The contrast between the descriptive
studies of various languages in use done by linguists and the prescriptive
approach involved in what most people mean when they say “grammar” could not be
greater. Over the last three decades or so, I've taught this kind of “grammar”
as part of my official job description as an instructor of Rhetoric and
Composition at various community colleges. When I first started teaching those
classes, I had to learn prescriptive English grammar so that I could teach it.
Many people learn to speak something that is close enough to Standard English
to pass for it in most settings without learning the formal rules well enough
to pass a really rigorous grammar test. Some even learn to write well enough to
practice law or make a living in journalism without being able to state most of
the rules they do obey many more times than not in writing their legal briefs
or newspaper articles.
On the other hand, I speak from many
years of experience in asserting that teaching someone who writes badly enough
grammar to pass a really rigorous grammar test will not always improve their
writing all that much. Some people can understand grammar at the level of
abstraction without automatically following those rules when they compose text;
others consistently follow abstract grammar rules they could not state clearly
if asked why the words of their text are strung together the way they are. Many
people know what is “right” well enough to communicate very effectively in both
speaking and writing but could not tell you what exactly most of the
spontaneous choices they make in the process would appeal to in response to a
question about why they are right.
I'm writing a lot about the written
form even though linguists more often than not mean the spoken form when they
speak of language and see the written form as an attempt to transcribe the
spoken language. The great “aha” insight that came to me only recently was the
realization that my own engrained and habitual way of thinking about language
amounts to seeing spoken discourse as text performed under conditions that
severely limit the quality of that performance.
This is natural for a person whose pattern of thinking and feeling was shaped
at least as much by the vicarious experience provided by reading as by his own
immediate experience participating in the particular way of life that
socialized most of his peers. I've only been tutoring ESL for a few months and, thus,
still think like someone who read constantly as a kid, later decided he wanted
to be a writer and ended up as a teacher of writing and literature.
On the other hand, I'm noticing for the first time how little
help knowing how to spell English words gives someone who is trying to say the
word rather than to read it or writ it.
My first few students were all Puerto Ricans who amazed me by being able
to read anything in English they wanted, enjoy American movies without needing
sub-titles and understand me pretty well most of the time when I spoke to them.
What they could not do, at first, was to get their needs met here in Florida without great difficulty. In
many different settings, they faced the maddening frustration of understanding
what other people said in reply to their attempts to communicate well enough to
be absolutely sure of the failure of these attempts.
The pronunciation of a word is not a
fact that one comes to know but something one learns to do with one's mouth.
That is what I need to learn to take for granted to be really helpful to my
students, but it goes totally against the grain of how I have thought about
words up until now. Knowing how a given language works both as sounds made in a
particular way and as a process whereby these sounds come to mean more than
they are is the goal of linguistics. It is also a habitual way of thinking
about language. I need to acquire that habit in order to be more helpful to
persons who are trying to learn a second language. I need to learn to describe what I do, with
my mouth and otherwise, in speaking English in order to teach anyone else to
speak English. I've decided that the main difference between a very patient
native speaker of English and someone who really knows how to teach English as
a second language flows from this capacity to describe what you are doing when
you speak English in the way that a linguist would.
When I started volunteering as an ESL tutor I thought that tutoring ESL would be very similar to
teaching college-transfer or developmental English, as I have already been
doing for years. I've enjoyed tutoring immensely more than I expected because
tutoring ESL has turned out to be fundamentally different from anything else
I've done before. I'm learning things about how language is used and acquired
that I did not know in spite of years spent being obsessed with language and
determined to acquire greater skill in the use of language. I've learned enough
about how teaching a second language ought to be done to be amazed at how
turnip-witted some of my previous assumptions were. I'm muddling through and
getting better and realizing that there is so much that I haven't learned yet
about how to do this that I can almost certainly expect to be much better at
something very much worth doing even just a year from today than I am right
now. I had said for years that, even though I had never officially taught an ESL class, I had in practice taught
a lot of ESL just given who shows up for your classes if you agree to teach
developmental English in Houston, Texas, especially at a satellite campus in
the inner city. I always enjoyed those classes and my department chair always
made it a point to be nice to me. He knew that he would someday need someone
once again to teach a developmental course in a “bad” neighborhood that was
fully enrolled to the cap but would cancel anyway for lack of an instructor if
I did not take it. I like teaching ESL better than anything else I have
ever done and genuinely regret that I did not discover ESL sooner.
No comments:
Post a Comment
And what are YOUR words?