EN ÉCOUTANT CHOMSKY
par Ronald Green (Jerusalem, 10 Juin 1997).Chomsky is in town. While listening to him today some thoughts connected to our field came into my mind. Two main strands, actually.
The first one is how different the responsibility of the theoretical linguist is to that of the applied linguist. If the former is wrong... well, he's wrong. It's "back to the drawing board." Chomsky himself has changed the way he looks at language; in fact, his theories are very different from what they were when I studied for my BA. The point is that no one has suffered as a result of the change in his theories. How different it is for the applied linguist, specially in our field of SLA as applied to EFL teaching/learning. Here it is not a matter of armchair intellectualizing, but of practising the theories in the field, i.e. in the classroom. A mistake means that a generation of kids will have been taught in the wrong way. Pretty scary, eh ?
The second thought was how different the approach of the theoretical linguist is to his theories. Since moving from theoretical to applied linguistics, I had forgotten that it is possible to say "I don't know." If no less an authority than Chomsky can say again and again: "I don't know", "we're not sure", "this may be right", etc. it made me think. How is it that we never hear that from applied linguists. How is it that there seems to be no self-doubt ? Why is it that the proponents of the latest theory of ESL/EFL learning/teaching know that they are right?My two thoughts were connected, of course. It worries me that a theory of EFL learning/teaching is imposed on the whole school system. It worries me that the imposers may be wrong. It worries me that Chomsky can say in 1997 that we still don't know how language works because of its complexity, while others who are in charge of the system in this country can claim that they know how kids learn language. It worries me that we are not allowed to teach in any other way other than that imposed from above. It worries me that we are about to enter something called Whole Language, which has never been tried in an EFL environment - for very obvious reasons. Whole Language is a system (actually, a "movement") that was originally meant for L1 and later adapted (mainly in the USA) for ESL learners.
The most worrying thing of all is that it failed -- not only for L2 but even for L1. (If anyone is interested, I can quote from a British newspaper article that blames the lowering of reading standards in Britain on Whole Language.)
Do I miss theoretical linguistics? After seeing Chomsky and hearing the doubts expressed about current theories on the nature of language, I think that perhaps I do. A bit of humility has never done anyone any harm. To question something is to have the possibility of changing it.Réflexions reproduites avec la permission de Ronald Green, auteur de plusieurs manuels d'ALS (anglais langue seconde - ESL).
« The way to strengthen language skills is to speak communicable English with native English speakers. Any non-productive part of the acquisition process (drills, tests, memorization) is to be replaced with conversation attempts...» - Chomsky.
Retour à la section LINGUISTIQUE
AGREG SITE INDEX
AGREGATION
