1

The Seven Circles of Purgatory:The Dilemmas of Language Teaching

(for Maia)

Traditional language teaching systems (TLTS) – in my view – do not do at least three things which mine will seek to do at all costs.

1. TLTS do not preserve a ‘holistic’ view of language

They make assumptions that (a) language consists of diverse theoretical areas such as:

Phonetics Grammar

Morphology Syntax Orthography, etc

And they extrapolate from this the conclusion that the language according to these parameters is coterminous with a general scheme for mastering the language thus defined – from (respectively) the point of view (1) of the teacher (2) the learner.

2

Unsurprisingly, each strand within such a bottom-up view represents an area of endeavor (and potentially testing) in its own right.

For example, a textbook might focus unremittingly on tenses of the verb in English; and base its curriculum and derived contextual examples on the same bedrock; with exercises, tests, and a putative scheme for progression similarly anchored: but without appreciating (so far as I can see) that in doing so it has made some hidden assumptions about the nature of learning which are hardly – if at all – borne out by the facts of classroom experience.

I examine these assumptions – which I see as being the result of the embracing of a flawed, four-fold syllogism – in section 2 below…

I would never do that. I would consistently seek to situate the students, both imaginatively and intellectually, within the total landscape of a particular ‘take’ on English: its consideration, that is, from one particular angle or vantage-point at a time (allowing the students thus spontaneously to assimilate and chart their acquired knowledge within the overall context and extent of that inner territory…)

I’d help them locate and explore it, of course; but there would be no testing; no homework; no exercises; no anxiety about where we had been and were due to go. Instead, homely follow-up, contextual activities and clarificatory actions such as song and chant would emerge: to energize and engage students needing to deal with often abstract and elusive matter. For the abstract and elusive is as unavoidable in languages as it is in mathematics. Sooner or later, the complexity of any language has to be faced

3

head-on; and no appeal to the nursery and prior agreements with the wet-nurse will suffice then.

The irony is that the challenge lies in the everyday act of study, not the exceptional one of cramming or being examined; and it follows from this that in time the logic will be reversed to what it was once: you take an exam because you have mastered a subject and the exam becomes in fact easy, stimulating, agreeable, and fun. Because you know. So better sooner the full challenge and stretching of the student; but very gently and sympathetically; especially at first. A non-invasive method, coupled to a rigorous syllabus, will yield great results. And the scope aimed for, if not exhaustive, will be at least very extensive. Within a timeframe of progress proportionately generous…

2 TLTS appeal to a faulty ‘hidden syllogism’ of implied universality, as follows:

(a) Each element learned is part of an overarching structure and so part of a ‘representative’ whole;

(b) That ‘whole’ should be ‘learned’;

(c) Once learned, it will mean that ‘the language’; or a great part of it (whatever that may mean!) is ‘learned’;

4

(d) That a particular selective analysis, e.g. of a language’s grammar, can do duty, by implication, for a full and complete knowledge of the language, in practice.

My seven tiers of language expertise do not guarantee a full view. We may well think of other possibilities. But they do rejoice in their incompleteness and provisionality – because these limited virtues – not a scientific or quasi-scientific exactitude – are the very stuff of the way language arises and presents itself to us in the field.

3 TLTS are not ‘open-ended'

They presume to fence in a particular terrain. They imply that there exists only one, ideal, approach to their learning content (by implication everyone has it, or should have it, or is at fault if they do not have it; whereat it is not the system’s fault at all; but that of the client…)

And they imply a further, three-fold syllogism that

once completed, the course:

(a)will somehow have inculcated a certain, subtle, definable mastery;(b)thereby has defined a certain objective standard of linguistic

attainment which further(c) can be realistically tested by on-the-spot, one-off, traditional,

pressurized examination techniques.

5

These assumptions are foolhardy at best.

With Michael Thomas, I would argue that nothing is more guaranteed to impede the easy flow of images and textures into the unconscious memory – that great storehouse and motor of linguistic learning – than the pressurized culture of levels, testing, examinations, judgment, evaluation, and the rest.

These things make the real, natural, uninhibited and subconscious flowering of the mind into a stunted, abnormal, painful, unreal travesty of its true self.

The quarry my methods seek may be a Unicorn – a very different animal indeed –

but it exists. Many experimental sessions so far are beginning to show that.

The open-ended and provisional is the most creative, and the best…

4 TLTS are task-dependent

If not embarked upon, a TLTS course means nothing. It has as much meaning as a recipe uncooked; not that of a Tolstoy novel unread. But I hope that my courses will carry meaning and logic at every point, and leap off the page, irrespective of whether they are studied or not, at any particular time. That they carry their own logic and consistency will be intuitively obvious and right. This is my hope…

6

5 TLTS are ‘all or nothing’.

TLTS are ‘all or nothing’. It must be solved like that. It must be viewed like this. As if there were not variety and contrast in people’s views, personalities, learning styles, tastes and preferences. My approaches privilege the heuristic, or experimental, approach; and we are happy if – provisionally and with many qualifications – an approach has been found which allows a partial and encouraging view of a difficult terrain. It’s the careful philosophy of the design of the lunar module.

6 TLTS are not probabalistic and statistically-anchored; but egregiously definitive

7

We are building up a fresh picture of language based on what we find as we go along; both as we write courses and as we experiment with them. And then we would improve and tweak them again and again, as necessary. The task never ends.

They are labile and always developing; like a true scientific approach in physics. In due time all the variants in a particular defined parameter of approach will be found and be incorporated into a developing model. It will be the work of decades. But at least satisfactory premises will have been defined and incorporated, and re-thought over and over again… Moreover, all are welcome to contribute to a collaborative goal. Quite how this can be worked out in the existing internet situation is a considerable puzzle.

7 TLTS are never fun or fresh…

We will ensure that our courses are fun and engaging at all times. If the stages of speaking an English sound have to be likened to the stages of running up to kick a ball in a penalty shoot-out, well so be it. There is nothing academic or stilted in approaches which, by design, run counter to TLTS and are the stronger for it!

8

The ball may well come from a direction and with a trajectory you never expected! What price your Queensbury Rules then!