Sorry it has been so long since my last posting, but I'm back! I came across this quotation in Thornbury's chapter "How to Teach Grammar from Rules," and I wanted to share it with you.
He says, "The point was made that it is not often the case that a linguist's version of a rule will be appropriate in a classroom context, and there will inevitably be, therefore, some trade-off between the truthfulness of a rule and the pedagogical worth of a rule" (p. 32).
I find the last part particularly interesting and I wanted to get your opinion on it. What do you think he means by "truthfulness" and "pedagogical worth"? How can being aware of the difference make us better grammar teachers?
Suscribirse a:
Enviar comentarios (Atom)
Ferdinand Saussure, who is considered the founder of modern linguistics, states that in order to define a rule, the chaos of language in use should be stripped away. Therefore, over-time dynamism and real-time dinamysm of grammar are excluded when generating a rule. In addition, organic dynamism, which refers to how native speakers alter the language code through time and use, is not considered by linguists. As a consequence, a rule that is considered to be true might not be true in certain instances or contexts because the meaning has changed. In fact, Larsen-Freeman states that ¨when linguists hypostasize language for the purpose of studying it systematically, language becomes an idealized, objectified, atemporal ¨thing¨. This is the reason why she proposes teaching grammar holistically, taking into account these variables. Thornbury states that a rule must be true, but a linguistic version of a rule is not always appropriate for classroom use. Using, metalanguage and teaching grammar as something arbitrary might not always be beneficial for students. Therefore, an adapted version of a rule for classroom use(pedagogic rule) should be generated by the teacher to facilitate understanding. Of course, the teacher must take into account the context in order to explain the form, meaning and use of a grammar item.
ResponderEliminarKnowing this difference makes us better grammar teachers because we promote understanding and assimilation of the target language, therefore it facilitates the transition between classroom language use and real-life language use.
Really nice analysis! You applied the theory extremely well to justify your answer. I would just like to add that being aware of this difference can make us better teacher because it also reminds us to leave room for exceptions. For instance, the rule might say that "ain't" doesn't exist and that it is incorrect to use it, but students might come to use with the lyrics of a song asking why most artists use it at one point or another. It's in cases like these when we have to explain to them the difference between the "absolute" rule and they way is actually applied by a particular group of people or in a particular context.
ResponderEliminar