Language lessons
It is difficult to know quite where to begin with Jeremy Hammond’s article, so convoluted is it in its attempts to rationalize why Taiwanese students speak incorrect English (“Cram schools are bad for English,” Sept. 5, page 8).
However, first, as a point of departure, let me say that I do agree with the idea of exposing students to lots of listening (and reading later) — comprehensible input is a very powerful learning tool.
Also, I am not a fanatical “English only” enthusiast and I do not subscribe to the view that kids (or any learners for that matter) should be forced to speak. However, forcing learners to speak and insisting they try and use English when they choose to speak are not quite the same thing.
Beyond these two points, it is not easy for me to find much common ground. I notice Hammond uses terms like “reinforce” and “bad habits,” which hark back to the behaviorist ideas of language learning, the importance of which have somewhat diminished over the past few decades.
If Hammond wishes to cling to the notion of language learning as simply a process of habit formation, he is free to do so, but he risks advocating some ideas that fly in the face of more contemporary views.
Now let’s see if I have his central idea correct. Children who are made to speak only English may make mistakes because they transfer aspects of their first language onto the target language. Well, what a surprise!
It has been known for some time that learners have difficulty organizing second language knowledge into coherent structures, and it is also generally accepted that this is a consequence of how people get new languages; it is an inevitable part of the learning process, and as such should be expected in the classroom.
The kind of utterances that Hammond quotes as examples of bad habits are heard around the world (subject to local variation) and can be frustrating for teachers, but as he rightly notes, they are examples of ingenuity, and in my view should be welcomed.
However, that does not mean such utterances need to be rewarded, yet that is what Hammond seems to be suggesting with his reference to reinforcing bad habits. Perhaps he is referring to teachers who fail to correct and offer appropriate models to learners.
I am not sure, but let’s stay with this idea of bad habits for a moment. Better, says Hammond, to allow learners to answer correctly in Chinese rather than incorrectly in English.
Wait a minute — is responding to English with Chinese appropriate language behavior? Doesn’t this count as implanting bad habits into their brains?
Hammond is silent on how much valuable classroom time is taken up in unlearning these particular bad habits, but one is led to assume that there comes a time when a magical transition from perfect Chinese answers to flawless English ones takes place.
Some people have devised teaching methods based on the belief that learning a second language has similarities with acquiring a first language, but Hammond’s analogy is unfortunate because it glosses over a number of inconvenient facts that fail to support his point.
I agree that young children appear to work out grammar by themselves, but as well as exposure, they need opportunities for interaction and at these times they make mistakes and they continue to do so for a number of years.
In fact, evidence suggests that children master first-language grammar through a process of trial and error, a process that would be proscribed in Hammond’s classroom for fear of promoting bad habits.
I am afraid I don’t understand how anyone can say that children cannot be creative and original until they have a firmly established framework, unless these words are used as metaphors for “correct.”
Last, I want to consider Hammond’s reasons for “no Chinese” rules. I cannot agree with the implication that teachers need to speak some Chinese to be effective.
If this logic were applied to the wider context of language teaching, the only people employed in the English-as-a-second-language industry would be those with a knowledge of three or four relevant languages. This is clearly not the case.
I find his last point particularly telling: We may find that we don’t actually need the assistant to translate for us very often, he says. Excellent!
This looks like an opportunity to use language for what it is intended for: as a tool for communicating and negotiating meaning — if we could only endure the “bad habits.”
One last thing — there is at least one more reason for enforcing an “English only” policy: Publicize it and it becomes a pretty powerful marketing tool.
JOHN COOMBER
Richmond, Canada
In the US’ National Security Strategy (NSS) report released last month, US President Donald Trump offered his interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine. The “Trump Corollary,” presented on page 15, is a distinctly aggressive rebranding of the more than 200-year-old foreign policy position. Beyond reasserting the sovereignty of the western hemisphere against foreign intervention, the document centers on energy and strategic assets, and attempts to redraw the map of the geopolitical landscape more broadly. It is clear that Trump no longer sees the western hemisphere as a peaceful backyard, but rather as the frontier of a new Cold War. In particular,
When it became clear that the world was entering a new era with a radical change in the US’ global stance in US President Donald Trump’s second term, many in Taiwan were concerned about what this meant for the nation’s defense against China. Instability and disruption are dangerous. Chaos introduces unknowns. There was a sense that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) might have a point with its tendency not to trust the US. The world order is certainly changing, but concerns about the implications for Taiwan of this disruption left many blind to how the same forces might also weaken
As the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) races toward its 2027 modernization goals, most analysts fixate on ship counts, missile ranges and artificial intelligence. Those metrics matter — but they obscure a deeper vulnerability. The true future of the PLA, and by extension Taiwan’s security, might hinge less on hardware than on whether the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) can preserve ideological loyalty inside its own armed forces. Iran’s 1979 revolution demonstrated how even a technologically advanced military can collapse when the social environment surrounding it shifts. That lesson has renewed relevance as fresh unrest shakes Iran today — and it should
On today’s page, Masahiro Matsumura, a professor of international politics and national security at St Andrew’s University in Osaka, questions the viability and advisability of the government’s proposed “T-Dome” missile defense system. Matsumura writes that Taiwan’s military budget would be better allocated elsewhere, and cautions against the temptation to allow politics to trump strategic sense. What he does not do is question whether Taiwan needs to increase its defense capabilities. “Given the accelerating pace of Beijing’s military buildup and political coercion ... [Taiwan] cannot afford inaction,” he writes. A rational, robust debate over the specifics, not the scale or the necessity,
RSS