Linguistics vs. language teaching66inside and outside classrooms

Min Dai

Introduction

Being an English teacher， in this article， I will give two linguistic examples on the phonological， grammatical， and morphological levels， which happened to me and my students inside and outside of ESL classrooms. It also aims to prove different extents to which language teachers need to know anything about linguistics.

In order to identify language learners difficulties or help them minimize either grammar or communicative errors in terms of phonology， orthographic， lexical， semantic or pragmatic， or even a mixture， and then， for language ‘doctors— language teachers， it is quite necessary to know these linguistic principles before giving serviceable diagnosis and prescription to language ‘patients. In short， from this angle， to a large extent， language teachers do need to know linguistics. The following part， some examples， which my students and myself came across inside and outside classroom， will be given to prove this conclusion.

Linguistics inside classroom

It is believed that linguistics is seldom taught or even mentioned in language classes. But actually this belief should depend on different teaching objects， which means various students age groups， students language proficiency， students learning demands （business English， computer English or English for tourism）， etc. For example， teaching primary pupils semantics is doubtless like ‘playing the piano to a cow and it is inappropriate and pointless.

Therefore， in my opinion， it is acceptably popular and safe to perceive and teach ‘linguistics only in term of ‘grammar in most language teaching， which still gives most language learners headache besides my secondary students. At this moment， language teachers can take advantage of their known linguistic knowledge to help students ‘kill different grammar ‘headache ranged from dealing with words order in sentences （e.g. more than three adjectives to modify a noun）， double verbs in a simple sentence （e.g. ‘He is go to school）， combined sentence patterns like ‘There have a temple on the hill， wrong prepositions and articles usage and so on.

So I want to emphasize， in order to identify underlying reasons of language learners errors in the classrooms， knowing linguistics， which gives more aspects and deep analyses about languages is pretty required for language teachers.

Linguistics outside classroom （in real world）

Example 1

This example happened in London to one of my students， who came to London 2 years ago. He told me this conversation as a joke， but as his previous English teacher， I felt more…

Train conductor： Hi， boys， where are you from？

Boys： We are from China. （natural and proud）

Train conductor： China？ （confused）

Boys： Yes！ （quite sure）

The conductor （maybe a green hand） left in perplexity—does the train come from China or pass it by？ And later， my student and his friends also felt strange why the conductor cared about ‘where they were from， and finally realized their answer is so irrelevant and funny to the conductors question.

Lets try to find possible causes， which led to the misunderstanding between speakers according to Paul Grices ‘cooperative principle. One of his four maxims， which he believes characterise the cooperative principle is ‘maxim of quantity （Finch， 164）. Simply speaking， ‘maxim of quantity demands the hearers to answer questions to be as informative as required.

So， return to above conversation， it seems that the boys didnt give enough information （they can say ‘We come from China before coming to London to avoid misunderstanding）， and it seems they are against the principle of ‘maxim of quantity. However， if we change our position to check the train conductor—speaker， he should be responsible for something vague to cause this confuse. ‘WHERE is a larger-area interrogative adverb compared to ‘Which station？ consequently， such a conversation， which is lack of some collaboration between speakers， came up in our daily lives.

From this real conversation， Grices ‘maxim of quantity may need to be stricter with speakers who ask questions in conversational exchange， which does not mean they have to give as much information as possible， but at least their question should be as accurate as possible.

However， besides the linguistic discussion， another perspective of the conversation wakes me up. When the Chinese boys answered the conductors question， I believe they reacted just like what they drilled in English lessons again and again about such questions ‘Where are you from？” Whats your name？ and ‘How old are you？. Without doubt， this kind of practice is so mechanical and meaningless if English teachers do not know and explain corresponding conversational contexts to students， which is one of the important elements in linguistics （Widdowson， 1996： 63） and will possibly happen in a real communicative world. Therefore， language teachers like me should be responsible for this ‘funny conversation， and I want to appeal ‘Wake up， language teachers， we need a whole picture about language teaching—linguistics， not the half-baked realization about it！

Example 2. Technology progress calls for linguistic change

With technology progress， mobile texts or messages are familiar and convenient for our daily communication， especially for young generation. As an English teacher， I used to feel confident and fashionable to text my friends in English by using integrated spelling， until one day， one of my students informed me by such a message IL B L8， I began to be aware of another world where English is used in quite different way as we teach in classrooms.

According to the linguistic principles， ‘UK ‘USA ‘NS （native speakers） are examples of ‘acronyms， which are formed by initial letter of several words. But the question is whether some interesting mobile messages like ‘D U RMBR ME？ ‘MS U SO MCH ‘ASAP （as soon as possible） ‘CU NXT WKND etc belong to ‘acronyms， if so， how about the following mobile messages with combination of letters and numbers： ‘SHOPN 2MORO ‘W8 4 M ‘IL B L8 ‘PRTY@8？ etc？ Maybe such developing technology will give linguists who are interested in ‘Morphology， or exactly interested in how words may be coined， a new task to conclude more new principles to explain the ‘production of our modern world.

In effect， if language teachers bear in mind that ‘classroom is a part of society， students are a part of citizen， we should hold this consciousness first： teaching grammar is so minimal in linguistic teaching， whereas any live linguistic phenomena and problems that are happening in the real world are welcome to be brought into classroom for both teachers and students to discuss or may be find some ways out. Moreover， language teachers cannot be behind the time of technology progress along with linguistic change. It is rather requisite for them to know linguistics and sensitively catch up with its any change

Conclusion

This article has attempted to give reasons for language teachers necessary to know linguistics and its different extents according to varied linguistics theories， teaching objects and teaching contexts.

Accordingly， the foremost reason for language teachers to know everything about linguistics is not to ‘show off their professional knowledge， not to ask learners to clearly remember and academically explain maximum linguistic terminologies， which make linguistic learning as dry as a chip， but to raise language learners linguistic awareness to observe the linguistic differences between ‘book knowledge and social one， to inspire them to test linguistic ‘book knowledge in real lives and to interestingly find their effective linguistic rules in their own communication communities.

References：

[1]Crystal，D.1999.The Penguin Dictionary of Language.England：Clays Ltd，St lves plc.

[2]Finch，G.1999.How to study Linguistics.New York：St.Martins Press.

[3]Hudson，R.1984.Invitation to Linguistics.Oxford：Martin Robertson &Company Ltd.

[4]Hudson，R.2004.‘Why education needs linguistics？ available from http：//journals.cambridge.org/bin/bladerunner？REQUNIQ=1079019509&REQSESS=11…accessed on 11.03.2004

[5]Widdowson，H.G.1996.Linguistics.Oxford：OUP.