Thu, Sep 09, 2010 page8

• [ LETTER ]

  • • 
    • 
    • 

  ‘English-only’ rule helps

  I cannot agree with Jeremy Hammond’s article (“Cram schools are bad for English,” Sept. 5, page 8). Hammond claims that the “no Chinese” rule enforced at some cram schools is essentially bad. Like many good ideas, the rule can be used improperly, causing students to resent English, but by itself I cannot see it leading only to bad grammar. In fact, I think it can be an important step to fluency.

  Hammond claims that forcing students to communicate in English too early will cause them to resort to their native language’s grammar. I agree with John Coomber (Letters, Sept. 7, page 8); “forcing” students into speaking seems a bit strong, but discouraging them from using a language because they might use it improperly would discourage anyone from ever speaking a foreign language.

  Hammond seems to be under the impression that language is learned in neat chunks. Once one feature is perfected, a student can move on to the next. However, no one learns this way. We all make mistakes when learning a language, mixing in our mother tongue’s grammar and butchering the language we are learning. It’s called “interlanguage” and it’s very natural. As students progress, they will notice their mistakes and eventually correct them.

  Since mistakes are natural when learning a second language, speaking can be intimidating. No one wants to speak incorrectly and be laughed at. As a student of Chinese, I know very well the experience of trying to say something serious and succeeding only in making everyone laugh. That is why using an English-only rule should be done carefully. Starting in small increments with controlled language can build students’ confidence. Teachers might teach a simple question such as “When is your birthday?” Then have students ask each other and record their answers. However, different situations demand different tactics.

  I taught English immersion kindergarten for six years. By the second half of the year, I required all my students to speak only English during the three daily classes I taught them. None of them had any problem, and today some are fluent, attending university or even studying overseas. Yet I must admit that I have met some of my former students who speak in “Chinglish,” with fossilized bad grammar habits. I do not blame this on too much English-speaking, but on a lack of it.

  I saw my students enter the public school system and have their speaking and listening skills deteriorate. It is easy to see why. I monitored one junior high school class in which the teacher spent almost the entire 50-minute class explaining the finer points of the past perfect tense in Chinese. Surely this is what necessitates English-only time in buxibans. Nobody has ever improved their spoken second language skills by listening to their first language.

  It is true that harsh punishment and requiring students to speak far beyond their level will only discourage students and make them resent English. However, done with encouragement and perhaps a token punishment, an English-only rule can be the firm push students need to use English. Often, for a deterrent, I have students make their own contract stating they will only speak English all class or during specific times. They also write their own punishments, which sometimes gets a little silly, but keeps the class good-natured, as it should be.

  NATHAN LINDBERG

  Changhua City
• 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