Do we teach English in ways that are, essentially, backwards? Image: Sister72
It has occured to many of us, I'm sure, that the language we expose learners to -- especially in coursebook format and through a grammar-driven syllabus -- is often completely different to the way the language sounds and works in the mouths of native speakers.
You've seen it in the constructions we teach and -- especially -- the dialogues we let students listen to or practice saying.
While in an EFL context, I didn't notice this as much, and wasn't all that concerned about it, to be honest. After all, the majority of my learners weren't actually learning English to become global communicators or even partners in conversation with real people from English speaking contexts. Most of them were learning English to pass tests, and our coursebooks and lessons usually represented the style and delivery of language represented on those tests.
But now, being an ESL teacher and facing a situation where my learners need lessons that will help them understand what they hear on the street and in the shops (and everywhere else, for that matter), it really has me thinking.
I'll give you an example, shall I?
The blue text there is fairly representative of what we might (usually) teach to learners first. The red variations demonstrate how the language actually sounds or is used in daily communication between native speakers.
In other words, we teach our grammar McNugget first, and later on give the learners an idea how the language is actually used (or, I assume in many cases, leave the learners to eventually figure this out on their own).
But this is not the way we learned to recognise and produce this language as native speakers. For native speakers (including my 5-year-old son, whose emergent language has begun to fascinate me deeply), it might work more this way:
In this case, the blue text represents the language in most common usage. The red text represents the underlying grammar, which we become aware of over time as we acquire more chunks and learn to break them down or expand them (and I think reading in particular has a huge impact here), or else hear the language adjusted for certain situations (formal speaking, being emphatic, etc.).
However, with the examples above, one thing that becomes very clear to me is that one pattern (the "full form" or "grammar form") represents potentially much more of a load for learners to grasp on the one hand, and is not always all that helpful in quickly understanding what native speakers of the language are saying (on the other).
Personally, I think it's harder and more laborious to go from equating "do you ...?" to "Dya...?" than the other way around. I also think this sequence potentially deprives learners of the chance to develop automaticity through language chunks. For example, I think when you've become used to "Dya...?" you begin to automatically listen for a verb of some sort, and predict that you are being asked a question involving you and an action of some sort.
And these answer patterns:
Yes, I want to go to the zoo
No, I don't like spaghetti
strike me as being a fairly major waste of time at lower levels, given that a one word answer is much easier to produce and is in fact the standard pattern we might expect from fluent users of the language.
I think when we ask learners to concentrate on delivering answers like that, with full sentences loaded with grammar, we not only delay their ability to quickly comprehend the question, we delay their ability to answer it quickly, fluently and efficiently.
And we have them speaking a language that is quite different to the one native speakers are using.
I guess it depends on whether we feel a solid grasp of the structure(s) of the language should come first, or an ability to communicate using the most efficient and natural patterns at our disposal.
While I understand and acknowledge that first and second language learners of English are different in a host of ways, I'm not entirely sure that a complete reversal of the normal acquisition pattern is warranted to the extent that I see in EFL contexts and the materials that cater to them.
In many ways, it's like we're teaching them not only different language, but also a completely different way of processing and using it to communicate.
And I'll admit, that bothers me...
=D
