your answer will be highly appreciated!

Vytenis wrote:
Thanks for an interesting post, MyDingaling. Sorry, I could not quite grasp what exactly do you man by "dangers to the native language" of the grammartranslation approach. I feel that more danger is not to learner's native, but to TARGET language. This is where the grammar-translation does the most harm, because the kids who are taught a foreign language starting from grammar can never learn a foreign language in a natural way and therefore their "language knowledge" is a set of sterilized grammar rules and some skills to manipulate them at the very best.

V.

Dear Vytenis,

I agree with you that the Grammar-Translation method can do harm in the respect that you mention; the emphasis on understanding any language as grammar alone is not very useful to communication, and this false understanding of the language as a set of rules is naturally transfered by the learners to their understanding their own language. The effect of this on the learner is distorted or false beliefs about the nature of their own language. Consequently, the students not only fail to be able to communicate in the second language, but also have their attention directed to features in their own language that are likely to frustrate communication in it. It is a double edge sword, but more dangerous to the native langauge of the learner. For example, we have likely all, especially if you are an ESL teacher, talked to someone who was correcting your grammar, pronunciation or spelling over and above trying to understand what you were trying to say? This is exactly the type of language user that the Grammar-Translation method seeks to produce, both in the second language and the native language. The language user becomes an agent that frustrates all conversations and communication he or she comes into contact with by reference to grammar, a kind of communication saboteur whose authority is enhanced by the appeal to the rules and obedience provided by the notion of grammar. With the Grammar-Translation method, they are not taught to speak and so very limited in repect to how and whose communication in the second langauge they can frustrate in this way. However, the result of this communication frustration in the native language is a greater threat, possibly leading to a reduction in the cohesion and solidarity of the society, and in place of it a snowballing toward its self-destruction.


regards,

My Dingaling

To be fair, the Grammar Translation method was never intended to give students any kind of communicative competency. Rather, it was more of a legacy of the times when students learned Latin because the ability to understand the grammar of another language, transfer ideas from L1 to L2 and appreciate major works of literature in L2 were considered worthy disciplines in themselves. The principle was then applied to teaching modern languages. Of course, the teaching of Latin was limited to a select few.
These days, society is more interested in enabling students to use foreign languages for everyday and work purposes that in enabling them to write critiques of Homer, Shakespeare and Cervantes, and teaching methods have moved on to reflect that social need.
That legacy seems to be disappearing, although when I taught Spanish teenagers they were often required by their schoolteachers to do word-for-word translations. That made it a lot harder for me to motivate them to learn English...
I'm no fan of G-T, but to criticise it for failing to develop communicatice competence is like complaining that tennis fails to develop team skills.

I think I start seeing your point, MyDingaling. This reminds me of my next door neighbor who is a Lithuanian teacher. I am getting paranoid of saying anything in front of her, because she always tries to correct my language! And this is not just grammar: either am stressing the word in the wrong place, or I am using a "wrong" expression or the "incorrect" word etc. That's terrible!!!

my dingaling (what a horrid yet funny song that was!!),

i'd be interested in any references you have for your take on G-T. am writing a paper on the use of L1 in the L2 (or L3 or L4) classroom, and would like to quote some of your theories. obviously, i can't source "my dingaling" on "Dave's ESL Cafe."
many thanks.

oh, and please... all of you--

PARAGRAPHS. the irony of people discussing methods of teaching communication whilst using hard-to-read formats...