EnglishClub

Introduction

When children first attend school and embark on the formal processes of learning to read and write, school learning purports to enable children to realise and release, as it were, their intrinsic potentialities of interpreting written text. Moreover, this release of potential is supposed to help children acquire a higher-order cultural awareness of their society, so that they may engage in the use of logic, science and religion. This is what has been dubbed “the classical torch” view of literacy and schooling (see Thomas, 2000: 43 for further details), and it has been criticised on certain grounds – that, for example, it creates a void between literates and non-literates, and that if school fails to achieve its goals for many of its pupils, the latter are doomed, as they are incapable of participating effectively in cultural interaction and their society’s high culture. Nevertheless, even if some students fail to become “literate” – mainly because much of school learning is concerned with the “technological” features of writing (ibid.: 44) – they still have a rich oral capacity, which has been neglected or even ignored by formal schooling. It is this rich oral capacity that will be the springboard for our discussion; yet, we will not focus on “non-literates'” tradition, which is said to be at variance with that of “literates.” We will only briefly examine the cultural dynamics of teaching, which should take into consideration the needs of all students.

Towards a cultural pedagogy

Generally speaking, all learners are potentially capable of achieving most learning objectives, provided that certain conditions of learning are met: adequate feedback, sufficient time on task, an awareness of the import of the material under study and, of course, an appreciation on the part of the teacher of the cultural context in which the learning is embedded. In this light, information about what styles and methods both teachers and learners employ in order to solve problems can tell us more about the context of learning and teaching than just knowing that the learner has provided the correct answer. In other words, it is more important to take a process perspective on schooling rather than a product one, inasmuch as there are a whole lot of mechanisms at work in the “process” which can affect the “product.” This perspective is an essential component of a pedagogy that addresses cultural needs. As Thomas (2000: 80) notes, research which identifies different cultural pedagogies, and describes the impact they may have on improving educational quality, will be a welcome antidote to the possible unifying excesses that educational change in the context of modernisation and globalisation is likely to bring.

The Nature of Pedagogy and Cultures of Teaching

The Changing Nature and Traditions of Pedagogy

The subject of pedagogy can be traced to the time of the Greeks, but in modern times most of what permeates developments in pedagogy has come from psychologists and educationists such as Piaget (1971), Bruner (1966), Shulman (1986), Schon (1983), and Bennett (1993), to name but a few. Sifting through the relevant literature, it is possible to discern three different theoretical traditions pertaining to research into teaching and teacher education that have emerged in the 1990s. Two of these traditions have been termed by Zeichner (1992) as “academic” and “social efficiency,” while the third tradition, referring to teaching as a “cultural process,” has been examined by Olson & Bruner (1996), Kruger & Tomasello (1996), and discussed by Thomas (1997a,b).

Apropos the first one, that is, the “academic” tradition, we could say that it draws on evidence which stakes out that teachers should have a sound knowledge base, in order for them to promote comprehension among their students. Shulman (1987) delineates seven such knowledge bases, which include content knowledge, general pedagogical knowledge, curriculum knowledge, pedagogical-content knowledge, knowledge of learners and their characteristics, knowledge of educational contexts, and knowledge of educational ends. His pedagogical reasoning model builds on these knowledge bases, identifying the skill of a teacher’s understanding, which plays a pivotal role in the development of comprehension among the learners.

The “social efficiency” tradition draws on research evidence from studies on teaching and learning in classrooms, which take a constructivist perspective on learning. Within this tradition, children are viewed as being actively involved intellectually with learning which accompanies the development of teaching skills and teacher knowledge to promote this very involvement (see Thomas, 2000: 84). Bennett (1993) has put forward a five-stage task model of teaching (see figure below), which places emphasis not only on the task at hand but teacher intention to involve learners in the process of teaching.

| Teacher intention >> Task >> Presentation >> Pupil Task Performance >> Assessment/Diagnosis | Teacher intention (and so forth)

The third tradition views teaching as a “cultural process” which reflects different cultures of teaching. Thus, the following discussion on the “teaching as a set of cultures” has an affinity with this tradition, since it is about how the various cultures of teaching might inform practitioners to develop pedagogies that would provide teachers (and learners) with guidance and enhanced forms of explanation in class.

Teaching as a Set of Cultures

The research on teaching as a set of cultures or subcultures should be seen as an expression of a universal need to improve teacher development. In the 1980s, the work of Schon (1983) and others on the notion of the reflective teacher gave rise to the debate on viewing teaching not as a mere activity but as a culture. As Thomas (2000: 85) insightfully remarks,

a duality of purpose arises which on one hand underlines the need to understand how teachers transmit their skills and knowledge, and on the other, how a teacher can further his or her personal development.

Apparently, teaching is a complex process, “not just a uniform set of encounters and traits” (ibid.). That is why we can speak of cultures of teaching rather than a culture of teaching. Furthermore, teaching is an intentional process (see Bennett’s [1993] model of teaching above), and cultural contexts may exert a tremendous influence on the nature and degree of intention in different teaching situations. For instance, as Thomas (2000: 86) writes, a mother who teaches her child to use a knife and fork at the table might be cooking or tidying up the kitchen while she is instructing the child. So, the child is very likely to register his mother’s non-intentional cooking and cleaning behaviours for later use, as well as the intentional task of learning to use eating utensils correctly. The bottom line is that both intentional and non-intentional teaching behaviours can enrich learners’ behavioural repertoires.

Conclusion

There is a lot more about the cultural dynamics of teaching that has been left out of our discussion. However, we should reiterate the theme of the present paper – that the intercultural role of a teacher is one of being aware of, and sensitive to, the cultural background of his or her pupils, which forms an important underpinning to successful schooling. The teacher should be perspicacious and culturally sensitive, and she should try to put this cultural sensitivity into action, making use of the “cross-cultural interfaces” (Thomas, 2000: 251) that exist in culturally diverse classrooms, and widening learners’ perspectives to a variety of “thorny” issues. The teacher is the ultimate key to bringing about cultural and educational change. Conversely, the teacher could be perceived as a potential barrier to change, especially in contexts where part of his role is to preserve cultural knowledge, traditions, and religious beliefs. The teacher is not there to reign; she is there to help herself and others to eradicate “thrones”.

REFERENCES

• Bennett, N. (1993). Knowledge bases for learning to teach. In N. Bennett & C. Carre (Eds), Learning to Teach. London: Routledge, pp. 1-17.
• Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward a Theory of Instruction. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
• Kruger, A. C. & Tomasello, M. (1996). Cultural learning and learning culture. In D. R. Olson & N. Torrance (Eds), Handbook of Education and Human Development: New Models of Learning, Teaching and Schooling. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 369-387.
• Olson, D. R. & Bruner, J. S. (1996). Folk psychology and folk pedagogy. In D. R. Olson & N. Torrance (Eds), handbook of Education and Human Development: New Models of Learning, Teaching and Schooling. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 9-27.
• Piaget, J. (1971). Science of Education and the Psychology of the Child. London: Longman.
• Schon, D. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner. New York: Basic books.
• Shulman, J. (1986). Paradigms and research programmes in the study of teaching: a contemporary perspective. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of Research in Teaching (3rd edn). New York: Macmillan.
• Shulman, J. (1987). Knowledge and teaching. Foundations of the new reforms. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 1-22.
• Thomas, E. (1997a). Teacher education and values transmission: cultural dilemmas with difficult choices. In K. Watson, C. Modgil & S. Modgil (Eds), Educational Dilemmas: Debate and Diversity. London: Cassell, pp. 246-259.
• Thomas, E. (1997b). Developing a culture sensitive pedagogy: tackling a problem of melding ??global culture?? within existing cultural contexts. International Journal of Educational Development, 17, 13-26.
• Thomas, E. (2000). Culture and Schooling. West Sussex: Wiley.
• Zeichner, K. M. (1992). Conceptions of reflective practice and teacher education. In G. Harvard & R. Dunne (Eds), Westminster Studies in Education, 15.

In grappling with the subject of motivation in the foreign language classroom, we will eschew a discussion of its various types, as they have been researched and talked about to death. In this paper, we will briefly examine a variety of techniques, strategies and macrostrategies which teachers can employ in order to motivate their students. As Dornyei (2001: 116) notes, “teacher skills in motivating learners should be seen as central to teaching effectiveness”. Even though there have been a lot of education-oriented publications providing taxonomies of classroom-specific motives, they fall short of offering an efficient guide to practitioners. Thus, our main goal is to familiarise any putative “practitioners” with a set of techniques and strategies (henceforward, “motivational strategies”) for motivating foreign language students.

Power in the classroom

Prior to presenting some of these motivational strategies, it would be of relevance to say a few things about the teacher/learner relationship. Whichever way we look at it, this relationship is riddled with power and status. For many, power plays a large part in the relationship (see “Language and Power in Education” for further details). The rights and duties of teachers and learners are related to power. For example, many teachers might assert that they have the right to punish those learners who misbehave. In any social encounter involving two or more people, there are certain power relationships “which are almost always asymmetrical” (Wright, 1987: 17). Social psychologists distinguish between three different types of power – coercive, reward-based, and referent (ibid.). The basis of coercive power is punishment. Some individuals or institutions have the authority to punish others. The basis of the second type of power is reward. Some individuals or institutions have the power to reward what they deem appropriate behaviour. For example, business organisations reward employees with a salary, a bonus etc. The basis of the third type of power is motivation. In this case, individuals or institutions appeal to the commitment and interest of others. In view of this three-fold paradigm, it is of importance to concern ourselves with the fostering of learner motivation, as it is considered to be the most effective and proactive, so to speak, power relationship.

Group processes and motivation

A discussion of motivation and motivational strategies would not be complete without a consideration of group processes, inasmuch as there is usually a group of people that we as teachers are called on to motivate. Tuckman (1969, quoted in Argyle, 1969) established that a group went through four stages from its formation, which has important implications for the study of the classroom and the use of group activities during teaching.

Stage 1 Forming: At first, there is some anxiety among the members of the group, as they are dependent on the leader (that is, the teacher) and they have to find out what behaviour is acceptable.

Stage 2 Storming: There is conflict between sub-groups and rebellion against the leader. Members of the group resist their leader and the role relations attending the function of the group are questioned.

Stage 3 Norming: The group begins to develop a sort of cohesion. Members of the group begin to support each other. At this stage, there is co-operation and open exchange of views and feelings about their roles and each other.

Stage 4 Performing: Most problems are resolved and there is a great deal of interpersonal activity. Everyone is devoted to completing the tasks they have been assigned.

Experience shows that almost every group goes through these four (or even more) stages until it reaches equilibrium and, thus, taps into its potential. In reality, this process may go on forever, since student lethargy and underachievement norms in the classroom are considered to be basic hindrances to effective teaching and learning (Daniels, 1994). Against this background, we will try to design a framework for motivational strategies.

A framework for motivational strategies

As we have already said, skill in motivating students to learn is of paramount importance. Until recently, however, teachers were forced to rely on “bag-of-tricks” approaches in their attempt to manage their classroom and motivate their learners. Good and Brophy (1994: 212) hold that these approaches have been influenced by two contradictory views: a) that learning should be fun and that any motivation problems that may appear should be ascribed to the teacher’s attempt to convert an enjoyable activity to drudgery; and b) that school activities are inherently boring and unrewarding, so that we must rely on extrinsic rewards and punishment with a view to forcing students to engage in these unpleasant tasks.

Rewards and punishments may be a mainstay of the teaching-learning process, but they are not the only tools in teachers’ arsenal. Dornyei (2001: 119) believes that “the spectrum of other potentially more effective motivational strategies is so broad that it is hard to imagine that none of them would work.”

The central question in designing a framework of motivational strategies is to decide how to organise them into separate themes. The following taxonomy, around which our main discussion will revolve, is based on the process-oriented model by Dornyei and Otto (1998). The key units in this taxonomy are as follows:

• Creating the basic motivational conditions, which involves setting the scene for the use of motivational strategies
• Generating student motivation, which roughly corresponds to the preactional phase in the model
• Maintaining and protecting motivation, which corresponds to the actional phase
• Encouraging positive self-evaluation, which corresponds to the postactional phase

Creating the basic motivational conditions

Motivational strategies cannot work in a vacuum, nor are they set in stone. There are certain preconditions to be met before any attempts to generate motivation can be effective. Some of these conditions are the following:

1. appropriate teacher behaviour and good teacher-student rapport
2. a pleasant and supportive classroom atmosphere
3. a cohesive learner group characterised by appropriate group norms

Appropriate teacher behaviour and good teacher-student rapport

Whatever is done by a teacher has a motivational, formative, influence on students. In other words, teacher behaviour is a powerful “motivational tool” (Dornyei, 2001: 120). Teacher influences are manifold, ranging from the rapport with the students to teacher behaviours which “prevail upon” and/or “attract” students to engage in tasks. For Alison (1993), a key element is to establish a relationship of mutual trust and respect with the learners, by means of talking with them on a personal level. This mutual trust could lead to enthusiasm. At any rate, enthusiastic teachers impart a sense of commitment to, and interest in, the subject matter, not only verbally but also non-verbally – cues that students take from them about how to behave.

A pleasant and supportive classroom atmosphere

It stands to reason that a tense classroom climate can undermine learning and demotivate learners (see MacIntyre, 1999 and Young, 1999 for further details). On the other hand, learner motivation will reach its peak in a safe classroom climate in which students can express their opinions and feel that they do not run the risk of being ridiculed.

To be motivated to learn, students need both ample opportunities to learn and steady encouragement and support of their learning efforts. Because such motivation is unlikely to develop in a chaotic classroom, it is important that the teacher organise and manage the classroom as an effective learning environment. Furthermore, because anxious or alienated students are unlikely to develop motivation to learn, it is important that learning occur within a relaxed and supportive atmosphere (Good and Brophy, 1994: 215).

A cohesive learner group characterised by appropriate group norms

As was hinted at above, fragmented groups, characterised by lack of cooperativeness, can easily become ineffective, thus putting paid to the individual members’ commitment to learn. There are several factors that promote group cohesiveness, such as the time spent together and shared group history, learning about each other, interaction, intergroup competition, common threat, active presence of the leader (see Ehrman and Dornyei, 1998: 142).

As for group norms, they should be discussed and adopted by members, in order to be constructive and long-lasting. If a norm mandated by a teacher fails to be accepted as proper by the majority of the class members, it will not become a group norm.

Generating student motivation

Ideally, all learners exhibit an inborn curiosity to explore the world, so they are likely to find the learning experience per se instrinsically pleasant. In reality, however, this “curiosity” is vitiated by such inexorable factors as compulsory school attendance, curriculum content, and grades – most importantly, the premium placed on them.

Apparently, unless teachers, inter alia, increase their learners’ “goal-orientedness”, make curriculum relevant for them, and create realistic learner beliefs, they will come up against a classroom environment fraught with lack of cohesiveness and rebellion.

Increasing the learners’ “goal-orientedness”

In an ordinary class, many, if not most, students do not understand why they are involved in an activity. It may be the case that the goal set by outsiders (i.e., the teacher or the curriculum) is far from being accepted by the group members. Thus, it would seem beneficial to increase the group’s goal-orientedness, that is, the extent to which the group tunes in to the pursuit of its official goal. This could be achieved by allowing students to define their own personal criteria for what should be a group goal.

Making the curriculum relevant for the learners

Many students do their homework and engage in all sorts of learning activities, even when a subject is not very interesting. Obviously, these students share the belief of the curriculum makers that what they are being taught will come in handy. In order to inspire learners to concern themselves with most learning activities, we should find out their goals and the topics they want to learn, and try to incorporate them into the curriculum. According to Chambers (1999: 37), “If the teacher is to motivate pupils to learn, then relevance has to be the red thread permeating activities”.

Creating realistic learner beliefs

It is widely acknowledged that learner beliefs about how much progress to expect, and at what pace, can, and do, lead to disappointment. Therefore, it is important to help learners get rid of their preconceived notions that are likely to hinder their attainment. To this end, learners need to develop an understanding of the nature of second language learning, and should be cognisant of the fact that the mastery of L2 can be achieved in different ways, using a diversity of strategies, and a key factor is for learners to discover for themselves the optimal methods and techniques.

Maintaining and protecting motivation

Unless motivation is sustained and protected when action has commenced, the natural tendency to get tired or bored of the task and succumb to any attractive distractions will result in demotivation. Therefore, there should be a motivational repertoire including several motivation maintenance strategies. Let us have a look at two of them: a) increasing the learners’ self-confidence; and b) creating learner autonomy.

Increasing the learners’ self-confidence

In an inherently face-threatening context, as the language classroom is likely to be, it is important to find out how to maintain and increase the learners’ self-confidence. There are five approaches that purport to help to this end (Dornyei, 2001: 130):

1. Teachers can foster the belief that competence is a changeable aspect of development.
2. Favourable self-conceptions of L2 competence can be promoted by providing regular experiences of success.
3. Everyone is more interested in a task if they feel that they make a contribution.
4. A small personal word of encouragement is sufficient.
5. Teachers can reduce classroom anxiety by making the learning context less stressful.

Creating learner autonomy

Many educationists and researchers (Benson, 2000; Little, 1991; Wenden, 1991; also see my article, “What is Learner Autonomy and How can it be Fostered?”) argue that taking charge of one’s learning, that is, becoming an autonomous learner, can prove beneficial to learning. This assumption is premised on humanistic psychology, namely that “the only kind of learning which significantly affects behaviour is self-discovered, self-appropriated learning” (Rogers, 1961: 276). Benson (2000, found in Dornyei, 2001: 131) distinguishes between five types of practice fostering the development of autonomy:

1. resource-based approaches, which emphasise independent interaction with learning materials
2. technology-based approaches, which emphasise independent interaction with educational technologies
3. learner-based approaches, which emphasise the direct production of behavioural and psychological changes in the learner
4. classroom-based approaches, which emphasise changes in the relationship between learners and teachers in the classroom
5. curriculum-based approaches, which extend the idea of learner control over the planning and evaluation of learning to the curriculum as a whole

Good and Brophy (1994: 228) note that “the simplest way to ensure that people value what they are doing is to maximise their free choice and autonomy” – a sentiment shared by Ushioda (1997: 41), who remarks that “Self-motivation is a question of thinking effectively and meaningfully about learning experience and learning goals. It is a question of applying positive thought patterns and belief structures so as to optimise and sustain one’s involvement in learning”.

Encouraging positive self-evaluation

Research has shown that the way learners feel about their accomplishments and the amount of satisfaction they experience after task completion will determine how teachers approach and tackle subsequent learning tasks. By employing appropriate strategies, the latter can help learners to evaluate themselves in a positive light, encouraging them to take credit for their advances. Dornyei (2001: 134) presents three areas of such strategies:

1. promoting attributions to effort rather than to ability
2. providing motivational feedback
3. increasing learner satisfaction and the question of rewards and grades

We will only briefly discuss the third one.

Increasing learner satisfaction and the question of rewards and grades

The feeling of satisfaction is a significant factor in reinforcing achievement behaviour, which renders satisfaction a major component of motivation. Motivational strategies aimed at increasing learner satisfaction usually focus on allowing students to display their work, encouraging them to be proud of themselves and celebrate success, as well as using rewards. The latter, though, do not work properly within a system where grades are “the ultimate embodiment of school rewards, providing a single index for judging overall success and failure in school” (ibid.). In other words, grades focus on performance outcomes, rather than on the process of learning itself. Consequently, “many students are grade driven, not to say, ‘grade grubbing,’ and this preoccupation begins surprisingly early in life” (Covington, 1999: 127).

There is also a wide assortment of macrostrategies used to foster motivation, but we will not dwell on them (see Dornyei, 2001: 137-140 for more details).

Conclusion

In general, motivation is the “neglected heart” of our understanding of how to design instruction (Keller, 1983, quoted in Dornyei, 2001: 116). Many teachers believe that by sticking to the language materials and trying to discipline their refractory students, they will manage to create a classroom environment that will be conducive to learning. Nevertheless, these teachers seem to lose sight of the fact that, unless they accept their students’ personalities and work on those minute details that constitute their social and psychological make-up, they will fail to motivate them. What is more, they will not be able to form a cohesive and coherent group, unless they succeed in turning most “curriculum goals” (goals set by outsiders) into “group goals” (goals accepted by the group members, that is, students). Learning a foreign language is different to learning other subjects. Therefore, language teaching should take account of a variety of factors that are likely to promote, or even militate against, success. Language is part of one’s identity and is used to convey this identity to others. As a result, foreign language learning has a significant impact on the social being of the learner, since it involves the adoption of new social and cultural behaviours and ways of thinking.

REFERENCES

• Alison, J. 1993. Not bothered? Motivating reluctant language learners in Key Stage 4: London: CILT.
• Argyle, M. 1969. Social Interaction. London: Tavistock Press.
• Benson, P. 2000. Teaching and researching autonomy in language learning. London: Longman.
• Chambers, G. N. 1999. Motivating language learners. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
• Covington, M. 1999. Caring about learning: The nature and nurturing of subjectmatter appreciation. Educational Psychologist, 34: 127-36.
• Daniels, R. 1994. Motivational mediators of cooperative learning. Psychological Reports, 74: 1011-22.
• Dornyei, Z. and Otto, I. 1998. Motivation in action: A process model of L2 motivation. Working Papers in Applied Linguistics (London: Thames Valley University), 4: 43-69.
• Dornyei, Z. 2001. Teaching and Researching Motivation. England: Pearson Education Limited.
• Ehrman, M. E. and Dornyei, Z. 1998. Interpersonal dynamics in second language Education: The visible and invisible classroom. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Good, T. L. and Brophy, J. E. 1994. Looking in classrooms. 6th edition. New York: HarperCollins.
• Little, D. 1991. Learner autonomy 1: Definitions, issues and problems. Dublin: Authentik.
• MacIntyre, P. D. 1999. Language anxiety: A review of the research for language Teachers. In Young, D. J. (ed.). Affect in foreign language and second language learning. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill, pp. 24-45.
• Rogers, C. 1991. On becoming a person. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
• Ushioda, E. 1997. The role of motivational thinking in autonomous language Learning. In Little, D. and Voss, B. (Eds.). Language centres: Planning for the new millennium. Plymouth: University of Plymouth, CERCLES, Centre for Modern Languages, pp. 39-50.
• Wenden, A. 1991. Learner strategies for learner autonomy. Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall.
• Wright, T. 1987. Roles of Teachers & Learners. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Young, D. J. (ed.). 1999. Affect in foreign language and second language learning. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

Introduction

The English language teaching tradition has been subject to tremendous change, especially throughout the twentieth century. Perhaps more than any other discipline, this tradition has been practiced, in various adaptations, in language classrooms all around the world for centuries. While the teaching of Maths or Physics, that is, the methodology of teaching Maths or Physics, has, to a greater or lesser extent, remained the same, this is hardly the case with English or language teaching in general. As will become evident in this short paper, there are some milestones in the development of this tradition, which we will briefly touch upon, in an attempt to reveal the importance of research in the selection and implementation of the optimal methods and techniques for language teaching and learning.

The Classical Method

In the Western world back in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries, foreign language learning was associated with the learning of Latin and Greek, both supposed to promote their speakers’ intellectuality. At the time, it was of vital importance to focus on grammatical rules, syntactic structures, along with rote memorisation of vocabulary and translation of literary texts. There was no provision for the oral use of the languages under study; after all, both Latin and Greek were not being taught for oral communication but for the sake of their speakers’ becoming “scholarly?” or creating an illusion of “erudition.” Late in the nineteenth century, the Classical Method came to be known as the Grammar Translation Method, which offered very little beyond an insight into the grammatical rules attending the process of translating from the second to the native language.

It is widely recognised that the Grammar Translation Method is still one of the most popular and favourite models of language teaching, which has been rather stalwart and impervious to educational reforms, remaining a standard and sine qua non methodology. With hindsight, we could say that its contribution to language learning has been lamentably limited, since it has shifted the focus from the real language to a “dissected body” of nouns, adjectives, and prepositions, doing nothing to enhance a student’s communicative ability in the foreign language.

Gouin and Berlitz – The Direct Method

The last two decades of the nineteenth century ushered in a new age. In his The Art of Learning and Studying Foreign Languages (1880), Francois Gouin described his “harrowing” experiences of learning German, which helped him gain insights into the intricacies of language teaching and learning. Living in Hamburg for one year, he attempted to master the German language by dint of memorising a German grammar book and a list of the 248 irregular German verbs, instead of conversing with the natives. Exulting in the security that the grounding in German grammar offered him, he hastened to go to the University to test his knowledge. To no avail. He could not understand a word! After his failure, he decided to memorise the German roots, but with no success. He went so far as to memorise books, translate Goethe and Schiller, and learn by heart 30,000 words in a dictionary, only to meet with failure. Upon returning to France, Gouin discovered that his three-year-old nephew had managed to become a chatterbox of French – a fact that made him think that the child held the secret to learning a language. Thus, he began observing his nephew and came to the conclusion (arrived at by another researcher a century before him!) that language learning is a matter of transforming perceptions into conceptions and then using language to represent these conceptions. Equipped with this knowledge, he devised a teaching method premised upon these insights. It was against this background that the Series Method was created, which taught learners directly a “series” of connected sentences that are easy to understand. For instance,

I stretch out my arm. I take hold of the handle. I turn the handle. I open the door. I pull the door.

Nevertheless, this approach to language learning was short-lived and, only a generation later, gave place to the Direct Method, posited by Charles Berlitz. The basic tenet of Berlitz’s method was that second language learning is similar to first language learning. In this light, there should be lots of oral interaction, spontaneous use of the language, no translation, and little if any analysis of grammatical rules and syntactic structures. In short, the principles of the Direct Method were as follows:

• Classroom instruction was conducted in the target language
• There was an inductive approach to grammar
• Only everyday vocabulary was taught
• Concrete vocabulary was taught through pictures and objects, while abstract vocabulary was taught by association of ideas

The Audiolingual Method

The outbreak of World War II heightened the need for Americans to become orally proficient in the languages of their allies and enemies alike. To this end, bits and pieces of the Direct Method were appropriated in order to form and support this new method, the “Army Method,” which came to be known in the 1950s as the Audiolingual Method.

The Audiolingual Method was based on linguistic and psychological theory and one of its main premises was the scientific descriptive analysis of a wide assortment of languages. On the other hand, conditioning and habit-formation models of learning put forward by behaviouristic psychologists were married with the pattern practices of the Audiolingual Method. The following points sum up the characteristics of the method:

• Dependence on mimicry and memorisation of set phrases
• Teaching structural patterns by means of repetitive drills (??Repetitio est mater studiorum??)
• No grammatical explanation
• Learning vocabulary in context
• Use of tapes and visual aids
• Focus on pronunciation
• Immediate reinforcement of correct responses

But its popularity waned after 1964, partly because of Wilga Rivers’s exposure of its shortcomings. It fell short of promoting communicative ability as it paid undue attention to memorisation and drilling, while downgrading the role of context and world knowledge in language learning. After all, it was discovered that language was not acquired through a process of habit formation and errors were not necessarily bad or pernicious.

The “Designer” Methods of the 1970s

The Chomskyan revolution in linguistics drew the attention of linguists and language teachers to the “deep structure” of language, while psychologists took account of the affective and interpersonal nature of learning. As a result, new methods were proposed, which attempted to capitalise on the importance of psychological factors in language learning. David Nunan (1989: 97) referred to these methods as “designer” methods, on the grounds that they took a “one-size-fits-all” approach. Let us have a look at two of these “designer” methods.

Suggestopedia

Suggestopedia promised great results if we use our brain power and inner capacities. Lozanov (1979) believed that we are capable of learning much more than we think. Drawing upon Soviet psychological research on yoga and extrasensory perception, he came up with a method for learning that used relaxation as a means of retaining new knowledge and material. It stands to reason that music played a pivotal role in his method. Lozanov and his followers tried to present vocabulary, readings, role-plays and drama with classical music in the background and students sitting in comfortable seats. In this way, students became “suggestible.”

Of course, suggestopedia offered valuable insights into the “superlearning” powers of our brain but it was demolished on several fronts. For instance, what happens if our classrooms are bereft of such amenities as comfortable seats and Compact Disk players? Certainly, this method is insightful and constructive and can be practised from time to time, without necessarily having to adhere to all its premises. A relaxed mind is an open mind and it can help a student to feel more confident and, in a sense, pliable.

The Silent Way

The Silent Way rested on cognitive rather than affective arguments, and was characterised by a problem-solving approach to learning. Gattegno (1972) held that it is in learners’ best interests to develop independence and autonomy and cooperate with each other in solving language problems. The teacher is supposed to be silent – hence the name of the method – and must disabuse himself of the tendency to explain everything to them.

The Silent Way came in for an onslaught of criticism. More specifically, it was considered very harsh, as the teacher was distant and, in general lines, the classroom environment was not conducive to learning.

Strategies-based instruction

The work of O’Malley and Chamot (1990), and others before and after them, emphasised the importance of style awareness and strategy development in ensuring mastery of a foreign language. In this vein, many textbooks and entire syllabi offered guidelines on constructing strategy-building activities. Below there is an example of a list of the “Ten Commandments” for good language learning (taken from Brown, H. D. [2000: 137]):

	Teacher’s Version	Learner’s Version
1	Lower inhibitions	Fear not!
2	Encourage risk-taking	Dive in
3	Build self-confidence	Believe in yourself
4	Develop intrinsic motivation	Seize the day
5	Engage in cooperative learning	Love thy neighbour
6	Use right-brain processes	Get the BIG picture
7	Promote ambiguity tolerance	Cope with the chaos
8	Practice intuition	Go with your hunches
9	Process error feedback	Make mistakes work FOR you
10	Set personal goals	Set your own goals

These suggestions cum injunctions are able to sensitise learners to the importance of attaining autonomy, that is, taking charge of their own learning, and not expecting the teacher to deliver everything to them.

Communicative Language Teaching

The need for communication has been relentless, leading to the emergence of the Communicative Language Teaching. Having defined and redefined the construct of communicative competence; having explored the vast array of functions of language that learners are supposed to be able to accomplish; and having probed the nature of styles and nonverbal communication, teachers and researchers are now better equipped to teach (about) communication through actual communication, not merely theorising about it.

At this juncture, we should say that Communicative Language Teaching is not a method; it is an approach, which transcends the boundaries of concrete methods and, concomitantly, techniques. It is a theoretical position about the nature of language and language learning and teaching.

Let us see the basic premises of this approach:

• Focus on all of the components of communicative competence, not only grammatical or linguistic competence. Engaging learners in the pragmatic, functional use of language for meaningful purposes
• Viewing fluency and accuracy as complementary principles underpinning communicative techniques
• Using the language in unrehearsed contexts

Conclusion

From all the above we can see that the manageable stockpile of research of just a few decades ago has given place to a systematic storehouse of information. Researchers the world over are meeting, talking, comparing notes, and arriving at some explanations that give the lie to past explanations. As Brown (2000: ix) notes, “Our research miscarriages are fewer as we have collectively learned how to conceive the right questions”. Nothing is taken as gospel; nothing is thrown out of court without being put to the test. This “test” may always change its mechanics, but the fact remains that the changing winds and shifting sands of time and research are turning the desert into a longed-for oasis.

Reference

Brown, H. D. (2000) Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. New York: Longman.

Each one of us is aware that our style of speech changes in the twinkling of an eye, as it were, depending on a wide range of variables such as the setting, the topic of discourse, the person we are interacting with, the purpose of the interaction, and so on. For instance, we tend to speak more slowly when conversing with foreigners, or use grammatically simple language with babies or children (babytalk). In other words, we accommodate to others by adjusting our communicational behaviour to the requisite roles that participants are assigned in a given context. In the present study, we will content ourselves with accommodation theory or “accommodative processes” (Giles & Coupland, 1991) in relation to identity, with a view to shedding light on the different ways in which speakers may manipulate language “to maintain integrity, distance or identity” (ibid, p. 66). Furthermore, we will address ourselves to the reasons why low-prestige language varieties and stigmatised accents persist in a society where the use of standard speech confers prestige and power on its users. In short, the study of accommodation theory may, on the one hand, reveal the extent to which language impinges on our lives, resulting in the maintenance or breakdown of human relationships, and on the other give useful insights into the tendency for different varieties to evoke or “trigger” different perceptions of their speakers.

It is a truism that accommodating to others’ speech may prove beneficial or detrimental, in the long run. For example, immigrants whose command of standard English or any other language is not “up to scratch” is bound to suffer discrimination and prejudice on the part of teachers and society at large, which puts paid to their educational and career prospects. Moreover, adapting our speech patterns (pronunciation, speech rate, content etc.) to those of our interlocutors can exert a tremendous influence on our career prospects and prestige, or even affect the judicial outcome of a trial. At any rate,

…accommodation is to be seen as a multiply-organized and contextually complex set of alternatives, regularly available to communicators in face-to-face talk. It can function to index and achieve solidarity with or dissociation from a conversational partner, reciprocally and dynamically (Giles & Coupland, 1991: 60-61).

Accommodation theory or “interpersonal accommodation theory” has sprung from the awareness that speakers are not merely “incumbents” (Runciman, 1998) of roles imposed on them by society but rather as inquirers attempting to comprehend themselves and others. Viewing individuals as objects called upon to modify their speech in accordance with socially prescribed norms leaves much to be desired, in so far as it ignores the interactants” feelings and motives, which undoubtedly inform and permeate the production and interpretation of their verbal output. Accommodation theory focuses on the interactive aspects of communication and highlights its “negotiative” nature. So, in order to do justice to this model of speech diversity – that is, interpersonal accommodation theory – we should examine four social psychological theories that actually constitute it and account for people’s tendency to converge towards or diverge away from the speech of others: similarity-attraction, social exchange, causal attribution, and Tajfel’s theory of intergroup distinctiveness.

A very common modification of speech is what has been dubbed as convergence. This term refers to the processes whereby two or more individuals alter or shift their speech to resemble that of those they are interacting with. By the same token, divergence refers to the ways in which speakers accentuate their verbal and non-verbal differences in order to distinguish themselves from others. As was mentioned above, there is a tendency for people to become more alike in terms of linguistic, prosodic or non-verbal features, including pronunciation, utterance length, pauses, speech rates, vocal intensities, as well as facial expressions and the “intimacy of their self-disclosures” (McAllister and Keisler, 1975, cited in Giles & Clair, 1979: 46). What is more, many studies have emerged showing that convergence in interethnic settings exists at six years of age (Aboud, 1976, cited in Giles & Coupland, 1991), though a deeper knowledge of the sociocultural norms pertaining to language use is acquired throughout childhood and adolescence.

Therefore, we could contend that the “universality” of convergence strategies may well point to people’s perennial need for social approval and mutual intelligibility, which is the underlying assumption proposed by similarity-attraction theory. “The more similar our attitudes and beliefs are to certain others”, so the theory goes, “the more likely it is we will be attracted to them” (Byrne, 1969, cited in Giles & Clair, 1979: 47). For example, when an acquaintance of ours pronounces “leak” as “lick,” it is probably the case that, out of politeness and because of the need to maintain solidarity and rapport, we will ignore her mistake and go on with the conversation. The same applies to affective language and phatic expressions such as Hello, how are you this morning? or I’m awfully sorry, where two or more persons converge towards one another both verbally and non-verbally (e.g., by mutual gazing or smiling etc.), in order to signal that they are on the same wavelength and wish to maintain good relationships. Interestingly, as Natalé (1975, cited in Giles & Clair, 1979) believes, individuals with high needs for social approval and intelligibility have the propensity for converging more to others” pause length and vocal intensities than those with higher self-esteem and lower needs for approval.

Moving away from the possible rewards attending an act of convergence, such as an increase in social approval, we must also consider the costsinvolved, i.e., an increased effort to appear likeable and friendly, and the concomitant loss of personal integrity and identity that such an effort may entail. Of course, social exchange theory suggests that speakers and listeners share “a common set of interpretative procedures which allow the speaker’s intentions to be (i) encoded by the speaker, and (ii) correctly interpreted by the listener” (Giles & Clair, 1979: 46-47). Besides, it presupposes that, “prior to acting, we attempt to assess the rewards and costs of alternate courses of action” (Homans, 1961, cited in Giles & Clair, 1979: 48). Thus, engaging in speech convergence may incur more rewards than costs. For instance, in England “Received-Pronunciation” (RP) speakers are looked upon as more intelligent, serious and self-confident than regional accented speakers. In the same vein, there is empirical evidence that people react more favourably to those converging towards them, while it is almost always the case that the very same persons judged favourably in the first case will be denigrated as uneducated, uncouth and socially incompetent when using vernacular varieties, as the matched-guise technique developed by Wallace Lambert and his associates has shown (Fasold, 1987: 149-150). Moreover, the act of convergence, upward and downward, may stand one in good stead. Consider the case where a young employee, aspiring to a salary rise or promotion, may converge upwards towards his boss by using formal language; or when an employer converges downwards towards his workers in order to win their approval.

Nevertheless, observing people’s behaviour and taking it at face value is not what interpersonal communication is all about. Causal attribution theory proposes that, when we interact with others, we engage in an interpretative process, evaluating the individuals in terms of the possible motives that we attribute as the cause of their action. For example, we do not just observe an affluent man helping the poor and instantly become enraptured by his kindness and generosity. Rather, we tend to consider his motives first. In this light, if we attribute to him a personal gain from this act, then we may take a dim view of his behaviour, judging him negatively as a shallow and Machiavellian opportunist. By the same token, speech convergence may not be favourably received when attributions of speakers” intentions are negative. For instance, an experiment has shown that, when French Canadian listeners attributed an English Canadian’s shift to French to his desire to achieve solidarity, they judged him favourably. However, when his act was attributed to pressures forcing him to converge, less positive feelings were evoked (Simard, Taylor and Giles, 1976, cited in Giles & Clair, 1979: 50).

Within the context of the theory of intergroup distinctiveness, Tajfel proposes that when different groups come in contact, there is a tendency for them to compare themselves on the grounds of abilities, possessions, personal traits, accomplishments, and so forth. According to his theory, these “intergroup social comparisons” will assist individuals in forging their group image and positive ingroup distinctiveness. It may be the case that individuals seek solace in the knowledge that they are part of groups which enjoy some primacy and prestige. Given that speech is to be seen “as an identity adjustment made to increase group status and favourability” (Edwards, 1985: 152), we could argue that in situations when group membership has to be accentuated and supported, speech divergence may be an important strategy for distinguishing oneself from members of other groups. An example of speech divergence is given in Holmes (1992: 257):

A number of people who were learning Welsh were asked to help with a survey. In their separate booths in the language laboratory, they were asked a number of questions by an RP-sounding English speaker. At one point this speaker arrogantly challenged the learners’ reasons for trying to acquire Welsh which he called a “dying language which had a dismal future”. In responding to this statement the learners generally broadened their Welsh accents. Some introduced Welsh words into their answers, while others used an aggressive tone. One woman did not reply for a while, and then she was heard conjugating Welsh verbs very gently into the microphone.

As is flagrantly obvious, the respondents diverged from the speech style and language of the person addressing them because they felt threatened and denigrated. “They disagreed with his sentiments and had no desire to accommodate to his speech” (ibid, p. 257).

That “non-convergence” or divergence may act as a symbol whereby members of an ethnic group can signal their intention of maintaining their distinctiveness is further exemplified by the decision of the Arab nations to issue an oil communiqué to the world in Arabic, thus making a political statement. They no longer wished to accommodate to the Western English-speaking powers. The same applies to Maori dissidents who, despite the fact that they can speak English fluently, they have insisted on speaking Maori in court.

As a matter of fact, there are cases where divergence between groups is expected, its absence being construed as a token of dissociation from intergroup values and norms and thus as a signal of unwarranted friendliness and allegiance to the opposing group.

In certain intergroup encounters, members of opposing or competing groups may expect nothing less than some linguistic divergence (rather than convergence) if only to remind themselves that they indeed have a dispute or difference (cf. Doise, Sinclair and Bourhis, 1976). Failure to confirm these expectations might indicate that something was “wrong”, that the intergroup situation had changed somehow without one party being aware of it… Indeed, one can imagine situations in which the “right” amount of divergence might elicit co-operation where convergence would not (Giles & Clair, 1979: 63).

Therefore, divergence can be a tactic of intergroup distinctiveness at the disposal of people seeking a positive social identity. On an interpersonal note, overdoing divergence – as well as convergence – may offend others. Scotton (1985, cited in Giles & Coupland, 1991) introduced the term “dis-accommodation” to refer to the shift of registers by certain people in repeating something uttered by their interlocutors. For example, a thirty-year old man might say, “OK, mate, let’s get it together at the bar at 6:00 tomorrow”, and receive the reply from a fifty-year old man, “Fine, young man, we’ll meet again, 18:00, at your house tomorrow.” Maintaining one’s idiosyncratic speech patterns may be spontaneous and inherently unexceptionable, but when it comes to communication, one may be frowned upon as disdainful, pompous and unapproachable when systematically diverging away from others’ speech. Let us give an example of over-convergence. Imagine a situation where a person converges towards the pronunciation of someone talking in a lisp. It is highly unlikely that she will be regarded as polite or as signalling that she is on the same wavelength, seeking to achieve solidarity and good rapport with her interlocutor. Rather than sounding considerate and friendly, she will be perceived as patronising or even unctuous.

Having dilated upon these four social psychological theories, i.e., similarity-attraction, social exchange, causal attribution, and Tajfel’s theory of intergroup distinctiveness, we have moved “closer to the interactive interface between speaker and listener, and [arrived] at the conception of the procedures employed by them in the production and interpretation of speech style shifts” (Giles & Clair, 1979: 53). Yet, we have to consider some cases when the speaker may be perceived as optimally accommodating. Giles & Smith (1979, cited in Giles & Coupland, 1991) presented eight versions of a tape recording to several English subjects. The taped voice was that of a Canadian, who either converged or diverged on three dimensions, i.e., pronunciation, speech rate, and speech content. It was shown that listeners appreciated convergence on each of the aforementioned levels separately, while they dismissed full convergence on all three levels as patronising. The bottom line is that when the speaker converged in terms of content plus speech rate, he was most favourably evaluated.

Besides, Giles & Smith argued that there may also be optimal rates of convergence and divergence. More specifically, Aronson and Linder (1965, cited in Giles & Coupland, 1991) proposed “gain-loss” theory of attraction, according to which people feel stronger liking for those whose respect they are acquiring than for those whose respect they already enjoy. What can be extrapolated from this is that convergence is preferable and more effective when taking place incrementally than all at once. “Gain-loss” theory also claims that people dislike those whose respect they have lost rather than those who have never held them in high regard. Looked at from an “accommodation theory” perspective, individuals are apt to disapprove of those who diverge sequentially away more than those who diverge all at once.

We have hitherto been concerned with two basic accommodation strategies – convergence and divergence – which are deployed by individuals to signal identification with, or dissociation from, the communication patterns of others. In this light, we could say that these strategies are the linguistic realisations of deeper goals and orientations that individuals tacitly negotiate. Thakerar et al. (1982, cited in Giles & Coupland, 1991) have made the distinction of psychological versus linguistic accommodation, defining the former as individuals’ integrative or dissociative orientations to others, and the latter as the speech strategies realising these orientations.

Apart from this, Thakerar et al. (1982, cited in Giles & Coupland, 1991) have suggested that convergence and divergence are not only affective phenomena but may also function as cognitive organisation devices.

The cognitive organization function involves communicative features being used by communicators to organize events into meaningful social categories, thereby allowing the complex social situation to be reduced to manageable proportions. In this way, speakers may organize their outputs to take into account the requirements of their listeners; listeners may select from this discourse and organize it according to the cognitive structures most easily available for comprehension (Brown and Dell, 1987, cited in Giles & Coupland, 1991).

Clear examples of such devices are “babytalk” – which fulfils the cognitive organisation function of simplifying one’s output – and a sociologist’s attempt to make himself understood to people who are not versed in the jargon.

A question germane to the present study is, “why do low-prestige language varieties persist?”. Why is it that certain groups of people insist on using vernacular varieties, even though, in doing so, they may run into intractable difficulties, in terms of educational and career prospects, prestige and status, and so forth? In fact, one might expect these varieties to disappear, given that the high prestige standard is used predominantly by the social groups with the highest status. Yet, rather than deteriorating, vernacular dialects may – and in some cases have – become a regional standard over a high status variety, an oft-quoted example being Greece, where katharevousa, the standard variety, has been replaced by dhimotiki, a vernacular.

Attempting an answer to the question posed, Gubuglo (1973, cited in Giles & Clair, 1979) ascribes the preservation of non-standard dialects to the value of language as a symbol of group identity. Furthermore, Taylor and associates (Taylor, Bassili and Aboud, 1973; Taylor, Simard and Aboud, 1972, cited in Giles & Clair, 1979: 147) believe that language is a critical dimension of identity, while Patterson (1975, cited in Giles & Clair, 1979) holds that, just as ethnicity is a matter of choice, accent or dialect adoption is a matter of conscious choice.

Thus, although regional, ethnic, and lower-class individuals have limited access to opportunities for acquiring the prestige variety compared to members of the high status groups, much of the failure of these individuals to profit from whatever opportunities are available is due to counter-acting pressures favouring their native speech styles (ibid, p. 148).

Indeed, the more important it is for a particular group to maintain its cultural distinctiveness, the more salient language becomes. In a way, “language functions as a very sensitive filter through which one’s perception of self, own group, and others must pass” (ibid, p. 187).

Nevertheless, depending on individuals’ motivation and purposes, such “low-prestige” varieties may lose ground to the standard variety, if the speakers of non-standard forms choose to move away from the contexts in which these are vernaculars. In other cases, many speakers of regional dialects may become bi-dialectal, shifting their speech according to the situations they are in.

To sum up, we could say that accommodation theory has helped us understand why individuals speak the way they do, accounting for the manner in which they interpret their own roles and those of their interlocutors, as well as the procedures they resort to in order to act meaningfully. What is more, the “accommodative processes” that people employ may fulfil the function of attenuating or accentuating their social identity, which inescapably opens up new vistas of study.

References

• Edwards, J. 1985. Language, society and identity. Oxford: Blackwell.
• Fasold, R. W. 1987. The Sociolinguistics of Society. Oxford: Blackwell.
• Giles, H. & Clair, R. 1979. Language and Social Psychology. Oxford: Blackwell.
• Giles, H. & Coupland, N. 1991. Language: Contexts and Consequences. Keynes: Open University Press.
• Holmes, J. 1992. An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. London: Longman.
• Runciman, W. G. 1998. The Social Animal. Great Britain: Harper Collins Publishers.

There is no denying that idioms put most learners of English through their paces as the former seem to crop up without rhyme or reason. You see? Even an introductory article concerning idioms cannot be totally bereft of them, so to speak! Things are considerably easier when it comes to learning the rudiments of the language: the essentials of grammar, some sophisticated or advanced vocabulary, some elaborate constructions such as inversion, etc. Nothing daunted! But as soon as students cross the threshold of First Certificate or Proficiency in English, they begin to quail at the prospect of dealing with phrases whose meaning is at odds with the meaning of the words comprising them! As for teachers, it seems that they would be better off without them. Well, on reflection, this stands to reason. By virtue of there being a great, overwhelming difficulty on the student’s as well as on the teacher’s part in tackling indisputably “thorny” and abstruse idioms, many books may have baffled those who aspire to familiarize themselves with what is called “a problematic area.” Either by providing lists of idiomatic phrases with no explanations or contexts of any kind, or by furnishing examples that do not sufficiently illustrate the meaning of each idiom, a lot of dictionaries and reference books contrive to “inundate” learners with seemingly trivial and frustrating phrases and expressions rather than guide them on how and when to use them. To this end, an effective treatment of idioms should provide the correct semantic, pragmatic and linguistic framework, namely, context and co-text, thereby highlighting the significance and “merit” of each idiom. In this way, the learner becomes conversant with many ways of saying the same thing, and does not revert to using common standard English.

So, how do we set about explaining idioms? Saying to a student that to kick the bucket means to die is like trying to teach Maths without a blackboard! It seems to me more of a forlorn hope than a sound teaching strategy. According to my own lights, what is needed is simple, albeit of paramount importance: context. I wonder why we have flouted and overlooked this significant parameter. If a student uses a tense incorrectly or commits any other error, such as a prefabricated pattern, to the effect “I don’t know where is he” instead of “I don’t know where he is”, the teacher hastens to correct him / her. Why is it that the very same, punctilious teacher underplays idioms and their correct framework? Is it because he / she rates linguistic competence higher than communicative competence and performance? I am afraid that we cannot hold out much hope of mastering a language by dint of linguistic competence alone. Sooner or later, all these hordes of linguistically competentspeakers are thwarted in their aspirations the very first time they engage in conversation with a native speaker. Once again, context is the keynote and remedy. Let us see why this is so.

Imagine that in his attempt to explain the idiomatic phrase to bite the dust, your teacher comes out with something like this:

bite / kiss / lick the dust = die or cease to function or exist slang

A “perspicacious” student may understand that alongside the phrase to bite the dust, he can use to kiss the dust and to lick the dust, as well. Furthermore, he is acquainted with the semantic meaning of the idiom: die or cease to function or exist. What about its pragmatic meaning? Who or what dies or ceases to function or exist? And when? Are any of these elements provided in any way by means of this explanation? Not by a long chalk, one would exclaim. Certainly not, I would say. Well, the word slang may vaguely provide one with part of the pragmatic component of the meaning of the phrase, yet its contribution falls short of its aim. The befuddled student may realize that this expression cannot be used in formal contexts but he /she is still groping in the dark. Equipped with this knowledge, how would the poor learner of English idioms use this phrase in his own example? It is flagrantly obvious that he would rather go out for a walk than subject himself to this ordeal. Who is to blame, really? The teacher, the student, or the book? That is anybody’s guess!

What if the book or the teacher provided an example in order to illustrate the meaning of this phrase? Let us see how:

“Our old washing machine has finally kissed the dust! It’s about time we bought a new one!” or “A hundred men licked the dust in battle.”

Now the student nods in approval. He has the necessary information in order to discern the meaning of a phrase he has never seen or heard before. He can see that what kisses the dust can be an old washing machine as well as a hundred men in battle. He is not reduced to brooding over the meaning; he can make an educated guess. One could adduce thousands of examples; the fact remains that we cannot teach idioms – and language in general – without taking context into consideration, without embedding language in its social context.

What has to be drawn, at this juncture, to the student’s attention is the need to understand that idioms should, by no means, be used in all contexts and discourses. When correctly used, idioms provide one with a native-like ability to communicate at a more advanced level and in situations that are more complex; when used inadvertently and at random where more formal and literary diction is required, they pose a great danger to the inexpert user, who, consequently, runs the risk of sounding uneducated and vulgar. Idioms are meant to be used metaphorically and only in conversing with people with whom one shares experiences, socio-cultural background, and even religious beliefs. According to their level of appropriateness and correctness, idioms are marked with formal, informal, not formal, colloquial, and slang, as shown in the example above.

In conclusion, I would like to inform the student – as well as the teacher, on whom it is incumbent to encourage the former to view idioms from a positive perspective – that the English language is only a part of – or rather the “embodiment” of – English culture and history, which, by and large, are at variance with those of Greece. Therefore, any attempt to view things and notions from the English perspective without first mastering any other language features and components, i.e. advanced grammar constructions, more elevated vocabulary, etc., but with the sole aid of idioms, is, if not futile, certainly rather painstaking and unrewarding. Idioms are meant to give the language a more lively hue, not to substitute for standard English completely. If one is already acquainted with literary forms and expressions, there is no other way of “grasping” idioms but through contenting oneself with magazines and tabloids, the informal register of which allows of the use of innumerable idiomatic expressions. By the same token, whoever wishes to learn English – or any other language – should not limit themselves to reading books taught at school, but also acquire a taste for classical and modern literature, religious and philosophical books, newspapers, etc. Whatever one opts to do, I hope that this article will come in handy.

A major and besetting issue in sociolinguistics has been the close affinity between language and sex. More specifically, a question germane to our discussion is, “Why does women’s speech differ from men’s speech?” In other words, we will be concerned with some of the factors that induce women to use standard language more often than men do, thus appearing more linguistically polite. Our focus will be on sex differences in Western societies, as the situation in non-Western countries is markedly different, with men and women often speaking totally different languages within the same community.

In order to attempt an answer to our question, we should treat language as social, value-loaded practice, which reflects an intricate network of social, political, cultural, and age relationships within a society. For instance, in a community where men are socially superior to women, linguistic differences between men and women are only one example of more extensive differences having to do with the social structure of the community itself. There is no denying that linguistic behaviour is not to be kept separate from society and its values. The slightest difference in the language of the two sexes reveals that women are not on the same footing as men. In this article, we will try to shed some light on this issue that has sparked a considerable controversy.

Some linguists believe that women are aware of their low status in society and, as a result, use more standard speech forms, in their attempt to claim equality or achieve high social status. In a sense, they are up in arms against men’s society. “It would appear, then, that women have not universally accepted the position in the lower ranks, and that, out-of-awareness, and in a socially acceptable and non-punishable way, women are rebelling” (Key, 1975: 103, cited in Fasold, 1990: 95). Furthermore, as Trudgill (1983a: 167-168, cited in Fasold, 1990: 95) suggests:

Women are more closely involved with child-rearing and the transmission of culture, and are therefore more aware of the importance, for their children, of the acquisition of (prestige) norms…Men in our society have traditionally been rated socially by their occupation, their earning power, and perhaps by their abilities – in other words, by what they do…It may be, therefore, that they [women] have had to be rated instead, to a greater extent than men, on how they appear.

A second plausible explanation for the fact that women use more standard forms than men relates to the ways in which society treats women. For example, people are tolerant of boys’ behaviour, while little girls’ misconduct is very often frowned upon and punished on the spot. According to Janet Holmes (1992: 173), women “are designated the role of modelling correct behaviour in the community.” In view of this, women are expected to speak more correctly. However, this is not always true. We are well aware that interactions between a mother and her child or a husband and wife are usually informal, interspersed with colloquial or vernacular speech forms.

Moreover, it is inconceivable for a woman to use “strong” expletives, such as damn or shit; she can only say oh dear or fudge. A syntactic feature that Robin Lakoff believes is more widely used by women is the tag question, as in You’d never do that, would you? As Fasold (1990: 104) comments, “greater use of this form by women could mean that women, more often than men, are presenting themselves as unsure of their opinions and thereby as not really having opinions that count very much.”

A third explanation is that, by using standard or polite forms, a woman is trying to protect her face (a term often used in sociolinguistics to denote a person’s needs and wants in relation to others – for further details, see Brown and Levinson, 1978). In other words, a woman claims more status in society. Her greater use of standard forms may also imply that she does not attend solely to her own face needs but also to those of the people she is interacting with, thus avoiding disagreement and seeking agreement and rapport.

Early in her article entitled “Language and women’s place,” Lakoff (1973a: 46, cited in Fasold, 1990: 107) insightfully remarks: “We will find, I think, that women experience linguistic discrimination in two ways: in the way they are taught to use language, and in the general way language use treats them” (my emphasis). Apparently, she refers to various lexical items such as generic subjects, which have the effect of excluding women. Let us have a look at some examples:

Man has unfortunately made inroads into his environment.
The spaceship was manned by experienced scientists.
This discovery will benefit all mankind. (This example is taken from Fasold, 1990: 111).

Apart from the problem regarding generic use of masculine forms, there are various sex-paired words that carry negative overtones with respect to women, while the corresponding man’s term has considerably positive connotations. An oft-quoted example is the pair bachelor-spinster, whereby a bachelor is seen as a happy man “sowing his wild oats”, while a spinster always evokes an image of an ugly, scrawny woman plunging into self-pity in consequence of her being “on the shelf”! In addition, language use seems to impute a degree of sexual immorality and promiscuity to women. For example, a Madam might refer to the manager of a brothel, but one is unlikely to call a pimp a Sir.

In conclusion, we could say that examining language use may lead to significant “discoveries” as to the structure of society or a specific community and the values – and the concomitant expectations – that permeate it and determine the ways in which individuals are viewed and treated. Interestingly, language always implies more than what is literally meant. All we have done is to call our attention to some of the factors responsible for the differences in women’s linguistic behaviour. Not a word was said about men’s linguistic behaviour, though. We should concede that we have been carried away by the general tendency to view men’s behaviour, in general, and linguistic behaviour, in particular, as a yardstick against which women’s actions are to be assessed. The present article is far from comprehensive, of course. In fact, it has only “skimmed the surface” of the whole matter. For all its deficiencies and shortcomings, it is hoped that it will not fall short of its main goal: to make people think, as Bertolt Brecht would exclaim.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

• Fasold, R. W. (1990) The Sociolinguistics of Language. Oxford: Blackwell.
• Holmes, J. (1992) An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. London: Longman.

It is very often the case that the teaching-learning situation may not be commensurate with the participants’ expectations and goals, and become an unrewarding experience with far-reaching pedagogical implications. The present study will focus on teachers’ and learners’ roles, while providing a description of the current “state of the art,” as regards the difficulties and problems encountered. In other words, an attempt will be made to trace some of the intrinsic factors that, either positively or negatively, affect teaching and learning habits, with a view to fostering a holistic approach to education and forging constructive, interpersonal relationships in the classroom which can facilitate the educational process. Moreover, some of the extrinsic problems relating to infrastructure, classroom environment and equipment, etc. will be discussed, as they too play an important role in the teaching-learning situation, whether this is viewed as a process or a product.

1. Introduction

In the last twenty years or so, we have been inundated with various new techniques and methods that purport to make the teaching and learning process more interesting, thought-provoking and insightful for both parts involved in it, i.e. the teacher and the learner. Admittedly, the non-human components, that is to say syllabuses, have so far made a significant contribution to foreign language learning, whether we refer to the structural syllabus, which was in its heyday in the 50’s and 60’s, the notional syllabus, or the notional-functional syllabus. We will not dwell on this any further, since in-depth examination of the various types of syllabuses is not within the purview of the present work. Yet, we have to note that, among the wide diversity of approaches that have permeated foreign language learning, the Communicative and Progressivist Approaches are of particular importance and value. The philosophy underlying the former approach is that language is to be viewed as a vehicle for communication; a conduit through which people express feelings or exchange information and opinions, in a given social context. In short, the tenet that informs its structure and methodology is embedding language in its situational context. It is perhaps a modern recasting, so to speak, of Saussure’s parole.

The logic behind the first approach is that language is a means of communication in a social environment and we need it in order to use it when we are discussing certain topics / themes or when we find ourselves in certain situations. With its appearance in the foreign language teaching scene, there was a move away from focusing on language as a system of autonomous meanings, expressed by its formal properties, to concentrating on language in operation, which implies that meaning is dependent on the context of situation and on the speakers using it (Dendrinos, 1992: 116).

The latter, i.e. the Progressivist Approach, takes a holistic view of the teaching-learning process, with the aim of fostering the student’s development of the whole persona in an unfragmented way. Consequently, the pupil is no longer considered to be a passive subject that is called on to function in a predefined, systematic way; on the contrary, he / she is looked upon as a self-actualizing individual whose cognitive, emotional and educational needs are to be respected and promoted. As Dr. B. Dendrinos notes,

progressivists consider learners as effective participants in the process of learning and responsible for its outcomes and the teacher as a guide and facilitator who creates conditions for the development of an inventive, problem-solving capacity (ibid., p. 131).

However, no matter what kind of approach, design or procedure we may resort to, it is an indisputable fact that, unless human interaction, inside or outside the classroom, leads to authenticity and self-fulfilment, the whole process is bound to fail. There has to be room for both teachers and students to grow into. In this kind of relationship, methods and techniques are merely facilitating devices, whereas the cognitive, affective and social growth of teachers and learners is the keynote. In light of this, we will endeavour to shed some light on the role the aforementioned participants play, and address ourselves to some of the most besetting problems confronting both parts of the educational process.

2. On “authority”

Clearly linked to the problems that vitiate the benefit that would, in an ideal world, accrue to those who actively engage in educational programs, methods and techniques, is inescapably the controversial issue of teacher authority. As a matter of fact, “authority” has been endowed with various meanings yet remains elusive of any definition whatsoever. Some people associate it with the teacher’s elevated cognitive, intellectual and social status and his / her concomitant primacy over the students, while others tend to connect it with such an unnerving feeling as arrogance and a supercilious observance of rules and norms that are laid down by the teacher her / himself – and the institution within which he / she is authorized to teach – and must be taken at face value. It is with both connotations that we will be concerned.

2.1. The teacher’s authority and its effects

There has always been a tendency, on the part of the teacher, to claim superiority over his or her students and, consequently, to lose sight of his or her role in class. The teacher who evinces these characteristics keeps on blaming the students for their aberrant behaviour and “unsatisfactory” performance; he hardly ever bothers to make a probe of the students’ cognitive, emotional and psychological background. He is an arrogant automaton who asserts his authority over his socially unauthorized, impotent and inferior students in a most undemocratic, uncivilized way; an “educated” person who supposedly strives to inculcate values and ideals but who is “conspicuous by her absence” when it comes to fostering feeling and creative thinking. No doubt, the teacher is conditioned to function – or rather malfunction – in this way but let us not get bogged down in further details as to the causes. Nothing could extenuate this kind of behaviour, after all!

This arrogant, unapproachable figure, with his high-falutin ideas and pompous language, is as often as not a formidable barrier to language learning. Not only his personality and his intellectual and linguistic abilities but also such paralinguistic features as facial expressions and bodily position in the classroom may exert an immensely negative influence on the student’s cognition and affect. Experiments have proved that four bodily positions of the teacher, i.e. left /right, front / back, elevated / non-elevated, and standing / seated, have each been associated with a certain degree of social dominance. For example, a teacher who, most of the time in class, is standing, elevated and occupies the foreground on the right side, is perceived to be dominant.

The data indicated that 75% of the time the elevated person was perceived as dominant and only 29% of the time the non-elevated person was considered so. Similarly 61% of the time the standing person was perceived as dominant (Schwartz, Tesser and Powel, 1981: 47, cited in Papaconstantinou, 1991: 64).

We can imagine what a real strain on the pupils this must be. Consciously or unconsciously, the teacher’s posture and facial expressions exude a certain air or mood which often builds up tension and aggravates interaction between teachers and students, and among students themselves. This discrepancy between “bad mood” and the educational objectives relating to cognitive development and emotional equilibrium is in itself pernicious and unprepossessing to cope with, mainly on the part of the student. How can the student feel secure and confident in a hostile, unpredictable environment, in which he / she is to be “seen but not heard”?

He (Paul Ekman) [my parenthesis] argues that facial expressions for primary emotions, such as surprise, fear, anger, disgust, sadness, and happiness are universally the same and are consequently cross-culturally perceived (Papaconstantinou, 1991: 65).

In all likelihood, a grumpy and severe teacher will produce grumpy and severe or refractory students.

3. The roles of the teacher and the learner

One can hardly envisage a language learning situation in the absence of an interaction of the student with his / her fellow students, the teacher and the textbook. Every time the student interacts with any of these sources, she makes various hypotheses about what she is learning, and accepts or rejects them, trying out new ones. In her attempt to learn the foreign language, she is dependent on her co-interactants, as she develops a wide range of strategies which will be tested only in a communicative context. Strategies can be distinguished in three categories: production strategies, comprehension strategies and interactive strategies. We will not explore any of these in the present study. We should only point out the importance of human interaction in the classroom as a condition for successful language learning and intellectual, emotional and social development.

3.1. The role of the teacher

As has been intimated so far, language teaching is a complex issue, encompassing linguistic, psycholinguistic, sociocultural, pragmatic, as well as instructional and curricula dimensions. There are a lot of factors contributing to the dynamics of the educational process, such as internationalism and the pragmatic status of the foreign language (e.g., English), teaching and learning styles, and program characteristics. For example, the general expectation by students, parents and teachers that learners should achieve a high level of proficiency in English when they leave school influences both language policies and how foreign language learning will evolve. Furthermore, the teaching-learning process reflects different cultural traits and traditions. In some cultures, students tend to feel more at ease in the classroom, expressing their viewpoints and agreement or disagreement; in others, a “passive” attitude towards the teacher and the target language is more common. For instance, Greek society and its educational system favour rote memorization, while western countries, in general, do not value it. Moreover, such issues as the degree of preparation of teachers and the validity of testing and evaluation procedures can have a tremendous impact on language learning.

As is patently obvious, the task or act, one may say, of “teaching” encapsulates a lot more than merely providing instruction and guidelines for students. It presupposes a psychological and philosophical knowledge on the teacher’s part, so as to combine techniques in class, as well as sufficient command of the basic structure of human existence, with a view to assessing any situation accurately and appropriately.

Clearly linked to the roles defined for the learner are the roles the teacher is expected to play in the instructional process. Teacher roles, too, must ultimately be related both to assumptions about content and, at the level of approach, to particular views of language and language learning. Some instructional systems are totally dependent on the teacher as the source of knowledge and direction; others see the teacher’s role as catalyst, consultant, diagnostician, guide, and model for learning; still others try to teacher-proof the instructional system by limiting teacher initiative and building instructional content and direction into texts or lesson plans. Teacher and learner roles define the type of interaction characteristic of classrooms in which a particular method is being used. Teacher roles in methods are related to the following issues: the types of functions teachers are expected to fulfill (e.g., practice director, counselor, model), the degree of control the teacher influences over learning, the degree to which the teacher is responsible for determining linguistic content, and the interactional patterns assumed between teachers and learners (Richards, 1994: 23).

Undoubtedly, the teacher is called upon to perform several functions in foreign language learning. These are the following:

• Teacher as director and manager
• Teacher as counselor and a language resource
• Teacher as a model and independent language user

3.1.1. Teacher as director and manager

One of the main concerns of the teacher as a director and manager is to create a warm, stimulating atmosphere in which the students will feel secure and confident.

It is very important for learners to feel very much at home with both their teachers and fellow-learners, if they are to be expected to venture out into the deep waters of foreign language learning, to experiment with new and strange sounds, and to role-play in a language which they have barely begun to learn (Papaefthymiou-Lytra, 1993: 95).

Apart from assisting in creating the right atmosphere, the teacher should also make decisions on the materials to be used, as well as the activities and games which will best accord with the learners’ needs and abilities. Inasmuch as learners do not necessarily share the same cognitive and linguistic abilities, or interests and motivation, it is incumbent on the teacher to choose a wide variety of materials and teaching techniques and strategies in order to respond to the students’ interests and capacities. To this end, the teacher is supposed to organize the class, deciding whether a specific role-play or game will be simulated in pairs or in groups. Bearing all this in mind, the teacher may help develop a learner-centred approach to foreign language learning, as he / she takes into account the learners’ preferences, tailoring the materials and strategies to their needs.

3.1.2. Teacher as counselor and a language resource

The second function that the foreign language teacher is expected to fulfil is that of counselor and a language resource. In other words, the onus is on her to provide the learners with the necessary input in order to foster understanding of the relation between language and communication. In short, she must modify and simplify her language according to the needs arising in each communicative situation, and to the grammatical competence and language proficiency of the students. In addition to simplifying teacher talk, she should resort to miming and facial expressions, as shown in a previous chapter.

Learning and teaching is multi-sensory and everything in the classroom and method must imply that learning is relaxing, fun and possible to be attained (Papaconstantinou, 1991: 35).

Moreover, the teacher as a language resource should help learners to acquaint themselves with, and acquire a taste for, the target language and culture. He should make explicit that language is not to be held in a vacuum but should always be learnt in connection to its users and the uses to which it is put. In light of this, grammar should not be the sole reference point in foreign language learning; the teacher has to draw his students’ attention to the sociocultural and pragmatic aspects of the foreign language, in order to help them assess the accuracy and appropriacy of the language they produce, both at the sentence level and the discourse level. As J. C. Richards (1994: 157) notes, “a focus on grammar in itself is not a valid approach to the development of language proficiency.”

The teacher as a counselor and a language resource should see it as her goal to provide enough remedial work, in order to eradicate students’ errors, and encourage learners to develop their own learning strategies and techniques, so as to discover the answers to their own questions.

3.1.3. Teacher as a model and independent language user

In order to become a successful communicator and model for learners, the teacher should promote a wide range of behaviours and psychological and social relationships such as solidarity and politeness.

Often learners have difficulties in adopting these behaviours because of the psychological and social distance that there exists between learners and materials. As a result, learners have a tendency to adopt the teacher’s language behaviours to indicate attitude and role relationships, rather than those presented in materials. This is understandable, of course, since the teacher is a live model, a real human being to whom they can more easily relate (Papaefthymiou-Lytra, 1993: 101).

In short, the teacher should help learners to negotiate meaning in the target language through his own active participation in it, and act as a mediator between the linguistic and extra-linguistic context of foreign language learning, as these are reflected in the textbooks and re-alia (e.g., audio-visual aids, etc.) or literature, respectively.

3.1.4. Conclusion

Beyond the shadow of a doubt, teachers play an essential role in the foreign language classroom. Not only are they directors and managers of the classroom environment but they also function as counselors and language resources facilitating the teaching-learning process. In addition, teachers can become models and independent language users in order to overcome “the inherent shortcomings of the foreign language classroom environment” (ibid., p. 104).

3.2. The role of the learner

What roles do learners play in the design of educational programs and systems, and how much leeway are they left with in contributing to the learning process? In the last two decades or so, there has been a shift from Cognitive and Transformational-Generative Grammar Approaches to a Communicative view of learning. Learners, who were formerly viewed as stimulus-response mechanisms whose learning was the product of practice – reminding one of the well-known dictum, Repetitio est mater studiorum – are nowadays regarded as individuals who should have a say in the educational process.

“The role of the learner as negotiator – between the self, the learning process, and the object of learning – emerges from and interacts with the role of joint negotiator within the group and within the classroom procedures and activities which the group undertakes. The implication for the learner is that he should contribute as much as he gains, and thereby learn in an interdependent way” (Breen and Candlin, 1980: 110, cited in Richards, 1994: 22-23).

In our attempt to gain useful insights into the various factors that are responsible for students’ learning, we will take account of three main areas of investigation:

• Age, cognitive and learning factors
• Social and affective factors
• Learners’ needs and interests

3.2.1. Age, cognitive and learning factors

Age variation in foreign language learning and learning differences between children and adults are significant factors that must be taken into account in choosing the right approaches, design and procedures. Experiments have shown that there are a lot of biological factors at work in language learning. In young learners, both hemispheres of the brain are responsible for the language function, while at puberty it is only the left hemisphere that takes over, which makes language acquisition and learning more difficult. This process is called lateralization and it may be responsible for learning differences between children and adults.

Cognitive and learning styles, already acquired through mother tongue, may influence foreign language learning.

Of all personality characteristics attributed to individuals, certain cognitive and learning variables have been researched to determine the degree of their influence on successful foreign or second language learning. These are: field-dependence and field-independence, formal operations, the monitor and foreign language aptitude (Papaefthymiou-Lytra, 1993: 84-85).

Field-independent individuals are more analytical by inclination and tend to learn through reasoning faculties, whereas field-dependent individuals view learning in toto, acquiring knowledge subconsciously.

Piaget’s “formal operations” theory relates to adults’ more mature cognitive capacities as opposed to the “unconscious automatic kind of learning” (Genessee, 1977, 148, cited in Papaefthymiou-Lytra, 1993: 85) that characterizes young learners’ less mature cognitive system. According to this theory, adults are thought to deal with the abstract nature of language more easily than young learners; it is very often the case, though, that young people may prove better learners in the long run.

Another factor that influences language learning is the monitor use employed by learners.

Three types of monitor users have been identified: overusers, underusers and optimal users. Overusers are associated with analytical conscious learning…On the other hand, underusers are associated with subconscious learning and extrovert personalities…Finally, the third category is that of optimal users who seem to be the most efficient (ibid., p. 85-86).

Pertaining to foreign language aptitude, we could say that it is the rate at which we learn a foreign language.

3.2.2. Social and affective factors

Successful foreign language learning calls for an examination of the social and affective factors at work. First of all, the teacher should take into consideration the social proficiency which learners have attained. By social proficiency we mean the degree to which the learner employs, or taps into, the foreign language in order to communicate and negotiate meaning or achieve certain social goals. Some learners, for example, may complain when their classmate uses their pens or pencils because they have not learnt to use language in a socially accepted way. For instance, they cannot cope with making requests, asking permission, giving condolences, etc. It is worth noting that different cultures favour different attitudes on the part of the learner and, as a result, it is very probable that most of these situations do not necessarily reflect lack of social proficiency.

Apart from social factors, affective factors also play an important role as they may facilitate or preclude learning. It is a commonplace that an atmosphere that fosters and promotes confidence and emotional stability will produce better students. Harmony in the classroom helps relieve tension and keeps the door to language processing open. A teacher’s task is like “that of an orchestra conductor, who tends to fly into higher spheres, and has a tendency to fly and pull himself and the others above everyday’s problems towards a more creative reality” (Papaconstantinou, 1991: 65). In this “reality” the learner may easily identify with the teacher and venture out into new aspects of the target language, dealing with it in her own, individual way. Unless she feels at ease with her teacher and her fellow-students, she will not learn. If she feels rejected and is afraid of being told off or scoffed at whenever she makes a mistake, she will withdraw from the educational process and lag behind, both cognitively and emotionally. “Consequently, the content of materials for classroom use as well as classroom practices should be compatible with the affective variables influencing learners” (Papaefthymiou-Lytra, 1993: 90).

3.2.3. Learners’ needs and interests

Indubitably, a successful course should consider learner needs. For this reason, the concept of needs analysis has assumed an important role in language learning. Needs analysis has to do with the aims of a course, as these are determined by the uses to which the target language will be put on completion of the program.

For example, is our aim to achieve a high level of language proficiency or are we called upon to respond to the needs of, say, adult learners who need to master specific skills, such as academic writing or note-taking? All these parameters will have to inform the methods and techniques we use in class, as well as the materials design we are supposed to implement in order to achieve the best results.

With regard to learner’s interests, it is worth noting that we, as teachers, should be cognizant of the differences between children and adolescents. For instance, the former are interested in body movement and play, whereas the latter want to learn about human relationships in general and achieve a deeper understanding of their abilities, with the aim of developing a sound personality and character.

3.2.4. Conclusion

It has become evident that foreign language learning is far from a simple, straightforward process where teachers are the purveyors of knowledge and students the passive subjects who receive that knowledge. For successful foreign language learning, students must have both the ability and desire to learn. Otherwise, the objectives we set are doomed to failure.

Foreign language teachers, therefore, must be flexible enough and sensitive enough to respond well to the individual learning preferences, interests and needs of their learners in terms of materials, techniques, classroom methodology and teacher talk. After all, language learning is not a monolithic process since not all personality and environmental factors can be kept under control in a foreign language situation (Papaefthymiou-Lytra, 1993: 94).

4. Extrinsic factors influencing language learning

We have hitherto been concerned with some of the intrinsic factors that may facilitate or hamper language learning. Now we should turn our attention to a brief description and evaluation of some of the extrinsic factors.

Such issues as infrastructure and limited school budgets have not received much attention in ELT articles and books, yet contribute significantly to the outcome of the educational process. One could say that they constitute the extra-linguistic context of the teaching-learning situation. A situation where the school has no lighting or heating, and classrooms are packed with a great number of students, with whom the teacher seems unable to familiarize himself, is not a promising one. Furthermore, limited or no access to school libraries and educational seminars or programs makes inroads into students’ and teachers’ progress. All these potential shortcomings, coupled with the teacher’s “authority,” may severely inhibit the learning process.

Equally detrimental – albeit in more subtle ways – may prove seating arrangements in class. For example, in a classroom where desks are arranged in such a way that students look towards the teacher rather than their classmates, learners and teachers alike are unable to interact through role-play and other activities or through paralinguistic features such as eye-contact and non-verbal communication, in general. Conversely, in a situation where desks are arranged in a circle or in groups or pairs, learners are provided with the opportunity to develop warm and constructive interpersonal relationships (see Papaefthymiou-Lytra, 1993: 131-133 for more details).

5. Concluding remarks

Throughout this study it has been attempted to shed some light on both favourable and unfavourable conditions for foreign language learning. Our main concern has been with the roles of teachers and learners, with a view to identifying any “problematic areas” and deficiencies arising from false assumptions and incorrect strategies and techniques, mainly on the teacher’s part. The teaching-learning situation is not merely an intellectual or cognitive system of values; it is a complex, dynamic, neuro-psychological process, whereby students should be encouraged to think, analyze and make hypotheses as well as to feel and touch – and, in so doing, to live.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

• Dendrinos, B. (1992) The EFL Textbook and Ideology, Athens: N. C. Grivas Publications.
• Papaconstantinou, A. (1991) Suggestopedia: An art of Teaching, an art of Living, Athens: Hellinika Grammata.
• Papaconstantinou, A. (1997) Creating the Whole Person in New Age, Athens: A. Kardamitsa.
• Papaefthymiou-Lytra, S. (1993) Language, Language Awareness and Foreign Language Learning, Athens: The University of Athens Press.
• Richards, J. C. (1994) The Context of Language Teaching, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Most people contend that the educational system, as it manifests itself in many western countries, is inadequate and even pernicious. This general discontent should not be ignored; on the contrary, it should sensitize us to the problems that we are confronted with in our attempt to become educated citizens and, most importantly, individuals. But what does it mean to become individuals? Becoming individuals certainly means striving for a holistic, humanistic education, liberated from the constraints imposed by western civilization. It means individualizing the approaches and methods on which western education is based; considering the needs of our students and adjusting our behaviour and goals accordingly. It means a lot of things; the most crucial is trying to develop, in a holistic, unfragmented way, all aspects of human personality – cognitive or intellectual, emotional or affective. “Instead of denying the relationship between intellect and affect, it is time we made good use of it” (A. Papaconstantinou, 1997:42).

The reason why I have referred to “western education” is that I want to make the distinction between western and eastern civilization. Education should not be viewed merely as an institution whose aim is to transform uneducated, uncouth people into a kind of intelligentsia. Rather it should be regarded as the decantation of human thought, whether this has to do with cognition, experience, or emotion. It is a repository of ideas and theories that have hitherto concerned philosophers, scientists, laymen […], and as such it is influenced by the moral, philosophical and scientific outlook on life prevailing in each place. For example, the educational systems in Europe and America are markedly different from those in Asia or India, primarily because the religious concepts and theories underlying and permeating these two civilizations, eastern and western, have distinct orientations. In light of this, we refer to western thought as rational, absolute and abstract, placing a great deal of importance on reason and the intellect; and eastern thought as intuitive, mystical and concrescent, laying emphasis on spiritual harmony, on the ways to develop a sound personality or, rather, individuality. Personality and individuality have always been treated as synonymous in western thought, which is wrong. The former has to do with the self-image that we want to project and deploy in relation to our environment and others; the latter with our inner strength and capacities that form the core of our existence and usually give us impetus to act. It is individuality that characterized the lives of many legendary figures in history. Consider Peter the Great and Alexander the Great, whose immense wit transformed the world and is etched on our memories.

No doubt, western thought, with its undue emphasis on reason and cognition, has contrived to exacerbate problems, leading to human oppression and misery. Even though it has helped improve our standard of living and has ushered us in a new, promising dimension and era, it has nevertheless transformed us into a self-destructive mass baying for its own blood! On the other hand, eastern thought, with its emphasis on inner harmony and equilibrium that can lead to spiritual elevation, has definitely provided the disillusioned westerner with a lot of answers and solutions to his / her problems and predicaments.

Yet, eastern thought and religions have received an onslaught of criticism on the grounds that they are kept separate from everyday life and cannot be a valid and feasible modus vivendi, as shown in the vast relevant literature, with the innumerable accounts of westerners’ harrowing experiences in Buddhist monasteries etc. Not all people can have their hair cut or eat rice and vegetables for months or even years, living in desolate huts and praying to Gods they know nothing about. However, it is all these small creature comforts that have led to the separation between the East and the West. A Westerner takes so many things for granted; he has so many dreams and aspirations, but these have always to do with social identity and status, success and bank accounts. He uses the telephone and television to communicate with others; he has a beautiful house and a fast car; he is concerned with how he looks and what people think of him; he is always torn between desire and duty, love and hate. That is why he cannot bring himself to renounce luxury and security. He engages in a ruthless struggle for survival and ends up being an animal under the thin veneer of civilization. It is only on the brink of destruction and disillusion that she decides to turn over a new leaf and go through the “harrowing experiences” of living in a different, disciplined and illuminating way; to discover the true meaning of life and acquaint herself with “what the Buddha never taught,” as Timothy Ward insightfully remarks in his book.

It is against this background of western corruption that the educational system is called on to function. On the face of it, it seems to function properly and effectively, producing highly motivated people who are determined to succeed in their field; individuals who claim to work towards their goals and the betterment of society. History, though, has recorded wars and destruction, oppression and evil. In the same vein, western education has produced cold hedonists who live in an ivory tower, bereft of feeling, concerned only with their own success, to the detriment of other people. Western education has focused mainly on knowledge and learning, without offering insights into how individuals can learn to learn. Its aim has been to teach students certain facts in a mechanistic way, paying no attention to feeling – a significant aspect of our essence. “It is feeling that generates action and until we (teachers or students) feel strongly about something, we will take little action” (A. Papaconstantinou, 1997:45). Modern education is, to a greater or lesser extent, concerned with today’s needs, in terms of manpower and scientific advances. It does not probe into the human psyche so as to discover those powers and resources that can shed some light on our problems and prepare us not only for today but also for tomorrow or the next ten millennia. It has only managed to create a society that complacently scoffs at its problems and keeps on incurring its ruin.

Nevertheless, despite the fact that eastern and western civilizations evince distinct characteristics and qualities, they are meant to be a unifying force, a wealth of knowledge and experience that we should all tap into. As Professor A. Papaconstantinou claims, “cognition and affect must be regarded as complementary, and not opposing forces” (1997:45). Students should be encouraged to tackle knowledge in their own, individual, holistic way; they should be allowed to read, write and listen as well as to touch, smell and feel. Modern psychotherapy and neuro-psychology, in conjunction with old eastern and western theories of learning, have stressed children’s need for play and the fundamental role the latter plays in knowledge acquisition. The human mind is a wonderful yet untapped mystery that can spring serendipitous surprises. Science is certainly beginning to unravel its mysteries and education must try to train it. Both right and left brain capacities should be developed. The distinction between the right- and left-hemisphere of the brain, known as lateralization, is no excuse for adhering strictly to reason and cognition, i.e., the realm of the left hemisphere. The right hemisphere, which has been grossly neglected – perhaps severely damaged – by the westerner, has a vital contribution to make. We can find out how important it is if we try to engage in meditation; and in doing so, we can also find out the extent to which our left brain or “logical mind” tends to control the right brain or “intuitive mind.”

Intellect or affect? one may ask. Certainly both. We should not view them as two forces vying with each other, but as the ends of a continuum that is called self-awareness and spiritual elevation. Actually, these are not really a continuum but rather a continuous process, whereby intellect and affect mingle together to form the basis of new knowledge and experience. Man is a tripartite entity, comprising the body, the mind, and the soul or spirit. Let us not lose sight of this unity.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

• Papaconstantinou, A. (1997) Creating The Whole Person in New Age, Athens: Kardamitsa
• Ward, T. (1990) What The Buddha Never Taught, Great Britain: Element Books Limited