I've broken up language into 4 main categories and their functions.
Firstly, on the outside we have Situation and Context which is often missing from a classroom environment. Instead we have to imagine a situation we might use what we are learning. For example when studying body parts we might need to imagine a conversation we would have with a doctor about a problem. The context in which a conversation takes place provides a point of reference for the rest of the conversation.
Secondly, we have Phonetic Patterns, comprising the phonemes (individual sounds of the language), suprasegmental intonation (over phrases or sentences) and timing. All these elements have a purpose of providing an Emotional Context (and informational, for phonemes). What this means is that we can gauge the emotion of the speaker through these patterns most effectively. What I haven't included here is body language, which I believe is an integral part of language, but I will write about it in a later post.
Moving in we have Grammatical Structure. The format of our speech tells us if the information conveyed is intended to persuade, inform, inspire, command, etc. It tells us if the conversation is formal or informal, relaxed or rigid. It tells us if we are talking about the past or present. Or what will happen in the future, or what we think will happen in the future. For these aspects and more I state that grammar has the ability to convey what the Language Function is.
In the center we have Vocabulary, which is simply tells us the facts and figures of the conversation. In other words, Information.
These 4 aspects of language, information, function, emotion and situation are present in all native speech (even formal academic English has an emotional element). Yet when we learn a second language, we often only concentrate on the two inner functions, vocabulary and grammar.
This picture illustrates a standard approach to language learning as an adult.
A typical language class goes like this: From the first class vocabulary lists are studied. The words will be given along with a picture, a translation or maybe a real object/model (realia). Then this is drilled in structured grammar forms many times. Then perhaps at the end listening skills and pronunciation (of phonemes) are drilled. A progressive class may have an activity like a game or role playing to help the student with language production.
I see two problems with this.
First problem: Communicating emotion in the target language is almost never taught. It is usually never taught in class how to communicate with people on an emotional level. Thus the learners never become 'native-like' as they can only communicate in information. They end up speaking like a robot.
Phonetics cannot be separated from language without changing meaning. Think about the word seriously in these forms:
- But seriously, he's not that smart (insisting)
- He's seriously stupid (strengthening)
- Seriously? (questioning)
- Seriously (affirming)
All of these four have different meanings and a different tone for each one. If you're a native English speaker reading this, you're probably thinking about the tones of each one right now.
All languages do this. So without taking phonetics seriously, we are missing out on a large part of language learning.
Second problem: Teaching of language out of context. If I give you a list of 20 action words like 'kick' 'catch' and 'throw' in a foreign language, asked you to remember them by heart and quizzed you 3 months later, would you remember?
It's difficult. But if I took you to a field with some equipment, threw a ball at you and screamed "catch!", how many times do you think you would take to remember it? You could probably see me in 3 months, throw something at me, and scream "catch!" yourself.
Catch is not just a word on a page. "Catch!" with an urgent tone conveys specific information of some kind of immediacy. We connect the feeling of an immediate need to grab the ball. We connect to the physical feeling of it, the sight of it. We engage our senses.
We then link the word 'catch' to this immediacy and it helps us to infer similar terms like catch a criminal, or catch a cold. We need to have the context provided when learning the word to have this link.
A natural learning approach, such as the one created by Dr Marvin Brown, ALG, seeks to replicate the method used by a child in learning.
This picture illustrates the difference.
The order is in reverse from what we call language learning.
The child doesn't learn vocabulary lists or grammar rules. They just listen. They listen to the tones and watch the body language of whoever is around them. They start to understand which tones mean people are happy, or angry, or sad. They start to hear when someone is stressed or busy or relaxed.
They will think about the situation, and use what they have understood to help them with the next part of a conversation. The emotions carried in phonetics tell them if the context has changed.
With all this background information, grammar gets pieced together. In English, we learn that a "should" sentence directed at us with a question tone is asking our opinion (should we get some ice-cream?), or should with a low tone is suggesting us to do something (you should be quiet for mommy now).
With all that background information, specific vocabulary becomes much easier to infer.
By learning through this method, we can develop a whole background of linked references that help us learn new language as it occurs. This is how a native speaker learns their language.
There is much more on the process of acquisition. But this post serves as an introduction into my thoughts of the two fundamental approaches to language learning. I will be referring to it frequently in other posts.
For further information on ALG, check out David Longs blog ALG World.
