A colleague of mine asked me whether I could hold an English language class. Funny. Simply because he already has a good command of the language. He said he wanted me to teach the other colleagues (and him) to speak English. Even funnier. All you need to do is just 'speak', and the 'speaking' -practice environment doesn't have to be confined within a 'four-wall' setting. I honestly believe, the minute everybody let the foreign words come out from their mouth in the most natural way, they are actually on their way to become a prominent English language speaker.
I remember back in the old days, when the not-so-fluent speakers of English engaged in conversation, they simply talked in the 'Phua-Chu-Kang-style' of speaking. And they innocently enjoyed the opportunity to show off their limited knowledge of the language and took a genuine pride in their ability to produce the 'foreign' sounds intelligibly. After all, English is not the sole property of the 'native' speakers. In fact, due to the wide contact between English language and non-native speakers all over the world, there is indeed a 'nativization' of English according to the country it is being situated in. Thus, to a certain extent, we do acknowledge the existence of 'varieties' of English, such as Malaysian English (Manglish), Singaporean English(Singlish) and many others. But, frankly, I am not sure whether there are Kedahan English(Kedish) or Perakian English(Perkish); well, are there?
Funny, funny, funny. But, I must admit, I always admire the 'values' which are deeply rooted in the Malay customs. It is in fact, a common practice, even until now, be it in personal or professional setting, the Malay folks have a 'unique' way of using their language. Sometimes, to the extent of being 'over-polite'. In the terminology of the Malay language, it is termed as 'bahasa berkias'. In English, I believe, the culture is more 'open', that they prefer to be more direct in their conversation. As a matter of fact, Paul Grice (a sociolinguist), proposed that in an ordinary conversation, speakers and hearers need to share a cooperative behavior so that the both the hearer and speaker could be mutually understood.
In sum, he proposed that a cooperative behavior must be based on four principles of conversation, which is widely known as Grice's Cooperative Principle. The first maxim or principle, is of quality, where speakers must tell the truth or facts. The second one concerns the principle of quantity, where speakers need to provide relevant information sufficient to be understood by the hearers. Thirdly, the speakers must convey information that is relevant to the context of conversation. ( and not to beat around the bush). And finally, the manner in which the utterances are made should avoid ambiguity or obscurity.
In reality, however, we tend to flout this principle of cooperative communicative behavior, as sub-consciously we might be in favor with the "Politeness Theory"; i.e. a theory within the sociolinguistics domain posited by Brown and Levinson which stresses on the need to save the 'face' of the hearer, which allows him or her, freedom of action. In other words, the hearer upon listening to the request made by the speaker, has the freedom to decide whether to fulfill or not to fulfill the wish of the speaker.
So, an English language class? I believe that the CONTEXT of learning should be clearly defined, so that expectations are clear, both to the learners as well as the teacher, aka facilitator or we would end up 'staring' at each other in contemplation of what to say for the rest of the hour that we spend with each other. Well, I must say, my experience with conducting classes for adult learners is both exciting and challenging, but the minute I become so 'critical' with my view, they become 'paralyzed' and 'speechless'; which up until now I could not figure out the cause of the effect. Is it the language or the thought?
To my 'adult learners', this is the 'first' lesson of being a 'critical' user of language. Firstly, be effective in your communication; i.e. avoid the habit of beating around the bush. There is a belief regarding the strong connection between language and thought although there is still no final consensus on the flow of direction between language and thought. It means that although we are still perplexed at whether we think first before we speak, or that, we speak first then only we think, there is undoubtedly, a strong relation between language and thought.
So, in shaping our communicative behavior, we need to define the CONTEXT of our communication; i.e is it professional or personal? Then, we will have a clear view on how best should we tailor our communicative style to suit our purpose of communication. Lastly, one final note regarding context is that it actually allows us to develop ourselves into becoming a DYNAMIC person, since people who remain the same in all contexts of situation are actually those who succumb to a DOGMATIC kind of thinking, and thus, unchangeable.
No comments:
Post a Comment