R



  

  

     R 


  
    

 


!
"###

c
 
c




  


 1
 

Foreword 3

Chapter 1: Principles of Teaching 5

1.1.| Cognitive Principles 7
1..| Social Principles 15
1.3.| Linguistic Principles 18

Chapter : Exploring Language Teaching Methods 5

.1.| Period I: Direct Language Teaching 5
..| Period II: Audio-lingual Teaching and the Innovative Methods of the
1970s 
.3.| Period III: Communicative Language Teaching 8

Chapter 3: Paradigm Shift in Education 33

3.1.| Changing the Focus of Education 33
3..| A Teaching Paradigm to Meet Psychosocial Needs 35
3.3.| Factors of Cooperative Learning 37
3.4.| Cooperative Language Learning 39

Chapter 4: The Language Curriculum 4

4.1.| Constructivism 43
4..| The General versus Specific Course Conjecture 44
4.3.| Random Access Instruction in Complex and Ill-structured Domains 4
4.4.| Language Curriculum as a Knowledge Strategic Hypertext 47
4.5.| Instead of a Conclusion 50

References 51

c
 
c




  


 
$ 
This book is written within the framework of the Ex  
   
. We have
been trying the find out what the methodological implications of the awareness resulting from reflective
mobility are. Is there any ³methodological value´ added in result of the visiting and welcoming experiences
of language teachers and learners in mobility? Our aim is to offer some orientation into the general
educational concerns of the Project. The task is formidable. It is the focus of many different lines of
exploration. In his poem ³Little Gidding´ in 
  , T. S. Eliot puts it in this way:

We shall not cease from exploration

And the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started
And know the place for the first time.

Yet, this is an optimistic book. At some moments in history, professional spheres are
susceptible to important change. We believe that we want and can cross the threshold of ³exchange to
change´ and step into the realm of educational promises fulfilled.

The title indicates our
  
 to the analysis and synthesis of the concepts of
language, personality, methodology, communication and inter-comprehension, etc. This approach
emphasizes the priority of the whole over its parts. We hold that language teaching and learning is a

x
!
, characterized by network of relationships in a social and cultural context. In
addition, we believe that methodology is an interdisciplinary field, which cannot be understood in isolation.
Our perspective sees it in terms of its relations to other knowledge domains.

We shall look into a range of issues, which are not only interesting themselves, but also
relevant to the objectives of the Project and, hopefully, to the Reader. The nature and extent of the relevance
is difficult, if not impossible, to determine 
. However, the book supplements the Project Modules
and serves as a concise reference material on the theory of the teaching and learning of modern foreign
languages. Methodological literature is of course extensive, so we shall be pointing out some of the good
books on the topics presented.

We have just mentioned the term ³foreign language´; throughout the book we shall use it
interchangeably with the term ³second language´. Here, we shall consider them synonymous albeit we
realize that they can be easily distinguished. In the literature, ³second language´ usually refers to a target
language that is being taught in the country where it is the dominant language, whereas ³foreign language´
usually refers to a target language that is being taught in the country where it is not the dominant language.
However, we do not find this distinction quite relevant for the focus of this book.

A decade ago, N. S. Prabhu, the famous Indian methodologist, pointed out that language
teaching faced three major problems, ³(1) the measurement of language competence involves elicitation (in
some form) of specific language behaviour but the relationship between such elicited behaviour and
language competence which manifests itself in natural use is unclear, () given the view that the
development of linguistic competence is a holistic process, there is not enough knowledge available either
to identify and assess different intermediate stages of that development or to relate those stages to some
table of norms which can be said to represent expectations, and (3) there is, ultimately, no way of attributing
with any certainty any specific piece of learning to any specific teaching: language learning can take place
independently of teaching intentions and it is impossible to tell what has been learnt because of some
teaching, and what in spite of it´ (Prabhu 1987, 8). Many things have happened in the field of language
teaching methodology since then. For example, the 

E 
 !

" (Council
of Europe 199 and 1998) was published, E 
  
 (http://www.fu-berlin.de/elc) was

c
 
c




  


 3
founded, E 
   


(Scharer 1999) was launched and so on. Nonetheless, Prabhu¶s
claims are still valid. We shall focus on a range of questions in the light of modern methodological
developments trying to state the scientific facts. Our own opinion emerges in the discussion now and then,
though. We hope our fortuitous academic bias will be understood.

The book is written in English and our examples come from English but we do not intend to
promote a     . We believe in plurilingualism and pluriculturalism and our inadequacy
is only because of our teleological prudence. The book is a collaborative effort but the responsibility of the
authors is individual. Maya Pencheva wrote Chapter 1 and Todor Shopov prepared Chapters , 3 and 4.

Chapter 1 offers a theoretical orientation into the philosophical foundations of

methodology. Cognitive and other principles of language teaching and learning are discussed. It is claimed
that the Picture of the World, which we all keep in our minds, determines the way we speak. This
relativistic perspective and other ideas have found different applications in teaching. They are explored in
Chapter . It is a brief historical overview of teaching methods. The three major periods of the development
of methodology in the twentieth century are presented. Chapter 3 discusses the more specific theme of the
approach level of teaching methods. The authors argue that educational paradigm shift has had a
pronounced impact on language methodology. Particular plans for a language curriculum, which constitutes
the relatively concrete design level of teaching methods, are made in Chapter 4. The question of modern
curriculum design and development is examined in it. The book functions as a whole text. We recommend
that the reader speed-read the book first. Then, the appropriate readings can be selected easily. However,
the reader can approach it as a compendium, browsing only through the relevant sections.

We want to acknowledge the encouragement and support extended to us by many people.

We have had the good fortune to work with Filomena Capucho of Universidade Catolica Portuguesa ±
Centro Regional das Beiras Polo de Viseu, PT, Project General Coordinator, and our Partners from
Hogskolan Kalmar, SE, Centro de Professores y Recursos de Salamanca, ES, Centro de Professores y
Recursos de Vitigudino, ES, Institut Universaire de Formation des Maitres d¶Auvergne, FR, Skarup
Statsseminarium, DK and Universitat Salzburg, AT. We also wish to acknowledge our deep sense of
indebtedness to our colleagues at the Faculty of Classical and Modern Philology, Sofia University St.
Kliment Ohridski, BG. Our work would have hardly been possible without the order introduced in the
system by Alex Fedotoff. We are especially grateful to Peter Hanenberg of Universidade Catolica
Portuguesa ± Centro Regional das Beiras Polo de Viseu, PT, who had the idea of this book first, for his
example and help.

To all these people, many thanks.

Sofia, December 1999

c
 
c




  


 4
  "% 


In his 

     language itself. Often, swept by fashionable
 , H. Douglas Brown notes that there
are ³«best of times and worst of times´ in the
 
  

language teaching profession (Brown 1994a).
.
We can safely say that this is the best of times
for the foreign language teacher. Today, we
know much about foreign language acquisition,
about child acquisition of language, about
cognitive processes, etc. It is also very
important that we have come to an appreciation
of the extreme complexity of this field. This
gives us cautious optimism to plunge even
deeper into the problems.
Foreign language teachers and educators are
often confronted with the question "What
method or what system do you use in teaching
a foreign language?" Most often the answer
does not come easily or if one gives a
straightforward answer, he risks to be subjected
to criticism. Teachers always have 
 


. These choices are motivated by the ³not predicted´ by the theory but predictable. It
theories or a desire to sound ³scholarly´, we
forget a simple truth ± !
      
  
³Students and teachers of language´, says
Osgood, ³will discover the principles of their
science in the universalities of humanness´
(Osgood et al. 1957, 301). A concise but true
definition of man will probably include three
major characteristics: (i) one who can reflect
and interpret the world around him; (ii) one
who can express feelings; and (iii) one who can
use language. These characteristics underlie
three major principles of language teaching and
learning. Well known and novice teaching
techniques can be subsumed under these three
headings. Multiplicity of techniques can be
brought down to a number of methods and the
methods reduced to a number of principles.
Mastering a great number of teaching
techniques will not save you in new situations,
fact that they rest on certain 
of will not give you the all-important ability to
language learning and teaching. Now that we rationalize what you are doing and why are you
know much more about human language and doing it. To do that one must be aware of
its various aspects, we can make the next step deeper principles of language acquisition and
and formulate at least some of these principles, use, stemming from the foundations of human
which are based on what we know about language as such.

"&"&|  

We shall call the first set of principles
³cognitive´ because they relate to mental,
intellectual and psychological faculties in
operating with language. It should be made
clear, however, that the three types of
principles described in this chapter, 
#
 difficult questions in foreign language

   
warm and fast response in linguistics. Some
of the postulates of cognitive science today
are crucial to our understanding of how
language operates and how we acquire this
ability, respectively. Because one of the most
 
, do not exist acquisition and child acquisition of language
as if in three watertight compartments but is, How is it possible that children at an early
rather spill across each other to make up the age and adults, late in their life, can master a
most remarkable ability of man ± the system of such immense complexity? Is it
linguistic ability. only a matter of memory capacity and
It is no wonder that the achievements of automatic reproduction or is there something
modern cognitive science have found such a else that helps us acquire a language?

c
 
c




  


 5
Let us begin with some long established postulates of foreign language acquisition and see what
cognitive theory has to say about them.

(1)|Automaticity of Acquisition

No one can dispute the fact that children acquire a foreign language quickly and successfully. This
ease is commonly attributed to children¶s ability to acquire language structures  
 and

 
, that is, without actually analyzing the forms of language themselves. They appear
to learn languages without ³thinking´ about them. This has been called by B. McLaughlin
³automatic processing´ (McLaughlin 1990). In order to operate with the incredible complexity of
language both children and adult learners do not process language ³unit by unit´ but employ
operations in which language structures and forms (words, affixes, endings, word order,
grammatical rules, etc.) are peripheral. The Principle of Automaticity, as stated above, aims at an
³automatic processing of a relatively unlimited number of language forms´. Overanalyzing
language, thinking too much about its forms tend to impede the acquisition process. This leads to
the recommendation to teachers to focus on the  of language and its  
   . But
focus on use and functionality presupposes meaningful learning, which is in strong contradiction
with automaticity. What is more, one major characteristic both of child acquisition and adult
learning of foreign languages is the phenomenon called 

. Again hypercorrection
cannot exist without meaningful analysis of language structures and their ³classification´ into
³regular patterns´ and ³exceptions´ with respect to a language function.

()|Meaningful Learning

Meaningful learning ³subsumes´ new information into existing structures and memory systems.
The resulting associative links create stronger retention. ³Children are good meaningful acquirers
of language because they associate«words, structures and discourse elements with that !   
# 
 $  

! ##´ (Brown 1994b, 18). We
must pay special attention to this sentence of H. D. Brown, especially the last words, underlined
here. It will be relevant in our argument in favor of the cognitive principles of language
acquisition. One of the recommendations for classroom application of Meaningful Learning is also
of relevance to our further argument in this direction. It states ³Whenever a new topic or concept is
introduced, attempt to anchor it in students¶ existing knowledge and background so that it gets
associated with something they already know´.

Some thirty-five years ago, a new science was born. Now called ³Cognitive Science´, it combines
tools from psychology, computer science, linguistics, philosophy, child psychology, and
neurobiology to explain the workings of human intelligence. Linguistics, in particular, has seen
spectacular advances in the years since. There are many phenomena of language that we are
coming to understand.

Language is not a cultural artifact that we learn the way we learn to tell the time. Instead, it is a
distinct characteristic of our brains. Language is a complex, specialized skill, which develops in
the child. For that reason cognitive scientists have described language as a psychological and
mental  . The idea that thought is the same thing as language is an example of what can be
called a conventional absurdity. Now that cognitive scientists know how to think about thinking,
there is less of a temptation to equate it with language and we are in a better position to understand
how language works.
c
 
c




  



In essence, to reason is to deduce new pieces of knowledge from old ones. But ³knowledge´ is
something complex, the product of social and cultural experience from living in a particular
³world´. In his  

 
 , Wilhelm von Humboldt claims that speaking a language
means living in a specific conceptual domain. Acquiring a foreign language means entering a new
conceptual domain. This statement poses a major problem or perhaps   
 
  of
acquiring a foreign language ± are these conceptual domains so different that they are
incompatible? Or there are certain mechanisms by which we can make transitions from the one
into the other?

We shall present arguments in support of the second decision. The pivotal question is how we
interpret Humboldt¶s conceptual domains. We will refer to them by the term   
 , initially used in analyzing mythology and today employed by cognitive science. The word
³picture´, though usually used metaphorically, expresses truly the essence of the phenomenon ± it
is a  , not a mirror reflection, or a snapshot of the world around us. Like any other picture, it
presupposes a definite point of view or the attitude of its creator. It involves interpretation,
representations of the world from various angles (the so- called ³facet viewing´). This of course
implies the possibility to have a number of different pictures of one object. What is important here
is that our conceptualization of the world is not ³an objective reflection of reality´, but a subjective
picture, which reflects our views, beliefs, and attitudes. ³Subjective´ in the sense of the collective
interpretation or point of view of a society or cultural and linguistic community. This picture
explicates the relativity of human cognition. In semiotics it goes under the name of ³passive´
cultural memory. Cognitive science, however, rejects the qualification ³passive´ and claims that
Pictures of the World are actively and currently structured by common cognitive models. In
connection with Humboldt¶s statement, it is possible to pass from one picture of the world into
another by means of a set of universal cognitive mechanisms. This is crucial for explaining foreign
language acquisition. But what are those mechanisms? And what is the nature of the evidence?

Our conceptual system or Picture of the World is not something that we are normally aware of. But
human language is an important source of evidence for what a picture of the world is like. On the
basis of linguistic evidence we can say that most of our everyday conceptual system is
metaphorical in nature. Cognitive science explains the essence of metaphor as understanding and
experiencing one thing in terms of another. The first thing is called Target Domain (what we want
to express) and the second one is called Source Domain (by means of which we express the first).
We can use, as an example, the way we conceive of time in our everyday life. Let us have the
following linguistic expressions:

%
!   &

  ! #

 &

!

 
 '
 !
 
&
()  

 &

The central postulate of cognitive science is that metaphorical transfer is not just a matter of
language, of mere words. Human thought processes are largely metaphorical. Metaphor means
metaphorical concepts. And these are specifically structured. If we generalize the examples above,
we come up with the metaphor /'R'R()*/. This metaphor entails the treatment of time

c
 
c




  


 7
as a   
 and a #  

. The examples demonstrate one type of
metaphorical transfer ±    
.

On the more linguistic side of the problem, when metaphorical concepts become lexicalized, they
help a variety of people understand what the concepts mean. In other words, they have a certain
didactic role. Metaphors in computer terminology, for example, aid users speaking different
languages but using English to understand and remember new concepts. At the same time they
allow users to associate unfamiliar concepts with old ones, thereby helping to palliate technostress.
³User friendliness´ of computer metaphorical terms can be illustrated by the numerous examples
found in the vocabulary of user interfaces ± e.g. desktop, wallpaper, and menu, to mention just a
few. It appears that conceptual domains are shaped by several themes. The domain of the Internet
features several conceptual themes. Most of these are based on the functions that the Internet is
perceived to have: (1) helping people ³move´ across vast distances; () facilitate communication;
and (3) send and store data. The following metaphorical domains can present these themes:

1.|  


The theme of transportation dominates Internet terminology, specified sometimes as 
#
,  ! 

:
  ++'
,-
 



 $
+  $

 +'

 +. 
  
 

 

/&| 
*# 
. .  
 0
   
 

1&|   
. $

 . 

4.|  
 . 
 
$
.  2
 



c
 
c




  


 8
Some metaphorical terms have spawned numerous conceptually related ones by metaphorical
extension. +
 , for example, has given rise to +
  , +
 
. The famous desktop
metaphor has given rise to  , 
 ,   . The mouse metaphor has generated

 and so on.

A different type of metaphorical model is the second one, which organizes a whole system of
concepts with respect to one another ± the so-called

 
. They rely on bodily
experience: up-down, in-out, front-back, deep-shallow, center-periphery, etc. Such orientation
metaphors are grounded in physical perception and hence universal. For example:

† vs. 3$

       
()  &    () 
!
&
()     &       &
 
 #  &  ()  &



         
 
 &     &
  
  &  
!!  &

#


#      



  


&      

&
( #


#   
&      

&

         
!  
)   
 &       


  

 &

#        #
   ,&    (!
) 


 &
*    - &      )   &


      


   

#

 & .  

 

#&

The third type of metaphor is called


. Cognitive science has it that we understand our
experience in terms of objects and substances. This allows us to pick fragments of our experience
and treat them as discrete entities or substances. Thus, we interpret the human mind as a material
object with specific properties - the /R')3'R ')/ metaphor:

   )

&

()  
&
 x  &
   &

 
-x 
&

c
 
c




  


 9
The conception of +R')3'R ')/ also enables us to view mind as having an off-state,
a level of efficiency, productive capacity, internal mechanisms, etc. What is more, and it is very
important, we view both conceptual domains ( R  and  R ) as internally
structured, so that we can make transfers not only between the domains as a whole but also
between parts of these domains. This process is known as ³metaphorical mapping´. In this way,
when we use a metaphorical model, we can also use elements of that model with the same effect.
Let¶s illustrate this with an example:

+''4(† )*/.

The mapping between the two domains is not simple. The structure of Journey includes, for
example, point of departure, path to destination, means of transportation, co-travelers, obstacles
along the way to destination, crossroads, etc. It is amazing how our concept of life repeats all the
details of our concept of journeys. What is much more amazing, however, is not that we have
many metaphors for life, but that we have just a few. They are among the basic metaphors we live
by.

Basic metaphors are limited in number. Among them are:

+  ( '()+
+!)  '()+
+( )+
+(  ()') +
+''4(† )*+

By means of them we can interpret all existing metaphorical models:


+''4(† )*+
     5 +!)  '()+
+''*+

+''  '(†('()+

+''†
) +
  5 +(  ()') +
+''†'3+

+'''6+
     5 +( )+
+3'3 )+

+3'3 † + < /''4(† )*+

/3'+ + < / ( '()+.

We understand the Source Domains of basic metaphors relying on our everyday experience ±
bodily experience and social experience. This means that they are not independent of thinking and
cognition.

c
 
c




  


 10
What motivates our ability to create and understand metaphorical structures? According to
cognitive science, these are cognitive and psychological characteristics, which are elements of our
species specific as human beings. They are:

(1)| Our ability to create structures in concepts that do not exist independent of the
metaphor, i.e. our ability for modeling,
()| Our ability to choose and explicate optional elements from conceptual structures,
(3)| Our ability to make conclusions and inferences,
(4)| Our ability to evaluate and transfer evaluations of elements of the Source Domain onto
the Target Domain.

Our mental ability for modeling enables us to operate easily with extremely complex conceptual
structures. A very good example is the notion of µmother¶. It comprises six sub-models:

(i)Birth : R$   &

(ii)Genetic : R$ 
&
(iii)Breeding : R$     
&
(iv)Marriage ; R$   7 &
(v)Genealogical : R   &
(vi) Housewife : R
     
&

Sub-models (i), (iii), and (iv) form the core of the concept. They build the

 image of a mother. Sub-models (i), (ii), and (v) describe what a mother is /
#0
(biologically). And (i), (ii), (iii), and (iv) describe what a mother normallyis, i.e. the 


mother. This prototype remains stable cross-culturally. All six sub-models describe the 
mother. This ideal changes historically and across cultures.

Thus, we operate with several images. The most important are the stereotype and the ideal. Very
often they have separate linguistic expressions. Thus in English we distinguish between the
biological and the ideal father. We can normally ask

c
   )  '

but not
*c
   ) '

because the ideal implies caring for the family and being married to the child¶s mother. In the
µmother¶ concept the biological and the social are inseparable. All deviations from the model are
interpreted as highly marked, i.e. exceptions from the ideal. For that reason they are consistently
marked linguistically:


 


 


 

#
 



 



 

We can summarize all metaphorical models into a small number of Basic Models:
c
 
c




  


 11
 +6) ' '' +
+
  ' () +
+'R' +
+( '')† +
+R)'*' +

How can we apply these principles, mechanisms and models in teaching a language and teaching
about language? We can do that in a number of ways:

I. On the diachronic level

There is a marked parallelism between current English metaphors and

models of semantic change. Living metaphors and semantic change are related and mutually
reinforcing. This explains the commonality of such metaphors in the Indo-European languages
through time. By using cognitive models we can x but also   the established one-way
directions of semantic change. For example, Indo-European languages follow consistently certain
metaphorical transfers:

1.| /R) '!'*'R('()')*'  +


e.g. 

< Latin µcarry back¶


This direction of semantic change is paralleled by the existence of synchronic metaphorical

schemes in which physical motion is used as the Source Domain for more abstract notions like
µtime¶ or µmental activity¶. Shifts in the opposite direction are unknown.

.| +R) *'  '()+

e.g. 
! < µsee¶

  <
 # < µlook closely at¶

3.| +R) *' R('()+



e.g. 
 µunderstand¶ < Latin  + 
 µput under¶

4.| +R) R)'†'()((
4 ') +


e.g. 
  < Latin µseize¶
  µunderstand¶ <  1 µ seize in the hand¶
 µunderstand¶ < 1 µacquire a physical entity¶
 < Latin  + 
µcut off from¶

  < Latin 
 +   µpour together, mix¶
 < Latin  +  µcarry before¶
  < Latin  +   µlead out from¶
 < Latin  +  µcarry in¶
  < Latin  +  µtake before¶

c
 
c




  


 1
This is the most productive metaphor with µMental state¶ verbs in English. The manipulation with
ideas is seen as holding, touching, moving, uniting, separating, arranging, and re-ordering them,
like physical objects.

5.| +  (RR†)' '()'' '()+


e.g. 

 < Latin 
+ 
 µput forward¶

Data demonstrate a stable direction in meaning change: a) verbs of µPhysical motion/location¶ >
verbs of µMental state¶/¶Speech acts¶; b) verbs of µMental state¶ > verbs of µSpeech acts¶, but never
in the opposite direction. Therefore semantic change tends to move towards more 

meanings, meanings closer to the Self.

.| +   R)'†'()((
4 ') +


e.g.   < Latin  +  µsend to¶
  < Latin  +  µconnect to¶
- expressing µdirection from speaker to hearer¶
 < Latin  +  µfeed back¶
  < Latin  +   µbeat back¶
- expressing µdirection from hearer to speaker¶

7.| +R) '!'*+  ' !') +


e.g. c #)
!   
# 
&
1
!! 

   &

Notice also the use of spatial prepositions both with µSpeech act¶ and µMental activity¶ verbs:
e.g.         
 
      
#
!       

This shows that we conceive of a speech act as a distance between the two communicating parties,
a route along which ideas=objects can travel or be exchanged. This is a replica of the model of
µPhysical action¶ verbs, with their regular contrast between 
and  prepositions:

e.g.  
!




  


, expressing active participation on the part of the receiver=hearer, a successful completion of the
trajectory of the action, and , expressing an inactive receiver=hearer.

Since µSpeech act¶ verbs involve exchange between two parties, i.e. action, they can also have a
metaphorical variant like /     +

e.g. 
 < Latin 
 +  µgive up¶
   < Latin  +   µstand in¶

# < Latin 
 + # µconquer together¶.

c
 
c




  


 13
II. On the synchronic level

Synchronically, we can employ metaphorical transfer models to teach

semantic fields and explain semantic extension. Thus, µHuman emotions¶ can be explained through
µTemperature¶, µCooking activities¶, or µColours¶,

e.g.
     



!    
   



! 
   


 ! 


 ! 
 !&

Other spheres of language teaching or linguistic analysis where we can apply the same mechanism
of explanation are synonymy, phraseology, development of grammatical categories and forms of
their expression, predominant word order, etc. We shall demonstrate the validity of this approach
in teaching grammar, using auxiliary verbs as an example.

There is a stable tendency for a limited set of notional verbs, with specific meaning, to turn, over
time, into auxiliary verbs of analytical constructions (the perfect tenses, the progressive tenses, and
the future tense). The lexical sources for auxiliaries in such constructions usually include notions
like:
*' ( '(): 2
332


R(!R)(6(: 
4
53
4
52

 
3!(R)( '()')'R: 3
3 2


!(''(): !3!2

 
(
'6'(): 2#
 
 R''(): 2#
 &

In other words, there is a ³selectivity´ with respect to the initial lexical meaning of verbs that are
likely to evolve into auxiliaries of analytical constructions across languages. Thus the initial
meaning of 117 auxiliaries from 15 languages involve 0 lexical sources:
3

2#3
#



4
5
!






 
 


!

c
 
c




  


 14
 

 
#&

There are a number of immediate questions that arise. Is this ³rule of auxiliation´ due to pure
coincidence; does it result from geographic or genetic closeness of languages; or could this be the
reflection of some fundamental cognitive principle that gets actualized in linguistic structure? We
can postulate that this process of auxiliation is the reflection of a basic principle in human
conceptualization, namely that abstract notions are conceptualized by means of a limited number
of concrete basic concepts. We can make an even stronger claim that lexical sources for
grammatization in general involve notions basic to human experience (bodily and social) that
provide central reference points.

"&/& 

We now turn our attention to those principles of language acquisition that are central to human
beings as social entities. We shall look at the concept of self and self-awareness, at relationships in
a community (of speakers and learners), at the relationships between language and culture.

In speaking, learning and teaching a language we are taking part in one of the wonders of the
world. For we all belong to a species with a remarkable ability: we can shape events and ideas in
each other¶s brains. The ability is language. Language is not just any cultural invention but the
product of society and culture, and the ability of man to cope with them and to create them. But it
is much more than that. There must be something, then, that makes language accessible to all,
manageable and flexible enough to accommodate various cultures and societies, and to be the most
widely used instrument in interpersonal relations.

(1) The Self and Self-awareness

One of the products of social development is the formation of the concept

of  and awareness of the 
which model a specific pattern of linguistic behaviour and
structure of linguistic categories. In the context of the problems discussed here, this touches onto
the old and widely disputed idea of language relativity, i.e. the idea that the structure of our mother
tongue and its categories, which are a reflection of our way of life and the environment, give
particular shape to our way of thinking. That is, speaking a particular language, you are also a
particular    . As human beings learn a foreign language, they also develop a new mode
of thinking and acting ± they enter a new identity. But this new ³language ego´, intertwined with
the new language itself, can create a sense of uncertainty, defensiveness, even humiliation, and
raise inhibitions. Learners can feel this because the arsenals of their native-language egos may be
suddenly useless in developing a ³second self´.

The foreign language teacher is the major factor in the formation of this ³second self´. His choice
of techniques needs to be cognitively challenging to achieve the accommodation of the learner to
his ³new world´. If the student is learning the foreign language in the milieu of the country where
it is spoken, then he is likely to experience an ³identity crisis´. To avoid this the teacher must
³create´ appropriate ³natural´ situations for the learner so that he can practice his new identity.

c
 
c




  


 15
Let us take one ordinary example ± learning to write compositions in English. Students whose
teachers urge them to reduce the number of times they use the pronoun ³I´ in their essays (or,
conversely, encourage the use of ³I´) may be surprised to discover that in some cultures this
grammatical choice has profound cultural and even political connotations. A Chinese student is
taught to use always ³we´ instead of ³I´ lest he give the impression of being selfish and
individualistic. Starting to study English he required to ³imagine looking at the world with his
head upside down´ and to invent a new ³English self´ that could use the pronoun ³I´. Learning to
write an essay in English is not an isolated classroom activity, but a social and cultural experience.
Learning the rules of English essay writing is, to a certain extent, learning the values of Anglo-
American society. Writing essays in English, a Chinese student has to ³reprogram´ his mind, to
redefine some of the basic concepts and values that he had about himself, about society.

Rule number one in English composition writing is: ³Be yourself´. But writing many ³I¶s´ is only
the beginning of the process of redefining oneself. By such a redefinition is meant not only the
change of how one envisioned oneself, but also a change in how he perceived the world. The
Chinese student gradually creates his new ³English Self´.

() The Language-Culture Connection

Everyone knows what is supposed to happen when two Englishmen who have never met before
come face to face in a railway compartment ± they start talking about the weather. By talking to
the other person about some neutral topic like the weather, it is possible to strike up a relationship
with him without actually having to say very much. Conversations of this kind are a good example
of the sort of important social function that is often fulfilled by language. By trying to master this
function of language, the learner is building part of his new language identity.

It is well known, and often humorously exaggerated, that the British always talk about the weather.
In his famous book, 
!
6
George Mikes (1970) discusses the weather as the first
and most important topic for a person who wants to learn English. Here is his comment:

³This is the most important topic in the land. Do not be misled by memories of your youth when,
on the Continent, wanting to describe someone as exceptionally dull, you remarked: µHe is the type
who would discuss the weather with you.¶ In England, this is an ever-interesting, even thrilling
topic, and you must be good at discussing the weather.

EXAMPLES FOR CONVERSATION

For Good Weather

µLovely day, isn¶t it?¶

µIsn¶t it beautiful?¶
µThe sun«¶
µIsn¶t it gorgeous?¶
µWonderful, isn¶t it?¶
µIt¶s so nice and hot«¶
µPersonally, I think it¶s so nice when it¶s hot ± isn¶t it?¶
µI adore it ± don¶t you?¶

c
 
c




  


 1
For Bad Weather

µNasty day, isn¶t it?¶

µIsn¶t it dreadful?¶
µThe rain«I hate rain«¶
µI don¶t like it at all. Do you?¶
µFancy such a day in July. Rain in the morning, then a bit of sunshine, and then rain, rain, rain, all
day long.¶
µI remember exactly the same July in 193 .¶
µYes, I remember too.¶
µOr was it in 198?¶
µYes, it was.¶
µOr in 1939?¶
µYes, that¶s right.¶

Now, observe the last few sentences of this conversation. A very important rule emerges from it.
You must never contradict anybody when discussing the weather in England. Should it hail and
snow, should hurricanes uproot trees, and should someone remark to you: µNice day, isn¶t it?¶ ±
answer without hesitation: µIsn¶t it lovely?¶´

And here is Mikes¶ advice to the learner of English:

³Learn the above conversations by heart. If you are a bit slow in picking things up, learn at least
one conversation, it would do wonderfully for any occasion.´

All this is of course a very good joke but it says much about the British and their social behaviour.
Whenever you teach a language, you also teach a complex system of cultural customs, values, and
ways of thinking, feeling and acting. A teacher must necessarily attract his students¶ attention to
the cultural connotations, especially of socio-linguistic aspects of language. An easy way to do this
is to discuss cross-cultural differences with the students, emphasising that no culture is ³better´
than another. What is important in such a discussion is to make them aware that they will never
master the foreign language without ³entering a new world´ or ³acquiring a new self´. A second
aspect of the language ± culture connection is the extent to which the students will be affected by
the process of acculturation, which will vary with the context and the goals of learning. In many
language-learning contexts such as ESL, students are faced with the full-blown realities of
adapting to life in a foreign country, complete with varying stages of acculturation. Then, cultural
adaptation, social distance, and psychological adjustment are also factors to deal with. The success
with which learners adapt to a new cultural milieu will affect their language acquisition success,
and vice versa, in some significant ways.

We cannot be certain that all the functions of language described in linguistic literature are to be
found in all cultures. The relative importance of these different functions may vary from culture to
culture, their distribution may vary. For anyone to participate in the life of a community he has to
be able to communicate and be communicated to. That is why the learner is learning a language.
This does not mean that the range of functions aimed at by a foreign language learner will be that
at the command of the native speaker. A language learner may know exactly what he wants the
foreign language for, or he may have no clear idea at all. But for many teaching operations we
need to specify the aims.
c
 
c




  


 17
Our ability to participate as members of social and language communities depends upon our
control of linguistic and other behaviour considered appropriate. The learner of a foreign language
is preparing to use that language for certain purposes, in certain roles and in certain situations.
Many writers speak of the linguistic needs of the learner in terms of roles he may assume. The
primary role ascribed to him will be that of foreigner, in which his communicative needs are
normally going to be more restricted than those of the native speaker. In preparing a teaching
programme or choosing a teaching strategy, we have to take into account what the learner¶s needs
may be and we must do so in terms of the social situations she is going to have to participate in,
perhaps not as a ³full member´ but as a ³foreign associate´. In this connection, it is appropriate to
remind again of the wonderful book of George Mikes containing valuable advice to foreigners not
to pretend to be native speakers. Here is what Mikes says about foreigners, trying to acquire
³perfect´ English and sound like native speakers.

³In the first week after my coming to England I picked up a tolerable working knowledge
of the language and the next seven years convinced me gradually but thoroughly that I would
never know it really well, let alone perfectly. This is sad. My only consolation being that nobody
speaks English perfectly.
If you live here long enough you will find out to your greatest amazement that the adjective
is not the only adjective the language possesses, in spite of the fact that in the first three years
you do not need to learn or use any other adjective.
Then you have to decide on your accent. You will have your foreign accent all right, but
many people like to mix it with something else. The easiest way to give the impression of having a
good accent or no foreign accent at all is to hold an unlit pipe in your mouth, to mutter between
your teeth and finish your sentences with the question: µ78¶ People will not understand much,
but they are accustomed to that and they will get the most excellent impression.
The most successful attempts to put on a highly cultured air have been on the polysyllabic
line. Many foreigners, who have learned Latin and Greek in school, discover with amazement and
satisfaction that the English language has absorbed a huge amount of ancient Greek and Latin
expressions, and they realize that (a) it is much easier to learn these expressions than the much
simpler English words; (b) that these words are as a rule interminably long and make a simply
superb impression when talking to the greengrocer«´

"&1&

The last category of principles of language learning and teaching centres on language itself and on
how learners deal with this complex and ill-formed system (see Chapter 4).

Earlier in this century, Edward Sapir wrote: ³When it comes to linguistic form, Plato walks with
the Macedonian swineherd, Confucius with the head-hunting savage of Assam.´ There is a
considerable knowledge available about the nature of human language. Linguistics provides a
growing body of scientific knowledge about language, which can guide the activity of the language
teacher. Linguists can make and have made great contributions to the solution of some of the
problems.

c
 
c




  


 18
Language is such a complex phenomenon that it cannot be fully accounted for within one
consistent and comprehensive theory. For this reason, when asked the question "What is
language?" the linguist is likely to reply by asking another question "Why do you want to know?"
If we teach language, the way we approach the task will be influenced, or even determined, by
what we believe language to be. There is generally a close connection between the way we talk
about something and the way we regard it. Linguists, especially, often talk about how language
³works´. The linguistic approach to language is the most ³objectivising´ approach: it is concerned
with language as a system; it aims to elucidate the structure of language. To do this it has set up
various ³levels of description´. These levels bear such familiar names as syntax, morphology,
phonology and phonetics, lexis and semantics, pragmatics, etc.

The study of language is beset by the difficulty that it deals with something utterly familiar.
Everybody ³knows´ about language, because they use it all the time. The problem of studying
phenomena like language is to separate it from ourselves, to achieve a ³psychic distance´
(Chomsky 19 8).

Perhaps the most cogent criticism of traditional language teaching with its insistence on
correctness, the rules of grammar, and its limited objectives, is that it lacked the socio-cultural
dimension. Little thought seems to have been given to the notion of appropriateness, to the way
that language behaviour is responsive to differing social situations. It is one of the great values of
modern language teaching that it adopts a more social approach to language, and it is concerned
with the problems of its communicative function.

The relevance of the linguistic approach to language teaching is too obvious to need much
discussion here. One point must be mentioned, however. Modern teachers of language are actually
teaching their students not only    but also 
 . Modern linguistics requires
that a grammar should accord with a native speaker¶s intuitions about language. This formulates a
new goal for linguistic theory. Now linguists describe what native speakers conceive to be the
nature of their language. The emphasis has shifted from the nature of language data to the nature of
the human capacity, which makes it possible to produce the language data. Some linguists,
Chomsky among them, would claim that the objectives of the linguistic study of language have
always implicitly been the characterization of the internalized set of rules by a speaker-hearer (and
learner) when he uses language. Such linguists do not study what people do when they speak and
understand language, but seek to discover the rules underlying this performance. This is what
Chomsky calls 
 (19 a, 9): "A distinction must be made between what the speaker of a
language knows implicitly (what we may call his competence) and what he does (his
performance). A grammar, in the traditional view, is an account of competence".

The speaker¶s competence, then, can be characterized as a set of rules for producing and
understanding sentences in a language. The grammar of a language, thus, in its linguistic sense, is
a characterization of the native speaker¶s competence. All speakers of a language vary slightly in
the rules they follow, as well, of course, as in their performance. When we are teaching a foreign
language, we are trying to develop in the learner not just   
, in the
Chomskyan sense, but 
#
. We are teaching him or her not only what we
call ³the formation rules´ of the language, but also in addition, what Hymes has called ³the
speaking rules´. The learner must develop the ability to distinguish grammatical from
ungrammatical sequences, but he must also know when to select a particular grammatical
sequence, appropriate to the context, both linguistic and situational.
c
 
c




  


 19
Different functions of language can be associated with the factors involved in a speech act ± the
speaker, the hearer, contact between them, the linguistic code used, the topic and the form of the
message. If the orientation is towards the speaker, then we have the personal function of language.
It is through this function that the speaker reveals his attitude towards what he is speaking about. It
is not just that he expresses his thoughts and emotions through language, but his emotions and
attitudes at what he is talking about.

Hearer-oriented speech acts involve the directive function of language. It is the function of
controlling the behaviour of a participant. This can be done by command, request or warning, or by
some general admonitory statement, by invoking legal, moral or customary rules of society.

Where the focus is on the contact between the participants, speech functions to establish relations,
maintain them, or promote social solidarity. These are typically ritual, or formulaic speech acts:
leave-taking, greetings, remarks about the weather, inquiries about health, etc. This function,
sometimes called  , is also performed or supported by gestures, facial expression.

The topic-oriented function of speech, often called the  
, is that which usually
stands first in people¶s minds. It is the function that gave rise to the traditional notion that language
was created solely for the communication of thought, for making statements about how the speaker
perceives the way things in the world are.

There are two more functions, associated with the code used and the message. They are the most
difficult to formulate. We usually test them by asking the questions "Do you hear me?" and "Do
you follow?"

(1) The Native Language Effect

S. Pit Corder claims that when people learn a second language they are not acquiring language,
they already possess it. The learning of a second language is rather a question of increasing a
repertoire, or learning a set of alternatives for something they already know. The assumption then
is that some of the rules they already know are also used in the production and understanding of
the second language. This is what is meant by ³transfer´. Learners transfer what they already
know. Making errors in the second language can, in part, be explained by the notion of transfer. It
is also called ³negative transfer´ or . But this tendency of transfer can be also positive
(
). It is just as well that different languages do, in fact, have resemblances to each other.
On this account, it has to be established what is different between the mother tongue and the
foreign language.

Describing language, or part of language, is part of the process of developing linguistic theory
itself. But we must now outline the hierarchy of applications of linguistics to language teaching.
There are a number of stages in the application of linguistics to language teaching. The first has
already been identified as that of linguistic description. The second is concerned with operations
performed on the descriptions of language. Each stage has the function of answering some
questions or solving some problems relevant to language teaching. Thus, the application of first
order answers the very general question: what is the nature of the language, which is to be taught?
The next stage answers the question: what is to be taught and how is it to be taught? The criteria
for selecting material for language teaching are various:  to the learner, that is, selecting what
c
 
c




  


 0
he needs to know, his proposed 
 ± those varieties of the language which will be useful to
him, those speech functions which he will need to command. Or we can invoke the criterion of
. In a sense, all parts of the foreign language are different from the mother tongue. But
difference is relative Some parts will be more different than others. For example, if the learner¶s
mother tongue has no grammatical system of aspect, the learning of such a system presents a
serious learning task. Where the learner¶s mother tongue, however, has such a system, the size of
the learning problem will depend on the nature and degree of difference. A third criterion might be
 . What is different in the foreign language does not necessarily in all cases represent a
difficulty. For example, at the phonological level, what is so totally different from anything
encountered in the mother tongue does not seem to be so difficult to learn as something, which is
liable to confusion with some similar feature in the mother tongue.

The procedures and techniques involved in all these cases of application of linguistics to foreign
language teaching are comparative. This is called   

, or ³contrastive´
comparison (
 #   ). The other type of comparison is often called E
   .
The errors performed by the learners may be an important part of the data on which the
comparison is made. But what is being compared in this case is not two existing and already
known languages, but the language of the learner at some particular point in the process of
learning, with the target language. A learner¶s so called errors are systematic, and it is precisely
this regularity which shows that the learner is following a set of rules. These rules are not those of
the target language but a ³transitional´ from of language, similar to the target language, but also
similar to the learner¶s mother tongue (what Larry Selinker calls ³interlanguage´).

() Language Universals

In the context of discussing similarities and differences between languages, we must touch upon
the theme of language universals and their place in foreign language teaching. The 4,000 to ,000
languages of the world do look impressively different from English and from one another. On the
other hand, one can also find striking uniformities. In 19 3 the linguist Joseph Greenberg
examined a sample of 30 far-flung languages from five continents. Greenberg wanted to see if any
properties of grammar could be found in all these languages. In the first investigation, which
focused on the order of words and morphemes, he found no fewer than forty-five universal
features.

Since then, many other surveys have been conducted, involving scores of languages from every
part of the world, and literally hundreds of universal patterns have been documented. Some hold
absolutely. For example, no language forms questions by reversing the order within a sentence,
like *6 7 
    ' Some universals are statistical: subjects normally precede
objects in almost all languages, and verbs and their objects tend to be adjacent. Thus most
languages have SVO or SOV word order; fewer have VSO; VOS and OVS are rare (less than 1%);
and OSV may be non-existent. The largest number of universals involve implications: if a
language has X, it will also have Y. Universal implications are found in all aspects of language,
from phonology (if a language has nasal vowels, it will have non-nasal vowels) to word meanings
(if a language has a word for µpurple¶, it will also have a word for µred¶; if a language has a word
for µleg¶, it will also have a word for µarm¶).

c
 
c




  


 1
The knowledge of the existence of language universals may save some procedures of comparison
between the mother tongue and the foreign language taught. In the second place, it can be part of
the teaching material (mostly implicitly) and the methods of explanation.

(3) Linguistics in Structuring the Syllabus


A finished syllabus (cf. Chapter 4) is the overall plan for the learning process. It must specify what
components must be available, or learned by a certain time line; what is the most efficient
sequence in which they are learned; what items can be learned ³simultaneously´; what items are
already known.

The structure of language is a ³system of systems´, or a ³network´ of interrelated categories, no

part of which is wholly independent or wholly dependent upon another. In language, nothing is
learned completely until everything is learned. If this is so, then no simple linear sequence for a
syllabus is appropriate. A logical solution to this problem seems to be a cyclic, or spiral, structure,
which requires the learner to return time and again to some aspects of language structure, language
process, or domain of language use. Language learning is not just cumulative, it is an integrative
process. In Chapter 4, we shall offer a new approach to syllabus/curriculum design.

The major problem that faces us in syllabus organisation is whether to take the formal criteria as
dominant, leaving alternative ways of expressing the same idea to some other part of the syllabus,
or to base our grouping on semantic criteria. The teaching of modal verbs is a perfect example of
the dilemma. Should we bring all alternative ways of expressing necessity, obligation, possibility
and probability, etc. together into separate single units? In other words, are we going to regard
µmodal verbs¶, or alternatively µthe expression of obligation¶, as a syllabus item?

There is no simple answer to this problem. The more we take account of semantic considerations,
the more evident it becomes that the relationship between meaning and surface form is a complex
and indirect one. At the time when less attention was paid to the whole problem of meaning, and
language learning was thought of as a matter of acquiring the ability to produce automatically
µsentence patterns¶, it was logical (or was it?) to group materials in a syllabus on the basis of
superficial formal criteria. But with the increasing emphasis on language learning as training the
learner in communication, the relevance of semantic criteria in organising the linguistic material
increases. We are now trying to classify the linguistic material in terms of more abstract semantic
categories as time, deixis, modality, aspectuality, futurity, possession, quantification, causation,
etc.

We have seen that the systematic interconnectedness of language makes it unrealistic to think of
any item as teachable or learnable in isolation. We should consider an item in a more general way,
i.e. as a process, or as some grammatical category, such as   or  .

(a) The syntactic syllabus

Nowadays, descriptions of language give us a relatively satisfactory account of the structure of the
system to be learned, that is, a characterisation of the µformation rules¶ of the language. But we are
concerned with more than this in language teaching ± we are concerned with performance ability.
There are some general types of syntactic processes, such as nominalisation, relativisation or
thematisation, passivisation, interrogativisation, negation, which could be regarded as µitems¶ of
c
 
c




  


 
performance ability in a syllabus. Linguistically speaking, all these involve performing certain
operations.

(b) The morphological syllabus

The most frequent claim for the appropriate application of sequencing, otherwise denied in
principle, is made at the level of morphology. For example, the verb "to have" and "to be" are used
as auxiliaries in the formation of perfect or progressive aspect. Most logically, we must present and
teach these verbs before introducing the formation of these aspectual forms. This seems a good
argument until we specify what we mean by 'µteaching'¶ the verbs to have and to be. Learning a
verb involves not only discovering the relations in enters into with nominals, whether it is
transitive or copulative, but also learning the morphological system together with their associated
meanings: time, duration, completion, frequency, etc. The learning of something must surely
involve the ability to use it acceptably, i.e. discover its functions. The function of the auxiliary to
be in the progressive aspect, or passive voice, is different from that of the verb to be in copulative
structures. To say that in teaching copulative sentences one is teaching the verb "to be" so that it
can be available for later auxiliary use is a categorial error.

(c) The lexical syllabus

In order to present and exemplify grammatical categories and syntactic structures, we have to use
lexical words. This does not mean that the teaching of vocabulary is logically dependent on the
teaching of grammar.

The teaching of vocabulary provides us with another concept of syllabus grouping ± lexico-
semantic. An example of this could be the co-occurrence of adverbs of past time,  
 
!
  
, etc., with tense verbs; or co-occurrence of verbs of speaking and believing,



#


x, etc., with nominalised sentences of different types.

We must outline µthe network of relations¶ which bind the vocabulary of a language into a
structure. It is possible to isolate µsub-fields¶ within the lexical structure of a language. Such
groupings of lexical items bearing more or less close semantic relations to each other are usually
called µsemantic fields¶. Semantic fields provide groupings of the vocabulary, which could serve as
µitems in a syllabus¶. The field of cooking will be used as an example. Cooking words provide a
good source of examples because there are clear reference relations that one can appeal to; the
words do not normally carry strong connotations, so we can concentrate on the cognitive meaning.

The basic words in the culinary field in English are 

, , 
, 
 , , and 
 (or 
for British English). The set also includes  ,  , !, 
 ,  ,  8,  -,
-,  ,  and  
. There are, in addition, a number of peripheral words:

, , , 
,  , 
 and several compounds:  -, 
-
 ,

#-
 , -
, -,
#-.

It is more than obvious that not all of the words are widely used and need to be included in the
syllabus. Some are even unknown to ordinary native speakers of English. 

 can be used in two
ways ± once as the superordinate term of the field, naming the activity expressed (µpreparing
food¶), and second, as a more specific word opposed to . 

 and  are the most general
terms, they appear freely intransitively with human subjects. 6
 and its subordinate terms
c
 
c




  


 3
(  , 
 , !,  ) differ from the others in the field in that water or liquid must be
used, whereas the absence of liquid is necessary for , 
, 
  and .

It is easy to demonstrate the set of words of this kind as they pattern in semantic fields. But we
must also add, and it is very important for language teaching, that this approach has a strong
explanatory value ± it enables us to predict and explain some semantic and cognitive processes in
language. First, it enables us to explain how is it that words come to have new meanings in certain
contexts. Secondly, we can predict what semantic and syntactic features a totally new word will
have when added to a lexical field. And thirdly, we can offer an explanation as to how we are able
to understand and even offer explanations of our understanding of the meanings of totally
unknown words and expressions.

The first question ± the semantic extension of words ± can be illustrated by looking at the items

-! -

-
. These exhibit more or less the same relationships to one another: 
 and

 are gradable antonyms at end points of a scale, and ! and 

 are antonyms which are
closer to some centre point that separates
 and 
. All four words are used and have standard
meanings when talking about the weather, psycho-physical features ((
9   ! 

 
 ), emotions (7
   
  9  
     
 
9 :  
  ! 
   

), guessing games like µI spy¶, colours (%

  

 ! 




), etc. Other fields of discourse use only one or two words from the field: We
speak of
!  but not of a *
 or a *

!  , a 
! or a
!, but not a
*

! or a *! !. There is
,, and 

,, but not *! ,,. One can get a

 on a horse, but not a *

.

Since
, ! , 

, and 
 bear a certain relationship to one another, even when a word does
not possess a certain meaning, it can acquire a new one in a context by virtue of that relationship.
Hence, these new coinages are so easily understood.

Such extensions of meaning related to semantic fields are usually performed by means of
metaphorical transfer. Cognitive psychologists claim that metaphors are strongly memorable. This
is due to the fact that they furnish conceptually rich, image-evoking conceptualisations.
Metaphorical vehicles facilitate memory to the extent that they evoke vivid mental images. One
question that is central to language learning is whether the occurrence of imagery with metaphor is
simply epiphenomenal to its comprehension or a key element in understanding and memorising the
meaning. Various empirical studies on the communicative function of metaphor suggest a number
of possibilities about the positive influence of metaphor on learning.

In the next chapter, we shall look at the development of language teaching methods in the
twentieth century.

c
 
c




  


 4
  /%0   R 

In the twentieth century, the teaching of modern foreign languages has progressed through three
major periods. In this chapter, we shall briefly sketch the facts and indicate the salient features of
the teaching methods, which have been designed and implemented by several generations of
methodologists and teachers. Our historical perspective is limited although we realize that there
have been many interesting theories and practices through the ages. For example, this is what
Joseph Aickin wrote in the year 1 93: ³for no Tongue can be acquired without Grammatical rules;
since then all other Tongues, and Languages are taught by Grammar, why ought not the English
Tongue to be taught so too. Imitation will never do it, under twenty years; I have known some
Foreigners who have been longer in learning to speak English and yet are far from it: the not
learning by Grammar, is the true cause´ (quoted in Yule 1985, 150). Louis Kelly (19 9) in his
book 5 Centuries of Language Teaching provides an extensive historical analysis of the
development of methodology from the time of Ancient Greece to the present.

Many scholars have explored the development of language teaching in this century. Here, we shall
mention but a few, whose work we have been using successfully with our students, William
Francis Mackey (19 5), H. H. Stern (1983), Anthony Howatt (1984), Jack T. Richards and
Theodore S. Rogers
(198 ), Diane Larsen-Freeman (198 ), H. Douglas Brown (1987, 1994). They, and many other
colleagues, have inspired the discussion in this chapter.

/&"& '%3   

The first half of the century was dominated by the teaching method, which is known as Direct
Language Teaching or . 
 (DM). It emerged as a result of the language education
reform movement at the end of the nineteenth century and was prominent until the middle of the
twentieth century.

At the beginning of the century, the DM became the only officially approved method for the
teaching of modern foreign languages in France through a decree of the French Minister of Public
Instruction (190). The term, which was used in the decree, was "methode directe". The method
was soon established in many European countries and was used with enthusiasm by its proponents.
Some of the commercial ventures in the area were very successful and became quite popular. For
example, in 1878, the German born Maximilian Delphinus Berlitz opened his first language school
in Providence, Rhode Island, U.S.A. Today, 6,  (& (www.berlitz.com/free) is still
thriving.

Direct Method is of course only a general term, which covers a range of different teaching
methods. We shall mention two of them, which have been influencing language methodology to
present. In 193, Harold Palmer developed his :
 to be adapted some fifty years later in
the innovative approaches of the 1970s as the 
    " 
  
 (Asher 1977,
198). The second one, Michael West¶s " 
, was designed in 19 . And only two
years ago, Stephen Krashen revived it in the method, which he named the E c (1997).

c
 
c




  


 5
The basic premise of the DM is that a second language should be taught by making a 


 in the mind of the learner between what he thinks and what he says. In other words, no
use is made of the learner's own language. Thus, the target language becomes both the aim and the
means of the teaching and learning process. The following list sums up eight salient features of
direct language teaching:

—| Teaching is executed orally through the medium of the target language.

—| Teachers should be either native speakers or extremely fluent in the target language.
—| Grammar is taught inductively by situation.
—| Concrete vocabulary is taught in context through ostensive definition and pictures.
—| Abstract vocabulary is taught through association of ideas.
—| Language skills are ordered in a ³natural way´: listening, speaking, reading and writing.
—| Pronunciation is emphasized; the first few weeks are devoted to pronunciation.
—| All reading matter is first presented orally.

However, in the second quarter of the century, the method began to decline. Its principles were
questioned. A group of prominent American experts stated that "the ability to converse should not
be regarded as a thing of primary importance for its own sake but as an auxiliary to the higher ends
of linguistic scholarship and literary culture" ("

   

 !#
 

 


  189). Moreover, the DM demanded highly competent teachers
who have always been difficult to recruit. So by the middle of the twentieth century modern
languages were being taught by the methods, most of which had been developed before the turn of
the century. The era of the Direct Method had ended.

/&/& ''% .    '  R "#9:

The next stage of development started with the decade of 1940 to 1950 and continued until the
mid-seventies. Language teachers and the general public were dissatisfied with the methodological
theory and practice of the previous era. For example, Leonard Bloomfield (194) stated, ³Often
enough the student, after two, three, or four years of instruction, cannot really use the language he
has been studying.´ In 1943, The American Army initiated the   *, 

 (hence, "Army Method") to teach intensive language courses that focused on aural/oral
skills. The ³revolution´ in language teaching of that period created a new methodological
ideology, which came to be known in the late fifties as the  
-  
 (ALM).
According to the ;&*&  *

 in California, 1300 hours are sufficient for an adult
to attain near-native competence in Vietnamese (Burke, quoted in Reich 198 ).

Two major scientific theories were applied as methodological principles:      
(e.g. Bloomfield 1933) and  


- #
 (e.g. Skinner 1957). The proponents of
the ALM believed that language learning was a process of habit formation in which the student
over-learned carefully sequenced lists of set phrases or "base sentences". The method was
extremely successful and enjoyed considerable popularity. Courses like E  <=> (Strevens
19 4), the British edition of the original textbook in American English, E <==, and " 
E (Abbs, Cook & Underwood 19 8) became widely accepted in Europe in the 19 0s.

c
 
c




  


 
In 19 1, the American linguist William Moulton proclaimed the linguistic principles of ALM:
³language is speech, not writing« a language is a set of habits« teach the language, not about the
language« a language is what native speakers say, not what someone thinks they ought to say«
languages are different´ (quoted in Richards & Rogers 198 ). The following list sums up eight
salient features of audio-lingual teaching:

—| Language input is provided in dialog form.

—| Learning activities are based on mimicry and memorization and pattern practice.
—| Successful responses are immediately rewarded.
—| Mistakes are not tolerated.
—| Language structure is taught using pattern drills.
—| Vocabulary is strictly controlled and learnt in context.
—| Pronunciation is emphasized.
—| Audio-visual technology is used extensively, e.g. slide projectors, tape recorders, language
laboratories.

Robert Ian Scott invented a ³sentence generator´ (19 9, quoted in Roberts 1973, 99) as an aid to
be used in the teaching of reading. The machine could be programmed to generate 4-word
sentences of the simple, active declarative type. Words of each syntactic function could be entered
on a separate wheel, the machine consisting of 4 wheels mounted side by side on a cranking
device. The wheels could be turned independently of each other to make a new sentence at each
spin. With 0 words on each wheel, it would be possible to generate 19 0000 sentences, which,
assuming that it were possible to speak one sentence per second, would take about half a year of
talking to get through. The machine did not gain popularity though.

The comparative merits of the ALM and the traditional grammar-translation instruction were
evaluated in a two-year study of beginning students of German in America (Scherer & Wertheimer
19 4, quoted in Reich 198 ). At the end of the two years, the results were that ALM and
traditional instruction were equal on listening, reading and English-to-German translation; ALM
was far superior to traditional instruction in speaking but traditional instruction was superior to
ALM in writing and far superior to ALM in German-to-English translation. Thus neither method is
clearly superior. Which you prefer depends on what you deem most important.

In the late sixties, the ALM was subjected to criticism and its popularity waned. Controlled studies
of the effectiveness of the language laboratories as actually used in schools in the 19 0s found that
they were either a not particularly effective teaching aid or they were actually detrimental to
language learning (Keating 19 3, quoted in Reich 198 ). Noam Chomsky openly criticized audio-
lingual theory and practice in his address to language teachers at the Northeast Conference, U.S.A.,
in 19 , ³I am, frankly, rather skeptical about the significance, for the teaching of languages, of
such insights and understanding as have been attained in linguistics and psychology´. The pattern
practice procedure was rejected together with the disillusionment over neo-behaviorism as a
psychological theory. Structural linguistics was also denounced and with it the ALM gave way to
fresher teaching methods.

  
## 
  
   # were an attempt to bring methodology in line with
modern scientific developments in the related areas and to discover the new orientations in the
teaching of modern foreign languages.

c
 
c




  


 7
The theoretical basis of Caleb Gattegno¶s method (197),  *c, is the idea that teaching
must be subordinated to learning and thus students must develop their own inner criteria for
correctness. Learning is facilitated if the learner discovers and creates in a problem-solving process
involving the material to be learnt. All four skills are taught from the beginning. Students¶ errors
are expected as a normal part of learning. The teacher¶s silence helps foster students¶ self-reliance
and initiative. The teacher is active in setting up situations using special teaching aids, Fidel charts
and Cuisenaire rods, while the students do most of the talking and interacting.

Georgi Lozanov¶s *  
 (197) seeks to help learners eliminate psychological barriers to
learning. The learning environment is comfortable and subdued, with low lighting and soft slow
music in the background. Students choose a name and character in the target language and culture
and imagine being that person. Dialogues are presented to the accompaniment of Baroque
concertos. Students are in a relaxed but focused state of ³pseudo-passiveness´. They listen to the
dialogues being read aloud with varying intonations and a coordination of sound and printed word
or illustration. The students are expected to read the texts at home ³cursorily once before going to
bed and again before getting up in the morning´ (Lozanov 197).

In Charles Curran¶s method (197 ), 
 , learners become members of
a community - their fellow learners and the teacher - and learn through interacting with the
members of that community. The teacher considers learners as ³whole persons´ with intellect,
feelings, instincts and a desire to learn. The teacher also recognizes that learning can be
threatening. By understanding and accepting students¶ fears, the teacher helps students feel secure
and overcome their fears. The syllabus used is learner-generated, in that students choose what they
want to learn to say in the target language. Learning is linked to a set of practices granting
³consensual validation´ in which mutual warmth and a positive evaluation of the other person¶s
worth develops between the teacher and the learner (Curran 197 ).

James Asher¶s 
    " 
  (1977) places primary importance on listening
comprehension, emulating the early stages of native language acquisition, and then moving to
speaking, reading and writing. Asher (1977) claims that ³the brain and nervous system are
biologically programmed to acquire language« in a particular sequence and in a particular mode.
The sequence is listening before speaking and the mode is to synchronize language with the
individual¶s body´. Students practice their comprehension by acting out commands issued by the
teacher. Activities, including games and skits, are designed to be fun and to allow students to
assume active learning roles.

/&1& '''%      

The year 1975 constitutes a ³watershed´ between the second and the third period of development
of language teaching in this century. That year saw the publication of    
 #
document of the Council for Cultural Cooperation of the Council of Europe (Van Ek 1975). The
document is "a specification of an elementary level in a unit/credit system for individuals who,
from time to time, have (personal or professional) contacts in the target countries" (Trim 1980, 5).
It marks the appearance of a new approach, the so-called Communicative Language Teaching or
the 
# 
 (CA). John Trim (1980, 5), Director of the Modern Languages
Project, writes, "the Threshold Level is remarkable for the systematic way in which the language
c
 
c




  


 8
behavior appropriate to the defined target audience is specified in its various interrelated
parameters".

Since then, the Threshold Level documents for many European languages have been published,
e.g., in alphabetical order, the threshold levels for French, ; 1#  *  (197 ), for German,
?
  !& .          (1981), for Spanish, ; #  (1981), for
Portuguese, 1#  (1988), etc. Information on those documents is available on the web-site:
(http://book.coe.fr/lang). On the European level, the most recent work in this area is the document
of the Council of Europe entitled  

 E 
  !

 " 
  
    (publicly accessible on the web-site: http://culture.coe.fr/lang). We shall
return to it in Section 4.4.

Many scholars have contributed to the development of the CA. For example, Dell Hymes
introduced the construct of ³communicative competence´ in his famous paper, :
#

 (1971). He explores the influence of the social context in which a language is learnt
on the linguistic competence, which the individual attains. Hymes claims that ³a normal child
acquires knowledge of sentences, not only as grammatical, but also as appropriate. He or she
acquires competence as to when to speak, when not, and as to what to talk about with whom,
when, where, in what manner. In short, a child becomes able to accomplish a repertoire of speech
acts, to take part in speech events, and to evaluate their accomplishment by others´ (1971,  9). In
the cited paper, he asks his famous four questions of ³communication culture´:

³1. Whether (and to what degree) something is formally 
;

. Whether (and to what degree something is   in virtue of the means of implementation
available;
3.Whether (and to what degree) something is appropriate (adequate, happy, successful) in relation
to a context in which it is used and evaluated;
4. Whether (and to what degree) something is in fact done, actually 
 , and what it¶s doing
entails.´ (Hymes 1971, 81)

The ³four questions´ prompt a new way of judging utterances in context. In that sense, Hymes¶
paper was programmatic, suggesting a new line of research.

In the 19 0s, Roger Brown studied early development of the mother tongue of American children.
The acquisition of English grammatical morphemes was tackled through the speech samples of
three children, the now famous Adam, Eve and Sarah Brown. He found that they developed their
language at different chronological ages and at different rates. However, he also found that they
each went through roughly     $ 
  . Brown tried to find the principles
underlying the order he discovered and concluded that a combination of linguistic and semantic
complexity must cause it. Research extended to other language structures. Courtney Cazden and
Roger Brown describe ³three major progressions in first language acquisition: evolution of the
basic operations of reference and semantic relations in two-word utterances of very young
children; the acquisition of 14 grammatical morphemes and the modulations of meaning they
express; and, still later, the acquisition of English tag questions like 
 ) or )´ (Cazden
& Brown 1975, 99). The order of acquisition of 14 English grammatical morphemes and the
meanings they express is the following (Cazden & Brown 1975, 301):

c
 
c




  


 9
(1) Present Progressive: (temporary duration; process, state),
(-3) 

(containment, support),
(4) Plural: !

 (number),
(5) Past, irregular: !9!(earlierness),
( ) Possessive: 
)  (possession)
(7) Uncontractible copula: ( in response to c 
'(number; earlierness),
(8) Articles: 
 (specific-non-specific),
(9) Past, regular: !
!(earlierness),
(10) Third person, regular: 
 (number, earlierness),
(11) Third person irregular: 

 (number, earlierness),
(1) Uncontractible auxiliary: (  in response to c
)  
' (temporary duration, number,
earlierness),
(13) Contractible copula: )  &(number, earlierness),
(14) Contractible auxiliary: )  &(temporary duration, number, earlierness).

In the seventies, several investigators of instructional accuracy orders replicated and extended
Brown¶s experiments for English as a second language. In their ³morpheme studies´, Heidi Dulay
and Marina Burt (1974) examined the natural sequences in second language acquisition applying
the 6  *x  . They used 151 Spanish-speaking children learning English. The
acquisition sequences obtained from their subjects were strikingly similar. Other language
structures were also investigated. For example, Fred Eckman, Lawrence Bell and Diane Nelson
(198 , 1) tested the generalization of relative clause instruction in the development of English as
a second language. They found that ³maximal generalization of learning will result from
acquisition of relatively more marked structures. Such generalization will be unidirectional and
will be in the direction of those structures, which are relatively less marked´ (Eckman, Bell &
Nelson 198 , 1). And they concluded that ³if only a single structure of a set of implicationally
related structures is to be taught, maximal generalization will result from teaching that which is
most marked´ (op. cit., 1). The first published adult study of acquisition order (Bailey, Madden &
Krashen 1974) investigated 73 adult students of English at Queens College, New York. The
6  *x   was applied. The study showed that the contours for the acquisition
sequences of children and adults are very similar. Several other investigators have looked at
acquisition sequences for adults from different language backgrounds (Krashen et al. 197 , Perkins
and Larsen-Freeman 1975, Makino 1979, Lee 1981, Pica 1983, etc.).

The general result of the acquisition order research was that a ³natural order´ of acquisition of the
structure of English as a second language characteristic of both children and adults and similar for
both speaking and writing was discovered. Some scholars consider this conclusion one of the most
significant outcomes of second language research (Dulay & Burt 1980, Cook 1989).

In sociology and education, the Futures Movement evolved. Futures research ³concerns itself with
conceptualizing and inventing the future by examining the consequences of various plans of action
before they become tomorrow¶s reality´ (Pulliam 1987,  1). Educators and politicians agree on
the fact that ³the changes currently in progress have improved everyone¶s access to information
and knowledge, but have at the same time made considerable adjustments necessary in the skills
required and in working patterns´ (c  
 E 
  , European
Commission, 199 , ). They use different terms to refer to the period of transformation through
which we are passing, ³post-industrial´, ³post-modern´ ³information age´, ³learning society´ and

c
 
c




  


 30
the like. But they all believe in the challenges of the new reality. We shall look at the educational
paradigm shift in Chapter .

John Naisbitt (198) describes the most important trends that shape the world at the end of the
century. His megatrends include shifting from:

—| an industrial society to an information based society,

—| a forced technology to a high tech/high touch mode,
—| a national economy to a truly global economy,
—| short range planning to long-term planning,
—| centralization to decentralization,
—| institutional help to self-help in various fields,
—| representative democracy to participatory democracy,
—| authority dominated hierarchies to networking,
—| single option choices to multiple option choices.

All that facilitated the development of the theory and practice of language teaching giving it a
strong impetus.

Today, numerous methodology textbooks expound on the nature of communicative language

teaching. All the work that has been done on the CA has led to the evolvement of two quite distinct
orientations: a ³weak´ version and a ³strong´ version of the method. Anthony Howatt (1984, 79)
holds that if the former could be described as µlearning to use¶ the target language, the latter entails
µusing [the target language] to learn it¶. The weak version advances the claim that communicative
syllabi and teaching materials should provide the learner with opportunities to acquire
communicative competence necessary and sufficient to be used in actual communication. This idea
is the basis for the unfolding of a whole new field of study in language teaching methodology,
referred to as 
#    , which we shall discuss separately. Howatt (1984,
80) writes that language teaching requires ³a closer study of the language itself and a return to the
traditional concept that utterances carried meaning in themselves and expressed the meanings and
the intentions of the speakers and writers who created them´.

The strong version of the CA, on the other hand, has given rise to the planning and implementation
of realistic communicative tasks, which give the learner a chance to acquire the target language
itself while using it. The proponents of the strong version did not go to the radical solution of
³deschooling´ language learning altogether but they advocated real communication within the
language classroom. If the teacher shows genuine interest in the concerns and activities of the
students, and if the students can talk to each other and share their thoughts and feelings, real
communication is likely to occur.

The CA stresses the need to teach communicative competence, i.e. the ability to use the target
language effectively and appropriately, as opposed to linguistic competence. Thus, language
functions are emphasized over language forms. Students usually work in small groups on
communicative activities, during which they receive practice in negotiating meaning. Authentic
teaching materials are used. Opportunities are provided for the students to deal with unrehearsed
situations under the guidance, not control, of the teacher. The teacher¶s role changes from being
³the sage on the stage´ to becoming ³a guide on the side´ (Mowrer 199 ). Ken Goodman
(Goodman et al. 1991) expands on this idea, suggesting four roles for teachers: (1) -!  ,
c
 
c




  


 31
who observe the students, watching for signs of growth, need and potential, () 
 , who
offer guidance, support and resources for learning, (3) 
 , who help students take
ownership of their own learning, and finally, (4) 
 , who rely on their professional
knowledge and creativity to create exciting learning environments.

The following list sums up eight salient features of communicative language teaching:

—| Communicative competence is the desired goal (³learning to use´).

—| Minimum general intelligibility is sought in the teaching of pronunciation.
—| Use of the native language and translation is accepted where feasible.
—| Fluency is emphasized over accuracy.
—| Students cooperate in the classroom, using the language in unrehearsed contexts (³using to
learn´).
—| Systematic attention is paid to functional as well as structural aspects of language.
—| Drilling occurs peripherally.
—| Discourse is at the center of attention.

In summary, the Communicative Approach and the other language teaching methods can be seen
as specific teaching proposals in which learning content is critical for the achievement of the
educational aims. We believe that the aims and content of language courses are determined by the
overall educational philosophy prominent in the community. That constitutes the relatively abstract

  # of teaching methods, which refers to the theories about the nature of language
education and other theories. Chapter 3 presents a discussion on this theme.

Concrete plans for a language curriculum, which constitutes the relatively concrete  # of
teaching methods, are made in Chapter 4. In it, we shall examine the question of language
curriculum design and development.

c
 
c




  


 3
  1%    

That language teaching should be democratic has long become a fact of life. That it is democratic
has yet to become a reality. Our claim is that, at the end of the twentieth century, we are
experiencing an educational paradigm shift, in which language teaching has its share. First, we
shall look into the change in the overall concept of the complex process of education.

1&"&    

The mission of educational institutions is to educate people. As John Dewey (1933) noted, ³A
primary responsibility of educators is that they not only be aware of the general principles of the
shaping of actual experience by environing conditions but that they also recognize in the concrete
what surroundings are conductive to having experiences that lead to growth. Above all, they
should know how to utilize the surroundings, physical and social, that exist so as to extract from
them all that they have to contribute to building up experiences that are worthwhile´. But what
constitutes an educated person? To the business world, an well-educated person is one who has the
skills required to succeed on the job. The lay public¶s view of an educated person is one who has
accumulated a large body of information. None of these views seems really acceptable though. A
saying is circulating in the universities these days:

Georgie Porgie, Puddin¶ and pie,

Kissed the girls and made them cry,
When the boys came out to play,
Georgie Porgie ran away,
Guess what, Georgie Porgie,
We have a sexual harassment subpoena for you, Georgie Porgie.
The times, they are a-changing.

Indeed, the times are changing rapidly. In the age of the learning society, education is seen as a
process, not a product. During the teaching and learning process, the student should learn how to
think and to listen, how to participate in dialogue, how to analyze issues and how to read critically.
Students should learn how to write so that others can follow their thinking. Fifteen years ago, A.
McLeod pointed out that ³Being literate in the 1980s means having the power to use language ±
writing and reading, speaking and listening ± for our own purposes, as well as those that the
institutions of society require of us. The classroom processes by which that power is achieved
include the first exercise of that power´ (198 , 37). In our opinion, that is true about both first and
second language development circumstances. Students should learn to take responsibility for their
own learning, to find joy in learning and to open their minds to new ideas. They should learn the
skills and attitudes necessary to achieve lasting success during the remainder of their lives no
matter what their goals are. The learning process should continue throughout their lifetime, not just
while attending formal schooling. Educators emphasize that one of the most important things
students should learn is how to think for themselves. Students must learn how to choose
consciously what direction their lives should take professionally as well as personally. They need
to be able to
#
 in a rational manner, to x
 
 toward others and to
be willing and able to 
!
 and contradiction and 
# satisfactorily.

c
 
c




  


 33
John Pulliam (1987) suggests several specific characteristics of the educational paradigm shift. We
shall present them below and return to the most important issues in the following section.

"  !   
  is the first one. Linear organizations can only make
linear decisions. Thus, the school can only receive information that it is designed to receive. It
tends to repress unfavorable information. The teachers cannot make decisions from the perspective
of the students. Alternatively, a synergetic system is perceived as an ³ad-hocracy´ (Toffler 1985).
It is based on the cooperation of individuals to complete temporary tasks.

E 
  
   . This is the second feature of the new focus of education.
Education is process-oriented; if students are asked questions for which the answers are known, the
system is training.

Thirdly, students need  

  
!. In the past, students attended schools to learn
what they did not know from teachers who were presumed to know. Now, focus should be on
cooperative problem analysis and sharing of sources of information. The school should move away
from the exclusive treatment of what is well understood towards helping students cope with the
unknown.

The fourth characteristic is the    #    
 controversy. Structural

authority, which is he dominant pattern in schools, is derived from one¶s title or rank in the
institution. Position rather than competence establishes the authority of the teacher. Sapiential
authority, on the other hand, is based on the possession of wisdom and knowledge which finds
support among others. Both teachers and students have the opportunity for critical analysis of any
given piece of information. Sapiential authority is considered a necessary part of education for
future survival.

Fifth, 
 is an important characteristic of the new educational paradigm. Preparation
for a life of learning should replace the idea of terminal schooling.

Sixth, there should be   
 ,
    in education. Competitive teaching modes
promote the ³I win ± you lose´ structure. The winners, the good learners, are also losers because
they will perpetuate competition in their lives. This is a zero sum game in which everyone
eventually loses. Therefore, an educational mode of cooperation should substitute competition
among students.

Seventh, students in the twenty-first century will need a well-developed   # 
 and
critical thinking.

Eighth, the future school must become  
   
  for creating and spreading
unbiased information. Modern information and communication technology has changed the focus
of education from the input of information to the application of data to problem situations in a
cooperative and action-oriented environment.

In a word, what schools should help students acquire is a wisdom that they will continue to
develop for the rest of their lives (see Section 3.5). To reduce all the experiences that lead to it to
mastering skills for satisfactorily answering long series of test questions to obtain a certificate
c
 
c




  


 34
stating that a required curriculum has been met is a shallow and inaccurate representation of
education.

1&/&   R
 ) 

The overused traditional frontal teaching paradigm places responsibility for the student learning
solely upon the shoulders of the teacher. The instructor writes the curriculum and the syllabus,
selects the readings, delivers the information via lectures and prepares evaluative instruments. She
or he presents the same information, lectures to and tests all students regardless of individual
differences among them. Little or no concern is given to the individual psychosocial needs of the
individual.

We know, however, that students are social individuals each with vastly different needs, learning
styles, goals and abilities. Some students have inadequate reading skills. Some have computer
phobia or ³keyboard fright´. Some have difficulty constructing simple sentences. Many have
³library anxiety´ or have not the slightest clue of how to find information. A few continue to
experience difficulty with computational skills. Is it any wonder that the ³sacred´ bell-shaped
curve of the normal distribution of achievement predominates in the teacher¶s grade book if the
students receive the same information via lectures and all read the same textbooks?

Most students play a passive role in the classroom. Action flows from the teacher to the students
and seldom vice versa. Some students, especially minority students, are isolated from positive
social contacts with their classmates or their instructor. Others are shy and seldom if ever speak in
class. For example, Karp and Yoels (1987) found that in classes of less than 40 members, four to
five students accounted for 75 percent of all interactions and in classes of over 40, two to three
students accounted for over 50 percent of all interactions.

Rather than continue the traditional teaching strategy that selects the best students and weeds out
the poorer ones, we can use a system that cultivates and develops the talents of every student. We
cannot permit students to leave our classes with an inferior grasp of the subject matter. Every
student, not just the elite few, must reach the competency levels set by the teacher. This is not to
suggest that educators should produce student robots. The point is that we cannot be content with
inferior teaching and inferior learning. We cannot be content with a teaching approach that is only
partly effective.

If we wish to help students learn how to think critically, to work constructively with members of
their community, to enjoy scholarly activities and how to embellish their learning experiences
when they leave the school, we must focus our attention on the individual needs of the student.
This shift from simply providing decomposed language and inert course content to meeting
psychosocial needs of the individual student is what the new teaching paradigm is about.

David Johnson (Johnson et al. 1991) lists five principal activities that should be incorporated in a
new teaching paradigm structured to increase student achievement and, at the same time, meet
psychosocial needs of students.

Firstly, teachers must structure the learning environment to help students construct, transform and
extend knowledge. Knowledge is not a static entity. It is an ever-changing variable. This is not to
c
 
c




  


 35
infer that ³anything goes´, that there is no ³right´ or ³wrong´. Relativism in this context refers to
helping students to keep an open mind, to be willing to listen and to learn, to discuss and argue and
to counteract the dogmatism of the moment.

Students must construct their own knowledge and understanding through active social interaction
with their peers and teachers. Learning occurs when the student activates her or his existing
cognitive schemata by applying new knowledge to practical situations. Students gather information
from their courses so they can utilize it in their professional careers as well a their life as citizens.
Unfortunately, possession of knowledge and skills alone does not guarantee comprehension.
Without understanding, rote knowledge and routine skills serves students poorly. David Perkins
and his colleagues at the Harvard Graduate School of Education have adopted a ³performance
perspective´ on understanding that involves generative performances, where learners ³go beyond
the information given´, which ³demand somewhat different kinds of thinking´ and which are
organized in an incremental fashion. ³Understanding is not a matter of µeither you get it or you
don¶t¶. It is open ended and a matter of degree. You can understand a little about something (you
can display a few understanding performances) or a lot more about something (you can display
many varied understanding performances), but you cannot understand everything about something
because there are always more extrapolations that you might not have explored and might not be
able to make´ (Perkins 199, 78).

Understanding a concept involves being able to execute a number of ³performances´ that

demonstrate the concept in new and novel ways. These performances must consist of applications
that take the students far beyond what they already know. Traditional measures of comprehension
such as multiple-choice questions, true/false quizzes and conventional short essay questions, while
easy to mark and assess, do not even begin to tap into a student¶s understanding of a topic or
concept. One demonstrates one¶s ability to swim not by answering questions about swimming but
by performing the act. The teacher must closely monitor student learning to ensure that each
competency level is met.

Education is a social process that involves frequent student-to-student and teacher-to-student

interaction. Learning is increased when individuals work with one another in a caring environment
that helps each student gain understanding of the course material. Interactional peer support is
needed to encourage achievement and proper orientation to learning tasks. Shopov and Fedotoff
(in press) conclude, after examining students¶ course evaluation reports, that group dynamic
structuring interaction between learners can provide the conditions, which have been thought to
facilitate learning. Thomas and Stock (1988) in their study of what makes people happy observe
that young adults associate the word ³friendship´ with heir concept of happiness. Bonding
friendships promote student achievement while isolation, competition and individualistic
classroom activities demote achievement and lower self-esteem.

Lastly, the use of a variety of small-group cooperative activities is the most effective procedure to
encourage students to think creatively in divergent ways that foster new and novel solutions to
problems. Bligh (197), in his review of about 100 studies of college teaching methods, found that
students who participate actively in discussions with classmates spend more time synthesizing and
integrating concepts than do students who simply listen to lectures. In almost every study, the
cooperative learning format was far superior to competitive and individualistic learning models
(Johnson, Johnson and Smith 1991).

c
 
c




  


 3
Implementing cooperative learning is not an easy task nor is it without problems. The authors
caution that simply assigning students to small groups with the instruction to begin discussing a
topic or work on a project may result in little or no student learning. Left unsupervised within a
loosely structured environment, some students may choose to be uncooperative forcing other group
members to complete the work. More conscientious students may feel compelled to complete the
work on their own and act independently of the group. Insecure students may assume a ³back
bench´ attitude. Often, ingroup struggles for power develop. Feichtner and Davis (1985)
concluded, after interviewing students who reported negative experiences with cooperative
learning, that an instructor¶s misuse of and lack of knowledge about structuring effective
cooperative learning activities is responsible for student dissatisfaction.

1&1&     

A number of factors or essential elements of cooperative learning, according to Donna Johnson

and her colleagues at the University of Arizona, Tucson (1991), who have conducted extensive
research concerning effective group management, are necessary to make cooperative learning
successful.

The first factor, 
# , means that each group member depends upon every
other group member to achieve a goal. If other members have little or nothing to contribute, then
there is no reason for the group to exist. For example, to score points in a basketball game, each
member depends upon the skills and abilities of the other players. One or two players alone cannot
win games. The team sinks or swims together as a group. If one member can accomplish a task
satisfactorily without the aid of others, then there is no reason to form a group.

One way to structure an assignment to foster a positive interdependent relationship is to give the
students more work to do than any single individual could complete within the time limits allotted.
Another way to encourage interdependence is to provide specific information to two of the group
members and different information to other two members. This, two of the members will depend
upon the information possessed by the other two members.

A valuable technique to promote interdependence is to assign each member a role to perform

within the group (see Section 3.4). A group leader is appointed to organize, manage and direct
activities. A recorder takes accurate notes and records data for group activities. A checker assures
that each member understands the tasks or concepts. An encourager is appointed to make sure that
each member has ample opportunity to contribute to the group. Finally, part of the final grade is
derived from the group¶s performance on the task. Thus, if one member of the group does not
understand the concepts to be learnt, the assessment scores of the other group members will suffer.

The second factor needed to make cooperative learning successful is -
- 

#

. Promotive interaction occurs as students encourage each other, reward one another,
provide assistance to help each other learn, exchange information and ideas and challenge ideas of
other group members. This may be accomplished through trusting and caring relationships formed
within each group as students interact. If one student attempts to impress other students with his or
her knowledge to increase his or her self-esteem, positive interaction does not occur. There must

c
 
c




  


 37
be a caring attitude of concern for the learning of their peers and a genuine willingness to share
information through a helping relationship before positive interactions can occur.

Individual students must learn that they are responsible for understanding the course content. This
third factor, referred to as # 
, must be assessed frequently. The teacher may
call at random upon individual students to answer questions. Also, individual tests are given
periodically to evaluate students¶ achievement. Inevitably, some students exploit the group
structure to avoid working and let the others do the bulk of the work. This behavior is called
³social loafing". Group members can monitor individual accountability by constructing quizzes to
each other. Records can be kept of the frequency and quality of each group member¶s contribution
during a cooperative learning assignment. The important point is that there must be a system to
continually assess each student¶s knowledge and contribution to insure that learning is occurring.

Building
 

#  is the fourth important factor. We cannot assume that each
student possesses well-developed interpersonal and group communication skills. A large
proportion of students has not had the experience of working with other students in small group
activities. Some students distrust others; some feel uncomfortable working with minority students.
Others, to avoid verbal interaction with peers, prefer to listen rather than participate, especially
when they are among aggressive peers.

The cooperative learning environment, if well organized, provides an opportunity for students to
grow socially and learn effective group communication skills. The importance of mastering these
skills is undeniable. If one of the most important missions of the school is to help students develop
wisdom, then certainly helping them to acquire effective interactive social skills is an important
activity. Teachers should encourage students to develop these skills by identifying, explaining and
rewarding students for engaging in effective social interaction activities. Skills such as active
listening, turn-taking, offering constructive and encouraging criticism, showing concern for the
feelings of others and actively participating in group discussions are but a few important skills
students must learn by participating in a promotive interactive framework. David Johnson and
Roger Johnson (1989) report research findings showing that the combination of positive
interdependence and the use of effective social skills promotes highest achievement among
students within a cooperative learning environment.

The last factor, 
 
 , describes the group¶s self-evaluation of each member¶s
contribution. Individual contributions either help or hinder achievement of the desired goals.
Group processing also includes an analysis of improvements that could be made to help the group
function more effectively in the future. A combination of teacher and student processing results in
significant improvement and success within a cooperative learning format. Student interactive
evaluations provide a way to maintain good working relationships among group members and
ensure that individual members receive feedback about the quality of their participation. Group
processing also occurs when the instructor provides feedback to the class based on observations of
individual student contributions. This processing serves as a model for students who are learning
how to critique peers effectively. Positive feedback for work well done creates a feeling of
enthusiasm, of being successful and of increased elf-esteem among students.

It is not possible to incorporate all these factors within each group encounter but the greater the
number of features used, the greater the learning. Cooperative learning fosters growth in many
areas: learning to use interpersonal skills effectively, understanding and applying the course
c
 
c




  


 38
content to life situations, developing self-esteem and ability to explain concepts to others. These
are only a few of the outcomes resulting from well-structured small group cooperative activities.
However they are sufficient to distinguish positively the cooperative learning paradigm from the
traditional individualistic and competitive ³lecture only´ teaching. Johnson and Johnson (1989)
report that in almost every study conducted during this century that compares the effectiveness of
cooperative and competitive learning formats, the cooperative model results in higher achievement
and greater productivity, more caring committed interpersonal relationships, greater psychological
health and social competence.

1&;&      

In her book *
  
 

#, Julie High (1993) reports
her discovery that effective language learning depends on structuring social interaction to
maximize the need to communicate in the target language. We have always accepted this principle;
for example, it is behind the theory and practice of the immersion programs in North America, the
³foreign language medium schools´ in Bulgaria, the ³cognitive academic language learning
approach´ (Chamot & O¶Malley 1994), etc. We have always believed that memorizing
conjugations, grammar structures and vocabulary produces at best some knowledge about a
language. Knowledge about a language, however, is very different from acquiring the language.

Julie High describes a number of classroom activities, which structure social interaction in the
classroom. They are based on a simple formula:

Structure + Content = Activity.

In fact, Julie High adapts Spencer Kagan¶s original ideas about cooperative learning structures
which he calls ³co-op structures´ in his book, 

#  (199) published by his
Californian company, Kagan Cooperative Learning Co. Several such participation structures, we
have been using in our language classes. Our students love them, confiding that achievement
should not be divorced from enjoyment.

@-* 6 
 . This structure is based on speed, synergy, silliness and support. The class is
divided into teams of four students. Each team member has a special role to facilitate the creative
potential of brainstorming and has a phrase to say in the target language that encourages her or his
partners:

—| Speed: ³Let¶s hurry!´

—| Synergy: ³Let¶s build on that!´
—| Silly: ³Let¶s get crazy!´
—| Support: ³All ideas help!´

Students brainstorm an idea for a while and then all teams pair up and interview each other.

  . Teams break into two sets of pairs each of which works on a worksheet. One student
is the problem solver and the other one is the coach. The coach helps and checks his or her
partner¶s work. After a while, the teams reunite and the pairs on the team compare answers. If the

c
 
c




  


 39
team disagrees, they ask the teacher to help them. If the team agrees on the answer, they do a team
handshake. Pairs Check is a particularly good structure for practicing new skills.

1  
 . This is a four-step cooperative structure, which can be used with any
language teaching content and at various places in a lesson:

(1)| Students number off,

()| Teacher asks a question,
(3)| Heads together,
(4)| Teacher calls a number.

Each student on a team has a different number. He or she will answer to that number when it is
called. The teacher formulates a question as a directive, e.g. ³Make sure everyone on your team
can«´ The students put their heads together and discuss the question until everyone knows the
answer. After a while, the teacher will call a number at random and the students with that number
raise their hands to be called upon, as in the traditional classroom.


-
 
-
. The emphasis in this structure is on bringing out and nourishing the natural
intelligence, creativeness and expressiveness of students. In Co-op Co-op, the structure indicates
that we value the interests and abilities of the students. This cooperative language learning
structure has ten steps:

(1)| Student-centered class discussion. This discussion leads to an understanding among the teacher
and the class about what the students want to learn and experience in relation to the topic or
unit to be covered.
()| Selection of student learning teams.
(3)| Teambuilding and cooperative skill development. This is an important phase in which the
members of each team feel they are a ³we´ and have developed trust and communication
skills.
(4)| Team topic selection. The team members settle on the topic of most interest to themselves as a
group.
(5)| Mini-topic selection. The team members divide the topic of the team into mini-topics for each
member to work on.
( )| Mini-topic preparation. Individual students work on their own topics.
(7)| Mini-topic presentations. Individual students present their own topics to their teammates.
(8)| Preparation of team presentations. The team discusses and integrates the material presented in
the previous step in order to prepare their team presentations.
(9)| Team presentations.
(10)| Reflection and evaluation. Students reflect on their work and their achievements. The
whole class evaluates team presentations. Individual presentations are evaluated by teammates.

Research on teaching has shown that whole-class discussion, individual seatwork and lecture
prevail as the favorite organizational structures in the traditional classroom. In relation to
participation structures which promote meaningful interaction, Spencer Kagan maintains that by
participating in planned formats ³students become responsible for learning and sharing what they
have learnt. The structure prepares students for participation in a democratic society´ (Kagan
199). And he goes on, ³How we structure a classroom is an important, perhaps the most
important, form of communication we make to students. If we structure the classroom so that the
c
 
c




  


 40
goal of learning is a good team score, we communicate that the most important value is a
competitive victory. If we structure so that the teacher is in full control of what and how students
study, we communicate that students are empty or that their intelligence and curiosity are not
valued. If we choose an autocratic authority structure, we communicate a lack of faith in the
potential of students to choose positive directions for development. By taking full responsibility
for students¶ learning, we leave them none. We do not leave students room to come out and
become fully engaged in the learning process´. Thus, planning participation structures at the
micro-level of language teaching is seen as an aspect of ³precision teaching´.

c
 
c




  


 41
  ;%   
The term    has been in English usage for a long time (see Josef Dolch 1959, quoted in
Kansanen 1995, 101). In German, it was substituted for the term  and later in the eighteenth
century, for the term   (see Kansanen 1995 for a detailed study of the development of this
construct). ³Curriculum´ comes from Latin and means ³a running, course, race´. The noun is
related to the verb ³currere´ which means, ³to run´. A Modern English dictionary defines
³curriculum´ in the following way: ³all of the courses, collectively, offered in a school, college,
etc. or in a particular subject´ (Webster¶s New World Dictionary 1988). As is seen from the
definition, the term is commonly used in two related senses. It refers to (a) a programme of study
at an educational institution or system and (b) content in a particular subject or course of studies.
In the latter sense, ³curriculum´ is synonymous with the British term ³syllabus´. In fact, the use of
the two terms in Europe and North America has caused a great deal of confusion in second
language teaching. Within the framework of the Tempus Scheme of the Commission of the
European Communities, DG XXII ± Education, Training and Youth, the following definitions for
the terms,   
 
    are used.    is the totality of an organised
learning experience; it provides the conceptual structure and a set time frame to acquire a
recognisable degree, and describes its overall content, e.g. the curriculum of a five-year degree
programme in ³Mechanical Engineering´ at a certain higher education institution. 
  is the
totality of an organised learning experience in a precisely defined area, e.g. the course on ³Fluid
Dynamics´ within the curriculum ³Mechanical Engineering´. * is the prescription of details
on a specific course, such as what will be learnt (and when) the texts to be read, the areas in which
expertise is expected to be demonstrated.

We need to establish a clear distinction between the terms. Here is a definition by J. P. B. Allen,
which is adequate to our purposes: ³curriculum is a very general concept which involves
considerations of the whole complex of philosophical, social and administrative factors which
contribute to the planning of an educational programme; syllabus, on the other hand, refers to that
subpart of curriculum which is concerned with a specification of what units will be taught´.

Here, we are interested in the educational aspects of curriculum design and development. But let us
consider an example from recent history of education first.

Here is an excerpt from the so-called * , Nebraska Legislature, U.S.A., April 1919, ³No
person shall « teach any subject to any person in any language other than the English language.
Languages other than the English language may be taught as language only after a pupil shall have
« passed the eighth grade´. The case of # *
1  was based on the Siman
Act. Robert T. Meyer was arrested for teaching German to a ten-year-old boy in Nebraska on 5
May 190. His case reached the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled on 4 June 193 that anti-
foreign-language laws were in violation of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. The majority
decision stated, ³No emergency has arisen which renders knowledge by a child of some language
other than English so clearly harmful as to justify its inhibition´.

This and many other examples indicate that modern foreign languages, and all other disciplines for
that matter, as a school subject should not be taken for granted. In relation to that, John Clark
(1987) asks several important questions: ³whether to include languages other than the mother
tongue in the school curriculum; which languages to include; to whom to teach them and for how

c
 
c




  


 4
long; what objectives to seek to achieve´. The answers, according to him, should be sought in the
particular educational value system of society at a particular moment in time. Bednar et al. (199,
19) propose that ³Instructional design and development must be based upon some theory of
learning and/or cognition; effective design is possible only if the developer has developed reflexive
awareness of the theoretical basis underlying the design´.

;&"&  


  # is a theory of leaning and instruction that ³emphasizes the real-world complexity
and ill-structuredness of many knowledge domains´ (Spiro et al. 199, 57). Constructivist view of
cognition contends that learning is a process of personal interpretation of experience and
construction of knowledge. Constructivists adopt the notion of Wittgenstein that context is an
integral part of meaning. ³Learning is an active process in which meaning is developed on the
basis of experience´ (Bednar et al. 199, 1). Constructivism is an alternative epistemological
perspective to
# (see Lakoff 1987).

Constructivism in language education has been explored extensively by Seppo Tella and his
colleagues at the Media Education Center, University of Helsinki. They relate constructivism to
the concept of dialogism: ³dialogue is a crucial element in the creation of any language
organization and especially in establishing an open mulimedia based collaborative and networked
learning environment. It suggests that the learning environment in the framework of dialogism
cannot be a physical space, a classroom, nor any particular media education tool. The learning
environment is ± dialogue´ (Tella & Mononen-Aaltonen 1998, 103). Tella (1998, 117) cites seven
ingredients needed to promote dialogic education: 45  
 45  
 $ 

45
 
45# 
45   

45 

!
45  .

Theory of constructivism has been developing and new versions have been emerging. 1
-

  #  of the cognitive school believe that ³(a) understandings are constructed by using
prior knowledge to go beyond the information given; and (b) the prior knowledge that is brought to
bear is itself constructed, rather than retrieved from memory, on a case-by-case basis´ (Spiro et al.
199, 4). *
 
  #  focus on social interaction in the community as a source of
knowledge. Social constructivism has been described by Burton, Moore and Magliaro (199 , 48).

Jim Cummins (1994, 48) describes the pedagogical and social assumptions underlying educator
role definitions in language teaching (Figure 1 and Figure ). He distinguishes the objectivist from
the constructivist positions in methodology (the transmission versus critical orientation) and in
sociology (the social control versus social transformation orientation).

Cummins concludes, ³Educators¶ role definitions reflect their vision of society, and implicated in
that societal vision are their own identities and those of the students with whom they interact. The
outcome of this process for both educator and student can be described in terms of  
! .
Empowerment can thus be regarded as the collaborative creation of power insofar as it constitutes
the process whereby students and educators collaboratively create knowledge and identity through
action focused on personal and social transformation´ (Cummins 1994, 55).

c
 
c




  


 43
  
:

Language ± Decomposed,
Knowledge ± Inert,
Learning ± Hierarchical internalization from simple to complex.

:

Language ± Meaningful,
Knowledge ± Catalytic,
Learning ± Joint interactive construction through critical inquiry within the zone of proximal
development.

Figure 1: Educator Pedagogical Assumptions (Cummins 1994, 48)

*


:


Curricular Topics ± Neutralized with respect to societal power relations,
Student Outcomes ± Compliant and uncritical.

*
 
 
:


Curricular Topics ± Focussed on issues relevant to societal power relations,
Student Outcomes ± Empowered, critical.

Figure : Educator Social Assumptions (Cummins 1994, 48)

Nicholas Burbules (1997, 8) maintains that teaching ³is not a process of conversion, but of
translation: of making sufficient associations between the familiar and the foreign to allow the
learner to make further associations, to find other paths, and eventually to become a translator, a
path-maker, on their own. Learning how to ask a good question is in one sense   central task, yet
one that is almost never taught explicitly, and rarely taught at all.´

In conclusion, we claim that the implications for language curriculum design are quite
straightforward. One is that content cannot be predetermined. Perhaps learning objectives cannot
be pre-specified either. The curriculum developer cannot define the boundaries of what may be
relevant. All he or she can do is plan authentic, real-world tasks, which will provide the necessary
and sufficient contexts for the learners to realize their objectives and construct their knowledge.
This can be achieved by providing a collaborative learning environment based on communicative
interaction containing sufficient comprehensible language input and output.

c
 
c




  


 44
;&/&6    <

In the early seventies, Anthony Howatt stated, ³Special courses have fairly specific objectives and
are rather simpler to discuss. General courses tend to be diffuse in their aims and take their overall
shape more from tradition, contemporary fashion and the vague but powerful influences exerted by
the social attitudes and economic needs of the community´ (1974). In fact, the distinction is
embedded in the objectivist tradition of language teaching. It is best expressed by William Mackey
(19 5) in his famous claim that there is no language teaching without ³selection, gradation,
presentation and repetition´ of the content. In that period, techniques like frequency, coverage and
availability were applied in the process of choosing common everyday language for
³communicative syllabi´. In addition, the notion of ³appropriate language´ was used as a criterion
of usefulness. The organization of the course was based on 
 decisions on the order in which
³new teaching points should come´ and on ³how much to teach´. The method of needs
identification was developed by a Swiss scholar, Rene Richterich (Richterich & Chancerel 1977).
A British linguist, John Munby (1978), elaborated the theory and methodology of language needs
analysis and curriculum design. Language courses for specific purposes (e.g. English for Specific
Purposes or ³ESP´) were represented by their proponents as an alternative to general courses.

The E   
 series of ³specialist English materials for students who use English as the
medium of instruction for the subject they are studying´ was published in England in the seventies
(e.g. Allen & Widdowson 1994). The authors wrote, ³The series assumes that students have
already completed a basic course in English and that they have some knowledge of their specialist
subject. This course is therefore intended for students [«] who already know how to handle the
common English sentence patterns and who need to learn how these sentences are used in
scientific writing to convey information«´ (op. cit.). The course had a great success because the
approach adopted was new.

Peter Strevens outlined the ³new orientations in the teaching of English´ and of any language for
that matter in the mid-seventies. Some ten years before, he had published one of the most
successful audio-lingual textbooks, E <=> (see Section 1..). The times had changed though.
Strevens argued, ³Broadly defined, ESP courses are those in which    

 , principally or wholly, not by criteria of general education (as when µEnglish¶ is a
foreign language subject in school) but by functional and practical English language requirements
of the learner´ (Strevens 1977, 90). This was certainly new a quarter of a century ago but today we
find the conjecture rather misleading.

It seems to us, at this junction, that the methodological opposition of ³general purposes´ to
³specific purposes´ in language teaching is inadequate and inappropriate. We do not think that ³the
aims and the content are determined´  
 by any criteria. They cannot be precompiled or
prepackaged. We can discern two arguments in the literature to support this strong claim. One
refers to the fact that language teaching is a complex process characterized by network of
relationships in a social and cultural context and the other to the idea that language teaching is an
ill-structured knowledge domain. We claim that a
 
 , which emphasizes the priority
of the whole over its parts, can solve the problem of curriculum design.

In that respect, an improvement on the theory of curriculum design has been offered by Rand Spiro
and his colleagues at the University of Illinois in their theory of "
 (  
 (Spiro
et al. 199). We shall discuss this theory in the next section.
c
 
c




  


 45
;&1&  ' 0  '. $ 3 

"
   (  
 is a theory, which accounts for the complexity of the process of
language learning and the ill-structuredness of the domain of language knowledge and/or
proficiency.

Eve Sweetser and Gilles Fauconnier (199 ) maintain that ³The initially overwhelming complexity
of linguistic usages is, then, not an independent and autonomous complexity. It is a reflection of
the complex ± and economically interrelated ± structure of cognition´.

Eric Lenneberg sees language proficiency as a process of ³(a) extracting relations from (or
computing relations in) the physical environment, and (b) of relating these relationships´
(Lenneberg 1975, 17). Continuous, not discrete, cognitive and physiological processes produce
those relationships. Lenneberg argues persuasively that ³These deeper continuities [the continuous
cognitive and physiological processes] are reflected in the ³fuzzy´ nature of semantic, syntactic
and phonological categories, making sharp, formal distinctions and decisions difficult´ (op. cit.,
17). He concludes that ³everything in language is of relational nature and what has to be learnt in
language acquisition is
!
, or how to compute a relationship upon given physical data´
(op. cit., 3).

Constructivists hold that ³Characteristics of ill-structuredness found in most knowledge domains

(especially when knowledge application is considered) lead to serious obstacles to the attainment
of advanced learning goals (such as the mastery of conceptual complexity and the ability to
independently use instructed knowledge in new situations that differ from the conditions of initial
instruction). These obstacles can be overcome by shifting from a constructive orientation that
emphasizes the retrieval from memory of intact preexisting knowledge to an alternative
constructivist stance which stresses the flexible reassembling of preexisting knowledge to
adaptively fit the needs of a new situation. Instruction based on this new constructivist orientation
can promote the development of cognitive flexibility using theory-based hypertext systems that
themselves possess characteristics of flexibility that mirror those desired for the learner´ (Spiro et
al. 199, 59).

Complex and ill-structured domains have two properties: ³(a) each case or example of knowledge
application typically involves the simultaneous interactive involvement of multiple, wide-
application conceptual structures (multiple schemas, perspectives, organizational principles and so
on), each of which is individually complex (i.e. the domain involves concept- and case-
complexity); and (b) the pattern of conceptual incidence and interaction varies substantially across
cases nominally of the same type (i.e. the domain involves across-case irregularity)´ (Spiro et al.
199, 0). For example, basic grammar is well structured, while the process of applying grammar
rules in real-world communication is ill structured.

Random Access Instruction can be represented by the metaphor of a rhizome, spreading in all
directions. It was first used by Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari in the book :    as a
method of organizing information (quoted in Burbules 1997). Seppo Tella uses it to describe open
learning environments based on a communal educational value system. He maintains that ³it
[rhizome] transmits the idea of something growing, something developing, yet it gives ample
scope for individual action and decision-making´ and suggests that ³a rhizome is a rhizome is a
rhizome«´ (Tella et al. 1998, 13). Nicholas Burbules (1997, 3) holds that ³Each particular step
c
 
c




  


 4
or link within a rhizomatic whole can be conceived as a line between two points, but the
#
pattern is not linear, because there is no beginning and end, no center and periphery, to be traced´.

Random Access Instruction is a rhizomatic system. It can be applied in the design of nonlinear
learning environments, which we shall present in the next section.

;&;&     $  
0

What is ³knowledge´ and what does ³knowledge strategy´ mean? Tella (Tella et al. 1998,  )
maintains that knowledge is to be ³understood as mental information structures modified by the
individual on the basis of thinking and earlier knowledge´. Clearly, knowledge is not simply data
and information. Tella defines 
!  as the ³long-term methodical reflection [«],
which finds concrete expression as operational procedures or tactical measures, slogans, goals,
forms of operation, working methods arising from discussion about values, and evaluation
measures connected with them´. He emphasizes the view that ³instead of simply reforming their
curriculum, we think schools and municipalities should progress towards developing their
knowledge strategic thinking´ (Tella et al. 1998, 5).

We define the?
!*x (KSH) as a 
 and 
- $  language
curriculum model based on constructivist epistemology and the idea of knowledge strategy (Figure
3). The term
 is employed here somewhat loosely. It is a way to make clear how our
hypothesis hangs together to make a coherent explanation. As far as the components of the KSH
are concerned, their number is unlimited. That reflects the complexity and ill-structuredness of the
language proficiency domain. In such a nonlinear and non-sequential learning environment, each
element is related to all other elements. The KSH is a !

, which allows the user to
move from node to node following the links between them. Nodes store linguistic, etc.,
information and links represent semantic associations between the nodes. Learning is seen as a
process that modifies the information structures in specified ways under specified conditions.

The semantic nature of the links in the KSH forms the basis of the model. This is supported by
scientific research, which has shown that the mind holds memories semantically, according to
meaning (Fauconnier & Sweetser).

The model accommodates two conditions for learning, which are necessary and sufficient. The
first is the  
 
  passively invoked by the incoming data. And the second is the
#

 of the incoming data. Thus, the KSH can predict what parts of the input would be
accepted and what would be tuned out. The constructive process leads the user ³beyond the
information given´ (Perkins 199) by reconstructing information itself.

In Figure 3, we present our KSH language curriculum model including communicative language
competence, language activities, domains, etc. It has been developed under the A===

(Shopov 1999). The model contains components derived from the definition of language behaviour
in 
  
 
  

E 
 !


" (CEF). It is publicly accessible on the web-site http://culture.coe.fr/lang.

The CEF provides:

c
 
c




  


 47
³(a) A descriptive scheme, presenting and exemplifying the parameters and categories needed to
describe, first, what a language user has to 
in order to communicate in its situational context,
then the role of the x , which carry the message from producer to receiver, then the underlying


which enable a language user to perform acts of communication, and finally the

which enable the language user to bring those competences to bear in action;
(b) A survey of the approaches to language learning and teaching, providing options for users to
consider in relation to their existing practice;
(c) A set of  for describing proficiency in language use, both globally and in relation to the
categories of the descriptive scheme at a series of # ;
(d) A discussion of the issues raised for     in different educational contexts, with
particular reference to the development of    in the learner´ (Trim 1999, 9).

In the CEF, the 
 of the individual are defined by ³the knowledge, skills and
existential competence (savoir-etre) he or she possesses, and the ability to learn´.

Three components constitute 
#   
. They are the linguistic
component, the socio-linguistic component and the pragmatic component.

  # are the actual behaviors in which language is used. They are reception,
production, interaction or mediation (in particular interpreting or translating) in oral or written
form, or both.

The 

in which activities are contextualized, are the public domain, the personal domain,
the educational domain and the occupational domain.

 
  x complete this model of language use and learning. All these constructs
are defined in Chapter 3 of the CEF.

c
 
c




  


 48
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Starting level of L proficiency ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Personal
domain

Pragmatic
component

Reception

Educationa Linguistic
l domain component
Sociolingui
stic
component

Production
Empty
because
model is
open

Public
domain
Interaction

Occupation Mediation
al domain

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Starting level of L proficiency ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Figure 3: The KSH curriculum model, including the nodes and links of communicative language
competence, language activities, domains, etc.

This is obviously a comprehensive and exhaustive model. However, with its 18 elements in 7
categories, it is a complex one. Stochastic theory estimates the possible combinations of the
c
 
c




  


 49
elements at 1 3 (18 times 17, divided by 1 time ). These 1 3 combinations produce an infinite
number of concrete instances of language use. Therefore, in our opinion, only a KSH approach to
curriculum design can guarantee quality in second language development.

The model proposed is based on the idea of !
   development. The KSH includes
language styles and registers incorporating them into ³a form of metalinguistic, interlinguistic or
so to speak µhyperlinguistic¶ awareness´ (CEF, 97). This leads to a better perception of what is
 and what is  concerning the linguistic organization of the target language. So each
component of the model may become the starting point for the use of the KSH.

;&=&'   

³Whatever the style, there are ample opportunities to orient instruction toward higher levels of
understanding, introduce and exercise languages of thinking, cultivate intellectual passions, seek
out integrative mental images, foster learning to learn and teach for transfer. The smart school
makes the most of these opportunities. It informs and energizes teaching by giving teachers time
and support to learn about the opportunities and by arranging curriculum, assessment and
scheduling to encourage tapping them.´ (Perkins 199, 130)

c
 
c




  


 50
 
Abbs, Brian, Vivian Cook and Mary Underwood, 19 8, Realistic English, London: Oxford University
Press.

Alatis, James E., Howard B. Altman and Penelope M. Alatis, 1981, The Second Language Classroom:
Directions for the 1980s, New York: Oxford University Press.

Allen, J. P. B. and S. Pit Corder (Eds.), 1973 - 1977, The Edinburgh Course in Applied Linguistics, Volume
1 ± 4, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Allen, J. P. B. and H. G. Widdowson (Eds.), 1973 - 1977, English in Focus, Oxford: Oxford University
Press.

Asher, James, 1977 (Second Edition 198), Learning Another Language through Actions: The Complete
Teacher¶s Guidebook. California: Sky Oak Productions.

Bednar, Anne, D. Cunningham, T. M. Duffy and J. D. Perry, 199, Theory into Practice: How Do We
Link? In Duffy and Jonassen 199.

Blair, R. W. (Ed.), 198, Innovative Approaches to Language Teaching, Massachusetts: Newbury House.

Bligh, D., 197, What¶s the Use of Lectures. Middlesex: Penguin Books Ltd.

Bloomfield, Leonard, 1933, Language, New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Bloomfield, Leonard, 194, Outline Guide for the Practical Study of Foreign Languages, Baltimore:
Linguistic Society of America.

Brown, Roger, 1974, A First Language: The Early Stages, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Hadvard University
Press.

Brown, H. Douglas, 1994a, Principles of Language Learning and Teaching, Third Edition, New Jersey:
Prentice Hall Regents.

Brown, H. Douglas, 1994b, Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy, New
Jersey: Prentice Hall Regents.

Burbules, Nicholas, 1997, Aporia: Webs, Passages, Getting Lost, and Learning to Go On, Web-site
http://www.ed.uiuc.edu/PES/97_docs/burbules.html.

Burton, J, D. Moore and S. Magliaro, 199 , Behaviorism and Instructional Technology, In D. H. Jonassen
199 .

Cazden, C. B. and R. Brown, 1975, The Early Development of the Mother Tongue, In Lenneberg and
Lenneberg 1975.

Chamot, Anna Uhl and J. Michael O¶Malley, 1994, The CALLA Handbook. Implementing the Cognitive
Academic Language Learning Approach, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.

Chomsky, N., 19 , Topics in the Theory of Generative Grammar, The Hague: Mouton.
c
 
c




  


 51
Chomsky, N., 19 8, Langauge and Mind, New York: Harcourt, Brace and World.

Clark, John L., 1987, Curriculum Renewal in School Foreign Language Learning, Oxford: Oxford
University Press.

Cook, Vivian, 1989, University of Essex, Personal Communication.

Corder, S. Pit, 198, Introducing Applied Linguistics, Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.

Cummins, Jim, 1994, Knowledge, Power and Identity in Teaching English as a Second Language, In
Genesee 1994.

Curran, Charles, 197 , Councelling-Learning in Second Languages, Apple River, Illinois: Apple River
Press.

Dewey, John, 1938, Experience and Education, New York: Macmillan.

Duffy, Thomas M. and David H. Jonassen (Eds.), 199, Constructivism and the Technology of Instruction:
A Conversation, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Dulay, Heidi and Marina Burt, 1974, Natural Sequences in Child Second Language Acquisition, Language
Learning 4, 37-53.

Eckman, F. R., L. Bell and D. Nelson, 1988, On the Generalization of Relative Clause Instruction in the
Acquisition of English as a Second Language, Applied Linguistics, Vol. 9, No. 1, Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1-0.

Sweetser, Eve and Gilles Fauconnier (Eds.), 199 , Spaces, Worlds, and Grammar, Chicago: The University
of Chicago Press.

Fries, C., 1945, Teaching and Learning English as a Foreign Language, Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of
Michigan Press.

Gardner, Howard, 1991, The Unschooled Mind, New York: Basic Books.

Gattegno, Caleb, 197, Teaching Foreign Languages in Schools: The Silent Way. Second Edition, New
York: Educational Solutions.

Genesee, Fred (Ed.), 1994, Educating Second Language Children, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Goodlad, John I. and Pamela Keating (Eds.), 1990, Access to Knowledge, New York: The College Board.

Goodman, K., L. Bird and Y. Goodman, 1991, The Whole Language Catalog, Santa Rosa, California:
American School Publishers.

High, Julie, 1993, Second Language Learning through Cooperative Learning, California: Kagan
Cooperative Learning.

Howatt, Anthony, 1984, A History of English Language Teaching, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hymes, D., 1971, On Communicative Competence, In Pride and Holmes 197.

c
 
c




  


 5
Johnson, D. W. and R. Johnson, 1989, Cooperation and Competition. Theory and Research, Minnesota:
Interaction Book Co.

Johnson, D. W., R. Johnson and K. Smith, 1991, Active Learning, Minnesota: Interaction Book Co.

Jonassen, D. H. (Ed.), 199 , Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology, New
York: Simon and Schuster Macmillan.

Kagan, Spencer, 199, Cooperative Learning, California: Kagan Cooperative Learning.

Kansanen, Pertti, 1995, The .   . and the American Research on Teaching, In Kansanen (Ed.)
1995.

Kansanen, Pertti, (Ed.), 1995, Discussions on Some Educational Issues VI, Research Report 145, Helsinki:
University of Helsinki.

Karp, D. and W. Yoels, 1987, The College Classroom, Sociology and Social Research, 0.

Kelly, Louis, 19 9, 5 Centuries of Language Teaching, Rowley, Massachusetts: Newbury House.

Krashen, Stephen, 1997, Foreign Language Education. The Easy Way, California: Language Education
Associates.

Krashen, S., V. Sferlazza, L. Feldman and A. Fathman, 197 , Adult Performance on the SLOPE Test,
Language Learning,  , 1, 145 ± 151.

Krashen, Stephen and Tracy Terrell, 1983, The Natural Approach, New Jersey: Alemany Press
Regents/Prentice Hall.

Lakoff, George, 1987, Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What They Reveal about the Mind, Chicago:
The University of Chicago Press.

Larsen-Freeman, Dianne, 198 , Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching, Oxford: Oxford
University Press.

Larsen-Freeman, D. and M. H. Long, 1991, An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition Research,

London: Longman.

Lenneberg, E., 1975, The Concept of Language Differentiation, In Lenneberg and Lenneberg 1975.

Lenneberg, Eric H. and Elizabeth Lenneberg (Eds.), 1975, Foundations of Language Development: A
Multidisciplinary Approach, Volume 1, Paris: The UNESCO Press.

Lozanov, Georgi, 1978, Suggestology and Outlines of Suggestopedy, New York: Gordon and Breach.

Mackey, William F., 19 5, Language Teaching Analysis, London: Longman.

McLaughlin, B., 1990, 'Conscious' versus 'Unconscious' Learning, TESOL Quarterly, 4.

McLeod, A., 198 , Critical Literacy: Taking Control of Our Own Lives, Language Arts, 3, 37-50.

c
 
c




  


 53
Mikes, G., 1970, How To Be an Alien, Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.

Mowrer, Don, 199 , Arizona State University, Tempe, Personal Communication.

Munby, John, 1978, Communicative Syllabus Design, London: Cambridge University Press.

Naisbitt, John, 198, Megatrends, New York: Warner Books.

Osgood, C. E., G. J. Suci and P. H. Tannenbaum, 1957, The Measurement of Meaning, Urbana: University
of Illinois Press.

Perkins, David, 199, Smart Schools, New York: The Free Press.

Perkins, K. and D. Larsen-Freeman, 1975, The Effect of Formal Language Instruction on the Order of
Morphee Acquisition, Language Learning, 5.

Pica, T., 1983, The Role of Language Context in Second Language Acquisition, Review Article,
Interlanguage Studies Bulletin, 7.

Prabhu, N. S., 1987, Second Language Pedagogy, Oxford: Oxford University Pres.

Pride, J. and J. Holmes (Eds.), 197, Sociolinguistics. Selected Readings, Middlesex: Penguin Books Ltd.

Pulliam, John D., 1987, History of Education in America, Fourth Edition, Columbus, Ohio: Merrill, A Bell
& Howell Information Company.

Reich, Peter A., 198 , Language Development, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Richard-Amato, Patricia A., 1988, Making It Happen, New York: Longman.

Richards, Jack C. and Theodore S. Rogers, 198 , Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Richterich, R. and J.L. Chancerel, 1977, Identifying the Needs of Adults Learning a Foreign Language,
Strasbourg: CCC/Council of Europe.

Roberts, John, 1973, The LAD Hypothesis and L Acquisition, Audio-Visual Language Journal, Vol. XI, .

Selinker, L., 19 9, Language Transfer, General Linguistics, Vol. IX, 7 - 9.

Sharer, Rolf (Responsabile di redazione per il tema), 1999, European Language Portfolio, Babylonia, 1,
Council of Europe.

Shopov, T. and A. Fedotoff, 000, An Analysis of Student Course Evaluation Reports, Sofia: Koreana.

Shopov, T., 1999, The LAC 000 Project, Tempus Phare JEP 13533-98, Torino: European Training
Foundation.

Skinner, B. F., 1957, Verbal Behavior, New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

c
 
c




  


 54
Spiro, R. J., P. J. Feltovich, M. J. Jacobson and R. L. Coulson, 199, Cognitive Flexibility, Constructivism
and Hypertext; Random Access Instruction for Advanced Knowledge Acquisition in Ill-Structured
Domains, In Duffy and Jonassen 199.

Stern, H. H., 1983, Fundamental Concepts of Language Teaching, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Strevens, Peter, 19 4, English 901, New York: The Macmillan Company.

Strevens, Peter, 1977, New Orientations in the Teaching of English, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Tella, Seppo (Ed.), 1998, Aspects of Media Education. Strategic Imperatives in the Information Age, Media
Education Publication 8, Helsinki: University of Helsinki.

Tella, Seppo and Marja Mononen-Aaltonen, 1998, Developing Dialogic Communication Culture in Media
Education: Integrating Dialogism and Technology, ME Publications 7, Helsinki: University of Helsinki.

Thomas, J. and W. Stock, 1988, The Concept of Happiness, International Journal of Aging and Human
Development 7.

Toffler, Alvin, 1985, The Adaptive Corporation, New York: McGraw-Hill.

Trim, John L. M., 1980, In Van Ek 1980.

Trim, John L. M., 1999, Common tools to promote linguistic and cultural diversity, respect, tolerance and
understanding in Europe, Babylonia, 1, Council of Europe.

Van Ek, J., 1975, The Threshold Level in a European Unit/Credit System for Modern Language Teaching
by Adults, Strasbourg: Council of Europe.

Van Ek, J. and L. G. Alexander, 1980, Threshold Level English, Oxford: The Pergamon Press.

Webster¶s New World Dictionary, Third College Edition, 1988, New York: Simon and Schuster, Inc.

West, Michael, 1953, The Teaching of English: A Guide to the New Method Series. London: Longman.

White Paper on Education and Training, 199 , European Commission, Luxembourg: Office for Official
Publications of the European Communities.

Widdowson, Henry G., 1979, Explorations in Applied Linguistics, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Widdowson Henry G. and Christopher J. Brumfit, 1981, Issues in Second Language Syllabus Design, In
Alatis, Altman and Alatis 1981.

Wittgenstein, L., 1953, Philosophical Investigations, New York: Macmillan.

Yule, George, 1985, The Study of Language, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

c
 
c




  


 55