Aug

20

Language Learning Strategies

Filed Under Learning | Comments Off

Language learning strategies have been studied by scholars since 1970’s producing a number of research papers in second language acquisition and cognitive psychology. Initially, the studies concentrated on detecting strategies used by good language learners (Rubin, 1975) while cognitive psychology attempted to find the influence of strategy training on the learner, which inspired the research into why some individuals could learn effectively whereas others experience some significant problems. It became essential to discover how to efficiently and effectively process information to be retained and how to teach these strategies to learners who had not used them before.

O’Malley and Chamot (1990) applied Anderson’s Model of Metal Operation (Anderson 1985) in learning how to learn a foreign language. Anderson (1985) believes that there are two kinds of knowledge involved in the acquisition of skills: declarative and procedural. Declarative knowledge is static, factual, or comprising of what the learner actually knows about a given topic. Procedural knowledge is the ability to understand and apply rules to solve problems subconsciously, a dynamic information. The two kinds are to be used at different stages of the learning process.

Researchers operating in the area of second language acquisition conducted their research independently of cognitive psychologists. Attempts were made to define what a good language learner does to gain proficiency (Rubin, 1975 and Stern, 1975). All the techniques used by a good language learner have been termed ‘strategies’ and as such described and classified. Building on this research, both Rubin (1981) as well as Naiman, Frohlich, Stern, and Todesco (1978) proposed classification of language learning strategies

Jun

30

The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis

Filed Under Linguistics | Comments Off

According to German linguists and philologists from 18th century, humans communicate
distinctively because they contemplate in diverse ways, and the reason why they contemplate
divergently is that they are able to reflect the world differently through their language. From that time, the theory has become known as linguistic relativity and defined as the claim that culture, through language, affects the way in which we think, and especially our classification of the experienced world. The notion was later on examined at the beginning of 20th century by linguist Edward Sapir and his pupil Benjamin Lee Whorf. The scholars studied American Indian languages and Whorf’s concept of inseperabality of language and cogitation has been recognized as the notion of Saphir-Whorf hypothesis.
The Sapir-Whorf theory states that behavior and thought are affected by language. As it was
already mentioned Sapir and Whorf concentrated on the relationship between language, thought and culture, unfortunately they did not provide written theory or supplied it with empirical evidence. However, after examining their writings concerning linguistics, scholars enountered two main postulates. The first one, known as strong version, is linguistic determinism that theorizes that spoken language controls the methods of understanding the world one lives in. The second one, a weaker version makes an assumption that language barely determines one’s thoughts about the world.
Edward Sapir based his assumptions on Wilhelm von Humboldt’s strong theory of linguistic
determinism: “man lives in the world about him principally, indeed exclusively, as language
presents it to him” (1836) and focused on this idea. In keeping with this, Sapir concluded that,
“human beings do not live in the objective world alone, nor alone in the world of social activity as ordinarily understood, but are very much at the mercy of the particular language which has become the medium of expression in their society” (1958: 69). One cannot accommodate oneself to reality beyond language use, because language assists in decoding particular problems while communicating or reflecting. It follows that the world is unintentionally framed by habits of community and one cannot acknowledge two languages as comparable when describing the same social reality.
As it has been examined above, Sapir concentrated on firm language to analyze the interrelation between language and thought, stating that the individual is not aware of this correlation and exposed to it without choice, whereas his student Benjamin Lee Whorf constructed the weak theory of linguistic relativity: “We are thus introduced to a new principle of relativity, which holds that all observers are not led by the same physical evidence to the same picture of the universe…” (1956). However, Whorf also assisted the strong version of linguistic relativity and for him the relationship between language and thought was necessity as well.
Both Sapir and Whorf admitted that culture influences our language and in consequence it
influences our thoughts about the world and our involvement in it. Nevertheless, since it has
been introduced, it has provoked much controversy in the field of linguistics, education,
psychology and anthropology. Five decades later researchers of social sciences declined the
strong version of Whorf’s theory, stating that incomparability of cultures should not be treated as reliable. It was explained that the reason why people are not able to communicate meaningfully is not because of impossibility of translation within languages, it is owing to the fact that people, do not share the same beliefs, have different values of the notions hidden behind the words and thus they have different meanings. All in all, they do not perceive and encounter the real world in the same manner. Therefore, the strong version of the hypothesis, which holds that language influences one’s way of thinking was rejected. The weak version, on the other hand, is generally accepted as it states that “there are cultural differences in the semantic associations evoked by seemingly common concepts” (Kramsch 1998: 13). According to this version people arrange experiences diversely when it comes to meaning that is supplied by formal communication.
“Thus the generic semantic meanings of the code that have established themselves over time
within a given discourse community are subject to the various and variable uses made of them in social contexts. We are, then, not prisoners of the cultural meaning offered to us by our language, but can enrich them in our pragmatic interactions with other language users” (Kramsch 1998:14). PDF

May

10

Noam Chomsky and Transformational-Generative Grammar Theory

Filed Under Linguistics | Comments Off

by N.Fabisz

Avram Noam Chomsky was born in Philadelphia on December 7th, 1928 to Dr William Chomsky, who was “one of the world’s foremost Hebrew grammarians” (New York Times, 1977) and Elsie Simonofsky – also a Hebrew teacher. Chomsky completed his early education at Oak Lane Country Day School and Central High School, both in Philadelphia. In the year of 1945 Chomsky began his studies at the University of Pennsylvania, where he studied linguistics, mathematics and philosophy, yet in 1947 he decided to major in linguistics. It was then when he came in contact with Zelling Harris, the father of discourse analysis, who had enormously influenced the young Chomsky: “he had a coherent understanding of this whole range of issues, which I lacked, and I was immensely attracted by it, and by him personally as well” (Barsky R.F. 1998:50). His BA thesis entitled “Morphophonemics of Modern Hebrew” from 1949 was later revised and submitted as an MA thesis in 1951, to be finally published in 1979. In the subsequent years of 1951 to 1955 Chomsky was a Junior Fellow of the Harvard University Society of Fellows, where he carried out most of his Ph.D. research. In 1955 he completed his doctoral dissertation entitled “Transformational Analysis”. In the same year of 1955 Chomsky was offered a faculty position at Massachusetts Institute of Technology where he had been an educator ever since. In 1961 he was designated as a full professor of the Department of Modern Languages and Linguistics and five years later appointed a Ferrari Ward Professor of Linguistics, which title he held up to the year of 1976, when the Department of Linguistics and Philosophy was created at Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Chomsky received a position of an Institute Professor. He has also lectured for and received many honorary degrees from a number of universities around the world.
Apart from linguistics, Noam Chomsky has been active in politics for a considerable amount of time. At the age of ten Chomsky wrote his first article concerning the fall of Barcelona during the Spanish Civil War. In the year of 1969 he published his first politics-oriented book entitled “American Power and the New Mandarins”, in which he raised an objection against the American war in Vietnam. By the 1980s Chomsky had become not only the most reputable American linguist but also the most prominent left-wing critic of both American foreign policy as well as media coverage of political issues. In 1992 he was one of the most frequently cited people in the world.
Chomsky has also revolutionized the field of psychology with his review of B.F. Skinner’s “Verbal Behavior”, in which he questioned the behaviorists’ approach to the study of behavior and language. In Chomsky’s view (1959) language is not solely a set of habits developed in the process of conditioning but an innate predisposition of all human kind. His naturalistic approach to the study of language contributed to a shift of thought in the area of philosophy of language and mind. He was first to see the connection and dependency between the structure of language and the structure of human mind.
Noam Chomsky is a widely distinguished figure in the field of linguistics, philosophy, and politics. He is also a prolific author in the previously-mentioned disciplines. This paper, however, will deal exclusively with Chomsky the linguist and, in particular, his Transformational-Generative Grammar theory, which revolutionized the scientific study of language.

Apr

9

Identity of a language teacher

Filed Under Methodology | Comments Off

Little had I known about teaching profession before I became a student of English philology. And still, upon attending a methodology course as well as having a firm theoretical foundation with respect to different strategies and techniques enhancing the process of learning and teaching, I cannot say much about the profession since I do not work as a teacher. After entering the college I did not really think that I could become a teacher and even now, as a graduate, I am still not certain as to whether I desire to become one. Based on my experience as a student as well as on my frequent contact with a number of teachers, I’m inclined to say that the teaching profession might be one of the most demanding and responsible jobs on the employment market. It takes a lot of courage and self-confidence to face a group of students, teaching them something new, something valuable that they could remember and use for life. On the other hand, it is also extremely difficult to meet students’ expectations. I suppose teaching has also a lot to do with self-acceptance since only by being in harmony with ourselves can we approach any kind of task and perform well. Teaching is also about responsibility since, apart from parents, these are also the teachers who take on their shoulders a heavy responsibility for students’ upbringing and education which, in turn, may lead to many stressful situations. Am I a good role model for my students? Will they benefit from the lesson? Did my students enjoy the lesson? These certainly are the questions each and every teacher asks himself or herself at the end of a school day.
Good teaching is a phenomenon that cannot be subject to objective analysis since there are as many characteristics of good teaching as there are teachers and students. Some would identify good teaching with the teacher’s ability to clearly transmit knowledge or the ability to create an environment that would be conducive to effective learning and teaching. Others would associate good teaching with passion, with establishing a special kind of rapport with students or with being able to spot and cater to students’ needs. Endless is the list of traits that a good teacher should or should not possess. Thus, what distinguishes a good teacher from a bad one?
For the whole of my educational career I have dealt with a number of teachers and each of them was one of a kind in that they displayed different attitudes to the subject they taught, to students and to themselves. They also used different teaching methods as well as they set different requirements. Were all of them good teachers? I am not sure, but certainly all of them struggled to get the best out of themselves as well as they tried to elicit as much from us, students, as possible. Some of them succeeded in doing so, others did not. Particularly effective were those teachers who never tried to win students’ sympathy, who were strict and demanding, those who evoked in students fear and respect at the same time. Not only did they make us work twice as hard as we normally would have but they also belong to a group of memorable educators who are called to mind with a feeling of sentiment.
If I were to name some of the traits that a good teacher should possess, I would certainly mark knowledge, interest, communicative skills and flexibility as absolutely crucial.
As for the first trait, knowledge definitely is essential if one seriously thinks of teaching. It is hard to imagine a teacher with poor knowledge and qualifications, though there might be exceptions. However, the teachers together with doctors and lawyers are expected to display exceptional knowledge in the field of their subject. A knowledgeable teacher is also a developing teacher who improves his/her qualifications and is up-to-date with the newest achievements and breakthroughs in the field. Nonetheless, it is not exclusively knowledge that renders teaching good or bad, but it is also the way the teacher conveys that knowledge to students, which leads us to another crucial characteristic describing a good teacher, namely interest.
A good teacher is skillful in making knowledge interesting and relevant to students. I believe that making lessons attractive can be achieved only when the teacher finds his/her subject fascinating. Moreover, only by arousing students’ interest in the subject and by showing them how useful it may prove in their lives can the teacher have a motivating effect on his/her students in the learning process. Indifferent attitude of the teacher toward the subject may prevent learning from taking place.
Another important characteristic of a good teacher is the ability to communicate knowledge in a clear and understandable way so that it is reachable to students. It is also the ability of the teacher to organize and present material in a fashion that would be relevant to students’ abilities, needs and expectations. This can be achieved if the teacher knows his/her students enough to recognize their strengths and weaknesses and if he/she is willing to use that knowledge in preparation for the lessons. Good teaching is not solely about transmitting knowledge to students regardless of whether they understand it or not. It is doing so in a manner that would reach them and awake their inquisitiveness.
The last-but-not-least attribute of a good educator is flexibility. Personally, I interpret this trait as a capacity for balancing between managing lessons in a way that would be in accordance with the syllabus or abandoning the syllabus when a spontaneous classroom situation arises that might bring a valuable learning experience to the students. Flexibility may also be connected with a teaching style. In each classroom there are situations which require different behaviors from the teacher. Sometimes teachers need to act as authorities or even tyrants in order to discipline students, stressing the gravity of the situation, whereas in other instances they should act as a friend or a facilitator. Flexibility is the ability to adjust to changing circumstances. It is the tolerance of the unexpected and the ability to deal with it.
As Alice Wellington Rollins once put it: “The test of a good teacher is not how many questions he can ask his pupils that they will answer readily, but how many questions he inspires them to ask him which he finds it hard to answer”. I am absolutely convinced that the above quotation is the quintessence of good teaching as well as I strongly believe that a combination of all the aforementioned qualities makes teachers good at their profession. And if I ever become a teacher, I would like my identity as an educator to include all of these traits.


« go back — keep looking »