RE Eduard's mention of my article --a couple of corrections:
(1) the article has been submitted to TESOL Q, but it hasn't
been accepted yet.
(2) The copy of the manuscript that I sent to Eduard and a
few others on the ATEG list was slightly different from the
copy sent to the journal, and I didn’t check it before I
sent it out. For those who received that copy (it has a
header) there is a reference to a non-native speaker (NNS)
in the group. I didn’t use the NNS's data, but her errors
were few, minor, and very distinct from the types produced
by the native speakers. In the submitted version I deleted a
lengthy discussion about the NNS in order to meet the length
requirements of the journal, but I missed a one-sentence
reference to the NNS, and that might be confusing to ATEG-
ers who read the paper. I still have the NNSpeaker data if
anyone wants to discuss the differences between her minor L2
errors and the massive L1 errors of the native speakers.
(3) The language problems of the native speaker ESL
teachers that are described in this paper are compared to
examples of L1 errors that are used as standard criteria for
language impairment (e.g., Specific Language Impairment,
etc), but these problems are very different from what is
known as semilingualism. Semilingualism refers to non-
native speakers (e.g., ESL students, and usually identified
in elementary school settings), who have not acquired a
sufficient foundation in either the first or second
language. The data in my paper indicate that native
speakers of English have a problem at the formal level of
L1 -the level associated with literacy (complexity of
sentences, larger vocabulary), not at the basic everyday
level. They are definitely not semilingual.
I agree with Eduard’s point about non-native teachers of
ESL. I’ve noticed that non-native speakers who teach ESL
very often have an excellent command of the language and a
much better understanding of the grammar. Non-native ESL
teachers are usually able to explain complex structures
(relative clauses, use of and interpretation of passive)
much better than native speaker ESL teachers (at least in my
experience in several countries. ESL students really
appreciate this competence, especially at higher skill
levels of the language. Most of the ESL teachers that I've
taught in TESL programs are much more interested in cultural
aspects of language (e.g., sociolinguistics). The inability
of native speaker ESL teachers to teach the harder levels of
the language --e.g., the ability to prepare students for
academic/professional skills, the TOEFL test, etc is a real
disservice to ESL students.
Most Americans do not have to acquire the high level skills
in foreign languages that are required in the education
systems of other nations. Perhaps for that reason many
Americans do not realize it is possible to acquire everyday
discourse skills in L2 without a lot of grammar, but higher-
level L2 skills (e.g., academic, professional use of L2) are
not possible without knowledge of the grammar. The same is
probably true for native speakers.
I appreciate that people on the ATEG list are committed to
providing a better foundation for (native) English speakers,
even if ATEG-ers disagree about how to accomplish that task.
yvonne
---- Original message ----
>Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 07:47:21 -0500
>From: "Eduard C. Hanganu" <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Re: The role of English teachers
>To: [log in to unmask]
>
>Richard:
>
>
>In a TESOL graduate class I said that most "native" English
teachers
>cannot teach English to foreigners because they do not know
their own
>language. Yvonne Stapp has just published a research
article which
>shows that facts support my assertion. She found out that
in an ESL
>class most students, with the exception of a foreigner, had
very poor
>English language skills, and could be classified as *semi-
lingual."
>They we not qualified to teach the foreign students,
because their
>English language skills were often behind the English
language skills
>of their students.
>
>The truth is that learning English "by ear" is just like
learning a
>musical instrument by ear. The obtained knowledge is
minimal and does
>not qualify someone to teach. Most English teaching
grammars have not
>been written by English "natives," but bu foreigners like
Jespersen.
>My best grammar book in my library of about 30 textbooks is
still one
>written by a Romanian writer. I go there when I have
trouble with
>different grammar issues, because the explanations are
concise and
>clear, free of the confusion one sees in most grammar
textbooks on
>the market at this time.
>
>The traditional grammar is still as good as always, and can
provide
>students with the knowledge they need to write in Standard
English.
>New teaching approaches and methods may need to be adopted
to make
>grammar instruction adequate and efficient, while the
teachers and
>instructors need to adapt to different classroom
environment, but to
>dump the baby with the dirty water is evidence of lack of
knowledge
>of grammar and personal failure to teach it to the students.
>
>Eduard
>
>
>
>
>>On Thu, 17 Aug 2006, Richard Betting wrote...
>>
>>>A short response to Phil's request for a list of problems
with
>>traditional grammar. Here is the list I have been working
on for a
>>couple of years. I don't intend to offend anyone. My point
is that
>>traditional grammar-the grammar of popular handbooks that
I used
>>fifty years ago and that are apparently still used by a
majority of
>>schools in the US, not accurate language analysis-is still
being
>>taught. Teachers teach what they have been taught and
know. And they
>>teach what their texts include, unless they have
information with
>>which to supplement, and many do not.
>>>
>>>These are meant to be strident generalizations in order
to get
>>teachers to understand that there are problems with the
old way.
>>>
>>>After having said all this, I agree with one of the main
principles
>>of ATEG: accurate, descriptive grammar (and much language
>>information) must be taught for at least two reasons: to
allow a
>>discussion of language itself and to be able to use
grammar
>>information to improve student style in writing and
speaking.
>>>
>>>It seems to me (and I may be wrong, this may be too
strong and it
>>might be counterproductive to begin with a list of
negatives) that
>>teachers have to understand the problems first and then
almost start
>>over, deciding what to teach and how about language and
grammar so
>>that the goals of student learning are met, not the goals
of
>covering
>>traditional grammar material.
>>>
>>>In my book I am fleshing out these items one by one,
after which I
>>would put what the ATEG comes up in its scope and sequence
project.
>>>
>>> Dick Betting
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>FIFTEEN PROBLEMS WITH TRADITIONAL GRAMMAR
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>1. TG, LIKE CATECHISM, TEACHES WELL, LEARNS POORLY
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>2. TG is BASED ON FALSE PROMISE: LEARN GRAMMAR FIRST,
IMPROVEMENT
>IN
>>WRITING AND SPEAKING WILL FOLLOW ALMOST AUTOMATICALLY.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>3. TG is BASED ON a FALSE PREMISE: KNOWING GRAMMAR WILL
MAKE
>>STUDENTS BETTER WRITERS AND SPEAKERS.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>4. TG claims to be everything students need to know about
language;
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>5. TG claims there is only one right way, one form of
correctness;
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>6. TGs contain mistaken information:
>>>
>>> a. English in not derived from
Latin
>>>
>>> b. English does not have eight
parts of
>>speech
>>>
>>> c. English does not have six
verb tenses
>>>
>>> d.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>7. TG uses defective methodology: top down, deductive,
absolutes
>>taught as
>>>
>>> Gospel;
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>8. TG exploits the pedagogy of rote memorization, passive
>>acceptance;
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>9. TG uses confusing definitions for basic concepts:
language,
>>grammar, usage, parts of speech;
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>10. TG wastes time and energy, too much time on minutiae
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>11. TG fails to put learned material to use;
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>12. TG fails to notice that language study is philosophy,
>elaborate,
>>abstract, multi-level, open-ended;
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>13. TG reinforces monotheistic social values and
standards at the
>>expense of individuals, minorities and differents;
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>14. TG has no skeleton, no structure on which to hang
language and
>>grammar
>>>
>>> information;
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>15 TG is all fasteners and no projects.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: Phil Bralich
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 9:45 AM
>>> Subject: Re: The role of English teachers
>>>
>>>
>>> The real problem is that there are few if any
traditional ideas
>>that need to go. Someone should actually sit down and
make a list
>of
>>ideas that need to be expunged from grammar teaching and
you would
>>see there are actually only a few if any. The real
problem is that
>>people want to wallow around in a sea of unaccountability
where
>>pontification and pretense take precedence over good
sense.
>>>
>>> We should not be talking in terms of modern versus
traditional
>>grammar as there is nearly zero difference. Instead we
should speak
>>merely of teaching grammar and put the whole false problem
behind
>>us.
>>>
>>> If any one disagrees, please draw up a list of
tradtional notions
>>that should be abandonded.
>>>
>>> Phil Bralich
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: "Paul E. Doniger"
>>> Sent: Aug 16, 2006 7:22 PM
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: The role of English teachers
>>>
>>>
>>> Peter Adams raised an interesting issue with: "In
fact, I am
>>wondering why the role of English teachers seems to always
be to
>slow
>>down this process and defend the traditional conventions."
Is this
>>really the role of English teachers? What do others think
about this?
>>>
>>> Personally, I don't see myself as a defender of
traditional
>>conventions at all. I suspect that many of my colleagues
in the high
>>school English classroom feel the same as I do. I rather
see the
>>English teacher in me as a promoter/fascilitator of deep
thinking
>>(and critical and creative thinking) through the
disciplines of
>>reading, writing, listening, and speaking. Grammar
instruction is
>one
>>item in the toolbox, albeit an important one (and a too
often
>>neglected one at that). However, it's not for me so much
as a
>>teaching of convention as it is a teaching of the way
language
>works -
>>- as a means towards better/deeper thinking in these four
>disciplines.
>>>
>>> I'd add that as a drama teacher, grammar is important
in a
>>similar way. When I ask my acting students to point up the
nouns
>>or "play to (or 'with' or 'on')" the verbs, I need first
to make
>sure
>>they know what these words are. My goal for them, however,
is not
>>grammatical, but theatrical -- I want them to make the
language
>>meaningful and rich, and to bring the text across clearly
to the
>>audience.
>>>
>>> Paul D.
>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the
list's
>web
>>interface at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and
>>select "Join or leave the list"
>>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>>>
>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the
list's web
>>interface at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and
>>select "Join or leave the list"
>>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>>>
>>>To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the
list's web
>>interface at:
>>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
>>>and select "Join or leave the list"
>>>
>>>Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>>>
>>
>>To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the
list's web
>interface at:
>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
>>and select "Join or leave the list"
>>
>>Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>
>To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the
list's web interface at:
> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
>and select "Join or leave the list"
>
>Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
Yvonne Stapp PhD
Assistant Professor of ESL
James Madison University
Dept of Exceptional Education MSC 6908
Memorial Hall 3130B
Harrisonburg, VA 22807
phone 540-568-4525
|
