Tue, Sep 07, 2010 page8

• [ LETTER ]

  • • 
    • 
    • 

  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
• Most Popular

  • 1

    Chinese technicians join airport MRT project

  • 2

    A train for whom? Is a new monorail helpful for Cairo?

  • 3

    Apple is giving Intel’s turnaround some momentum

  • 4

    Taiwan firms eye Philippines amid shift to non-China supply chains: CIER

  • 5

    Taiwan wants bilingual, AI-ready graduates — but tests for yesteryear