Friday, July 15, 2005

PLEASE HAVE A SOFA
'Are we teaching the right language?' asks Roger Hunt.

Most teachers of English would claim to teach in a communicative way for communicative purposes, and certainly most modern coursebooks state this aim specifically. However, much of what is taught, particularly at lower levels, can hardly be considered useful in communication unless our students are specialists in particular areas. In many circumstances, what is taught will actually disrupt communication at the simplest level.

The following scenarios are an attempt to illustrate this point and are intended as starting points for discussion or thought before you read on.

Vocabulary Scenario
1 In a café, some people sit down at the table next to yours. There are five people, but only four chairs. One of the people indicates the spare chair (with arms) at your table and asks, 'Excuse me, is this armchair free?' Choose a response:

a No. Twenty pounds to you mate!
b No. You have to pay for it.
c It's not an armchair - it's a seat.

Vocabulary Scenario
2 You visit one of your students at home. He/she points to the sofa and says, 'Please have a sofa.' Would you:

a Pick up the sofa and go home.
b Say, No thanks. I've already got one.
c Say, We say 'seat' not 'sofa'.

Vocabulary Scenario 3
On an aeroplane, a fellow passenger says, 'Excuse me, but I think you are sitting in my armchair.' Do you say:

a I'm sorry but the number on my boarding card clearly indicates that this is my armchair.
b Sorry. You're right! I am in the wrong armchair.
c It's not an armchair. It's a seat.

(Semantic note) It's interesting that the words sofa and armchair include the idea of possession, while the generic seat implies availability.

(Pedagogic note) Words such as sofa and armchair are rare in everyday discourse (unless you work in a furniture shop) and students usually use the words incorrectly. The word seat is quite common; it also has very wide applicability.

Why then do so many coursebook writers (and teachers) think that beginners need to discuss types of furniture? When did you last have a meaningful chat about your wardrobe and its proximity to other pieces of furniture in your bedroom? If you think I am exaggerating, notice how many beginner level coursebooks teach furniture vocabulary and prepositions of place together.

Incidentally, vocabulary selection at higher levels can be equally suspect. Why are most intermediate level coursebooks suddenly full of crime vocabulary? Do we think that students at that level are likely to develop criminal tendencies?
My concern encompasses the selection of grammatical items too. Consider the following:

Grammar Scenario 1

A lower intermediate student approaches you and says, 'Have you heard of the Queen? Have you climbed Mount Everest? My wardrobe is next to the window and opposite my bed.' Choose a response:

a Yes I have. No I haven't. Oh.
b Someone call an ambulance!
c Blimey!

Grammar Scenario 2

A student (one who has got beyond Unit five) approaches you and says, 'What time do you get up? What time do you brush your teeth? What time do you have lunch? I am from Argentina. Where are you from?' Choose a response
:a Seven a.m., five past seven, midday. Oh really. Kent.
b Someone call the police!
c Blimey!

Grammar Scenario 3
A beginner student approaches you eager to practise English and says, 'Hello! I am. You is. He is. Is he? Is you? Am I?' Choose a response:

a I'm fine, thank you.
b I am, aren't I.
c Blimey!

(Pedagogic note) In 1933, Leonard Bloomfield described stuctures in terms of linguistic complexity. His influence is still very apparent in coursebook syllabuses - talking about daily routines invariably precedes talking about the past.

However, consider the following dialogue between two native-speakers:

A Do anything at the weekend?
B Yeah. Went out to lunch on Sunday. Had roast beef. And saw John Smith on Saturday. Remember Tenerife? Him. Yeah. We went to Rosie's mum's.

The occurrence of went is extremely frequent in English, but the Past Simple is taught later than the Present Simple because, according to structuralist ideas, it is more complex. In this case, because it is irregular, it is likely to be taught later still. Imagine getting through the day without went! You might also notice the ellipsis in the above dialogue and consider whether an insistence on sentence-level utterances from students reflects the realities of native-speaker use.

I am not suggesting we teach our students to speak this type of English. I am more concerned with how they react when they hear it and compare it with what their teachers have taught them.

My conclusion is probably quite obvious. I think it is time we gave more thought to syllabus selection and put more emphasis on choosing language points that actually facilitate communication. If uttered by one native speaker to another, much of the language taught to students would probably get the response 'Blimey' - if not something stronger!

No comments:

Teaching Methods

In case my CELTA teachers google my work and find this site, it should be noted that the lesson plans here are original work, and that I am keeping them on my blog for my own records. For further information, email me at sandyhoney2@gmail.com.

Blog Archive