I remember watching 'My Fair Lady' when I was little. I liked the movie; simply because it just 'felt' good to my childish, innocent, unsuspecting mind. Well, I must admit I actually liked the 'fairy-tale' element of the story; i.e to be accidentally 'spotted' by a gentleman( i.e Henry Higgins- the phoneticist) who then became so engrossed in his new 'vocation' (as he was challenged by Colonel Pickering), to 'transform' the 'foul-speaking' flower girl (Eliza Doolittle) into a 'proper-speaking lady'.
So, that was actually my first 'accidental' exposure to 'Phonetics and Phonology'; i.e the systematic study of the sound system of a language. It was only many many years later, when I underwent my training as a teacher did I again come across this funny 'business' of producing English sounds 'correctly'. We were only made familiar with the 'articulatory' phonetics( i.e the place and manner of articulation), and its phonology (i.e the speech sounds, forms and meanings of the sounds). Fortunately, I had had more opportunity to make myself 'academically' informed of the English sound system during my studies both at first and second degree level.
However, I am fully aware of the 'diaspora' of English language across the globe and how its direct interaction with other language speakers of diverse cultural backgrounds has consequentially 'reshaped' it to being somewhat 'nativized', especially that which concerns the speech 'sounds'. It is inevitable, since being a 'lingua franca' English language is widely spoken by 'people of the world', who may not have the 'opportunity' of being formally exposed to the 'accurate' way of producing English language sounds.
So, I am in fact, more 'tolerant' of the 'polluted' sounds of English language that I heard or detected upon interaction with other English language speakers. I am tolerant as long as it is 'intelligible' to me, because I am also aware of the 'free variation' (i.e a sound produced differently), which exists among varieties of English (not to mention the different sounds of the 'dialects' existing within that single variety). This is simply because I am of the strong opinion that what is more important is not in 'how' we speak but rather is in 'what' we speak about. Yet, I would not simply sacrifice the 'virtue' of speaking accurately if the sounds produced tend to become 'unintelligible' which may lead to confusion and misinterpretation of meaning.
Well, so much of my short 'introductory' course of Phonetics and Phonology to you. Actually, what drove me back down to the 'memory lane' of my formal studying of this special area of linguistics is because of a question asked by a friend which I could not simply ignore. I was asked of my opinion regarding the 'phonetics' way of reading being the sole method adopted and being applied in language teaching and learning. This is definitely not an easy question to answer. Frankly, empirical-wise, I have no concrete evidence to support my opinion. What I have to offer is purely a qualitative-based personal insight through my own experiential and formal knowledge regarding language learning and instruction.
Suffice for me to mention here, that studies in first language acquisition highlight the 'innate' ability of human beings to learn language ( i.e a notion introduced by Noam Chomsky, a linguist). The 'babbling' sounds that our infants make in imitation to the sounds that we 'orally' produced, indicates this capacity human beings are endowed with. Interestingly, Chomsky also brought up the idea of a 'universal grammar' innately built in our brain, which according to him, allows us to generate infinite sentences from the finite set that we 'naturally' have. With Bandura's theory of Social Learning to help explain further of the influence of social context in providing learning 'input' to our children in terms of their language capacity, I believe that our children have enough experiential learning to help them cope with their language 'tasks' in social interactions.
And so, upon entering school, it is high time that the young learners are given a 'comprehensive' formal instruction where they need to be exposed with all the 'basics' of technical knowledge of a language. This, of course, includes the 'traditional' study of 'letters' of the language and how they are then combined to form syllables, which then are further combined to form words, sentences, texts; i.e. from morphology to syntax; from spelling to dictation. This process, though to some (i.e the proponent of phonetics reading method) may seem tedious and time-consuming, is to me, worth all the while since our young learners whose brain is still at its high level of 'elasticity' would be able to absorb as much information given as possible.
In fact, as proposed by Stephen Krashen, who specializes in theories of second language acquisition, there is a different between acquisition and learning. Acquisition, to him, involves direct interaction in natural communication and does not require being conscious of the language 'rules'. Learning, on the other hand, involves formal instruction of the language being learned. Therefore, if the language being 'learned' at school is the language, which is also naturally 'acquired' at home, the teaching of the language then, should be formally structured. Through formal instruction, they could be given more challenging input that will keep their inquisitive mind to always be in a state of curiosity.
So, this entails among other things that the objectives( i.e. both long-term and short-term objectives) of language instruction being formally taught in school should be clearly understood. So, if learning a language concerns a systematic learning of the language system, then, it should be done 'systematically' to allow what is identified by Krashen as 'meaningful input' being imparted to the learners. This then would guide towards a clear identification of critical components of the language that would be taught through formal instruction, and which other aspects of language teaching such as the approach, strategies, activities, content, etc. will fall into better perspectives.
I personally believe that the phonetic-way of teaching reading is merely a 'method', which could be substituted with other methods of language teaching. In fact, our knowledge regarding theories of learning behavior (e.g behaviorist, mentalist, etc.) would inform us on the right approach or strategy to use in developing our learners' ability to use the language competently. And apart from the learner differences existing in terms of their styles and preferences, cultural background, etc, I am also cognizant of 'learning disorders' such as 'dyslexia', 'hyperactive' and 'sydrome down' among our learners, which pose as a challenge to our teachers. I know of one such method being utilized to cope with the challenge of teaching reading skill which employs the use of facial expressions to convey the right sound to be produced. It is fun and less demanding.
Still, I am of the view that the majority of our younger generations have the intellectual capacity to be highly-challenged with higher-level of academic activities. I, therefore, see the need for us to provide a solid foundation of language repertoire from which they could draw upon should they feel the need to further embark on knowledge seeking endeavors on their own. This, of course, need to be done from as early as the first day they step their feet on the school compound in our quest to make them 'literate' individuals. Remember the old saying : "Give them a fish, and you feed them for one day. But, teach them how to fish, you will feed them for life." So, teaching them how to fish involves all the nitty-gritty of the fishing 'business'.
No comments:
Post a Comment