Towards A Principled Basis for Language Teaching
Melinda Whong, Leeds University
Mike Sharwood Smith, Heriot Watt University
Rational
The absence of a unified conceptualisation of learning can be seen as rooted in the absence of
a unified conceptualisation of language. Arguably, however, there are areas of common
ground within conflicting theories of language that can form the basis for a unified
conceptualisation of learning. This paper explores a theory of language learning that is based
on a theory of language, both of which are actively trying to unify strands of thought from the
range of sub-disciplines in linguistics and SLA. These, in turn, provide a principled basis for
English Language Teaching. The aim, in sum, is to find a conceptualisation of learning to
which members of a range of traditions interested in language teaching will be able to
subscribe. In doing so, we challenge the charge that there is little relevance for linguistic
theory in language teaching (e.g. Ellis 1997).
Scope
This paper begins by briefly showing how the divisions in applied linguistics have parallels in
divisions between linguistic traditions. It then looks to the practice of language teaching,
taking the view that teachers tend to do what seems to work, regardless of theoretical
grounding. Starting from currently accepted trends in ELT, this paper looks for a theoretical
basis for teaching practice.
Key Arguments / Discussion
Conceptualisation of Learning
A current trend in ELT is the generally accepted notion that learning is facilitated by some
kind of ‘noticing’ (Schmidt 1993). Accordingly, the practice of Focus on Form (Long 1991)
has become widely accepted in ELT as a way of teaching structural aspects of language
within a communicative approach. Along with this growing consensus, however, is a
recognition that the exact benefits of Focus on Form are difficult to pin down empirically
(Doughty 2003, Long and Robinson 1998). This uncertainty may be traced in part to the
problematic notion of ‘noticing’ itself (Truscott 1998). There is a more recent proposal that is
working to refine this concept, drawing from developments in psycholinguistics in order to
clarify intuitive notion of noticing, the Modular On-line Growth and Use of Language of
Sharwood Smith and Truscott (2004).
MOGUL draws from a range of linguistic perspectives to present a model of learning that
sees language development as a by-product of processing. This paper presents MOGUL as a
conceptualisation of learning to which members of different schools of SLA will be able to
subscribe. The approach to learning within MOGUL is the Acquisition by Processing Theory
(APT) (Truscott and Sharwood Smith 2004), which combines aspects of connectionism and
generativism. APT depends on the connectionist-based notions of frequency, robustness and
increased resting levels through activation, while also maintaining the generative notion of
dual representation of knowledge. In this model, the processor is the mechanism for language
development, whether native or non-native. Thus, there is the possibility for metalinguistic
fluency stemming from explicit instruction, alongside the implicit development of linguistic
fluency.
In presenting a unifying approach to learning, MOGUL/APT draws from Jackendoff’s
conceptualisation of language.
Conceptualisation of Language
Ray Jackendoff’s mental architecture for language has evolved to accommodate distinct
approaches within linguistics, from minimalism to construction grammar and even to certain
aspects of connectionism (Jackendoff 2002, 2007). In this section we argue that Jackendoff’s
model can be seen to endorse a second trend in ELT, a lexical approach to language teaching.
The Lexical Approach (Lewis 1993; Lewis 2000) is a direct outgrowth of developments in
corpus linguistics. Yet support for a lexical approach can also be seen from this very different
sub-discipline of linguistics. There is a crucial difference, however, in the value placed on the
rules underlying lexical patterns.
For Jackendoff words are qualitatively the same as other linguistic expressions, from
morphemes to compound words to phrases and even clauses. These so-called constructions
are identifiable patterns which instantiate the interface between language and meaning. In
other words, all linguistic expressions are the output of linguistic rules. In order to give focus
to this discussion, we take as illustration the teaching of English noun-noun compounding.
Compounding highlights the important work of words/constructions in Jackendoff’s
framework as linguistic expressions are all seen as associations of linguistic and semantic
structure. As such, compounding is a productive example of the way in which linguistic
structures abide by language specific rules of combinatorality. Because words are an interface
phenomenon for Jackendoff, there is no lexicon, at least as traditionally conceived.
Somewhat ironically, this conclusion that there is no lexicon leads us to argue that central to
language classroom is the teaching of ‘words’. Words, phrases and constructions are the
lynchpin; they are the elements that activate the underlying rules. A lexical approach to
language teaching is one that systematically presents language patterns that learners can
notice (whether implicitly or explicitly). Because of the recognition of underlying rules in this
approach, we refer to this as a Lexical Construction Approach to language teaching.
Conclusions
Jackendoff’s ‘on-line’ conception of language provides the basis for an Acquisition by
Processing view of language development. Through the creation and processing of language
schema, language knowledge (both implicit and explicit) can develop. Thus, the role of the
language teacher is to draw attention to language patterns. A Lexical Construction Approach
to language teaching will present learners with texts which can be used to highlight particular
language patterns – whether implicitly through negative evidence, more subtly through input
enhancement or through sheer frequency with ample examples of the linguistic pattern in
question.
This Lexical Construction Approach to language teaching is argued to bring together
currently accepted approaches to language teaching and to follow naturally from theories in
linguistics and acquisition which seek to bring together diverse strands in their respective
sub-fields. Hopefully, this work can thereby contribute to the ultimate aim of finding points
of agreement from linguistic theory to language acquisition and into the classroom, showing
that an abstract theory of mental structure can facilitate pedagogical decision-making in the
language classroom. If this aim is met, we will have taken one step closer to a unified
conceptualisation of language and language learning.
References
Doughty, C. (2003) Instructed SLA : Constraints, Compensation, Enhancement. In C.
Doughty and M. Long (eds.) Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford:
Blackwell pp.256-310.
Ellis, R. 1997. 'SLA and language pedagogy: An educational perspective.' Studies in
Second Language Acquisition 20: 69-92.
Jackendoff, R. (2002). Foundations of Language: Brain, Meaning, Grammar,
Evolution. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Jackendoff, R. (2007) Language Consciousness, and Culture: Essays on Mental
Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Lewis, M. (1993). The Lexical Approach. London, Language Teaching Publications.
Lewis, M., Ed. (2000). Teaching Collocation: Further Developments in the Lexical
Approach. Boston, MA, Heinle.
Long, M. (1991). Focus on form: a design feature in language teaching methodology.
Foreign Language Research in Cross-Cultural Perspective. K. d. BOT, R. B.
Ginsberg and C. Kramsch. Amsterdam, Benjamins: 39-52.
Long, M. and P. Robinson (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research and practice.
Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition. C. Doughty and J.
Williams. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Schmidt, R. W. (1993). "Awareness and second language acquisition." Annual Review
of Applied Linguistics 13: 206-226.
Sharwood Smith, M. (2004). "In two minds about grammar: On the interaction of
linguistic and metalinguistic knowledge in performance." Transactions of the
Philological Society 102(2): 255-280.
Truscott, J. (1998). "Noticing in second language acquisition: A critical review."
Second Language Research 14(2): 103-135.
Truscott, J. and M. Sharwood Smith (2004). "Acquisition by processing: A modular
perspective on language development." Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 7(1):
1-20.